The Origins of the Cold War: Different Views

Published in

Age of Awareness

16 min readSep 10, 2018

Preface:

I originally wrote this as part of the International Baccalaureate 16 years ago when I had read few books on the events before the Cold War relative to now. I’m still unsure if my views would change. If anything, I think I need to read more books on the topic before I change my analysis. I don’t think my analysis is anything other than another view or a historiographical view of the Cold War.

I’ve read many books since then about WWII and the world situation that preceded the Cold War, and it seemed like a pretty crazy world with crazy players. It also seems like I know even more about what I don’t know about that period in history. I can only hope this article is the start of a discussion rather than the conclusion of one.

Introduction

The United Stated (US) and the Soviet Union (USSR) created the Grand Alliance with Britain in the Second World War to fight against Germany, but afterwards their relationship degraded after many conferences. At the end of the war, this split between the two countries ended up in a cold war. The main schools of thought during and after the Cold War in the US and Europe were the traditionalist, the revisionist, and the post-revisionist/realist. The origins of the Cold War lay at the fault of either the USSR, the US, or both of them.

Cold War was Started by the USSR

The traditional view is that the Cold War was started by the Soviet expansionism, which had resulted from their communist ideology to cause world revolution. Walt W. Rostow argues that the Second World War was fought by the USSR so as to give it direct control of the countries on its borders citing if the Grand Alliance splits up Germany then Russia could have a long running influence over Germany (1). Daniel Yergin argues that the totalitarian government of the USSR further caused Russia to be looking for world domination. Since the communist ideology calls for a world revolution, Yergin, as Rostow, puts the blame on the Soviet Union for starting the Cold War pointing out Russia’s movements of troops in Iran and Turkey after the Second World War as evidence (2). The Yalta agreements made at the Yalta Conference were the first real evidence of Soviet unilateralism so says John Lewis Gaddis since the USSR violated Yalta by making unilateral decisions, like inserting communist governments for the countries that they had occupied. Gaddis further points out the instance after the war where Russia failed to meet the agreed upon deadline for removing their troops from Iran as an instance where they were trying to expand more (3).

Martin McCauley saw the termination of Comintern in 1943 as an indicator that Soviet expansionism was no longer there because the since communist governments would be legitimate governments if Comintern didn’t exist (4). Gaddis, however, saw the dissolution of Comintern as a temporary jester toward the US even though Gaddis agrees that Comintern was not in practice during the war after 1943 till some time into the Cold War (5). Going further though, in 1995 the VENONA materials, which were translations of messages of which related to Soviet espionage efforts against the MANHATTAN Project, proved otherwise. In these messages, evidence can be found that Comintern had not dissolved but just gone underground since the people working for Comintern were usually intermixed with the KGB. The VENONA materials were the only thing stopping the Russians from saying they knew about the atomic bomb because if they did, then the USSR would also have to admit to spying on the Americans (6). Thus Soviet expansionism still existed. Arthur M. Schlesinger saw Molotov walking out on the conference in Paris after the war to discuss for European reconstruction, as the start of and most apparent sign of Soviet expansionism through their unilateral decisions in Eastern Europe. The US was then reacting to Soviet aggression in fear of the Soviet Union, thus an increase in stern foreign policy towards the USSR as the causes for the Cold War (7).

Gaddis also notes that the knowledge of Soviet unilateralism was known to Truman brought to him in the Clifford report, which was subsequently locked away in the White House safe until Truman left office (8). The report given to Truman by Clark M. Clifford outlined the USSR’s objectives, most of which were tied in with communist ideology. Clifford said that since the communist thought there was an inevitable war between the capitalist and the communist to be fought that they were increasing both their military and their sphere of influence. On the contrary, George F. Kennan didn’t believe the USSR was preparing for war but the Marxist-Leninist ideology was a just a means of justification for a repressive regime not an ultimate plan for world dominance. The Clifford report provided evidence for the traditionalist point, but the US didn’t react quickly enough to the Soviet expansionism even though they were aware of Stalin’s goals. While even before the Clifford report, Roosevelt saw Stalin’s objectives and even helped in Yalta (9).

Schlesinger further argues that the US couldn’t have changed the course of events in the beginning of the Cold War because of the uncompromising communist/totalitarian ideology that Stalin followed so the Cold War was inevitable and caused by the USSR’s ideology (10). The historian Thomas G. Paterson argues that the Truman administration, at the end of the Second World War, neglected to see the USSR as capable of conquering the world or even Europe since the Soviet Union lacked money, resources, and a modern military to do so. Paterson points out Truman’s and the US government’s failure to try to stop the Soviet Union in any way even with the atomic bomb as a deterrent. He also points out that the Truman administration thought that the Soviet threat to Western Europe was almost non-existent because of the Soviet’s lack of military and didn’t expect the Soviet actions after the war (11). The traditional view on the Cold War further states that Russia is the country at fault while the US was just defending itself and other European countries. Douglas J. Macdonald argues, by the traditional view, the US foreign policies were “reasonable and necessary, or at least understandable and defensible.” He further argues that the US reacted slowly at first to Soviet expansionism, and the Soviet Union was only stopped when the US and Europe took a unified stand against the USSR (12).

Cold War was Started by the US

In the 1960’s, a revisionist school of thought formed, which stated US expansionism caused a Russian reaction and the Cold War. Joyce and Gabriel Kolko argue that the US business would only be able to operate in a world composed of capitalist nations with stable and reliable markets to sell the US’s supply of raw materials to. Thus, all leftist government, the Soviet Union included, damaged this universal order that the US wanted, so the Cold War was started by the US defending their capitalist order of the world. Joyce and Gabriel Kolko further argued that the government had foreseen the problems in the postwar era from the example of the First World War, and the US needed to avoid retreating back into depression again. This need caused the US to “fight” the Cold War in order to keep the American people employed while trying to turn the world into their image of an ideal capitalist world. The Kolkos continued to say that the US government had usually blamed the Kremlin for the problems of capitalism and had a strong dislike of the Bolsheviks and communism (13).

The historian Arnold A. Offner puts the blame of starting the Cold War on the US president Truman since Truman, being a parochial nationalist and a racist, got into the office of president by chance. He goes further to say Truman lacked the true leadership and decision making skills that a president needed because of his spontaneous decisions and his attitude toward the rest of the world in general. Even Truman’s views at the beginning of the Second World War showed his faults, when Truman stated that “if we see Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and that if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany and that way let them kill as many as possible.” Truman had a further lack of trust for the Russians that went through the end of the war and continued until he was out of office. The Truman Doctrine showed Truman’s hostility toward the USSR, but moreover gave the Soviet Union the option of receiving economic aid from the US, which was offered as a way to boast about the lack of money Russia had. Truman only added fuel to the fire of the conflict between the US and the USSR by his personality and his policy (14).

Melvyn P. Leffler argued the US postwar security policy had already been created before the war was over, and their security policy, which included making military bases in Europe, caused the USSR to respond in a defensive way. The US wanted to encircle the Western Hemisphere with a ring of outlying bases to protect America from any attacks since the US government officials thought attack could only come from Asia or Europe. This policy was a long-term policy and is comparable to the Soviet Union’s postwar policy to have control over the bordering states of the USSR. Leffler argued further that this American security policy was a form of American expansionism by making a defensive ring. Hence, American expansionism caused a Russian reaction that was quite the same as the US’s policy, to build a defensive ring of their own. So by Leffler the US caused the Cold War through their expansionism while the USSR only reacted in fear to US aggression (15).

William Appleman Williams argues the US’s “open-door” policy, a policy of projecting the US’s interests on a worldwide scale, further increased tensions between the US and the USSR and was one of the main causes of the Cold War since is put pressure on the Soviet Union (16). Geir Lundestad further concurred with Williams with his revisionist views, and stated that the US expansionism went further than the USSR since the US affected so many different parts of the world, and the US’s forms of control through governmental control were more in accordance with the local population’s. He further stated that this caused an American empire by invitation because of the other countries that were in ruins and asked for help. America’s economy was the strongest after the war, and to maintain a good economy, they offered aid through the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan of which both seemed to have anti-communist sentiments. So by Lunderestad, this American capitalist “empire” had caused a Russian reaction, thus the Cold War (17).

The Inevitable Conflict of Great Rival Powers

Some historians find the conflict of the Cold War was inevitable because the two largest powers of the world both wanted to be the best and biggest so had to fight in some way at some point in time. Some historians think that the differences in ideology, the US being a democratic, capitalist government and the USSR being a communist government, were the causes of the Cold War while others see the conflict as inevitable since they were the two super powers and were competing for world domination. Hitler in 1945 said, “The laws of both history and geography will compel these two Powers to a trial of strength, either military or in the fields of economics and ideology.” (18). John Lewis Gaddis has also seen the reason the Cold War happened as not being ideological as once thought. He makes reference to the Nineteenth Century where the US and the British Empire were the most powerful nations of whom had close to the same ideology, yet they still hated and fought each other even with similar ideologies. Even with differences in ideology, both ideologies of the US and USSR had the end goal of controlling most of the world (19).

Gaddis further argued the world during the Nineteenth Century was big enough for both the US and USSR to expand their countries as they wished without running into each other. During the Twentieth Century, however, the world wasn’t big enough anymore, and their two spheres of influence would have to collide at some point and cause some type of conflict. When the Twentieth Century came around, technology was allowing more contact between the two countries, but Gaddis points out that this technology worsened relationship between the US and Russia because of the horrible stories heard by the US government of Russia. The rise in media through at first newspapers caused the American public to become aware of the human rights violations and problems of Russia, which only heightened tension between the two countries. Gaddis continued to argue since a power vacuum was created after World War Two, the United States and the Soviet Union were unlikely to occupy the world without running into each other, so conflict was bound to happen. He further stated the problems the two countries had with each other wouldn’t just disappear within a few years of an alliance with the purges being fresh in many Americans’ minds (20).

He continues to say the main starting points of contrast between the US and USSR were their geographical position, since they were in relative distance between Europe and Asia, and would eventual influence the same areas as the distances decreases with the increase of technology. He went on to say that then the tradition of social and political organizations came about in different ways where both governments thought their government type was the best way to govern a country. Another example Gaddis uses for the theory of inevitable conflict would be the Japanese, Germans, Russians, British, and the Americans were the major powers and went to war because their spheres of influence and power had collided with each other (21). Thomas G. Paterson goes on to say that the Cold War came from the international system, the fundamental needs and ideas of the countries involved, and the tactics of each government. He continued to say since the governments of both countries were trying to fulfill their own needs after the war, they had abandoned any quest for an international community and started to build their spheres of influence (22). This view is still contradicting in some ways to the later events like the creation of the United Nations, which shows some desire to form an international community. So, no matter what happened in the events in the postwar era, the two nations would have had some type of conflict.

The Cold War was caused by the Combined Actions of the US and USSR

The post-revisionist/realist school of thought said the Cold War was neither completely the US’s or the USSR’s fault, but it was a combination of the both governments’ decisions. The intention of both governments wasn’t necessarily to create a cold war, but each decision was more independent from the others and involuntarily created the perception of and scenario for the Cold War. Throughout every event, some similarities in actions taken by each side are noticeable. The traditionalist, like Daniel Yergin, argue that Soviet expansionism caused the Cold War while others like Geir Lundestad argue that the Cold War was caused by American expansionism, but by some post-revisionist like Melvyn P. Leffler, the Cold War was caused by both countries expansionism as compared to the inevitable conflict of which Gaddis suggested. Joseph R. Starobin suggested the Cold War in itself was started just as a test of strength between the two countries, which is again similar Gaddis’s points on inevitable conflict (23). Hence the similarity in the actual intention of the actions taken by each country gives evidence for the “blame” of the Cold War to not exist since the Cold War was the end result of many different independent events.

Martin McCauley suggests both the traditional view and the revisionist view ignore the legitimate security needs of the Soviet Union and the latter ignores the Russian behavior, which gave the US reasons to shift its foreign policies. He further suggests both countries were unable to properly understand each other’s policies since they had very little experience in dealing with each other before 1941. He notes that many of the issues that arose of which caused the Cold War could have been avoided if both sides would have been more considerate (24). So by the post-revisionist/realist school of thought certain events are more understandable. For example, the Yalta conference, of which Stalin thought he could do what he wanted while Roosevelt thought that Stalin was going to compromise. The traditionalist would then say that it was Stalin’s misinterpretation that caused one of the main problems that lead to the Cold War while the revisionist would say that it was Roosevelt’s fault for not being tough enough while in fact the event was just part of many in which both sides didn’t fully understand each other, thus ending in conflict.

The end of lend lease was also a big issue because Stalin saw it as a bad jester while the US thought it necessary since Russia didn’t need lend lease anymore. The traditionalist would say the US is right, and Russia was using a lot of the lend lease money for reconstruction while the post-revisionist would say the US decision was badly timed and may have escalated the tensions. On both the Yalta conference and lend lease, the post-revisionist would say that all those actions combined caused the ascension of tension, which lead to the Cold War. So, through both the fear of and the aggression towards one another, the US and the USSR are equally responsible for the start of the Cold War. Thus the post-revisionist/realist school of thought is nothing more than the combining of all the different school of thought on the Cold War, but also consider the Cold War was the end result of many unintentional actions.

Conclusion

With hindsight of the Cold War, it is now possible to take the best stance on the origins of the Cold War by looking at the different schools of thought. A historian could now take the best of the different views, but the choice should ultimately come down to the most logical answer. In this case one must chose a mix between the post-revisionist views and the inevitable conflict between two great powers because they cover most possibilities that might arise, or one could see the Cold War being result of many independent actions taken by each side. The combination of these two views also eliminates the stubborn view that the Cold War was started only by one country or type of government. Either way, the Cold War wasn’t wanted by either side, but happened through miscommunication, many independent actions, and the ambitions of the US and the USSR.

Footnotes:

1. Pg. 141–45, Rostow, Walt W., The United States in the World Arena.

2. Pg 10–11,Yergin, Daniel, Shattered Peace.

3. Pg 29–32, Gaddis, John Lewis, The Long Peace: Inquires into the History of the Cold War.

4. Pg 19, McCauley, Martin, The Origins of the Cold War.

5. Pg 296–300, Gaddis, John Lewis, The United States and the Origins of the Cold War, 1941–1947.

7. Pg 251–253, Schlesinger Jr, Arthur M., “Origins of the Cold War”, Foreign Affairs, XLVI, 1 October 1967.

8. Pg 34–35, Gaddis, John Lewis, The Long Peace: Inquires into the History of the Cold War.

9. Pg 160–164, 321–323, Gaddis, John Lewis, The United States and the Origins of the Cold War, 1941–1947.

10. Pg 24, Schlesinger Jr, Arthur M., “Origins of the Cold War”, Foreign Affairs, XLVI, 1 October 1967.

11. Pg 35, 50–51, Paterson, Thomas G., Meeting the Communist Threat: Truman to Reagan.

12. Macdonald, Douglas J., “Communist Bloc Expansion in the Early Cold War: Challenging Realism, Refuting Revisionism”, International Security, Vol. 20, no. 3.

13. Pg 1–3, 4–5, 11, 20–23, 710–11, Kolko, Joyce and Gabriel, The Limits of Power: The World and United States Foreign Policy, 1945–1954.

14. Offner, Arnold, “The Truman Myth Revealed: From Parochial Nationalist to Cold Warrior.”

15. Pg 346–81, Leffler, Melvyn P., “The American Conception of National Security and the Beginning of the Cold War, 1945–1948,” American Historical Review, vol. LXXXIX, no. 2.

16. Pg 206–0, 227, 266–7, 278–9, Williams, William Appleman, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy.

17. Pg 263–70, Lundestad, Geir, “Empire by Invitation? The United States and Western Europe, 1945–1952,” Journal of Peace Research, vol. XXIII, no. 3.

18. Pg 107, Genoud, Francois, ed., The Testament of Adolf Hitler: The Hitler-Bormann Documents, February-April 1945.

19. Pg 2–4, Gaddis, John Lewis, We Now Know: Rethinking the Cold War.

20. Pg 11–12, Gaddis, John Lewis, We Now Know: Rethinking the Cold War.

21. Pg 24, Gaddis, John Lewis, We Now Know: Rethinking the Cold War.

22. Pg 1–4, 8–15, 19–32, Paterson, Thomas G., On Every Front: The Making of the Cold War.

23. Pg 24, 287–8, Starobin, Joseph R., “Origins of the Cold War”, Foreign Affairs, XLVII, 4 July 1969.

24. Pg 14, McCauley, Martin, The Origins of the Cold War.

Bibliography:

Leffler, Melvyn P., “The American Conception of National Security and the Beginning of the Cold War, 1945–1948,” American Historical Review, vol. LXXXIX, no. 2, ©April 1984.

Macdonald, Douglas J., “Communist Bloc Expansion in the Early Cold War: Challenging Realism, Refuting Revisionism”, International Security, Vol. 20, no. 3,

Offner, Arnold, “The Truman Myth Revealed: From Parochial Nationalist to Cold Warrior.” a paper first presented at the Annual Meeting of Organization of American Historians, ©March 1988.

Schlesinger Jr, Arthur M., “Origins of the Cold War”, Foreign Affairs, XLVI, 1 October 1967, Council on Foreign Relations, Inc.

Starobin, Joseph R., “Origins of the Cold War”, Foreign Affairs, XLVII, 4 July 1969, Council on Foreign Relations, Inc.