To a large extent, the secondary sources analysed approach the Cold War’s core themes differently. Though the fact that Seton-Watson (1966) and Spellman (2006) are separated by four decades must be accounted for. As a result, this essay shall focus on two contentious points. First, there is disagreement between the sources on the Cold War’s inevitability. Also, the sources assign responsibility for the Cold War to different parties.
First, the sources differ significantly on Cold War’s inevitability. For instance, Seton-Watson argues that “the future of the Grand Alliance was in doubt even before the war in Europe was over,” which suggest that the Cold War inevitable, given the existence of tensions between the superpowers prior to World War …show more content…
Seton-Watson blames the Soviet leadership’s “bitter and uncompromising,” attitude towards the west as the Cold War’s fundamental cause. Spellman however, identifies the USSR’s “strong defensive posture,” and the USA’s “deepening suspicions,” during the postwar peacemaking process as causes of the Cold War. Consequently, Spellman assigns blame to both superpowers for starting the Cold War. This disagreement is a sign that the authors belong to different schools of thought. In 1966, there was a lack of transparent dialogue between the superpowers; as a result, the dominant Orthodox school of thought asserted that the USSR’s expansionist behaviour in continental Europe started the Cold War. Seton-Watson’s argument largely draws upon the aforementioned Orthodox narrative. Conversely, Spellman’s analysis draws upon themes from the Post-Revisionist narrative; which instead asserts that the Cold War was the result of misunderstandings between the superpowers. This difference is a result of Spellman’s hindsight too, as numerous primary sources concerning the Cold War became publicly available in the early 21st century. As a result, Spellman was able to understand both of the superpowers’ motivations during the Cold War’s initial
First, the sources differ significantly on Cold War’s inevitability. For instance, Seton-Watson argues that “the future of the Grand Alliance was in doubt even before the war in Europe was over,” which suggest that the Cold War inevitable, given the existence of tensions between the superpowers prior to World War …show more content…
Seton-Watson blames the Soviet leadership’s “bitter and uncompromising,” attitude towards the west as the Cold War’s fundamental cause. Spellman however, identifies the USSR’s “strong defensive posture,” and the USA’s “deepening suspicions,” during the postwar peacemaking process as causes of the Cold War. Consequently, Spellman assigns blame to both superpowers for starting the Cold War. This disagreement is a sign that the authors belong to different schools of thought. In 1966, there was a lack of transparent dialogue between the superpowers; as a result, the dominant Orthodox school of thought asserted that the USSR’s expansionist behaviour in continental Europe started the Cold War. Seton-Watson’s argument largely draws upon the aforementioned Orthodox narrative. Conversely, Spellman’s analysis draws upon themes from the Post-Revisionist narrative; which instead asserts that the Cold War was the result of misunderstandings between the superpowers. This difference is a result of Spellman’s hindsight too, as numerous primary sources concerning the Cold War became publicly available in the early 21st century. As a result, Spellman was able to understand both of the superpowers’ motivations during the Cold War’s initial