The Cycles of American History by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. The book The Cycles of American History by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. is a very interesting book on the history of America. The book was published by Houghton Mifflin Company. The author Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., a 1938 graduate and professor of history at Harvard College, is the son of the famous historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr. Arthur Jr. is known for his books about U.S. presidents and their policies . He served as special assistant to the president in John F. Kennedy's administration and coined the term Imperial Presidency during the Nixon administration. Schlesinger was known to be a harsh critic of totalitarian regimes and fellow travelers along with unregulated capitalism. In the book The Cycles of American History he presents an interesting case about the origins of the Cold War and the events surrounding it. Schlesinger uses two essays to illustrate his point and the changing attitude towards the Cold War. Uses “The Origins of the Cold War,” published in Foreign Affairs in October 1967. The other essay used is “The Cold War Revisited,” published in the New York Review of Books on October 25, 1979. In “The Origins of the Cold War ” the author explains what happened at the beginning of the Cold War. “The Cold War in its original form was a supposedly moral antagonism, arising in the wake of the Second World War, between two rigidly hostile blocs, one led by the Soviet Union, the other by the United States.” He begins by explaining the reasons why the Cold War began. It was originally about morals and ideologies, but quickly turned into an arms race, where both belligerents could easily wipe each other off the map. He begins with several visions of the Cold War. The author mentions Cold War revisionist views as the author says: "In the United States (there are no signs of this, alas, in the Soviet Union), they represent what American historians call “revisionism” – that is, the willingness to challenge official explanations.” And he goes on to say that “it is useful to remember that, on the whole, past exercises in revisionism have not been successful.” Although he attacks the revisions and notes their failures, he then states: “But this does not mean that they have should deplore the rise of Cold War revisionism.