Cold War Dbq Analysis

Both the economic interests of the USA and Soviet Expansionism ideology, arguably catalysed the development of the Cold War between 1945 and 1948 - without both of these contributing factors there would have been no war. However, tension and backhanded rivalry on the economic front severely threatened US/ Soviet relations, fronting a prominence of attack by the USA and provoking the Soviets into retaliation.
One major factor that could easily be blamed for starting the Cold War is the USA’s own economic interests. Truman desperately needed large businesses to continue to be profitable in order for the USA to avoid entering another economic downfall, and the business boom after the Second World War contributed greatly to the temporary security
of US economy. Dollar Imperialism gave these businesses the power to have an impact on US government policies, supporting the conflict. After the war, many businesses, somewhat understandably, diminished in size and profitability, endangering the security of the US economy once again. Source 8 states that the “USSR was portrayed as aggressive and threatening”, but Truman had both motives and now ammunition. It was vital the US public understood and supported the high military spending budgets in order to protect the large businesses; the Soviets were the perfect excuse to launch such plans. NCS-68 declared that America “must have substantially increased general air, ground and sea strength” as well as rallying the development of “atomic capabilities and civilian defences to deter war”. Anti-Soviet propaganda soon began to circulate the US, heightening public emotions and gaining support for Truman’s policies. The Soviets would not appear to be aggressive or acting as threatening, as a buffer zone was deemed necessary to prevent their country being invaded for a fourth time.
In addition to this, the US could also be blamed for prioritising personal economic needs over the Soviets necessity for a buffer zone. Stalin’s unquestionable paranoia stemmed largely from the misunderstanding of what being a “friendly” country involved. Stalin could not trust capitalist countries, so resided to trusting only communist states. Truman wrongly assumed that democratic states would abide by negotiations but made no attempt to support or confirm the facts in his beliefs. Should he have attempted this, bypassing initial misinterpretations, Truman would undoubtedly have foreseen the consequences of the creation of Bizonia. Truman created Bizonia with the intention to strengthen Germany, which would, in turn, have a positive influence on the US’s struggling economy. He showed no compassion toward the USSR though, and did not consider how Stalin might react. To Stalin, Truman was flaunting the idea that capitalism and communism could not exist alongside each other and was looking for confrontation. Stalin was keen to avoid the strengthening of Germany, as they had already invaded Russia twice in the past few years, so Bizonia had a huge impact on tensions between the two states.
Conversely, Source 8 states that the “USSR had a much more ambitious aim of consolidating communist control in its sphere of influence and then seeking to extend soviet influence into Western Europe itself.” A key piece of evidence in favour of this claim was the Bolshoi Speech.
On the 9th of February 1946, Stalin stated that the next five year plans would focus on heavy industry and claimed wars with imperialism were inevitable. Stalin also made clear divides between capitalism and communism, alarming the US greatly. It is somewhat understandable that the US were alarmed by the speech, as it hinted that Stalin was seeking world reform and revolution. However, being held at an election rally, the speech needed to see Stalin win votes. In order to get elected , Stalin threw rash promises into the ring to satisfy the want and need of his voters. Truman’s personality could therefore be blamed for not recognising this well used political tactic as a bypass for votes, and not as a promise of attack on the
US.
However, the Berlin Blockade provided evidence for Soviet expansionism, providing strong evidence that the USSR were to blame for any Cold War hostility.
Initially believed to have been implemented by Stalin to aid the “spread of communism to Western Europe”, the Berlin Blockade was the first action taken by the Soviets in the war. In an attempt to starve the west into giving into communism, Stalin closed all roads, rail and canal links to West Berlin. With help from the West’s developing economy, the East had not with communism. The clear divide in living standards between Capitalism and Communism rulings were pedestalled for all the world to see, threatening Stalin’s approach for Communism’s spread. Many orthodox historians believe that Stalin therefore commenced the Berlin blockade because he wanted to start starving the west into submission, so he could spread communism west. However, threatening this theory was Stalin’s paranoia, and it could be argued that he felt threatened by the possibility of Soviet satellite states seeing the benefits of capitalism drowned by the downfall of communism. Stalin couldn’t risk this, so had to act by weakening capitalism and exposing its own downfalls. Stalin’s reluctance to expand further across Europe could also be used as evidence to support the idea that this was not an act of Soviet expansionism. Source 9 states “withdraw the Soviet Union behind its new defensive east European barrier” suggesting Truman chose to blow the Berlin
Blockade out of proportion.
Another stark contradiction to the view that the Soviets were being expansionist is Stalin’s clear consideration of the Marshall Aid plan. This was particularly significant, as even though it contradicted his own ideological beliefs, Stalin was not adverse to the idea of linking the USSR with a capitalist state through democracy – further developing Eastern Europe. Most Orthodox historians can be proved wrong, as they would argue Stalin wanted to leave Eastern Europe to collapse on itself, forcing other states to succumb to communism. However, the Marshall Aid plan was seen by Stalin as a “sorely tempting offer”, strongly suggesting he was tempted by the promise of economic recovery, not just opportunities for expansion. This showed Stalin to be flexible, and also goes against the US view that he was purely expansionist for his own gain- disregarding claims that he was mostly responsible for the tensions of the Cold War.
Overall, there is ample proof to support the idea that if it wasn’t for both the US and USSR’s hostility and selfish actions, the cold war would never have happened but despite this, more weight is carried towards the US being to blame. The creation of Bizonia was the ultimate catalyst for rising tensions between the two countries, with Soviets bearing the brunt of the US’s policy consequences. America’s clear disregard for Soviet security needs. along with their own selfish economic greed created a deep divide between the two states- hostility which arguably still exists to date.