Historiography of the Cold War

Part of a series on
History of the Cold War
Origins World War II Hiroshima and Nagasaki Aftermath Eastern Bloc Western Bloc Iron Curtain
Periods Cold War (1947–1948) Cold War (1948–1953) Cold War (1953–1962) Cold War (1962–1979) Cold War (1979–1985) Cold War (1985–1991) Frozen conflicts
Related topics Timeline of events Historiography Related conflicts Post–Cold War era Relations since 1989 Second Cold War Post-Soviet conflicts Arab Cold War Cold War in Asia Reagan Doctrine
v t e

As soon as the term "Cold War" was popularized to refer to postwar tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union, interpreting the course and origins of the conflict became a source of heated controversy among historians, political scientists and journalists.^[1] In particular, historians have sharply disagreed as to who was responsible for the breakdown of Soviet Union–United States relations after the World War II and whether the conflict between the two superpowers was inevitable, or could have been avoided.^[2] Historians have also disagreed on what exactly the Cold War was, what the sources of the conflict were and how to disentangle patterns of action and reaction between the two sides.^[3] While the explanations of the origins of the conflict in academic discussions are complex and diverse, several general schools of thought on the subject can be identified. Historians commonly speak of three differing approaches to the study of the Cold War: "orthodox" accounts, "revisionism" and "post-revisionism". However, much of the historiography on the Cold War weaves together two or even all three of these broad categories^[4] and more recent scholars have tended to address issues that transcend the concerns of all three schools.