How far was the development of the Cold War between 1945 and 1949 due to the superpowers

misinterpretation of each others motives? Damian Thomson 3 October 2013 (timed practice) In examining the causation of the Cold War it would behoove an individual to examine the psychology of each Superpowers respective leader. Whilst it cant be underestimated that conflicting ideological goals were a salient point in the break down in relations between the Soviet Union and the United States post World War Two, the uncouth diplomacy between US President Harry Truman and USSR Secretary Joseph Stalin in the late 1940s is key to explaining the development of the conflict. The hypothesis elicits the Post Revisionist school of Historical thinking. The Revisionist school of Historical thought would point to Trumans visceral and short sighted perspective, which was ardently anti-Communist in the words of Gar Alperovitz, as a principle source of the distrust between the two nations. Franklin Roosevelt had greatly ameliorated relations between the two nations, but his death resulted in the relatively inexperienced Truman becoming Head of State. Truman lacked the empathy required to ensure a healthy relationship between the two countries. He couldnt fathom the Soviets 27 million people sacrifice in World War Two, nor Stalins preoccupation with Buffer states in Eastern Europe. Truman dismissed Roosevelts previous foreign policy, calling Stalin a bully and declaring that he was tired of the United States babying the Soviets. He heightened distrust at the Potsdam Conference, when he neglected to tell Stalin that the USA had successfully tested an atomic bomb. This is pertinent as Stalin was already aware of the USs Nuclear Progress. Indeed many historians believe that Trumans attack on Nagasaki and Hiroshima was more a means to excluding the Soviets from Far East Settlement Treaties and showing American might rather than defeating the Japanese quickly. The American response to the Soviet eclipse of Eastern Europe (the Red Army did not readily vacate these states post War) was The Truman Doctrine. Revisionists will point to several other actions by Truman in the period before 1949. The Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan could be explained as altruistic economic ideological provocations that paid little respect to the beliefs of the Soviets. The Truman Doctrine was clear in its intention to halt the westward surge of Communism and the necessity of US style liberal democracy in post war Europe. Alperowitz said that this document was unabashedly a provocation and it is not surprising that it lead to the establishment of countering organization, Cominform in 1947.

Vyacheslav Molotov, The Soviet Foreign Minister, famously labeled the economic policies of Truman as Dollar Imperialism. The USSR could be said to have misinterpreted American motives such as the deployment of the Atomic bomb, the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan as going beyond containing communism, but rather an attack on Bolshevik principles. The Berlin Airlift was very significant in the development of the Cold War. Stalin felt he must make a strong statement to show the willpower of his nation. The lack of diplomacy at the time meant that Truman was compelled to act aggressively in return. Trumans actions could be seen as reckless in the eyes of Revisionists and Post Revisionists, whilst Stalins actions could also be seen as provocative in the eyes of Orthodox and Post-post Revisionists such as John Lewis Gaddis. Although it is difficult to surmise whether Stalins all-encompassing control over post War Eastern Europe was born out of a genuine paternal struggle for Russian protection or for the expansion of Socialism, its clear that Truman interpreted Stalins actions as the latter, thus increasing tensions and developing the Cold War. The development of the Cold War is fraught with complications, should one desire to understand the causation. Both leaders were against the ideologies of their rival, each countrys actions could either be interpreted as a means of advancing their own countrys economical and ideological interests. It is vital to note the role the breakdown in diplomacy played. After the disagreements at the Potsdam Conference, relations between the two countries soured and communication largely ceased. Subsequently each nation was left to draw its own conclusion as to the motives of the other, giving the greater possibility of misinterpretations. Yet at the base of these misinterpretations was a foundation of ideological distrust and superpower posturing which contributed greatly to the development of the Cold War.