| |

|
|
Days
of Duck and Cover
Among
Yale undergraduates, the Cold War is hot -- at least when it's
taught by historian John Lewis Gaddis. Armed with new information
from Soviet archives, Gaddis is reframing conventional views of
the conflict that dominated international affairs for almost half
a century.
by
Mark Alden Branch
March 2000
Most
of this year's Yale seniors were 11 in 1989, when the fall of the
Berlin Wall became the Cold War equivalent of VE-Day. Students
now come to college with little or no memory of the passions and
fears that pervaded postwar American life for more than 40 years.
But that hasn't stopped hundreds of students from beating a path
to John Lewis Gaddis's lecture course, "The Cold War."
Just three years after his arrival at Yale, Gaddis's course has
become the most popular in the College, and he has had to restrict
enrollment to 380 students and bar freshmen. By now, nearly a quarter
of the College has heard Gaddis's take on the conflict that dominated
international affairs in the latter half of the 20th century.
The students
are attracted by the importance of the events, to be sure, but many
also cite Gaddis's compelling teaching style. While his own scholarship
focuses on the high-level dealings of superpowers during the Cold
War, he makes a point of emphasizing in his course how that clash
of nations affected ordinary people on both sides. Gaddis's approach
shows them that behind terms like "brinksmanship," "containment,"
and "mutually assured destruction" are events that shaped
the lives of their parents and grandparents.
Gaddis,
who came to Yale from Ohio University in 1997, has spent his career
writing about those events. He has earned a reputation as the dean
of Cold War historians, championing a "post-revisionist"
approach that seeks to avoid the political polarization that has
long plagued the field. In recent years, Gaddis has been the leading
synthesizer of material coming out of archives in the former Soviet
Union and Eastern Europe. (His 1997 book We Now Know summarizes
what has been learned so far from those sources.) His expertise
has been sought by the CIA and the Naval War College, and he has
written articles for Time, the Atlantic, and U.S. News and World
Report.
But in
his time at Yale, Gaddis has been lunching more with undergraduates
than with editors and diplomats. "[Department chair] Robin
Winks said I would fall in love
with the undergraduates, and he was right," says Gaddis, 58.
"Three of the four classes I'm teaching now are in the College.
I never thought I'd do so much undergraduate teaching. It's the
opposite of the typical career trajectory."
Gaddis
teaches junior and senior history seminars, but it is his lecture
course that has made him a campus celebrity to rival Jonathan Spence
or Vincent Scully (or Gaddis
Smith, another international historian with whom Gaddis is sometimes
confused). Gaddis had taught a course on the Cold War before, but
his Yale course has been informed by his experience as one of the
three historians who consulted on the making of CNN's 24-hour documentary
series The Cold War, which premiered last fall. Gaddis, along with
British historian Lawrence Freedman and Russian Vladislav Zubok,
worked with the producers of the $12-million project, which was
the brainchild of CNN chair Ted Turner, to ensure an accurate and
balanced picture of the events.
What
Gaddis took from the experience was an admiration for the filmmakers'
efforts to put a human face on the conflict. When discussing the
Marshall Plan, for example, the documentary includes newsreel footage
of American mules being sent to Greek farmers. The producers tracked
down and interviewed some of the very farmers who received the mules.
Similarly, they put ads in German newspapers in an effort to identify
filmed images of people trying to cross the Berlin Wall, and then
interviewed the subjects. "That's something a historian wouldn't
have thought of doing," says Gaddis. "They contributed
new ways of seeing."
Since
he came to Yale in 1997, Gaddis has used segments from the documentary
to augment his lectures. In a typical 75-minute class in the Art
Gallery Lecture Hall, Gaddis will speak for, say, ten minutes, then
show a five-minute video clip, then talk some more, moving between
lecture and video five or six times. "It's a very congenial
teaching method," he says. "The students connect with
the video material and retain it. If I say Khrushchev or Brezhnev,
they have no image coming to mind. A couple of minutes of Khrushchev
on video will convey what might take 15 minutes in a lecture."
Such
a manner of teaching seems natural for dealing with a time when
televised images of Khrushchev's famous United Nations tirade or
the fighting in Vietnam affected public perception in a way that
printed words could not: They are primary sources for the late 20th-century
historian. "Of course, one can only do this with a recent topic,"
says Gaddis, "and we can only do it thanks to Ted Turner."
Students
who were born too late to learn how to "duck and cover"
as schoolchildren in order to avoid the effects of a nuclear strike
have come away surprised and sometimes shaken by his narration of
East-West conflicts. "After the segment on the Cuban Missile
Crisis," says Gaddis, "people come out of class trembling,
because they didn't know how dangerous it was."
Students
also admire Gaddis for his even-handed and thorough treatment of
the conflict. "One of the best things he does is to take an
event and say 'Here's what happened, here's what the Americans thought,
and here's what the Americans thought the Russians thought,'"
says Benjamin Negin '00, a chemistry major who took the course last
year. "And that's usually all you get in a history of the Cold
War. But he goes on to say 'and here's what the Russians really
thought.'"
Gaddis
is able to give the Russian perspective because of a program (which
he helped devise) called the Cold
War International History Project, which collects newly available
documents from the former East Bloc, translates them, and provides
a kind of provisional analysis for historians. While Gaddis does
not speak the languages fluently enough to examine the documents
himself, he has followed the revelations in the documents closely.
"He was the first to attempt to synthesize what had been discovered
in the archives with other materials," says William Taubman,
a political science professor at Amherst. "He sits down in
We Now Know and puts it all together. I don't think anybody else
does it the way he does."
Like
most Americans, Gaddis grew up unable to imagine a world without
a Soviet Union -- or a Cold War. He was born in Cotulla, Texas,
in 1941, only a few years before the beginning of the conflict to
which he has devoted his career. The first steps in his higher education
were shaped by that conflict, and the flight of the first Russian
satellite. "Like a lot of people, I was being routed into math
and science, because of Sputnik," he recalls. "I went
to Rice, but I soon decided math and science were beyond me, so
I decided to be a librarian." Gaddis transferred to the University
of Texas at Austin, where, because he couldn't actually major in
library science, he majored in history. "I got into history
out of desperation, and a feeling that I was not good at anything
else," he remembers. "So I'm always sympathetic to undergraduates
who don't yet know what they want to do."
When
a professor suggested that one of his papers was good enough for
publication, he was inspired to continue in history at the graduate
level, also at Texas. He began graduate school in 1963, when the
earliest American Cold War documents were just becoming available
to scholars. "I wanted to work on a big subject that was exciting
and with new doors opening up all along the way," he says.
"What I never expected was that years later, the Soviet documents
would become available. It was not until the mid-1980s that we began
to think this could happen."
Gaddis
earned his PhD in 1968 and a year later won an appointment to the
faculty at Ohio University in Athens. In 1972, his doctoral dissertation,
The United States and the Origins of the Cold War, 1941-1947,
was published to wide acclaim. (Among the pre-publication readers
was Gaddis Smith,
who says he recommended it enthusiastically.) "His first book
won two or three prizes," says Paul Kennedy, Gaddis's history
department colleague and closest friend at Yale. "It was an
instant success in a way that any PhD might dream about."
Over
the next 25 years, Gaddis went on to write five more books and to
enjoy a growing reputation as a dogged historian who favors documentation
over speculation. "U.S. foreign policy history has been bedeviled
by the ideological war between Western apologists and revisionists,"
explains Kennedy. "In the early stages of Cold War history,
you had an orthodox pro-Western view, then, beginning in the 1960s,
there was a revisionist theory that blamed the Cold War chiefly
on the U.S. John came along and really redesigned the field by producing
book after book of document-based history that has come to be called
'post-revisionist,' with more understanding and empathy for the
position of the West."
One of
the most hotly contested issues between the orthodox and revisionist
camps is who bears the greater responsibility for the Cold War.While
the post-revisionists have argued essentially for shared responsibility,
Gaddis maintains that given Josef Stalin's character and the power
he had in the Soviet Union, there is little the U.S. could have
done to avoid the conflict. This view, he says, has been bolstered
by what has come out of the Soviet archives.
"The
net effect [of the material in the archives] has been to push us
back toward a more traditional interpretation of the Cold War, rather
than that of the New Left in the 1960s and 70s," says Gaddis.
That
point of view has not sat well with the reigning revisionists. "John
is disliked by the left," says Gaddis Smith. "He's not
a man of the right in the sense of being an ideologue, but what
has distinguished him is his effort to look at the Cold War without
buying into the idea that the United States is guilty."
Michael
Hogan, a history professor at Ohio State University, is among those
who disagree with Gaddis, although he stresses his respect and admiration
for Gaddis's work. "Stalin was a vicious tyrant, but we had
a long record of dealing with him during World War II," says
Hogan. "[U.S. ambassador to Russia Averill] Harriman and others
seemed to feel you could deal with Stalin. He understood that there
were limits to his power."
The dispute
over responsibility, wrapped up as it is with political philosophy
and interpretation of events, may never be settled, even when all
the Cold War documents become available. But one of the most important
things to come out of the new material, says Gaddis, is an understanding
of the importance ideology played for Soviet leaders. This runs
counter to diplomatic historians' traditional assumption that ideology
takes a back seat to realpolitik in international conflicts."As
recently as ten years ago, I would have said that the ideology was
window dressing," says Gaddis. But the record shows that even
Stalin took steps -- sometimes missteps -- because of a genuine
belief in Communist ideals.
"Lenin
taught that capitalist states could not sustain an alliance because
they would by nature end up in competition," says Gaddis. "So
as late as 1952, Stalin is still expecting the Americans and the
Brits to fall out with each other. That's an example of why I have
called Stalin a romantic, in the sense that he was the opposite
of a realist."
The archives
have also yielded frightening information about a previously unknown
nuclear close call, one that Gaddis says was as dangerous as any
besides the Cuban Missile Crisis. In the fall of 1983, a series
of NATO war games known as the Able-Archer exercises alarmed the
Russians to the extent that they became convinced that the United
States was about to launch a preemptive first strike against the
Warsaw Pact. It was only through a highly placed Western spy in
Soviet intelligence that word got back to the West of this concern,
and President Ronald Reagan immediately altered the tone of his
own rhetoric in order to reassure the Russians. "Able-Archer
revealed how out of touch the Soviet leadership was with American
intentions," says Gaddis. "They actually believed we were
on the verge of a first strike."
In addition
to his wide-angle, synthetic views of the Cold War, Gaddis has also
had a more narrowly focused project in the works for the past 13
years: an authorized biography of George Kennan, the longtime State
Department official and Princeton history professor whose famous
"long cable" of 1946 on "containing" Communism
became the blueprint for America's Cold War foreign policy. The
95-year-old Kennan has given Gaddis complete access to his papers -- and the freedom to write what he thinks -- with the condition
that the book be published only after his death. "Whenever
I see him, he apologizes for delaying the project," jokes Gaddis.
With
such a project entrusted to him, it is clear that Gaddis's career
was not hampered by being at a respected but less-than-famous university
for 25 years. Gaddis was happy at Ohio, where he had founded the
Contemporary History Institute in 1987, and had turned away an offer
from Princeton and inquiries from Harvard, Stanford, and others.
But three years ago, Winks and Kennedy managed to lure him away
to fill the Robert Lovett Professorship, an endowed chair in strategic
and military history that had earlier been held by the military
historians Sir Michael Howard and Geoffrey Parker.
The move
would be a fresh start for Gaddis, who had recently been divorced.
(He has two adult sons.) He at first thought he'd be coming alone,
but just after Christmas that year, he had dinner with Toni Dorfman,
who ran the School of Theater at Ohio. The two had known each other
slightly as faculty colleagues before, but now, as Dorfman remembers,
"He knew he was going to Yale, and both our marriages were
over." Two weeks later, on their fourth date, he made a gentle
inquiry. "I said, 'Would you consider leaving tenure
and the directorship of the School of Theater to go to a place you
don't know with a guy you don't know,'" remembers Gaddis. "And
she said yes." They were married in November 1997.
Dorfman,
who is 54 and has an adult daughter, took a job at Yale as a lecturer
in the theater studies department, an arrangement that suits her
desire to continue her career as a playwright and freelance director.
She teaches acting and directing, and is directing two productions
at Yale this term. Together, the couple have become active citizens
of Yale, with a steady stream of both history and theater students
in and out of their house on Bishop Street. Gaddis once enlisted
students in his seminar as audience members for a production staged
by one of Dorfman's classes, and the two have long thought of ways
to explore the connection between theater and history.
While
Gaddis's scholarship has focused almost exclusively on the Cold
War, his offerings as a teacher are more catholic. He has taught
a seminar on the art of biography, another on methodology in history,
and is now embarking on a year-long University-wide seminar on "grand
strategy," a discipline with military roots that he defines
as "how to organize means in the pursuit of large ends."
Gaddis is teaching the class, which includes 24 students from the
College, the Graduate School, the Law School, and the School of
Management, in partnership with Paul Kennedy, management professor
Paul Bracken, and visiting lecturer Charles Hill. The goal, Gaddis
says, is to teach strategy to "future leaders, people who will
be running important entities, if not countries. I don't see any
other university doing that. And part of the problem now in Washington,
D.C., is there is no sense of grand strategy."
Most
students who have taken Gaddis's small classes say he is as good
in a seminar room as he is in a lecture hall. "He wanted to
know what conclusions we drew," says Daniel Serviansky '00,
who took Gaddis's seminar on methodology last semester. "He
was always very reticent about giving his own opinions, especially
while anyone in the class was still forming their own opinions about
an event."
Even
where his large lecture course is concerned, Gaddis has made an
unusual effort to get to know his students. Last term, he announced
to the Cold War class that he was initiating a "take a professor
to lunch program": Students were encouraged to band together
in groups of five or six and make lunch dates with him in the dining
hall. "It was a way for me to get feedback," he says.
"I was originally going to do it once a week, but soon I had
every free day taken up with lunch. I would guess I probably lunched
with a third of the class."
Gaddis
acknowledges that his involvement with his students leaves little
time for the research and writing that made him famous, but it doesn't
bother him much. "I've been there, done that," he says
about his scholarly work. "I've written six books. If this
slows me down writing more, that's okay."
After
all, publishing and appearing on television have their rewards,
but young minds can sometimes offer bigger surprises. While Gaddis
has been impressed with the intelligence and seriousness of his
students, he says he's also repeatedly been asked about the fate
of one forgotten Cold War casualty. "I spent two minutes in
class on Laika, the dog that was sent up in the second Sputnik,"
says Gaddis. "But the fate of Laika -- the fact that she was
left to die in orbit -- seems to haunt them."
|
|