Explain and analyse the causes of The Cold War

Explain and Analyse the Causes of the Cold War.

The major world powers named the international confrontation that took place between 1941 and 1991 as the Cold War. The Cold War was so named as there was no military conflict that caused an actual engagement.

The United States having military victory at the end of the Second World War ensured that they would lead the European and other States. Giving them foremost position in a world context and leaving the Soviet Union with the remaining sphere of influence in the global power vacuum caused by the Second World War.

The Cold War was different and unlike any other hostile international confrontation that had occurred before. It had no clear instigators or open physical hostilities and each party claimed the other was the real provoker and they clearly exclaimed that they were only defending their national security interests from the instigators hostile actions.

Because of the disagreements between the parties of who started the war it led to several schools of thought and explanations. There was no clear agreement on the causes of the Cold War in the early days of the historical analysis of the confrontation.

Analysis fell into a number of defined groups these are their views are:

The Orthodox Historians believe the conflict originated from the Soviet Union and was caused by Russian expansionism; this also coincides with Marxist/Leninist ideology, which encourages the world victory of Socialism over Capitalism. A lot of the evidence to support this view comes from the influence of George. F. Kennan’s telegram from 22 February 1946. Kennan was very much against communism and was intimately involved with the USSR who he believed, were intent on expanding their communist influences into neighbouring states, which would help alleviate their long held national insecurity and thus, eventually creating a world that was friendly to Russian interests and concern. Kennan thought the Soviet Government were very hostile towards western interest and expansionist to the point of eventually reaching world domination. Because of Kennan’s strong beliefs he advocated the termination of any attempt at amiable relations with the USSR. However, he also abandoned any ideas of hostile conflict and was in favour of adopting a policy of containment. In Kennan’s famous Mr. X article he exclaimed that the U.S “Must continue to regard the Soviet Union as a rival, not a partner” and that the Soviet’s Policies “Will reflect no abstract love of peace and stability…but rather a cautious, persistent pressure towards the disruption and weakening of all rival influence and power.” (Source: Internet).

At the time of the article being published, Marxist doctrine was causing anxiety amongst many western leaders with their perceived threat of socialism eventually overtaking capitalism. The Western leaders therefore, may have interpreted this as indicating the Soviets aggressive intentions towards the west (as Kennan did) and then synthesising this threat with the extensive propaganda already available and also with the activities surrounding the official foreign policy at the time, the western leaders would see no reasons to undermine Kennan’s views and suggestions.

During the later stages of the Cold War a group of theorists known as the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

During the later stages of the Cold War a group of theorists known as the revisionists, providing an analysis from a leftist viewpoint, challenged the Orthodox Historians because they held the view that the United States were responsible for the Cold War conflicts as they were just as expansionist as the Soviet Union.

Also the new left theorists believed the U.S were engaging in a form of economic imperialism and trying to influence as many States as possible. If this was the case, they argued, that there wouldn’t have been much room left for the Soviet Union’s national security and so conflict would have been inevitable.

The major criticisms of the Orthodox Historians and the Revisionists is that they both held prejudiced views as they failed to take into account other major factors such as the opposition to each other as this must have played a big part in influencing the other-side’s actions and reactions. For example, both the U.S and the orthodox historians failed to take into account the legitimate security of the USSR and also the revisionists failed to realise that the soviets behaviour would obviously have caused shifts in American policy.

Many other theorists believe that the Second World War was the major contributor to the Cold war as the conflict it brought practically wiped out the balance of power that had previously existed. This was because, before the war, Germany had been the largest European power and now this had been completely eradicated and both England and France who had been the largest allied powers suffered heavy losses and Japan no longer possessed military capabilities as it had been virtually destroyed by the atomic weaponry the US had unleashed on it. These countries were not able to gather the power they’d once had and neither would they be able to regain it in the near future.

This then left a huge power void in Europe and was quickly filled by the U.S who had been able to grow during the war, with it’s economy being able to thrive under conflict compared to the devastation in Europe.

Because of the United States’ new found prosperity and growth in military power the American leaders were now eager to take centre stage in the World affairs, taking with them the mistakes they’d made and lessons they’d learnt during the Second World War.

During World War Two the U.S had been very cautious regarding foreign policy and had not taken part in the League of Nations and hid behind the Monroe doctrine to avoid being involved with the tensions in Europe. The U.S wanted to prevent another wide set conflict and so set about distributing their hegemonic status so it could safeguard it’s own national security and help maintain the peace in Europe.

Directly after the Second World War the U.S initiated most of the International activity. They saw the unstableness of the balance of power in Europe and also open access to natural resources such as the oil in Persia and other mid-eastern states as paramount to it’s national security and to help maintain global peace.

The U.S were well aware of the vulnerability of prosperity and stability caused by the depression in World War Two so they approached foreign policy with the view that national security was vital. Due to this they became very interested in the Soviets activities in Persia and by 1946 the Soviets had been identified as a potential threat to the U.S but only because they were concerned that the Soviets would take advantage of the political and economic instabilities in its surrounding regions and expanding their influences for the potential establishments of communist governments. If these plans had gone ahead this would then have threatened the U.S’ hegemonic status globally and reduced their political influence and economic stability and so, causing conflict.

Because of the large amount of criticism surrounding the orthodox and revisionists views. The post revisionists have tried to avoid putting the blame all on one side, they looked at both the U.S and the Soviets as being the main instigators because they believed that both the orthodox’ and revisionists were asking too much in expecting both states which had previously had very little dealings with each other to learn to read each other rapidly and accurately. Due to the amount of unsatisfactory comments the orthodox and revisionists received the governments increased access to official documents and so many other theories were developed regarding the origins of the Cold War and these include:

The Russian Threat, this states that all conflicts and crisis originated from the Soviet Union and was caused by Russian expansionism. This also included Marxist-Leninist ideology, which believed in a world were socialism would overtake capitalism. The view blames one states for the major problems. (This theory also coincides with the orthodox historians).

American Imperialism, this view is the complete opposite believing Washington to be the ‘root of all evil’ and where capitalism will overtake socialism with capitalists having the view of requiring confrontation and military production in order for it to survive. (And this theory coincides with the Revisionists views).

Again, these views are biased in portraying one as the predator and one as the victim and only blaming one state for the problems arising in international relations. This is highly unlikely, as evidence has shown both sides to be provocative.

The Chinese also went on to develop another theory in the 1960’s, which regarded the super powers as competing in an attempt gain world domination and also show that Moscow had not gone along with Marxist-Leninist ideology. This theory also underlines the break between Beijing and Moscow and reveals the Chinese’s insecurities.

These views again failed to look at other major factors.

The arms-race theorists noticed the increases in the amount of nuclear weapons the States were holding as one of the major causal factors, particularly in world politics. This was due to the devastation they could cause to the world, as seen in the Second World War. In particular, the lack of control and the negotiating power it brought from a position of strength would cause an arms race. At the end of World War Two the U.S had a clear advantage of proven technology in weapons of mass destruction. Due to this, the theory became very popular with those involved with the peace movement.

Other theorists came up with the idea of the north-south conflict, this showed tensions between the States of the rich north and the poor south and they believed the states of the rich north were competing against each other for the head position over poor south. This, they argued, lead to the start of the Cold War.

The west-west theorists also held similar views to the north-south theorists believing the main conflicts were caused by the richer western States seeking to dominate world politics.

The intra-state theorists seem to hold a different view in that they believed that the domestic policies of each of the States determines their foreign policy and when there are changes to it, they relate to the movements in internal power relations, economic weakness and alterations in social composition.

Finally the class conflict theory, based on Marxist ideology sees class conflict being the main the main instigator of change between the classes and the tensions between the communists and capitalists being expressed between the super powers. This view is similar to the north-south and west-west theorists again showing the main conflicts arising between the rich and the poor.

Economics also seems to have been causal to the Cold War with conflicts arising between the rich and the poor States with the rich having all the power because of their economic strength. This again played a part in the capitalist and communist argument between the U.S and Soviets with the U.S want the rich elite to rule where as the Soviets wanted rule by the people for the people.

Overall, none of the theories are adequately able to explain the emergence and escalations of the Cold War. However, by combining a lot of the theories together they tend to offer a more adequate explanation as each theory has only looked at a few factors rather than all of them. Evidence has shown that there were many factors that could have helped the development of problems with each fearing the worst from the other and so increasing their own securities that may not have been necessary if they had, had good communications between them.

Word count: 2017