Azul all!
I'm doing an essay about Cold War revisionist historiography, its shortcomings, its implications for our world today, among other things. This is a shot in the dark, but if anyone has some digital sources, primary or secondary, that they think might be useful for this topic, don't be afraid to let me know! :)
For reference, the full essay questions is this: What were the main arguments of the revisionist school of Cold War causation? What sources did revisionism rely on, and what were the implications and significances of revisionist arguments and conclusions? How has revisionism been itself revised and/or refuted by later interpretations?
And hell, if no one has any sources to this effect and you just want to discuss the Cold War, this thread is here for that as well.
I don't know this is helpful, but in terms of implications for today's thinking, I bet the revisionist point of view has contributed to significant Western sympathy for Putin. Here I'm thinking that the belief that Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe was internally understood as a defensive entrenchment -- and perhaps even actually a necessary defensive step to establish a buffer against a larger conflict -- has a lot of resonance today when it comes to NATO enlargement. I mean, 1997 sees the NATO-Russian summit where they agree to back off from each other, and in this time Putin thinks that there's sort of a deal -- the Cold War is over so both sides are going to stop trying to build up satellite forces. Maybe even the 1999 entry of Czechia, Poland, and Hungary doesn't change that. But then in 2004 you get this rush of new states entering NATO, and it's happening when Russia's trying to rebuild a shattered economy and manage their oppression of Chechnya. A lot of older liberals see that and think about it through the same lens as the early Cold War, with two aggressors building up their forces... is it any wonder that they might sympathize with Putin seeing it the same way?
Not sure that's helpful, but I was just thinking about this like a few weeks ago, so it was already spinning around my head.
That's an interesting thought but could you elaborate on how old liberals are sympathetic to Putin? I seem to hear nothing but indictments against him from liberals of both conservative and progressive camps.
Quote from: Éovart Andrinescù on August 28, 2020, 09:34:18 PM
That's an interesting thought but could you elaborate on how old liberals are sympathetic to Putin? I seem to hear nothing but indictments against him from liberals of both conservative and progressive camps.
Probably the most prominent example would be Chomsky, but others of his same ideological persuasion seem to have the same mindset. He writes
voluminously, but here's an example from 2014 (https://chomsky.info/20140928/):
QuoteI mean, at this point we are threatening core strategic interests of any Russian government — can't blame Putin — it'd be any Russian government, you pick it...they would be deeply concerned about US expansion of NATO, which is a hostile military alliance, right to their heartland. I mean, if the Warsaw Pact were attempting to take over Canada and Mexico, we wouldn't be happy about it. And it's comparable.
Chomsky might take exception to being called a "liberal" without varnish, so maybe "leftist" is the term more in vogue for his ilk?
So, this isn't entirely on-point, but it's something I've thought through without having any obvious place to express it, and it might spark some thoughts for you, so here goes:
One of the problems with adaptations of Watchmen (whether into the film, or by the creation of sequel/prequel stories) is that they miss that Watchmen was based on a version of the revisionist critique of the Cold War and applying that critique to Ronald Reagan's foreign and defense policy.
The key here is the "supplemental" material to issue/chapter IV, titled "Dr. Manhattan: Super-Powers and the Superpowers", where it is declared by Moore (in the voice of a "Professor Milton Glass", a name that evokes the "molten glass" of trinitie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitite)) that the core motivation of the Soviet leadership is to prevent a repeat of WWII on Soviet soil (the revisionists' core argument for why the Soviets held a "defensive" empire in Central Europe after WWII), to the point that the Soviets would sooner launch a nuclear war than accept an America-dominated world.
This is why, in Watchmen, the plot to save the world from destruction has to involve both eliminating Dr. Manhattan as a pillar of American dominance (we might note that here Dr. Manhattan's role in a nuclear war is described as wiping out much but not all of a Soviet nuclear strike, analogous to Reagan's proposed SDI) and inflicting a massive blow on the United States in the form of the destruction of much of New York City. American hubris (see Reagan's "Here's my strategy on the Cold War: we win, they lose") has to be laid low; then peace can be made on the "Burgers and Borscht" platform of cooperation between equals reminded of their common humanity.
Of course, the actual events of the next five years (Watchmen was completed in 1987) demonstrated that, in fact, the real-world Russian leadership did not prefer the suicidal destruction of nuclear war over losing the Cold War.
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on August 29, 2020, 08:56:24 AM
QuoteI mean, at this point we are threatening core strategic interests of any Russian government — can't blame Putin — it'd be any Russian government, you pick it...they would be deeply concerned about US expansion of NATO, which is a hostile military alliance, right to their heartland. I mean, if the Warsaw Pact were attempting to take over Canada and Mexico, we wouldn't be happy about it. And it's comparable.
Chomsky might take exception to being called a "liberal" without varnish, so maybe "leftist" is the term more in vogue for his ilk?
Right, now I see what you mean. Diverting blame away from authoritarian governments by assigning their actions and policies to "unavoidable historical/geopolitical factors" seems to be common in the more distant, obscure and academic corners of the left. A consequence of anti-Great Man historiography taken to its extreme: leaders don't matter and government policy is incidental. In short, it's a cop-out. Chomsky pulled the same stunt about Vietnam. Maybe this is just the McCarthyite in me but I can't help thinking that it's genetically/memetically related to the historical determinism of Marxism. Would you agree with this? (The reason I jump to this conclusion is that, back when I aligned myself with Marxist twitter, I saw this exact kind of dishonest apologetic false equivalency all the time, sometimes with Putin's Russia, also namely with China, Iran, Assad's Syria, Venezuela, North Korea and a few other darlings of the anti-imperialists.)
Quote from: Istefan Perþonest on August 29, 2020, 11:17:21 AM
Of course, the actual events of the next five years (Watchmen was completed in 1987) demonstrated that, in fact, the real-world Russian leadership did not prefer the suicidal destruction of nuclear war over losing the Cold War.
It's a little eerie you should mention
Watchmen considering that I was watching the adaptation just last night ;D. But you make a compelling point. I will probably point to this at some point in my essay: that history has shown us that certain assertions of revisionism didn't pan out. Of course, you can't really argue that disproves the whole theory, especially in its own context. Hindsight is perfect and they couldn't have known what was going to happen in the future. But I think history has poked numerous holes in the revisionist theory and prompted the post-revisionist school, which I'll have to compare. You make an interesting point about
Watchmen though—it could make for an interesting source (not sure if primary or secondary) for the cultural side of the argument. Thanks!
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on August 29, 2020, 08:56:24 AM
Probably the most prominent example would be Chomsky, but others of his same ideological persuasion seem to have the same mindset. He writes voluminously, but here's an example from 2014 (https://chomsky.info/20140928/):
QuoteI mean, at this point we are threatening core strategic interests of any Russian government — can't blame Putin — it'd be any Russian government, you pick it...they would be deeply concerned about US expansion of NATO, which is a hostile military alliance, right to their heartland. I mean, if the Warsaw Pact were attempting to take over Canada and Mexico, we wouldn't be happy about it. And it's comparable.
Okay, I've actually gone ahead and included this source in my essay rationale (which is due this coming Monday, as opposed to the essay proper which is due sometime in October). Thank you for bringing it to my attention.
Quote from: Éovart Andrinescù on August 29, 2020, 06:45:20 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on August 29, 2020, 08:56:24 AM
QuoteI mean, at this point we are threatening core strategic interests of any Russian government — can't blame Putin — it'd be any Russian government, you pick it...they would be deeply concerned about US expansion of NATO, which is a hostile military alliance, right to their heartland. I mean, if the Warsaw Pact were attempting to take over Canada and Mexico, we wouldn't be happy about it. And it's comparable.
Chomsky might take exception to being called a "liberal" without varnish, so maybe "leftist" is the term more in vogue for his ilk?
Right, now I see what you mean. Diverting blame away from authoritarian governments by assigning their actions and policies to "unavoidable historical/geopolitical factors" seems to be common in the more distant, obscure and academic corners of the left. A consequence of anti-Great Man historiography taken to its extreme: leaders don't matter and government policy is incidental. In short, it's a cop-out. Chomsky pulled the same stunt about Vietnam. Maybe this is just the McCarthyite in me but I can't help thinking that it's genetically/memetically related to the historical determinism of Marxism. Would you agree with this? (The reason I jump to this conclusion is that, back when I aligned myself with Marxist twitter, I saw this exact kind of dishonest apologetic false equivalency all the time, sometimes with Putin's Russia, also namely with China, Iran, Assad's Syria, Venezuela, North Korea and a few other darlings of the anti-imperialists.)
I couldn't speak to any sort of ideological connection with Marx. I'm a capitalist down to my bones (to quote one of my favorite pols), so my reading in that tradition hasn't gone any further than Marx, Engels, and a few scattershot bits of fiction like Morris'
News from Nowhere. I'd always chalked up this sort of thinking to the hedgehog way of thinking. If you see most aspects of history (or the world) as a consequence of a single mechanism, then everything else tends to fall by the wayside, either ignored or excused or fit into your schema.
Not sure if you are familiar with the idea of the fox vs the hedgehog? The hedgehog has one big idea, but the fox has many small ideas? If not, you can Google it (or if you're feeling ambitious, read the Berlin essay: https://www.blogs.hss.ed.ac.uk/crag/files/2016/06/the_hedgehog_and_the_fox-berlin.pdf
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on August 29, 2020, 11:19:18 PM
Not sure if you are familiar with the idea of the fox vs the hedgehog?
Not the first I'm hearing of it, but I've never heard it elucidated long-form. I'll give Berlin a look (heard his name echoing around university tutorials from time to time as well).
Quote from: Éovart Andrinescù on August 29, 2020, 11:53:40 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on August 29, 2020, 11:19:18 PM
Not sure if you are familiar with the idea of the fox vs the hedgehog?
Not the first I'm hearing of it, but I've never heard it elucidated long-form. I'll give Berlin a look (heard his name echoing around university tutorials from time to time as well).
It's gotten more prominent in the last ten years because a lot of probabilistic thinkers like Philip Tetlock or Nate Silver (https://slate.com/culture/2014/03/foxes-vs-hedgehogs-a-history-from-nate-silver-fivethirtyeight-and-isaiah-berlin-back-to-archilochus-of-paros.html) have made it a big explicit part of their thinking.
During undergrad, I had unlimited access to JSTOR through my school. It was an invaluable tool while researching my senior thesis on late Soviet history (emphasis on East Germany). In any event, I read somewhere that during covid, JSTOR opened its archives to people to retrieve scholarly articles. I am unaware if this is still open, or if you have access through an institution, but you might find some resources there. If you come across any legal items (e.g. law review articles, cases, etc.) that you may need that are only avaialble through certain legal databases, I don't mind checking to see if I have access and providing a copy.
Thank you so much, Viteu! I handily do have access to JSTOR through my university, I'll hit that up.