Filosofická fakulta Masarykovy univerzity V Brně Autoreferát dizertační práce

WILLIAMS, William A.: Americans in a Changing World. A History of the United States in the Twentieth Century. New York: Harper and Row, 1978.

WITTNER, Lawrence S.: Cold War America: From Hiroshima to Watergate. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1978.

YERGIN, Daniel: Shattered Peace: The Origins of the Cold War and the National Security State. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1977.

ZOPPO, C. – ZORGBIBE, C. (eds): On Geopolitics: Classical and Nuclear. Dotrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1985.

Abstract
Submitted dissertation thesis analyzes transformations of cold war interpretations of American historians of United States foreign relations from the 2^nd half of the 40s to half of the 70s. More generally it focuses on a complete interpretative summary of problems of the Cold War’s interpretation in an American historical literature from the second half of 30s till nowadays. Partly it tries to achieve a complete view on the American historiography of the United States foreign relations.

The first goal of the work is a conceptualization of the subdiscipline and historical (and literary) production in the American historiography. Its second task is more systematic understanding of transformations in the interpretation of origins of the “Cold War” in the post-war decades.

Interpretations of origins of the “Cold War” are frequently divided and classified as “traditionalist” (sometimes also “orthodox”), “revisionist” and “postrevisionist”, later also “corporatist”, world system, cultural and others. It’s argued that this classification is founded gnoseologically on an optimistic “phase model” and therefore is rigid. Dissertation argues that it does not suit for the presentation of relative plurality of historiography and literature about the “Cold War” in a concrete time. Historians label these distinctions by terms as “groups of researchers” (Graebner), “interpretations” and “historiographical schools”, “different constructions” and “distinctions” (Combs), “changing perspectives” (Dumbrell and Leffler). It’s argued that vagueness and inner differentiation of these categories express best wide terms as historiographical or interpretative “tendency” or a “different approach”.

Submitted dissertation describes essential ideological and practical basis of a post-war literary output and puts it into minimal social context of historical and international relations thought during 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s and briefly also in subsequent years. Generally it deals with production of several tens of authors. Work structures in detail production of more than ten central authors by methodological differences and philosophical assumptions and by model with three categories of historical thought: motivations; aims and intentions; responsibility or blame of two major post-war protagonists – Unites States and Soviet Union. In this way work combines partly perspective of methodologies (state of field) and interpretations. Final structure is grounded on individual authors and their groups and it’s based on a certain type of generalization again and it reflects McCormick’s, Wise’s and Kudrna’s arguments that “social systems” are foundation of historical thought. This supposes certain analogy in methodological and ideological differences among individual authors.

Appraisal of historical interpretations of the American and Soviet (possibly also other) policy in the origin of the “Cold War” is in a work founded on two assumptions. Firstly, it’s supposed implicit continuity of thought and succession among older and younger liberal historiography, “orthodoxy” and “postrevisionism” on the first side and left “revisionism”, “corporatism” of 80s and many other younger cultural historians. Secondly, in spite of the significant influence of left “revisionism” and academic critics it’s supposed that they are still in opposition to the “ruling” – hegemonic or dominant – interpretation of the origin of the “Cold War” which is based on wide vindicationism of the American role in the “Cold War”.

Chapter II analyzes forming of American perception of Soviet Union through the activity of the official of the department of state George F. Kennan. He formulated image of persistently expansionary Soviet Union which struggled for ideological expansion along with imperial hegemony. Kennan’s conception took the shine out of the following generation of historians and their research.

Chapters III, IV and V deal with historiographical tendencies “traditionalism”, “revisionism” and “postrevisionism”. Chapter III focuses on “traditionalistic” production from the half of the 60s in whose foundation was the transformation of dominant ideas about foreign relations during the Second World War (“internationalism”) and reform and change of American liberalism (former progressivism) and conservatism. In dependence on character of Soviet “ threat”, adequacy of the American policy and its appraisal text of chapter distinguishes four groups of authors: predecessor of New right, liberal “orthodox” authors, so called political realists and Liberal “court” historians. I mention also influence of Soviet studies (“sovietology”) on historiography of foreign relations especially by New right and liberal historiography.

It’s argued that dominant liberal “orthodox” historiography of historians Bemis, Perkins, Bailey or Pratt was forming simultaneously with attacks of part of the American right wing on Roosevelt’s and Truman’s administration because of its reconciliation and concessions to Soviet Union, although it was parallel of that attacks in some measure. It’s generally argued that postwar historiography was influenced markedly by political realism of Niebuhr, Morgenthau and Kennan who criticised presumed “moralism”, “utopism” or “legalism” of the American policy and its excessive ideologization but who accepted the “orthodox” interpretation in substantial measure. However, chapter argues thesis that in spite of their critique „realists“ accepted the „orthodox“ interpretation of origins of the „cold war“ – similarly to young liberal historians.

Younger liberal “court” authors as Feis and authors around Kent R. Greenfield and John Snell opened a way for partial overcoming of the older “orthodox” historiography. These authors participated in the archive research which broke opinion that Roosevelt’s supposed “neglect” of the course of the war had significant impact on the origin of the “Cold war”. At the same time this part points out that these liberals don’t challenge share and responsibility in the origins of the „cold war“ that previous authors atributed to the Soviet Union.

Chapter IV deals with liberal and left critics of the American policy who are in normative sense understood and labelled in the work as „dissent“ in the historiographic profession. Firstly, chapter focuses on define of the concept of „revisionism“ and according to the approach and assumptions classify left „revisionists“ according into „radical“ and „left-liberal“. Chapter demonstrates that early post-war critiques of the American policy of so dissimilar authors such as Charles A. Beard, I. F. Stone, Denna F. Fleming, Fred W. Neal or Charles W. Mills differed by political background, assumptions and attitudes to the American and Soviet policy. It’s argued that real discussion about the policy of the USA arose only in 1964-1965 in the connection with Vietnam War and works of David Horowitz and Gar Alperovitz. This chapter pays central attention to influential Wisconsin „revisionist“ school and personality of William A. Williams. It sketches William’s perspective of American history and analyses central parts of his groundbreaking work The Tragedy of American Diplomacy which broke the myth of „naive“ and defensive American officials. Text showes that William’s successors as Gardner, LaFeber or Paterson, Kolko and many others differed by relative weight given to a personality and stuctural elements and economic, ideological and political influences on the American policy too. The end of this chapter realizes a brief probe to the influence of some „left-liberal“ critics on the analysis of American post-war policy at home. Generally dissertation argues opinion that left „revisionism“ held significant academic credibility but since 70s was subdued by so called postrevisionism.

Chapter V follows development of the liberal interpretation, so called postrevisionism, till half of the 70s. It’s argued that „postrevisionism“ tried to overcome main differences among „orthodox“ authors and left „revisionists“ of the 60s. Its adherents followed attitudes of Kennan, Lippmann or Morgenthau and synthesized them with knowledge of younger liberal historians. „Postrevisionists“ agreed partly with critique on the part left „revisionists“, rejected global anticommunist „crusade“ and excessive antirevolutionary interventionism. They understood Soviet actions as effort to ensure „national interests“ and security. However these authors did not accept opinion that the USA shared same or bigger responsibility for the eruption of the conflict. First of all chapter analyses chiefly works of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Adam Ulam, John L. Gaddis, George C. Herring and Lynn E. Davis whose common characteristic sees in the overwhelming passive action of the United States in a region of Eastern Europe (and elsewhere) and the emphasis on home and bureaucratic barriers supposedly reducing politic alternatives of American officials. Chapter pays attention to ambivalency and conservatism of „postrevisionism“ on the examples from American „sovietology“ too.

Chapter VI summarises roughly main interpretation tendencies of historiography in the 80s and 90s. They consist in the developement of „postrevisionism“, restoration of geopolitics as an interpretative category, revival of the conservative and older „orthodox“ interpretation and the start of „corporatism“ as an alternative of dominant „postrevisionism“. In the same time theory of the world system developed and so called lingvistic and cultural turn also came about in historiography. Break-up of the „Eastern block“ and supposed American „victory“ in “cold war” led to American „triumphalism“ and the last wave of „new rethinking“ of the conflict. It supported study of Soviet ideology, weakened „postrevisionism“ and revived the old „orthodox“ interpretation.

Conclusion of the work recapitulates assumption about conceptualization of American historiography of the foreign relations and both normative assumptions. It points out an ideological and opinion continuity between older and younger historiography, „orthodoxy“ and „postrevisionism“, and argues thesis that „postrevisionism“ was not superordinated synthesis and did not integrate left „revisionism“ as a whole. It’s argued that mainstream scholarship rather absorbed some left „revisionist“ elements and remained close to the liberals influenced by „realism“. Assumption of enduring of the dominant or hegemonic interpretation of the Cold War is testified by the fact that historiography of foreign relations is still one of the most conservative streams of the American history in which nationalistic perspective prevails. In accord with this left „revisionist“ and critical interpretations did not end with a fall of „Iron Curtain“, but they are neither dominant. They were only a minority in the historiography even at their zenith at the turn of the 60s and 70s. I put it to the relation with ideological and opinion spectrum in the United States where “un-liberal” arguments as classic conservatism or anarchism and socialism are ignored and repressed as „un-American“. Transformations of the mainstream research in the United States relate to the repeat of the polarization between the liberal and conservative wing of American historiography. But as liberal political theorist Louis Hartz argued provocatively, these two wings arise from „liberal consensus“ of the American political tradition that developes in majority of Americans toward foreign countries desire to change people according to a American way.

Keywords
american historiography of foreign relations of the United States, 2nd half of 20th century, different historical interpretations and approaches, transformations of historiography, traditionalism, revisionism, postrevisionism, liberalism, conservatism, radicalism

cold war origins, 40’s, foreign policy, international politics, international relations, United States, Soviet Union, Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman