LATER THAT YEAR, ANDREI ZHADANOV, a close ally of stalin’s, REPLIED FOR THE SOVIETS. HE REVIVED STALIN’S ANALYSIS, MADE IN THE 1930S, WHICH POSITED THE EXISTENCE OF “TWO CAMPS” IN THE INEVITABLE STRUGGLE BETWEEN COMMUNISM AND CAPITALISM; ZHADANOV DECRIED THE AS EXPANSIONIST AND SAID THAT THE USSR WAS THE ONLY OBSTACLE TO AMERICA’S WORLD SUPREMACY; AND HE ARGUED THAT THE USSR HAD OFFERED COOPERATION BUT HAD BEEN REJECTED BY WASHINGTON. SO, WHY DID THE COLD WAR BREAK OUT? HISTORIANS FORWARD THREE THEORIES: THE TRADITIONAL VIEW HOLDS THAT THE SIMPLY REACTED TO THE THREAT POSED BY THE TO ITS EXISTENCE. SUPPORTERS OF THIS ORTHODOX APPROACH ARGUE THAT, IN THE FACE OF SOVIET AGGRESSION, AMERICANS HAD NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO CONFRONT THE CHALLENGE OR FACE A SLOW OF THEIR WAY OF LIFE BECAUSE COMMUNIST EXPANSION WOULD STRANGLE CAPITALISM. A LATER ANALYSIS PROMOTED THE IDEA THAT THE WAS A BARRIER TO THE ACHIEVEMENT OF AMERICAN POSTWAR POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES. THIS REVISIONIST LINE DOES NOT DENY THAT THE USSR WAS SEEKING TO EXPAND ITS INFLUENCE ALTHOUGH IT DOUBTS WHETHER – IN THE 1940S MOSCOW WAS CAPABLE OF DOING SO BUT – POINTS TO WASHINGTON’S OWN EXPANSIONIST AIMS AND ITS TRADITIONAL HOSTILITY TOWARDS SOVIET COMMUNISM AS EVIDENCE OF AMERICA’S EQUAL CULPABILITY. MORE RECENTLY HISTORIANS ARGUED THAT THE COLD WAR WAS NOT A PRODUCT OF A COMPETITION FOR WORLD DOMINATION BUT THE RESULT OF A SEARCH BY BOTH EAST AND WEST FOR POSTWAR SECURITY. SUGGEST THAT GLOBAL DISORDER, MUTUAL DISTRUST AND A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF EACH OTHER’S PRIORITES LED TO THE CONFRONTATION WHICH DOMINATED THE FIFTY YEARS AFTER WORLD WAR II. nsc 68 and the korean war
LATER THAT YEAR, ANDREI ZHADANOV, a close ally of stalin’s, REPLIED FOR THE SOVIETS. HE REVIVED STALIN’S ANALYSIS, MADE IN THE 1930S, WHICH POSITED THE EXISTENCE OF “TWO CAMPS” IN THE INEVITABLE STRUGGLE BETWEEN COMMUNISM AND CAPITALISM; ZHADANOV DECRIED THE AS EXPANSIONIST AND SAID THAT THE USSR WAS THE ONLY OBSTACLE TO AMERICA’S WORLD SUPREMACY; AND HE ARGUED THAT THE USSR HAD OFFERED COOPERATION BUT HAD BEEN REJECTED BY WASHINGTON. SO, WHY DID THE COLD WAR BREAK OUT? HISTORIANS FORWARD THREE THEORIES: THE TRADITIONAL VIEW HOLDS THAT THE SIMPLY REACTED TO THE THREAT POSED BY THE TO ITS EXISTENCE. SUPPORTERS OF THIS ORTHODOX APPROACH ARGUE THAT, IN THE FACE OF SOVIET AGGRESSION, AMERICANS HAD NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO CONFRONT THE CHALLENGE OR FACE A SLOW OF THEIR WAY OF LIFE BECAUSE COMMUNIST EXPANSION WOULD STRANGLE CAPITALISM. A LATER ANALYSIS PROMOTED THE IDEA THAT THE WAS A BARRIER TO THE ACHIEVEMENT OF AMERICAN POSTWAR POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC OBJECTIVES. THIS REVISIONIST LINE DOES NOT DENY THAT THE USSR WAS SEEKING TO EXPAND ITS INFLUENCE – ALTHOUGH IT DOUBTS WHETHER IN THE 1940S MOSCOW WAS CAPABLE OF DOING SO – BUT POINTS TO WASHINGTON’S OWN EXPANSIONIST AIMS AND ITS TRADITIONAL HOSTILITY TOWARDS SOVIET COMMUNISM AS EVIDENCE OF AMERICA’S EQUAL CULPABILITY. MORE RECENTLY HISTORIANS ARGUED THAT THE COLD WAR WAS NOT A PRODUCT OF A COMPETITION FOR WORLD DOMINATION BUT THE RESULT OF A SEARCH BY BOTH EAST AND WEST FOR POSTWAR SECURITY. SUGGEST THAT GLOBAL DISORDER, MUTUAL DISTRUST AND A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF EACH OTHER’S PRIORITES LED TO THE CONFRONTATION WHICH DOMINATED THE FIFTY YEARS AFTER WORLD WAR II. nsc 68 and the korean war