When someone examines the end of the Cold War, there are many different point of views they can take a look at. Some are on the extreme end of the spectrum and some give credit to almost everyone. The three articles given in “H111, 07: The Historiographical Debate over the End of the Cold War” all have different views to who and why the Cold War ended. When studying these articles, one must realize that they used different sources to conclude their ideas. If they all used the same sources, all the articles would be similar in the question of who ended the Cold War. This variety of views helped historians piece together the significance of everyone who had an impact on the Soviet Union collapsing and the Cold War ending. Looking at the differences
…show more content…
This article shows the least biased and gave credit to both Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan for the end of the Cold War. Basically, this brings together both of the previous articles to form a nonbias essay. The author says if there was to be a name to who won the Cold War it would be Reagan. However, he states “both views have their merits; neither position by itself gets at the truth”. This statement proved how the author believed both sides had major contributions in ending the Cold War. Throughout this article, the author acknowledges the point that Gorbachev was at the right place at the right time. This article shows a nonbiased end to the Cold War, since the author gives credit to Gorbachev and Reagan many times in the paper and does not really attack either sides. Another interesting thought this author brought up was that Reagan was not as big of a superhawk as most people thought he was. It is pointed out in the article that “Reagan was terribly, deeply opposed to nuclear weapons- he thought they were immoral”. No one in the administration told the press that Reagan actually felt this way. The author of this article did an amazing job on backing up each side with reasons on why they acted the way they …show more content…
The first and second article conflict the most, so one will take a look at those differences first. Each article has a different way of looking at the events and the people involved. The first major difference is the way the authors look at who ended the Cold War. The first article came from the triumphalists point of view which shows Reagan’s military tactics winning the war, while the second article shows Gorbachev winning and playing a bigger role in the end of the war and how Reegan’s military tactics had nothing to do with the USSR loosing. However, article two does give Reagan some credit on the military tactics, but focused more on how Gorbachev reacted to the threat of nuclear war and how he was the main reason the war ended. Both articles show major bias toward different people. Article one shows biased toward Reagan, while article two is inclined toward Gorbachev. For example, the author of article one says “Reagan did not need a Ph.D. in economics to recognize that any economy based on centralized planners… was doomed to disastrous failure.” This comment shows how the author of article one looked down on the Soviet government and thought Regan’s government was much better. The bias in the second article begins when the author says “Not
This article shows the least biased and gave credit to both Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan for the end of the Cold War. Basically, this brings together both of the previous articles to form a nonbias essay. The author says if there was to be a name to who won the Cold War it would be Reagan. However, he states “both views have their merits; neither position by itself gets at the truth”. This statement proved how the author believed both sides had major contributions in ending the Cold War. Throughout this article, the author acknowledges the point that Gorbachev was at the right place at the right time. This article shows a nonbiased end to the Cold War, since the author gives credit to Gorbachev and Reagan many times in the paper and does not really attack either sides. Another interesting thought this author brought up was that Reagan was not as big of a superhawk as most people thought he was. It is pointed out in the article that “Reagan was terribly, deeply opposed to nuclear weapons- he thought they were immoral”. No one in the administration told the press that Reagan actually felt this way. The author of this article did an amazing job on backing up each side with reasons on why they acted the way they …show more content…
The first and second article conflict the most, so one will take a look at those differences first. Each article has a different way of looking at the events and the people involved. The first major difference is the way the authors look at who ended the Cold War. The first article came from the triumphalists point of view which shows Reagan’s military tactics winning the war, while the second article shows Gorbachev winning and playing a bigger role in the end of the war and how Reegan’s military tactics had nothing to do with the USSR loosing. However, article two does give Reagan some credit on the military tactics, but focused more on how Gorbachev reacted to the threat of nuclear war and how he was the main reason the war ended. Both articles show major bias toward different people. Article one shows biased toward Reagan, while article two is inclined toward Gorbachev. For example, the author of article one says “Reagan did not need a Ph.D. in economics to recognize that any economy based on centralized planners… was doomed to disastrous failure.” This comment shows how the author of article one looked down on the Soviet government and thought Regan’s government was much better. The bias in the second article begins when the author says “Not