The Cold War: Seeking Peace with the Soviet Union

Post Second World War, the relationship that existed between the Soviet Union and the United States deteriorated dramatically just months after the end of the war. Both allies had emerged from the world conflict as two dominant powers, but after ignoring the pledge made during the World War II to support post war democratic elections in Germany and the rest of Europe, the Soviet Union decided to impose a communist regimen creating an “iron curtain” around Eastern Europe as Winston Churchill stated it on a speech given in Futon Missouri. Soon after that, disputes between the Soviet Union and the United States almost elevated to military confrontations over the oil concession in Iran, and the American plan to take international control of nuclear weapons under the newly established United Nations (pg 257). Many people thought that the Soviet Union had to be contained; one of them was George F. Kennan who had served as the director of the Policy Planning Staff and had worked in U.S embassy in Moscow. Kennan was one of the first diplomats to express complete pessimism against the cooperation with the Soviet Union that had started during WWII. While on the other hand, Henry A. Wallace believed that there should be peace between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. He argued that another war would be disastrous and that a friendly cooperation had to be established to organize peace, and believed that the United States should not interfere too much with the Soviet Union and its “sphere of influence” or Eastern Europe. Although Wallace had great political experience, he unsuccessfully ran for the presidency and lost against Truman in 1948, yet I wonder what it would have been of the United States had Wallace won the elections. Perhaps, his influence on the presidency would have kept the United States out of the coming wars in which it was involved.

Gorge F Kennan argument for “containment” which was that the United Stated had to stop ideologies and dictatorial positions of the leaders of the Soviet Union to spread internationally and taking an adversarial stance against the United States. Kennan stated that it was necessary to take steps to ensure that the Soviet Union does not expand its military influence to other countries of the world. Kennan stated that the Soviet Ideology is very complex based on the “Marxian ideology, in its Russian-Communist projection, [that] has always been in process of subtle evolution” (Kennan 260). This meant that, the communist detested the capitalistic ways of the United States and believed that only capitalistic privileged people benefited from the hard work of the labor force. But, Kennan argued that since capitalism no longer existed in Russia, it was an excuse to justify the retention of the dictatorship by stressing that capitalism was bad. In addition, Kennan argues that the historical background of the Soviet Union just focuses on portraying that capitalism is bad, therefore, there can never be any sincere assumption of a community of endeavors between the Soviet Union and the nations regarded as capitalist. Kennan considered that the United States could never be expected to comfortably be politically active with the Soviet regime, therefore, should be regarded as an enemy and not as a partner. Thus, the Soviet Union’s policies reflected no interest in peace and stability, and there was no real faith in reestablishing a permanent content coexistence of the Socialist and the Capitalist worlds. In stead, it presented “a cautious, persistent pressure toward the disruption and weakening of all rival influence and rival power” (Kennan 263). It was clear that the Soviet society totally opposed to the western world in general.

On the contrary to what Kennan believed, Henry A. Wallace disagreed on enabling another war to take effect with the Soviet Union. Wallace said that another war would be disastrous not only for the effects in the economy, but also to the progress of the Nation. He stated in his speech in 1946, that the significance of peace had changed ever since the atomic bomb, guided missiles, and airplanes with great speeds. Wallace also said that another war would hurt the nation many times more that as the previous war, because although the United States had created the atomic bomb, it did not meant it can not perish by the atomic bomb. Wallace explained that, “if modern war can cost us $400 billion, we should be willing and happy to pay much more for peace. But certainly, the cost of peace is to be measured not in dollars but in the hearts and minds of men…” (Wallace 257). One of the most remarkable things that Wallace mention in his speech is that in order to achieve peace, the Russian character should be studied to understand its formation. For example the location where the Soviet Union was located, in between Europe and Asia, and the intervention from many groups like the British, French, and American, and their emotional powers brought by Marxism and Leninism a policy of “getting though with Russia” was not enough, because the rougher the United States were the tougher they became. Wallace brought to the public’s attention that, the past enemies were fake friends of today, who would benefit from provoking a war between the U.S. and Russia, thus they did not have real “love” of the United States and only sought for the destruction of both countries. In addition, Wallace motivated people to believe that once the Soviet Union achieves its propose, she would remain happy with her one third of the world she has, and that both ideas would endeavor satisfaction to the common men in their perspective of political dominance to get best of both theories.

Although it is not accurate what would been the outcomes if Wallace had won the elections in 1948, I think that Wallace had a point. The United Nations was establish so that it would control the way countries would treat each other, always seeking peace, or at least settling disputes with the least amount of atrocities. Therefore, making not the United States in charged of what would happen to the world. Even though the containing was successful at the long run, I would argue that capitalist did not saw the flaws inside their own system. If we look at the world today, many of the countries where the U.S. has intervened, their economy has not improved a whole lot. The establishment of maquiladoras in places such as Nicaragua, and Panama to improve the economy just helps the manufacturing producers (the USA) and not the people. In a way, I would see communism and capitalism growing together to perhaps create an even better system that does not only benefit dictators or capitalistic monopolies. But, who knows, everything that is created by man happens to have flaws.