Historians have disagreed about who was to blame for the development of the Cold War.
What is your view about who was to blame for the development of the Cold War?
Word Count: 4,073
Date: 27/12/2022
, The rivalry and antagonism between two hostile blocs, the USSR and the USA, entered a new stage of
intensity after World War Two, despite previously being allies. To determine who caused this
geopolitical tension, otherwise known as the Cold War, scholars have long debated this topic. From an
orthodox perspective, Arthur Schlesinger Jr argues that the USSR is more to blame for the escalation
of the Cold War, primarily due to Stalin’s paranoia and that the US had limited control over the
sequence of events. Contrarily, Williams takes a revisionist perspective, wherein he blames
imperialistic American foreign policy as well as anti-Russian sentiment for the development of the war.
Robert Jervis, though, holds both sides equally responsible and focuses on their substantially dissimilar
social systems. Stalin’s personality, how imperialist US foreign policy was, and both the US and USSR
ideological preferences will be explored in this essay. This essay will argue that Jervis’ interpretation of
the Cold War is the most plausible because he holds both sides equally accountable. Upon deep
evaluation of the actions of both nations, it is my view that both sides made significant contributions
towards the war’s escalation and that the conflict could have been resolved through collaboration.
From a revisionist perspective, Williams attributes the Open Door policy as a factor that led to the
development of the Cold War. Williams contends that the US has always been an imperialistic nation
and that its implementation of the Open Door policy, towards the end of the nineteenth century, was a
continuation of their expansionist intentions. Williams argues that America’s Open Door policy was
motivated by its desire to force all nations, particularly those in the Soviet sphere of influence, to adopt
democracy. Williams argues that by forcefully imposing its vision of democracy on other countries, the
US violates their rights to freedom and self-determination, ideals that the US purports to uphold. Stating
“other societies… feel… American policy causes them to lose their economic, political and…
psychological independence”1 and that “it denies and subverts American… ideals”.2 Despite meeting
foreign countries with a closed door to their own growth, Americans positively considered the Open
Door policy as a useful tactic to lower economic barriers for American businesses. Even bankers
thought that global economic expansion was “an attractive field for investment”.3 Williams defined the
Open Door Policy as "America’s version of the liberal policy of informal empire or free trade
imperialism."4 Furthermore, a policy that would greatly strengthen America’s economic hegemony,
which, according to Williams, did, in fact, "lead to war"5 from an economic perspective. The argument
advanced by Williams that the US pursued an aggressive foreign policy which violated principles of
self-determination and freedom of other nations (proving unjust to the USSR) is well-founded. This is
substantiated by the official condemnations and ridicule of Soviet actions by the American government
and their reflections in mainstream entertainment and culture. The US government's portrayal of the
USSR as an expansionist and dangerous threat, while concurrently engaging in similar actions towards
other nations, constitutes US hypocrisy and unjust USSR treatment. However, it is also important to
consider that Western fears of totalitarian regimes may have played a role in shaping American foreign
policy. There is no definitive answer to what the US’ objective was when expanding, whether this be: to
threaten the USSR or to establish stronger western trading connections. Nonetheless, this makes
Williams' interpretation more compelling as he acknowledges the USSR’s perspective and understands
that it could be easily perceived as a threat, thus leading to a defensive reaction; aimed at protecting
their values rather than posing a threat to the west.
1
William Appleman Williams, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy. 2nd rev. ed., (1972), p.15 (Hereafter cited as
William Appleman Williams, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, (1972))
2
William Appleman Williams, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, (1972), p.291
3
William Appleman Williams, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, (1972), p.35
4
William Appleman Williams, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, (1972), p.97
5
William Appleman Williams, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, (1972), p.185
-1-
