In 1945, amidst the end of the Second World War, the Allied countries of The United Kingdom, The United States and The Soviet Union gathered in Crimea to discuss the reorganization of war-torn Europe. This conference, famously titled the Yalta Conference, is where some of the first remnants of tension arose between the two great superpowers of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. This tension is what many consider to be the origin of following Cold War tensions. The Conference consisted of delegations concerning the restructuring of Eastern Europe, of whose states Stalin considered complementary as defensive measures after his efforts in the war. The United States, however, found it more suitable to bring aid to the countries through methods such as the Marshall Plan, which caused turbulence in Moscow. It is in this manner that clashing motives, which originated in the 1945 Yalta Conference, are seen to be the seeds that would grow to be the Cold War. 

As World War II came to an end and the Eastern European States came under the Soviet sphere of influence, America took an initiative that it found necessary in order to prevent any further expansion of communism. This initiative is known as Containment, which saw to retain what was perceived as communist aggression against other states. The Marshall Plan, being preceded by the Truman Doctrine, furthermore provided military and economic aid for states undergoing external conflicts with communism, particularly that of the Soviet Union. Therefore, by this traditional perspective, Containment was an appropriate response to Soviet expansionism. This further fueled American Exceptionalism, the ideology that suggested American diplomacy revolved around morality, which provided contrast to Stalin's policy of Realpolitik in its approach to the Cold War.

On the other hand, Containment, inspired by what was perceived to be Soviet aggression, further emitted an essence of Commercial Imperialism as perceived by the Communist superpower. This American Imperialism enhanced what would have been the same Soviet fear that caused Stalin to expand his nation's access to resources by utilizing control of the Eastern European states as satellites, or, in the view of the Traditionalist, soviet expansionism. This fear of American Idealist Imperialism was further aided by the threat of nuclear power and the advantage the United States had over the Soviet Union. The Soviet perspective of American foreign policy with the leverage of the atomic bomb along with the policy of Containment expressed behavior that was equivalent, in a manner, to the American perspective of Soviet Aggression. 


I am interested in this research question because it aims to explore the morality that we as members of a global society have acquired through historical experiences by analyzing the most tense and potentially catastrophic time period in the history of humanity. This research question effects my values by suggesting that America was not always as righteous in its global actions as many people like to imagine. I am no anarchist who seeks to convince my peers that we belong to an evil nation with evil intentions for the world, but rather, quite the opposite, I would even classify myself as a patriot who is simply willing to accept the fact that America is not a perfect nation. I also extend the acceptance of this sense of imperfection to the Soviet Union as well, leading to my overall Neo-Revisionist point of view. 

As an International Baccalaureate (IB) graduate, I have earned a certificate in 20th Century World Topics relating to the history of the Americas after two years of in-depth study. Not only has this span of research provided me with experience but also credibility in my writing and discussion of the Cold War. 


In this speech given on a college campus in 1946, Winston Churchill evaluates the political and economic divide between the Eastern and Western European states. Describing those states within the Soviet Sphere as victimized and burdened by the Communist aggression and totalitarian ideology that comes with it, calling his audience to action and awareness. The purpose of Churchill's speech is to address the Warsaw-NATO conflict which was possible of arising by the formation of Soviet Russia's "iron curtain" as well as to reassure and motivate the British population of the security and nationalism intertwined in the Charter of the United Nations. As Prime Minister of England during the closing of the Second World War, he has distinctive experience in evaluating the behavior of the Soviet Union and Stalin. However, the source is limited through the rhetoric motives of the speech, as displayed by his closing statements regarding the demand for British Nationalism from the British people. The values expressed are British Nationalism and patriotism for democratic ideals. The immediate stakeholders are the people of Britain while the secondary stakeholders include everyone as it applies to the area of effect of the Cold War, so the whole world.


In this interview provided by a CNN series, Soviet Foreign Ministry member Vladimir Yerofeyev describes the internal response and interpretation of the American Marshall Plan and its actions in the Soviet Sphere of Influence. Expanding on the aggressively paranoid state of Stalin during the Cold War, Yerofeyev explains how the Marshall Plan was perceived as a ploy at first, a precept to infiltration of Europe. Vladimir Yerofeyev served directly under Josef Stalin as his personal translator after WWII, translating letters to both U.K. Prime Minister Winston Churchill and U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The purpose of Yerofeyev's interview was primarily to entertain and inform, being displayed in several documentaries and articles internationally. However, the information provided detailed answers to significant dilemmas of the Cold War such as the desire to know what the other side was thinking. The values expressed are not definitive, as the series focuses on professionalism and merely states the thoughts of the interviewees, holding no opinion themselves. The audience is the general public. There are no stakeholders for this source, as it is primarily informative. 


This novel written by William Williams, the leading name in Revisionist thinking, acts as an exposition of what is titled American Idealist Imperialism, suggesting that most of America's acts during the twentieth century served a primary purpose of benefit, much like the Soviet policy of Realpolitik, providing an exposition of American diplomacy as an empirically driven nation, seeking foothold wherever it can.  As a professor and renowned historian, his revisionist approach holds key ground in any argument regarding the Cold War. Having a purely revisionist perspective, he holds a bias that provides insight into first asking how much America really was involved in the Cold War. Despite his bias, there is truth in his writing and can be accredited for opening a new line of thought in regards to the Cold War. The values expressed are intellectualism and independent thinking, as it guides the reader to think beyond patriotism and nationalism. The stakeholders are the American people, the target audience of Williams.


My research question is arguable in that there are multiple perspectives and an infinite amount of combinations of said perspectives, making it a highly debatable issue for historians and everyday people alike. Among the sources that I have chosen there are agreements on the urgency and importance of the Cold War, but disagreements as to which country is to blame and if so than to what degree. These sources and their beliefs have lead me to identify myself as a melting pot of opinion, understanding both the traditionalist and revisionist perspective, leading me to hold a neo-revisionist stance. Ultimately, I see no need to revise my research question. 
