The evolution of historiographical approaches to the study of the "Cold War" in the academic schools of Russia, the USA, and China.

Yanov Aleksandr Aleksandrovich ORCID: 0009-0001-5814-9110 Graduate student; Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences; RUDN University Miklukho-Maklaya str., 6, Moscow, 117198, Russia yanov356@yandex.ru

Introduction

In modern historical science, the study of the Cold War is becoming particularly relevant due to the increasing tension and the emergence of new hotbeds of geopolitical confrontation, which encourages researchers to rethink the experience of bipolar confrontation in the second half of the 20th century. The rapid development of Cold War historiography in recent decades, associated with the declassification of archival documents and the formation of new methodological approaches, creates the need for systematization and comparative analysis of various national research traditions, among which the Russian, American and Chinese schools of historiography are of particular interest, reflecting the views of key participants in modern international relations.

Scientific understanding of the evolution of historiographical approaches to the study of the Cold war acquires additional importance in the context of modern discussions about the possibility of a new cold war and the applicability of historical experience to the analysis of current international processes, while a comparative analysis of national historiographical traditions reveals both general trends in the development of historical science and specific features of perception and interpretation of historical events in various academic communities ^[1]. Of fundamental importance is the consideration of the transformation of research paradigms from traditionalist and revisionist concepts to modern multifactorial approaches that take into account cultural, social and regional aspects of global confrontation, which is reflected in the works of leading experts on the history of the Cold War ^[2].

The purpose of this study is to conduct a comparative analysis of the evolution of historiographical approaches to the study of the Cold War in Russian, American and Chinese historical scholarship, identify common trends and national specifics in the development of research traditions, as well as identify promising areas for further scientific research. The versatility of the issues under consideration necessitates an interdisciplinary approach that combines methods of historiographical analysis with elements of comparative historical and systematic approaches, which makes it possible to trace the evolution of scientific concepts in a broad historical and socio-cultural context ^[3].

The evolution of the conceptual apparatus in the study of the Cold War

The very concept of the "cold war", first used by George Orwell in 1945 and became widespread after Bernard Baruch's speech in 1947^[1], gradually gained meaningful content ^[4]. In the course of the development of historiography, there was a significant expansion of the semantic field of this term, which began to be used to refer not only to the geopolitical confrontation of superpowers, but also to a whole range of military-political, ideological, economic and socio-cultural processes of the second half of the 20th century.

A significant contribution to the development of the conceptual apparatus was made by the research of John Lewis Gaddis, who proposed considering the Cold war as a "long peace" characterized by the absence of direct military clashes between superpowers while maintaining a high level of international tension and waging local conflicts on the periphery of the bipolar system ^[5]. A significant rethinking of the conceptual foundations of the study of the Cold War took place in the works of Odd Arne Westad, who justified the need to consider the global dimension of the conflict and its impact on the processes of decolonization and modernization in third World countries ^[6].

The methodological turn in the study of the cold war, which occurred at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries, led to the formation of new conceptual approaches focusing on the cultural, social and ideological aspects of confrontation, which is reflected in the works of modern researchers who consider the cold war as a multilevel conflict affecting all spheres of public life ^[1]. A special role in the development of the conceptual apparatus was played by the introduction of the concept of the "cultural cold war" into scientific circulation, which made it possible to explore the mechanisms of ideological confrontation and the formation of mass consciousness in a bipolar world.

The current state of the conceptual apparatus is characterized by the coexistence of various theoretical approaches reflecting the multidimensionality and complexity of the phenomenon under study, while considerable attention is paid to the development of new analytical categories that allow exploring regional features and local manifestations of global confrontation ^[3].

The problem of periodization in various national traditions

In the scientific understanding of the problem of the periodization of the Cold War, differences in national historiographical traditions are clearly evident, due to both the peculiarities of methodological approaches and the specifics of the perception of key events of the bipolar confrontation in various academic communities ^[7]. The American historiographical tradition, represented in the works of John Lewis Gaddis and his followers, traditionally identifies several major periods of the Cold War, starting with the formation of the bipolar system in 1947-1949 and ending with its collapse in 1989-1991, with special attention being paid to the role of American containment policy and crisis moments in Soviet-American relations.

The Russian school of historiography, which has gone through a difficult path of transformation from Soviet ideologized approaches to modern multifactorial concepts, offers a different system of periodization, in which considerable attention is paid to the prehistory of the Cold War, including the period of World War II and the first post-war years, when the foundations of the future confrontation were laid ^[8]. Of fundamental importance for Russian researchers is the identification of the period of defusing international tension in the 1970s as a special stage in the development of the bipolar system, characterized by attempts to normalize relations between the superpowers.

The Chinese historiographical tradition, which developed under the influence of the complex relations between China and the USSR and the United States, offers its own periodization of the Cold War, taking into account the specifics of the East Asian region and the role of the Chinese factor in the global confrontation ^[9]. Chinese researchers pay special attention to the period of the Soviet-Chinese split and the subsequent rapprochement between China and the United States, considering these processes as the most important factors in the transformation of the bipolar system of international relations.

The Traditionalist paradigm in Western Historiography

The formation of the traditionalist (Orthodox) paradigm in the Western historiography of the Cold War took place in the late 1940s and early 1960s in the context of the intensification of the Soviet-American confrontation, when the dominant influence on research approaches was exerted by the concept of "deterrence" formulated by George Kennan and widely spread in American academic circles ^[10]. The fundamental position of the traditionalist trend was the thesis of the responsibility of the Soviet Union for unleashing the Cold War, while special attention was paid to the analysis of the expansionist policies of the Stalinist leadership and the ideological incompatibility of the Soviet and Western systems.

The methodological foundations of the traditionalist paradigm were laid in the works of Herbert Feis, Louis Hallet, and Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who viewed the Cold War as an inevitable consequence of Soviet policy in Eastern Europe and the USSR's desire to expand its sphere of influence ^[11]. Within the framework of this approach, the American policy of deterrence was interpreted as a forced defensive reaction to Soviet expansion, while emphasizing the continuity between the foreign policy course of tsarist Russia and the geopolitical aspirations of the Soviet leadership.

The traditionalist paradigm was reflected in the works of Adam Ulam and William McNeil, who focused on the ideological aspects of the Soviet-American confrontation, considering the Marxist-Leninist doctrine as the fundamental basis of Soviet foreign policy and a source of international tension ^[12]. Researchers paid considerable attention to the analysis of Soviet diplomacy of the post-war period, interpreting the actions of the USSR as a manifestation of a consistent strategy aimed at undermining the international order and spreading communist influence ^[13]. At the same time, the critical analysis of American foreign policy and the role of the United States in exacerbating international tensions remained outside the scope of traditionalist studies, which subsequently became one of the main objects of criticism from representatives of the revisionist trend.

The formation of the revisionist trend

The formation of the revisionist trend in the late 1950s and early 1960s marked a qualitatively new stage in understanding the causes and nature of the bipolar confrontation, associated with a critical rethinking of established concepts and the search for alternative explanations of the international processes of the post-war period ^[14]. The founder of the revisionist approach was William Appleman Williams, who proposed a fundamentally new interpretation of the origins of the Cold War, focusing on the economic interests of the United States and the desire of the American leadership for global dominance through an "open door" policy.

A significant contribution to the development of revisionist historiography was made by the works of Walter Lafeber and Gabriel Kolko, who critically analyzed the American foreign policy of the post-war period, considering it as a manifestation of the expansionist aspirations of the United States and the desire to establish global hegemony ^[15]. Within the framework of this approach, the Marshall Plan and other American foreign policy initiatives were interpreted not as humanitarian aid to European countries, but as instruments of economic and political control.

The development of the revisionist trend took place in close connection with the socio-political processes of the 1960s, when the New Left movement and the growing criticism of American foreign policy created a favorable intellectual environment for rethinking the origins of the Cold War ^[16]. An important feature of revisionist historiography was the desire to analyze the structural factors of international relations, including economic interests and class contradictions, which significantly expanded the methodological tools of Cold War research.

Of fundamental importance for the development of the revisionist trend were the works of Lloyd Gardner and Thomas McCormick, who proposed a systematic analysis of American foreign policy in the context of global economic processes and inter-imperialist rivalry ^[17]. Within the framework of this approach, the Soviet-American confrontation was considered as a consequence of objective contradictions between different models of socio-economic development, while considerable attention was paid to the analysis of the role of the military-industrial complex and corporate interests in shaping American foreign policy.

The post-Revisionist synthesis and its criticism

A fundamental feature of the post-revisionist approach was the rejection of the search for the "culprits" of the Cold War and the desire for an objective analysis of mutual perception and erroneous interpretations of the intentions of the opposite side, which was reflected in the concept of the "spiral of perceptions" developed by Robert Jervis ^[18]. Considerable attention in this area was paid to the study of the role of the personal factor and psychological aspects of foreign policy decision-making, which significantly enriched the methodological tools for studying the Cold War.

A significant contribution to the development of the post-revisionist paradigm was made by the research of Melvin Leffler and Mark Trachtenberg, who proposed new approaches to the analysis of the interaction of national interests and ideological factors in the formation of a bipolar system of international relations ^[19]. An important achievement of the post-Revisionist trend was the expansion of the research source base and a deeper analysis of Soviet foreign policy, made possible by the partial opening of Soviet archives during the perestroika period.

Despite the significant achievements of the post-revisionist synthesis in creating a more balanced picture of the Cold War, this trend was seriously criticized by representatives of the corporatist school and supporters of the cultural and historical approach ^[20]. The main objects of criticism were the lack of attention to economic factors and social processes, as well as a certain methodological eclecticism of post-revisionist research, combining elements of various theoretical approaches without their deep synthesis.

The Russian Historiographical Tradition of Cold War Research

The initial stage of the development of Soviet historiography of the Cold War was characterized by the dominance of Marxist-Leninist methodology and a class approach to the analysis of international relations, in which the bipolar confrontation was viewed primarily through the prism of the struggle between the socialist and capitalist systems.

Within the framework of the Soviet historiographical tradition of the 1950s and early 1980s, the concept of "two lines" in international relations was formed, according to which the peace-loving policy of the USSR was opposed by the aggressive course of the Western powers aimed at undermining the socialist system and establishing world domination ^[21]. A significant influence on the development of research approaches was exerted by the official ideology, which determined the main directions of interpretation of historical events and limited the possibilities of critical analysis of Soviet foreign policy.

Significant changes in conceptual approaches began to occur in the second half of the 1980s under the conditions of perestroika and glasnost policies, when it became possible to discuss complex issues of international relations more openly and rethink established historiographical schemes ^[7]. The beginning of declassification of archival materials and the expansion of scientific contacts with foreign researchers contributed to the formation of new research approaches that take into account the achievements of the world historiography of the Cold War.

The transformation of the conceptual foundations of the study of the Cold War took place in the 1990s, when Russian researchers were given the opportunity to freely search for methodology and critically rethink the Soviet legacy in the historiography of international relations ^[8]. Unambiguous ideological assessments were replaced by recognition of the complexity and multifactorial nature of historical processes, which contributed to the development of more balanced and objective approaches to the study of the Soviet-American confrontation and its consequences for world history.

In the modern Russian historiography of the Cold War, several leading research directions have been formed, reflecting various methodological approaches and theoretical concepts in the study of bipolar confrontation ^[7]. The Moscow School, represented by the works of MGIMO and MSU researchers, pays considerable attention to the analysis of the diplomatic aspects of the Cold War and the evolution of the system of international relations, with a special emphasis on the role of the personal factor and the mechanisms of foreign policy decision-making.

Of fundamental importance for the development of Russian historiography are discussions about the periodization of the Cold War and the definition of its chronological framework, within which researchers propose various approaches to identifying key stages of the Soviet-American confrontation ^[21]. An important area of scientific discussion remains the problem of the correlation of ideological and geopolitical factors in the development of bipolar confrontation, while considerable attention is paid to the analysis of the influence of domestic political processes on the formation of the USSR's foreign policy.

The St. Petersburg School of Historiography, based on the rich traditions of the study of international relations, develops a cultural and historical approach to the study of the Cold War, focusing on the problems of mutual perception and the formation of the image of the enemy in the mass consciousness ^[8]. Within the framework of this area, issues of cultural confrontation and ideological struggle are actively being developed, and the mechanisms of propaganda and information warfare between superpowers are being analyzed.

American Historiography of the Cold War

Within the framework of the American research tradition, large scientific centers have been formed specializing in the study of various aspects of the Cold War, among which the Woodrow Wilson Institute, Harvard University and the Stanford Institute for the Study of International Relations occupy a special place.

A significant contribution to the development of the methodological foundations of the study of the Cold War was made by the Yale University School, where, under the leadership of John Lewis Gaddis, the concept of a "long peace" was developed, which offered a new perspective on the nature of the Soviet-American confrontation and the mechanisms for maintaining strategic stability ^[22]. Princeton University has become a center for the development of cultural and historical trends in the study of the Cold War, paying special attention to the analysis of the ideological aspects of the confrontation and the role of mass culture in shaping public sentiment.

In the course of the evolution of American historiography, there has been a significant shift from a predominantly political and diplomatic analysis to a multifactorial study of the Cold War, taking into account the economic, social and cultural aspects of the global confrontation ^[3]. Columbia University has become a leading center for the study of the economic aspects of the Cold War, where issues of the impact of the bipolar confrontation on the development of the world economy and the formation of international economic institutions are actively being developed.

The methodological turn in American historiography associated with the development of the post-revisionist trend is reflected in the activities of the Stanford and California Universities research centers, where special attention is paid to the analysis of regional aspects of the Cold War and its impact on the processes of decolonization and modernization in third World countries ^[6]. A significant contribution to the development of new methodological approaches has been made by research conducted within the framework of the Woodrow Wilson Institute's Cold War studies program, where issues of the relationship between domestic political processes and international relations are actively being developed.

The current stage in the development of American historiography of the Cold War is characterized by the active interaction of various research centers and schools, which contributes to the formation of a more holistic and multifaceted understanding of the historical processes of the second half of the 20th century. Discussions about the causes of the end of the Cold War and the factors that contributed to the disintegration of the bipolar system of international relations are of fundamental importance for the development of American historiography ^[1]. The researchers offer various interpretations of the events of the 1980s, analyzing the role of economic, political, and ideological factors in the process of transforming the Soviet system and rethinking the foundations of Soviet-American relations, which creates the basis for a deeper understanding of the mechanisms of global historical change.

The Chinese historiographical tradition

In the process of forming research approaches, the official ideological doctrine of the CPC had a significant influence, which determined the main directions of interpretation of historical events and limited the possibilities of critical analysis of the Chinese leadership's foreign policy course.

The most important feature of the development of Chinese historiography was the close relationship of research approaches with changes in the foreign policy of the PRC, which was reflected in the evolution of assessments of the role of the Soviet Union and the United States in international relations ^[23]. The period of the Soviet-Chinese alliance in the 1950s was characterized by the dominance of Marxist-Leninist methodology and a critical attitude towards American politics, but the subsequent split between the PRC and the USSR led to a significant revision of research paradigms and the formation of a more complex view of the nature of bipolar confrontation.

The process of normalization of relations with the United States in the 1970s had a significant impact on the development of Chinese historiography, which contributed to the expansion of scientific contacts with American research centers and the gradual development of Western methodological approaches ^[24]. The policy of reform and openness initiated by Deng Xiaoping created the conditions for a more objective study of international relations during the Cold War, although the influence of the political factor on research remained significant ^[25]. Despite the continuing influence of political factors, Chinese researchers offer an alternative view of the events of the second half of the 20th century.

Comparative analysis of national approaches to the problems of the Cold War

The formation of a bipolar system of international relations after World War II became the subject of serious discussions in various national historiographical schools, offering ambiguous interpretations of the causes and mechanisms of the global confrontation between the USSR and the United States. Within the framework of the American traditionalist school, represented by the works of Herbert Feis and Arthur Schlesinger Jr., the origins of the confrontation were mainly associated with the expansionist policy of the Soviet leadership in Eastern Europe and the ideological incompatibility of the two systems ^[11].

Table 1. Comparative characteristics of national historiographical approaches to the study of the Cold War

Source: compiled by the author on the basis of research ^{[7],[5],[6],[27],[12],[23],[1]}.

A fundamentally different approach to the analysis of the origins of the Cold War was proposed by representatives of the revisionist trend, who considered the bipolar confrontation as a consequence of the American policy of economic expansion and the desire for global dominance. The founder of this trend, William Appleman Williams, traced the origins of the confrontation to the end of the 19th century, linking them with the formation of the American strategy of "open doors" and economic penetration into foreign markets ^[27]. This approach was significantly developed in the works of Walter Lafeber, who convincingly demonstrated the relationship between the economic interests of the United States and the aggravation of relations with the Soviet Union in the post-war period ^[17].

In the Russian historiographical tradition, considerable attention has been paid to the analysis of the geopolitical aspects of the formation of the bipolar system, while emphasizing the role of objective contradictions between the great powers in the post-war settlement process. Modern Russian researchers, relying on declassified archival materials, have presented a more balanced picture of the origin of the Cold War, taking into account the influence of both ideological and geopolitical factors on the aggravation of Soviet-American relations ^[21].

The Chinese historiographical tradition, which developed under the influence of the complex relations between China and the USSR and the United States, offered a special view on the origin of the bipolar confrontation, focusing on the role of the Asian factor in the formation of a new system of international relations. Research by Chinese historians has shown the importance of the 1949 revolution and the subsequent Soviet-Chinese alliance for the crystallization of the bipolar structure of world politics ^[9]. Melvin Leffler and Mark Trachtenberg demonstrated the role of erroneous interpretations and psychological factors in the formation of a confrontational model of relations between superpowers ^[19].

The traditionalist trend in Western historiography, represented by the works of Adam Ulam and William McNeil, emphasized the decisive role of the ideological confrontation between liberal democracy and communism, considering the Marxist-Leninist doctrine as the fundamental basis of Soviet foreign policy ^[12].

Within the framework of the post-revisionist approach, there has been a significant rethinking of the relationship between ideology and geopolitics, with special attention paid to the analysis of the interaction of these factors in the process of making foreign policy decisions. The research of John Lewis Gaddis showed how ideological attitudes influenced the perception of geopolitical interests and the formation of strategic concepts of the warring parties, creating a specific logic of bipolar confrontation ^[26].

The Russian historiographical tradition, overcoming the limitations of the Soviet period, presented a deeper analysis of the interrelationship of the ideological and geopolitical aspects of the Cold War. Modern Russian researchers have convincingly shown how the geopolitical interests of the USSR in Eastern Europe and other regions of the world were ideologically justified within the framework of the concept of the world socialist system, while pragmatic security considerations often prevailed over ideological attitudes ^[7].

The Chinese School of Historiography has contributed to understanding the role of ideology and geopolitics through the prism of the Soviet-Chinese split and the subsequent rapprochement of China with the United States. Chinese historians' research has demonstrated how ideological differences between the communist powers intertwined with geopolitical rivalry, leading to fundamental changes in the structure of international relations ^[23].

Within the framework of modern research approaches, there has been a significant revision of traditional ideas about the peripheral nature of regional conflicts, which have been replaced by a deeper understanding of their role in the transformation of the bipolar system of international relations. Odd Arne Westad's research contributed to the rethinking of the regional aspects of the Cold War, showing how the confrontation between the superpowers was intertwined with the processes of decolonization and the national liberation movement in third World countries ^[6]. Using the example of conflicts in Southeast Asia, Latin America, and Africa, the researchers demonstrated the complex interaction of global and local factors that determined the dynamics of regional confrontations.

Overcoming the limitations of the traditionalist approach, American historiography has provided a more detailed analysis of the role of regional actors in the development of the Cold War. Research conducted as part of the Woodrow Wilson Institute's Cold War studies program has shown how local elites used the contradictions between the superpowers to advance their own interests, which significantly complicated the picture of bipolar confrontation.

In the context of the analysis of the regional dimensions of the Cold War, the research of Chinese historians, revealing the specifics of the conflict in East Asia, is of particular importance. Works devoted to the Soviet-Chinese split and its impact on the regional system of international relations have shown how ideological differences between the communist powers created new lines of tension beyond the simple confrontation between East and West ^[27].

The Russian historiographical tradition has made a significant contribution to understanding the role of regional conflicts through the prism of Soviet policy in socialist-oriented countries. Research based on declassified archival materials has made it possible to trace the evolution of Soviet approaches to regional problems and identify contradictions between the ideological attitudes and practical interests of the USSR in various parts of the world ^[7]. At the same time, special attention is paid to the analysis of the impact of regional crises on the transformation of the Soviet foreign policy strategy and the revision of the conceptual foundations of relations with the Allies.

Conclusion

In each of the historiographical schools considered, there is a complex dialectic of interaction between political factors and the development of scientific methodology, while the degree of influence of state ideology on research approaches varied significantly in different periods and in different countries. A characteristic feature of the development of Cold War historiography was the gradual convergence of methodological approaches of various national schools while preserving specific features in the interpretation of key events and processes. Paradoxically, the expansion of the research source base and the declassification of archival materials led not to the unification of historical assessments, but to the formation of a more complex and multifaceted picture of the bipolar confrontation, taking into account the multiplicity of perspectives and interpretations.

The analysis of the mechanisms of mutual perception and intellectual interaction between different research schools is of fundamental importance for understanding the specifics of national historiographical traditions. In particular, Chinese historiography, which developed in the context of complex relations with the USSR and the USA, formed a unique approach to the analysis of the Cold War, combining elements of Marxist methodology with traditional concepts of Chinese political thought.

A comparative analysis shows that the most productive results in the study of the Cold War are achieved by combining various methodological approaches and research traditions. At the same time, the regional dimension of global confrontation, which has long remained on the periphery of research attention, is becoming increasingly important for understanding the mechanisms of evolution of the bipolar system of international relations.

An in-depth study of the cultural aspects of the Cold War and their influence on the formation of national historiographical traditions seems to be a promising area for further research. Special attention should be paid to the analysis of the role of historical memory and collective representations in the interpretation of the events of the bipolar confrontation by various national schools.