scholarly journals Edward Hallett Carr: Historical Realism and the Liberal Tradition

2008 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Freeland Duke

The works of Edward Hallett Carr represent an important contribution to the historiography of Soviet Russia and to the study of international relations in general. Yet his work is often dismissed, primarily because Carr was considered 'ideologically unsound,' that is, a Stalinist. This essay examines the validity of that charge and concludes instead that Carr was in fact firmly realistic in his writings on the Soviet Union and on international relations. In the case of the Soviet Union, this paper argues that Carr's realism produced works of balance and judgement in a period - the Cold War- when such characteristics were anathema to the historiography of the subject. In at least one of his works on international relations, The Twenty Years' Crisis, this realism represented a novel and revolutionary approach to the the subject.

This book uses trust—with its emotional and predictive aspects—to explore international relations in the second half of the Cold War, beginning with the late 1960s. The détente of the 1970s led to the development of some limited trust between the United States and the Soviet Union, which lessened international tensions and enabled advances in areas such as arms control. However, it also created uncertainty in other areas, especially on the part of smaller states that depended on their alliance leaders for protection. The chapters in this volume look at how the “emotional” side of the conflict affected the dynamics of various Cold War relations: between the superpowers, within the two ideological blocs, and inside individual countries on the margins of the East–West confrontation.


1991 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Deudney ◽  
G. John Ikenberry

IntroductionAfter years of retirement in the academy, macro’historical commentary on contemporary events has returned to fashion. Radical domestic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and new patterns ofEast’West relations-in short, the collapse of communism and the end othe Cold War’mark the end of an era and present an invitation to international theorizing.1 Few would deny that these changes are momentous, but there is little consensus concerning their origins, trajectory, and implications. Explaining these events will necessitate a reweighing of fundamental theoretical issues. Thesize and speed of these changes were largely unexpected,reminding us how primitive our theories really are and encouraging us to broaden our theoretical perspective. To capture these events, theorists must reach across the disciplinary divides of Sovietology, international relations theory political economy, and political sociology.


Slavic Review ◽  
1979 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 473-480
Author(s):  
Robert M. Slusser

Ever since the Berlin blockade of 1948 the attention of historians of modern and recent international relations has been engaged by the problem of how Germany and its capital, Berlin, came to be divided, first among the major powers of the anti-Hitler Grand Alliance—Great Britain, the United States, the Soviet Union, and France—and then, in 1949, into two rival states, the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany. This problem lies at the heart of the much-debated question regarding the origins of the Cold War. This review article makes no pretense at being a comprehensive report on the literature of the German problem. My aim is, rather, to call attention to some recent contributions to the literature and place them in context.


1993 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael C. Williams

To speak of the ‘future’ of strategy is to reveal a deep tension in the way we commonly think about the subject. On the one hand we are confronted by revolutionary changes in the geo-political landscape. The transformation of Europe, the fragmentation of the Soviet Union, and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, for example, encourage the belief that the Cold War—a term which has been almost synonymous with-strategy for nearly half a century—is now an historical artifact. These events, analyzed so intensively by leaders and commentators, open up significant questions about the future of strategy.


1986 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 163-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Kubalkova ◽  
A. A. Cruickshank

In the historiography of the Cold War a small but active group of American historians influenced by New Left radicalism rejected the view prevailing in the USA at the time in regard to the assignation of responsibility for the beginning and continuation of the Cold War.1 Although their reasoning took them along different routes and via different perceptions as to key dates and events, there were certain features all US revisionists had in common (some more generally recognized than others). Heavily involved as they were in the analysis of the US socio-economic system, the Soviet Union was largely left out of their concerns and it was the United States who had been found the ‘guilty’ party. The revisionists, of course inadvertently, corroborated Soviet conclusions, a fact gratefully acknowledged by Soviet writers.2


Author(s):  
Bent Boel

Bent Boel: Western Journalism and Soviet Bloc Dissidents During the Cold War: Themes, Approaches, Theses The role of journalism in international relations is a field which increasingly is attracting scholars’ attention. Cold War history is no exception in that regard. This article tries to identify themes, approaches and theses in the emerging literature dealing with Western journalists’ role in the Soviet Bloc during the Cold War. It more particularly discusses an issue which figures prominently in the new scholarship, namely the relationship between Western journalists and Soviet Bloc dissidents. Reflecting the bias of the literature, most examples draw on the Soviet case. The bulk of the literature on Cold War journalism discusses American (subsidiarily British) journalists in the Soviet Union and West German journalists in either the USSR or the GDR. As is shown in the article, a number of recent publications have contributed to our understanding of Western journalism in the Soviet Union and the GDR. They have, among other things, thrown new light on the working conditions of the journalists, their role as political actors, and in particular their relationship with Soviet Bloc dissidents. However, it also seems clear that we need substantially more research before we can draw firmer conclusions concerning these themes. An illustrative example could be the relationship between journalists and dissidents. One thesis developed in the new literature is that Western journalists developed a close relationship with Soviet dissidents in the late 1960s and early 1970s. To the extent that this is correct, it is an important finding, which to some degree relativizes the much celebrated impact of the so-called Helsinki process. However, it raises a number of questions. In particular, a number of contemporary testimonies point to a less homogeneous view of the Moscow correspondents: their reactions to the dissidents differed considerably and, presumably, so did their newspapers reports. And there are rather conflicting views on the attitudes of different groups of journalists. Such issues certainly deserve further investigation. In addition, a major problem with the existing literature is that it overwhelmingly focuses on the Soviet Union while ignoring other Soviet Bloc countries. Apart from the special case of West German journalism in the GDR, very little has been written about Western Journalism in Eastern Europe during the Cold War. Still another lacuna is the analysis of the journalistic output and its reception. While there are studies of media coverage of specific issues, more thorough and larger studies are required if we are to understand the possible impact of the media on international relations in this period, including, as some claim, on the ending of the Cold War.


2017 ◽  
Vol 03 (02) ◽  
pp. 159-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vladimir Yakunin

This article briefly examines the political and ideological aspects of Western countries’ post-Cold War approach to the world order. The Western triumph in the Cold War is generally attributed to reasons that are largely erroneous. The ongoing crises in international relations reveal structural inconsistencies, which have been present in the United States’ foreign strategy since the collapse of the Soviet Union and have contributed to the subsequent erosion of the global order. The article analyzes the new trends of globalization resulting from the unexpected victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. It concludes that Russia and China have now largely recognized Washington’s failure to establish a unipolar world system and to legitimize it through various political and media mechanisms and techniques. It suggests that it is only through the solidary development that both China and Russia are currently championing with their recent grand integration initiatives that a more successful and sustainable multipolar world benefiting every nation on the planet can be built and maintained.


1995 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beatrice Heuser

With the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the Soviet Union, we have come to a turning point, perhaps the most important turning point, in the short but complex history of nuclear strategy. The Cold War is now history, albeit the sort of history that we will be living with for a long time yet. It is therefore time to review the policies and strategies of the Cold War in a historical perspective. In this essay, it is NATO's nuclear strategy during the Cold War that will be the subject of such a review.2


2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 222-257
Author(s):  
James Goldgeier ◽  
Thomas W. Simons ◽  
Vladimir Pechatnov ◽  
Vladislav Zubok ◽  
Dan Caldwell ◽  
...  

Llewellyn Thompson was arguably the most influential figure who ever advised U.S. presidents about policy toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War, yet until 2018 no book-length biography of him had appeared. Fortunately, a stellar biography was published last year, and it is the subject of this book forum. Thompson's two daughters, Jenny and Sherry, wrote the book after carrying out extensive archival research. The finished book is both absorbing and illuminating, a book worthy of Thompson. Five experts offer commentaries on various aspects of the book, followed by a reply from Thompson's daughters.


Author(s):  
N. A. BELYAKOVA ◽  
N. Yu. PIVOVAROV

This article will be consider the main areas of cooperation between Soviet departments and religious organizations in international politics from the mid-1950s to the mid-1980s. Contacts of the representatives of the churches of the USSR steadily expanded in geographical and religious terms at that time. The article shows that the establishment of contacts under the religious line, material support and promotion of international relations of religious organizations of the USSR were part of “people’s democracy”. This was used as “soft power” to spread the Soviet ideological project. Religious diplomacy contributed to the reduction of international tension, was a channel of alternative relations between the two opposing superpowers in a bipolar world. At the same time, the Soviet Union continued the ideological struggle against religion and its institutions, and the socially significant activities of Soviet religious leaders were addressed only to foreign audiences.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document