Amidst growing speculation about a new Cold War — be it with Russia, China or both — something strange has happened with the way in which commentators discuss the original one. In recent years, nostalgic appeals to the “post-1945 liberal international order” have helped to gloss over the distinctly bipolar nature of the Cold War order. The result is a romantic read of history, conflating the liberal aspirations that flourished immediately before and after the Cold War with the very different reality that existed for the almost half a century in between. In January 2022, for example, a New York Times op-ed warned that “the rehabilitation of Mr. Al-Assad poses a direct threat to the post-World War II order — which already faces challenges on other fronts, like with recent Russia-Ukraine tensions.” It does not in any way downplay the horror of Assad’s rule in Syria or the danger of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to wonder how real this supposed order is. After all, during the Cold War, Assad’s father was already murdering his citizens en masse and all of Ukraine (not to mention Eastern Europe and half of Germany) was firmly under Moscow’s control. Looking at the deeply divided world portrayed by Cold War maps, it is difficult to imagine a continuous global order, much less a liberal one, that encompasses both that era and today. As this 1950 Time Magazine graphic suggests, rather than see the entire world united under any kind of coherent set of rules or ideals, most observers during that period saw two separate worlds entirely.Robert M. Chapin, Two Worlds, Time Magazine, January 2, 1950From what would have to be a 1,000 mile-wide hammer and sickle standing in central Siberia, the Soviet Union beams rays of Communist influence out into Europe and China. It is contained by
Members-Only Content
This article is reserved for War on the Rocks members. Join our community to unlock exclusive insights and analysis.
Amidst growing speculation about a new Cold War — be it with Russia, China or both — something strange has happened with the way in which commentators discuss the original one. In recent years, nostalgic appeals to the “post-1945 liberal international order” have helped to gloss over the distinctly bipolar nature of the Cold War order. The result is a romantic read of history, conflating the liberal aspirations that flourished immediately before and after the Cold War with the very different reality that existed for the almost half a century in between. In January 2022, for example, a New York Times
