cold war
cold war
the US and USSR emerged from the war as the two most powerful nations on earth
Within a few years their alliance had fully broken down and the two countries were enemies for next 40 years and the whole world would be divided into two ‘blocs’
no actual war, it’s a cold war because they never directly fight
Gauging when it actually begins and what specifically causes it is more complex since no obvious starting point exists
in academic debates, reason for cold war is among the most controversial and heated discussion till today
causes of the cold war
cold war develops over a period of 4-5 years from 1945 onward
a wide variety of factors contribute to it
first main debate is over which country or individual should take most of the blame (if any of them should)
must also understand the role of different events in contributing to tension
ideological differences and long-term hostility
The cold war did not come out of nowhere in 1945
Deep seated tension already existed between the two since the end of the first world war
America was, politically, a democratic country with free elections
economically, it was a capitalist country, where the economy was mostly privately owned and also strong believed in promoting international trade
The USSR was a communist country, which sought to create a society where everyone was equal
in practice this meant no private ownership of property being allowed and as a consequence as well, the country was a dictatorship
these were two visions of the world that were incompatible
long-term enemies brought together in a temporary alliance
since the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, the communist Russia had been in conflict with the ‘capitalist’ world, mainly Britain, France, and the USA
immediately after the revolution, most countries refused to recognise communist governments
US/GB/France intervened in Russian civil war haunts communists in the early 20s
USSR supported international communist movements
Some diplomatic improvements in the early 30s, but quickly downhill again with rise of Hitler
Stalin believed Britain/France were deliberately allowing Hitler to expand, plus Spanish Civil War controversy and Czechoslovakia
Grand alliance therefore only came together because of the threat of Hitler
relationship during the war
the ‘Grand Alliance’ mostly functioned very well during the war
personal relationships were good
was mostly as spirit of co-operation e.g US and GB giving aid to USSR
positive messages about other sold to public at home, even Churchill got on with Stalin despite the past
By the end of the war, alliance was still going strong
however, some tension and mistrust still developed from the war
US and Britain delayed opening of a second front, fed Stalin’s suspicions they wanted him weakened
Stalin continued to show elements of his extremely ruthless nature e.g leaving Polish resistance to be slaughtered by Nazis in 1944 — reminder of his true nature
second world war conferences
a large number of meeting took place during the war between to allied powers and their representatives to discuss war strategy, and towards the end of the war, the future
Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt all melt together on three occasions, twice during the war, Tehran and Yalta, and once after the wars end in Europe at Potsdam
Two most significant meetings are Yalta and Potsdam, both due to the agreements made and also crucial turning points in relations among the ‘Big Three’
Aims and motives at Yalta
each power had a range of motives and aims, but some in particular were red lines for each power, in particular
Security for Stalin, the single most important issue to understand about him
Russia was destroyed during the war, barely survived and almost faced annihilation and felt vulnerable in the future, therefore wanted
a sphere of influence across Eastern Europe to ensure friendly neighbours
A weak Germany that is severely punished and stripped of resources
Roosevelt had similar aims as Wilson after the First world war
self-determination for all countries e.g free elections and democracy
a new league of nations created (United nations in this case)
Yalta conference
Took place as the allies were invading Germany and closing in on complete victory against them
Was held at an old palace in the south west of the USSR
the main issues to be discussed were
what to do with Germany and its leaders
what to do with countries occupied by Germany, especially eastern Europe
the issue of Poland
the ongoing war with Japan (which appeared to have a long way left to go)
how to create a lasting peace
Agreements at Yalta
Germany
would be temporarily divided into four occupation zones, Berlin itself would also be divided into four occupation zones
Germany would lose territory in the east to Poland and have its border moved west
Germany had to pay reparations
Countries occupied by Germany
two promises made which were arguably contradictory (and definitely interpreted differently)
agreed that all former occupied countries by Germany would hold free elections to decide their governments
however at the same time, due to his security concerns, Stalin was granted the right to have a ‘sphere of influence in eastern Europe’
Poland
free elections to be held
Before then, a provisional government to be set up consisting of exiled ‘London Poles’ and Soviet backed ‘Lublin Poles’
Poland would lose land to Russia in east for which they receive German land
Japan
Stalin agreed to help in war against Japan after Germany was defeated
Creating a lasting peace
a new peace keeping organisation would be set up to replace the League of Nations, the United Nations
Changes between Yalta and Potsdam
the ‘big three’ would meet for the final time in July 1945 at Potsdam, which was just outside of Berlin
however, unlike the relatively co-operative Yalta, Potsdam was a frosty affair
several crucial changes and events had taken place between the two
Roosevelt had died shortly after Yalta and had been replaced by by Truman
Roosevelt was pragmatic and always wanted to try and keep Stalin happy
Truman always believed Roosevelt was soft on Stalin and Communism
Stalin had arguably broken his promises from Yalta very quickly
At the end of March, London Poles were invited to Moscow and arrested/kidnapped
Truman immediately told off Molotov for breaking promises when they first met
US had successfully tested an atom bomb in mid-July
Truman tried to intimate Stalin by telling him about this
Truman even less inclined to be co-operative with Stalin as he no longer needed him
Churchill lost election in July and was replaced midway by Attlee
Potsdam conference, July-Aug 1945
the conference, unsurprisingly given the changing relationship since March, saw a great deal of disagreement
There was disagreement over the future government of Poland, the exact reparation amounts Germany should pay the USSR
however, some agreements over Germany, partially agreed at previous conferences were confirmed
Polish-German border moved to Oder-Neisse line
Nazis banned, leaders to go on war crimes trials
Division of Germany confirmed and that of Berlin
Each country would take reparations from its zone of occupation
Outcomes of Potsdam
it is clear in retrospect that after Potsdam the relationship between the US and the USSR had broken down and there was clear tension between them, however
this tension was almost entirely privately
the public knew little if anything about it and publicly the two sides still spoke of co-operation
both sides clearly did not see themselves as inevitably sliding into conflict once again, efforts would continue for the next six months at least to try and maintain ties
iron curtain, March 1946 (Fulton speech)
the first public sign of conflict came when (former) PM Churchill gave a speech at a university (attended by Truman) denouncing the Soviet Union
The speech became known as the ‘Iron curtain’ speech as he used this phrase as a metaphor for the division of Europe between the free, democratic world in the west and the increasingly totalitarian world in the east
he accused the communists of seeking to create dictatorships in eastern Europe which were controlled by the Soviet union
significance of the speech
the speech arguably contributed further to the breakdown of relations between the two sides
it was the first ever open criticism by a major western leader of Stalin and the Soviet union since the war
Stalin then responded aggressively in a Soviet newspaper accusing Churchill of being a warmonger
Again contributed to his paranoia over western countries intentions
however
Churchill himself spoke in no official capacity as he was not in government
Truman knew of the speeches contents but refused to comment on them as he knew public opinion was not in favour of action against the Soviet union
this meant that the speech meant little in practical terms
how Stalin took over eastern Europe by 1948
in the years following the war, Stalin set about creating his ‘sphere of influence’ in eastern Europe
despite agreeing to allow free and fair elections in eastern Europe,
by 1948, each of these countries had totalitarian communist governments in place
while the exact takeover differed, a similar pattern was used
soviets liberated eastern European countries from Germany during the war
some kind of free election initially held in 1945 with communists normally entering coalition governments with other parties
soviets demanded control of interior ministries, police forces, which they used to arrest/intimidate/gradually eliminate opponents
eventual rigged election giving communists total control
there were some small exceptions to the pattern
Poland had no true free elections in 1945 with the ‘London Poles’ having been arrested immediately
Czechoslovakia was the last country in eastern Europe to have full control asserted over it
this followed attempts by a leading non-communist politician to get Marshall Aid
Yugoslavia became communist after the war but independent of USSR
The country had not been liberated by USSR so their leader was not willing to take orders from Stalin
impact of soviet takeover
Stalin’s actions had already begun to cause issues in early 1946 when Churchill gave his iron curtain speech
his actions over the next two years confirmed suspicions and beliefs that Truman had about Stalin being a dictator with intentions of expanding communist control across Europe
Truman desperately wanted to do something about soviet actions but the USA was an isolationist country and there was no mood in the country to act against the USSR
US reaction to the Soviet takeover
the speed and total nature of Stalin’s takeover of eastern Europe caused huge concern in the west
this did not simply look like a ‘sphere of influence’ to ensure security for the USSR
to Truman and others, it looked like the deliberate and sinister spread of global communism
to make matters worse, the winter of 1947 saw the threat of communist takeover become a real prospect in many other countries, including western Europe
communist threat in 1947-48
communists were on the rise in several countries, some under USSR direction (for example Czechoslovakia) while others were independent of them
France and Italy had powerful and popular communist movements who appeared to have a real shot of eventual takeover
but trigger for action was events in Greece
after Germany retreated, two rival factions, monarchists and communists wanted to takeover the country
a civil war broke out between them in 1946, with the British supporting the monarchists
the communists, despite receiving no help from Stalin, were winning the war gradually, and to make matters worse, Britain was bankrupt and could not shapely to keep troops in Greece
the Truman doctrine
up until 1947, Truman was increasingly worried by communist expansion, but was not yet ready to take action
the real threat of Greek civil war being lost to the communists finally triggered action
in March 1947, he gave a historic speech in which he did two thing
announce America would step in to support Greece
the US paid for the British troops to remain there and also funded the government to help them fight the war (short-term significance was stopping communist taking Greece)
announced what became a groundbreaking a new American foreign policy, the idea of containment (really significant long-term change)
‘I believe it must be policy of the US to support free peoples resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities/outside pressure’
‘free peoples look to us for support in maintaining freedoms’
essentially, traditional US isolation was dead and instead replaced with containment
US would now send money, equipment, or even soldiers to any country threatened with communist takeover
had to accept eastern Europe was not communist, but US would now meet and stop communists wherever they tried to expand elsewhere
this happened with military force if necessary
the Marshall plan
the Truman doctrine was quickly followed a second, crucial part of the new American strategy
communism was thriving in Europe after the war, particularly in 1947, due to poverty and destruction of the war
countries were in debt, had extreme shortages of goods and basic fuel
Britain, for example, had rationing till 1950 and electricity was turned off everyday in 1947 (and they were probably the country in the best conditions after the war)
this was a breeding ground for communism
American General George Marshall visited Europe that year and saw the despair and suggested US needed to give them around $17 billion to rebuild
initially, Marshall plan was rejected by US congress, as politicians and public were still not fully convinced by need for containment
completion of takeover of Czechoslovakia (same country betrayed in 1938) convinced congress to pass it
motivation
public motive of US government — simple altruism, Europe was suffering and it was only just to offer it
it was even to USSR and eastern Europe
semi-public coroner — US was scared of more countries being attracted to communism, especially France/Italy, rebuilding help would counter this
USSR accusations — ‘dollar imperialism’ and self-interest, basically US would gain control over some countries economies (demanded economies opened up to receive aid) and money would likely be spent on buying US goods, so benefits them
conflict over Berlin
the final event in the 1940s that confirmed the breakdown of the relationship between the US and USSR was the culmination of several years of tension over Germany after the war and Berlin
Germany had been divided into four zones, in addition to Berlin
however, this was only meant to be temporary, and despite the disagreements at Potsdam
the four powers were meant to make joint decisions over the future of Germany
however, unsurprisingly, as the relationship between the powers broke down, so too did co-operation over Germany
by 1948, it became a major cause of conflict between them
buildup of conflict over Germany
not long after the war, the US and Britain decided they wanted to help Germany rebuild and recover (especially through the Marshall plan in 1947)
whereas Stalin was adamant about keeping them weak and exploiting them for USSR rebuilding
without any agreement, Britain and US pressed ahead with their plans (which France eventually joined) by merging their zones to form Bizonia (Trizonia)
the quickly began to buildup their zones which started to recover, while Stalin’s sector remained poor and backgrounds and in 1948 formed a new currency
Stalin felt these were provocative moves and felt threatened by it all
the Berlin blockade, 1948-49
Stalin as no way of stopping US and Britain from pursuing their plans, but at least could control Berlin and take that as a victory
He decided to blockade Berlin in June 1948, by cutting off all supply lines to it from the western sectors by road, canal, and railway
this would starve the 2 million inhabitants of west Berlin and force Berlin to accept USSR authority
the US could not force their way through the blockade or it would cause war, however, they could not simply give up Berlin
this would become a serious test of containment and how much the US was willing to defend their principles
the US response - Berlin Airlift
the US and its allies decided to airlift supplies into Berlin (a monumental task considering the size of the population)
initially was still a risk given possibility Stalin might order planes shot down, which would have caused war
however he did not, and planes went in night and day without stopping for next ten months
everything was airlifted in, including food, building materials, fuel, etc.
despite shortages and rationing, it was clear by following year that blockade had failed to force Berliners to give in, and Stalin was forced to open negotiations and lift blockades in May 1949
consequences of the blockade
the blockade had several direct and indirect consequences, mainly
confirmed the division of Germany
Germany had been moving to division in previous years, but blockade confirmed it, within a year, two separate independent states were formed in east and west
Germany, and Berlin, had become a symbol of the Cold war
this one country was now divided between the two sides of the iron curtain and a propaganda symbol for each
e.g Berlin, a democratic island in repressive east
Creation of security pacts NATO/Warsaw pact
war was real possibility at the height of the crisis and so western countries met and signed a collective security agreement
in practice, US pledge to protect
USSR formed similar pact in 1955 in response to west Germany joining NATO
who was to blame for the cold war
Stalin/USSR to blame
Stalin was ideological expansionist who wanted global domination
he did not abide by promises at Yalta and imposed communist gov in Poland etc.
imprisoned any critic
always used ideological language when condemning west and justifying actions
Stalin was a uniquely paranoid and problematic leader to deal with
dealt with opponents extremely ruthlessly at home for same reasons
interpreted all moves at threat to him
it was Stalin who always took the most clearly provocative and undemocratic actions
e.g his takeover of eastern Europe, his attempt to takeover Berlin was very reckless and risked war
Stalin/USSR not to blame
Stalin was always pragmatic and tried to compromise and find solutions with west wherever possible
He abided initially by Yalta agreements (mostly) and it was clear he did not want to risk causing upset to western countries with takeover
e.g he never helped Greek communists
Stalin had legitimate and genuine security interests in taking eastern Europe (and other paranoia)
USSR came genuinely close to annihilation in war
west had historically conspired against him, arguably even during war
Stalin was in a weak position after the war and knew it/behave in that way
He wanted US help and, for example, genuinely considered Marshal aid but believed motives could not be trusted
Truman/USA to blame
Truman was an aggressive and overly firm leader who ruined co-operation
unlike Roosevelt, he did not understand need to be pragmatic
never had any intention of compromise with US
responsible for many provocative moves, ‘atomic diplomacy’
Truman doctrine/Marshall aid, Germany plans
If was ideological in their desire to create a global free markets for US goods to trade in
wanted a free open world, not for good of world, but for own benefit, especially Marshall plan
US was in a very powerful position after the war, far more than the USSR and felt no genuine threat from them and had no justifiable reason to feel that way about them
Truman/USA not to blame
Truman was simply a man of principle who hated the idea of having to make a compromise with a man like Stalin
Even then, his actions were never proactive, but response mainly to soviet actions
e.g takeover of Europe and communist threat
took no real action until 1947
Truman was not irresponsible in actions he took against USSR
containment was not proactive as he accepted that nothing could be done about eastern Europe and he was instead simply focused on protecting western European democracies
Truman genuinely was simply trying to learn the lessons of second world war
like many of his generation, the feeling was to not allow another totalitarian dictator have his way in Europe