Cold War 4 Essay Research Paper Cold

Cold War 4 Essay, Research Paper

Cold War

The Cold War was the result of Stalin adopting a policy contrary to the Yalta Agreement.

Certainly to many supporters of the Orthodox view, this statement will appear rather obvious. In their view, the origins of the Cold War, however, do not essentially lie in the aftermath of Yalta, but in the inevitable clash of capitalism and communism. The fact that Stalin adopted a, in their opinion aggressive, policy was not so much the result of security, but the expansionist nature of Lenin-Marxism.

Yet an analysis of a time of such incredible tension is not that simple. It could, naturally, be argued that sooner or later the United States would clash with Soviet Russia. As a matter of fact, the distrust between the two powers has its early origins in the Russian Civil War, where the Western Allies of World War One sent in supplies and men to help the anti-Bolshevik “Whites” defeat the Red Army. This was seen as an attempt to destroy communism in its early years and deeply resented by the Bolsheviks.

The Second World War changed the situation. When Hitler launched “Operation Barbarossa”, it was estimated that Russia would be defeated within weeks, months at latest. Churchill, the British prime minister, immediately provided help to Stalin. The United States joined the Allies and the impossible had become reality: capitalism and communism working hand in hand. The “Lend Lease” arrangement was extended to Russia and all in all ten million tons of war materials were sent by the US to Russia. It seems rather far-reaching to propose that circumstances were all that well until Yalta, and that the agreements reached there actually led to the Cold War. Already during the Second World War there was a growth of distrust between the USSR and the two western powers, Britain and the USA. Since late 1941 Stalin urged Churchill to “open” a second front and thus relieve the Red Army. To the Soviets the denial of a second front meant that the USA and Britain were deliberately aiming to weaken the Russians. Although Sicily was invaded, Italy eventually liberated and D-Day launched, the Red Army was by that time already advancing towards Germany. Another factor that created friction was US capital and the “Lend-Lease” agreement. As compensation for delaying an opening of a second front, the Russians proposed a US loan of $1000 million at 1.25% interest rate over a period of twenty-five years. The US Congress rejected the proposal: for one, reserves were exhausted and post-war credits seemed to great a risk, and secondly, given the current inflation rates, the terms would equal more to a present. Although “Lend-Lease” was granted to Russia, bringing in arms, foods and raw materials, a requested loan of $6000 million could not be agreed on due to the conflicts with the interest rate. Before the war, the US government was inexperienced and rather perplexed on how to deal with Soviet Russia. The results were little to no relations between the two countries. World War Two merged the two countries into an uneasy co-operation. Whether these events caused friction or were simply the results of distrust remains disputed. Clearly, according to the Orthodox view, it was the Marxist-Leninist natural hostility towards capitalism that contributed to the rise in tension: unacceptable terms for loans were proposed, and after being rejected, resented. However, Soviet claims that the Allies deliberately held back a second front could equally be justified, or at least partially, when misunderstood. Nevertheless, although distrust had developed, destroying the common enemy, Nazi Germany, was an aim prior and above anything else.

Yet as Yalta came, the situation had changed: the Wehrmacht was being pushed back on all fronts and Germany found herself on the verge of defeat. Time was ripe to discuss post-war plans. The common enemy had united them could this status be prevailed during times of truce.

The positions and policies were very much set before the meeting in the Crimea. An analysis of each of the approaches helps understand the difficulties the powers had in settling problems. Following the air raid against Pearl Harbour by the Japanese, Hitler promptly declared war against the United States. The United States, unlike Russia, was pushed into the struggle following an invasion. The USA desired to stabilise the power in Europe by safe-guarding an equilibrium against those who wished to destroy it. Besides that, Roosevelt and Churchill had signed the “Atlantic Charter” in which the wilsonian principles of self-determination and free democratic elections within a liberal-capitalist economy should be imposed on to all countries liberated from Nazi rule. Western ally policy, therefore, would consist in restoring a power equilibrium in Europe and by structuring European countries, including the Eastern states, with democratic institutions based on the American one. The USSR, all ahead Stalin, held a completely different attitude towards future Europe. Russia had been invaded twice within the last thirty years and was bound to create a security network around it. This involved the installation of friendly, pro-Soviet, in other words (at least partial) communist, governments.

The two most serious disagreements between the USSR and the Western Allies were the questions of Poland and Germany. As already stated, Germany had in