American Aggression: The Origins of the Cold War
Thesis Statement:
The United States initiated the Cold War through the nation’s policies following the Soviet Union’s Bolshevik
Revolution, the attempted manipulation of the Soviet Union through Marshall Aid policies, and the diplomatic scare
tactics surrounding the American use of the atomic bomb.
Section 1: American Response to Bolshevik Revolution
-
-
Counter-Argument
1918 – 1920: US sent 12, 000 troops to support
anti-revolutionaries in Russian Civil War1
- Fighting for democracy, which was a
goal of the US at the time
Refused diplomatic recognition of the Soviet
Union between 1917 and 1933
- Soviet Union did not legitimize itself as
a nation by ignoring predecessor government’s
$600 million debt to U.S. as well as through the
outbreak of civil war3
- Americans believed Soviets deserted
the Allied world by leaving the war early4
Argument
- Military intervention violated the international standard of
the right to self-governance without foreign interference 2
- Stance was offensive to the Soviets
- Policy of non-recognition left the Soviet Union politically
isolated
- Soviets were given no seat at the Treaty of Versailles,
and thus had no opportunity to discuss the future of
Europe following WWI 5
- Soviets pulled out of war to spare its people who had
suffered more than any other nation throughout the
war (Russia had highest death count, land was
destroyed)6
- Non-recognition prevented Soviet presence at Treaty
of Versailles, denying them any input towards the
future of Europe following WWI7
- 1932: Most nations still in war debt to US, none other
than Soviet Union were refused recognition8
Section 2: Manipulation using Marshall Aid
Counter-Argument
- Marshall Plan meant to help rebuild European
economy
- Marshall Aid was offered to Soviets, who
declined the financial aid9
- Assistant Secretary Dean Acheson: “Our policy is
not against any country or doctrine, but against
hunger, desperation and chaos.”10
- Acheson: “Your Congress has authorized and
your Government is carrying out a policy of relief and
reconstruction as a matter of national self-interest.”11
- A portion of the money donated would be spent
Argument
- Policy was anti-Soviet and aimed to suppress the
nation’s political influence in Europe, instead
promoting dependence on America
- 1947: Soviet Ambassador Andrei Vyshinsky: “The
United States also counted on making all these
countries directly dependent on the interests of
American monopolies… It is becoming more and
more evident to everyone that the implementation
of the Marshall Plan will mean placing European
countries under the economic and political control
of the United Sates.”12
1
Thomas G. Paterson, Soviet-American Relations, 1917-1945 26 April 2005, <http://www.answers.com/topic/soviet-american-relations1917-1945>.
2
“Treaty of Westphalia; October 24 1648” The Avalon Project 1996, 14 May 2005, <http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/westphal.htm>.
3
Thomas G. Paterson, Soviet-American Relations, 1917 – 1945 26 April 2005, <http://www.answers.com/topic/soviet-american-relations1917-1945>.
4
Jeremy Isaacs and Taylor Downing, The Cold War: An Illustrated History 1945-1991 (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1998) 5.
5
Victor Zelinski et al, “The Cold War,” Twentieth Century Viewpoints (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1996) 122.
6
“WWII Death Toll of All Nations” 6 April 2005, <http://www.warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/deaths.htm>.
7
Victor Zelinski et al, “The Cold War,” Twentieth Century Viewpoints (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1996) 122.
8
Linda R. Killen, The Soviet Union and the United States (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1989) 11.
9
Victor Zelinski et al, “The Cold War,” Twentieth Century Viewpoints (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1996) 130.
10
Alan M. Winkler, The Cold War: A History in Documents (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000) 30-31.
11
Linda R. Killen, The Soviet Union and the United States (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1989) 46.
12
“Vyshinsky Speech to the U.N.” 6 April 2005, <http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/03/documents/vyshinsky/>.
purchasing U.S. goods
-
1947: U.S. donated $13 billion (100 billion presentday) to Europe13
- Very successful: led to continental economic
growth of 35% within five years14
Section 3: The Atomic Bomb
Counter-Argument
- Bomb was dropped to save American lives, not to
alter relations with the Soviets
- Prospective death toll of an inland US invasion of
Japan exceeded the prospective death toll of atomic
bomb16
- Shown by past battles: Okinawa 12, 000 US
casualties, 200, 000 Japanese dead17
- Dropping the bomb would end the war quickly
- 48 million had already died, Japan showed no
willingness to surrender 24
- Japan surrendered four days after America dropped
the bomb25
- Emperor Hirohito’s advisor: “We of the peace party
were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavour
to end the war.”26
- Soviets did not need American assistance in
rebuilding their own economy
- 1924-1928: Soviet production of electricity
increased by 31 000 million kw, oil production rose
35 million tons, coal production rose 93 million
tons15
- Soviets went from one of Europe’s poorest nations
to a global superpower
Argument
- Bomb was dropped to manipulate Soviets
- Atomic bomb was favoured over an invasion to
prevent Soviet involvement which could lead to
communist influence in the Pacific 18
- Truman intended to use American monopoly on
nuclear bomb as means of manipulating the
Soviets in the post-war world19
He believed he could use the bomb to influence
Eastern Europe to adopt democratic rule20
- Secretive relationship caused tensions
- Development of the atomic bomb was not
formally made known to the Soviets until weeks
before the attack. Truman wrote, “On July 24, I
casually mentioned to Stalin that we had a new
weapon of unusual destructive force.”21
- The bomb sparked the arms race that composed the
Cold War
- Soviet Foreign Affairs Minister Molotov was
ordered to speed up the Soviet bomb project
within days of the Hiroshima bombing22
- Any weapon so destructive that it could kill 45
000 with one detonation would instil fear in an
opponent23
“Marshall Plan” 6 April 2005, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_plan>.
“Marshall Plan” 6 April 2005, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_plan>.
15
John D. Clare, Industry and the Five Year Plans 18 May 2005, <http://www.johndclare.net/Russ11.htm>.
16
“Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki” 6 April 2005, <http://www.answers.com/topic/atomic-bombings-of-hiroshima-andnagasaki>.
17
“Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki” 6 April 2005, <http://www.answers.com/topic/atomic-bombings-of-hiroshima-andnagasaki>.
18
Jeremy Isaacs and Taylor Downing, The Cold War: An Illustrated History 1945-1991 (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1998) 20.
19
Martin J. Sherwin, “The Atomic Bomb and the Origins of the Cold War” ed. and comp. Helen Buss Mitchell and Joseph P. Mitchell,
(Guilford: McGraw-Hill, 2000) 376.
20
Martin J. Sherwin, “The Atomic Bomb and the Origins of the Cold War” ed. and comp. Helen Buss Mitchell and Joseph P. Mitchell, (Guilford:
McGraw-Hill, 2000) 376.
21
Paul Priest, Truman Tells Stalin About the Bomb 6 April 2005, <http://www.nuclearfiles.org/redocuments/1945/450724-hst-stalin.html>.
22
Jeremy Isaacs and Taylor Downing, The Cold War: An Illustrated History 1945-1991 (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1998) 20.
23
Jeremy Isaacs and Taylor Downing, The Cold War: An Illustrated History 1945-1991 (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1998) 21.
24
“WWII Death Toll of All Nations” 6 April 2005, <http://www.warchronicle.com/numbers/WWII/deaths.htm>.
25
John T. Correll “The Decision that Launched the Enola Gay” Air Force Magazine April 1994, May 11 2005,
<http://www.afa.org/media/enolagay/07-02.html>.
26
Nicholas Kristof, “Why the Nuclear Attack on Japan was Right” The Age 6 August 2003, 14 May 2005,
<http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/05/1060064179100,html>.
13
14