Download The Causes of the Cold War Isobel Egan, Dickson College, 2011

The Causes of the Cold War
Isobel Egan, Dickson College, 2011
This essay was written as part of the International Relations: 1945 to the Present unit
at Dickson College, Semester 2, 2011. It is an answer to the question: Was the Cold
War inevitable?
From 1945 to 1991 tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union were
referred to as the Cold War. The Cold War was defined by political conflict and
economic competition rather than armed military conflict. In analysing whether the
Cold War was inevitable two factors must be considered. The first is whether conflict
itself was inevitable and the second is whether the nature of conflict would inevitably
be that of a cold war. A number of US political policies as well as key events further
suggest that the Cold War was unavoidable. US political policies such as the policy of
containment, fuelled by the ‘domino theory’, the conferences at Yalta and Potsdam,
Winston Churchill’s Iron Curtain Speech, the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan
particularly demonstrate how tensions were exacerbated by the political differences of
the Soviets and the US. Additionally, analysis of actual events and actions carried out
by both the Soviets and the US including Soviet expansion, the Berlin blockade and
airlift, proxy wars, the nuclear arms race and the Cuban Missile Crisis provide further
evidence that the Cold War was inevitable.
The first element to consider in analysing the inevitability of the Cold War is the
inevitability of conflict between the USA and the USSR in general. Historians agree
that the root cause of the Cold War was tension between the US and the Soviet over
contradicting ideologies.1 The Soviet Union wished to expand their communist
influence, believing global communist expansion was key to propelling the world into
a better future. “The essence of the early Cold War was that the Soviet Union and its
ideological clients were... expansionist” (Macdonald, 1995). The US, a capitalist
nation, felt it was their responsibility to prevent this occurring.2 They felt threatened
by these expansionist aspirations, as communism had the potential of jeopardizing the
1
There are three historical views on what the caused the Cold War. These are the Orthodox view,
which places the blame on Soviet expansion, the Revisionist view, stating that American imperialist
capitalism led to conflict and the Post Revisionist view which places the responsibility on both the
Soviets and the US. All three viewpoints share the belief that the actions that led to war were initiated
by strong ideologies. (Bastian, 2009)
2
Various documents were created including the Truman Doctrine in 1947, which expressed this.
US’ capitalist economic system and the international climate in which they operated.
In turn, this would endanger their individual material wellbeing.
“Capitalist leaders wanted to make sure that [communist] countries
would fail because...the goal of Communists is to develop a system
free from private ownership, which is... not in the best interests of
people who are wealthy due to private ownership.” (Rational
Revolution, 2007).
These opposing beliefs prompted, in both countries, a desire for global ideological
dominance, influence and power (Chung, 2007). However, tension between the US
and the Soviet over their conflicting ideologies dates back long before the Cold War.
The Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 saw a rift grow between the two nations as the US
refused to recognise the Soviet Union as a sovereign state. This marked the beginning
of the rivalry between the two countries (Kreis, 2009). In 1933 the US agreed to
recognize the Soviet Union as its own nation and in 1939 the two became allies,
united against a common enemy, Germany. “During the war a common interest in
defeating the Axis overshadowed difficulties and facilitated cooperation” (Painter,
1999, p. 12). As the Second World War drew to a close however, tension over their
ideologies became apparent once again. This inability to co-exist suggests that the
incompatibility and contradictory nature of their ideologies would inevitably lead to
conflict.
In assessing whether or not the Cold War was inevitable, it is necessary to consider
what the alternatives might have been. One question is whether it may have been
possible for the US and the USSR to coexist peacefully. The evidence is that tolerance
and co-existence was impossible as a way of resolving the disputes as it called for a
compromise. To the Soviet government, dropping their expansionist policy to convert
the entire world to communism would compromise the fundamental ideologies of
Soviet communism (Macdonald, 1995). On the other hand, the United States’
economic values and vested interests were seen as fundamentally threatened by any
spread of communism. The US feared for their way of life and believed their
economic and social ‘freedom’ was at risk. In a Communist regime “the profit of any
enterprise is equally shared by all the people... [in a capitalist structure] the profit...
belongs to the private owner only.” (Prabhat, 2011). The other possibility might have
been that tension between the Soviet Union and the United States could have led to a
‘hot’ war3. The likelihood of this occurring was slim given the situation in Europe and
across the globe following the Second World War. Neither the United States nor the
Soviet Union were economically prepared to re-enter into armed military conflict.
Additionally, advances in nuclear technologies acted as a critical factor in
determining and defining the type of warfare. Both sides had catastrophic nuclear
capacity, which resulted in a standoff of mutually implied threat. “The [atomic]
bomb... change[d] international politics. Another ‘hot war’ would kill all
humankind.” (Clare, 2010). Therefore, the only and inevitable option was that of a
‘cold’ war. This option provided an outlet for the tension without actually requiring
decisive, violent and mutually catastrophic action.
Examination of a number of US political policies during the Cold War period, and the
ways in which they were implemented, further demonstrates the inevitability of the
Cold War. One major construct behind US policy was known as the ‘Domino
Theory’. Although the term was not coined until the early 1950’s the ‘Domino
Theory’ was the most influential US political policy in terms of US-Soviet relations.
It was believed that if one state became communist, it would influence the
surrounding states and nations and a domino effect would be created, with an
accumulation of nations falling to communism. This sparked the adjoining theory, the
policy of containment (Lippmann. 1947). Articulated in July 19474, it outlined the
importance of creating policies to contain the Soviet sphere of influence and halt the
spread of communism so as to avoid the ‘domino theory’ occurring in practice. This
exemplifies the US fear of Soviet communism and explains the actions taken to
contain communism.
A third example of US political policy in action was the Yalta Conference in February
1945.5 The purpose of the conference was to determine what was to happen to
Germany at the conclusion of the war. Although the conference was deemed a
success, tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union increased due to
disagreements over war reparations and the future of Eastern European government
3
Armed, military conflict.
The policy of containment was created by the Deputy Chief of Mission of the United States to the
U.S.S.R, George Keenan.
5The conference was held between the ‘Big Three’: Josef Stalin, Franklin D Roosevelt and Winston
Churchill, the leaders of USSR, USA and Britain.
4
systems.6 The decisions made at the Yalta conference contradicted the wishes of the
Soviet Union and angered Stalin. A further example of US political policy adding to
tensions with the Soviet Union was the Potsdam Conference held in July 1945.
Affected by outside factors7 the Allies were not as willing to appease Stalin as they
had been at the Yalta conference. This resulted in disagreements over how to divide
Germany, the reparations Germany should pay and how much influence the Soviet
Union should have in Eastern Europe. These disagreements contributed to the
deterioration of relations between the United States and the Soviet Union.
The fifth political occurrence to exacerbate tensions was Winston Churchill’s ‘Iron
Curtain Speech’. Although Churchill was the former British Prime Minister, his
speech represented the feelings of their ally, the US, and thus increased the tensions
between the Soviets and the US. His speech stated
“... an "iron curtain" has descended across the continent [Europe].
Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central
and Eastern Europe... in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all
are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but
to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from
Moscow.” (Churchill, 1946).
These statements directly threatened Stalin, who claimed, “that Churchill’s speech
was a declaration of war” (Clare, 2010).
The sixth critical US political policy was the Truman Doctrine, created in March
1947. Following an attempted Communist takeover in Greece, the US announced the
Truman Doctrine. It stated that it would be "the policy of the United States to support
free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by
outside pressures." (Truman, 1947). This implied the involvement of the US in any
country in which communism was ‘a threat’.
“In Russia, the rhetoric of Truman’s speech convinced the Soviets
that America was indeed a threat to Soviet Communism, and it
substantially enflamed the Cold War.” (Clare, 2010).
6 Against the wishes of the Soviet Union, the Allies published a Declaration of Liberated Europe,
which announced a policy of democracy and self-government in Eastern European countries, including
Poland, which involved “the holding of free elections.”
7a) Following his death, US President Franklin Roosevelt was replaced by Harry S Truman, a strong
anti-communist. Truman was not as lenient in terms of Stalin’s desires, which increased tensions as it
reduced the amount the Allies gave to Stalin. b) The US was also in possession of the atomic bomb,
which gave them a huge military advantage over the Soviet Union. This meant that the US did not need
the military assistance of the Soviet Union and could therefore afford to be more abrasive with Stalin.
The final example is the Marshall plan, a manifestation of the Truman Doctrine,
created in June 1947. It involved providing financial aid to Europe in the belief that
“prosperous, free people would not turn to communism. This caused tensions to
increase as the Soviets “saw... Marshall Aid as an act of war.” (Clare, 2010). These
seven instances of US political policy, driven by ideological imperatives, coming up
against Soviet ideological imperatives, further suggest the inevitability of the Cold
War between the two nations.
There are a number of further events in the post-war period in which the actions of
both the Soviet Union and United States precipitated further conflict. Following talks
at Yalta and Potsdam in 1945 the Soviets enforced communist regimes in the buffer
states.8
“By 1949 the Soviet Union had concluded twenty-year bilateral
treaties of friendship, cooperation, and mutual assistance with
Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, and Romania. These
treaties prohibited the East European regimes from entering into
relations with states hostile to the Soviet Union, officially made these
countries Soviet allies, and granted the Soviet Union rights to a
continued military presence on their territory. The continued
presence of Red Army forces guaranteed Soviet control of these
countries.” (Curtis, 1992).
This prompted what became known as the salami theory in which little by little more
and more states are converted to communism, as if slicing salami.
“They took part in elections, and became government ministers, but
then packed the army and police with communists, got noncommunists discredited and arrested, and so took total control bit by
bit – as Rakosi said in Hungary, ‘like slicing salami’” (Clare, 2010).
Stalin reacted to the perceived threat posed by the other three allies (the US, France
and Britain) who united in their management of their allocated quadrants of Germany9
and ordered the Berlin Blockade10. In retaliation the US carried out the Berlin airlift in
which they airlifted supplies to West Berlin. These two events, the blockade and the
8
Many of the surrounding countries on the Soviet’s Western border were allotted to the Soviet to act as
buffer states, a precaution against future invasion, keeping western ideologies out of the Soviet Union
and containing Soviet communism.
9
Following the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences it was agreed that Germany would be divided between
Britain, France, the US and the Soviet. The British, French and US then combined their zones to
created a unified tri-zone.
10
Stalin had all of the roads and railways into West Berlin blocked so as to cut off US ability to deliver
supplies to West Berlin.
airlift, exacerbated tensions, heightening the rivalry between the Soviet Union and the
United States.
The growing development of outright hostility between the Soviet Union and the US
was exemplified by two of the largest proxy wars of the Cold War. These were the
Korean War11 and the Vietnam War12. Although these wars were very different in
many ways, in both cases the Soviet Union was in support of the Communist North,
attempting to enforce communism on the non-communist South of each respectively,
while the US supported the South to resist a communist take-over. Each of the big
powers were ideologically driven to support and defend regimes following their
respective social and political systems, inevitably bringing them into direct conflict
with each other.
The decisive use of atomic bombs at the conclusion of the Second World War sparked
enormous interest in nuclear weapons for both the US and the USSR. Over the
subsequent years the US continued to develop nuclear technologies, developing the
first hydrogen bomb, known as the H-Bomb. This was perceived as a significant
potential threat by the Soviets and kick started a nuclear arms race between the US
and the USSR. It was felt by both sides that the country with the most powerful
nuclear weapons would possess dominance in the Cold War. This gave rise to
conditions of mutually assured destruction (MAD)13. The nuclear arms race
culminated in the Cuban Missile Crisis, when in 1962 the Soviets placed nuclear
missiles in Cuba as a direct threat to the US. After delicate negotiations the Soviets
removed all missiles in exchange for US agreement not to invade Cuba (Thinkquest,
2010).
These global events in the post-war period demonstrate the ways in which the
ideological starting point for both the US and USSR made tension and conflict
inevitable. These events worked to crystallise the ideological incompatibility into
11
1950-1953
1955 – 1975
13
“It was suggested that the Soviet Union needed...to make the United States vulnerable to a nuclear
attack. Khrushchev became convinced that if the United States knew they would suffer badly in a
nuclear war, they would not start such a war.”(Spartacus, 2010)
12
direct action, resulting in measures which were often extreme but stopped short of
direct conflict.
The Cold War was the culmination of tension between the Soviet Union and the
United States. Their ideological differences and incompatibility made conflict
unavoidable. The nature of this conflict was determined by a number of factors.
Firstly, neither nation was willing to compromise any element of their beliefs. This
meant that co-existence was not viable. Secondly, the Second World War left Europe
in ruins and both countries economically unable to reopen armed military conflict.
Along with this, the catastrophic threats of nuclear weapons made a ‘hot’ war an
impossible outcome. This demonstrates that a cold war was the only possible option
given the circumstances. Additional factors such as US political policy as well as key
events during the Cold War exacerbated tensions further, suggesting the
inescapability of conflict between the Soviets and the US. It can therefore be seen that
the Cold War was indeed inevitable.
Bibliography
Books
Barker, Elisabeth, 1972, The cold war, Wayland Publishers; G. P. Putnam's Sons
London, New York
Graebner, Norman A, 1963, The Cold War: ideological conflict or power struggle?,
Heath, Boston
Harper, John Lamberton, 2011, The Cold War, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Heater, Derek Benjamin, 1965, The Cold War, Oxford University Press, London
Heller, Deane Fons, & Heller, David, 1968, The Cold War, Hawthorn Books, New
York
Higgins, Hugh, 1984, The cold war, Heinemann Educational, London
Lippmann, Walter, 1947, The Cold War: a study in U.S. foreign policy, Harper, New
York
Luard, Evan, 1964, The Cold War: a re-appraisal, Thames and Hudson, London
Miller, David, 1998, The Cold War: a military history, John Murray, London Painter,
David S. 1999, The Cold War: an international history, Routledge, London; New
York
Roberts, Priscilla Mary, 2000, The Cold War, Sutton publishing, Stroud
Schuman, Frederick L., 1962, The Cold War: retrospect and prospect, Louisiana State
University Press, Baton Rouge
Sibley, Katherine A. S., 1998, The Cold War, Greenwood Press, Westport, Conn
Thomas, Merrilyn, 2009, The Cold War: a beginner's guide, Oneworld, Oxford
Wandycz, Piotr Stefan, 1980, The United States and Poland, Harvard University
Press, USA
Primary Sources
Churchill, Winston, 1946, ‘1946: From The Iron Curtain Speech, Winston Churchill’,
http://corematerials.homestead.com/49_The_Iron_Curtain_Speech_Churchill.pdf,
(date accessed: 13/10/11)
Truman, Harry S., 1947, ‘Modern History Sourcebook:
The Truman Doctrine,
1947’, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1947TRUMAN.html, (date accessed:
13/10/11)
Internet Sources
Bastian, Peter, 2011, ‘Origins of the Cold War’,
http://www.anzasa.arts.usyd.edu.au/ahas/cworigins_historiography.html, (date
accessed: 12/10/11)
Byrnes, Rebecca, 2008, ‘The Berlin Blockade’, http://rebeccabyrnes.suite101.com/the-berlin-blockade-a59841, (date accessed: 12/10/11)
Chung, TK, 2007, ‘The Cold War’, http://www.funfront.net/hist/europe/coldwar.htm,
(date accessed: 12/10/11)
Clare, John D., 2010, ‘Examination of the Cold War’, http://www.johndclare.net/,
(date accessed: 11/10/11)
Curtis, Glenn E., 1992, ‘The Warsaw Pact’,
http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/WarPact.html, (date accessed: 14/10/11)
Digital History, 2011, ‘Post-war America 1945-1960’,
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=485, (date
accessed: 13/10/11)
Fienberg, Howard, 2011, ‘Containment’,
http://www.hfienberg.com/irtheory/contain.html, (date accessed; 14/10/11)
History Learning Site, 2011, ‘Nuclear Arms Race’,
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nuclear_arms_race.htm, (date accessed:
14/10/11)
Kreis, Steve, 2009, ‘Lecture 7: The aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution’,
http://www.historyguide.org/europe/lecture7.html, (date accessed: 12/10/11)
Prabhat, 2011, ‘Difference Between Communism and Capitalism’,
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-communismand-capitalism/, (date accessed: 12/10/11)
Rational Revolution, 2007, ‘Communism on the World Stage’,
http://rationalrevolution.net/war/index.htm, (date accessed: 14/10/11)