Introduction of Study of History: Final Assignment Lucia Pročková: 0942987

End of Cold War: Social or Political cause Benjamin Jansen: 2737876

Introduction: Period of geopolitical tension filled with espionages, sabbotages and constant
race to prove which side of the world is better. Western block, led by the United States representing
liberal democratism while eastern block, mainly constructed by Soviet Union and constructed of
communistic party. This all had quickly ended after Gorbaches reforms such as Perestrojka and
declarations of no longer intervening in affairs of allied countries led to Revolutions of 1989
thoughout the entire Eastern Block which were directly connected to Soviet Unions lost of power
and final dissolution. This period called Cold war could no longer continue with one of the main
actors no longer existing and therefore ending it. End of Cold war is exactly one of those events that
can be looken upon from many perspectives as it had influenced every sphere of life from the
private sphere through politics, but even through science for instance.

Ben: The end of the Cold War can be studied Lucy: After the research conducted about the
using a wide variety of approaches. In this essay end of Cold War, the conclusion made on my
I will be argueing why studying it from the side was that reflecting the multicasual history
perspective of the political actors involved is the and the return of event one of the great way of
best way to do it. I will do this by showing that looking at the event along with focusing rather
their influence is the most important in this on social history, microhistory and history of
conflict, substantiated with arguments regarding borderlands as it uncovers much deeper
who, what and why it should be studied from the understanding of the event, its cause yet its
observer’s perspective. I must state that this meaning at the same time thrugh the feelings of
might be biased by the fact that I grew up in a the people affected by it the most, in my view
western country where the history taught in them being citizens of different nations of
schools emphasizes on political history. Eastern block. Of course this can be strongly
biased by my roots as I was born and raised in
post-communist country in a liberal-democratic
househould.

1. Fred I. Greenstein, ‘’The Impact of Personality on the End of the Cold War: A Counterfactual Analysis’’,
Political Psychology, no. 1 (1998): 4.
2. Greenstein, ‘’ The Impact of Personality on the End of the Cold War,’’ pp. 6.
3. Greenstein, ‘’ The Impact of Personality on the End of the Cold War,’’ pp. 7.
4. Martin McCauley, ‘’ Gorbachev (Profiles in Power) ’’, London and New York: Longman (1998), pp. 237-238.
5. Lawrence Stone, ‘’ The Causes of the English Revolution, 1529 - 1642 ‘’, New York: Harper & Row (1972)
Another way of showing that political actors things that led to fall of Soviet Union such as
(and maybe more importantly, their nature of the occupied countries that had fought
personalities) do matter, is by looking into what for their freedom for ages, some of them from
could have been, if the presidents would have Austri-Hungarian Empire, and a few from the
been different people. Germany or the Russian Empire itself before
Take a look at Gorbachev, he was quite unique. turning itself and occupied countried in Soviet
As mentioned by Anatoly Chernyaev, ‘he Union. 8
adopted a policy of common sense’. 6 If the
The human nature that is impossible to
president of the Soviet Union at the time would
predict entirely, yet we can be sure, that greed is
have been very nationalistic for example, the
another important factor, that influences many
negotiation between the U.S. and the Soviet
spheres such as communistic regime itself, as we
Union may not have been as peaceful as they
all know, there is nothing wrong with the idea
were. They could have led to more war, instead
itself, rather than human incompetence to get rid
of treaties being signed. This shows the
of greed, meaning the need to exploit the
influence a political actor has on the outcome of
system, making the unrest, therefore making it a
a historical event.
precipitant that made the event probable along
with the Afganistan incidents or the actions of
The change in Reagan’s view on the Soviet
main political personas of the era such as
Union also illustrates this perfectly. When he
Gorbachev himself and his reforms. Coming
entered office, he felt threatened by the Soviet
back to the argument of the other side of this
Union, but he somehow still moved towards a
debate Gorbachev deffinitelly is the reason that
peaceful relationship with them. 7 He called
made the situations not only possible, he was a
them ‘the focus of evil in the modern world’.
unique persona that looked upon people and did
But the longer he was in office, the more he
his best to make state transparent for them
focused on the two nations common interests,
though reforms such as perestrojka, mainly the
and those could benefit the relationship between
glasnosť which focus was concretely about
the two sides of this conflict. Which, again
informing about the situation in Soviet union
shows how a change from a political actor can
thruthfully. 9
influence the outcome of a historical event.

6. Greenstein, ‘’ The Impact of Personality on the End of the Cold War,’’ pp. 10.
7. Greenstein, ‘’ The Impact of Personality on the End of the Cold War,’’ pp. 5.
8. Raymond Garthof, ‘’ The Great Transition: American-Soviet Relations and the End of the Cold War",
Washington: Brookings Institution, (1994).
9. Dusko Doder, ‘’ Gorbachev: Heretic in the Kremlin ‘’, London: Futura (1990), pp. 75-142
 This helped people to get informed about not
only the propagandistic view on situation but
also the dark sides of their countries at the era
making the following actions that directly led to
end of cold war probable or even likely. On the
other side it is important to realize that it was not
direct affect that these actions had, nor it was his
goal to destroy the entirety of Soviet union,
rather than just democratizase it a little bit ir
order to revitalize its economy, of course as we
can see today, without success. 10

Another important fact that needs to be taken

into consideration is that his personal traits or
qualities may not have had something with the
outcome of the action, he as a person may be the
one that was at the time on top, however
communistic countries have a long history of
having puppets that can be easily controlable.
Gorbachev as a person may very well be just an
ordinary men that was created by the
circumstances, just as the reforms themselves
might not in any affect the final result of the
situations. All of this greatly explains why
exactly we should not focus our minds only on
political sides of the situation of the great
personas of the era.

10. Yegor Gaidar, ‘’ Collapse of an Empire: Lessons for Modern Russia ‘’, Brooking Institution Press (2007), pp.190- 210
 All of this did step by step lead to the final steps
such as the Revolutions 1989 themselves and
fall of Soviet union, those could logically be
called trigerrers as they make the End of Cold
war inevitable. 11 Both of these actions being
mainly caused by the people from 'down-
bellow', which shows that focus on social
history, mainly through the new Thompson's
history would be more explainable for the event,
therefore we should look upon this event as
mainly caused by people themselves, focusing
on what led them to finally stand up for
themselves and 'fight', matter of which country,
which revolution are we talking about, therefore
focusing of social history, rather than history of
great men or politics would be a better idea. 12
Looking at working men and women of the
Eastern block, what were their responsibilities
and rights, what world they lived in, what
pleasures they could enjoy and what they had to
fear makes the revolutions, makes the need of
them for the war to be over and better life to
follow.
10. Yegor Gaidar, ‘’ Collapse of an Empire: Lessons for Modern Russia ‘’, Brooking Institution Press (2007), pp.190- 210
11. Raymond Garthof, ‘’ The Great Transition: American-Soviet Relations and the End of the Cold War",
Washington: Brookings Institution, (1994).
Ben: The way that the ‘Where?’ question Lucy: While studying a question of where is
should be answered when it comes to this surely connected to the basics of national
subject, is by going back to the basics, is history, however not in any possible way the
national history. We should look at the road that nation of Soviet Union as there never was such a
the nations involved paved for themselves which thing, a concept created through imagined
led them to the point where they were at the end communities as they have been given idea that
of the Cold War. A way to do this is to look at the communism as a regime is what they all
the reasoning that the nations used to justify want and this need is what connects them. 15 All
their position in this conflict. Maza applies this political, culttural and emotional power that
to Stalin and Hitler, by analyzing their these nations create are relatively recent
geopolitical needs and ambitions combined with historical develpment for which the illusion of
their visions for their peoples. 6 This way of deep historical roots was created over time
analyzing can also be applied to Reagan and either by historians, politicians or others. 16
Gorbachev. Think about the U.S.’s ambitions to Creating a new nations, forcing smaller nations
‘stop communism from spreading’ (domino around to join either out of fear or straight
theory), for example by invading Vietnam or through war. A country that doesn't exist for
keeping Berlin from fully submerging into East- more than 100 years talking about the
Germany. connections and that all of them are part of the
greater community through propaganda. We are
By tracing the history of the nations back
looking at several nations hundled up into a
we can study how they ended up in the positions
communistic mess focusing only on Russia out
that they were in during the end of the Cold War,
of them all. On the other side however it is
and therefore determine why they acted
barely better. Countries trying to show of that
differently than before and what had changed.
democracy and capitalism are the best possible
The concept of conveniently remembering and
political systems that have a great traditions of
forgetting certain events that happened during a
showing its fruits. Where exactly do we get that
conflict also plays a part here. 14 The political
from, just a few decades ago no one even
actors in this conflict do not necessarily ‘forget’
considered neither of those two political
or ‘remember’ certain events specifically, but
systems. Countries were mainly monarchies.
they do neglect the impact that those events had
Focus on nations in this situation is quite
on their people, and the conflict as a whole.
impossible as the Cold war affected much mre
They neglect the tension that has been between
than just two nations, making it an issue of
them for all these years, and how Berlin was a
global history. Issues that transcends national
kind of pawn within the two nations. So it is
borders such as views cannot be looked upon
important to study the nations involved because
from a point of one nation.
that is how we can determine the reasons behind
Furthermore, it could be said that it is
their actions.
better to focus on this topic through the view
from borderlands, however just as while
focusing on center, in this case, focusing only on
the borderlands would miss an important deal of
informations, realizing that most of the final
actions have happened in the cities. Exemplified
by the Revolutions that in most of the countries
had happened in the main cities, such as Velvet
revolution in Prague and Bratislava, Romanian
revolution focused itself in Bucharest, Polish in
Warshawa, or even Eastern German in Berlin as
well. 17

Conclusion for this question is very two-

sided. From one it is important to focus on
centres of nations, however it is important not to
think of them as one big nation as that is not
how Soviet Union was seen but a group of
separate nations that have been in one or another
way under the influence of Russia.

13. Sarah C. Maza, ‘’ Thinking about History ‘’, Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, (2017), pp. 70-71.
14. Sarah C. Maza, ‘’ Thinking about History ‘’, Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, (2017), pp. 55.

15. Benedict Anderson, ‘’ Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spred of Nationalism ‘’,
London: Verso (1991).
16. Sarah C. Maza, ‘’ Thinking about History ‘’, Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, (2017), pp. 53.
17. Raymond Garthof, ‘’ The Great Transition: American-Soviet Relations and the End of the Cold War",
 Washington: Brookings Institution, (1994).

Ben: In order to get a good rendition of the way the end of the Cold War came together using a
political approach, we need to study the event from the point of view of the ‘observer’. This means
that we need to use previous interpretations of the way this event has been studied in the past, and
use them to come up with our own perspective on it.

This can be explained by using an example of Eisenhower during the early stages of the
Cold War. Eisenhower’s view on nuclear weapons changed quite a bit throughout his terms. 18 If we
were to study that part, we would have needed to ask questions like, ‘Why did Eisenhower’s views
on the use of nuclear weapons change?’. We should do the same in the case of the political actors
involved in the end of it.

It is important to observe the reactions the two opposites of this conflict had to each other's
actions. This is necessary in order to show how they worked with each other towards the end of the
conflict. With the usage of the observer’s perspective we can determine that Gorbachev was moving
more and more towards the U.S. in the sense that he clearly showed his commitment to the core
tenets of political liberalism. 19 It shows how the U.S. primarily reacted to the Soviet Union’s
intentions, instead of (what they thought were) their capabilities.

Studying how ‘observers’ described and interpreted the collapse of the Soviet Union gives
us an insight in the way that event impacted the end of the Cold War (and why it is widely accepted
as the yardstick that determines the end of the Cold War). The frustrations of the Soviet Union with
the West towards the end form a good example of factors that can be observed. Gorbachev was
frustrated with the West because of their unwillingness to reward foreign-policy favors, and
therefore focused on preventing the disintegration of the USSR. 20 Along with this, Gorbachev also
hoped for more Western support by committing to keeping the country together. He wanted to use
the Western support to strengthen his hand at home.

Observing these kinds of attempts at keeping your country together shows how the political
actors in this conflict acted. And therefore it is important to study those actions.

18. John Lewis Gaddis, ‘’ Cold War statesmen confront the bomb: nuclear diplomacy since 1945 ‘’,
Oxford University Press (1999), pp. 89.
19. Mark L. Haas, ‘’ The United States and the End of the Cold War: Reactions to Shifts in Soviet Power,
Policies, or Domestic Politics? ‘’, International Organization, no. 1 (2007): pp. 175.
20. Alex Pravda, ‘’ The collapse of the Soviet Union ‘’, in: Melvyn P. Leffler and Odd Arne Westad eds.,
The Cambridge History of the Cold War (2010), pp. 375-376
Lucy: End of Cold war if looked upon as caused by the fall of the Iron wall, meaning revolutions
of 1989 can be understanded mainly through the Eastern side. Revolutions caused by constant
unrest based on unhappiness of the population can show that in order to actually understand the
cause of the end is through the people themselves in time. Participants point of view is much more
understanding to what the meaning of their actions were and helps us to interpret their action. While
if we were to look on the event from the Observers point right now, with the fact that this action is
not only still bearing consequences to this days but also is in many eyes not done, our observers
point of view would be very much influenced by the past and current propaganda from the both
sides, making it rather hard to get in any way rid of bias.
From the other side however, participants point of view would just as much be impossible,
realizing that most of the participants are still alive, even Gorbachev himself and many other
important personas along with most of our grandparents. We can surely look at the events through
microhistory, looking at the conditions of the people living in the communistic and non-
communistic countries from the realistic point, what were they able to do and what not on the other
side, such as travelling. Making it not only most realistic picture that can be drawn from these
events that have happened lest than a century ago but also quite an exciting reading. 21

Conclusion: History of Cold war and its end is one of the most debatable topics as at the
moment it still denies one of the main definitions of the history being a study of past far enough for
us to have a perspective on it. 22 Furthemore in this discussion we had explored many possible
views and perspectives this part of history can be looked upon presenting several interesting point,
however in the end the two main views both of us have chosen was political focus, in other words
also called History of Great Men focusing on important figures such as Gorbaches, Tatcher or
Reagan and multicausaul focus using the theory created by Lawrence Stone for layers of causes,
which also had involved the political causes, however not as a primary once making it half-common
ground by still embracing the idea, but through different view point.
21. Sarah C. Maza, ‘’ Thinking about History ‘’, Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, (2017), pp. 181.
22. Sarah C. Maza, ‘’ Thinking about History ‘’, Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, (2017), pp. 1.

Bibliography:
Anderson Benedict, ‘’ Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spred of Nationalism ‘’,
London: Verso (1991).
Doder Dusko, ‘’ Gorbachev: Heretic in the Kremlin ‘’, London: Futura (1990).
Gaddis John Lewis, ‘’ Cold War statesmen confront the bomb: nuclear diplomacy since 1945 ‘’,
Oxford University Press (1999).
Gaidar Yegor, ‘’ Collapse of an Empire: Lessons for Modern Russia ‘’, Brooking Institution Press (2007) .
Garthof Raymond, ‘’ The Great Transition: American-Soviet Relations and the End of the Cold War",
Washington: Brookings Institution, (1994).
Greenstein Fred I., ‘’The Impact of Personality on the End of the Cold War: A Counterfactual Analysis’’,
Political Psychology, no. 1 (1998): 4.
Mark L. Haas, ‘’ The United States and the End of the Cold War: Reactions to Shifts in Soviet Power,
Policies, or Domestic Politics? ‘’, International Organization, no. 1 (2007): pp. 175.
Maza Sarah C., ‘’ Thinking about History ‘’, Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, (2017).
McCauley Martin, ‘’ Gorbachev (Profiles in Power) ’’, London and New York: Longman (1998).
Pravda Alex, ‘’ The collapse of the Soviet Union ‘’, in: Melvyn P. Leffler and Odd Arne Westad eds.,
The Cambridge History of the Cold War (2010), pp. 375-376
Stone Lawrence, ‘’ The Causes of the English Revolution, 1529 - 1642 ‘’, New York: Harper & Row (1972)
Thompson Edward Palmer, ‘’The Making of the English Working Class ‘’, New York: Vintage (1963).