Você está na página 1de 11

Harriet Exton Candidate Number:

8045

Historians have disagreed about who was to blame for the Cold War. What is your
view about who was to blame for the Cold War?

Introduction
The Cold War is the name given to the hostile relationship between the US and the USSR1.
It has been said that the nature of the Cold War developed due to a confrontation of beliefs
and ideologies, the most common differences were communism2 and capitalism3; it is
maintained that the US were afraid of a communist takeover; whereas the Soviets were
afraid of capitalism and its domination across satellite states. There are many theories which
suggest the Cold War originated from the Russian Revolution 4 which led to mass distrust
between the global powers, but the main denominator is the events which followed World
War Two in 1945, the Yalta5 and Potsdam Conferences6, which were meant to be a
gathering to aid the allies into making concise decisions about Europe, but in retrospect it
distanced their relationship.
Although this is a possible beginning, Stephen Ambrose7 states that there is no clear
cut and satisfactory date which signals the beginnings of the Cold War. The Potsdam
Conference caused animosity for Stalin and perhaps initiated the Cold War. Scholars have
also pointed to it being an imbalance of powers and factors culminating espionnage, namely;
the space race. The space race was a means in which the superpowers could compete
without direct military conflict. Scholars have pointed to theories and views surfacing from
different eras. The theory that Cold War started due to Russias hostility is known as
traditionalist or orthodox. These schools of thought were present during the 1950s and
1960s. The theory that the US were to blame for the Cold War is known as revisionist
which is mainly portrayed during the 1960s and 1970s. Finally there are post-revisionists
who blame both the US and Russia, predominantly echoed from the 1980s. These views are
represented by three articles which will be the main subject of this study: Rise To Globalism
by Stephen E. Ambrose who represents traditionalist view; How the Cold War Began by
Staughton Lynd who depicts revisionism and The Origins of the Cold War: A
Historiographical Review by Bogdan Antoniu who suggests post-revisionist theory. I am

1
It is concluded as an imbalance of global powers. The Cold War includes many of the catastrophic
events which have occurred throughout the world such as, The Cuban Missile Crisis.
2
Communism is where everything is run by and owned by the government/state rather than by
individuals.
3
Capitalism is where the economic activity and investment is done by individuals and private
organisations.
4
This was a revolution which occurred in 1917, which separated the Tsarist government and
monarchy which led to the rise and development of the Soviet Union.
5
The Yalta Conference was launched in February of 1945, and the global powers (Stalin, Roosevelt
and Churchill) had agreed that they would split Germany into four different zones with free elections,
relations were secure and content after this as they all knew the political and geographical situation
6
Potsdam Conference in July of 1945, there had been numerous changes, Germany had been
defeated, Roosevelt had died, Churchill had lost the elections, this meant that things were sure to
change. Truman was the new American president and was dissatisfied with the reparations they were
assigned to pay and that Poland was being taken over by a communist government; at this point
Truman had the atomic bomb which Stalin did not know about, it is said that he was going to use this
against Japan
7
He was an American historian and biographer of U.S. Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Richard
Nixon, he was also a professor of history. He wrote: Rise to Globalism, D-Day, The World at War and
many more.
Harriet Exton Candidate Number:
8045

going to consider all of these theories coupled with triggering factors and using them to come
to a conclusion about blame culture and origins the Cold War.

Stephen E. Ambrose
Ambrose defines Russia's power as the catalyst for the Cold War. He presents an
outstanding explanation about the disagreements surrounding Eastern Europe8, ending of
WW2 and the dissolution of the Grand Alliance9 as turning points for the war of words.
Ambrose suggests that Eastern Europe is a clear indicator for the origination as he states
that the issue that gave it [Cold War] life and shaped its early course was Eastern Europe
as well as the struggle centred on Poland. He states; the crucial result of WW2 destroyed
the Grand Alliance and gave birth to the Cold War, it is clear that he bases his argument
upon the proliferation of the War upon the catalyst of WW2. Potsdam10 also created the
separation of the Big Three, as they all had such contrasting views no reconciliation of such
divergent views was possible he argues from the very beginning it was never going to have
a positive outcome. He suggests this is clear logic as to why the Cold War began. His theory
maintains that the imbalance of power post WW2 fuelled desires for the Soviets to have the
capabilities to devise European tensions into worldwide tensions. This can be inferred from
Ambroses statement the Red Army was in sole possession of the area [as the West made
no significant contribution]...Russia controlled East Europe. There was a joint agreement in
ideas between the East and the West that they didnt want Eastern Europe to be
independent or neutral Neither the West nor the East has been willing to allow East Europe
to be strong, independent or neutral supported by Ambrose. This meant that they were
mainly interested in selfish gains, however after the Nazi-Soviet Pact11, Russia it appeared,
had the power to alter the status-quo in Eastern Europe which left a huge battleground - this
created even bigger tension amongst the two global powers. This idea links with Russias
desire to expand their empire to extend the Soviet hegemony throughout the East by having
more control and domination throughout these areas; linking to expansionist policies12
although this idea wasnt new, it appears Americans were terrified of it, as now the West saw
the Soviets as a threat. Ambrose states that the Americans retaliated to their loss of keeping
Poland as a democratic state by demanding for liberation of the states and were abusive
towards the Soviets, however he states that some anti-communists wanted to find the
betrayers of East Europe; upon searching they found these to be in the highest parts of the
American government. This is explicitly showing how Ambrose blames Russia because he
suggests the Americans had no other option but to attempt to survive this defeat by
retaliating. This is evidence of McCarthyism13. As demonstrated it can be seen that this was

8
The disagreements regarding the Soviets policies, as Truman didnt agree with Russias intentions.
9
The alliance which was initiated during WW2, it contained Franklin Roosevelt (USA), Joseph Stalin
(Soviets) and Winston Churchill (Great Britain) also known as the Big Three
10
Potsdam Conference in July 1945, where the 3 global powers met to decide how to administer the
defeated Nazi Germany, as they didnt know how to equally balance power and negotiate on terms of
dissolving Germany.
11
23 August 1939, Hitler had made an agreement with Stalin to promise to not go to war with one
another and also a promise to invade Poland and make an even split. It is also known as Non-
Aggression Pact.
12
Expansionist Policies is the doctrine of expanding territories by taking over states in some cases
using military aggression
13
McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard
for evidence. It originates from the 1940s during the period known as the Second Red Scare due to
fear of communism.
Harriet Exton Candidate Number:
8045

only a vicious cycle of events which were caused by vengeance from the earlier building
blocks of WW1. In 1945, Stalin stated Poland is a question of security...Poland is not only a
question of honour but of life and death for the Soviet Union Ambrose uses this evidence to
suggest that Stalin was only interested in the protection and growth of a buffer zone and was
not responsive to establishing any types of relationships; this is where Ambrose displays that
the dispersing of terror throughout the neighbouring states caused the Cold War imbalance.
The instigator being Stalin. However, for the West, their reasoning for wanting Poland was
due to its strategical location. Due to the power vacuum in Germany and Europe the Red
Army had the ability to dominate Europe in 1945 as there was no one to impede them.

The creation of the Lublin Poles14 replacing the London Poles15 demonstrated to the West
who the real Stalin was. This suggests that the era which Ambrose is focusing on is the
attempt of a balancing act. Stalin saw the Lublin Poles as the principal government of Poland
and continued to ignore the London Poles who were opposing his theories. In February of
1945, Ambrose affirms that Churchill and Roosevelt proposed that they needed to run a free
election for the Polish government to ensure it held a significant amount of votes from the
London Poles - their attempt of balancing out the communist/anti-communist power. Stalins
agreement in Yalta seemed like a breakthrough as he agreed to free and unfettered
elections. This was the best possible outcome that the West could have hoped for and it
was appearing to be feasible. This small glimpse of hope was short lived as Stalin refused to
reorganise the Polish government and with that he implemented the suppression of freedom
of speech, assembly, religion and press. This exemplifies that Ambrose is convinced that
Russia are to blame because Stalin clearly demonstrated that any territory they earned was
theirs to keep and were not willing to give it up. Ambrose expresses that [Russias] need to
protect herself from Germany and the West was by controlling the nations on her border.
Therefore explaining his perseverance for keeping Poland as part of the Soviet Union.
Truman16 declared that he wanted to take a hard line with Russia explained Ambrose. He
stated that I [Truman] am not afraid of the Russians, I intend on being firm as they [Russia]
need us more than we need them it is questionable how accurate that is, but Truman
insisted this. This suggests that Truman believed that America was a greater power than the
Soviet Union, as they had an economic advantage compared to Russia. Ambrose supports
this view as he states that for without American aid they could never reconstruct
demonstrating that he wanted America to be a greater power and supported the fact that
they were going to be Russia's economic aid.

Despite the fact that Russia under Stalin seemed to be largely the catalyst of hostility,
Truman had the first atomic bomb17, tested whilst he was in Potsdam, which meant an
unstable environment had emerged for the Soviets. According to Ambrose the bomb gave
Truman and the American government a feeling of considerable power. This was the

14
The Lublin Poles were mostly communist and were the future government of Poland, Stalin held
trust in them to provide him with a positive future.
15
London Poles was the name of a group of some members of the Polish government who fled to
London to set up a government-in-exile. They were anti-Soviet and disliked Stalin after the German-
Soviet Pact in 1939. They were predominantly anti-soviet, anti Stalin and anti-communist.
16
Truman preceded Roosevelt on 12 April 1945 it was known that they had a very futile relationship
and they never demonstrated fondness of one another and had never trusted each other.
17
July 16th 1945, it was detonated. An atomic bomb is the rapid release of nuclear energy by fission
of heavy atomic nuclei, which causes damage through heat, blast, and radioactivity.
Harriet Exton Candidate Number:
8045

beginning of what became known as the space race and arms race18. The impact that the
bomb had was that they felt they could impose their presence on any resistant nations by
using threat and fear as a motivator. Although Truman wanted the possession of the bomb
to alter Stalins policies regarding Poland it had no noticeable effect on Stalins policy in East
Europe portrays Ambrose. This shows that, the impact they hoped the bomb would have on
the Soviets had little to no effect on their policies. The bombs manufactured during 1945-49
werent powerful enough to frighten the Soviets and were hardly sufficient to destroy the
Soviet Union specified by Ambrose, this gave the Soviets an element of relief. The only way
for Russia to react to this was to get back at the US by taking over the democratic states.
Throughout Ambroses article he clearly demonstrates that Russia were more interested in
expanding their territories rather than constituting new relationships; thus concluding he
suggests the US felt betrayed about how Stalin had gone against their agreements. In
1946, rather than removing machinery and industry from East Germany they decided to
exploit the German society to make them produce goods and then export them to the Soviet
Union. This clearly demonstrates how they had no real concern over the atomic bomb and
were more interested in expansion. To attempt to diminish the Soviet-American hostile
relation, the US created the Acheson-Lilienthal Pact19 they hoped that this proposition would
be an attempt to avoid a world where Russia and the US would be using nuclear threats
towards each other. But this attempt didnt last long at all as America were growing more
and more concerned with Stalin. Ambrose advocates that the blame rests with how they
[America] were essentially helpless in this situation because they had tried to help, however
Russia had totally ignored and forgot about their agreements which Ambrose felt left
America in a bad situation.

Ambrose chooses to reject or see the Russians point of view about how America played a
part into the source of the Cold War too comfortably. The Americans were a problem for the
foundation due to their obtention of nuclear weapons. This shows that it is easier for people
to accuse Russia as there is more evidence against them than against America, due to the
Soviet archives being opened in only the 1990s. Ambrose was an American historian and
author who worked closely and alongside Eisenhower20 which shows why he has a strong
opinion for blaming US rather than Soviets as he had a very dominant opinion and view to
use against Soviets. Ambrose is correct to an extent with his views and demonstrates a well-
convinced argument throughout his thesis. Ambrose is far too generous to the American
presidents and their views and lets them off lightly compared to his view upon Russia.
However, the next extract helps to provide a different ideology of a revisionist.

Staughton Lynd
The theory which is presented by Lynd21 is in sharp contrast compared to Ambrose.
Staughton illustrates that American diplomacy foreshadowed the future Soviet-American

18
The Space Race/Arms Race was a 20th-century competition between the Soviet Union and the
United States, for supremacy in spaceflight capability and nuclear weapons.
19
This pact proposed the international control of nuclear weapons and the avoidance of future nuclear
warfare. American distrust of Stalin grew, this report was simply ignored.
20
who was part of the American senate and was president in 1953-61
21
He is an American civil rights activist, historian, professor, author, lawyer etc. He had contrasting
views compared to other American historians, therefore faced opposition. Books included: How the
Cold War Began, Anti-Federalism, The Other Side.
Harriet Exton Candidate Number:
8045

tensions. Lynd portrays blame as the underlying attitudes of the Roosevelt administration
towards the postwar status of Eastern Europe. Lynd gives an insight into the difficulty of this
question as he states none of us can presume to discuss this question without anxiety or
passion suggesting the origins are a case of opinion. Lynd does suggest that the US wanted
to intimidate the Soviets and aggravate them to cause further unrest by using threats from
the military - the American hope was that the Soviet government was to be lured away from
its absorption in frontiers [Poland] by the attraction of quick military relief explains Lynd. It
seems that the USs means of intimidation is generally regarded by Lynd to be the reason for
blaming them for start of the Cold War. The reason for this is that the US military was very
large and they had the power to threaten any nation with the influence they had over their
country. Lynd demonstrates how the US had an extensive volume of reasons to be blamed
for the origins of the Cold War. This is presented by Lynd as he states that American
diplomacy intervened in a way which foreshadowed future Soviet-American tension during
the 1941 meeting between Molotov22 and Eden23. This suggests that Lynd continues to see
how the participation of America played a major role for them being to blame. Nevertheless it
is indisputable to question the fact that the US had an immense appearance in their actions.
On the other hand, it is clear that the US wanted to ensure there was peace amongst
themselves and the USSR, however the way in which they were implementing this was
wrong; method of balance of power24 as they wanted to bargain with Stalin whereas Hull25
hoped Stalin could, if treated indulgently enough be committed [to the balance of power] but
Lynd demonstrates that it was causing friction. The Americans main objective was to prevent
dictatorship in smaller states to allow them to determine their own future, their means of
keeping peace. Staughton questions Americans decision making process in trying to
preserve Poland as their own, he considers that their approach to determining Polands fate
and settling an agreement was a fait accompli. Which is evident they failed to deliver a
second front from the Soviet Union. The Big Three knew the question of land reforms26 was
the main bone of contention deemed Lynd, however they paid land reforms scant attention
in their discussions of the Polish question, displaying their reason for failure. It can be
deduced that they made pressured decisions due to their flawed policies. Roosevelt wanted
to seem like he had a diplomatic charisma to Churchill and Stalin as he knew the importance
to impress them to gain a satellite ally which would put him in a greater position in the league
of power amongst the world. The reason which can be inferred throughout How The Cold
War Began is that the allies felt the need to treat Russia differently due to the spheres of
influence27 which caused the retaliation of America, because they were scared. In 1944,
Lynd explains that Roosevelt contented himself with amiable sentiments about freely
negotiated and friendly settlement of the Soviet-Polish dispute this clearly portrays that
America did alter their demeanour towards Russia to try and get something from them but

22
Molotov was a Soviet politician and diplomat. He was Minister of Foreign Affairs from 1939 to 1949
and from 1953 to 1956.
23
Eden was a British conservative politician who served 3 times as Foreign Secretary and once as
Prime Minister.
24
The US thought that as they were both superpowers this would mean that there would be limited
chance of a war or feud because they both had too much power to risk losing.
25
US Foreign Secretary
26
They were concerned with the equal split of Germany and also questioning who would be in control
of Poland as it had a strategic positioning for both Russia and the West, making it an important factor.
27
They thought that Russia had the power to affect developments throughout other countries without
the right.
Harriet Exton Candidate Number:
8045

this failed. The Marshall Plan28 can also be used as a theory for blaming the US as the way
they implemented this was to apply this aid to Western Europe only and avoiding any
involvement with the Russians. Although Truman thought that this would be benefitting them
it simply continued to divide them more and led to increased competition which is how
America and its leadership can be suggested to be at blame. Lynd interestingly also
presents the British view about power, they demonstrated their favour towards Russia rather
than America, as Churchill agreed to the fact that Stalin had more validity to his events
compared to Americas lack of direction and reasoning behind their theories; they could see
through Roosevelts lack of decision making and how he aimed to hold the least amount of
responsibility possible, which was sure to only cause further problems later on.

To conclude, Lynd clearly argues that American leaders were a large cause for generating
the conflict and tensions and how a lot of the events could have been avoided if it wasnt for
America making risky decisions; which were entirely useless and had no purpose in helping
them. However, with the popularity of an orthodox view demonstrated amongst Americans it
is notable to see that Lynd has successfully exposed a revisionist view where he selects the
mistakes of the American government rather than continuing to follow everyone elses view
of criticising Russia; he states that Western (American) powers were deluded into the
condemning of Russia rather than questioning their own wrong-doing; this successfully
shows how they were in denial into believing they did anything to contribute to the dawn of
the Cold War. He does also show his understanding for the reasoning behind people not
considering this school of thought as he states, it is true that Soviet historians are far more
familiar with English, French and German sources than Westerners are with publications in
Russian showing that although the Western population isnt familiar with Soviet sources they
shouldnt totally overlook them.

Throughout Lynds thesis he successfully displays powerful arguments which do lead us to


question Americas decisions and whether they can be considered to be fully blamed for the
emergence of the Cold War. He is known to be the American objector where his aim is to
influence the younger generations into believing that America had a bigger reason into being
blamed compared to Russia - who although have numerous reasons to be blamed were
less active than America when it came to instigating the events. Also, Lynd is known to be
one of the most controversial historians of his time, writing this article in the 1960s at the
height of the prominent orthodox school of thought. Historians which share similar views as
Lynd include: Walter LaFeber and William A. Williams. In his thesis the earliest date he talks
about was 1941 where the British and Russian foreign secretaries meet to organise Soviet-
British objectives; as he states this is the embryo of conflict but he fails to raise the subject
of Bolshevism. This does provide weakness within this source as he doesnt bring up any
previous activity of either power. Overall, Lynds argument has been supported by Williams
A. Williams29 who agrees that the American leaders had always been people who aimed to
threaten others and how their desire to remain capitalism was also to blame.

28
It was initially put in place to aid the American economy by helping invest in growing markets and
trying to lending money to the majority of countries which were heavily influenced by Soviet Russia,
but the US went to significant lengths to avoid this helping the Soviet Union in anyway
29
He was one of the most prominent revisionist historians in America, focusing his writings on
Americas failings. Some include: American-Russian Relations and The Tragedy of American
Diplomacy.
Harriet Exton Candidate Number:
8045

Bogdan Antoniu
Bogdan Antoniu elaborates and builds upon the traditional view of Ambrose's theories and
Lynds revisionist perspective; he gives a clear insight into post revisionism 30. Near the
beginning of The Origins of the Cold War: A Historiographical Review, Bogdan clearly
explains how few historians in the US saw any reason to challenge the interpretation of the
beginnings of the Cold War a decade after the end of WW2, few historians in the United
States saw any reason to challenge the most accepted American interpretation. But he does
state that in recent years new evidences emerged from former Soviet and Eastern
Europeans countries achieves suggesting that they now have ability to see a different
perspective in full detail. This does lead us to suggest that Bogdan knew how Americans
were fearful about how they may get accused for starting the Cold War as there had been
more research released in favour of Soviets and against the US. Bogdan demonstrates how
the Americans perception on Soviet Russia was due to them wanting to emerge as innocent
to all other neighbouring nations, which in turn left them to blame the Soviets for their over-
aggression Soviet aggressiveness is considered to be a primary, if not sole factor behind
the Cold War. The angst relating to communism - policy of containment31 was also an
additional reason as to why Americans thought it was valid to blame USSR, as they
speculated that they were intending to take over Poland. The communist fear was spreading
and was one of the principle blame theories the Cold War was the brave and essential
response of free men to communist aggression states Bogdan. He quotes the orthodox
theory of Feis32 who explains that the Russians were extending their boundaries and their
control over neighbouring states but also beginning to revert to their revolutionary effort
throughout the world this shows that he is attempting to show how the Soviets were a huge
threat with their policy of expansion. The movement of dtente33 which America thought
would work had limited effects. Bogdan clearly demonstrates how America wanted to secure
world cooperation through the UN and this explains the reasons why they had fears for a
communist takeover as they wanted the world to remain tension free - American foreign
policy in the aftermath of the Second World War was built on principles of securing world
cooperation through the United Nations. Although this view was widely accepted across
America, some revisionists disagreed with this view as they believed that capitalism and
economic expansion was the driving force not the threat of security which the Soviets
gave.The fear of a communist takeover frightened the US and this is where the policy of
containment entered as they were willing to use many strategies to prevent the spreading of
the communist ideology. An additional cause for blaming Russia is that their actions
represent a policy of expansionism and how their movements in Eastern Europe were not
moderate or cautious as Stalin once stated. However, Bogdan questions whether using
national security for the explanation of the US actions was a valid explanation for causing
problems, he states that it [national security] had not been the driving force in American
policymaking. This infers that he is unsure about this being a definite explanation.

I believe that Bogdan rejects neither blaming the Soviets or the Americans, as they were
both equally at fault. The revisionist theory arose in the 1960s and 1970s due to Americas

30
They argue that the origins of the Cold War were neither solely the fault of America or Russia.
31
This was an act in which the US used strategies to prevent the spread of communism; it was put in
place as a response to Russia's movements in expanding their communist government throughout
Eastern Europe.
32
Herbert Feis was an American historian who blamed Russia for the origins of the Cold War
33
Dtente is the removing of hostility of strained relationships amongst countries.
Harriet Exton Candidate Number:
8045

involvement with Vietnam which caused controversy and led to many questions being
unanswered about their involvement. Bogdan quotes that The United States had been
primarily to blame for the Cold War; the Soviet Union had displayed no aggressive designs
toward the West this does lead us to query whether the Soviets had only responded to the
aggression they were receiving from the US and that the only reason Russia was the easiest
to blame was due to their influence and size. It does leave another inquiry into whether
Americas aim was to simply threaten Stalin by using their military34 as a threat? Bogdan
gives us evidence to prove that the United States were using their natural military monopoly
to overpower Stalin and his Red Army - America had used its nuclear monopoly to attempt
to threaten and intimidate Stalin; which gives us concepts to understands Russia's actions.
This gives us the perception that Russia were naturally behaving in an ordinary manner
towards the actions they had been receiving from the US. He finalises his post revisionist
theory by giving the view of Lloyd Gardner who stated that responsibility for the way in
which the Cold War developed, at least, belongs more to the United States relating this to
the US having a greater opportunity to create influence over others than the Soviets did.

Generally, Bogdan has balanced out the blame for both the superpowers and identified the
weaknesses for both the nations behaviours. He suggests that the post-revisionist theory is
created to modify and adjust the more traditional theories and make them relevant to today.
Alongside his works, the historian Thomas G. Paterson35 also expounds the views of
Bogdan and John Lewis Gaddis36 who voices neither side can bear sole responsibility for
the onset of the Cold War. Overall, it is clear to identify that the United States appointed
their blame for applicable actions which other nations around the world could relate to; but it
is not adequate enough to place all the blame on Russia as inevitably it was Americas
actions which led them to react in that manner. But Bogdan then states that the Cold War
was caused by actions of US and Soviets responding defensively to America which portrays
that he displays a counterbalanced argument.

Other Historians Views


The most popular theory about who is to blame for the Cold War isnt represented in the
orthodox and revisionist articles chosen for this exercise, but it is executed well by Bogdan,
as he gives us insight into the views of post-revisionists and their theories about who was to
blame. For post-revisionism it is clear that both the superpowers were promoting what they
wanted and what they had planned in terms of foreign policies and domestic policies which
were both misinterpreted and viewed differently which meant distrust amongst one another
was present. Historians which support this view argue that foundations of blame for the Cold
War wasnt the sole fault of the US nor the Soviet Union. It arose from the ending of WW2

34
This is known as militarism which is the belief that a country should maintain a strong military
capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests.
35
He was an American historian who had a fairly balanced view, he wrote the books: Contesting
Castro, American-Foreign Relations and The Origins of the Cold War.
36
He is an American historian/professor and is now deemed as the Dean of Cold War Historians" by
The New York Times. He has wrote numerous books based on the Cold War and his blame theories.
Harriet Exton Candidate Number:
8045

which led to an inevitable power vacuum37. The historians who skillfully demonstrate this are
John Lewis Gaddis who has many valid reasons as well as Thomas G. Paterson. They differ
slightly from Bogdan as they blame policies and the political hostility which was shared
between America and Russia. From John Lewis Gaddiss book38 he states that The greatest
Anglo-American fear had been that the Soviet Union might again cut a deal with Nazi
Germany...which would leave large proportion of Europe in an authoritarian hand
suggesting that he finds it normal to view the expansionistic policies as a way of growing
and increasing power rather than establishing an idea of war. But there can be multiple
reasons as to why Russia wanted to expand their states, firstly this could be due to Stalins
authoritative and intimidating charisma which meant he became power-crazed and didnt
want to stop expanding his empire. However, Gaddis states that at the post-war settlements
in Tehran39, America hadnt made any other agreements to leave their usual tradition of
being involved with the European affairs whether they had an influence on them or not. He
continues to elaborate on the Soviets advantages, such as their geographical advantage of
being part of the European continent which meant that their military forces didnt have to
leave under any circumstances unlike America who Truman promised would return home
within two years after the end of the war. This suggests that Gaddis could see the Soviets
advantages here and how they used them to expand their states, meaning initially their
thoughts of expansionism were simply at their advantage as there wasnt anyone else to
look after the gained land. This similar interpretation runs throughout his book and all
opinions are justified as to why these events unfolded.

Throughout, it is emphasised that Stalin refuses to acknowledge the developing world and
how he had to work alongside countries which he didnt necessarily want to, to gain allied
advantages. It was evident that neither the US nor the USSR were capable of working
alongside each other as they both had different ideologies on how the world should be run
which meant that they were never going to agree. This was demonstrated by the Russians
desire for a communist takeover and the USs desire for a capitalist democracy. Stalin was
strongly against capitalism as he automatically viewed them as a competitor who he needed
to go up against; on the other hand America were terribly frightened of communism and its
ability to sweep over countries and dominate without the public being aware. Stalin didnt
see the need for multilateralism40 because he knew that America just wanted to retaliate
against his decisions. However, Gaddis insists that the only reason the US reacted to these
events was due to national security; showing that he is reinstating his theory of post-
revisionism. This view is also demonstrated by other historians but it appears that Gaddis
only has limited knowledge on the reasons for the fear as he staples it to the wider alliance
with the rest of the world and the domestic policies rather than America simply wanting
dominance and to appear powerful. With Americas advantage of military power and force
and their continued evolution of policies it shows that the US expansion of the empire wasnt
due to the Soviets but their fear of radicalism41 taking over Europe leaving them with nothing

37
This is the result of when something has been lost and all control has disappeared with nothing to
take it over - East Europe and Germany.
38
The Cold War: A New History
39
This is where the Big Three made their main decision to destroy Germany and Japan. Also, Britain
and America agreed to start a second front against Germany and Stalin agreed to enter the war
against Japan after the defeat of Germany.
40
This is where a group(s) of countries work together to meet a particular aim
41
Radicalism is the changing of ways and plans through the implementation of drastic changes
Harriet Exton Candidate Number:
8045

worthy of power. Therefore indicating that it was an internal fear they had which led them to
plan these policies. Gaddis agrees on the fact that the Soviets expansionism was sudden
and unplanned but this may be due to Stalin feeling that Truman wanted to turn the world
into something which he could manage and run and wasnt going to have any autocratic
states in it; meaning he would have full control.

Much recent writings about the blame of the Cold War have started to question the
introduction of modern technologies and the race to space. This was another means in
which the superpowers had the ability to compete without direct military conflict. John D
Clare42 is a historian who helps investigate this theory further. He identifies that In sport,
science, technology, military and diplomatic spheres, the USSR sought to show that it could
compete and do better than the USA this suggests how he has evidence to prove that the
USSR and the USA were competing with one another. However, he understands how the
US had a part to play with the USSR and making them retaliate to their actions. By 1945 the
USA had already detonated two nuclear bombs over Japan to help bring an end to the
Second World War, Clare supports this view by explaining how they [US] wanted to use
their atomic weapons in order to warn the USSR that they had weapons of mass destruction
and were prepared to use them. This supports how this Arms Race was always going to
play a prominent role in the blame for the Cold War. Only 4 years later, and the USSR had
produced nuclear weapons, and by the 50s it had started a Nuclear Arms Race43 between
the two superpowers which had the ability to spiral out of control. Demonstrated by the
Space Race. By late 1950, the Space Race had begun which was initiated by the USSR
with the launch of the Sputnik I44 satellite in 1957. The US were clearly unprepared for this
as they took several months to develop a competing missile. Clare explains that they had
both aimed to place their missiles in neighbouring countries of their enemy portrayed by the
US had missiles in Turkey, the USSR tried to put missiles on Cuba in response this
suggests how they both knew the best ways to aggravate and alarm each other. The sole
purpose of these nuclear arms was to deter one another from going to war, this is better
known as nuclear deterrence but it was unsure how long this could continue. This historian's
view maintains that this [nuclear deterrence] brought stability to the world, however, both
sides had nuclear weapons, so there was a chance they might be used. Throughout his
article Clare expresses a fairly neutral and balanced opinion over the Race to Space which
portrays how sticks with the post-revisionist school of thought.

Assessment
It remains true that the various schools of thoughts all have significant reasoning behind
them. However, the most logical blame theory would be post-revisionism as it gives a clear
balance of blame by portraying how they both had large roles to play in the development of
this Cold War. The development is key when defining the modern blame culture as it was a
constant evolution. In summary, despite many factors contributing to the Cold War, the post-
revisionist school of thought remains the most relative as it clearly defines the peaks and
troughs for both global powers. Even with the clear tragic events which the Soviets

42
He is a British historian who has a strong opinion on the role of technology for the development of
the Cold War as he is a modern historian.
43
Both the USSR and USA had built up their stockpiles of nuclear weapons
44
This was the first artificial satellite to be launched into space ever and was conducted by the USSR.
Harriet Exton Candidate Number:
8045

contributed towards, its unfair to leave the blame solely on the USSR when considering the
actions the US committed such as their involvement in Vietnam.

Word Count: 5315

Você também pode gostar