George F. Kennan's "Long Telegram" at 75: Appraising a Critical Cold War Document

To mark the 75th anniversary of Ambassador George F. Kennan's "Long Telegram," the History and Public Policy Program gathered a group of renowned historians to discuss one of the most consequential foreign policy documents in US history. Hear from James G. Hershberg, Vladimir O. Pechatnov, Vladislav M. Zubok, Svetlana Savranskaya, Mark Kramer, and Sergey Radchenko as they analyze the document from a Soviet perspective.

[@brucevilla]

Thanks for Uploading.

[@maxheadrom3088]

A very Wilsonian debate! Very interesting!!!! Thanks from Brazil - a founding member of the League of Nations. (I believe one of the first to leave, also ... just for the record)

[@Ragnar11B]

the Russians sounded very partial and a lot of rhetoric

[@billappledorf]

Soviet domination of Eastern Europe was a response to Truman's -- more accurately James F. Byrnes's -- enmity toward the USSR and rejection of postwar cooperation of the U.S. with the USSR, beginning with Truman reneging on FDR's promise of economic aid to rebuild from the devastation the USSR suffered in the war.

[@williamcoolidge9884]

Nope

[@MrEtc31265]

Very interesting discussion. My 2 cents, US keeps Russia at arms length, that has not worked out very well. US hugs China for 50 years, that has not worked out very well. And now it looks like both of them have each others backs? US needs to project strength, take care of home, stop fighting each other

[@GH-oi2jf]

We have not kept Russia at arms length. For the past 30 years we have been expanding NATO eastward to Russia’s borders. That reckless policy is the primary provocation of the war in Ukraine.

[@ilmelangolo]

@@GH-oi2jf It was not Nato that was expanding: it was east european countries' need and desire of protection after decades of russian/soviet domination. Now we know why...

[@maxheadrom3088]

@@ilmelangolo NATO is a military alliance and does not need to accept new members just because they want to join in. There are some explanations for the enlargement: a desire from the neo-cons and arms industries to keep wars happening and to create a US led unipolar world and the need to find allies for the military adventures like the Iraq Invasion; also a need for allies since the Bush Doctrine was put in place - a doctrine that stablished the US as the higher authority (above the UN) to carry out military actions it deemed necessary. The second reason has a problem: American soldiers dying yields bad electoral results and it would be good to have forces from other countries joining in. I looked for lectures by George Kannen after watchin two classes from the YaleCourses channel "Power and Politics in Today's World" by Prof. Ian Shappiro. I believe it's the class 15. Kennan stated the most important thing the US needed was to keep its democracy and civil liberties healthy for that was the weakest point of the Soviet system. Just as the Sputnik was one of the best things that ever happened to the US, the fall of the USSR was one of the worse. Sputnik led to a revolution in US education and the creation of the PSSC program ... the fall of the USSR brought about some of the worse behavior in US politics and policy (domestic and foreign) that I know of. On a shorter comment: if the Iranian people voted for Iran to join the WTO would the organization have to accept the country? It's classes 15/16. Here's the link for class 16: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gprcloKZmaeMpK8

[@lisakong8651]

@@ilmelangolo 'it was east european countries' need'...either a unilateral naivety or a great spin

[@ilmelangolo]

@@lisakong8651 there is no actual way you can prove that they would have preferred the other solution... so one only option remains...

[@gurvinek4010]

How funny to see one year later all the rhetoric by Russian lecturers went straight to the toilet.

[@KW-hk2jd]

Exactly.

[@williamcoolidge9884]

Indeed.