Category: Cold War

‘The main cause of instability in Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America between 1945 and 1990 were the domestic politics of those regions.” Do you agree? Discuss with detailed empirical examples of countries in at least two of the three regions mentioned.

Introduction

During the 19th century, a global transformation rearranged the basic structure of the international order.[footnoteRef:1] The emerging state system and the international order it produced became blurry once again after the Second World War, where state strategies became grander and involved a softer form of force rather than large-scale military violence, namely the Cold War. Prior to World War Two, the terms ‘Cold War’ and ‘Third World’ did not exist. They were symbolic of the silent conflict that existed between 1945 around the 1990s.[footnoteRef:2] The term “Cold War” symbolized the United States’ aggressive containment of the Soviet Union (USSR) without an all-out war. During this time, US and USSR interventionism shaped much of the domestic and international basis of Third World countries, which were post-colonial countries in regions like Latin America and the Middle East.[footnoteRef:3] Without the Cold War, Latin America and the Middle East would look different from what we see today. It can be argued that the main cause of instability in Latin America and the Middle East was not domestic politics, but the Global Cold War, where the US and USSR fought for their spheres of influence in other regions of the world. [1: Barry Buzan and George Lawson, The global transformation: history, modernity, and the making of international relations (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 1.] [2: Odd Arne Westad, “Introduction” in The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 2.] [3: Odd Arne Westad, ”Introduction,” 3.]

Latin America and the Cold War

Between the US and the USSR, the Cold War seemed like a stalemate, while in the Third World, it was an era of volatility and mixed development. The term Third World originated in 1955, referring to the majority of countries exploited by colonialization, but were developing to become key players in international politics.[footnoteRef:4] Latin America became a target by both superpowers, but the US became a dictating voice domestically in Latin America by meddling in the politics and economics of Latin America to retain a hegemonic presence. [4: Odd Arne Westad, “Introduction,” 2.]

The ‘Alliance of Progress’ and the fault in its ideals

As the Cold War escalated and the threat of the Soviets became more imminent, the US steered response in Latin America was democracy and socioeconomic progress that ended up rocking the region. The ‘Alliance for Progress’ was an attempt to transfer US wealth to Latin America, by making poor and inefficient governments less vulnerable to Soviet and communist ideology.[footnoteRef:5] As one example, Kennedy delivered almost $600 million in emergency economic aid to Latin America in early 1961. And in the 1960s Venezuela received over 200 million in loans and grants from the US to finance public housing and works projects. [footnoteRef:6] A cultural bridging of the Alliance for Progress with local Latin Cultures was lacking, leading to the failed modernization of Latin America. Ultimately Venezuela never met the success criteria and struggled with issues like the fact that 75% of Venezuelans had not completed the sixth school grade and oil prices stagnated the economy by 1969.[footnoteRef:7] It was difficult for Latin America to copy America’s policies, and because of this ‘one size fits all’ model, Latin America could never realistically approach the set targets of the Alliance for Progress. The failure of the Alliance for Progress wasn’t only based on a lack of faulty social science; it was rather the result of the president’s Cold War initiatives, which undermined the program. The Kennedy and Eisenhower administrations manipulated regional politics by installing US loyalists over democratically elected rulers and thereby creating short-term stability in fear of a communist ideological takeover in Latin America. [5: Stephen G. Rabe, “The Alliance for Progress,” Oxford Research Encyclopedia: Latin American History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019): 1.] [6: Stephen G. Rabe, “The Alliance for Progress,” 1. ] [7: Stephen G. Rabe, “The Alliance for Progress,” 9.]

The switching of “Camps”

The ability to meddle economically but also militarily in Latin America was a pre-arranged foreign policy tool of US presidents in Latin America. President Monroe’s Monroe Doctrine (1823) and following President Theodore Roosevelt’s Roosevelt Corollary (1904) made US intervention possible in Latin America. It kept foreign powers out of Latin America, and gave the US the political authority, to perform intervention in cases ‘to the exercise of an international police power’.[footnoteRef:8] And the US was “driven” to intervene, through force, in Latin America by the ideologies inherent in their politics that threatened US national security. The US intervened in Cuba to oust Fidel Castro, who took power in 1959. This however failed and actually led to Fidel Castro casting his support to the USSR and thus changing sides in the Cold War.[footnoteRef:9] In Chile, the US spent millions of dollars attempting to prevent Salvador Allende, who was a socialist, from winning the presidency. This intervention also failed and Allende became a prominent opponent. He decided to challenge the Organizations of American States’ isolation of Cuba by reestablishing relations in 1970.[footnoteRef:10] This challenge to the US led to the downfall of Allende and the establishment of a brutal dictator. The US sided with a dictator, taking stability over the risk of a potential enemy in America’s backyard. This shadow war orchestrated by the US still has had profound impacts on the regional order, and changed the face of Latin America, as we know it today. As Mexican poet Octavio Paz put it “It is as though the Cold War had been a mask that blinded us to the reality of the world”.[footnoteRef:11] [8: President Theodore Roosevelt, „Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine,“ Fourth annual message to Congress, Washington D.C., December 6, 1904.] [9: Odd Arne Westad, “5 – The Cuban and Vietnamese Challenges” in The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 171.] [10: Tanya Harmer, Allende’s Chile and the Inter-American Cold War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2011), 2.] [11: Tim Golden, “After the Cold War: Views From Latin America; Sweeping Political Changes Leave Latin Poor Still Poor,“ New York Times, May 30, 1992, https://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/30/world/after-cold-war-views-latin-america-sweeping-political-changes-leave-latin-poor.html.]

Holding Power in the Middle East

Conflict in the Middle East was never a fair game. In the Middle East between the 1950 and 1970’s, a deepening USSR and US rivalry brought Cold War competition to the region. The US needed to keep the Middle East open for its wealth in oil & gas and use the region as a base close to soviet borders; the Soviets of course completely opposed this.[footnoteRef:12] [12: Salim Yaqub, „The Cold War and the Middle East“ in The Oxford Handbook of the Cold War, ed. Richard H. Immerman and Petra Goedde (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 3.]

The Turnaround in Iran

To a considerable degree, the influence of Arab nationalism grew out of the Middle East’s experience with US domination. Iran is a case where increased US nosing led to a complete polarization of relations between the countries. Preoccupied with oil and geopolitics in the region, the US lost the control of a firm ally it put in place in Iran. After a military coup that cooperated with the communist Iranian party, the next leader of Iran, the ‘Shah’, became a key regional ally in the 1970s to the US. However, continued support and relations with the US alienated the Shah from Iran’s people. The ‘White Revolution’ was an attempt to reform Iran’s social progress and economy. It stressed heavy-scale industry development, agricultural reform, and social development like education and land reform.[footnoteRef:13] And as things heated up, the surprise Christmas visit of US President Carter in 1978 did nothing to quell the idea that the Shah was not deep in the pockets of the US. Consequently, the clergy and conservatives lost all trust in their leader.[footnoteRef:14] This led to his political alienation and downfall.[footnoteRef:15] Circumstances like these caused a feeling of victimization by the US, which was also exacerbated by the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, which most Arabs saw as an outpost of the West.[footnoteRef:16] [13: Odd Arne Westad, “8 – The Islamist defiance: Iran and Afghanistan” in The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 293.] [14: Odd Arne Westad, “8 – The Islamist defiance: Iran and Afghanistan,” 290.] [15: Odd Arne Westad, “8 – The Islamist defiance: Iran and Afghanistan,” 171.] [16: Salim Yaqub, „The Cold War and the Middle East,“ 4.]

The Suez Canal Crisis

Pan-Arabism, a Middle East ideology asserting the unification of all Arabs was Hamal Abdel Nasser’s greatest challenge to pursue as president of Egypt.[footnoteRef:17] His focus on neutrality mattered not during the Cold War, and as a result, the US pulled support for aid in constructing the Aswan Dam after Nasser completed an arms deal with the USSR in 1955.[footnoteRef:18] As a response, Nasser expropriated the Suez Canal and vowed to use the profits to fund the Aswan Dam. Nasser’s careful but consequential moves led him to stand head-to-head with France, Israel, and Britain after a planned intervention backfired and led to a serious Western oil crisis.[footnoteRef:19] Additionally this created a lasting ripple effect, where European powers lost their influence and the US and USSR filled the power vacuum. [footnoteRef:20] Nasser was now a prominent figure, especially to the Pan-Arab states, which began to conflict more with Israel. The Suez Canal Crisis is one of many examples caused by US and USSR interventionism that spilled over into all regions of the world. It manipulated and exacerbated the instability to the benefit of either ideological party. The Middle East may not have been as dramatically influenced as Latin America, but the region could have looked entirely different without the funding, interference, and foreign policy objectives of the US and USSR. [17: Fouad Ajami, “The End of Pan-Arabism,” Foreign Affairs 57, no. 2 (winter, 1978): 355, https://www.jstor.org/stable/20040119.] [18: Salim Yaqub, “The Cold War and the Middle East,“ 5.] [19: Douglas Little, “15 – The Cold War in the Middle East: Suez crisis to Camp David Accords” in The Cambridge History of the Cold War, ed. Melvyn P. Leffler (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 309.] [20: Salim Yaqub, “The Cold War and the Middle East,“ 5-6.]

Conclusion

The Cold War was a process of continued shadow conflicts, centered on control and domination, primarily in ideological terms. It destabilized and transformed politics and economics at every level. In Latin America, persistent intrusion by the US in regional affairs led to the ousting of potentially dangerous regimes, economic meddling, and short-term gains against the perceived USSR menace. In the Middle East, this continued intrusion led to multiple backlashes that led to a shift in Arab politics and extensive regional disputes whose effects trickled from state to state. In the regions of Latin America and the Middle East, domestic politics were not the cause of instability between 1945 and 1990, but rather the looming Cold War between the US and USSR. Once the Cold War ended Tomas Borge, the former Sandinista guerrilla leader and Nicaraguan Interior Minister, explained that ‘The United States? With their rear guard safe,’ he said, ‘they don’t worry about our countries much anymore’.[footnoteRef:21] [21: Tim Golden, “After the Cold War: Views From Latin America; Sweeping Political Changes Leave Latin Poor Still Poor.“

Bibliography

1. Ajami, Fouad. “The End of Pan-Arabism.” Foreign Affairs 57, no. 2 (Winter, 1978): 355-373. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20040119.
2. Buzan, Barry, and George Lawson. The global transformation: history, modernity, and the making of international relations. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2015.
3. Golden, Tim. “After the Cold War: Views From Latin America; Sweeping Political Changes Leave Latin Poor Still Poor.“ New York Times, May 30, 1992. https://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/30/world/after-cold-war-views-latin-america-sweeping-political-changes-leave-latin-poor.html.
4. Harmer, Tanya. Allende’s Chile and the Inter-American Cold War. Chapel Hill: University of Carolina Press, 2011.
5. Little, Douglas. “15 – The Cold War in the Middle East: Suez Crisis to Camp David Accords.” In The Cambridge History of the Cold War, ed. Melvyn P. Leffler. 305-326. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1017/CHOL9780521837200.016.
6. President Roosevelt, Theodore. „Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine“. Fourth annual message to Congress, Washington D.C., December 6, 1904.
7. Rabe, Stephen G. “Alliance for Progress.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia, Latin American History, 1-18. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.
8. Westad, Odd Arne. “Introduction.“ In The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times, 1-7. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
9. Westad, Odd Arne. “5 – The Cuban and Vietnamese Challenges.“ In The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times, 158-206. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
10. Westad, Odd Arne. “8 – The Islamist Defense: Iran and Afghanistan.“ In The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times, 288-330. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
11. Yaqub, Salim. “The Cold War and the Middle East.“ In The Oxford Handbook of the Cold War, ed. Richard H. Immerman and Petra Goedde, 1-20. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.

Why did Africa become a theatre of Cold War conflict in the period between 1957 and 1962?

The Cold War, originating in the aftermath of the Second World War, colored political, social, and cultural development during the second half of the twentieth century. The phenomenon of decolonization was no different, with newly independent states in both Africa and Asia finding themselves faced with a choice between aligning with either the capitalist or communist camps. While Asian decolonization seemed a surprisingly rapid process to the superpowers, the US and USSR were more prepared for African decolonization and were therefore able to assert their power more readily. African decolonization began in 1957, with Ghanaian independence, and the year 1960 saw independence in 17 former colonies. This essay will focus on the post-decolonization societies of Ghana, Guinea, Angola, and the Congo, and their entanglement with the Cold War. Ultimately, Africa became a theatre of Cold War conflict due to the fundamental desire of each superpower to direct and control the newly independent African societies, in ideologically political and economic ways. Africa was particularly susceptible to superpower interest due to the undeveloped political and economic situations in which they had been left after centuries of European colonial rule. [1: Melvyn Leffler, and Odd Arne Westad, The Cambridge History of the Cold War (Cambridge University Press, 2010), 464-854 ]

Weigh up the two arguments – which caused more conflict

Historiographical debate surrounds the reason most emphatic for generating Cold War conflict in Africa. Piero Gleijeses points toward political influence and alignment as the primary reason for the Cold War conflict in Africa. Gleijeses argues that while American exceptionalism was, in principle, anti-colonial rule, in practice, America placed Cold War ambitions superior to any alternative option. Consequently, the US encouraged Western colonial powers to maintain their African influence. Gleijeses also highlights the Soviet pursuit of communist ideology in Africa and their determination to aid any socialist-leaning force.

Iandolo on the other hand, places the importance of ‘exporting’ the respective economic models of development to Africa as the primary reason for conflict. Iandolo explains that Moscow’s policy, between 1957 and 1962, was driven by the belief that socialism was a superior economic system, and could replicated in Ghana and Guinea. In contrast to Gleijeses, Iandolo points to Soviet policy in Africa as being driven by a form of ‘economic ideology;’ with the ultimate visions of shaping the Third World in accordance with a ‘socialist model of development.’

Westad provides an alternative perspective, arguing that African elites framed their own political agendas in direct response to the models of development presented by the superpowers. Westad emphasizes the role of local actors and their decision to ideologically align, which resulted in close cooperation with either the USSR or the USA. However, locally crafted decisions only enhanced Cold War tensions in Africa, with the Congo Crisis being labeled as a ‘defining moment’ for the Cold War in the Third World, and contributing to a major turning point for the Soviet-US balance of power in Africa.

Soviet and American forces turned the process of African decolonization into an ideological alignment battle to impose their respective political objectives of capitalism and communism on newly independent African societies.

Following the death of Stalin in 1953, the Soviet Union, now under the leadership of Khrushchev, pursued an increased focus on Soviet infiltration in Africa. In 1956, at the Congress of the Communist Party of the USSR (CPSU), fearful sentiments circulated that African independence was in danger of being won under African ‘bourgeois’ leadership, based on American-style presidential rule. Nkrumah was targeted as an atypical African ‘bourgeois,’ because of his education in Britain and America and his preferred policies of gradualism, championed by the UGCC. Such fears were propelled by the calls from small communist parties in Nigeria and Senegal to help create a broad-based alliance that would incorporate the ‘national bourgeois alongside the ‘petty bourgeois’ and the working class in the fight for nationwide socialism. Following calls and threats to African decolonizing states of the infiltration of American capitalism, or the lack of a socialist presence, the Soviet Union asserted its presence in Africa more noticeably. The USSR subsequently engaged in United Nations debates calling for an end to Western imperialism and vocalized its aim of fostering friendly relations with all newly independent African states, regardless of their ideological alliance, as evidenced by its amicable relations with Guinea and Ghana. The Soviets had made obvious efforts on the international stage to reinvigorate their influence and presence in Africa. At this early stage, in 1957, the Soviets preferred to enhance their standing in Africa through practical means. Hence the USSR encouraged the communists in sub-Saharan Africa to infiltrate trade unions and construct African nationalist movements, as well as networks of agents, through local ‘peace movements,’ cultural fronts, youth leagues, and women’s associations. The 1956 recognition by the CPSU of the need to rethink its policies, followed by genuine efforts to bolster its position, was extremely innovative for the time; not even Ghana had achieved independence by this point. However, Soviet forward-thinking was predominantly bolstered by suspicions of a supreme American influence in the African continent.

Americans observed with alarm the spread of Soviet influence and the preference for Socialist cultural values in Africa, a continent whose societies were already deeply imbued with community values. This influenced US policymakers to ease pressure on their European allies to decolonize, in the hope that the continued Western influence would dominate. The Marshall Plan even aimed to help European powers strengthen their colonial structures with the view that it would boost metropolitan prosperity. More importantly, Marshall aid would boost the European position in Africa, simultaneously benefitting America’s strategic position in Africa, and therefore, its supremacy in comparison to the USSR.

In the case of Angola (1961), the US seemed most determined to annihilate any trace of Soviet influence in an African state; Duignan claims that the Kennedy administration went further in supporting African nationalists than any other administration before or thereafter. Washington provided substantial amounts of covert financial support to Holden Roberto, the leader of the Frente de Libertacao National de Angola (FLNA). This movement was just one of several independence movements engaged in guerrilla warfare against Angola’s Portuguese overlords. This financial support was provided to a ‘rogue’, disestablished nationalist group, largely in order to hinder Angola’s influential Portuguese Communist Party. Kennedy’s cunning but ambitious policy, designed to strip a NATO ally of its possessions, had no precedent and was internationally recognized as treacherous. It was, however, entirely of a piece with the broader American aim of spreading the ideology and benefits of free-market capitalism throughout Africa; presumably, the intention was to hold up Angola as a model of the attractions of association with America and its values – the corollary being a repulsion against its antithesis, the USSR.

Unlike the case of Angola, in which the USSR was not directly involved, the Congo Crisis, truly exemplified the use of forceful American means to enforce capitalist, western values in Africa in order to abort a counter-attempt by the Soviets. On June 30, 1960, the Congo, under the leadership of Patrice Lumumba, was granted de jure independence from Belgium. Shortly afterwards, Eisenhower sent a welcoming, if expected message to the newly formed Congo Government: ‘The government and people of the United States look forward to close and friendly relations with the government and people of the Republic of Congo.’ The friendly tone of Eisenhower’s message almost takes for granted that the Congo would align with the Western bloc and is an evident, not-too-subtle attempt to pre-empt similar overtures by the Soviet Union. However, on July 5th, 1960 a force of 25,000 Congolese soldiers mutinied against their white Belgian commanders at a garrison, roughly 90 miles from Congo’s capital, Kinshasa. American officials stood by and did nothing to intervene in the political turmoil, until Congolese leaders, Lumumba and Kasavubu, broke off diplomatic relations with Belgium and alluded to a possible Soviet intervention if the UN forces scheduled to arrive the following day did not force a Belgian withdrawal. This perfectly exemplifies the way the newly independent African states arguably played off the two superpowers for their own benefit, and reveals the African states themselves as in part at least responsible for Cold War tensions in the continent. This view of the conflict is proposed by Gleijeses, who goes further, arguing that while American and Soviet intervention in Africa generated conflict, the driving force was the role played by the colonized people themselves. In his view, rather than the superpowers themselves orchestrating the conflict, it was the tragic failure of the new African states to negotiate their relationships with superpowers that made Africa a theatre of Cold War conflict during these years.

As the incident escalated and tensions increased, the Belgians showed no intention of leaving the Congo, and the possibility of a Soviet invasion became increasingly likely. The US embassy in Kinshasa cabled Washington, emphasizing the precarious nature of the situation: “Lumumba is an opportunist and not a communist. His final decision as to which camp he will eventually belong will not be made by him but rather will be imposed upon him by the outside.” This supports Gleijeses’s thesis; the ideologically neutral Lumumba did not choose to align with the communist ‘camp’ but circumstances ‘imposed upon him by the outside’ aligned him with the Soviet bloc. Subsequently, the US turned the issue into a severe Cold War conflict, despite the lack of prior American involvement in the region.

More even than the Eisenhower administration, the CIA was suspicious to the point of paranoia of Lumumba’s Soviet aspirations; the hard-line CIA director Allen Dulles, went as far as to label Lumumba as ‘Castro or worse.’ Accordingly, the CIA pushed for a covert mission to eliminate Soviet influence in the Congo. However, the turning point for the Eisenhower administration came when Lumumba broke relations with UN President Hammarskjold on August 14, 1960. This retreat from the global community was followed by the arrival of substantial Soviet aid, including a squadron of 17 Ilyushin transport planes. This prompted a covert CIA operation, killing Lumumba on 17 January 1961.

Catherine Hoskyns wrote in 1965, in the aftermath of the Congo Crisis, about the devastation across the country caused by the assassination of Lumumba. At this time the CIA operation remained shrouded in secrecy and speculation continued to swirl around the identity of the perpetrators. Hoskyns depicts Lumumba’s death as a shock to the entire Congolese nation, regardless of whether people were supporters of Lumumba or not. Contemporary Congolese journalists reported that people seemed ‘stupefied, almost anesthetized, at the news and unwilling to comment.’ The City of Gizenga even ordered a week of mourning and closed the market. The country was left without a ruler, in political turmoil, and most importantly with a violent hatred of the Belgians, who were presumed responsible. The Congo crisis highlighted the ruthlessness with which the Eisenhower administration approached any Cold War crisis or tension. American policymakers completely overturned the Wilsonian values of self-determination, liberty, and individuality, but instead imposed on the Congo their preferred US regime. The entire episode illustrates an important feature of Cold War strategy: neither side was willing to engage in direct hostilities, and used their African clients for the dual purpose of ‘shadow-boxing’, and simultaneously testing out new weapons technology.

decolonization was a major battle for African countries, but African leaders found huge obstacles to guiding and reconstructing their newly independent countries. Both superpowers rushed to attract African countries to their economic models, in the hope of capitalizing on the economic benefits that would accrue to America. America famously advanced the Modernisation Theory, while the USSR developed its five-year models and planned economies.

The USSR viewed African decolonization as damaging to Western power and prestige, while it proved beneficial to the global socialist revolution. These ideas date back to Lenin, who had argued since 1917 that imperialism was the highest form of communism. Legvold, the first pioneering author of Soviet policy in Africa under Khrushchev, explains how the Soviets hoped that the economic difficulties Africans experienced following neglect by their colonizers, would lead them to radical economic solutions of land reform and socialist planned economies. The Soviets were especially hopeful due to the African make-up of largely agrarian economies. Legvold further depicts Soviet hopes for a trend to consequently unfold, whereby the adoption of Soviet economic systems in Africa would accelerate the alignment of African states with the sympathetic socialist camp.

At a party conference in Kankan (April 1960), Guinea committed to a Soviet agriculturally-based 3-year-plan. The planned economy aimed to implement 500 collective farms. In the first months of 1961, Guinea nationalized the diamond industry and two of the country’s major public utility companies for electricity and water. The Soviet economic intervention was emphatic, Guinean socialist-leaning economic policies were funded directly by the USSR. The USSR offered Guinea $35 million in economic assistance and on August 24, 1959, the Soviets and Guineans signed a protocol specifying future projects that the Soviets would finance. Such infrastructure endeavors ranged from a 25,000-seat stadium to mechanical equipment for the port of Conakry polytechnical assistance. Direct Soviet assistance epitomized the Cold War conflict within Africa because the implementation of overwhelmingly socialist economies consequently horrified the US into producing counteraction. Iandolo emphasizes how the case of Guinea shows how Moscow became interested in Africa not with the intention of spreading the communist regime, but with the aim to export to Africa those ideas and innovations that had modernized the Soviet Union into an industrial society.

America developed Rostow’s Modernisation Theory in 1960 as an obvious Cold War weapon. The Americans were terrified by the increasing Soviet economic intervention in Africa, especially because while the Soviets had less capital to provide aid to premature African nations, they were able to attach to their loans, less stringent conditionalities, making Soviet aid more appealing. The modernization theory aimed to attract African countries to align with the US through the adoption of a capitalist economic system. The MIT professor explained that a traditional and agricultural nation could achieve the same economic growth as a modern society. Rostow’s Five Stages of Economic Growth hypothesizes that economic growth occurs in five basic stages. A major component of Rostow’s theory is that in order for a developing country to experience economic take-off, 10% of the country’s GDP must be dedicated to an entrepreneurial aim. Rostow’s economic structure theorizing for a developing country, ideologically juxtaposed that of the heavily planned Soviet economic models. Such rhetoric suggested American economic superiority as opposed to the Soviet Union. American economic assistance was designed to develop health, housing, and education, and more importantly, to stimulate the creation of central planning agencies. From an orthodox perspective, this type of American intervention was perceived as altruistic. However, Latham argues against the prospect of altruism, due to the way modernizers were so determined to direct progress that when foreign aid and development programs did not work well or were not fully accepted, violence would erupt. In somewhat agreement, Cooper highlights that modernity, and so by extension, the modernization theory, is condemned as an imperial construct used to be imposed globally, specifically in Western social, economic, and political forms.

Alternatively, in accordance with Westad’s thesis, Africa turned into a theatre for Cold War conflict due to local actors fabricating their own political directions, following invitations from both superpowers to adopt their models of development and accept political and economic aid.

African leaders were attracted to Soviet economies when faced with the threat of their previous colonizers to continue exploiting African natural resources. Kojo Botsio, the leading Ghanaian delegate to the Tunis All-African People’s Conference in January 1960 emphasized the importance of resisting the ‘devilish new strategy’ perpetuated by the colonial powers following the retreat from de-jure domination. At the conference, Botsio exclaimed that the Western powers sought ‘to keep Africa perpetually poor and dependent, even though politically free.’ Botsio builds upon Nkrumah’s idea of ‘neo-colonialism’ whereby the West continued to influence African societies through more subtle economic exploitation, a theory that found full favor in the USSR. At the same conference, the Guinean delegate, Ismael Touré reminded the attendees of the ‘importance of combining the class struggle with the anti-colonial struggle in Africa.’ Touré’s statement to combine ‘the class struggle with the anti-colonial struggle,’ exhibits how local African actors played a role in generating superpower conflict. Through such public alignment, the Soviets inevitably are perceived as the victorious power at the conference; the ‘class struggle’ is an overt Soviet-inspired movement. Consequently, the Americans are worried about acting on how they can improve their African presence. The conference ultimately had nothing to do with the Cold War; it was named the All-African Conference, with the aim of uniting independent African states to work toward a goal of economic prosperity, societal reconstruction, and the cultural importance of the African identity. However, the representatives at the conference had no choice but to discuss the all-engulfing Cold War, and in doing so, framed their future direction on superpower presence.

The media is the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses. -Malcolm X

This quote by Malcolm X details that propaganda is promoted by the media and it is used to control people and groups and make them look bad even if it is inaccurate information people would still believe it. During the Cold War propaganda was used to make a political party look good or bad, like communism in the USSR and capitalism in the United States. Propaganda was sought to promote the advantages of one’s political system and beliefs. Propaganda was promoted as art, in television, music, and in films. For example, “Red Nightmare”(1962) was a film that told viewers that the United States had reconstructed Soviet territory to train communist spies to bring down the American government and society. The government didn’t really release propaganda the people and company owners did. It was used to change the minds and sabotage each group of people who were being told lies just to make them better.

Therefore in the Cold War, propaganda was used to make communism or capitalism, a country, or a president look bad by changing the facts. Today propaganda still has lingering effects on us because in social media, there is a lot of false news to make specific groups fallacious. Meanwhile, propaganda was used for many big topics being talked about in the world today!

For example, in 2019 propaganda was being used to help people stop smoking and to persuade people to vote for them. Propaganda is used to change what the viewer thinks and behaves “Today propaganda posters have been replaced by digital visuals such as the memes, that are easily produced, mass disseminated and politically to do an even greater damage to American politics and society than propaganda posters did years ago.” Propaganda is becoming stronger and influencing even more people, people now use memes which are fairly easy to make so more of it is being made and spread around faster to more people. One meme could destroy someone’s image, especially if it involves politics.

As stated previously, the media is able to use its power to convince viewers to fake news. Therefore, propaganda is now having effects on certain groups, people make memes and other forms of propaganda to be funny or to get the attention of others but can offend a lot of people if they are insensitive. “… memes employed a striking visual coupled with effective communication to intended to alter the mind frame or subconscious of a viewer… most worryingly, the new political art format has far greater viral potential. There was an occasional dark side to these posters as many expressed racist, xenophobic, and bigoted messages.”

Memes are having strong effects on society, people are using propaganda to attack people and what they believe in, and memes are going viral and grabbing the attention of people on social media. Memes are spreading faster than ever and are offending many people, it is becoming an effective way to spread information. As a result, propaganda is used everywhere and takes advantage of one’s thoughts and minds. People are using media to spread propaganda and they are going viral faster than it was during the Cold War. False information is easier to see and people are taking advantage of it.

1. “Cold War Propaganda.” ​The Cold War, 13 June 2019, alphahistory.com/coldwar/cold-war-propaganda/.
2. “The Cold War.” ​The History of Media Use for Propaganda Purposes, 5 Dec. 2009, manspropaganda.wordpress.com/the-cold-war/.
3. Hasic, Albinko. “Perspective | Why Propaganda Is More Dangerous in the Digital Age.” ​The Washington Post, WP Company, 12 Mar. 2019, www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/03/12/why-propaganda-is-more-dangerous-digital-age/.
4. Feinberg, Melissa. “Cold War Propaganda: the Truth Belonged to No One Country – Melissa Feinberg: Aeon Essays.” ​Aeon, Aeon, 20 Jan. 2020, eon. com/essays/cold-war-propaganda-the-truth-belonged-to-no-one-country.
5. “Power to the Pictures: The Evolution of Propaganda.” ​The Independent, Independent Digital News and Media, 23 Oct. 2011, www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/power-to-the-pictures-the-evolution-of-propaganda-2075321.html.
6. http://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/03/12/why-propaganda-is-more-dangerous-digital-age/
7. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/power-to-the-pictures-the-evolution-of-propaganda-2075321.html
8. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/power-to-the-pictures-the-evolution-of-propaganda-2075321.html

The Cold War was a period of tension whereby the Western world and the communist democracies of Eastern Europe were in conflict as a result of an ideological and geopolitical struggle for global influence. Tensions never led to direct military engagement, but the conflict was through diplomacy, arms race, and proxy wars. The Soviet Union, also known as the USSR, was a socialist and communist area in Russia and some surrounding areas created in 1922. Many people and scholars would suggest that the Soviet Union was to blame for the Cold War due to the actions of Stalin who was the Soviet Union leader and wanted world domination. It is common for a traditionalist view of thought to argue that Stalin and the USSR were the cause of the Cold War. Traditionalists argue that the Soviets were aggressive in their economic policy, and they were considered to be proactive and aggressive in disturbing potential peace in the aftermath of the Second World War. Many would argue that the Soviet Union started the Cold War convincingly and accurately as they can be seen to have been ultimately forcing communism upon European countries which created this period of tension. However, others may argue that what is called a revisionist viewpoint, which was prominent in the later 1960s, is more convincing as it considers US policy after World War II. The revisionist approach believed that the USA was potentially equally to blame as their policies were focused on spreading capitalism in democracies and that this was the overall cause of the Cold War. These policies were arguably based on economic benefit for the US and therefore it is possible to argue that the Soviet Union and the USA were both to blame for the emergence of the Cold War. Different schools of thought influence the extent to which people may argue that the Cold War was solely the Soviet Union’s fault.

The Soviet Union’s aim was to expand the soviet ideology across different states in the world. Stalin was greatly motivated by the idea of Soviet Union security and was reckless in his attempt to achieve this after the Second World War. The Yalta conference, which took place in 1945, was a conference that depicted the fate of Germany after the World War. This conference included the current leaders of the Soviets, and the US, who were considered as the three powers of the world. Stalin’s aim in the conference was to have political influence in eastern and central Europe and this later on led to forcing his communist views on these areas which arguably was the cause of the Cold War. He broke the Yalta agreements in Poland, whereby he agreed with Winston Churchill to allow democracy and free elections, however, this did not occur as Poland later came under the influence of the Soviet Union in 1947 due to Stalin failing to provide free elections in Poland as well as other states. Some would argue that this was the beginning of the blame being on the Soviets, as they were breaking agreements in order to spread the Soviet ideology. Winston Churchill therefore publicly believed that the Soviets were a threat to peace, which aided the traditionalist view which would agree that the Soviet Union started the Cold War to a large extent. The USSR dedicated its policies to expansionism across Asia and Europe and created political tensions across the West and Eastern Europe, therefore a traditionalist view would agree that the responsibility of the Cold War was on the Soviet Union and possibly argue that it was Stalin’s fault accordingly.

Another viewpoint, which could argue that the blame is on both the Soviets and the US, is called a revisionist approach. Some revisionists may even say that the US was more so or equally to blame than the Soviets. For instance, when the US used military power to forge a world market dominated by American trade goods, it may be argued that the Soviet Union did nothing more in Eastern Europe than the USA had in Western Europe, suggesting the blame is equal. The revisionist approach also considers that American policies were desired to spread capitalism and democracy, which ultimately caused the Cold War. These American policies aimed to contain communism in Europe, pleasing the Soviets, so that in return Europe was populated with capitalist nations for American trade. Policies including the Marshall Plan worked towards this goal. The Marshall Plan, also known as the Economic Recovery Act of 1948, was a plan whereby Americans provided aid to the West to help the recovery of post-war Europe. As a result, the Soviets believed they had no option but to react to the USA by refusing the aid in order to keep Eastern Europe under soviet control which Stalin believed would be jeopardized as a result of accepting the aid. They viewed the U.S. as an aggressive imperial power that was determined to expand its political and economic systems. Many revisionists could argue that the USA was driven more by economic considerations than the principles of democracy, and the spread of capitalism throughout these considerations makes it possible to disagree with this statement to a large extent as the US could be equally to blame with the Soviets. However, traditionists would argue that the USA had no choice but to respond the Soviet expansion in Eastern Europe, therefore perhaps the US policies and plans, such as the Marshall Plan, could be considered as a response to the Soviet Union’s aggression.

To conclude, it is arguable that the Soviet Union was to blame for the Cold War to a certain extent, but not solely as America had aggressive imperial power and were, like the Soviets, determined to expand their political ideologies and economic systems. After examining two different approaches, it is clear to see that there is not one cause of the Cold War, but a collection of several, caused by both the USSR and the USA.

More and more modern films resort to geopolitical tricks to diversify the movie and increase the audience to increase the box office. This trend was maintained even back in the early 90s. So, the movie ‘Rocky IV’ released in 1985 from the Rocky series directed by Sylvester Stallone used a parallel between the box and the Cold War to somehow rescue the Rocky franchise. Although the movie Rocky IV appears to end the Cold War in the movie, it attaches great importance to making a comparison between the two nations in a detailed way by highlighting the claimed supremacy of political ideology in American society. By comparing two main characters Rocky and Drago who symbolize their countries and by analyzing some scenes and speech of minor characters the transcendence of America’s ideology can be verified.

Throughout the film, American and Soviet ideologies were shown based on the two main characters where Rocky “looked better”. Starting with the main characters of the film Rocky and Drago who symbolize their countries, can be seen clearly set opposite between them. Rocky is characterized as a free man with the individual will of a fighter and the desire to help his comrades while Drago is a machine created by Soviet scientists and government for the sole purpose of defeating America’s best boxer. From here, the directors show limited democracy and the imposition of goals in the USSR. A great example is that in one of Drago’s famous lines before the last battle, he says ‘I must break you’, not will or want to break you (Ciecka 2015). During the whole movie, Drago is shown as a caged animal whereas Rocky is fully opposite. In the training, Drago is controlled by scientists and representatives of the government and uses all possible means such as steroids and technologies to reach the goal imposed on him. Moreover, in the press conferences, all decisions and speeches are made disregarding him. Drago shows the reality of a country with a communist ideology where all decisions are made without the participation of the people. Rocky being in another country and being an outsider puts himself against the terrible weather, but he is still American and free to make decisions. This uncovers the American enthusiasm and assurance to accomplish achievement and point high. Comparing the two boxers clearly shows the superiority of America formed on concepts of democracy and individual liberty over the communist and anti-democratic USSR.

Secondary actors and decisions taken in some scenes also showed the superiority of the political ideology of America over the USSR. The best friend of Rocky Apollo can be taken as a great example of American liberalism. During the fight between Apollo and Drago, the first one is on the verge of death when Rocky could save him by throwing a towel into the ring, but Apollo makes decision to fight to the end and stops Rocky from doing so. It represents respect for the rights and choices of each person as the highest value in American society. Also, in the press conference before this fight, Rocky’s brother-in-law Paulie says: “Hey, we don’t keep our people behind a wall with machine guns” by defining the USSR as a violent and anti-democratic country. As the film comes to a logical conclusion, during the fight angry and losing Drago overcomes a collectivist ideology as he spurns the disappointed and dissatisfied government’s spokesman and embraces “American” individualism by hollering: ‘I fight to win! For me! For me!'(Lopes and Brock ). Additionally, the communist ideology of the USSR becomes an object of bullying as Drago fans begin to support Rocky, shouting his name out loudly. This, in turn, is the fall of Soviet ideology and the adoption of more superior capitalist ideologies after (UKessays). Endless whoops ‘Rocky!’ essentially declare America as the single superpower. This moment clearly shows the defeat of Soviet political ideologies against the USA.

Historians have often disagreed on the origins of the Cold War placing the blame on either the United States, or the Soviet Union, or even maintaining a neutral stance. This is apparent with the various schools of thought as Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who is an Orthodox historian, argues that the Soviet Union was aggressively trying to expand its sphere of influence into Europe due to Stalin’s expansionism, his anti-west paranoia and the nature of Marxism-Leninism – that international world revolution was to occur due to the inevitable class conflicts resulting from capitalism, and thus people would adopt communism. Schlesinger’s stance also regarded the United States as a passive and benign nation, only responding to Soviet aggression and hostility. It is also the Orthodox school of thought that believes that Stalin broke agreements at the Yalta and Potsdam conferences whilst also ignoring the Atlantic Charter which outlined post-war democracy in Europe. Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe however, disagree since they belong to the revisionist school of thought which argues that the United States was predominantly to blame for the beginning of the Cold War. This was because they were increasingly antagonizing and aggressive towards the Soviet Union via the Marshall Plan. The US exploitation of the USSR’s economic vulnerabilities from being war-torn and the advantage of their wealthy, booming economy is what led revisionists to believe that the US was neither passive nor benign but rather driven by economic self-interests and priorities as they could set up a permanent American presence in post-war Europe. The Marshall Plan remains a key aspect of their argument for US aggression and they consider atomic diplomacy too as a key breakdown in relations between the two states. The last main school of thought to come in more recent times was post revisionism which Robert Jervis belongs to. He advocates that neither nation was to blame for the beginning of the Cold War as it was inevitable due to a security dilemma that pushed both countries to prioritize their self-interests with a presence of miscommunication and a clash of social systems.

Arthur Schlesinger Jr., who belongs to the Orthodox school of thought, argues that the Cold War resulted as a consequence of Soviet expansionism and aggression due to Stalin’s ideological motivations. Schlesinger Jr’s article, Origins of the Cold War, is reinforced as his publication conveys that ‘The Cold War was the brave and essential response of free men to communist aggression’. This immediately establishes that the United States are the ‘free men’ who had a benign role and only intervened to preserve the fundamental rights and liberties of Europe and its citizens while the Soviets attempted to instill their ideals and repress their neighboring countries in Eastern Europe. Additionally, his line of argument is further conveyed as ‘the protocol of Russia therefore meant the enlargement of the area of Russian influence.’ This directly ties in with Stalin’s belief of Marxist-Leninist ideology, that liberal democracy is opposed and instead the proletariat must be liberated via a communist revolution – which was bound to happen due to the class conflicts created by capitalism. Hence it was Stalin’s aim to expand Soviet influence into Eastern Europe in order to combat capitalism so that communism would thrive and expand into other countries. In this way, Schlesinger Jr. presents the USSR to be the antagonizer, as the US remains neutral and only responds after seeing signs of Soviet expansionism. However, though this seems like the case, other schools of thought disagree since revisionists do believe that America’s nuclear monopoly and attempt to instill a permanent US presence in Europe try to counter the theory that America remained in a benign position.

Tied in with his argument is Stalin’s intense paranoia as an individual of his own officials and of the West. The Great Purge is often used as an indicator of Stalin’s psychology intense paranoia and lack of trust in his own people where he purged many of his high-ranking officers with the pretext that they were traitors or potential ones. This is corroborated by Raymond Birt in Personality and Foreign Policy: The Case of Stalin where he says ‘Stalin […] is the classical example of a paranoid individual whose paranoia helped him to rise to the top of a highly centralized political structure and, once there, turn the bureaucratic institutions of the Soviet Union into extensions of his inner personality disorder.’ Therefore, Stalin took no chances with the West and he had to secure the USSR’s sphere of influence since ‘Stalin’s behaviour in power is indicative of the need of the paranoid to protect his fragile narcissistic ego from external threats’ which also meant that national security was within this scope from potential external threats. This resulted in an aggressive Soviet policy whereby Eastern Europe would be used as a Soviet bloc and perform as a buffer zone for the USSR since they have a history of being prone to invasion on their eastern border with Europe – a key example being Operation Barbarossa. This essentially broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which was a non-aggression pact between the Germans and the Soviets. Therefore it is quite clear that Stalin would be fearful and paranoid of foreign powers as a sense of mistrust would be instilled. This is further evident as ‘the Kremlin, on the other hand, thought only of spheres of interest; above all the Russians were determined to protect their frontiers, and especially their border to the west.’ This presents that Stalin didn’t want Western influence to penetrate the East as they posed a threat both militarily with their nuclear monopoly, and financially since they had the richest and fastest growing economy globally. Furthermore, regarding the fact that the Soviets were war-torn and had suffered through vast destruction and casualties, they had to undergo reconstruction in order to pursue post-war recovery so this posed a huge issue to their national security, defense, and frontier as they were left in a vulnerable state. However, since Schlesinger Jr.’s stance was that the US was responding to Soviet aggression – Stalin’s paranoia is what incited their response as he was perceived to be an aggressor since he possibly overestimated the United States’ desire to involve themselves with post-war Europe. Furthermore, paranoia and security of the Soviet Union are further emphasised as: ‘Moscow very probably, and not unnaturally, perceived the emphasis on self-determination as a systematic and deliberate pressure on Russia’s western frontiers.’ The Soviets clearly disliked democracy and the democratic elections proposed in the Atlantic Charter as ‘they were ignoring the Declaration on Liberated Europe, ignoring the Atlantic Charter, self-determination, human freedom and everything else the Americans considered essential for a stable peace.’ This portrays that the USSR were prioritising their own communist regime in favour against a stable democratic peace which made them look like an ‘Evil Empire’, in the eyes of the west, which President Reagan called the Soviet Union later said in the 1980s as their authoritarian rule essentially violated human individual rights, liberty and freedoms. Therefore, Stalin’s aggressive stance towards the West could be attributed to his paranoia so expanding his sphere of influence would perhaps guarantee an eminence of safety around the USSR’s borders.

Signs of Soviet aggression and expansionism could perhaps already be indicated through Stalin’s responses and outcomes of the Yalta and Potsdam conferences – Stalin wanted to establish Eastern Europe as a Soviet sphere of influence despite going against democracy and the process of free elections established throughout post-war Europe. This is apparent when John P. Vloyantes indicates in The Significance of Pre-Yalta Policies regarding Liberated Countries in Europe that ‘Under her border-state policy, Russian designs called for the establishment of regimes which would not be dominated or influenced by powers hostile to the U.S.S.R. and would acquiesce in Soviet policies regarding strategic considerations.’ Ultimately, revisionists disagree since the United States wasn’t entirely passive and exploited their economic strength in order to assert influence in Europe which has suffered destruction on a wide scale. Post revisionists on the other hand also disagree since their access to the archives in the USSR after it collapsed supports their stance on how the Cold War began as a result of being a security dilemma – the two nations needing to establish national security in order to protect their borders and interests. However, while it is evident that Orthodox historians like Schlesinger have a pro US and anti communist stance, it must be considered that most historians from this school of thought are high ranking US officials. Schlesinger himself was personally close with highly influential people like Elanor Roosevelt and John F. Kenedy whom he was a special advisor to – already indicating that his views would be strictly against communism and placing heavy blame on them for instigating the Cold War. Therefore, his highly pro-American stance shows signs of subjectivity and bias, which is important when pinpointing which nation initiated the Cold War as Orthodox historians like Schlesinger would often shift all the blame onto one side without accepting any culpability.

While orthodox historians agree upon the stance of the Soviet Union as the aggressors, the reality is the opposite in regards to the revisionist school of thought which pinpoints the culpability of the beginning of the Cold War onto the United States. Key revisionist historians, Michael Cox and Caroline Kennedy Pipe followed this line of argument in The Tragedy of American Diplomacy: Rethinking the Marshall Plan as the Marshall Plan was a clear indicator of American aggression towards the USSR for them. They claimed that ‘The way that US aid was originally conceived under the Marshall Plan not only limited Soviet options but propelled the Soviet Union into a more antagonistic and hostile stance, including the establishment of its own economic and political bloc.’ This is perhaps due to the fact that the Soviet Union had recently suffered the brutality and destruction of the Second World War – with the Germans invading, essentially transforming the Soviet Union’s western borders with Europe and Soviet cities like Stalingrad into a battleground. The Soviets themselves had also adopted scorched earth tactics in order to slow down or even halt the advance of the German military, deeper into Soviet territory. Therefore this meant that as the Germans were advancing during Operation Barbarossa, the Soviets were burning and destroying anything remotely inhabitable or that could provide the Germans with local food while they were retreating. Consequently, when comparing the two superpowers, the Soviets had suffered destruction as a consequence of the war which also heavily burdened their economy. The United States on the other hand, had not suffered wartime destruction since they faced no major series of attacks like bombings on the American homeland and this could be mainly attributed to their absence in international affairs as a result of their prior isolationalist policy. Furthermore, America’s economy flourished and grew even further after the Second World War which demonstrates how revisionists like Cox and Pipe argue that the Marshall Plan is practically a flaunt of US wealth and exploitation of their economic superiority over the USSR. Thus, they consider the Marshall Plan as a real sign of American antagonism against the Soviet Union as it is perceived as an attempt to instill permanent economic and political influence in Europe. With Europe undergoing reconstruction as a result of the wartime destruction, ‘The United States and its Western allies were determined to undermine Soviet influence in Eastern Europe by exploiting the USSR’s weak economic control over the region and ‘luring’ the East Europeans back into the Western camp.’ This essentially highlights that the Marshall Plan was used as a political tool in order to maintain existing economic relations with Europe so they remain a permanent presence as Europe has no choice but to rely on the US for economic aid or potentially be at risk of extremism like communism since many will look towards more equal distribution of wealth. Benn Steil, an economist, reinforces this point as ‘Rather than lending Europe reconstruction funds and wishing it well, a new integrated Western European entity would be constructed using American blueprints, cash, and ultimately, contrary to all early intentions security guarantees. This effort the Marshall Plan, as it would come to be known would entangle the United States in European affairs in precisely the manner George Washington had warned against.’ Here he refers to America’s past isolationist policy where the US remained truly benign in international affairs as they focused on domestic policies and issues within the American homeland prior to the First World War. George Washington, one of the founding fathers hadn’t planned on America playing such a huge influential role in international politics and thus the President excels at foreign affairs where they could be regarded as ‘imperial’. With America becoming more and more involved in European affairs in particular, it can be perceived by revisionist historians that American funds which were under the pretext of reconstruction aid, was actually a geopolitical ploy to maintain capitalism within Europe and prevent any further countries from falling to communism while establishing European reliance on America. Consequently, revisionist historians view the United States clearly as an aggressor to the Cold War as their economic exploitation on their rhetoric of international aid was clearly weaponised to serve them in their post war strategic goals of economic ties with the continent and the preservation of capitalism as a whole. This vast contrasting belief of the Revisionist stance in comparison to the Orthodox one is widely apparent and conflicting in ideas of who is to blame for the Cold War since the Revisionist school of thought had arisen during and after the Vietnam War – realising that US foreign policy isn’t in fact infallible and perhaps America’s own geopolitical interests, which were moving away from isolationism, had established instigative messages towards the Soviets. Thus, Revisionists focus mainly on US foreign policy and the disadvantageous position the Soviets had post-war, which may lack impartiality like the Orthodox stance as it grew out of the failures of the Vietnam War.

Imagine both of the most powerful countries being jealous of each other due to political, economical, and warfare standing. Well it happened in 1947, after World War II a rivalry developed between both the Soviet Union and the United States. During World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union battled together as partners against the Axis powers. Be that as it may, the connection between the two countries was a strained one. Americans had for quite some time been careful about Soviet’s communist ideas and worried about Russian’s leader Joseph Stalin’s oppressive guidelines of his own nation. As far as it matters for them, the Soviets despised the Americans’ decades-long refusal to regard the USSR as a real piece of the worldwide network just as their deferred passage into World War II, which brought about the death of a huge number of Russians ( tens of million). After the war finished, these complaints matured into a staggering feeling of common doubt and animosity. Soon after, the Soviet Union began to take over countries in Eastern Europe and spread the idea of Communism. Communism is basically a social, economic, and political ideology which means all people are to be equal politically, economically, and socially. The people are supposed to own everything communally, from businesses and beyond. People must receive the same quality and quantity of possessions. Americans of coursed feared the thought of communism. If an American even expressed the thought of communism or were even suspected of communism would automatically be blacklisted and put to be punished.

cvfdx The United States initially got involved in the Cold War because it was believed that communism was a threat to stability and freedom of the world. It was also believed that the Soviet Union would do whatever they could to spread the ideology to as much of the world as possible. In the summer of 1963, President Kennedy visited Berlin and was welcomed by happy groups who gave his company blooms, rice, and torn paper. In the Rudolph Wilde Platz, Kennedy gave one of his most vital addresses to a riveted crowd. Kennedy states, “ Freedom has many difficulties and democracy is not perfect, but we have never had to put a wall up to keep our people in, to prevent them from leaving us.” Kennedy believed that communism was basically there to keep the people in and not letting them have a voice as a public, he is also referencing the Berlin wall which was a symbol of communism and communist around Berlin. Kennedy was totally against communism and also made that very clear while in Berlin. He goes on to say, “An offense not only against history but an offense against humanity, separating families, dividing husbands and wives and brothers and sisters, and dividing a people who wish to be joined together.” Kennedy wants the country to be unified, wants people to be comfortable with the people they live with, that they share with and that they are around. Kennedy believes that communism messes up everything that a country develops, and it affects the people tremoundsly. Lastly he states, “ Freedom is indivisible and when one man is enslaved, all are not free. When all are free, then we can look forward to that day when this city will be joined as one…” Kennedy had a very specific vision: to end communism not just in the United States but in every country he could reach. He wanted to see the countries unified and centralized with one government. Not controlled, taken advantage of, not taken seriously and put in a corner where they could not do a thing about it. He wanted to see everyone prosper as a group and as a country.

Before the United States and the Soviet Union even entered the Cold War, they were once alliances. After World War II finished, most Americans authorities concurred that the best safeguard against, the Soviet risk was procedure called ‘containment’ Americas just decision was the long haul, tolerant yet firm and vigilant regulation of Russian sweeping inclinations.“It must be the policy of the United States,” he declared before Congress in 1947, “to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation…by outside pressures.” This way of thinking would shape American foreign policy for the next four decades.

The next stage of build up was the atomic age. The atomic age was where the United States and the Soviet Union began to compete with one another to prove who was the stronger country. The containment era gave extra time for arms to build up in the United States. President Truman announced that the US would be building an even more destructive atomic weapon :the hydrogen bomb or otherwise known as a “superbomb” and soon after Stalin attempted to do the same.

Soon after, the cold war made its way into space now it may seem unbelievable, it is true.The jealousy of these countries ran deep, and even being able to be the first one at the finish was a major accomplishment. Space exploration served as a dramatic arena for the Cold War.

The Red Scare also called ‘McCarthyism’was another significant association with the cold war. The place of UnAmerican Activities advisory group started to hear that communist disruption in the United States was alive and well.The HUAC boycotted many individuals in the movie industry because of these convictions. At that point Senator Joseph McCarthy started to spread this conviction into the Federal government. A large number of Federal representatives were terminated or surprisingly more terrible arraigned.

Even though, The Cold War affected the country within it also affected the countries on the outside . The Soviet Union managed to invade North Korea in 1950 which got Americans a little nervous and even forced President Truman to send military into Korea and start the Korean War in 1953. In 1955, another dramatic turn occured, the US and NATO made West Germany a member and permitted it to be remilitarilize. So with this information the Soviet Union responded with the Warsaw Pact. So this lead to President Kennedy, to face problems in the 1960s like The Bay of Pigs Invasion and the Cuban missile crisis. Which seemed to prove that communism and communists did oppose a threat.

The 37th president, Richard Nixon who took office in 1969 had a different approach when it came to communism. Nixon had approached communism by encouraging the United Nations to recognize the communists Chinese government in 1972, and establish diplomatic relations with Beijing. He managed to create a new policy called “detente” or otherwise known as “relaxation” towards the Soviet Union. Nixon in 1972 also managed to get the Soviet premier Leonid Brezhnev signed the strategic arms limitation Treaty otherwise known as SALT. The point of SALT was to prohibit the manufacturing and launch of nuclear missiles by both sides and took a step toward reducing the threat of missiles.

Soon after, the Cold War heated up all over again after Ronald Reagan took office. Reagan believed that communism was spreading all over again so, with this thought he ran with it . Reagan began to financially support and aid anti communist and insurgencies. Which applied to developing countries called the Reagan doctrine, and fought communism in Central America. In response, Gorbachev took office and introduced a term called “ glasnost” which means to be politically open. He also introduced another term called “perestroika” which means economic reform. In 1989, communist began to replace their government with non communist one, and in November of 1989, the Berlin Wall was completely destroyed. By 1991, the Cold War ended and Soviet Union crumbled as well.

Two of the most powerful who were once alliance yes indeed fell off and fell off hard. The only reason the cold war ever even lasted 45 years was because of the communication, the lack of support for one another, and the fear one country getting ahead of one another. The cold war could have been avoided especially if both countries actually discussed and revised their issues instead of automatically running to warfare: The Cold War would have never happened.

Introduction

During the years of World War 2, the relationship between the Soviet Union and USA was tense, nonetheless, they were both fighting together against the Axis powers. USA had however been long wary of Soviet Communism and their leader, Stalin. After the war this long dispute began to unravel. Both America and Britain were anxious of the Soviet Union because of the potential threat of them occupying the whole of eastern Europe, and furthermore removing the democratic governments and replacing them with Communism. The Cold War was primarily a geopolitical conflict between these powers, along with political and economic issues with only minimal fighting in the Middle East and Eastern Asia, that lasted from 1947, however some sources say 1945, and ended in 1991. Most of the countries involved were allied with NATO (who of most powerful was USA) and on the opposing side was Russia, allied in the Warsaw Pact. This pact allied all of the central and eastern European Communist countries.

In addition, propaganda was a hugely significant part of the Cold War. The role of propaganda was to promote the ideas of one political party, while downgrading the other. Political propaganda was widespread throughout the Cold War but it was mostly at its heights in the 1950s and 1960s. During this time, the Americans produced different ways to brainwash their society by the help of television, film, music, literature and art, which were mainly produced by the government. Hollywood Motion Pictures were said to be “an excellent medium to use to expound foreign policy without the audience knowing it”, whilst the radio-television company Nexus presented an opportunity to implement “five minutes of propaganda with two hours of sugar coating”. The propaganda films promoted conservative family life and taught children and adults alike the importance of working hard, being educated and respecting your parents. These were crucial parts of propaganda teachings because this meant that the new generations would be easier to control by the government.

Propaganda and children

Cartoons were a huge part of propaganda in the Cold War. It was important for the American government to raise kids according to American politics, and cartoons were a simple and straightforward way of doing so. Children could watch their favourite cartoons from the television and learn about the ‘correct’ politics unknowingly.

A cartoon such as ‘ Meet King Joe’ was a capitalist propaganda film that educated children on the US economy. The cartoon begins with a message saying, “This is one of a series of films produced by the Extension Department of Harding College to create a deeper understanding of what has made America the finest place in the world to live.” Harding University This cartoon had been made in 1949 in the uprising of Communism to remind American citizens of how well off they had it there. In the cartoon, ‘Joe’ is continuously referred to as ‘Joe, King of the workers of the world’. This pro-business cartoon the role of capital investing and how it affects the working hours and wages of workers. The cartoon continues by saying that far-sighted investment is the reason why Joe has higher wages and lower working hours than people working the same jobs abroad. The cartoon frequently mentions the ‘American way of working’, and how well it works and it being the reason that America is ‘the finest place in the world to live.’

Education for children

During the Cold War, the education children got would be carefully chosen in order to give them the correct idea about the society. It was a good idea to start teaching children what they should believe and whose side they should be on. Education systems in America, as well as in the USSR, were changed and adapted to best fit the situation. Particularly in the maths and sciences. Subjects like History and English were changed, so that they would focus more on politics. In 1952 the school children would be chanting the American Pledge of Allegiance, which included the phrase “under God”. Many American students also saw films in high school, such as ‘social hygiene’ or ‘mental health’. These short movies mainly focused on their ‘personal development’. This included hygiene, manners, how you should treat and behave around others, and sexual conduct.

There are some who say that we must teach each subject “objectively”, avoiding propaganda and the kind of mental conditioning which the communists themselves provide in their education. If they mean by this that those who teach about communism must strive to maintain a neutral and dispassionate posture and must avoid condemning it, then I cannot agree with them.

This was said by Thomas J. Dodd, then-Connecticut Senator at the Conference on Cold War Education in 1963.

Propaganda was more broadly used in schools where educational videos produced by the American federal government’s Civil Defense department where shown in the event of a nuclear attack. An example of this is an educational film called Duck and Cover, which was released in January 1952. It is a short cartoon which teaches children to stay safe. It shows what you should do in case there was a nuclear attack. This film is not really negative towards the children, but is actually a really good way to let them know how to act in the case of a nuclear bomb/attack. However, there was a lot of educational propaganda which mainly focused on the American ideologies of freedom and democracy, and presented the USSR as the great enemy who held unacceptable and opposing viewpoints, such as communism. Teaching children things like this would help the American government be able to have more control on the viewpoints of the children and how they will think and process in the future.

While portrayed by the Soviets as a simple trade deal, transactions such as these amount to something far more sinister. Repaying a loan in raw materials and the purchase of Soviet finished goods only cemented the dynamic between the two countries. Brazil’s position as a less developed producer nation with an agricultural focused economy was strengthened as was the USSR’s role as both its chief technological provider and distributor of manufactured goods.

Brazil was not the only nation exploited by the Soviets in this fashion. Rather similar lopsided relationships existed between them and a number of nations including Argentina and Uruguay. Starting in 1974 Argentina entered into several trade agreements with the USSR. These covered everything from commerce to finance to technology. Within just five years 12 percent of Argentinian trade was with the Soviet Union and its economic bloc(Saba) perpetuating the nation’s reliance on the superpower for a broad variety of technological advancements and goods. In 1976 Uruguay requested a 50 million loan from the Soviets for a dam. They obliged on the condition that the loan would be repaid solely in raw materials(Saba). In addition to these countries’ broad economic dependence on the Soviet Union many were military dependent on them as well. This included Cuba, the USSR’s first and primary Latin American ally as well as most of the region’s other nations. The Soviet Union had such a significant role in the Latin American weapons trade that by 1977 they had become the region’s chief supplier of firearms, armored vehicles, and tanks. Lastly the Soviet Union specifically delegated both military and economic aid to conflict zones in order to exacerbate already existing tensions for their own benefit(Saba). One salient example of this was Soviet intervention in the bloody Nicaraguan Revolution through their funding of Daniel Ortega and his Sandinista National Liberation Front.

Nicaraguan Revolution

The US-allied Somoza dictatorial dynasty ruled Nicaragua from 1936 to 1979. In their final years in power, the Somozas were opposed by the Marxist and Soviet-backed Sandanistas(FSLN) led by Daniel Ortega.The Somoza crackdown on the revolution grew ever brutal with an increase in torture and secret killings(Harvest of Empire 55:42-55:47). This led to a large increase in domestic as well as foreign support for the revolution including America’s withdrawal of support from the Somozas. Daniel Ortega overthrew The last Somoza, Anastasio Debayle and took power as a member of a broad coalition, Junta of National Reconstruction of Nicaragua, but he and his FSLN rapidly took full control of the junta establishing himself as dictator funded by the Soviet Union. This sparked the Contra Revolt which was a popular movement, though significantly financially supported by the American government. American support of the Contras was originally through legal channels, but after Congress called for its discontinuation President Ronald Reagan and the CIA continued it illegally by way of the Contra Affair(Partlow). For a decade the Contras and the Sandinistas fought each other in a bloody Civil War which only ended when both groups threw down their arms in 1989. During the conflict, the Contras managed to eventually reach a wider base of support and in 1990 an anti-Sandinista candidate was democratically elected. In 2007 Ortega came to power again, this time through a fair election.However, after a couple of years of relatively free and open governance, he resumed his authoritarian ways and oppresses his people to this day through violent suppression of peaceful protests and execution of opposition leaders(Partlow). However, despite Ortega’s authoritarian leanings his actions pale in comparison to the atrocities of Fidel Castro who ruled Cuba for over five decades.

Castro’s Rule and the Cuban Missile Crisis

Fidel Castro was originally hailed as a hero and democratic revolutionary who liberated his nation from ruthless dictator, Fulgencio Batista. However, many soon saw his true colors. Fidel Castro was a Soviet pawn and the USSR saw his country as their foothold on the continent. Castro rapidly built internment camps and gulags to contain a growing number of political dissidents(Eire). Torture was a staple of his regime and where that failed assasinations were common, with Castro having untold numbers of his own people killed though Castro himself survived more than 600 hundred attempts on his life according to some sources(Oppmann). A large number of those who weren’t killed,tortured or imprisoned in re-education camps fled Cuba, amounting to 20 percent of the island’s pre- Revolution population(Eire). Fidel Castro and his oligarchy claimed all Cuba’s resources and property for themselves sending most of his people into poverty. The once large Cuban middle class rapidly diminished under his rule. In addition, Castro never repented for any of his atrocities or faced a tribunal for them(Eire). However, there is no crime that Fidel Castro committed worse than the near total destruction of the world as we know it, with him and his Soviet allies’ instigation of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The USSR triggered the Cuban Missile Crisis by placing nuclear-armed missiles on the island nation of Cuba in 1962.The unsuccessful American backed Bay of Pigs Invasion agitated the Cubans and their Russian allies (History.Com Editors).The United States had missiles in Turkey and Italy for years which concerned the Soviets, even though they were relatively far from the USSR proper. The Soviet Union placed armed warheads on the island nation 90 miles from the Floridian coast (History.Com Editors) The United States saw this as a threat and preparation for a possible nuclear attack on the continental United States. They responded with a naval blockade of Cuba preventing further shipment of missiles and other weapons, in addition, to an ultimatum to remove Russian missiles from Cuba. In response to the blockade, a flotilla of Soviet ships approached American naval lines.Tensions were heightened by the shooting down of an American spy plane near Cuba killing its pilot. American troops prepared to deploy from Florida. The crisis was eventually resolved through a strategically worked out deal in which the USSR removed their missiles from Cuba in exchange for the United States not invading the country and withdrawing its missiles from Turkey(History.Com Editors) . While, the Cuban Missile Crisis was a brief near catosphere that was quickly resolved, when it comes to other cases of foreign intervention those involved weren’t nearly so lucky. Such is the case with the American intercession in the conflict of House of Spirits.

House of Spirits

The House of the Spirits was written by Isabel Allende, is set in a fictional Latin American nation, and spans almost the entirety of the twentieth century, including the Cold War era. During this period in the novel the Conservatives are defeated in the recent presidential election election by a socialist, simply referred to in the book as the President (384). This angers the political right and their wealthy constituency who fear their property will be confiscated by the new regime. These concerns are partially justified since one of the first things the new government does is seize the large haciendas and distribute them among their tenants(402). In order to weaken popular support of the socialist government and remove them from power the Conservatives institute a program of economic destabilization,boosted by the media and free press,now functioning primarily as their propaganda vehicle (387). These were heavily funded by the “gringos”, a Spanish slang term referring primarily to American whites: “The gringos, …had allocated secret funds for the purpose of sabotage”(393). However, even though the “sabotage” created chaos the socialist government remained popular. One prominent Conservative politician, the book’s main character Esteban Trueba, saw this reality and began to push for a coup(394). Initially he was ignored as a crazy old man. However, months later the national military and their American backers took his advice, though it is possible that was their aim all along and that the goal of winning back the country for capitalism through a popular movement was just a ploy to get moderates on board. Regardless, the coup went as planned with the successful ousting of the socialist government(419-420). However, the human toll was extremely high. The coup was bloody and horrific. The President and his inner circle were shot and their bodies dynamited including Trueba’s own son:”Jaime and the others …were shot on the ground… and then their bodies were dynamited”(419). Political dissidents were killed in the street(431). History was rewritten to fill the narrative of the new Fascist regime the coup had ushered in(432). Labor unions were abolished and political parties were outlawed(435). Though The House of the Spirits is a fictional work the events of the coup play out in a similar fashion to many world real world examples of foreign intervention in Latin America during the Cold War and beyond.

Conclusion

Throughout history, practically every country on earth that has achieved the status of a major power has attempted to spread it influence far beyond its borders and across the world with a few notable exceptions such as medieval China or India today. During the Cold War both the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in this practice. Even as WW2 was still raging the Soviets claimed Eastern Europe for themselves while the United States backed governments friendly to them in the western half of the continent. This alignment with one superpower or the other took place in most of the world, including in Latin America. In Guatemala, a socilaist government seen as friendly to the Soviets was overthrown by an American-backed coup to devastating effect. Meanwhile, Soviet imperialism prevented most South American countries from exercising their sovereignty and functioning as truly independent nations. The Nicaraguan Revolution and the factors that sparked it highlight the brutality and human toll unleashed by both superpowers, first with the US backed-Somoza dictatorial dynasty and later with USSR supported revolutionary turned tyrant, Daniel Ortega. Soviet influence in Cuba led to another dictator, Fidel Castro’s, autocratic rule and almost brought the world to its knees through nuclear war. Finally, the fictional events of the House of Spirits reflect the horrific effects of an American backed-coup in a fictional Latin American nation. Although these incidents are all specific to Cold War Latin American the foreign intervention of superpowers and its devastating consequences are not limited to either the region or the era. In the past few decades The United States has invaded several Middle Eastern nations including Iraq and Afghanistan and bombed others to the ground including Libya and Syria. As a result these countries collapsed into chaos and all of these nations are still fighting civil wars to this day with the exception of Iraq who’s Civil War was ongoing as recently as 2 years ago. In addition, China has made inroads into a variety of African nations exploiting these countries’ resources and people for their own imperialist aims as European nations did in Africa a century ago. If the world’s superpowers actually want to police the world and make it a better place they should “police” themselves and focus on solving their own domestic issues instead of bringing chaos, destruction, and death to the rest of the world.

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr, an Orthodox historian, predominantly holds Russia responsible for the cause of The Cold War. When measuring the causes, he argues that it is vital to highlight Russia’s sense of insecurity which led to an aggressive adherence to Leninist ideology and a troublesome view of world order that involved sharp contradictions. The Russian leaders stubbornly held the sphere of influence view, in which each great power would be assured by the other powers of an acknowledged predominance in its own area of special interest, in this case, national security would be ensured through the balance of power. This idea directly clashed with the USA’s universalist approach, where all nations shared a common interest in the global affairs, national security would then be guaranteed by an international organization. Schlesinger was strongly in favour of the universalist approach as he believed the former was inherently unstable and could potentially lead to another war. The stubborn Soviets refused to consider America’s alternative, Schlesinger credits this to the widespread insecurity in Russia at the time. Russia had repeatedly been victim to invasions throughout history, which required them to protect their western borders that lacked a natural means of defence. Therefore, their expansionist view could be seen by some (George Kennan) as just a means of survival and security. However, Schlesinger is unable to see their personal insecurity as a reasonable explanation for their actions. He claims that the USA were willing to compromise with Russia because they understood the Soviets need for security, but the USSR’s inability to compromise led to the common belief that the Russians expansionist tactics were of ill-intent.

Schlesinger highlights another cause indispensable to understanding the origins of The Cold War, Stalin’s character. He holds the belief that Stalin’s behavioural traits and excessive paranoia’, ascribed to the suicide of his wife, largely impacted the relations between the Soviet Union and the Western allies. Lenin had previously criticized his rude and arbitrary ways and it is stated that even Khrushchev, Stalin’s successor, believed that he saw enemies everywhere and in everything. It increased tensions between the allies as Stalin believed that the US was planning a separate surrender of the German armies after the defeat of Japan and the Nazi’s. His paranoia also became increasingly apparent in the years of the Great Purge (1936-38) where those opposing the communist regime suffered severe punishment such as execution. Schlesinger argues that there was absolutely nothing America could do to appease Stalin. He also considers the death of Roosevelt in the causes of The Cold War. Roosevelt was able to somewhat influence and restrain Stalin in ways which others had failed to do so; this is evident in the Soviet Acquiescence at the Yalta conference. Roosevelt’s approach largely contrasted with Truman’s hostile policies which pressurized Moscow to take measures in defence of their borders. However, Schlesinger argues that Truman’s approach was a reaction to Russia’s aggression, rather than an action in itself.

In addition to this, Schlesinger asserts that Russia’s unilateral approach in Eastern Europe further succeeded in exacerbating relations between the USSR and the Western allies. They ignored the Declaration on Liberated Europe, the Atlantic Charter, and the post-war idea of self-determination and human freedom which the Americans thought was essential to maintain stable peace. Furthermore, the differing ideologies of capitalism and communism made the likelihood of hostility inevitable. Schlesinger places the majority of the blame on the communist ideology. He claims that America’s position as the leading capitalist power naturally made them a threat to the Soviet Union no matter what Roosevelt or Truman did. Lenin wrote, as long as capitalism and socialism exist, we cannot live at peace. Schlesinger claims that Russia was indoctrinated by Marxism which fuelled their belief that the capitalist West were out to destroy them, when in actuality, America wanted a peaceful post-war collaboration. Therefore, according to Schlesinger, The Cold War was destined to occur and there was nothing the USA could have done that would abolish the mistrust the USSR had felt for their ideological rivals.

On the other hand, Alperovitz, a revisionist historian, strongly opposes the Orthodox view and argues that American policy was the overriding factor that caused tensions and eventually led to The Cold War. He claims that the atomic bomb significantly influenced the views of American policymakers as it provided them with profound confidence and confirmed the belief that they had the ability to affect developments in the Soviet Union. This is evident through Truman’s statement where he confesses that the bomb gave him an entirely new feeling of confidence. His assurance is further demonstrated through the unyielding demands made at Potsdam, which directly contrasted with Roosevelt’s accommodating approach at Yalta. Due to this, it could be argued, with certainty, that without the development of the atomic bomb it was improbable that the Western allies could force the Soviet Union to cooperate.

As a result of the weapon’s development and the death of Roosevelt, Alperovitz argues that the USA deliberately abandoned the wartime policy of collaboration, which further soured relations between the powers. Truman’s inability to adhere to the Yalta reparation accord, his opposition in the Balkans, and his decision to cut off Lend-Lease, emphasized the dichotomy between himself and Roosevelt. Alperovitz view is similar to that of Stimson who argued that the USA’s abrupt opposition to the Soviet Union would increase their suspicions and distrust of our purposes. Truman’s radical policy and tactic of intimidation failed to appease the exceptionally insecure Soviet Union, leaving them with no other alternative but to take defensive measures.

Furthermore, Alperovitz claims the use of the bomb was a political decision made under the guise of military consideration to help the USA regain the lead and prevent Soviet domination. Truman’s argument that the weapon saved millions of lives directly contrasts with Eisenhower who argued it was completely unnecessary as Japan was close to defeat. Alperovitz suggests that the USA had a vested interest in Asia and wanted to end all hostilities before the Red Army had a chance to attack and seize Manchuria. However, Truman feared that initiating negotiations with Japan would be too time-consuming and would provide Russia with an opportunity to establish themselves in the East. Additionally, another reason for the detonation of the bomb was the idea that it would impress the Russians and convince them to accept a peace plan intending to limit the power of the USSR, making them more manageable in Europe.

Contrastingly, the approach of the post-revisionist historian, J. L. Gaddis, synthesizes both orthodox and revisionist interpretations on the origins of The Cold War. He firmly held the belief that neither side can bear sole responsibility for the onset of the war and criticizes revisionist interpretations for not considering the role of the Soviet Union. Whilst both, the USA and the USSR, agreed-upon unconditional surrender and disarming defeated enemies, their ultimate views were not congruent due to their contrasting past experiences. The future of Eastern Europe and Germany became areas of contention, as Stalin believed the key to peace was to keep Russia strong, and Germany weak. He did not agree with the USA’s hope for self-determination in Eastern Europe as the area was vital to Soviet security. Gaddis claims that Russia’ views were misinterpreted as threatening, to the USA, due to their ideology which centred around the destruction of capitalism. Although Stalin took little interest in promoting the fortunes of communist parties, his failure to make his intentions clear, led American policymakers to mistake Stalin’s aim to ensure Russia’s security, as an attempt to spread communism.

In addition to this, Gaddis also suggests that the USA’s monopoly over the atomic bomb provided them with newfound confidence. America’s advancement in technology led them to believe that they had the ability to shape post-war order to their liking, and Russia had no choice but to comply. The USA was adamant for Russia to make concessions in exchange for post-war loans. However, when the USSR turned to German reparations for their finances, the American policymakers launched a program of economic assistance to nations threatened by communism. Thus, revealing, to the USSR, that America would not back down against communist expansion, even at the risk of war. Gaddis also suggests that American policymakers hyperbolized the threat of Soviet expansion to gain support against the USSR. Therefore, indicating that Russia was not as hazardous as they were made out to be.

However, Gaddis also places an emphasis on the internal constraints placed upon American policymakers due to their domestic politics. Many suggest that the USA could have allayed Soviet distrust by voluntarily relinquishing its monopolies over the atomic bomb. Gaddis argues against this, as he believes it would have only succeeded in alienating the American public. Similarly, the USA’s economic concession to Russia, in the form of loans, would have also estranged congress as they still held an isolationist view towards foreign aid. Gaddis suggests that the USA’s nonrecognition of Moscow’s sphere of influence in Eastern Europe was due to the belief that the survival of capitalism was solely dependent upon the expansion of American economic influence overseas. Communism had directly threatened this, hence why its suppression was mandatory. Gaddis emphasizes that if one must assign responsibility, Russia is to be held accountable for The Cold War. He argues that the Russians had a larger selection of alternatives in comparison to the USA. Stalin was immune to pressures of Congress, public opinion and the press, which provided him with the ability to overcome internal restraints on his policy, unlike America. Furthermore, Gaddis also identifies Stalin’s paranoia as a reason for the sour relations between the USSR and the West. It is suggested that the Soviet Union had no intention of reconciling with the USA, there was great suspicion and no trust in the relationship between the two powers, which exacerbated matters.

There are multiple reasons why each historian has differing interpretations on the causes of The Cold War. It is highly accurate to suggest that the orthodox view of Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr, developed because of the attitudes in the West at the time. In the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, classified archives from the USSR were released. However, prior to this, historians, like Schlesinger, relied heavily on the West for sources relating to the causes of The Cold War. Thus, highlighting the natural bias that may have resulted, as the available archives at the time were placing sole responsibility on the Soviet Union. Additionally, events at the time may have also influenced Schlesinger’s depiction of the USSR. A prime example would be The Hungarian Revolution of 1956, when thousands of protestors demanded freedom from Soviet oppression, resulting in Soviet tanks invading Budapest, crushing the uprising and killing many people. The brutal events of 1956 successfully portrayed the USSR as an authoritarian aggressor to the West, thus justifying Schlesinger’s suggestion that the Soviet Union was absolutely to blame.

Furthermore, the political background of the American historian, Arthur Schlesinger, must also be considered when discussing the reasons for his orthodox interpretation. In 1968, he was an active supporter of John F. Kennedy, whose administration had considerable tensions with the Soviet Union. His relationship with American diplomats, as well as the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963 by Lee Harvey Oswald, a Marxist sympathizer, fuelled his anti-communist beliefs. Therefore, influencing him to view the USSR in a pessimistic light, which is made apparent in his work produced in 1967, Origins of The Cold War.

Gar Alperovitz book, Atomic Diplomacy, was published in 1965, prior to the release of Soviet archives, however, his revisionist approach remains critical towards the USA as he believes their actions caused The Cold War. It is correct to say that Alperovitz view was influenced by events during that time. The failure of U.S. foreign policy resulted in historians reviewing American history far more critically. America’s participation in The Vietnam War (1955-1975) made many people deeply suspicious of the government. Their support of a corrupt regime, fighting against communism resulted in the death of thousands of innocent civilians. Additionally, the huge economic cost generated from the war angered many Americans as they felt neglected by their government. The role of the USA overseas and in global management was now being examined, which led to the questioning of America’s role in The Cold War. Another event that may have influenced Alperovitz interpretation of The Cold War was The Cuban Revolution. Many began debating the U.S. handling of Cuba, arguing that the USA did not have good intentions and were just trying to hinder Soviet progression. These events heavily influenced Alperovitz interpretation as he now viewed the USA’s intention of the atomic bomb as a form of intimidation and aggression towards the USSR.

In addition to this, his political background also played a role in influencing his view on the causes of The Cold War. As a political activist, Alperovitz work centred on alternatives to capitalism, which is at the core of American society. His view of capitalism led him to believe that the bombings of Japan were an attempt to prevent communist expansion in Asia, rather than end the war. Furthermore, Alperovitz was also influenced by William Appleman Williams, a revisionist historian and socialist who held the belief that the USA were more responsible for The Cold War due to their aggressive, empire-building nature.

After the Soviet archives opened to historians in 1991, post-revisionist historians, like John Lewis Gaddis, were able to revise their interpretations. His book The United States and the Origins of The Cold War was published in 1972, prior to the Soviet archives, where he claimed confrontation was inevitable due to the two directly opposing ideologies of the USA and the USSR. As he solely relied on the West for sources, Gaddis did not apportion blame for the origins of The Cold War. However, after the archives were released, it became clear that the USSR played a greater role in rising tensions.

Another factor that heavily influenced the view of Gaddis on the cause of The Cold War was his relationship with American diplomats resulting in a biased view of events. He was a close friend of George F. Kennan, an official at the US embassy in Moscow. Kennan formulated the long telegram in 1946 which stated that the USSR was determined to spread communism and therefore the Soviet Union and the USA could not peacefully co-exist. In addition to this, he advocated a policy of containment to prevent the expansion of communism abroad. Gaddis’ friendship with Kennan influenced his views on the cause of The Cold War as Gaddis would view the relations between Russia and the USA through the eyes of Kennan, thus undermining the role the U.S. played in increasing tensions between the two powers.