The issue was covered by propaganda that it has led to the development of several schools of thought. All these perspectives make valid arguments, but none can provide a definitive answer on its own. The several schools of thought are the orthodox or traditional, the revisionist, and the post revisionist which are going in deeply in next points.
The first school Allocate of blame that the Soviets were to blame! This view for the first school which is orthodox or traditional of the Cold War has never really gone away, and there have always been people who have seen the Soviet Union as the cause of the confrontation. By far, the most common opinion of people notes that all the contributors seem to come either from America or Britain. The traditional or orthodox based their writings on the remarkable of a group of men who had been involved with Russia before and after the Second World War, mainly through positions as foreign representatives of the United States in Moscow. The most famous of this group is probably "George F. Kennan, the author of the Long Telegram of 22 February 1946 (Doc.18), and in his anonymous "Mr. X" article in the journal Foreign Affairs in the July 1947 (Doc.26)"(McCauley, 1995 p.9)(2). Both of these documents, as well as Mr. Kennan himself through personal involvement, had a strong influence on the attitudes of the American government, and can be seen as key elements which set the stage for containment. As a result, the blame for the escalation of the conflict was placed on the Kremlin by traditionalists. These traditionalist theorists felt that the US had attempts to co-operate with the Soviet Union after the Second World War, but the Soviet drive for world domination, fueled by Communist ideologies. It was this argument that was widely accepted by the American people. However, it was not the only viewpoint that Western scholars put forth. Traditionalist historians follow the orthodox view that the Soviet Union is to blame. They say that it should have accepted the goodwill which the USA offered, such as the Baruch Plan and the coincidence of the east European states. In return the Soviets refused to compromise. according to the compromise, They blame Stalin for his refusal to it, for exaggerating his situation, for not keeping the promises he made at Yalta in 1945, for not helping the Polish when they revolted against the Nazis during the Warsaw Rising of 1944, for killing Polish officers in Katyn and overall for the Nazi-Soviet Pact which brutally carved up Poland. The consequence of that they see his dictatorship and the killings of his people as proof of his intentions for the rest of the World.
Secondly, which are some historians blamed the US for the cold war. They were called the 'revisionists'. This 'revisionist' approach reached its peak during the Vietnam War when many people suggested that America was as bad as Russia. Some a revisionist people blames the USA for the cause of Cold War. Typically they see the huge losses which the Soviets suffered during the war as also being key to their position in 1945.They believe that they had a right to claim Eastern Europe for defense purposes and they had evidence for this. There are many statistics showing their sufferings, such as more than 25 million Soviets who died from the war and they think that the USA was the cause and should have opened a second front earlier; Stalin was right not to trust the Americans. Some revisionist people for example William and Gabriel Kolko and Gabriel argued that he blames the United States for the Cold War', and he suggested that Truman should have given Stalin the atomic bomb in 1945, claimed that Russia treated Poland well in 1945. However, in 1959 Williams argued that the aim of the Americans in the years after the war was to make sure that there was an open trade for American, and that this led the American government to try to make sure that countries remained capitalist countries like the USA. Comparing with the traditional view (opposite) "World War II and its aftermath witnessed the definitive smashing of a world political order and economic order that began tottering after 1917"(Gabriel, 1969 p.4)(3) and later goes on to blame the USA for this.
Finally, a third school of thought had declared , which is called the post-revisionist school, which investigate the case in both sides, and concedes that each side played a part in the escalation of the conflict. This school is the most currently active, and is the one which is providing clear understanding of the history of the origins of the Cold War. This new scholarship is not as acutely subject to the tensions and resulting biases of former Cold War theorists, as they have the benefit of hindsight. Furthermore, documents from the Soviet Union are slowly being made available for Western interpretation, which will shed some light on the true intentions of Stalin and his Communist regime. Hopefully, these factors will finally clarifying the question of how, and why, the Cold War came to dominate the latter half of the century. However, a group of historians called the 'post-revisionists' tried to present the foundations of the Cold War as neither the blame of the Americans or the USSR. As post- revisionist views, such as John Lewis Gaddis, who believed that both America and Russia wanted to keep the peace after the war but that conflict was caused by mutual misunderstanding, reactivity, and above all the American inability to understand Stalin's fears and need to defend himself after the war.
In fact Ideological clashes caused the Cold War. There are two ideologies existed; the general view among historians is that these two ideologies and the political systems were not compatible. Actually there is no possibility of compromise for Marxism-Leninism states. The few people who believed that they were compatible were proved wrong as soon as the Cold War began in earnest, and so this is a typical post-revisionist view made of the Cold War "In 1947 the United States had to face the reality that there was an adversary which also had a universalist dream for mankind, and it would be futile to pretend that one world could be created out of them."(McCauley, 1995 p.26)(4). The Traditionalist historians prefer not to blame the clash of ideologies for the Cold War. They see ideology as not being true proof to Soviet conduct. They did not see any proportion in Stalin's policies, and so Traditionalists blame Stalin, because his system was not communist or particularly socialist, they think that the American policy makers actually did a good job of understanding Stalin and the confusing way when he ran his country. He did not support all revolutionary movements whilst remain acting expansionist. The clash of ideologies was absolute, but the extent to which they clashed was not. Thus I have concluded and discussed the schools of thought and a brief description of the causes of the Cold War, whilst mentioning little about the actual clash of ideologies. These, simply, were such that the two Superpowers believed that there was no way that the two ideologies could co-exist.
To sum up this essay I would say truly that the fundamental cause of the cold war was never a clash of Capitalism-Communism, because Communism was arguably, never achieved. It is unlikely that the two different social systems could co-exist, but if it had not been for all the other causes of the Cold War, the struggle might not have been as long or as dangerous, thus I do not believe that this, itself is the cause of the Cold War, but it did create many of the other causes. I would argue that the clash of ideologies did not cause the Cold War but caused the causes of the Cold War. It is tricky to relate these causes to any side of the argument. Overall, I think that the causes of the Cold War fall into the superpower struggle side, more than the ideological one. By understanding the causes of the Cold War historians it is not possible to blame any person or any country for the Cold War which I think. The Cold War was the result of the clash of two different ideas, neither of the two superpowers caused it, but some people, or groups of people of the same opinion, lengthened, worsened or possibly even shortened the war.
References:
1. Hobsbawn, E. (1994), Age of Extremes: The short twentieth century 1914-1991, London: Michael Joseph. P.236
2. McCauley, M.(1995), The Origins of the Cold War 1941-1949, 2ed Edition, London: Longman. P.9
3.Gabriel, K.(1969), The politics of power: Allied diplomacy and the world crisis of 1943-1945, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, p.4.
4. McCauley, M.(1995), The Origins of the Cold War 1941-1949, 2ed Edition, London: Longman. P.26.
Bibliography:
1. McCauley, M. The Origins of the Cold War 1941-1949, 2ed Edition, London: Longman 1995.
2. John Lewis, G. Russia, the Soviet Union and the United States: an interpretive history, New York: Chichester: Wiley, 1978.
3. John Lewis, G. The United States and the origins of the Cold War 1941-1947, New York: Colombia University press, 1972.
4. Hobsbawn, E. Age of Extremes: The short twentieth century 1914-1991, London: Michael Joseph, 1994.
5. Gabriel, K. The politics of power: Allied diplomacy and the world crisis of 1943-1945, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969.
6. William Appleman, W. The tragedy of American diplomacy, New Edition, London: Norton, 1988.
