There are three schools of thought that historians generally argue. A traditionalist claims the USSR was expanding its nation and forcing the US to intervene. A post-revisionist makes the claim that both the US and the USSR are to blame for the outbreak of the Cold War, usually blaming differing ideologies. A revisionist will blame the US for the outbreak of the Cold War, claiming that the US was an aggressor. This historian takes a fairly revisionist school of thought, that leans slightly towards post-revisionist, by claiming the US instigated crisis and that the US acted as the aggressor. In the first paragraph, the historian takes a post-revisionist school of thought by claiming that both nations were “victors.” This alludes to World War …show more content…
The historian states that this was “described to the American public as examples of Soviet expansionism.” The historian is implying that the US falsely portrayed the USSR as expansionists because the author states the comparison led to “recalling… Hitler.” This is a revisionist argument because the historian is stating that the US began the tension in Eastern Europe by implying that the USSR was aggressive and expansionist, when in reality the USSR was not. A traditionalist would claim that the USSR actually was invading Greece or Turkey. A post-revisionist would claim that both nations misinterpreted the others intent in Greece. The historian continues by insisting that the “left-wing” government in Greece was “popular.” However, the US intervened to restore the “right-wing…dictatorship.” The terminology attached to the types of government implies that the US is invading a nation to install a government that is not favored. This is a revisionist argument because the US is portrayed as the expansionist. A traditionalist would portray the US as the protector of Eastern Europe. The historian continues by quoting Truman, stating that the US needed to protect nations from “‘outside pressures.’” These “pressures” are alluding to the USSR. By including this quote, the historian is showing that Truman was blaming the USSR on the situation in Greece despite the fact that the USSR was not in Greece. By …show more content…
The historian states that the “occupied” Korea was “liberated” from Japan. Then by mentioning the end of WWII the historian alludes to the fact Korea was split at Potsdam and that the US adopted Japan as a trading partner. The historian takes a revisionist approach when discussing Japan because he portrays Japan as an oppressive nation. A traditionalist would portray Japan as a struggling nation that needed an ally in Asia, thus justifying US involvement in the Korean War. Since the historian does not do this, he does not justify US involvement in the Korean War. The historian continues by stating that the US “dominated” the UN army. The UN army consisted of men from the US and South Korea. The historian mentions the fact that it was mostly American men to show that the US was an aggressive nation that used war to gain land; this is an revisionist argument. A traditionalist portrays the US as protectors that simply aid other nations in war, not as dominators. The historian concludes by stating that the US uses “‘force’” in order to “‘uphold the rule of law.’” This quote from Truman aids in the revisionist argument because it portrays the US as aggressors. A traditionalist would claim that the US was protecting nations and would not pair the US with force but rather pair the USSR with force. A post-revisionist would claim that both nations misinterpreted the other intentions in