Compare and contrast the roles of two Cold war leaders from different regions in the
development of the Cold War.
The essay was given 12/15 and the examiner's comments were as follows:

The demands of the question are understood and the roles of two Cold War leaders
addressed.

The response makes effective comparisons.

Comparisons are explicitly discussed, contrasts lack some clarity.

The essay is generally well structured and organized.

Knowledge is mostly accurate and relevant.

The examples, Stalin and Truman, are appropriate and relevant, and are used to
support the analysis/evaluation.

The response contains critical analysis, which is mainly clear and coherent.

Most of the main points are substantiated and the response argues to a consistent
conclusion.
Possible tasks to set for students while reading this essay could be:

highlight evidence of comparisons

highlight evidence of contrasts (note examiner's comments - how could these be
clearer?)

look at opening sentences; do they indicate a comparative approach to the essay?

identify areas in which the essays could be improved
Joseph Stalin and Henry Truman both played a role in the development of the origins of the
cold war; from the moment they met in Potsdam, the different ideologies and the lack of
trust between the two resulted in the first step towards decades-long divergence. Their
actions and beliefs would lead to the division of Europe and the spreading of cold war
tension to Asia. Although Stalin’s actions were key in Europe for causing initial tension, it
can be argued that Truman’s actions with regard to Korea were key for globalizing and
militarizing the Cold War.
From Potsdam in 1945, when they the two leaders met for the first time, the ’old continent’
become the stage of the first Cold War confrontations. Stalin carried out a strong
sovietization program thanks to the so called “Salami Tactics” which brought Eastern
Europe under Soviet control.
Truman, fearing a possible expansion in Europe, introduced the Truman Doctrine, which
was followed by the Marshall Plan. Both the actions of Stalin and Truman thus played a key
role in developing tensions. While Soviet action were seen in the West as “the systematic
destruction of democracy, by terror, murder, corruption, lies and propaganda”.
(Kruassman), and based on military actions the actions of Truman were seen by the Soviets
as ‘dollar imperialism’ and an attempt to spread capitalist ideas throughout Europe via
economic means. Stalin reacted with the introduction of the COMECON and Cominform,
starting a ping-pong dispute which led to ideological disputes from both sides, becoming
the base of the Cold War.
The actions of both leaders also created a divided Germany by 1949. Both sides focused on
Germany as a key strategic territory and each had different aims for the country. At Yalta
and Potsdam it had been agreed that Germany should have been divided temporarily into
four zones of occupation, administered by the Allied Control Council (ACC). However, while
the West wanted to build up Germany, Stalin was worried that a united, economically
powerful Germany would pose a threat to its security. Also, he wanted to get as much out
of Germany as possible in terms of reparations. The clash in different aims between
Truman and the West and Stalin led to an early breakdown over reparations’ agreements
and set the stage for the ultimate division of Germany.
In 1948, Truman and the West introduced a new currency into the Western sector of Berlin.
This caused resentment with Soviets who saw the new currency as the first step toward
establishing a West Germany state. Stalin eventually cut off all rail and road links to west
Berlin, introducing a Blockade. As described by Byrnes, this was “the first major crisis of the
Cold War, setting up the stage for the decades of tension that were to follow.” Truman and
Stalin therefore saw in Germany the possibility of expanding their sphere of influence,
having as a consequence a further rise in tensions and escalation of the Cold War. The
blockade resulted in the setting up of the FDR and then the DDR as well as the
establishment of NATO in 1949 as Truman realized the importance of having military bases
in Europe.
Furthermore, both Stalin and Truman engaged in an arms race which had a dramatic
impact n the conduct of the cold war. As stated by Gar Alperovitz, the dropping of the Abomb was the first diplomatic move by the USA in the Cold War. However, if the intention
was to keep Stalin in check, this did not work and by 1949 the USSR had its own nuclear
weapon. This triggered a nuclear arms race which was have a dramatic impact on the
increase in tension and to determined how the cold war was conducted in later years.
Stalin and Truman also played a role in expanding cold war tensions to Asia though it
could be argued that Truman’s actions were more significant. USA’s involvement in China
had no impact on the final result; despite the large amounts of US aid to the GMD, the CCP
defeated GMD due to the incompetence of Jiang Jieshi and the popular policies of the CCP.
However, with the Red Scare in the USA, the ‘loss’ of China was seen as major defeat for
the USA and led to pressure on Truman to prove that he was not ‘soft on Communism’.
This, when North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950, Truman saw this as an advance of
Communism instigated by Stalin and, under a UN flag, sent a US army to defeat the North
Koreans. This prolonged the Korean conflict, which would have been a short civil war, into
a three year war ultimately involving not only the UN forces but the Chinese forces, with
devastating results for the Korean peninsula. The USA successfully contained the North
Koreans and re-established the 38th parallel as the dividing line between North and South
Korea, but it led to the implementation of NSC 68 which effectively globalized and
militarized the cold war by giving the go ahead to substantially increased spending by the
US on the military. The USA also set up SEATO as a result of what it saw as the new
communist threat in Asia, and became committed to defending Taiwan. Stalin also bears
responsibility for the escalation in tension caused by the Korean War as it was his decision
to give Kim Il Sung the ‘green light’ for the invasion that led to this conflict. However, the
reaction of the US to the invasion and the subsequent actions of the US in increased
spending and in implementing its containment policy on a global scale that took the cold
war to a new level.
Important to also consider are the diverse personal qualities of Stalin and Truman. As
argued by John L. Gaddis “Narcism, paranoia and absolute power come together in Stalin.”
Given Stalin’s suspicious nature, it is therefore not surprising that he saw the actions of the
West as a threat for himself and for the USSR leading to his desire to have Satellite States
around the USSR. As reported by Gaddis “as long as Stalin was running the Soviet Union, a
Cold War was unavoidable”. On the other hand, Truman was completely blinded by the fear
of Communism. This brought the American president to have a monolithic view of such
ideology, according to which all Communist actions around the world were organized by
the USSR.
In conclusion, both Stalin and Truman played a fundamental role in causing the Cold War
and in determining the nature of the conflict. The actions of both leaders In Europe were
key in the escalation of tension and both played a role in the expansion of tension into
Asia, though Truman’s intervention in Korea and the implementation of NSC 68 meant that
he was responsible for globalizing and militarizing the cold war in the early 1950s. The
arms race also originated under the leadership of these two men. By the time the two
leaders left the international scene in 1953, the world was facing high political and
militarily tensions as never before in history.