Historians have disagreed about the causes of the Cold War. What is your view
about the causes of the Cold War?
With reference to three chosen works:
● analyse the ways in which interpretations of the question, problem or issue differ
● explain the differences you have identified
● evaluate the arguments, indicating which you found most persuasive and
explaining your judgements.
In this essay, I will be analysing the opinions of three differing historians: Martin
McCauley, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr, and William A. Williams. These three historians
appear to be from different schools of thought in regards to the origins of the Cold
War. Schlesinger and Williams are famous rivals in this regard, with the former
subscribed to the orthodox view that the Soviet Union were the initial aggressors,
and with the latter subscribed to the theory that it was the opposite; that the United
States was at fault for the start of the Cold War. On the other hand, Martin McCauley
can be described as somewhat of a post-revisionist, sympathetic to the Russian
cause, as he suggests both the traditional and revisionist views ignore certain
aspects of the relations between the two superpowers. Whilst all three historians
come from different schools of thought, they deal with the same set of factors that all
contributed in some way or another to the circumstances that led to the Cold War:
the ideologies of the two superpowers, the different personalities of the leaders, and
the security needs of the two nations.
Martin McCauley places some emphasis on ideology as a factor as one of the
causes of the Cold War. He mentions that the conflict between the socialist and
capitalist worlds was inevitable1 from the Kremlin’s perspective. The reason for this is
that Marxist-Leninist ideology dictates that socialism shall spread across the world as
the working class, or the proletariat, will one day in the future rise up against the
owners of production, or the bourgeoisie, who ‘appropriate’ all the surplus value from
the proletariat. Due to this inflexible ideological stance, McCauley says that from the
perspective of Soviet policy-makers, they cannot negotiate any treaties, agreements,
or deals2 in good faith with capitalist countries because they believe capitalist and
communist countries are predestined to have conflict. McCauley points out that it is
the socialist ideology that dictates Soviet policymaking in two notable ways: one is
that the USSR can not be in a passive position when reacting to world events
otherwise it would mean the decline of the nation and in conjunction with this, Soviet
policymakers must always seize and maintain the initiative whenever possible 3. That
is why throughout the Cold War it seems like the USSR in certain events (like the
1 The Origins of the Cold War Descriptive Analysis: Moscow’s view of the world by Martin McCauley
p.15
2 The Origins of the Cold War Descriptive Analysis: Moscow’s view of the world by Martin McCauley
p.15
3 The Origins of the Cold War Part 2: Descriptive Analysis: Moscow’s view of the world by Martin
McCauley p.16
about the causes of the Cold War?
With reference to three chosen works:
● analyse the ways in which interpretations of the question, problem or issue differ
● explain the differences you have identified
● evaluate the arguments, indicating which you found most persuasive and
explaining your judgements.
In this essay, I will be analysing the opinions of three differing historians: Martin
McCauley, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr, and William A. Williams. These three historians
appear to be from different schools of thought in regards to the origins of the Cold
War. Schlesinger and Williams are famous rivals in this regard, with the former
subscribed to the orthodox view that the Soviet Union were the initial aggressors,
and with the latter subscribed to the theory that it was the opposite; that the United
States was at fault for the start of the Cold War. On the other hand, Martin McCauley
can be described as somewhat of a post-revisionist, sympathetic to the Russian
cause, as he suggests both the traditional and revisionist views ignore certain
aspects of the relations between the two superpowers. Whilst all three historians
come from different schools of thought, they deal with the same set of factors that all
contributed in some way or another to the circumstances that led to the Cold War:
the ideologies of the two superpowers, the different personalities of the leaders, and
the security needs of the two nations.
Martin McCauley places some emphasis on ideology as a factor as one of the
causes of the Cold War. He mentions that the conflict between the socialist and
capitalist worlds was inevitable1 from the Kremlin’s perspective. The reason for this is
that Marxist-Leninist ideology dictates that socialism shall spread across the world as
the working class, or the proletariat, will one day in the future rise up against the
owners of production, or the bourgeoisie, who ‘appropriate’ all the surplus value from
the proletariat. Due to this inflexible ideological stance, McCauley says that from the
perspective of Soviet policy-makers, they cannot negotiate any treaties, agreements,
or deals2 in good faith with capitalist countries because they believe capitalist and
communist countries are predestined to have conflict. McCauley points out that it is
the socialist ideology that dictates Soviet policymaking in two notable ways: one is
that the USSR can not be in a passive position when reacting to world events
otherwise it would mean the decline of the nation and in conjunction with this, Soviet
policymakers must always seize and maintain the initiative whenever possible 3. That
is why throughout the Cold War it seems like the USSR in certain events (like the
1 The Origins of the Cold War Descriptive Analysis: Moscow’s view of the world by Martin McCauley
p.15
2 The Origins of the Cold War Descriptive Analysis: Moscow’s view of the world by Martin McCauley
p.15
3 The Origins of the Cold War Part 2: Descriptive Analysis: Moscow’s view of the world by Martin
McCauley p.16
