A level History Edexcel Coursework which scored 38/40, it details differing views regarding what generated the Cold War, evaluating 3 different historians who have 3 different schools of thought, and it reaches a substantiated opinion answering a question that I chose. This has detailed references ...
Historians have disagreed about the extent to which conflicting interests were
responsible in causing the Cold war. What is your view about the role of conflicting
interests in the emergence of the Cold War?
After the Second World War, the alliance between the US and the Soviet Union was
unstable, and tensions regarding their differences began to emerge. The USSR and the
United States were united in an uneasy partnership of convenience; forming the Grand
Alliance to defeat Nazi Germany. The breakdown of this war time alliance and the resulting
political rivalry, hostility, and military tensions between the two powers is characterised as
the Cold War.1 The origins of the Cold War have been subject to dispute by many historians,
who have been influenced by the emergence of archival evidence. It is difficult to evaluate
where blame lies regarding the origins of the Cold War as there was no explicit declaration
of a conflict or direct physical military altercations. Writing in 1950, Thomas A Bailey is one
of the earliest historians writing about the Cold War, he embodies the orthodox school of
thought, asserting that the conflict emerged due to Soviet expansionism following the
Second World War. He outlines how Stalin violated agreements at Yalta, and his seizure of
Eastern European countries demonstrated his aim for world revolution. He argues that “If the
Kremlin had chosen to conciliate rather than alienate us, we no doubt would have been
willing to contribute generously…”2, thus portraying America as a victim of Soviet alienation,
suggesting that the US was simply responding to the Soviet expansionist threat.
Contrastingly, William Appleman Williams acknowledges the blameworthiness of the Soviet
Union, but rejects Bailey’s assertion that they were solely to blame. He outlines America’s
expansionist nature and rejects isolationism as a myth arguing that American “Open Door
Policy…crystallized the cold war”3. He depicts America as a power attempting to establish an
“open door” for trade, demonstrating how they sought to ensure countries remained
capitalist. While, both Williams and Bailey attribute blame to the superpowers involved, John
Lewis Gaddis rejects both views exploring how tensions caused by reciprocated
misunderstandings and their inability to view the other’s need for security generated hostility.
These arguments will be evaluated on the extent to which conflicting interests were to blame
for the Cold War. When judging the weight of each historical interpretation regarding which is
the most convincing this essay will consider the origin of each argument, the perspective of
each historian, potential influences, and possible motivations. This essay will also examine
possible limitations of each historian, regarding the access to information and, evaluating the
sources they utilised to substantiate their argument; concluding that the conflict of ideology
and dilemma regarding attempts to attain security led to the emergence of the Cold War.
Thomas A Bailey blames Soviet aggression and unwillingness to cooperate as the root
cause of the Cold War, and that “the Soviet aim was not local defense but world
domination”4. He argues that Stalin “despite the unequivocal pledges at Yalta”5 expanded in
Eastern Europe, asserting that by placing a communist government in Poland and depriving
them of freedom “the heart would be cut out of the Yalta agreement, which would then turn
out to be a cruel hoax”6. Indeed, the Yalta conference established that there would be free
elections held in Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia. However, the
1
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2022. Encyclopaedia Britannica. [Online]
Available at: https://www.britannica.com/event/Cold-War
2
Bailey, T. A., 1950. The Shadow of the Hammer and Sickle. In: America Faces Russia: Russian-
American Relations from Early Times to Our Day. New York, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, p. 330
3
Williams, W. A., 1959. THE NIGHTMARE OF DEPRESSION AND THE VISION OF
OMNIPOTENCE. In: The Tragedy of American Diplomacy. New York, N.Y.: DELL PUBLISHING CO.,
INC., p. 206
4
Bailey, T. A., 1950. The Shadow of the Hammer and Sickle. In: America Faces Russia: Russian-
American Relations from Early Times to Our Day. New York, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, p. 334
5
Ibid., p. 330
, Soviets suppressed non-communist parties, and this claim of genuine free elections was
never carried out by Stalin, as instead he opted to erect communist rule in all these
countries.7 Stalin had violated the agreements that had been established at Yalta, as by the
end of 1948 every state in Eastern Europe was controlled by a communist government.
Bailey outlines how “Soviet darkness…descended upon Albania, Bulgaria”8 and “Hungary”.
“A free Czechoslovakia survived until 1948, when the communist ax fell.”9 The Soviets
gained a sphere of influence, by applying pressures to allow communists to hold key
positions in coalition governments, the Soviets were able to manipulate government
structures to ensure communists held power10. Bailey acknowledges the interpretation that
the Soviet aim may have been security, but he rejects this premise asserting that “there is a
world of difference between a friendly neighbor and a vassal state whose liberties have been
subverted…whose foreign policy is dictated by the Kremlin”11. This reflects the traditional
American view regarding the USSR’s expansion and violation of Yalta as aggression. The
assertion that the Soviets aimed for “world domination” 12is less convincing as following
World War 2, fears of invasions and security prompted Soviet actions to create a sphere of
influence. They had been invaded during the first and Second World War, suffering greatly
due to Operation Barbarossa, and as such sought to create friendly states to ensure the
survival of their socialist system. However, this argument still holds weight as Soviet policy
followed Marxism, an ideology seeking, as Bailey contends, “world revolution”.13Bailey
further suggests that the Soviets “persistently declined to join many of the organisations set
up by the United Nations, except those few from which they derived direct benefit”14. Indeed,
the USSR utilised its powers to veto any policies that did not suit their interests; however,
Bailey omits the fact that following the Second World War the world was divided into
influences of both America and Soviet spheres and both superpowers sought to enforce their
ideologies. America wished to ensure the continued existence of democracy within Europe
for economic development and thus utilised their economic power to exercise control over
Europe. In introducing the 1947 Marshall Plan, which was available in helping rebuild
Europe, America isolated Eastern Europe. The conditions for aid which were opening the
economy for American interests and providing economic records, made Marshall aid
exclusive to Western Europe. Thus, Bailey’s claim that “If the Kremlin had chosen to
conciliate rather than alienate us, we no doubt would have been willing to contribute
generously”15, lacks any indication of American fault, and throughout the argument Bailey
provides, an emphasis on Soviet expansionism yet no suggestions of American aggression.
Therefore, his view on the origins of the Cold War is limited as it rejects any possibility of
American blame, instead, asserting that “All we wanted was peace and a return to the pre-
war days”16. Bailey portrays America as victims rather than perpetrators in fuelling Cold War.
Thus, his argument is less convincing as he negates American policies which also generated
tensions.
6
Bailey, T. A., 1950. The Shadow of the Hammer and Sickle. In: America Faces Russia: Russian-
American Relations from Early Times to Our Day. New York, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, p.323
7
Phillips, S., 2001. The Cold War, Conflict in Europe and Asia. Melbourne: Heinemann.
8
Bailey, T. A., 1950. The Shadow of the Hammer and Sickle. In: America Faces Russia: Russian-
American Relations from Early Times to Our Day. New York, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, p.330
9
Ibid., p.330
10
Phillips, S., 2001. The Cold War, Conflict in Europe and Asia. Melbourne: Heinemann.
11
Bailey, T. A., 1950. The Shadow of the Hammer and Sickle. In: America Faces Russia: Russian-
American Relations from Early Times to Our Day. New York, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, p. 334
12
Ibid., p.334
13
Ibid., p.320
14
Ibid., p.329
15
Ibid., p. 330
16
Bailey, T. A., 1950. The Shadow of the Hammer and Sickle. In: America Faces Russia: Russian-
American Relations from Early Times to Our Day. New York, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, p.323
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper s66392540. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €11,70. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
