How convincing is the view that the Cold War was caused mainly by Stalin's aggression and expansionism?

How convincing is the view that the Cold War was caused mainly by Stalin’s aggression and expansionism?

The term ‘Cold War’ is used when talking of the period of political tension and conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, which lasted from the 1940’s to the 1990’s, but, instead of any actual military action, it involved an intense ideological battle and an arms race. There are different theories relating to the causes of the Cold War, each fully supported by different historians. The orthodox view, supported by historians such as Kennan and Daniel Yergin, follows the belief that the aggression and expansionism shown by Stalin and the USSR were the main causes for the Cold War. This has been challenged by the revisionist historians, such as Gabriel Kolko, who believe that the main cause for the Cold War was actually American aggression and expansionism. More recently, the third view, known as post-revisionism, has developed, supported by historians such as John Lewis Gaddis. This view claims that the Cold War was inevitable given the situation between Russia and America, and was caused by neither state in particular, merely by the misunderstandings and differences between them.

The dominant view in the 1970’s was that Stalin’s aggressive and expansionist actions made it hard for America to co-operate, created distrust and forced the USA to take actions to defend itself and limit the threat from the communist Soviet Union. Historians such as George Kennan and Arthur Schlesinger support this argument, as can be seen clearly in Kennan’s Long Telegram of 1946. According to Kennan, the Russians had a ‘neurotic view of world affairs,’ although Kennan’s use of language leads us to treat his ideas warily. Kennan’s purpose in writing the Long Telegram seems to be to highlight the instability of the Russians, and to evoke fear and mistrust of the Soviet Union in the USA, and he uses language to exaggerate this point. This can be seen when looking at the metaphors and imagery Kennan uses in his Long Telegram, such as claiming that Marxism had “smoldered ineffectively for half a century in Western Europe, caught hold and blazed for first time in Russia." By likening Marxism to fire, Kennan emphasizes his point that communism could easily become uncontrollable, and spread to the West. Whilst many orthodox historians may support the points made in his Long Telegram, it is likely it was influenced by Kennan’s personal history, interests and ideas. For example, Kennan had experienced Stalin’s Great Purge first hand, and seeing Stalin actively campaign to persecute and repress any opposition against him obviously profoundly influenced Kennan’s outlook on the Soviet Union. Also, being a leading political figure in America at the time of the Cold War, he is likely to defend America, as well as be hostile towards communism, and therefore the Soviet Union.

This is a preview of the whole essay

However, whilst Kennan may have been influenced by personal experience, many other orthodox historians use similar evidence to Kennan found in Soviet actions to support their arguments, such as the events in Poland in 1944. Stalin’s refusal to help the Poles rising up in Warsaw was seen as a heartless tactic used to weaken the anti-Soviet London Poles, and therefore allow him to install a communist government with little opposition in Poland. Orthodox historians use this as an example of Stalin’s aggressive and expansionist nature, although some argue that the increased opposition from the Germans prevented the Soviet troops from helping, as the Red Army was too weak to provide any substantial help. Orthodox historians, however, believe Stalin was using the uprising as a tactical way to expand Soviet influence. Another example of Soviet aggression and expansionism used by orthodox historians is Katyin Forest, where 10000 Polish officers had been found murdered in 1939, supposedly by Soviet troops. Although this was denied by Stalin, it has been historically accepted that the murders were at the hands of Stalin, as were many murders of Soviet citizens during the Soviet Show trials in 1935. It’s estimated that around 500,000 party members were arrested, executed or sent to labour camps during these trials, and by 1937, around 18 million citizens had been taken to labour camps. According to orthodox historians, these actions were the main reason for the distrust between the USA and the Soviet Union to develop, as it showed Stalin’s aggression and untrustworthiness, and suggested to America that any co-operation between the two powers was unlikely.

Regarding Stalin’s expansionist nature that orthodox historians claim caused the Cold War, evidence such as pro-Soviet communist governments set up in Poland, Romania and Bulgaria in1945-6 and the strong oppression of any opposition. It could also be argued that the only reason the Soviet Union didn’t expand during the 1930’s was due to the lack of opportunity to do so. When the opportunity arose, in the form of the Nazi-Soviet Pact in 1939, the Soviets managed to annexe half of Poland and seized Estonia Latvia and Lithuania over the following year. Historians have used these events to claim that Stalin was desperate to expand the influence of communism across Eastern Europe, and therefore lends support to the orthodox view. Further evidence used by orthodox historians of Soviet expansionism is found in Cominform (Communist Information Bureau) the international organization of communist parties around the world, founded and run by StalinThe intended purpose of the Cominform was to coordinate actions between Communist parties under Soviet direction. As a result, the Cominform acted as a tool of Soviet foreign policy and Stalinism, and supporters of the orthodox view use this as evidence of Stalin’s desire to expand his influence over the world, starting with Eastern Europe.

On the other hand, the orthodox view also has its flaws. This school of thought was prominent during and after the Second World War, and the majority of writings supporting this view were published at the time of the events used to support them. This is important when analysing the view, as it would suggest that the arguments could not have taken into account many of the facts known now, and therefore can not have considered the events from every angle. For example, Stalin hid how damaged the Soviet Union was after the War, for fear of invasion from the West. However, this meant that the American’s didn’t know the extent of economical damage done by the War in Russia, and, as many of the orthodox writings are by Americans, it is likely this would change their view of Soviet actions.

There is also evidence, used by Revisionist historians such as Gabriel Kolko and William A. Williams that Stalin was not being aggressive or expansionist with these actions. Revisionist historians believe that it was America who was aggressive and expansionist, and that many of the evidence used by orthodox historians can be explained. For example, Revisionists claim that Poland was necessary for the Soviet Union’s security, as it had been the route of invasion of Russia three times during the 20th century. Stalin’s main aim after the war was to maintain and guarantee future safety for the USSR, and so he needed Poland as a buffer against future invasions. He felt that if a pro-soviet government was installed in Poland, Russia would have the security it needed to rebuild its economy, which had been damaged greatly during WW2. It is undeniable that the Soviet Union had suffered the most losses during the war, with 90 soviet citizens dying for every one American. Overall soviet losses in farms and factories amounted to a third of the countries wealth, and 25 million people were left homeless. These figures would agree that Stalin was entitled to compensation after the war, and this came in the form of Polish and Eastern European territories.

Further evidence used by revisionist historians comes from the actions of America during the Cold War, such as the Second Front and the dropping of the atomic bomb. Revisionist historians argue that the failure to open the Second Front supports their belief that the USA and Britain wanted Nazism and Communism to destroy each other. The constant delay of the Second Front by Roosevelt is used as evidence by revisionists that America was the expansionist state, and was always against communism. This is also supported by the British and American support for the Whites in the Russian Civil war in 1918, and the Marshall Plan. Many historians, such as Walter LaFeber argue that the Marshall Plan is evidence of American economic imperialism, and the efforts to gain control over Western Europe by providing generous amounts of financial aid are seen as an attempt to repel communism by building up capitalism in Western Europe. The revisionist belief that America was also the more aggressive of the two states is supported by evidence such as the atomic bomb, which also justifies Stalin’s paranoia about the hostility of the west towards communism. According to Gar Alperovitz, the bombs were used on an already defeated Japan not to win the war, but to intimidate the Soviets, suggesting that America would use nuclear weapons to enable them to structure a postwar world around their interests. 200,000 Japanese citizens died in the two explosions, and revisionist historians claim this shows America’s lack of concern for humanity and desire to appear powerful, and therefore have power over the world.

Bibliography

The USA and the Cold WAR 1945-63, Oliver Edwards, Hodder and Stoughton 2002
The Origins of the Cold War 1941-1949 (Second Edition), Martin McCauley, Longman 1995
The Cold War