Name: _____________________
Hour: _____
The Cold War Primary Document Analysis Packet
Part I: Primary Document Analysis
Examine the documents enclosed to help you develop a deeper understanding of how both the
United States and the Soviet Union viewed the Cold War. You will be examining documents
from both the United States’ point-of-view (written by Americans) and from the Soviet Union’s
point-of-view (written by Soviets).
You may take notes directly on the documents (underline, highlight, write in the margins)
The documents you will be reading include:
1. Novikov Telegram (Soviet)
2. Henry Wallace’ Letter to Truman (American)
3. George Kennan: Long Telegram (American)
4. Andrei Vyshinshy Speech (Soviet)
Difficult words are underlined and defined in a glossary at the bottom of each document.
Complete the Source Comparsion Graphic Organizer
for each document
&
answer the questions after each document in this packet
Part II: Writing Task
Write a statement from the point-of-view of each of the authors of the documents you read.
You are to prepare a statement responding to the Soviet Blockade of Berlin in 1948 and the
Western Allied Powers response to that blockade. You may want to read about this event in your
textbook on pg. 540 before writing.
Write your responses on the accompanying worksheet and write in the boxes provided,
remember that you are writing as if you are the author of the respective texts:
- demonstrate an understanding of the Cold War and the author’s perspective.
- develop both claims and counterclaims with evidence.
- writing is logical and presented in a well-organized manner.
- use the materials to support your argument.
- use proper punctuation, spelling, and grammar.
1.) Novikov Telegram
Source: Excerpt from a telegram sent by Soviet Ambassador Nikolai Novikov to Soviet
Leadership in September 1946.
The foreign policy of the United States, which reflects the imperialist
tendencies of American monopolistic capital, is characterized in the
postwar period by a striving for world supremacy. This is the real meaning
of the many statements by President Truman and other representatives of
American ruling circles; that the United States has the right to lead the
world. All the forces of American diplomacy – the army, the air force, the
navy, industry, and science -- are enlisted in the service of this foreign
policy. For this purpose broad plans for expansion have been developed
and are being implemented through diplomacy and the establishment of a
system of naval and air bases stretching far beyond the boundaries of the
United States, through the arms race, and through the creation of ever
newer types of weapons.
…during the Second World War…[American leaders] calculated that the
United States of America, if it could avoid direct participation in the war,
would enter it only at the last minute, when it could easily affect the
outcome of the war, completely ensuring its interests.
In this regard, it was thought that the main competitors of the United
States would be crushed or greatly weakened in the war, and the
United States by virtue of this circumstance would assume the role of the
most powerful factor in resolving the fundamental questions of the postwar
world.
Novikov Telegram Questions:
1. Sourcing: Who was Nicholas Novikov? When did he write this telegram?
2. Close reading: How does Novikov describe the United States? What evidence does
he use to support his description?
3. Context: What does Novikov claim the United States planned during the Second
World War?
2.) Henry Wallace’s Letter to Truman
Source: Secretary of Commerce and former Vice President Henry A. Wallace letter to
President Harry S. Truman, July 23, 1946. Truman asked Wallace to resign shortly after
this letter.
I have been increasingly disturbed about the trend of international affairs
since the end of the war.
How do American actions appear to other nations? I mean actions [like]
spending $13 Billion for War and Navy Departments, the Bikini tests of the
atomic bomb and continued production of bombs, the plan to arm Latin
America with our weapons, and the effort to secure air bases spread over
half the globe from which the other half of the globe can be bombed. I
cannot but feel that these actions must make it look to the rest of the world
as if we were only paying lip service to peace at the conference table.
These facts rather make it appear either (1) that we are preparing
ourselves to win the war which we regard as inevitable or (2) that we are
trying to build up a predominance [largest amount] of force to intimidate the
rest of mankind.
Our interest in establishing democracy in Eastern Europe, where
democracy by and large has never existed, seems to [the Soviets] an
attempt to reestablish the encirclement of unfriendly neighbors which might
serve as a springboard of still another effort to destroy [them].
Henry Wallace Letter Questions:
1. Sourcing: Who was Henry Wallace? When did he write this letter?
2. Close Reading: What is Wallace’s main argument?
3. Corroboration: How does Wallace’s description of American foreign policy compare to
Truman’s and Novikov’s?
3.) George Kennan: The Long Telegram
Excerpts from the 8,000-word "Long Telegram" George Kennan sent to the State Department in
1946 after the department asked for help in understanding the Soviet Union
"[The] USSR still lives in antagonistic `capitalist encirclement' with which in the long run there
can be no permanent peaceful coexistence . . . .
"At bottom of Kremlin's neurotic view of world affairs is traditional and instinctive Russian
sense of insecurity. Originally, this was insecurity of a peaceful agricultural people trying to live
on vast exposed plain in neighborhood of fierce nomadic peoples. To this was added, as Russia
came into contact with economically advanced West, fear of more competent, more powerful,
more highly organized societies in that area. But this latter type of insecurity was one which
afflicted rather Russian rulers than Russian people; for Russian rulers have invariably sensed that
their rule was . . . unable to stand comparison or contact with political systems of Western
countries.
“The Soviet Union seems to be impervious to the logic of reason but highly sensitive to the logic
of force”
"It was no coincidence that Marxism . . . caught hold and blazed for first time in Russia. Only in
this land which had never known a friendly neighbor or indeed any tolerant equilibrium of
separate powers, either internal or international, could a doctrine thrive which viewed economic
conflicts of society as insoluble by peaceful means . . . .
"In summary, we have here a political force committed fanatically to the belief that with U.S.
there can be no permanent modus vivendi, that it is desirable and necessary that the internal
harmony of our society be disrupted, our traditional way of life be destroyed, the international
authority of our state be broken . . . .
"We must formulate and put forward for other nations a much more positive and constructive
picture of [the] sort of world we would like to see than we have put forward in past. It is not
enough to urge people to develop political processes similar to our own. Many foreign peoples,
in Europe at least, are tired and frightened by experiences of past, and are less interested in
abstract freedom than in security. They are seeking guidance rather than responsibilities. We
should be better able than Russians to give them this. And unless we do, Russians certainly will."
antagonistic: hostile, expressing hostility towards someone
Kremlin: Soviet Union’s government headquarters
modus vivendi: compromise
impervious: not responsive
George Kennan: The Long Telegram Questions
1. Consider the following quotes by Kennan and answer the question that follows:
"[The] USSR still lives in antagonistic (hostile) `capitalist encirclement' with which in the
long run there can be no permanent peaceful coexistence…”
"In summary, we have here a political force committed fanatically to the belief that with
U.S. there can be no permanent modus vivendi (compromise)”
Question: Do you believe Kennan thinks the U.S. and the Soviet Union can work out a
non-violent solution to their disagreements, explain why or why not:
2. Explain what Kennan means when he says that “The Soviet Union seems to be
impervious to the logic of reason but highly sensitive to the logic of force”:
4.) Andrei Vyshinshy’s Speech
When proposing the Marshall Plan, George C. Marshall offered financial aid to all war-torn
European nations, including the Soviet Union. The Soviet government and its satellite nations
later rejected the aid, resulting in the economic and political division of Europe. In this speech to
the U.N. General Assembly in September 1947, Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei
Vyshinsky outlined his government's interpretation of the Marshall Plan.
The so-called Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan are particularly glaring examples of the
manner in which the principles of the United Nation are violated and the way in which the
organization is ignored.
As the experience of the past few months has shown, the proclamation of this doctrine meant that
the United States government has moved towards a direct renunciation of the principles of
international collaboration and concerted action by the great powers and towards attempts to
impose its will on other independent states, while at the same time obviously using the economic
resources distributed as relief to individual needy nations as an instrument of political pressure.
This is clearly proved by the measures taken by the United States government with regard to
Greece and Turkey which ignore and bypass the United Nations as well as by the measures
proposed under the so-called Marshall Plan in Europe. This policy conflicts sharply with the
principle expressed by the General Assembly in its resolution of 11 December 1946, which
declares that relief supplies to other countries "should ... at no time be used as a political
weapon."
As is now clear, the Marshall Plan constitutes in essence merely a variant of the Truman
Doctrine adapted to the conditions of postwar Europe. In bringing forward this plan, the United
States government apparently counted on the cooperation of governments of the United
Kingdom and France to confront the European countries in need of relief with the necessity of
renouncing their inalienable right to dispose of their economic resources and to plan their
national economy in their own way.
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
States and direct interference by the latter in the internal affairs of those countries.
Moreover, this plan is an attempt to split Europe into two camps and, with the help of the United
Kingdom and France, to complete the formation of a bloc of several European countries hostile
to the interests of the democratic countries of Eastern Europe and most particularly to the
interests of the Soviet Union.
An important feature of this plan is the attempt to confront the countries of Eastern Europe with
a bloc of Western European states including Western Germany. The intention is to make use of
Western Germany and German heavy industry (the Ruhr) as one of the most important economic
bases for American expansion in Europe, in disregard of the national interests of the countries
which suffered from German aggression.
Andrei Vyshinshy Questions:
1. What conflict does Vyshinshy see between what President Truman and George C.
Marshall are doing with the principles of the United Nations (which is an international
peace keeping body):
2. Vyshinshy believes Europe is going to be broken up into two camps, what will these
two separate Europe’s look like, according to Vyshinshy: