Book World Live

"Gaddis's latest book boils down the history of the entire Cold War to a sometimes brilliant 266 pages of text, in trenchant, lucid prose intended not for historians and specialists but for ordinary readers. He has not done much new archival field work to produce this new synthesis, and, at times, he relies heavily on his previous work. Yet to Gaddis's credit, he does not merely rewrite himself or retrace the main events from 1946 to 1991. Instead, he stretches to find new ways (like his startling Korean counterfactual above) to cover the subject, stepping back and looking at the entire period with distance and perspective." ( Long Twilight Struggle , Jan. 29)

Author John Lewis Gaddis is online to take questions and comments about his new book and the events of the Cold War.

John Lewish Gaddis is a history professor at Yale University and the author of several books on the Cold War.

Join Book World Live each Tuesday at 3 p.m. ET for a discussion based on a story or review in each Sunday's Book World section.

____________________

Laurel, Md.: The Soviet Union probably suffered as much in WWII as any large nation ever suffered in a war they won.

During the Cold War period, did the United States sufficiently well understand the Soviet's legitimate security needs, or was every defensive measure interpreted (or grandstanded) and a form of imperialism?

John Lewis Gaddis: You're certainly right about Soviet suffering. The second part of the question depends on what you mean by "legitimate security needs." For most of the Cold War, it was never completely clear what those were. Was it "legitimate," for example, for the USSR to blockade Berlin, or to crush the Hungarian uprising, or so send missiles to Cuba, or to invade Afghanistan? Soviet leaders argued, in each instance, that it was, but American leaders can perhaps be pardoned for questioning this.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: If, as I understand you, the war of ideas, of values concretely and actually lived, was an important element in the victory of the United States, what implications does this have for evaluating some of the most contested episodes in U.S. Cold War history--such as the various coups that we sponsored in the 50s, the Vietnam War, our intervention in Central America and support for South Africa? Were these as esssential as some argued at the time? Or did they damage our prestige and our perceived commitment to the values we espoused?

John Lewis Gaddis: No, they were not as essential as some argued at the time, and they did definitely damage our prestige -- they also led, as I argue in the book, to considerable soul-searching on our own part. But these things need to be kept in perspective: nothing that the US and its allies did came anywhere close to producing the human costs -- both in the number of people killed and the number of lives blighted -- as did the behavior of the Soviet Union under Stalin, or China under Mao.

_______________________

McLean, Va: How is the book on George Frost Kennan going? I mean are you going to be writing it and when does it come out?

John Lewis Gaddis: Excellent question. The understanding was always that it would appear posthumously, and Kennan died only last year at 101. The research is done, but I want to write it all at one time, which means getting a year or two of academic leave. That's tough when you teach about 400 students a year, but I'm workin' on it.

_______________________

Rochester, NY: At a recent Hofstra University symposium on the Clinton legacy, former Defense Secretary William J. Perry indicated that he thinks the odds are probably 50-50 that the United States or western nation will suffer a WMD attack by terrorists over the next decade.

As you probably know, he is a veteran of the Cold War who fashioned a reputation over several decades as a very clear thinker. In other words, his appraisal of our current security risks is terrifying.

Do you share his pessimism?

John Lewis Gaddis: I think Bill Perry's assessment is actually optimistic -- I'd rate the chances even higher. But remember, the kind of WMD attack he's talking about, while devastating, would not mean the end of the world. That's different from the Cold War, when the possibility of a large-scale exchange of thousands of nuclear weapons existed.

_______________________

Chennai, India : Sir, Do you foresee some kind of Cold War developing between the United States and China in the near future, say, within 10-15 years, since China's rapid economic growth will put it on a firm footing to challenge the U.S. Anticipating this, it seems, the U.S. is cosying up to India so as to make it as a foil to the growing China. I would be happy to have your opinion.With regards, Narasimha Varadhan

John Lewis Gaddis: A cold war with China is always possible, and I certainly think the Bush administration has made a point of improving relations with India in the hope of encouraging a balance of power in Asia. Keep in mind, though, that China is very different from the old Soviet Union in the extent to which it's integrated into the global capitalist system. That was never true of the USSR.

_______________________

Richmond, Va: After World War II, there were a group of serious people who thought the currents of history were moving toward world government. The dreams of the World Federalist Society of course turned out to be a bit premature.

Still, it seems to me that all the great problems of modern society--security, criminal syndicates, environmental catastrophe, economic fairness--are international in character. So, too, it would seem, must effective remedies be international in character.

Do you think over the medium-term--say the next three or four decades--we are headed toward a global polity? Or is there no way that a world ruled by nation-states could transform that dramatically?

John Lewis Gaddis: I think it's going to be a mix, as indeed it was during the Cold War. That period saw the emergence of lots of international organizations -- often NGOs -- focused on specific problems, even though the United Nations never worked as its founders had intended. That's continued into the post-Cold War period, and I think it will continue to continue.

_______________________

Northfield, Minn: It seems to me that, like it or not, the Bush administration has moved from a professed strategy of preemption to a defacto strategy of containment with regard to Iran and North Korea and their weapons.

Do you agree with this? If so, is anyone in the administration or outside actually consructing the intellectual pillars of such a strategy, the way George Kennan and others tried to look long into the future 60 years ago?

One has the sense of our leaders desperately improvising, on the edge of catastrophe.

John Lewis Gaddis: I agree and the answer is, yes they are. I've been involved in some conversations with them about just this analogy.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va: Prof. Gaddis, I loved the book, but the cover was rather conventional and even boring. Shouldn't a historical distillation of the sort your wrote have been accompanied by some more creative image or illustration on the jacket?

John Lewis Gaddis: There's a story to that. The publishers proposed five or six covers, all with mushroom clouds, barbed wire, radiation symbols, and the like. But the book argues that the Cold War was a hopeful experience for humankind: I wanted a picture of Greek warriors playing chess with swords and shields stacked. They said that would look too much like a book on Greek history. So we compromised on plain text, with the lettering the color of a Greek vase. Some people like it, some don't.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: Dear Professor Gaddis,

I am conducting research on Sino-Russian relations.

On page 109, you state that "Khrushchev agonized over what to do; but in the end, under pressure from Mao Zedong, he ordered Soviet troops to re-enter Hungary and crush the rebellion."

This is the first time I have seen reference to this, but you do not provide any sourcing for this information.

Where did you get this information?

Thank you.

John Lewis Gaddis: See Bill Taubman's Khrushchev biography, p. 297; also check out the documentation on Mao and Hungary on the Cold War International History Project website.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Reagan and Thatcher didn't put Gorbachev in power. Does that undermine your thesis?

John Lewis Gaddis: No, of course they didn't. But I think their policies did place the old Soviet system under strain -- especially the prospect of competing with SDI -- which then created a strong incentive in the Kremlin, after Chernenko's death, to bring in a new kind of leader.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: The good guys won the Cold War. But to win, they did a lot of bad things. And to this day, we're paying the price (Iran! etc). Does it not make sense to call out those areas where the U.S. failed to live up to its democratic ideals (Guatemala, Chile, etc. etc.)?

John Lewis Gaddis: Sure it does, and I do in the book. See Chapter Five.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: What parallels, if any, do you see when comparing the current war on terror to the early years of the Cold War?

John Lewis Gaddis: The chief one, I think, is that 9/11 forced the Bush administration to design a new grand strategy, the first time any administration had really had to do that since Truman's. Like containment, the Bush strategy has had its successes and failures; but I suspect the long-term objective Bush has set of seeking to end terrorism through the promotion of democracy everywhere is one future administrations won't abandon, anymore than Truman's successors abandoned his long-term objective.

_______________________

Harrisonburg, Va.: Professor Gaddis, are there any new real changes in this new book since We Now Know, or any relevant updates at all from the archives of the major countries involved in the Cold War (i.e., the Soviet bloc, etc.)?

John Lewis Gaddis: What's new is two things, or maybe two and a half. We Now Know was written for my scholarly colleagues, the new book is chiefly written for my students. Also, the new book covers the entire Cold War; WNK stopped in 1962. Finally, there is new information sprinkled throughout, and the final chapter on the end of the Cold War reflects quite a lot of new information from the Soviet and East European archives, filtered of course through the ever-helpful services of the Cold War International History Project.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: The Marxist-revisionist histories of the Cold War are not as compelling as your work and similar writings. But at times their analysis rings crystal clear. Take the current U.S. relations with mainland China. Certainly, they are defined entirely by economics, and the U.S. will do nothing to interrupt the huge flow of trade between the two countries. Human rights in China? Who cares, just keep those shelves at Wal-Mart stocked with cheap goods.

John Lewis Gaddis: Hmm -- if it's all about economics, then why don't we just tell the Chinese they can take back Taiwan? This is a little like the arguments one hears about Iraq: if it was all about oil, why didn't we just cut a deal with Saddam Hussein to sell us all we needed? Or, for that matter, why have we supported Israel all this time? I think the assumption that economics is at the root of everything is too simple.

_______________________

Rialto, Calif.: Why did FDR so want to trust Stalin, when it was evident by most, that Stalin never intended to live up to Yalta, or would Stalin have been different had FDR lived?

John Lewis Gaddis: Well, I think because he didn't want a Cold War. FDR probably believed he had to try a diplomatic deal with Stalin; but when Stalin reneged on Yalta, FDR immediately noted this, complained about it -- but then died.

_______________________

Purcellville, Va.: How important was ideology in shaping the USSR's foreign policy?

John Lewis Gaddis: Very, much more so than most of us used to think. You'll see that argument reflected in the book.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: What do you think of the idea that Russia holds the trump card in a Sino-American war?

John Lewis Gaddis: Russia does hold something of a trump card at the moment because of its energy resources, but how useful that would be in the (I think) unlikely event of a Sino-American war is doubtful to me. Keep in mind that energy is about the only strength Russia has at the moment.

_______________________

New York: Christopher Hitchens has waged a one-man war against Henry Kissinger over the years, arguing that Kissinger is guilty of great crimes against humanity. Kissinger committed those "crimes" as part of the U.S. Cold War policy. What's your take on Hitchens and Kissinger?

John Lewis Gaddis: I think Hitchens on this point has been shrill, strident,and silly. He usually does better than this.

_______________________

Louisville, Ky.: How much do we owe the "wise men" who helped form containment -- Acheson, Kennan, etc.? Was there something about their backgrounds that was special?

John Lewis Gaddis: We owe a lot. Their backgrounds were diverse, but they'd all gone through the war, they all had a sense of the importance of national security, they didn't take cheap domestic political shots, and -- for Kennan at least -- they'd studied history.

_______________________

Savage, Md.: The Cold War created a domestic political environment in which it became easy to attack citizen's patriotism for their stand on certain foreign policy issues and military spending. A situation that's carried over into much of the current debate how to conduct the war on terror and the Iraq invasion.

Other than our weapons, what other forms of strength (e.g. a commitment to human rights in foreign policy) allowed us to win the Cold War?

John Lewis Gaddis: Quite a number. First, our insistence on coupling post-WWII reconstruction with a revival of democratic institutions. Second, that we had a long term objective of supporting freedom and resisting tyranny. Third, that we had a most effective ally, the Soviet Union, which by comparison made us look very good indeed to most of the rest of the world.

_______________________

Annapolis, Md.: Given the sometimes exaggerated fears of the other side (the bomber and missile gaps, the insistence thet the Soviets were bent on world domination), does the history of intelligence in the Cold War offer any cautionary tales about our current tendency to see Terrorists as everywhere, as extremely powerful and sophisticated, and as bent on world domination? And to follow up, Without being complacent, shouldn't we be asking why a group of men that don't pose the existential threat the Soviets did can require a reordering of our constitutional rights that the Cold War never did?

John Lewis Gaddis: Intelligence should always require cautionary tales, because it's a hugely difficult business, and it's always hard to get right. On constitutional rights, some historical perspective is helpful. Is the Bush record worse than that of Johnson and Nixon, with their wiretap and domestic surveillance programs? Or of Truman with the loyalty probes? Or of FDR, who locked up 120,000 Japanese-Americans? Or of Wilson with the Red Scare? Or of Lincoln during the Civil War?

_______________________

Louisville, Ky: Ronald Reagan is often given credit for winning the Cold War. How much credit should George Kennan get for being the architect of containment, the policy that Reagan helped carry out?

John Lewis Gaddis: Kennan should have most of the credit for containment, of course. For more on this, see the new edition of my STRATEGIES OF CONTAINMENT, where I talk about the Kennan-Reagan connection.

_______________________

Munich, Germany: If Eisenhower believed in planning only for total war, when exactly did the concept of limited nuclear engagement or strategic nuclear weapons gain traction among defense strategists? Was this still during the Cold War or afterwards?

John Lewis Gaddis: The concept of limited nuclear engagement developed during the Eisenhower years, which was precisely why Ike insisted on planning only for total war: he never bought the argument that you could have a limited nuclear war.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: What do you think of Eisenhower's farewell address in which he cautioned Americans about the "military-industrial complex?"

John Lewis Gaddis: I think it was somewhat exaggerated. The American military-industrial complex turned out not to be nearly as oppressive or expensive as its Soviet counterpart.

_______________________

Anonymous: I haven't read your book yet, but I read in the review that Stalin was surprised at the cooperation between Western powers.

Did Stalin base the success of Communism and the Soviet empire on the presumption that capitalist countries would go to war against each other?

This idea certainly sounds outragiously inacurate now.

John Lewis Gaddis: He did. And of course since this was Lenin's idea, it did not sound outrageous to the followers of Lenin at the time, who treated his pronouncements as if they were the Ten Commandments.

_______________________

Laurel, Md.: In many areas of the world, most noteworthy the Middle East, the Cold War created a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality toward regimes we would otherwise not have approved of (Saddam and the Taliban come to mind).

Under either Clinton or Bush the younger, did most of the world ever come to see U.S. foreign policy as standing for anything right, or just for our nationalisitc interests?

John Lewis Gaddis: That's sort of a loaded question -- "did most of the world ever come to see U.S. foreign policy as standing for anything right" -- and of course it's impossible to answer precisely. But keep in mind one simple standard: how many people in the world would jump at the chance to move to the U.S. and become American citizens, if given the opportunity? Then balance that against the anti-American rhetoric that's so prevalent, and see where you come out. The answer's not obvious.

_______________________

San Bernardino, Calif: How would you describe our current situation. Is this WWIII, are these (Afghanistan, Iraq), etc. skirmishes, like Korea or Vietnam during the Cold War. What is happening right now?

John Lewis Gaddis: No, it's not WWIII, and it's not the Cold War either. But there is a war being waged against the international state system itself, and the Middle East is where it's taking place. I don't think it's as dangerous as either WWII or the Cold War, but it can't be neglected because in this situation, as we saw on 9/11, a few people can do a huge amount of damage.

_______________________

Lyme, Conn.: Recalling the "guns versus butter" arguments in the 1960s and 1970s where it was debated if would could afford both social policies and a strong defense, would you find it ironic that perhaps that debate should have raged more strongly in the Soviet Union than within the United States? How did the economic circumstances of the Soviet Union lead to its eventual economic collapse?

John Lewis Gaddis: It should of course have raged within the USSR, given the fact that they were putting something like 25% of GDP into military expenditures when we never put more than 10% during the Cold War -- and much less than that during its final two decades. But open debate wasn't allowed in the USSR. So yes, the inability to confront this issue certainly did contribute to Soviet decline.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill: What do you think of the idea that America, now bereft of the Soviet bogeyman, has one-upped the Soviets by transforming itself into the empire that is feared? America's loss of credibility, of its moral authority and political capital, may be far more deleterious to the national wealth than its massive budget and trade deficits because "in becoming an empire it risks losing its soul as a republic."

John Lewis Gaddis: There's a significant point here. We've always been an empire of sorts -- even Jefferson spoke favorably of an "empire of liberty." But we always in the past had rivals, usually more feared than we were. The rivals today are movements like al-Qaeda and rogue states like Iran and North Korea -- and they create different kinds of fears. My guess is that if any of them should at some point pull off a major WMD attack, the "fears" of the U.S. that exist so widely would quickly turn to calls to "do something!"

_______________________

Harrisburg, Pa.: Do you see any lessons from the Cold War, such as what we learned from fighting a guerilla nationalistic warfare enemy in Viet Nam, that could be useful in advising current policy makers?

John Lewis Gaddis: Sure, you can always learn things from history. The most important thing is to be clear on how the current situation is similar to, and different from, the Vietnam situation. One example of each. A similarity is that what happens on the home front will certainly affect our ability to fight the war in which we're engaged. A difference is that it's not the same kind of war: Iraq is not Vietman.

_______________________

Gaithersburg, Md.: How much negative consequence still exists today for America's support for allies of convenience like Pahlevi, Marcos and Mobutu?

John Lewis Gaddis: Depends on the country. Lots in Iran, because the government there keeps the resentment alive. A good deal less in places like the Philippines and Chile, where the governments in power have chosen to focus more on the present and the future than on the past. Hard to say about the Congo, because so many interventions and atrocities occurred there, only some of which the US was involved in.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: What histories of the Cold War would you recommend (other than your own, of course)?

John Lewis Gaddis: A truly loaded question! No way I can answer it without upsetting some fellow historian, so I'll refrain.

_______________________

Berlin, Germany : Among other things, the Cold War era saw the birth of a phase of American restraint and multilateralism. Both of these qualitities have been abandoned by the Bush administration. Is the US in danger of losing its leadership role if it refuses to listen to others?

John Lewis Gaddis: Of course that's a danger, but I don't agree that the Bush administration has abandoned multilateralism -- they're doing a lot of that, for example, on Iran and North Korea.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Thanks to John Lewis Gaddis and to everyone who participated.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.