“The early Cold War in Europe, therefore, cannot be understood by looking at the policies of either the United States or the Soviet Union in isolation. What evolved on the continent was an interactive system in which the actions of each side affected not only the other but also the Europeans; their responses, in turn shaped further decisions in Washington and Moscow. It quickly became clear... that an American empire would accommodate far greater diversity than would one run by the Soviet Union: as a consequence most Europeans accepted and even invited American hegemony, fearing deeply what that of the Russians might entail.” John Lewis Gaddis, historian, We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History, 1997 “Instead of overturning the international system, many Third World nations became its main victims through the extension of Cold War tensions to their territories. . . . The main significance of the Cold War for the Third World (and of the Third World for the Cold War) seems to me to be this: That the ideological rivalry of the two superpowers came to dominate Third World politics to such an extent that in some countries it delegitimized the development of the domestic political discourse that any state needs for its survival.” Odd Arne Westad, historian, “The New International History of the Cold War: Three (Possible) Paradigms,”Diplomatic History, 2000 Using the excerpts above, answer (a), (b), and (c). Briefly explain ONE major difference between Gaddis’ and Westad’s historical interpretations of the Cold War. Briefly explain how ONE event or development in the period 1945 to 1980 that is not explicitly mentioned in the excerpts could be used to support Gaddis’ interpretation. Briefly explain how ONE event or development in the period 1945 to 1980 that is not explicitly mentioned in the excerpts could be used to support Westad’s interpretation.
“The early Cold War in Europe, therefore, cannot be understood by looking at the policies of either the United States or the Soviet Union in isolation. What evolved on the continent was an interactive system in which the actions of each side affected not only the other but also the Europeans; their responses, in turn shaped further decisions in Washington and Moscow. It quickly became clear... that an American empire would accommodate far greater diversity than would one run by the Soviet Union: as a consequence most Europeans accepted and even invited American hegemony, fearing deeply what that of the Russians might entail.” John Lewis Gaddis, historian, We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History, 1997 “Instead of overturning the international system, many Third World nations became its main victims through the extension of Cold War tensions to their territories. . . . The main significance of the Cold War for the Third World (and of the Third World for the Cold War) seems to me to be this: That the ideological rivalry of the two superpowers came to dominate Third World politics to such an extent that in some countries it delegitimized the development of the domestic political discourse that any state needs for its survival.” Odd Arne Westad, historian, “The New International History of the Cold War: Three (Possible) Paradigms,”Diplomatic History, 2000 Using the excerpts above, answer (a), (b), and (c). Briefly explain ONE major difference between Gaddis’ and Westad’s historical interpretations of the Cold War. Briefly explain how ONE event or development in the period 1945 to 1980 that is not explicitly mentioned in the excerpts could be used to support Gaddis’ interpretation. Briefly explain how ONE event or development in the period 1945 to 1980 that is not explicitly mentioned in the excerpts could be used to support Westad’s interpretation.
Related questions
Question
“The early Cold War in Europe, therefore, cannot be understood by looking at the policies of either the United States or the Soviet Union in isolation. What evolved on the continent was an interactive system in which the actions of each side affected not only the other but also the Europeans; their responses, in turn shaped further decisions in Washington and Moscow. It quickly became clear... that an American empire would accommodate far greater diversity than would one run by the Soviet Union: as a consequence most Europeans accepted and even invited American hegemony, fearing deeply what that of the Russians might entail.”
John Lewis Gaddis, historian, We Now Know:
Rethinking Cold War History, 1997
“Instead of overturning the international system, many Third World nations became its main victims through the extension of Cold War tensions to their territories. . . . The main significance of the Cold War for the Third World (and of the Third World for the Cold War) seems to me to be this: That the ideological rivalry of the two superpowers came to dominate Third World politics to such an extent that in some countries it delegitimized the development of the domestic political discourse that any state needs for its survival.”
Odd Arne Westad, historian,
“The New International History of the Cold War:
Three (Possible) Paradigms,”Diplomatic History, 2000
Using the excerpts above, answer (a), (b), and (c).
Briefly explain ONE major difference between Gaddis’ and Westad’s historical interpretations of the Cold War.
Briefly explain how ONE event or development in the period 1945 to 1980 that is not explicitly mentioned in the excerpts could be used to support Gaddis’ interpretation.
Briefly explain how ONE event or development in the period 1945 to 1980 that is not explicitly mentioned in the excerpts could be used to support Westad’s interpretation.
Expert Solution
This question has been solved!
Explore an expertly crafted, step-by-step solution for a thorough understanding of key concepts.
This is a popular solution!
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 3 steps
