Reading Questions

Revisionist historians maintain that it was within the power of the Unites States, in the years during and immediately after the Second World War, to prevent the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Revisionists suggest that the prospect of impending conflict with the Soviets could have been avoided in several ways. The U.S. could have officially recognized the new Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe instead of continuing to call for self-determination in those countries. A much-needed reconstruction loan could have helped the Soviets recover from the war. The Americans could have sought to assuage Soviet fears by giving up the U.S. monopoly of the atomic bomb and turning the weapons over to an international agency (with the stipulation that future nuclear powers do the same).

This criticism of the post-war American course of action fails to take into account the political realities in America at the time, and unfairly condemns the American policy-makers who did consider each of these alternatives and found them to be unworkable. Recognition of a Soviet Eastern Europe was out of question. Roosevelt had promised self-determination to the Eastern European countries, and the American people, having come to expect this, were furious when Stalin began to shape his spheres of influence in the region. The President was in particular acutely conscious of the millions of Polish-Americans who would be voting in the upcoming election.

Negotiations had indeed been conducted by the administration with the Soviets about the reconstruction loan, but Congress refused to approve it unless the Soviets made enormous concessions tantamount to restructuring their system and withdrawing from Eastern Europe. This, of course, made Soviet rejection of the loan a foregone conclusion. As for giving up the bomb-the elected officials in Washington would have been in deep trouble with their constituents had that plan been carried out. Polls showed that 82 percent of the American people understood that other nations would develop bombs eventually, but that 85 percent thought that the U.S. should retain exclusive possession of the weapon. Policy-makers have to abide by certain constraints in deciding what is acceptable and what is not. They, and not historians, are in the best position to perceive those constraints and make decisions.

Revisionist historians tend to eschew this type of political explanation of America’s supposed failure to reach a peaceful settlement with the Soviets in favor of an economic reading of events. They point to the fact that in the early post-war years, American businessmen and government officials cooperated to vigorously expand American foreign trade and to exploit investment opportunities in many foreign countries. In order to sustain the lucrative expansion, revisionists assert, American policy-makers were obliged to maintain an “Open Door” foreign policy, the object of which was to keep all potential trade opportunities open. Since the Soviets could jeopardize such opportunities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, they had to be opposed – hence, the Cold War. But if American policy-makers were simply pawns in an economic game of expansionist capitalism, as the revisionists seem to think, why do the revisionists hold them responsible for not attempting to reach an accord with the Soviets? The policy-makers, swept up by a tidal wave of capitalism, clearly had little control and little choice in the matter.

Even if American officials had been free and willing to make conciliatory gestures toward the Soviets, the Cold War would not have been prevented. Overtures of friendship would not have been reciprocated (as far as we can judge – information on the inner workings of the Kremlin during that time is scanty). Soviet expert George F. Kennan concluded that Russian hostility could not be dampened by any effort on the part of the United States. The political and ideological differences were too great, and the Soviets had too long a history of distrust of foreigners – exacerbated at the time by Stalin’s rampant paranoia, which infected by his government – to embark on a process of establishing trust and peace with the United States, though it was in their interest to do so.

Given this text, there were two questions in particular I had trouble answering:

27.In the final paragraph, the author qualifies his judgment that the Cold War could not have been averted by

A. acknowledging his own anti-Communist bias.

B. admitting that historians do not have a complete picture.

C. pointing out that a noted authority disagrees with him.

D. mentioning the viability of alternatives not suggested by the revisionists.

E. emphasizing that the Soviets wanted to engage in conflict.

28.The primary purpose of the passage is to ___

A. explore a popular myths.

B. analyze an era.

C. criticize historical events.

D. reconcile opposing views.

E. refute an argument

Please explain why you think which answer is correct.