History Written Account

How far was the Cold War more a result of mutual misunderstanding than of expansionist policies by either the USA or the USSR?

Teacher: Gabriela Sundberg Student: Agustina Bello Word Count: 2.198 July, 2007

Index Section A: Plan of Investigation.......Page 3 Section B: Summary of Information....Page 4 Section C: Source Evaluation...Page 8 Section E: Analysis......Page 9 Section D: Conclusion....Page 11 Section F: List of Sources..Page 12

A: Plan of Investigation The Cold War was a very strange war, in the sense that open war didnt take place, as it has done in all the previous wars. I was always interested in this international conflict because of this reason, and within this work my aim is to understand why it was developed. By investigating the historical context of the time, as well as the USA's and the USSR's expansionist policies, I will get to the conclusion on whether this war was caused by those policies or simply by misunderstanding among these two superpowers. For my investigation I have chosen to analyse and evaluate the following sources. One, of a post-revisionist author; East, West, North, South. Major Developments in International Politics since 1945, by Geir Lundestad and the other by Norman Lowe, Modern World History, to have another point on view on the matter, the traditionalist one. By analysing these two sources, I will reach to a suitable conclusion supported evidence provided, which will be evaluated as regards to its origin, purpose, value and limitations.

B: Summary of information. There are three different and contradictory views about the causes of the Cold War, the traditionalist, mostly by North-American writers who blame the USSR and its expansionist policies; the revisionists who blame the USA expansionist policies; and the post-revisionists who blame nor one of the powers, neither the other; but they claim that was a problem of mutual misunderstanding.1 Both the United States and the USSR had interests on specific regions of the globe and thus implemented different policies to achieve their interests.2 The Americans believed that their principles were to be expanded to the whole world, as they believed; they were the best for all the countries around the world. For this, the USA highly dominated the UN system. Hence, it was able to impose the freetrade system that would strengthen its economy and somehow keep an eye on the European matters3. As the Second World War ended, the United States changed its view towards the USSR, especially when Truman assumed power. On May 1945 and then in August the Lend-Lease4 system was suspended in order to express dissatisfaction with the Soviet policies. The economic support was used actively against Moscow5. In 1947, the Truman Doctrine was a proof of this, as it gave economic support and weapons to Turkey and Greece in order to fight against the Soviet occupational intentions6. The Marshall Plan, an extension of the Truman Doctrine, offered economic support wherever it was needed. It was offered to the USSR but it didnt accept it 7. The
1

Traditionalists hold the Soviet Union primarily accountable for the Cold War. The revisionists place the responsibility on the United States, whereas the post-revisionistsstress the mutual accountability of the two countries Lundestad, Geir. East, West, North, South. Major Developments in the International Politics since 1945. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press Inc, New York 1999. Page 8. 2 The United States would come to play in politics throughout the worldSoviet policydesire to dominate was even stronger in the areas which were most important to Moscow Ibid. Page 14. 3 The political sphere of the United nations was to be the central body No issue would be foreign to Washington any more. Ibid. Page 15. 4 The Lend-Lease was a system under which The USA sent war materials of all kinds to Russia Lowe, Norman. Modern World History. Fourth Edition. Palgrave Macmillan. New York, 2005. Page 123. 5 During the period from July 1945 to July 1947 the countries which would later participate in the Marshall Plan received various American loansThe most Moscow oriented regimes received little or nothing. Lundestad, Geir. East, West, North, South. Major Developments in the International Politics since 1945. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press Inc, New York 1999. Page 19. 6 This [Truman Doctrine] sprang from events in Greece, where communists were trying to overthrow the monarchyGreece immediately received massive amounts of arms and other suppliesthe communists were defeated Lowe, Norman. Modern World History. Fourth Edition. Palgrave Macmillan. New York, 2005. Page129. 7 Although in theory the aid was available for Eastern Europe, Russian Minister denounced the idea as dollar imperialism Ibid. Page 129.

formation of the NATO in 1947 meant the first time that the USA entered into a military alliance with countries outside Western Europe, abandoning their traditional policy of no alliances and advancing into military action. Plus, the USA had the monopoly on nuclear weapons, including the atomic bomb. The Soviet Union also managed its own policies. Stalin believed that the world will become communist one day8 but by 1945 that aim was far from being fulfilled. There were just some areas which were of the incumbency of Moscow. There were some main aims of the USSR which were cleared out early in 1941, all regarding expansionism9. After 1945, the USSR interfered in almost all the Eastern European countries to install communist friendly governments10 . By the end of 1944, the Red Army advanced over Poland and pushed away London government forces. As Stalin saw that the communist had little chance to gain the elections that were to be held, he just postponed them indefinitely11. In Romania a friendly government to the USSR was installed following the same methods12. In Bulgaria the methods used were more indirect but the same final objective was obtained, a friendly government13. In Hungary, though Moscow flexibility was greater, the methods were the same14. The Red-Army was spread all over Eastern Europe and by 1947 all countries in the Eastern European area had communist governments friendly to Stalins one15. Stalin had also set up the

Lundestad, Geir. East, West, North, South. Major Developments in the International Politics since 1945. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press Inc. New York 1999. Page 23. 9 The Baltic countries were to be reincorporated in the USSR, the Polish border was to follow the Curzon line, and the Soviet Union wanted bases in Romania and Finland Ibid. Page 24 10 In the months following Potsdam, the Russian systematically interferes in the countries of eastern Europe to set up pro-communist governments. This happened in Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania and Romania. Lowe, Norman Modern World History. Fourth Edition. Palgrave Macmillan. New York, 2005. Page126. 11 The London governments forces in Poland were pushed aside and partly suppressed by the Red Army When it became evident that Stalin Poles would not stand much a chance of winning free elections, the election which were presupposedwere postponed indefinitely. Lundestad, Geir. East, West, North, South. Major Developments in the International Politics since 1945. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press Inc. New York 1999. Pages 25-26. 12 Developments in Poland were an indicator of how things would develop in RomaniaMoscow imposed a change of government to the advantage of the circles that were loyal to the USSR Ibid. Page 26. 13 The Soviet Union enjoyed more support in Bulgaria than in Poland and Romaniamethods were more indirect in Bulgaria. Ibid. Page 26. 14 In Hungary the Russians allowed free elections; but although the communists won less than 20 per cent of the votes, they saw to it that a majority of the cabinet were communists. Lowe, Norman. Modern World History. Fourth Edition. Palgrave Macmillan. New York, 2005. Page 126. 15 By the end of 1947, every state in the area with the exception of Czechoslovakia had a fully communist government. Elections were rigged, non-communist members of coalition governments were expelled, many were arrested or executed and eventually all other political parties were dissolved Ibid. Page 126.

Cominform (Communist Information Bureau) that drew together the various communist parties in Europe, to make them Russian-style communists. The three historiographies about the Cold War (traditionalist, revisionist and post-revisionist) have different views as regards the motivating forces of these policies. According to the traditionalists as Lowe, the USA policies were characterized by passivity, and Washington didnt change his attitude until 1947 with the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine16. They claim that the USA needed to defend its own and Western Europes legitimate security interests in the face of and expansive Soviet Union17. Organizations such as the NATO were in self defence. Regarding the USSRs policies, traditionalists claim that they were motivated by expansionism and ideology; and that Stalin was taking advantage of the military situation of Germany to strengthen the USSRs position18. Revisionists claim that the USA was trying to limit the Soviet Union influence throughout the world. Their policies were determined primarily by the needs of capitalism and a fundamental anti-Communism19. They claim that the atomic bomb had been thrown not only to finish the war, but to threaten the USSR as to what could happen if they went far in expanding. They place the motivating forces of the USSR on the security needs of their country, which pretended just to have friendly neighbours.20 Post-revisionists claim that all the self-interest motivating forces played a part in starting the war. Economic expansionism of the USA was aimed on expanding their influence in Europe21, and that although Stalin had no long-term plans to spread communism, he was an opportunist who would take advantage of any weakness of the west22. Regarding the USA, Geir Lundestad says that its policies were motivated not
16

According to traditionalists, US policies were characterized by passivity. Washington emphasised international cooperation within bodies such as the UNNot until 1947 Washington did change its course Lundestad, Geir. East, West, North, South. Major Developments in the International Politics since 1945. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press Inc. New York 1999. Page 8. 17 Ibid. Page 9. 18 As the Nazi armies collapsed, he [Stalin] tried to occupy as much territory as he could, and to acquire as much land as he could get away with from countries such as Finland, Poland and Romania Lowe, Norman. Modern World History. Fourth Edition. Palgrave Macmillan. New York, 2005. Page 123. 19 Quote. Lundestad, Geir. East, West, North, South. Major Developments in the International Politics since 1945. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press Inc. New York 1999. Page 9. 20 They [revisionists] believed that Stalins motives were purely defensive and that there was no real threat to the West from the USSR Lowe, Norman Modern World History. Fourth Edition. Palgrave Macmillan. New York, 2005. Page 124. 21 American economic policies such as the Marshall Aid were deliberately designed to increase US political influence on Europe Ibid. Page 124. 22 Ibid. Page 124.

just because of the countrys interest, but also because it was the only country strong enough to help Europe to recover. The fact that the USA saw communism as a threat was because of their liberal-capitalist ideology, which they believed to be the ideal for every country in the world. Regarding the Soviet Union his claim is similar. There were memories of the bad relations with the West they had on the past, and during the war the relations did not improve. Hence Stalin wanted security for his country, although this did not mean the same for the West. Here and again the coexistence of not only different but excluding ideologies was the central problem; Stalin saw the West influence as bad for his socialism in one country plan.23

23

Lundestad, Geir. East, West, North, South. Major Developments in the International Politics since 1945. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press Inc. New York 1999. Pages 35 to 40.

C: Source Evaluation East, West, North, South. Major Developments in the International Politics since 1945, written by Geir Lundestad in 1999, gives us a view of the major events in the history of the world since 1945. For this research paper, the second chapter of this book, titled The Cold war in Europe 1945-1949, was used. The purpose of that chapter is to make an in-depth analysis of the situation that lead to development of the Cold War. This is book is valuable, since it follows the structure of the topic question of this investigation; presenting first a general view of the causes of the Cold War, then the USA and the USSR policies and finally an analysis of the motivating forces behind these policies. What is more, being Geir Lundestad a post-revisionist writer, he holds that the Cold War was to be blamed both on the USA and the USSR The limitation of this source is that, because of having been written on 1999, it is not first hand information of the time (period between 1945-1949), and hence it may be influenced by previous studies or misleading theories; although this lateness is also a benefit since it was possible for the author to have information of the Soviet files open after the fall of the USSR in 1991. Modern World History, by Norman Lowe, contains a wider analysis of the worlds history, since it contains much more topics. On this source, the chapter used is number 7, titled The Cold War: problems of international relations after the Second World War. The purpose of the sections used is to give account of the different actions that took place after the Second World War and a short analysis of each event. This source is valuable, since it presents a different view of the facts, because Lowe is a traditionalist historian. This enabled me to perform a contrast and compare analysis and evaluation among the views held by one author and the other, to reach to a better suitable conclusion. The limitation is that, having the traditionalist view of blaming the USSR for the Cold war, Lowe presents the facts in a much more influenced way; though he is not that radical since he also mentions some attitudes of the USA as provocative to the USSR.

D: Analysis The question is: was the Cold War caused by one of the two powers involved, or by misunderstandings among them? In order to analyse this statement, we have seen that there are three different views; which all need to be analysed. If we consult the traditionalist view, we can say that the Cold Wars outbreak was caused by the USSR. It doesnt have so many arguments, when the Second World War finished it was a clear fact that the Red Army intended to control other countries as they passed through on its way to Germany. The Allies knew that Stalins ways to control other countries were not the right ones as referring freedom, since communism did not coincide with the USAs democratic ideas24. In some countries such as Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria free elections were held, however in many others like Rumania or Poland, the communist regime was directly imposed by the Red Army. What is more the countries where free elections were held, they were under the watchful eye of the Soviet tanks. This attitude was totally against the USAs ideals, which they intended to defend. This Soviet attitude was understood as an expansionist policy in order to achieve the expansion of communism to as many European countries as possible. All in all, what this view claims is that the USA was just acting in self-defence to Soviet expansionist policies, and that there was no other chance of action for the USA if it desired to defend its democratic ideals. If we go over the revisionist view, we find the claim that the USA caused the Cold War. Its main argument was that, the Second World War really affected the USSRs territory and population, and that the USSRs intention by expanding was of self-protection.25 Stalin needed to transmit security to his population. He knew the hostile attitudes of the Western politicians, for the very first moment that the communist regime was installed this existed, it was a pact that the Western powers sent military help when the Russian Civil War started and not exactly to help the communists. Another fact that worried and motivated Stalin was the atomic bomb; the other Allies

24

the US need to defend its own and Western Europes legitimate security in face of an expansive Soviet Union. These security interests coincide with the defence of democracy Lundestad, Geir. East, West, North, South. Major Developments in the International Politics since 1945. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press Inc. New York 1999. Page 9. 25 the revisionists place more emphasis on the security needs of the Soviet Union Ibid. Page 9

never consulted him when they dropped it in Japan on 1945, and he thought that was an intention of Truman to threaten him. According to this view, the USA misunderstood the USSRs intentions and it should had had a more understanding attitude. Truman Doctrine and the NATO were seen as offensive attitudes towards the USSR. Finally, the post-revisionist view supports the statement that the Cold War was a result of mutual misunderstanding, this implies that both powers were to be blamed to the same extent and despite the reality of their expansionist policies; the main problem was the misunderstanding among them. This was caused by the difference of principles the two superpowers had, the USSRs based on communism and the USAs on capitalism. The big mistake of the USSR was to exaggerate its intention to expand the revolution; and the one of the USA was its impossibility to understand it and to act in a hostile way towards them. So, according to post-revisionist authors, the situation was more complex, and there were many tactics in which the powers disagree, so the outbreak of the Cold War was inevitable.

10

E: Conclusion The Cold War was caused by misunderstanding among the two major powers of the moment. The USA and the USSR were radically different on their ideologies. The consequences of the Second World War had been different for them; so their intentions were so. With their radically different ideals, every action in the international frame could be interpreted in two ways. What from one side was self-defence, it was the opposite for the other one. Hence they clashed; and with different intentions and ideals, they were not able to understand each other, leading to the Cold War.

11

F: List of Sources Lundestad, Geir. East, West, North, South. Major Developments in the International Politics since 1945. Fourth Edition. Oxford University Press Inc, New York 1999. Lowe, Norman. Modern World History. Fourth Edition. Palgrave Macmillan.

New York, 2005.

12