Stage 1: the Orthodox View Or Traditional View (1940S and 50S)

1

The Cold War

During the Second World War, the US and the Soviet Union fought as Allies against Germany. In May 1945, American troops triumphantly entered Berlin from the West, while the Red Army moved in from the East. However, celebrations rapidly turned to mistrust and suspicion. Within three years, the bulk of Eastern Europe was under the control of the Soviet Union, and the former allies were deeply embroiled in a conflict that became known as the Cold War. What went wrong in the international arena?

Historical writing on the Origins of the Cold War (Who was to blame for the Cold War?)

Over time, historians have written about the Cold War in a number of different ways. They have differed in their approach to, and understanding of, the origins of the Cold War. Each different stage of historical writing about the Cold War has led to different interpretations of who caused the Cold War. Was it the Soviet Union? Was it the United States? Was it both? These are questions that historians have grappled with, and often their own ideological perspective or bias has determined the way in which they have interpreted the Cold War. It is important to identify the different trends in historical writing on the Cold War in order to understand it and to place these different views in context.

Stage 1: The orthodox view or traditional view (1940s and 50s)

The orthodox or traditional view was developed by Western historians in the late 1940s and early 1950s. They believed that the Soviet Union was primarily responsible for the outbreak and continuation of the Cold War. Josef Stalin was viewed as the arch villain who aimed to extend his communist and totalitarian system throughout the world. The Soviet regime was seen as extremely antagonistic and threatening to the West. The United States thus adopted a defensive stance, in which it aimed to stop the spread of communism. This anti-communist attitude was widespread in the US and often reached hysterical proportions. This view has never really disappeared.

The orthodox Soviet view justified the role that the USSR played in international relations during the Cold War period. They tended to justify Stalin’s policies, viewing his actions as defensive against the growing aggression and expansionism of the USA.

Stage 2: The revisionist view (1959, 1960s)

This view represented a major shift in attitude among a school of western American scholars of the Cold War. They agreed with the Russian interpretation, and took the view that the US had started and sustained the Cold War. They claimed that the US had over-reacted to Soviet actions. They claimed that the USA acted according to economic interest. According to this view, the Soviet Union was motivated not by the desire to expand its territory, but by the need to secure its borders with a buffer of states and establish a strong line of defence against any form of Western invasion.

Stage 3: The post-revisionist view (1970s)

American historians who support this view based their analysis on new sources and evidence made available by the Freedom of Information Act. This view did not try to blame one or the other side for the Cold War. It argued that the Cold War was the product of mutual suspicions and over-reaction on both sides. They tend to see the causes of the Cold War as complex rather than a single cause.

Stage 4: The Cold War as history (1990s)

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, a further shift in our understanding of the Cold War is likely to take place. The end of the Cold War means that the Cold War as history is just beginning. Much of our understanding of the Cold War has been based on the work of Western historians. Now the Soviet archives are open to scholars of the Cold War and, for the first time, it seems likely that new evidence will emerge which will shed light on the Cold War in a way that examines the evidence from both sides. The new evidence suggests that the Soviet leaders were genuinely trying to avoid conflict with the West, suggesting the US was more to blame. Many of the recent studies of Cold War history portray it as a clash of ideologies.

What was the Cold War?(Post 1991)

In 1989, the Soviet Union collapsed and thus brought to an end an almost 55-year period of antagonism, tension and distrust between the US and the Soviet Union. This antagonism (a state of ongoing hostility stopping short of actual war) between the two superpowers was termed the Cold War. Why did this struggle occur?

Origins of the Cold War (broad outline)

• 1917 – emergence of USSR as the first major communist power.(Revolution – violence – communist principles in the economy(loss of land and assets) – no religion – debt to West not repaid – pulled out of World War 1, giving Germany a one front war)
• 1918-20 – involvement of West (USA, Br., Fr) in the Civil War in Russia, on the side of the Whites against the Communists. The USSR feared being encircled by the capitalist West.
• 1920s, 1930s – limited trade and diplomatic links: atmosphere of suspicion.
• 1930s – Nazi threat grew. Stalin was convinced of Western hostility towards the Soviet Union long before the ‘Cold War.’ At the Munich Conference in 1938, the West had excluded the Soviet Union from the decision-making process on the fate of Czechoslovakia, and had refused to side with the Soviet Union against Germany before the war. At this point, the West viewed the Soviet Union and the spread of communism with more fear than it did Hitler's aggressive policies.
• Stalin appealed to West for treaties against Nazi aggression. West not interested – practicing policy of Appeasement with Hitler. Stalin resorted to forming an agreement,the Non-Aggression Pact in 1939, with Hitler as a form of protection. He started WW 11 on Hitler’s side, assisted in the invasion of Poland.
• Stalin colonised the Baltic states of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia in 1940. After a hundred-day war, Russia invaded and conquered Finland.
• 1941 – Operation Barbarossa – Hitler turned on his ally and invaded USSR. Hostility between the 2 sides was suspended as they united to destroy a common enemy. Even when the Soviet Union became an ally of the Western powers, this mistrust continued. The inability of the Western powers to open a second front in Western Europe until 1944 despite Soviet appeals to the West for assistance meant that the Soviet Union bore the brunt of the German attack for a prolonged period. Stalin viewed this as a deliberate attempt by the West to weaken Soviet forces in order to reduce Soviet strength in the post-war period. USSR subjected to massive losses (people/assets – scorched earth policy).
• The Western powers also refused Stalin any participation in the liberation of Italy, which further strengthened his suspicions.
• The West failed to reveal and pass on nuclear bomb secrets. (Only revealed after successful testing of the bomb.)

• The Teheran Conference, November 1943 At Teheran, the Big Three decided that there would be no Anglo-American invasion of Germany through the Balkans. This left only Soviet forces and troops from Balkan nations to clear Eastern Europe of German troops. By recognising Soviet supremacy in the eastern zone, the Teheran Conference limited the West's participation in the postwar political affairs in that area.
• Stalin was also encouraged to believe that he had a free hand in Eastern Europe as a result of the October 1944 agreements that he negotiated with Churchill. When Soviet troops liberated Romania and Bulgaria in August to September 1944, it was agreed that the Soviet Union should have 90% control over Romania and 75% control over Bulgaria. In return, Churchill gained 90% jurisdiction over Greece. Churchill's agreement convinced Stalin that the West would accept Soviet control in these areas.

The Yalta Conference: February 1945In February 1945 it was clear that Germany was losing the European war, so the Allied leaders met at Yalta in the Ukraine to plan what would happen to Europe after Germany's defeat. The Yalta Conference went well. Despite their differences, the Big Three - Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill- agreed on some important matters:

 Stalin agreed to enter the war against Japan once Germany had surrendered.

 They agreed that Germany would be divided into four zones: American, French, British and Soviet. The German capital, Berlin, was deep in the Soviet zone so it was agreed that Berlin itself would also be divided into four zones

 As Allied soldiers advanced through Germany they were revealing the horrors of the Nazi concentration camps. The Big Three agreed to hunt down and punish war criminals who were responsible for the genocide.

 They agreed that as countries were liberated from occupation by the German army, they would be allowed to hold free elections to choose the government they wanted.

 The Big Three all agreed to join the new United Nations Organisation which would aim to keep peace after the war,

 The Soviet Union had suffered terribly in the war. An estimated 20 million Russians had died. Having suffered so greatly in the war, Stalin was concerned about the future security of the USSR. The Big Three agreed that eastern Europe should be seen as 'a Soviet sphere of influence'.

 The only real disagreement was about Poland. Stalin wanted the border of the USSR to move westwards into Poland. Stalin argued that Poland, in turn, could move its border westwards into German territory. Churchill did not approve of Stalin's plans for Poland, but he also knew that there was not very much he could do about it because Stalin's Red Army was in total control of both Poland and eastern Germany. Roosevelt was also unhappy about Stalin's plan but Churchill persuaded Roosevelt to accept it, as long as the USSR agreed not to interfere in Greece where the British were attempting to prevent the Communists taking over. Stalin accepted this. It seemed that, although they could not all agree, they were still able to negotiate and do business with one another.

• Despite differences and mutual suspicions, the Allied powers worked together because they agreed on a common purpose. With the defeat of Germany in 1945, there was no common purpose left, and the mutual suspicions and distrust then came to the surface.

• The Potsdam Conference: July-August 1945 Three months after the Yalta Conference, Allied troops reached Berlin. Hitler committed suicide. Germany surrendered unconditionally. The war in Europe was won. A second conference of the Allied leaders was arranged for July 1945 in the Berlin suburb of Potsdam. However, in the five months since Yalta a number of changes had taken place which would greatly affect relationships between the leaders.

• Stalin’ s armies were occupying most of eastern Europe Soviet troops had liberated country after country in eastern Europe, but instead of withdrawing his troops Stalin had left them there. By July, Stalin's troops effectively controlled the Baltics, Finland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania and refugees were fleeing out of these countries fearing a Communist takeover. Stalin had set up a Communist government in Poland, ignoring the wishes of the majority of Poles. Britain and the USA protested but Stalin defended his action.
• America had a new president On 12 April President Roosevelt died. He was replaced by his Vice President, Harry Truman. Truman was a very different man from Roosevelt. He was much more anti-Communist than Roosevelt and was very suspicious of Stalin.

• The Allies had tested an atomic bomb On 16 July the Americans successfully tested an atomic bomb at a desert site in the USA. At the start of the Potsdam Conference Truman informed Stalin about it.

Disagreements at Potsdam The Potsdam Conference finally got under way on 17 July. Not surprisingly it did not go as smoothly as Yalta. In July there was an election in Britain. Churchill was defeated, so half- way through the conference he was replaced by a new Prime Minister, Clement Attlee. In the absence of Churchill the conference was dominated by rivalry and suspicion between Stalin and Truman. A number of issues arose on which neither side seemed able to appreciate the other's point of view:

 They disagreed over what to do about Germany. Stalin wanted to cripple Germany completely to protect the USSR against future threats. Truman did not want to repeat the mistake of the Versailles Peace Treaty.

 They disagreed over reparations. Twenty million Russians had died in the war and the Soviet Union had been devastated so Stalin wanted compensation from Germany. Truman, however, was once again determined not to repeat the mistakes at the end of the First World War and resisted this demand.

They disagreed over Soviet policy in Eastern Europe. At Yalta Stalin had won agreement from the Allies that he could set up pro-Soviet governments in Eastern Europe. He said, 'If the Slav [the majority of east European] people are united no one will dare move a finger against them'. Truman became very unhappy about Russian intentions and soon adopted a 'get tough' attitude towards Stalin.

It was clear by 1946 that the wartime friendship between the Allies bad broken down. It had been replaced by suspicion and accusation. “Unless Russia is faced with an iron fist and strong language another war is in the making.” Truman in a confidential letter to his Secretary of State. However, the distrust between the USA and the USSR was soon so great that leaders were talking in public about the threat of war between the two countries. Instead of running down arms expenditure after the war, as could be expected, the two sides actually increased their stock of weapons. When Stalin was told about the bomb, he was angry he had not heard about it before, and gave orders to his own scientists to develop the Soviet weapon. The nuclear arms race had begun. The development of the bomb appeared to encourage Truman to become more aggressive against the USSR. He replaced the pro-Soviet advisors with anti-communist advisors.

Each side took every opportunity to denounce the policies or the plans of the other. A propaganda war developed. In this atmosphere of tension and recrimination people began to talk about a Cold War. This Cold War was going to last for 30 years and would dominate relations between the countries for much of that time.

• By 1945 the Soviet Union had been invaded twice by Germany in the past 30 years. Thus, it was determined to prevent a further invasion by the West. Stalin, therefore, aimed to build up a series of buffer states on his western borders. The dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was seen by Stalin as to be more directed against the USSR than Japan. He felt that the West was trying to intimidate the USSR and as a result became tougher on the West. His comment on the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima: “War is barbaric, but using the A-bomb is a super-barbarity”.
• The occupation of the countries previously occupied by the Nazis by the Soviets and the promotion of communism in those countries increased the West’s fears.The basis of the Cold War was fear. But, the Western powers feared that the Soviet Union would do everything in its power to spread communism throughout the world. The US was determined to prevent this.

The capitalist ideology of the US conflicted with the communist beliefs of the Soviet Union. And each side wanted to prevent the other from spreading its belief system to other countries.

What was the impact of the Cold War in forming the world as it was in the 1960s?

What was the nature of the Cold War?

The Cold War was a period in world history between 1945 and 1994 when the two superpowers, the United States of America (USA) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), confronted each other without breaking into a 'hot' war or 'shooting' war. The USA followed democracy and capitalism while the USSR adopted one-party rule and communism. Both states competed for influence in the world and wanted to advance their economic interests, spread their ideologies, gain allies and weaken their rivals.

Ideological and political differences

The USA supported a political system of democracy where political leaders were elected in regular, generally free and fair elections where they could also be voted out of power. The two main parties in America, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, constantly competed for power. Critics of American democracy point out that most candidates were wealthy individuals and that powerful corporations donated so much money to the campaigns of politicians that they became too influential over government policy.