The Cold War, from the Prespectives of Realism, Pluralism and Structuralism

Conflicts of national interest caused the United States and the Soviet Union to continue tension from World War II onto the Cold War, that lasted from 1947 to 1991. Although there was no direct military conflicts, there were constant nuclear threats. Over the past thirty years historians have divided themselves into different categories including: traditionalists, revisionists, and post-revisionists, and share their perspective on who caused the Cold War, the USSR or the US. Based off of three historians: Michael H Hart believes the USSR is at fault for aggressively wanting Communism to be spreaded, William Appleman Williams stated that the US is to blame for being too focused on their “open door” policy with foreign trade , and John Lewis Gaddis believes that their are at fault due to miscommunication and efforts to remain peaceful at the end of the war.

At the end of the Second World War two major issues were brought to attention. The first was dealing with the destruction of the global catastrophe. The second issue involved the shape of the new world and what political alliances were to be made. And although the U.S. and Russia were “allies” during the war the second issue was the foremost cause of the contention between the world’s two political/economic systems, Capitalism and Communism. The Cold War was basically an ideological catch-22

When one can truly understand and uncover the meaning behind these articles and how they fit into one or more of the ‘boxes’ we call paradigms and perspectives. In order to dissect and analyze the case of the Cold War, especially its origins, one must not only skim through the text and uncover main ideas, but also must also relate the readings to these paradigms and establish one’s own ideals and opinions regarding the study of international relations. Personally, I believe the articles associated with the origins of the Cold War along with Professor Katzenstein’s lecture on the topic provide strong arguments for the use of a ‘middle fish’ perspective and a ‘big fish’ paradigm: domestic politics and realism, respectively. Through George Kennan’s personal accounts, experience and analysis at both the time of the Cold War’s inception and forty-plus years later after the fall of the Soviet Union, a point is made regarding the nature of Soviet expansion as an offensive maneuver, which he believed must be contained by a defensive strategy. This point of conflicting strategies by the U.S. and (especially) the Soviet Union provides the reader with a realist argument and perspective. Also, in his second piece, which details remarks made to the Council on Foreign Relations in 1994, Kennan explains that instead of whole-heartedly adopting

The forty-five years from the dropping of the atom bombs to the end of the Soviet Union, can be seen as the era of the new conflict between two major states: United States of America (USA) and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). According to Hobsbawm, ‘cold war’ was the constant confrontation of the two super powers which emerged from the Second World War. At that time the entire generation was under constant fear of global nuclear battles. It was widely believed that it could break out at any moment. (Hobsbawm, 1994) The consequences of the ‘power vacuum’ in central Europe, created by the defeat of Germany, gave rise to these two super powers (Dunbabin, 1994). The world was divided into

At the end of WWII, two world superpowers emerged, the United States and the Soviet Union. As time went on, tensions and hostilities began to grow between the two countries. The Cold War was not a war in the traditional sense of battles, but it was a war of policies, ideals, and political influence. The United States’ ideology of capitalism heavily clashed with the Soviet Union’s ideology of communism. There are many debates about how the hostility between the two countries became so tense. Historian Anne Applebaum argues against the revisionist theory that the U.S.S.R.’s actions were a result of the U.S.’ hostile actions following WWII, thus beginning the Cold War. Another historian by the name of William Appleman Williams holds a viewpoint that challenged Applebaum’s as he believes that the U.S.’

However, the Cold War was not completely inevitable. Both revisionist and orthodox historians agree that the war “resulted from essentially unilateral actions by one or another power and that therefore the cold was an avoidable tragedy” (Crockatt 65).

There have been many attempts to explain the origins of the Cold War that developed between the capitalist West and the communist East after the Second World War. Indeed, there is great disagreement in explaining the source for the Cold War; some explanations draw on events pre-1945; some draw only on issues of ideology; others look to economics; security concerns dominate some arguments; personalities are seen as the root cause for some historians. So wide is the range of the historiography of the origins of the Cold War that is has been said "the Cold War has also spawned a war among historians, a controversy over how the Cold War got started, whether or not it was inevitable, and

The orthodox view of the Cold War elucidates its inevitability due to the great ideological differences that existed between the Soviet Union and United States. On the other hand, the revisionists argued that it happened due to the actions that Soviets took and the consequential responses made by the United States as a result of their inflexible, single-sided interpretations of Soviet action. Yet, even with the backdrop of the early Bolshevik conflict in 1918 as well

The term “Cold War” refers to the second half of the 20th century, usually from the end of the World War II until 1990, when the Soviet Union collapsed. Since the 1940s and 1950s the scholars have disagreed on the topic of the origins of the Cold War. There are several groups of historians and their interpretations are very different, sometimes even contradictory. The three main schools are the orthodox, the revisionist and the realist. The classification is not completely accurate because we can find several differences in theories of scholars within the same group and often the authors reevaluated their ideas over time.

Many Americans have controversies whether the Cold War is over or not. The Cold War era began with ideological battles in the West and East. Political tensions and events are growing in the current conflicts in the Middle East and varied countries. The term “cold war” has rose again as new conflicts emerged from the Cold War era. After the prolong conflict between the West and East, the two sides continued their movement to bring sphere of influence over foreign countries. There are factors that concern upon the political events in foreign nations such as the War on Terror, Russian intervention in Ukraine, and ISIS emergence in Iraq and Syria.

The Cold War, a period of sustained political and military tension between the USA and the USSR, resulted in various viewpoints concerning the cause of the tension emerging. Until today the question remains unresolved, even after the 1991 release of Soviet archives. The main point of disagreement relates to the roles that ideology played in the events between 1945 and 1949. Was it the strongly opposing ideologies, capitalism and communism, or power and material interest that drove both superpowers to the decades of struggle for global supremacy.

Realism has dominated international relations theory since emerging in the 1930’s. The era of state conflict lasting from the 1930’s to the end of the cold war in 1947, proved the perfect hostile environment to fit the largely pessimistic view of world politics. While many aspects of realism are still alive in International Relations today; including the dominant presence of states, intrinsic of war and the decentralised government. However, realism only reaches so far in explaining and creating a structure for international relations. Whilst the strengths of the theory lie in its pragmatic approach to power politics and conflict. However, the realist view is weakened by changes in the way that conflict is fought, the ineffectiveness of the balance of power model and the increasing global and interconnected world. Thus, using realism as a structure to explain international relations today is to some extent, a theory of the past.

In my opinion, I would say yes, realism does do a good job explaining the ending of the Cold War. Based on the history of the Cold War and what realism is, I came to this conclusion because no country took control over the other and leadership issues caused problems inside the USSR. When the Cold War first began in 1940s, both super-powered sides were ran by two leaders; who had full control over everything involving the state. The

As tensions continued to augment profoundly throughout the latter half of the Cold War period, they brought forth a movement from a previous bipolar conflicting course, to one of a more multipolar nature. These tensions were now not only restricted to the Soviet Union and United states, but amongst multiple other nations of the globe. It became a general consensus that a notion of ‘peace’ was sought globally, hence, the emergence of détente. The nature of this idea in the short term conveyed itself to be an act of change for the conflicting nations, however, in the long term it proved to be a blatant continuity, ultimately acting as a ‘mechanism for domestic fortification’ which prompted a more divisive tone. It became apparent that by the prime 1970’s Cold War countries were now seeking a state of relaxation in political and international tension, détente, through measures of diplomacy and negotiation. Actions, influences and treaties such as the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the establishment of SALT 1, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 and the Shanghai Communique of 1972 evidently help reinforce that the concept of détente brought a period focused on lessening the tensions of international relations and ultimately achieve political relation for the future of the Cold War, although the success and impact of this era is abhorred by many historians who have concluded that détente didn’t activate any positive changes to the cold war, and was conclusively a failure.

As the Soviet-bloc had collapsed, it ended the four decades of the Cold War Period. Two dominant perspectives emerged after the Cold War and these are from political scientists, Francis Fukuyama and Samuel Huntington. Both of them are considered classics in International Relations as both describe contradictory perspectives that try to explain and hypothesize what would happen after the end of the Cold War Period.