Indeed in the years leading up to the Second World War this mistrust on both sides that was sown prevented co-operation when it came to dealing with Hitler’s aggression in Europe. This is most obviously seen in the handling of the issue of Czechoslovakia. After Hitler invaded the Sudetenland in ? the USSR offered to go to war against Germany to defend the Czechs. The aggression of Hitler and his policies of “Lebensraum” (living space) meant that Stalin suspected his aggression would sooner or later move eastwards. However the British and the French (backed by the Americans) refused this offer, persuading the Czechs to surrender. This may seem therefore as the fault of the West but the reasons again went back to “ideological antagonism” stemming from the Russian revolution of 1917. It had caused a lot of trouble in Europe with riots and unrest in many cities. As well as this difference, Stalin’s regime was far from pure, with his brutal purges from 1936-38 instilling more distrust into the hearts of the West. There were also doubts about the competence of the Red Army, although it silenced those critics later on during the war. So these tensions proved to be obstacles in the way of co-operation, again sowing bad feelings on both sides and with each step the Cold War was becoming more and more likely to come about, post 1945.
Hence because of the appeasement of the west towards Hitlers aggression, Stalin sought to gain security for his country by signing the “Nazi Soviet” pact in ?, getting consent from both that neither would attack the other. This removed one possible war front and allowed the USSR to deal with the threat on its eastern border, namely Japan. However the Nazi Soviet pact again contributed to great anger among the Allies, showing in their eyes the USSR to be very hypocritical in its thinking, first attacking Nazism and then siding with it. However what was misunderstood by the US was that Stalin saw this alliance to be temporary so that his country could properly prepare and deal with the other threat facing them. So it was not a betrayal of principals but rather a calculated risk in order to protect the nation. Similarly the USSR failed to grasp that some in the west viewed appeasing Hitler as simply buying time to prepare for war. Had both sides understood this then perhaps they could have joined forces more quickly than they did and prevented the war continuing as long as it did. The Nazi-Soviet pact was grossly misunderstood by the West, thereby dividing the two sides when they should have united against a common enemy. It was added to the list of things that would be brought up after the war to prove that the two sides were irreconcilably different and therefore was another factor as to why the Cold War was imminent but not inevitable.
During the war, after Russia came on the side of the western allies in 1941, there seemed hope that the previous differences of ideology could be put aside as they all faced a common enemy and therefore afterwards no confrontational action needed to arise. And on first appearance this seemed to be the case; the alliance worked well as the great powers fought side by side, culminating in victory in 1945. However beneath this victory still lay the tensions, which became most apparent in the conferences of the allies towards the end of the war. The first conference happened in Moscow in 1943 and it was here that the powers were found to have different aims and expectations. Whilst the US and Britain had come to the conference prepared to discuss the basis for future peace the USSR wanted to discuss how to end the war as quickly as possible, by creating a second front in Europe to relive the pressure on the eastern front. There was also the problem of dealing with post war Europe, especially Poland which was described by one historian Hull as “Pandora’s box”. However these issues were all put off in order to maintain the unity of the group. So this first conference showed up a whole variety of issues each of which had the potential to develop into conflicts between the two powers. However for the time being they were swept under the carpet as they were not yet a high priority and it was more important to keep the fragile alliance working. So after the war, when they had to deal with them, it was quite likely that conflicts would arise as the actual tensions were already there. However one could argue that had the issues been dealt with sooner and with more care, better solutions could have been found and the Cold War avoided or toned down. So it was certainly not inevitable.
The next major conference happened at Tehran in 1944 where the issue of the second front was dealt with in more detail and also the plans for the UN were set in place. However the USSR started to observe that the US was exerting more influence over strategic planning with Britain becoming the junior partner. The issue of the future of Germany was also a sour point raised as there were conflicting ideas on this. The USSR wanted to deal with it severely after the war otherwise fearing it would revive. However the US and Britain advocated a more moderate approach of letting it develop otherwise it would fall once again into the hands of radicals, like what had happened after 1918. The US was now the more worried power concerned about Soviet influence after the war in Eastern Europe. However the issue of Poland was left to the British to decide, who promptly allowed the USSR influence as the cost of intervening for both the US and Britain was too high. So again this second conference did not smooth the tensions over but stored them away, to burst forth post 1945 and spark off the Cold War. Both sides by this time were concerned about the other ones intentions and the prospect of victory meant that both were not considering the future, as separate countries, different ideologies, not an alliance any more.
The last conference was at Yalta in February 1945 almost on the eve of victory. The plans and proposals discussed there were also of a more peace time nature and this brought the most conflict. The US was concerned about Soviet moves on Eastern Europe as the pressed forward towards Berlin claiming that they had curtailed the option of established democracies and had rather put their own style governments in place giving the people no choice. The US tried to regain an influence by publishing the Declaration on Liberated Europe, particularly emphasising the need for self determination of government. The USSR signed this but interpreted the terminology used differently. Therefore this was of little value to the US. The issue of Germany also came up again with the Soviet’s insistence on destroying German power for good. The US and Britain more readily disagreed because now they were suspicious of Soviet intentions in Romania (as the USSR had set up a communism government there) and also its placing of representatives in Hungary and Bulgaria as well. As well as doing this what annoyed the West was that it was done without their consent or knowledge. So by now it was clear that the two, having taken Germany out of the picture, now faced each other, in their bids to install different systems in Europe.
After the war ended in the summer of 1945 the USSR now looked to gain for itself security, particularly so that the devastation and destruction caused by the war would never happen again. Stalin was preoccupied mainly with securing the western borders. It now realistically perceived itself as inferior technologically and wanted to advance to gain both new materials and protection from other states that might want to take advantage of it. Ideological antipathy also separated and isolated the USSR from the rest of Europe, and as the war closed Europe saw no more need to view the USSR an ally for the common good of Europe, but saw it as a threat. Ideology once again became a “basis for mistrust”. The war had brought together the different powers as a way of preserving themselves temporarily. Now that the war was over Soviet advisors developed “specific security requirements” which included a buffer of states to protect the USSR and deny western influence there. The new states would also satisfy geographical requirements needed which was understandable given the losses during the war.
The conclusion of the war in 1945 started to bring the sides into direct conflict with each other. The USSR accused the US of making a neo-colonial network, which was especially seen in the announcement of Marshall Aid to rebuild war torn Western Europe in. This was seen and was aimed by the West to make sure that Western Europe did not befall the same fate as Eastern Europe, in being in economic crisis and being taken over by the USSR. However the strings attached to Marshall Aid meant that the US started to set up factories in Europe and have a prevalent influence which the USSR was not pleased with. Other steps which the USSR claimed brought confrontation nearer was the combining of western zones in Germany to form a state, the setting up of OEEC in ?, the Truman doctrine being announced in ? stating a policy of containment of communism, and also the US backing anti communism forces in Greece and Turkey. The US on the other hand saw the USSR moves in eastern Europe as also aggressive and claimed that there actions were simply a necessary result of the aggression they saw happening, particularly with the takeover in Hungary and the coup d’etat in Czechoslovakia which was the final country to become communism. All this was “proof of Soviet expansionism”. So now the great powers parted by what hey called “irreconcilable ideological hostility” and would no longer use mutual accommodation to make things happen but rather hostile confrontation. So the end of the war did remind the powers once again of their differences and actions following that by both sides seemed to prove it and make things worse.
The war left a torn and broken Europe, which was at the hands of whatever superpower was available to claim it. The US and USSR, having emerged the victorious superpowers, therefore were eager to fill this vacuum with their own ideals and values. Tensions before and during the war had culminated up to a climax in 1945 showing the two nations to be separate in every possible way and the only option available to be conflict and confrontation as they fought for spheres of influence. Fear of each other drove them on to separate Europe and take steps to prevent the other gaining extra footholds. All the events in hindsight were spiralled off by a misinterpretation of the other side’s intentions. It was because of pre war tensions resurfacing that both came to mistrust each other rather than work together to create a better Europe. Each event spiralled off retaliation by the other side and it all begun after World War 2. Both wishing for further security, the US and USSR ploughed ahead with their ideas creating the Cold War, which was not inevitable as it could have been avoided but given all the background before the war and during the war was certainly imminent following Germany’s defeat.
Bibliography
Stalin’s Cold War: Soviet Strategies in Europe, 1943 to 1956, Caroline Kennedy-Pipe, Manchester 1961
The Origins of the Cold War and Contemporary Europe, Charles Maier, NY/London 1978
Rebuilding Europe – Western Europe, American and Post war Reconstruction, David W. Ellwood, NY 1992
The Division of the World 1941-1955, Wilfreid Loth, Routledge 1988
Other resources include:
Encarta Encyclopaedia – Article entitled “Cold War” by Robert Legvold
The traditionalist view was prevalent from
The post- neo revisionist view
G.F Kennan, Russia and the West
