Few “moments” within America’s historical experience have generated
the intensely competitive and emotionally-charged debates as has the “Cold
War.” And few
have generated the volume and diversity of literature. This literature
encompasses changing political leaders and systems; nations and regions;
state and non-state
actors; mass and elite cultures; economics and ideology; men (and occasionally
women), machines, and technology; the very rich and the very poor; and
much in
addition. Historians ask questions about when the Cold War began, who
or what was responsible, why it ended when it did and whether it could
have ended earlier,
and for what reasons did it envelope the globe--East/West, North/South;
Core/Periphery. They assess the instruments used, and the consequences
for both the
principals and the “innocents.” They don’t agree on much. Indeed, they
even disagree about whether there was a winner or everyone lost, and about
whether the
Cold War was “good” or “bad.”
Because of the lack of consensus on virtually all the fundamental questions
pertaining to the Cold War, historians were as surprised by its abrupt
and peaceful
conclusion as were policymakers. And they are no more of a single mind
as to the causes of termination as to the causes of conception. Many, as
a result, have felt
compelled to revisit the historical landscape and reexamine premises
and arguments, including their own. In doing so they have benefited from
the release of archives
once considered forever out of reach: from the NSC and CIA,
from Moscow and Beijing; from throughout Eastern Europe. Indeed, the Cold
War International History Project (CWIHP) in Washington exists
exclusively for the purpose of locating and disseminating (largely through
the National Security Archive)
such documents (selective as they may be—and problem we will discuss).
Whether the end of the Cold War will allow for achieving a "new orthodoxy"
on its history is a question to be answered by future generations of scholars.
Let the record show that I doubt it. Regardless, the effort should prove
very exciting.
The purpose of this course is to identify the questions that bedevil
historians of the Cold War, and by reading competing interpretations, evaluate
the
strategies by which historians (and sometimes political scientists
or even journalists) address them. Hence I have assigned a spectrum of
scholarship
covering a range of issues. For obvious reasons our coverage cannot
be exhaustive. I am confident, nevertheless, that through the readings
and the discussions of
them, we will touch on most of the salient issues. Moreover, to the
extent practicable I have incorporated into the syllabus the most recent
literature. I have, however, taken care not to sacrifice older works that
remain essential. In history as in life, there is a grave danger of throwing
the baby out with the bath water.
My method for achieving my (our) goals is as simple as it is complex.
Next week (January 28) we will discuss the essays in Explaining the
History of American
Foreign Relations (and additional articles I will distribute
if necessary to accommodate class size). Collectively, they represent neither
a manual or recipe book.
(FYI, overtaken by events, a revised addition is currently in preparation.)
They should, however, stimulate your own thinking--and imagination--about
what has,
should, can, and will be written. This evening each of you will select,
or I will assign, one of these "think pieces," about which you will prepare
a no more than five (5) minute oral presentation at our next--January
28, lest you have forgotten already--meeting. You should identify and evaluate
what you consider the pros and cons of the author’s diagnoses and prescriptions,
and if possible, suggest what (if any) subject areas you believe might
lend themselves to the type of approach s/he recommends.
Our collective adventure in the Cold War begins “for real” on February
3. Commencing with this class and extending to the semester's end, two
or three (and
perhaps on occasion four) of you (depending on class size) will read,
in addition to the book assigned to everyone, another book listed on the
syllabus. In other
words, for that week the "chosen" will read two books. S/he
will in 750 words (about three double-spaced pages) review critically
(consult the guide
to writing a
book review
available on this course's website; it and materials for many history courses
are readily accessible on the department's web page:
http://www.temple.edu/history/)
the selection (comparing it, when appropriate, to the one we all read and
any other works that come to mind). Please be sure to
check the library for the book you will review in ample time for me,
should it not be available (a not uncommon occurrence at Paley
Library) and I not own a copy,
to provide you with a substitute title.
These reviews will be the basis for an approximately fifteen (15)
minute oral presentation during which each presenter will have the
opportunity to supplement his/her review by providing illustrations from
the book as well as to clarify or expand upon criticisms and arguments.
The guide
I provided on writing a book review is a general, generic guide--nothing
more. Feel free to follow your own instincts, as long as you don't end
up writing a book report. The only other proscriptions are
misspellings, mistakes in grammar, and use of the passive voice. Copies
of this and all future reviews should be made for each class member. I
have arranged to
open a file at the circulation desk in the TUCC library, where copies
of the review should be deposited no later than 6:30 p.m. the evening
the class meets. A preferably means of distribution, however, is electronically—by
email attachment. In the best of all possible worlds reviewers will
e-mail their three-pagers to everyone by the evening (Monday) before
class. But it’s worth a shot to e-mail even as late as, say, 5:00 the
Tuesday of class. The higher the percentage of students (and me) in the
class who receive the review by e-mail, the fewer the number of copies
you will need to make.
The distribution and deadline are particularly critical for the week's
designated "commentators." What this means is that, similar to the convention
at scholarly
meetings, commentators will take ten (10) minutes to analyze
critically the review, pointing out the strengths and weaknesses (of both
the review and the book)
and posing questions about the subject matter, arguments, sources,
methodology, etc. This evening we will assign a commentator for each book.
Because s/he
probably has not read the works under review, I will, if and when necessary,
inject points of information and clarification.
Further information and clarification will be provided during the "audience
participation" portion of the "panel" that will follow the presentations.
The "audience"
(class) will be well informed because you all will have read the generally
assigned book and written a one-page review of it (those reviewing the
week's
supplementary books must read but need not write a review of the
generally assigned one). I will grade all reviews "excellent," "satisfactory"
or "unsatisfactory"
("check +," check," or "check -"). Needless to say, failure to submit
reviews on time will adversely affect the quality of the commentaries and
general discussion; thus I will not take kindly to such behavior. Everyone
in the class should be primed to refer to the assigned book early and often.
The final assignment will be a comparative review of FOUR
BOOKS (excluding those already reviewed in class). It should
run TEN to FIFTEEN
double-spaced pages. The selections should, of course,
be related to one another in some manner, and I encourage you to base your
choices on a theme, topic, or even individual that is of interest to you
and/or is valuable for your personal areas of research. As part of the
assignment I want you to develop a list of six books
that you consider potentially appropriate for your comparative review,
using the library, on-line data bases, bibliographies, historiographic
essays, footnotes from
related works, or my “Big
Ol’ bibliography" that appears on this course’s website. Of course,
feel free to use any other means as well--just as you would if I asked
you to prepare a research paper. I will evaluate your list after you
have compiled it and together we will pare it down to four books. For this
reason let's agree
that you will bounce your proposals off me. Because the papers will
be DUE (and I mean it) by 3:00
on Monday, May 5 (plan to celebrate at my house, probably the evening
of the following Sunday, May 11), you should make an appointment with me,
either at TUCC or the Main Campus, no later than April 8.
When we meet we can also discuss your performance and progress.
On a more mundane level, as a normative guideline I will base your course
grade on an even division between your written and oral work. I may reward
exceptional
performance in one area by giving it extra weight in my calculations,
but don't count on it. Hence never rest on your laurels. And FYI,
I am a fanatic when it comes
to class participation. The success of any graduate course is contingent
on the collective contributions of everyone. If you are uncomfortable speaking
out, or for that
matter encounter any other problems, see me sooner rather than later.
Under any circumstances, feel free to check with me whenever the spirit
moves you.
Required Reading (available at the TUCC Bookstore)
Hogan/Paterson, Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations
Harbutt, Fraser, Cold War Era
Trachtenberg, A Constructed Peace
Zubok, Vladislav, & Constantine Pleshakov, Inside the Kremlin’s
Cold War
Foot, Practice of Power
Stueck, William, The Korean War
Immerman/Bowie, Waging Peace
Holloway, Stalin and the Bomb
Hixson, Walter, Parting the Curtain
Weisbrot, Robert, Maximum Danger: Kennedy, the Missiles, and the
Crisis of American Confidence
LaFeber, Walter, Inevitable Revolutions
Rotter, Comrades at Odds: The United States and India, 1947-1964
Logevall, Fredrik, Choosing War: The Lost Chance for Peace and the
Escalation of War in Vietnam
Schedule of Sessions
January 21 Introduction
January 28
Class Reading: Hogan/Paterson, Explaining U.S. Foreign Relations
Commentaries: Everyone
February 4
Class Reading: Harbutt, Cold War Era
Reviews: Gaddis, John, Strategies of Containment
Hogan, Michael, Marshall Plan
Leffler, Melvyn, Preponderance of Power
Offner, Arnold, Another Such Victory
Commentaries:
February 11
Class Reading: Trachtenberg, Constructed Peace
Reviews: Gienow-Hecht, Jessica, Transmission Impossible
Eisenberg, Carolyn, Drawing the Line
McAllister, James, No Exit: America and the German Problem, 1943-1954
Naimark, Norman, The Russians in Germany
Commentaries:
February 18
Class Reading: Zubok & Pleshakov, Inside the Kremlin
Leffler/Macdonald articles (on reserve)
Reviews: Gaddis, John, We Now Know
Larson, Deborah, Anatomy of Mistrust
Mastny, Vojtech, Cold War and Soviet Insecurity
Westad, Odd Arne, Brothers in Arms: The Rise and Fall of the Sino-Soviet
Alliance, 1945-1963
Commentaries:
February 25
Class Reading: Foot, Practice of Power
Reviews: Chen Jian, Mao's China and the Cold War
Christensen, Thomas, Useful Adversaries
Forslund, Catherine, Anna Chenault
Shimizu, Sayuri, Creating People of Plenty: The United States and Japan’sEconomic
Alternatives, 1950-1960
Commentaries:
March 4
Class Reading: Stueck, Korean War
Weathersby article (on reserve)
Reviews: Cumings, Bruce, Origins of the Korean War, vol.
I
Kaufman, Victor, Confronting Communism: U.S. and British Policies toward
China
Pierpaoli, Paul, Truman and Korea: The Political Culture of the Early
Cold War
Zhang, Shu Guang, Mao’s Military Romanticism
Commentaries:
March 11 SPRING
RECESS
March 18
Class Reading: Bowie/Immerman, Waging Peace
Reviews: Chernus, Ira, General Eisenhower: Ideology and Discourse
March 25
Class Reading: Holloway, Stalin and the Bomb
Reviews: Bundy, Danger and Survival
Craig, Campbell, Destroying the Village
Fitzgerald, Francis, Way out There in the Blue: Reagan, Star Wars
and the End of the Cold War
Jervis, Robert, The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution
Commentaries
April 1
Class Reading: Hixson, Parting the Curtain
Reviews: Berghahn, Volker, America and the Intellectual
Cold War in Europe
Hoffman, Elizabeth Cobbs, All We Need is Love
Kuisel, Seducing the French
Pells, Richard, Not Like Us
Commentaries:
April 8
Class Reading: Weisbrot, Maximum Danger
Reviews: Allison, Graham and P. Zelikow, Essence of Decision, 2nd. ed.
April 15
Class Reading: LaFeber, Inevitable Revolutions
Reviews: Paterson, Thomas, Contesting Castro
April 22
Class Reading: Rotter, Comrades at Odds
Reviews: Ben-Zvi, Abraham, Decade of Transition
April 29
Class Reading: Logevall, Choosing War
Reviews: Berman, Larry, No Peace, No Honor: Nixon, Kissinger,
and Betrayal in Vietnam
Bradley, Mark, Imagining Vietnam and America: The Making of Postcolonial
Vietnam, 1919-1950
Kimball, Jeffrey, Nixon's Vietnam War
McMahon, Robert, Limits of Empire
Commentaries: