The Cold War commonly refers to the period of confrontation of the two superpower states – United States and the Soviet Union – after their successful defeat of the Nazi Germany. Due to the profound social, political and economic discrepancies, both countries sought to prove their military power and capabilities.
The tension between the Westernized and communist world led to military confrontation that had a negative impact on other countries involved into the conflict. Though the reasons for military, economic, and ideological discrepancies were clear, no unanimity was presented concerning the origins and the beginning of the Cold War (Sheehan 2003).
The majority of historians adhere to the idea that the period of ideological tension dates back to the period after the World War II whereas other scholars agree that its beginning refers to the end of the World War I since the actual tension between the Russian Empire and Western society had already existed since the middle of nineteenth century.
The supporters of the Cold War beginning after the World War II argue that the actual conflict relies on the events happened in 30s and 40s of the past century and, therefore, they do not relate directly to earlier periods. In particular, Levering (2002) is definite that the gaps between global, democratic and capitalist visions in a post-war era were the major underpinning for the emerging conflict.
In addition, Warner (2011) is also congruent with the arguments and refers to the Cold War period as to the one starting right after the World War II, although different underpinnings are highlighted in terms of origins.
In particular, the scholar states, “Control of strategic raw materials played a key role in the origins and outcome of World War II and continued to be a source of power and policy during the Cold War” (p. 177). Although ideological influences should not be underestimated, there is evidence in regards to the real political intentions and strategies that undermine peaceful co-existence of two powerful governments.
The second viewpoint on the onset of the Cold War also shed lights on different genuine reasons for the conflict. In this, Engerman (2010) suggests, “both Soviet and American leaders proclaimed the novelty of their respective views of international politics during World War I and the postwar settlement” (p. 25).
In this respect, the origins of the conflict should be interpreted in a much broader context before analyzing ideological discrepancies between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Thus, Russian vision on economic development contradicted liberal and democratic views proclaimed by the Americans. In addition, historical background proves that 1917 could be regarded as the starting year of ideological intervention and tension between the western and communist societies.
With regard to the above-presented debates, the beginning of the Cold War conflict can officially date back to the period after World War II, but the genuine contradictions had developed in the course of the World War I.
This is of particular concern to ideological and geopolitical confrontation initiated by the Soviet Union leaders, including Lenin and Stalin.
Even during the military actions, the two superpower states strived to win the dominance in terms of military strategies and weapon reserves to take an ideological and economic advantage on the global arena. Therefore, both historical school of thought have partially contributed to the analysis of the origins of the Cold War.
Reference List
Sheehan, S 2003, The Cold War, Black Rabbit Books, US.
Engerman, DC 2010, ‘Ideology and the Origins of the Cold War, 1917-1962’, In MP Leffler and OA Westad (Eds), The Cambridge History of the Cold War, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 22-43.
Levering, RB 2002, Debating the Origins of the Cold War: American and Russian Perspectives. Rowman & Littlefield, US.
Van Alstein, M. (2009). The meaning of hostile bipolarization: Interpreting the origins of the Cold War. Cold War History, 9(3), 301-319.
Warner, G 2011, ‘The Cold War in retrospect’, International Affairs, 87, 1, pp. 173-184.