Assignments for International history in week2

 Q1. What are the three main schools in the debate on the origins of the Cold War?

They are traditionalist, revisionist and postrevisionist.

Traditionalists' thought is quite straight. They claim that Soviet Union started the Cold War by not cooperating with the U.S. and the rest of Western nations in the United Nations, consistently holding troops in Eastern Europe and Northern Iran from which Stalin agreed to pull out troops. America had been passive and reluctant to the the Soviet Union until communist North Korea started to invade South Korea in 1950.

On the contrary, the revisionists argue that it's the U.S. which started the Cold War. And before that, at the beginning of the post-war age, the Soviet Union was no match of the States which already held nuclear weapons. Revisionists' discourse split into two levels of analysis. The first levels of analysis emphasize the changes of personal factors, such as Roosevelt's death and adjustments of bureau under Truman's administration. The second levels of analysis view thing differently. They think that it is the nature of capitalism, which the U.S. always believes in and be favored from, caused the U.S. to expand it's own economics hegemony.

The postrevisionist argue that after the destruction of the Second World War, there were only the U.S. and the Soviet left on the table of super power. It's doomed that a Bipolar international world will be forged, so it is meaningless to point finger at anyone else. The difference between postrevisionists and the Second levels of analysis of revisionists is : "it is insecurity to anarchy among Europe triggering the expansions of two super powers, say the postrevisionists, while the Second levels of analysis of revisionists stress on economics.

Q2. Summarize the three level of analysis in international politics.

The individual level is crucial, but not dominant explanation to international incidents. We may include Leaders' characteristic, case by case, as reasons which caused an event. But it is not convincing by merely the individual level. A specific characteristic doesn't necessarily correspond a specific action or consequence. Psychological approaches are helpful for the individual level to judge how leaders make decisions.

The state level explains how domestic factors such as society construction, atmosphere, events, policy, affect international politics. One of the core debate is whether states make similar decisions or actions if they faces the similar situation. One of example according to the author is, Neither Marxism nor Classical Liberalism can provide a powerful pattern to explain why or why not a nation-state goes on a war, if we overview the modern history. As same as the dilemma that the individual level has faced, The state level can't provide a certainty.

(In my personal opinion, these three levels of analysis can be imagined as three spheres which one is included by another and so forth. Especially it is not hard to discover that newspaper or media are used to personify (intentionally or vice versa) nation-states, describing international relations as human relations.)

The system level referred the market models, however, the international system doesn't simply fit a perfectly competitive market due to making allies as a new factor. Nonetheless, The system level may  lead us to a simplest and most adequate conclusion, if there is any. If  it doesn't, then we probably would go for previous two level of analysis, adding factors, until there is a reasonable telling.

Q3. What caused the deepening of mutual mistrust between the United States and the Soviet Union during and around the end of World War II?

The first part of mistrust between the Soviet and the Western power like the States and the Britain is in the early period of World War II. Before the war begin, they weren't barely called as an alliance. It was until Hitler's third Reich's sudden attack, the military supply from the U.S. started. The time lag since Soviet were invaded to the U.S. join the war against Germany also cause mistrust. Stalin was disappointed that the U.S. tried to avoid the involvement of war, while Roosevelt and Churchill was worried about Stalin make a truce with Hitler. 

The different notions about post-war among Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin also became a division. Churchill and Stalin shared no the same ideal principle with Roosevelt, and they didn't intend these principles be applied in their territory. Also, the imagination (or ideology perhaps) about the basic rules in the post-war period also verified that the U.S. pursue an open-door marketing world instead of imperialism expansion. According this chapter, we can see both the individual analysis and state analysis being used by historians. And at last, to say it was an alliance between Westerns and the Soviet, it's would be more precisely to say that they endured to forge a temporary coalition against the Fascism.

Q4. Did the change of leadership in the United States affect the emergence of the Cold War?

I agree on the effect. President Truman was excluded from foreign policy by President Roosevelt at certain degree. Although Truman promised to follow the lasting policy by Roosevelt, not every promise was executed. The former and successor of the president of the U.S. also held the different condition, which is, the fact having a nuclear weapon. This also changed the confidence to the Soviet.