Understanding global security - Peter Hough

MILITARY THREATS TO SECURITY FROM STATES
war but which is, nonetheless, extremely hostile. Manuel was describing relations
between Spain and the Moslem world but the ideological confrontation between the
Communist world, led by the USSR and the USA-led capitalist world, which was being
played out in the late 1940s, fitted the description well.
The period of hostility and rivalry between the two coalitions of states, led
by the USA and USSR from the end of the Second World War in 1945 to 1990, was
unlike any other phase of history. The two sides avoided outright military conflict with
each other but fought out many proxy wars, whereby one side would fight an enemy
sponsored by the other side (such as with the US war in Vietnam or the USSR’s
invasion of Afghanistan) or both sides would sponsor rivals in a conflict whilst
cheering on from the sidelines (as for example with the Arab-Israeli dispute). Whilst
this era cannot be said to be one of peace when it contained two of the bloodiest
wars in history, in Korea and Vietnam, direct war between the major protagonists was
avoided by a the maintenance of a balance of terror, whereby both sides were deterred
from such action by the massive scale of each others military capabilities. The key
variable that made this such a distinct phase of history was, of course, the advent of
atomic/nuclear weapons which served to make war something that threatens not
only hostile states but the entire population of the Earth.
Why the wartime allies came to divide into two such antagonistic opponents so
shortly after the Second World War is hotly disputed by historians of the period.
Three broad schools of thought have emerged: the Traditionalists, the Revisionists
and the Post-Revisionists.
Traditionalists lay the blame for the Cold War on the USSR. Writers such as
Feis and Schlesinger argue that the confrontation occurred because, shortly after the
ending of the Second World War, the USSR behaved in a manner which suggested
they wanted to expand their influence over Europe and, at the same time, rebuffed
American gestures of support and cooperation (Feis 1970, Schlesinger 1967). The
USSR was slow to withdraw troops from East Europe and Northern Iran after
victory had been achieved in the Second World War, turned down the offer of
American economic aid (the Marshall Plan) and also rejected their offer to scrap
their own arsenal of atomic weapons in exchange for a UN inspection system to
prevent any state procuring such weapons (the Baruch Plan). From this perspective
the USA were entitled to interpret Soviet intentions as being hostile and respond
accordingly.
Revisionists take the opposite viewpoint, with writers, such as the Kolkos and
LaFeber, pinning the blame for the Cold War on US aggression towards the USSR
(Kolko and Kolko 1972, LaFeber 1991). The hostility of western capitalist states to
Communism can be dated back as far as the Russian Civil War when a number of
states, including the USA, actively supported the Monarchists against the Bolsheviks,
who had assumed power following the 1917 revolution. In light of this, cooperation
in the Second World War was merely a marriage of convenience and the decision of
the USA to detonate atomic weapons in Japan in 1945 was as much a show of strength
towards the USSR as a means of ending Japanese resistance, it is claimed. Revisionists
argue that the USSR’s dominance of the ‘Eastern Bloc’ after 1945 was merely a
defensive measure to create a buffer against American dominance of Europe and
ideological hostility to Communism. Hence the revisionist view is that US rather than
Soviet hostility prompted the Cold War.
24