Assess The Validity Of A Historian Analysis

There are many factors that can determine why a historian arrives at a certain viewpoint. These are factors not limited to: The zeitgeist in which the source was written, the information available to them (e.g. where the US or Soviet archives open to the historian), the focus of the source, the historical methods employed, the assumptions they make, their political convictions and their agenda (the purpose of the source). Evaluating these different areas can help explain the various discrepancies between articles.

The later a source was written, the greater the wealth of knowledge available to the historian.
As historians are able to read and expand previously written accounts. This is particularly evident in the work of Gaddis as on page
His reliance quotes from an unnamed source could mean that he is relying on possibly the misquoted words of Truman to further his argument. This is an example of how a certain historian could have arrived at a certain view based on misquote of a president. For this example, Williams is not using sound historical methods to further his arguments, eye witness accounts are usually the most unreliable. Gaddis also uses dodgy historical methods to further his arguments. Gaddis claims in regards to containment evolving against the will of the American people “Indeed some post revisionists have suggested that public and congressional opinion moved in this direction before the policymakers did.” Gaddis proceeds to footnote this sentence in his work to give an example of Post revisionists that have put forward this thesis and then footnotes himself and cites his own book “The United States and the origins of the cold war, 1941-1947”. this makes his point look very weak as if he can’t even cite another historian except himself it makes it look like no other Post-Revisionist historians hold this view and the statement “some revisionists…” means he is the only one. This another example of how a statement can be misleading if footnotes are not checked. Conversely, Schlesinger seems only to reference his work from well respected
These assumptions are usually based on the political convictions of the historians. This evident in the contrasting opinions of Williams, Gaddis and Schlesinger, regarding the role Marxist ideology played in the outset of the cold war of the Soviet regime. The nature of the Soviet regime is vital in understanding the US’s role in the outbreak of the cold war, as whether or not the USSR acted like a traditional nationalist state or was compelled by ideology is essential in understanding whether the conflict was avoidable or not and whether the actions of the US made a difference. Indeed, Schlesinger asserts that the conflict could have been avoidable only if the USSR was not convinced of the infallibility of the communist system. Gaddis asserts the lack of an “ideological blueprint for world revolution in Stalin’s mind”, whereas Schlesinger asserts the USSR was a Messianic power possessed by Marxist-Leninist ideology bent on world domination. Williams however claims that the soviet threat was largely exaggerated in order to convince congress to ratify the Marshall plan. How can we account for this discrepancy? Schlesinger comes to this conclusion based on the teachings of Lenin, who stated that while both capitalism and communism exist there cannot be peace between the two. However, Schlesinger is basing this assumption not on the actual actions of the Soviets, but