Historiography of the Cold
War
By Luko Indie and Ben Walters
• There are several schools of thought on the
importance of all the relative factors involved in
bringing about the end of the cold war. These
factors can be categorised into two groups;
external factors such as the role of individuals
and US foreign policy. The different schools of
thought have opposing interpretations on these
factors and tend to follow triumphalists views or
critics of the triumphalists and the Russian
historians. The internal factors look at the
change of attitudes and ideology, and economic
aspects of USSR domestic policies.
•
•
•
Triumphalists interpretations of events have brought attention to role of
Ronald Reagan and his foreign policies directed at the USSR. Right wing
views like J.L.Gaddis, William Clark and Richard Allen credit the hard-line
approach adding pressure to an already unstable soviet economy, with the
prospect of being unable to keep up with the military spending and weapons
advancement of the US like SDI, the soviets had no choice but to end to
arms race and the cold war.
Historians like Peter Schweitzer who based his research on other writers
that served in Reagan’s administration argue that the change from Détente
to more aggressive policy was the determining factor in ending the cold war.
The aggressive stance of Reagan and Thatcher is highlighted as the only
effective way to stand up to aggression from the soviets, this is reinforced
by the events of the late 20th century and early 21st century that show that
producing the US victory in the Cold War is justification for the actions
undertaken through Reagan’s foreign policy.
The triumphalists view of Gorbachev is highly critical of his actions,
emphasising that his policies were intended to strengthen the USSR in the
hope of continuing communism and maintaining its position as an influential
world power, thus he is difficult to trust because of his aims.
• However critics of the triumphalists such as George
Shultz argue that the hard line approach of the US
government did little to win the cold war. Previous hard
line policies like the one used during the Vietnam War
proved ineffective and so there was no guarantee
Reagan’s attempts would change soviet policy.
• Raymond Garthoff among other historians also praise
Gorbachev in having a greater role in ending the Cold
War, they say he’s willingness to work with the West was
the key factor that lead to cooperation of the
superpowers. To many historians Gorbachev is a hero;
supporting his New Political Thinking and the
concessions he made/willing to make eased tensions
with the US.
• Russian historians and commentators are also divided
when assessing the role of Gorbachev. Veterans and
former KBG personnel claim that the pressure exerted
by the US and the CIA through subversive means forced
Gorbachev to ‘surrender’ to the West. Sergei
Akhromeyev and Georgi Kornienko express the view that
the aim of the US was to destroy the USSR and then
weaken Russia as a country. However Gorbachev
himself and members of his administration have
defended their policies and see the collapse of the
USSR and the end of the Cold War as two separate
events. Although the studies came from the individuals
very close to the matter their compelling use of evidence
provides a strong counter argument.
• Pope John Paul II has been highlighted by
Jonathan Kwitney as being very influential, his
speeches gave encouragement to the solidarity
movement in Poland due to the predominantly
Catholic population and spoke out against
human rights violation within the soviet bloc.
However the extent of the influence can be
overestimated. While Catholicism was strong in
Poland, elsewhere in Eastern Europe there were
differing beliefs in lace and a good deal of the
opposition to soviet rule were not affiliated to any
religion.
•
•
Internal factors have been cited as having a significant role in ending the Cold War.
Domestic changes within the soviet system have been highlighted by the Ideational
School. Instead of the view expressed by the truimphalists about Reagan’s pressure
through policy and SDI, this school of thought shows that to Politburo was not
concerned with the threat of SDI dismissing it as ‘science fiction’ nor were they willing
to continue with the arms race, with scare mention of it in records. Instead the soviets
were focused on preserving resources and revitalising their failing economy, with
Reagan’s policies adding little additional pressure (M. Bowker).
Critics of communism say the collapse of the USSR was due to the weakness of
ideology of communism. The inefficient system of a state run economy and its
inability to provide for its people made it a failing system, thus the collapse was an
inevitable outcome. The development of popular protest movements or ‘people
power’ in Eastern Europe is an indicator and consequence of the failure of
communism as a regime, if not communism as an ideology. However the movement
were only possible due to changes of the soviet system brought on by Gorbachev
such as the encouragement of new ideas and the refusal to support unpopular
communist governments around the world (abandoning the Brezhnev Doctrine).
Gorbachev’s actions resulted in a spiralling chain of events that led to end the Cold
War.
• The release of new documents and records has allowed revision of
previous views on the end of the Cold War. The national
experiences and ideology on policy making emphasize the role of a
change of attitudes held on the soviet people and its leadership. The
Russian Historian Vladislav Zubok draws attention to these
changing attitudes, saying with the fading away of traumatic
memories from World War II changed the way the USSR viewed the
West. The generational shift was reflected by the new elite and the
new communist system. There was no longer a need to spread
communist ideology or a need to have Eastern Europe as a buffer
zone against Nazism. Gorbachev’s New Political Thinking and
consequent domestic polices had such an impact because they
were exacerbated by the social change taking place at the time.