Oxford Royale Academy. Essay on the Cold War

                                                    Oxford Royale Academy:
                                                              History essay:
                                                By Fernando Martinez-Periset
                                     Was the USSR mainly responsible for the Cold War?
The Cold War is one of the most important and long-lasting events of 20th-century history. On the course of this essay I will explain why I argue that the USSR is not fully to blame for this conflict, only to some extent. I will also incorporate other historians' views that strengthen my hypothesis. This essay aims to analyse arguments that show what actions by the USSR instigated the Cold War and which ones indicate otherwise. I will comment on the situation previous to the Cold War and how we can understand the USSR's position.

Firstly, during World War II the USA and the USSR had collaborated against the Germans from 1941 until the end of the war. Therefore, somehow these two powers had to come to an agreement, as we see in Lend-Lease Act between the USA and the USSR and in the Treaty of mutual assistance with Britain, both signed in 1941 [www.wikipedia.com]. These series of pacts show the USSR is willing to cooperate with the Allies and if this is the case, the USSR would have no reasons to enter a Cold War. During the Second World War, the USSR fought Germany and continued fighting Japan for a while once the former had been defeated, which demonstrates its commitment with the Allies' cause. Additionally, the Yalta Conference was held [ORA History notes], which once again shows the USSR's willingness to aid the Allies. The USSR, at this stage doesn't seem to be moving towards a conflicting position. The historical background before the Cold War indicates that the Soviet Union was cooperative and not hostile towards the Allies.

Although it can be said that the 'First Red Scare' was already a prelude of the international tensions, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that it only lasted for a year and that it was in the 1920s, way before the USSR collaborated with the Allied forces [Oxford Royale Academy History notes]. We can look at the 'Red Scare' from a different perspective. Taking that into account, I argue that the supporters of the 'First Red Scare' hadn't had any previous interaction with the USSR, so the this anti-communist wave might have really been a question of prejudice against Communism itself rather than a reaction due to a real threat.

Secondly, it is understandable that the USSR could potentially react somehow if we look at the post-war status of the country. When World War II ended, the Soviet Union had bitterly lost 90 times more soldiers than the USA. What is more, its territory had been invaded by Germany and, as a result, its economy was slowing down, unlike that of America. In addition, the USA had secretly carried out nuclear bomb tests, increasing international tension, creating fear and pressuring the USSR [ORA History notes]. These facts show that the USSR was going through some hard times. Therefore, it is logical to claim that, due to its internal problems and all it had lost during the war, the USSR would respond someway or another to external pressures. The Soviet Union's position on this matter is consequently understandable.

On the other hand, this is not to say that the Soviet Union is totally exempt from guilt. Even if we understand its position that doesn't fully justify actions such as not holding elections in the Eastern European countries, as it had been agreed [ORA history notes], and the organisation of atomic bomb tests in 1949, which also increased tensions [www.wikipedia.com]. These two reactions are fairly aggressive and seem to go against the ideals defended by the Allies such as democracy and freedom, which indicates the USSR is moving towards a more radical policy.

Developing that point, people like the U.S. secretary of defence in 2001 Paul Wolfowitz [www.johndclare.net] are of the view that the Cold War was caused by the 'evil regime of the USSR'. They say that the USSR's aggressive policies were the root causes of the Cold War. Most historians, both traditionalists and revisionists, would add to that by saying that Stalin's way of ruling was another important factor [www.johndclare.net]. Personally, I do agree with these views to some extent, as I also believe the way of governing the USSR definitely played a big role in the process of creating tensions. It is a fact that Stalin asked some of his ministers to draft a population report and when this document indicated that the population in the Soviet Union was slightly lower than what Stalin had publicly declared, he sent all the ministers who had drafted that report in exile to Siberia ["Why nations fail"]. Moreover, in order to seize power, Stalin ordered Trotsky's death in 1940, as the latter had been appointed by Lenin to continue with his project and not Stalin. Trotsky was an obstacle for Stalin's rise [History notes Year 11]. This obviously, began to make Stalin an unpopular leader, deteriorating the USSR's public image. If Stalin's way of ruling was been seen as controversial by the Allies, it is logical to think that this created tense relationships for which the Soviet Union definitely has a certain amount of responsibility.

Having discussed those ideas, I believe it was really a difference between two contrasting ideologies and continuous rivalry by both the USSR and the USA what caused the Cold War, as historian 3 in "Oxford Royal Academy history textbook page 13" defends. Moreover, post-revisionist historians like John Lewis Gaddis would state that because of these differences, both sides are responsible for the development of tensions and that the Cold War was in fact an accident based on confusion and mutual misunderstanding [www.wikipedia.com]. Actually, if we look at Truman's March 1947 speech to Congress, we can identify messages of cooperation, peace and unity, which are the same values the Communist countries seemed to promote [ORA History textbook]. This suggests that no particular side is really looking for a conflict, which shows evidence for the post-revisionist theory.

To conclude, there are reasons to suppose that the USSR was looking for conflict but others that indicate otherwise. I believe history is usually too complex to blame a conflict like the Cold War just on one side, there are several factors we have to analyse. Because of that, I think the USSR has some amount of guilt but not fully.

Bibliography:
-"Why nations fail" (historical essay by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson)
-Wikipedia
-ORA History notes and textbook
-Year 11 history notes
-johndclare.net

Word count: 1089