The Cold War was the next phase of ideological- and geopolitical-related rivalries between the United States and the Soviet Union, with the end of World War II as the beginning point. Historians have put forth divergent theses on how reluctant the Cold War began and which factors were decisive. This essay considers whether Howard Zinn, in his A People’s History of the United States, Paul Johnson, in A History of the American People and the Consensus view of Richard Hofstadter in The American Political Tradition, present accurate insights about the United States of America’s history.
Zinn summarized that the Cold War was motivated by American economic interests and the instruction of global capitalist dominance. The opening passage of Zinn declares that “The Cold War made for companies that could run high profits for the rich and still pushing for terrible living standards among the poor” (415). On the other hand, the reasons for the Cold War drawn by Johnson are that it resulted from the increasing threat of Soviet expansion and the attempt to prevent the logical spreading of communism. Johnson points out that the “Cold War started after the Soviet power tried to occupy the countries of Eastern Europe under control and management” (712). The consensual approach, developed by Hofstadter, envisages the bipolar world order in the Cold War, based on the superior, freedom-ringing power of the USA and the life-crushing totalitarian regime of the Soviet Union.
An upholding of his thesis reveals that Americans were interfering in elections in Iran, Guatemala, and other countries that were being seen as too left-leaning (418). It was purportedly done to facilitate the American business penetration of these hubs. Adding to this, Zinn referred to the fact that the society of America became mainly profit-oriented, and the multibillionaires managed to achieve this through defense contracts (699). Johnson gives concrete information that the Soviets planted the communist regimes in Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, which, after WWII, subdued even the slightest opposition (Johnson, 2005, p 715). He underlines that the US had to adopt a strict policy; otherwise, Soviet troops could advance further and dominate virtually all of Western Europe. The Consensus theory argued, in other words, that the core national purpose of America’s Cold War policy was to ensure the survival of the “liberal democracy,” which was under the “Machiavellian” rule of the Soviet system through the application of military and economic pressures (43).
Zinn’s main point, that the US war motives were at least partly hollow and that the corporate interests were behind the war profiteering while ignoring the issue’s more complex nature, is also incorrect. Though the Soviet expansionist menace may seem overplayed, the economic factors may be relevant. Johnson provides proof that the Soviets were a serious ideological danger by heinously and dictatorially crushing all Eastern Bloc countries under the ruthless yoke of Soviet Moscow. However, his statement is missing out on some self-serving purposes in America, viz, establishing order globally in the economic and military spheres. Even the consensus view admits to the clash of worldviews that eventually led to the Cold War. However, its narrative does not convey a full-blown, one-sided narrative fixing the conflict as liberty versus suppression.
In weighing the three theses, none offers the actual picture on its own, comprising a multitude of complex correlations and dynamics that led to the Cold War. A more in-depth angle is needed in this case. The main idea of my paper is that the Cold War was caused by interdependent factors, such as the ideological disagreements that went along with the expansionist ambitions of the Union and the USSR and the economic goals of the states for the world’s dominative WWII. The primary opponents of the US and the Soviet Union were caught in a widespread rivalry due to the very root of the conflict – the worldviews of the oppositions – the capitalist market economy and the liberal democracy in the US vs. communism and the authoritarianism in the Soviet Union. Both superpowers sought to engrain their systems of political economy and hegemony of facts and life in the era when Western empires had given way to new actors on the scene.
As a result of the German aggression, the USSR had become the most potent power in this area, and it reached the stage of expansion to Eastern Europe as the defensive buffer. At the same time, Johnson’s investigation established the Soviets as a brutal military force through coercion and violence to secure Soviet satrapies (715). This gave rise to the Truman Doctrine, which aimed to stop Soviet expansion through military means and economic pressure. The developments responding to the circumstances of the Korean War and the destabilization of Europe were just one step towards containment. For Hofland, it was not “only” that “displayed the steady hardline and determination not to let any expansion of Soviet influence” (43).
While it was so, the USA strove to pipe the nations out of the colony era into its economic model, supporting the pro-capital government. When affiliates of the CIA were involved in taking over governments that were too radical, as Zinn indicated, it was a typical case that the leftists were deposed. Administrations that were friendly to business interests were reinstalled instead (418). One of the essential elements of this policy reflected the Russian-centered threat and establishment of the capitalist approach based on the global market. Ideological conflicts were hence supportive of economic interests as they continuously and irreversibly propelled the progress of the Cold War that transcended 40 years.
On their part, both superpowers were under their military-industrial complexes, which eventually set up an arms race, making their distrust of each other worse. Besides, the USSR was both the mediator and the seeker of global authority, so they competed fiercely. The underlying cause of the Cold War’s long duration is that the two camps were fearful and extremely strong in ideological struggle, energy summit, and security issues, as is reflected by war proxy worldwide. However, considering the very roots of the Cold War, which flowed from opposing ideological outlooks on the world due to shifting socio-political landscapes after 1945, this superpower rivalry soon took on many forms and profound global implications.
In conclusion, the extracts of the three theories from Zinn, Johnson, and Consensus contain elements that contributed significantly to the emergence of the Cold War. Still, none of them may be enough to explain the conflict. The ideological differences, the superpowers’ expansion, the sides’ defensive postures, the economic interests, and the ambition to control the world were all linked in tandem to produce a worldwide stalemate of prolonged dimensions. Understanding this intricate web that involves the reaction and influence of several factors is one of the pillars of the Cold War’s complex and subtle features. Furthermore, monocausal narratives that feature solitary states overshadow existing details of multistage superpower rivalry, and elements of reality do not manage to be expressed.
Works Cited
Hofstadter, Richard. The American Political Tradition. Random House, 1989.
Johnson, Paul. A History of the American People. HarperCollins, 1998.
Zinn, Howard. A People’s History of the United States. HarperCollins, 2005.
write