• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

To what extent was the advent of the Cold War an outcome of Stalin(TM)s foreign policy from 1939-1949?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Extended Essay To what extent was the advent of the Cold War an outcome of Stalin's foreign policy from 1939-1949? The leading post-revisionist historian John Lewis Gaddis, after examining the Soviet archives that were opened up due to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, has concluded that the Cold War was the product of "authoritarianism in general and Stalin in particular"1. This view was largely supported among the revisionist historians studying the cause of the Cold War, given Stalin's demanding territorial policies in Eastern Europe during WWII and his repressive measures taken to retain the Soviet control in this region after the war regardless of the agreements on the regional nations' freedom reached by the Grand Alliance. However, it is unjustified to state that the advent of the war was caused merely by the Soviet's aggression. Incidents during WWII revealed that Stalin's policies were essentially caused by the West's attempt to crush both Nazism and Communism, even though at the time the Soviet was on the same boat with the Western Allies in fighting against Germany. Furthermore, the legitimacy of the West's interference in Eastern European affair from after WWII to 1949 also needs to be reassessed. The unique nature of the Cold War makes it difficult to determine when the marking point of its advent was. Much as the ideological differences between communist Soviet Union and capitalist West, in particular the USA and Great Britain, was recognised as early as the beginning of the 20th century, it was until the era of Stalin, the Soviet Union leader from 1924 to 1953, that the Cold War was given the conditions to emerge and develop. Only one year after the German defeat in WWII, on 5th March 1946, Churchill, the Prime Minister of Britain, delivered his Iron Speech in which he publicly declared his opposition to the Soviet Union's occupation of Eastern Europe. ...read more.

Middle

However, there is no limit to Stalin's sense of "securing Russia", as Maxim Litvinov, the former Soviet Commissar for Foreign Affairs, told a Western journalist that "Concessions would not pacify Stalin. If the West conceded all Stalin's demands, he would soon come back with another list of demands."11 This view was shared by the West in such influential documents as the Riga Axiom in which Daniel Yergin identified the Soviet Union as a hostile, expansionist power and in the Long Telegram of February 1946 by George Kennan. He again in May 1944 reflected the suspicion that Stalin's policies caused among the Western public opinion: "If it initially successful, will it know where to stop? Will it not be inexorably carried forward...in a struggle to attain complete mastery of the shores of the Atlantic and the Pacific?"12 Such policy of appeasement was once again demonstrated in the event of the Berlin blockade in 1948-1949. The event signifies Stalin's unhesitation to use military measures in his attempt to eliminate the capitalist elements in the Soviet's sphere of influence. Much as the West would resent Stalin's policies for being expansionist and dictatorial, the question is that if the Russians were "the only culprits in the conflict"13, as the writers Zubok and Pleshakov put it? When John Lewis Gaddis, put the responsibility for the advent of the Cold War on the Soviet shoulders, could he himself not have overlooked many of Western acts that preceded Stalin's most aggressive policies of expansion. Having stated the record of Stalin's aggressive policies during the period of 1939-1949, we must not forget that any political decision is a product of interacting internal and external impacts. Stalin's policies were not the exception. Evidence gained during the course of the Second World War revealed that the Soviet leader did not actively seek to antagonise the West. In fact, it is evident that Stalin was driven by the Western policies to deliver his aggressive policies. ...read more.

Conclusion

Through out the years of 1939-1949, the underlying aim of the USA resisting acts against the Soviet was to protect its own economic interest. With the USA's economic capacity, it is easy to put on the mask of the defender of freedom and independence against the evil communism by such appealing economic measures as the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. Given Russia's shattering economic conditions, it is understandable that repressive actions in Eastern Europe had to be taken to defend communism against the threat of a Western democracy takeover. The Western preoccupation of preventing global Communist spread resulted in its Containment policy, which basically opposed to any Russian opportunity to seize territory such as the Soviet claim to the Black Sea Straits which was referred to as, "an open bid to obtain control over Turkey"22 by Truman. However, the straits were the main gateway for the Soviet trade and taking control of the straits had long been the policy that the Tsars pursued, rather than formed by Stalin's expansionist idea. The West, by its coercive policies towards the Soviet, compelled the Stalin to implement policies that essentially aimed at the Soviet's national security against any future military, economic or political intrusion of the West. Therefore, suspicion and mistrust in the East-West relation was essentially given rise to by the West's policies during the years of 1939-1949. The East-West tension was very much caused by the West's presumption of a Communist monolith that hardly had the opportunity to exist. The advent of the Cold War, therefore, was not caused by Stalin's policies during the years of 1939-1949. Due to various events such as Britain's Appeasement, the delay of the Second Front and the aggressive Western economic policies during these years, Stalin's policies mainly aimed at defending the Soviet Union's existence and ideology against the West's attempt to eliminate it. His policies, if anything, were used by the West as a tool to bring about a conflict with the Soviet Union, or with communism, which poses a threat to the economic interests of the capitalist world. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our International Baccalaureate History section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related International Baccalaureate History essays

  1. How did collective security develop, in particular between WWI and WWII?

    whether to support the League, since they didn't have the US to back them up. This made the British more cautious and less willingly to enforce the League's policies. There was a major difference in attitude towards the League, the French saw the League as an enforcer to enforce the

  2. The cold war - the conferences and the start of the cCold War

    The Polish government in London was not allowed to strongly influence events in Poland and it was the Lublin Polish Government, a Soviet puppet, which tended to produce the members of the Polish government. To Churchill and the British, Poland was of great importance (that was why they went into

  1. What Effect Did World War II have on Eastern Europe?

    The Romanian communist party convinced the Soviet Union to remove all troops from the country. Romania's communist party also denounced the 1968 Invasion of Czechoslovakia. The invasion was aimed at stopping the liberalization reforms taking place in the country8. Romania prohibited the Soviet Union to transport troops or supplies for the invasion through its borders or airspace.

  2. Internal Assessment - How effective were the policies implemented by the U.S. during the ...

    * The U.S. initially believed the occupation to last less than three years. (Coates) II. Demilitarization Policies * Japan had over "five million troops and over three million civilians, spread throughout China, Korea and Southeast Asia." (Hanneman) * The refusal of Japanese soldiers to surrender slowed down the disarmament policies.

  1. IB History HL, Extended Notes: Russia, the Tsars, the Provisional Govenment and the Revolution.

    Recommended strengthening of police, tighter control over universities and press and extension of Russification. Populists 1. ?To the People? and ?The People?s Will? continued revolutionary activity in the 1970s despite repression. They were a legitimate threat to the regime?s survival.

  2. Essay plan-Origins of the Cold War. In what ways, and for what reasons, did ...

    Trueman Doctrine ? in 1947 the US established that Americans would aid any country or government by armed minorities, it was aimed at stopping the spread of communism. NATO ? was a military alliance between the USA, Canada and most of Western Europe established in 1949.

  1. In what ways, and with what results had Stalin developed the Soviet Union into ...

    People who achieved large output like Alexander Stakhanovite were examples for workers to follow and produce similarly high output. Stalin campaigned against the equalization of wages and adjusted them to fit with the responsibilities and skills of the particular job, so that workers would be contented.

  2. Explain the USAs policy of containment. How successful was this in Korea, Vietnam and ...

    a ?Great Society? showing how the USA was struggling as they were putting huge amounts of money into funding the aid and equipment for the South Vietnamese. USA?s new strategy of Vietnamisation failed hugely, as although there was a cease fire agreed in 1973, the war restarted in 1974.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work