Who was more responsible for the start of the Cold War?

[Revan]

I have been studying the Cold War for a number of months now. For an elongated quantity of time, with my scant knowledge, I assumed the Soviets were solely implicit with the instigation of the Cold War. I am not so sure the debate is so clear cut now.

Remember this is an debate on the start of the cold war and who was responsible for that start.

There are three main sides of the debate when contemplating who was more responsible for the Cold War; the Orthodox version of events. This typically described the argument that the West was inclined to. The Orthodox argument professed that the Soviet Union was solely responsible for the roots of the Cold War. Due to its regime being an expansionist ideology, and Stalin’s actions in Eastern Europe (Forcing unwanted regimes on Countries); the Soviet Union is held largely at fault in the Orthodox historians.

Whereas the Orthodox version of events has its roots in pro-American inclination; likewise the Revisionist historians has its roots embedded in pro-Soviet Union debates. The Revisionist historians argue that the United States was more responsible for the Cold War than the Soviet Union. This argument typically proposes that the United States were by its very nature an empire building people; and capitalism by its very nature encourages growth and expansion. Revisionism argues that America had a deep interest in expanding its economy and consolidating it power on an international scale. Stalin’s ‘Sphere of Influence’ within Eastern Europe was less a desire for expansion; but more of a defensive move to prevent itself from being surrounded by the U.S.A.
Revisionism also states that the United States’ option to use nuclear arms on Japan was less an effort to get them to surrender; but more of a message of intimidation to Stalin and the Soviet Union. Revisionism enunciates that America’s opposition to Stalin and the Soviet Union was less about preventing communism and more about preserving its power.

The third argument introduced to the debate is the Post Revisionist side. This proposes that neither side can bear more or less blame than the other. Both the SU and USA are expansionist regimes by their very nature; and their opposing ideologies and beliefs were so contrasting that they feared one another; therefore sought to maneuver their power to a greater spectrum, in order to keep a grasp on international events and prevent being swallowed up by the other. Post Revisionism argues that such powerful Countries with proportionate self-interest, antagonism was inevitable.

I am often inclined to the Post Revisionist theory. I'll cite back to the famous saying "it takes two too tango"; and I think this saying is applicable for this debate. The USA and SU both had engrossment in expansion for self defense and self interest. Both the Marshall and Molotov Plans were prime examples of this. The USA’s method of keeping allies in Europe was consolidated by the Marshall plan. Stalin took this plan as a slight, and as a slight it was meant. Stalin feared, and rightly so, that the USA was seeking to prevent Communists expansion. The USA likewise feared Stalin, also rightly so, was seeking to end capitalism.

What do you think?

[Loredoctor]

I think that both sides were as equal as each other for encouraging the Cold War, but part of me believes that it's the mindset of the Soviets - that is, Stalin's inner circle - that is probably more guilty. But then again, Krushchev was less so.

[danlo]

Touch and go arguments, obviously Stalin was no saint murdering millions on his own. On the surface it appeared that he Roosevelt, and others, got along (perhaps Churchhill was at Yalta for show). From what little I've gleaned of the period the initial division of Berlin right after WW2, into 4 seperate allied zones (US, France, England, USSR), created alot of inner tension between all parties. And, as rumour has it, various murders were committed involving servicemen from those zones wandering into other zones--the rumor of two US GIs being killed in or near the Russian zone sparked alot of initial derision between the two countries. I think that was proven, to some extent.

Anyway, I agree with what's been said so far. Berlin, in anycase-and backed up by many more treatises than just this: post WW2 Berlin,-has frequently been pinpointed as a source of original Cold War tensions.

No, but I would agree with you-as soon as we (US) started sucking scientists out of Europe for the Manhattan Project...somebody knew what was up...

Atom Bomb/Berlin-Gun/Handshake...(now does my poem make sense, Dragonlily?)

[Revan]

What I found rather interesting is the analogy that America only ordered the dropping of the nuclear weapons to intimidate the SU. If so, it paints a grim look on the US government of that time. However, I certainly don’t give credence to the theory that this was the only reason the nuclear warheads were dropped on Japan. Perhaps this is one of them; but not the only.

However, the very fact that there is even the minute quantity of truth to this theory inquires me to look to the revisionist theory.

[Damelon]

Hitler had banked upon the WWII alliance between the U.S., U.K, and U.S.S.R. falling apart because of the extreme ideological differences between the allies. He was right on that but it happened after the defeat of Germany. The alliance was bound to fall apart and there was bound to be confrontation among the victors.

[danlo]

You know the standard US reason for dropping the bomb, right?-firebombing Tokyo really didn't work, blockades would take years, kamikaze--dying to the last man Nationalism and the sheer calculated loss of Allied, primarily American, lives during a land invasion of Japan-while that may be the reason for Hiroshima-leaves the door open re: Nagasaki-many thought that was 'overkill' so...

[Damelon]

They had rejected a "demonstration drop" in Tokyo Bay because of the argument of "what if they dropped it and it didn't work". When the U.S. dropped the two bombs, the Japanese military still wanted to fight on. They argued that those two might be the only ones the U.S. had. I believe they were right.

It was only when the Soviets entered the war against Japan did they (the Japanese) give up their hope that they could get the Soviets to mediate for them. BTW, the Soviets entered the war when they said they would at Yalta, 90 days after the defeat of Germany.

In a sense, the bombs dropped on Japan were a demonstration to the Soviets, who in 1945 outnumbered the Western Allies by a wide margin in Europe.

[danlo]

Excellent point Damelon!

[I'm Murrin]

One thing I've found interesting in this subject is that, as far as I've read, the Soviet Union tended to keep its word when it came to agreements concerning the eastern end of WW2. If I've heard correctly, there are several cases where the USSR did exactly what they had agreed, while the US expected and prepared for them not to.

[danlo]

Coming from the Land of Los Alamos I highly recommend Paul Newman's Fat Boy and Little Man about the developement of those bombs and a decent treatment of the debate of their use.

[dlbpharmd]

Coming from the Land of Los Alamos I highly recommend Paul Newman's Fat Boy and Little Man about the developement of those bombs and a decent treatment of the debate of their use.

That's a very good movie!

[Damelon]

Murrin, there was some cause for doubt about Soviet actions. After all, in 1944 they allowed the Germans to crush the Warsaw uprising, even though they were within a few miles of the city. Many of the non-communist partisans were involved in that, and were eliminated then by the Germans. The issue of what Poland would be like after the war was the greatest issue among the Allies.

U.S. policy at the time was also very much concerned about avoiding a postwar partition of Japan. The Soviets were requesting administration of the island of Hokkaido, the northern most of the main islands of Japan.

[iQuestor]

Murrin, there was some cause for doubt about Soviet actions. After all, in 1944 they allowed the Germans to crush the Warsaw uprising, even though they were within a few miles of the city. Many of the non-communist partisans were involved in that, and were eliminated then by the Germans. The issue of what Poland would be like after the war was the greatest issue among the Allies.

U.S. policy at the time was also very much concerned about avoiding a postwar partition of Japan. The Soviets were requesting administration of the island of Hokkaido, the northern most of the main islands of Japan.

I take this material from my reading of American Prometheus, the biography of J. Robert Oppenheimer.

In this book, the start of the cold war started because of the bomb itself and was predicted by Oppenheimer and a few of his staff. Oppenheimer originally felt the bomb he was developing would be used directly on the german army en masse. But, the bomb wasn't finshed when Germany surrendered.

From the book, it seems to state that The bomb was dropped to end the war more quickly, not because of Japan's prowess or fortitude, but we wanted the get a surrender before Russia actually did enter the war. We didnt want them to share in the spoils, per se.

Before we dropped the bomb, Japan had already made overtures supposedly to russia and another neutral country about surrendering, and they had just about pulled out of everywhere else. It was clear they were finished.

After the war, Oppenheimer said many times that the only real use was a deterrent, and publically and privately lobbied to share the information with Russia precisely because he did not want an arms race. Truman however felt russia was decades away from atomic bombs, but they quickly caught up.

Oppenheimer was then fried and tortured by McCarthy during the famous trials. He died a bitter man.

Darth, does your research support this?

[Loredoctor]

From the book, it seems to state that The bomb was dropped to end the war more quickly, not because of Japan's prowess or fortitude, but we wanted the get a surrender before Russia actually did enter the war. We didnt want them to share in the spoils, per se.

That is what I have read, as well. As I understand it, the Soviets were heading south and were due to reach Japan soon. The decision to drop the bomb was to prevent this from happening.

Also, Japan had already made overtures to surrender, so the bomb seems redundant.

[Avatar]

Redundant in terms of a Japanese defeat, but not in terms of shutting the soviets out.

--A

[Tjol]

In all truth, everyone involved was lucky that the second bomb was enough to wake the Japanese government from it's deathwish. The island invasions in the pacific are pretty exemplary of how willing the Empire was to use it's people for fodder, in the hopes that the resulting horrors would make the US's stomach sick from all the killing that was required to take each inch of the Empire.

As far as who started the cold war.... Capitalism did not have in it's founding writings a contempt for Marxism, but Marx's writings certianly had a contempt for Capitalism. With that understanding, I'd say that the Soviets initiated the hostilities.

But I don't remember the details of the air drop in Berlin, what are everyone's interpretations of that series of events? Was that the US or the USSR initating hostilities? That would have to be one of the first political skirmishes in the Cold War maybe...

[Avatar]

As far as who started the cold war.... Capitalism did not have in it's founding writings a contempt for Marxism, but Marx's writings certianly had a contempt for Capitalism. With that understanding, I'd say that the Soviets initiated the hostilities.

I dunno...that sounds a little overly simplistic to me. I'm not saying that you're wrong necessarily, but I'm sure it's more involved than that...

--A

[Loredoctor]

As far as who started the cold war.... Capitalism did not have in it's founding writings a contempt for Marxism, but Marx's writings certianly had a contempt for Capitalism. With that understanding, I'd say that the Soviets initiated the hostilities.

I dunno...that sounds a little overly simplistic to me. I'm not saying that you're wrong necessarily, but I'm sure it's more involved than that...

--A

Agreed. You could just as well argued Capitalism started it.

[High Lord Tolkien]

Truman however felt russia was decades away from atomic bombs, but they quickly caught up.

But wasn't this assumption accurate except for the treason by two Los Alamos scientists who gave the soviets the info to kickstart thier own nuke program?

[Revan]

Murrin, there was some cause for doubt about Soviet actions. After all, in 1944 they allowed the Germans to crush the Warsaw uprising, even though they were within a few miles of the city. Many of the non-communist partisans were involved in that, and were eliminated then by the Germans. The issue of what Poland would be like after the war was the greatest issue among the Allies.

U.S. policy at the time was also very much concerned about avoiding a postwar partition of Japan. The Soviets were requesting administration of the island of Hokkaido, the northern most of the main islands of Japan.

I take this material from my reading of American Prometheus, the biography of J. Robert Oppenheimer.

In this book, the start of the cold war started because of the bomb itself and was predicted by Oppenheimer and a few of his staff. Oppenheimer originally felt the bomb he was developing would be used directly on the german army en masse. But, the bomb wasn't finshed when Germany surrendered.

From the book, it seems to state that The bomb was dropped to end the war more quickly, not because of Japan's prowess or fortitude, but we wanted the get a surrender before Russia actually did enter the war. We didnt want them to share in the spoils, per se.

Before we dropped the bomb, Japan had already made overtures supposedly to russia and another neutral country about surrendering, and they had just about pulled out of everywhere else. It was clear they were finished.

After the war, Oppenheimer said many times that the only real use was a deterrent, and publically and privately lobbied to share the information with Russia precisely because he did not want an arms race. Truman however felt russia was decades away from atomic bombs, but they quickly caught up.

Oppenheimer was then fried and tortured by McCarthy during the famous trials. He died a bitter man.

Darth, does your research support this?

Good post iQuestor. Much of what you said is often speculated upon. SA would all such vital events in human history be questioned; but I presume from the knowledge I have garnered off the internet, books and elsewhere that those were very much the course of events.

Truman, I feel, handled the Soviets badly. Some say that he handled them the only way they could be handled. I, however, am a firm rejector of this theory. Roosevelt was handling Stalin and the Soviets very well brfore his death. Truman saw the world in only black and white, I think. America was pure good, Soviets were pure evil; simple cut and dry with him. However I undeviating in my belief that the world is this black and white.

Truman however felt russia was decades away from atomic bombs, but they quickly caught up.

But wasn't this assumption accurate except for the treason by two Los Alamos scientists who gave the soviets the info to kickstart thier own nuke program?

Indeed. And as a result, Stalin knew about the atomic bomb long before Truman did.