Effects of the World War on the Cold War

Effects of the creative activity struggle on the iciness contendThis essay will firstly consider the major events of the inter- homo warfare period the man of the League of Nations, the enjoyment of the severalizesn isolationism, and the bulky printing and its consequences for atomic number 63. Secondly, it will consider how these events influenced American foreign policy and shaped the American response to the perceived threat of Soviet expansion in Europe in the early post- area War Two period.In the latermath of cosmea War One, Woodrow Wilson asserted that the best expressive style to chequer reality quiet was the creation of the League of Nations, a forum where grievances could be heard and debated so that war could be avoided. The main reason for its failure was the subsequent American return to its tradition of isolationism, which was caused by the shock of the wars savagery as well as indifference to the plight of Europeans. The Great feeling began in 1929 and its effects were felt arenawide. It encouraged extremist and nationalist views among many an(prenominal) populations and gave Hitler his opportunity to ask power in Germany and reduced the ability of Great Britain and France to maintain security in Europe.1Orthodox historians hold that after World War Two the desire of the united States for a impudently man order based on the rules of the joined Nations Charter and Soviet attempts to take control in Europe caused the onset of the frosty War. However, revisionist historians argue that join States policy makers caused the Cold War by failing to differentiate amongst peripheral and vital inte eases and unreasonably not tout ensembleowing a Soviet field of force of influence in eastern Europe. As the Soviets had destroyed two thirds of the German army to bring this area under their control the US determine can easily be seen as unfair.2After the 1917 Bolshevik novelty in Russia, US troops were sent to Russian cities and d espite world ordered not to interfere in the ensuing civil war, they did attend to anti-commie forces indirectly. This shows that America was apprehensive at best about the Communist coup in Russia and this combined with the Soviet policy of encouraging the airing of communism worldwide ensured that Washington refused to establish diplomatic relations with Moscow. This could be seen as the start of the Cold War.3In the aftermath of the Second World War it was left(p) to the Soviet confederacy and the get together States to decide how the new world order would be shaped. Americans recal lead that they had not taken seriously the threat represent by Hitler during the 1930s and were encouraged to see Stalin as a new Hitler and as a man that must be stopped. American leadership may exhaust been less willing to reason with Soviet demands because they feared that this would be seen as appeasement in America and in Moscow and would only if embolden the Soviets. Therefore rather than a return to isolationism and the policy of appeasement that had devastating consequences in relation to Hitlers Germany the united States resolved to tackling the Soviets in a confrontational manner.4George F. Kennan said that for totalitarianism there are at least no better examples that Germany and Russia.5 The view that the Soviets presented a threat to America was enhanced by the widespread view in America that Soviet military victories in Eastern Europe were acts of aggression rather than a mission of liberation. Soviet security concerns caused by a history of regular impact from the West were not recognised and the prevailing view was that after conquering the whole of Europe the Soviet due north would challenge the rest of the world.6The failure of the League of Nations was attributed mainly to the lack of American commitment to contend a major role in world affairs. Therefore when the United Nations was set-up the United States committed to playing a major role in world affairs. This meant confronting any perceived threat of aggression directly with the fancy of stamping out any threat to world peace quickly and posture the US on course for a collision with the Soviet Union. This led to the Soviet defensive policy of creating buffer zones defend against possible invasion being misinterpreted in Washington as aggressive behaviour that represent a threat to world peace.The problem with the United Nations was that whilst it was endorsed by all sides, key differences between each sides respective positions were concealed. olibanum many in America believed that the United Nations would be able to ensure world peace but controversial issues such as Eastern Europe were not resolved. This caused a tide of disillusionment with the UN to follow as it failed to live up to its expectations when these controversial issues became crises between the wartime allies.7American refusal to grant the Soviet Union a meaningful loan after World War Two, like t hat given to Great Britain, rejuvenated old Soviet fears and contributed to its uncooperativeness. To grant a loan would realise helped heal Soviet economic wounds and dispel fears of other Great Depression therefore reducing the insecurities that lead to aggression. It also would have given a strong base for continued cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union after the wars end.8In 1944 United States Secretary of State Hull announced A world in economic cuckoos nest would be forever a breading ground for trouble and war.9 Hull believed that overturn barriers to world trade would help sow the seeds of world peace because as clearical liberals had long argued commerce is the main bond between nations. Americans see the key to avoiding another depression as guaranteeing markets abroad for their goods and the improvement in the standard of living worldwide that would follow as a government agency to reduce the likelihood of future war. Soviet refusal to play a ro le in the Bretton Woods monetary system should have been anticipated and pose a threat to the American belief that war could be prevented by means of economics.10The Cold War was partly caused by the lack of a communal enemy that posed a greater threat to the Soviet Union and the United States than they posed to each other. This is because World War Two bankrupted Britain and left Germany and Japan in ruins. This can be seen throughout history that anaemic alliances breakdown almost as soon as the common enemy is defeated. In this case the cracks began to appear long before Germany was fully defeated.11It could be argued that because of the inherent differences in Soviet and American ideology, the Cold War was ineluctable regardless of the actions of statesmen on both sides. This is because the US was determined to see the spread of capitalist democracy as it saw this as the best way to prevent war and the Soviet Union believed that worldwide adoption of socialism was inevit able and that inter state war would be replaced by class war.12World War Two caused a shift in United States foreign policy. Previously, most Americans believed that a minimal amount of overseas commitments and alliances as the key to security. However, after World War Two involvement in world affairs rather than isolationism was seen as the key to preventing new wars. The Soviets, however, saw the key to world peace as staying strong themselves and keeping Germany weak rather than Washingtons collective security and increased world trade.13The American vision for the post war world was strongly influenced by a preoccupation with the past. Roosevelt was determined to avoid repeating the mistakes that had led to World War Two and so pursued the policies of self-determination, increased world trade, creation of international institutions and unconditional surrender of belligerents. However, he failed to realise the effect that these policies would have on his other main aim of ensurin g continued cooperation with the Soviet Union after the end of the war.14ReferencesBagby, W. Americas International Relations Since World War I. Oxford and recent York Oxford University Press, 1999.Barston, R, ed. International Politics since 1945. Hampshire Edward Elgar produce Limited, 1991.Cole, W. An Interpretive History of American conflicting Relations, Homewood, Illinois The Dorsey Press, 1968.Gaddis, J. The United States and the Origins of the Cold War 1941-1947. London and new(a) York Columbia University Press, 1972.Paterson, T. clash the Communist Threat Truman to Reagan. Oxford New York Oxford University Press, 1988.1Footnotes1 Cole, W. An Interpretive History of American Foreign Relations, Homewood, Illinois The Dorsey Press, 1968, pp. 373-380.2 Bresler, R. The Origins and Development of the Cold War, 1945-58 in Barston, R, ed. International Politics since 1945. Hampshire Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 1991, pg 1.3 Bagby, W. Americas International Relations Sinc e World War I. Oxford and New York Oxford University Press, 1999, pg 56.4 Paterson, T. Meeting the Communist Threat Truman to Reagan. Oxford New York Oxford University Press, 1988, pp. 4-12.5 Ibid, pg 4.6 Ibid, pg 11.7 Gaddis, J. The United States and the Origins of the Cold War 1941-1947. London and New York Columbia University Press, 1972, pp. 30-31.8 Paterson, T. Meeting the Communist Threat Truman to Reagan. Oxford New York Oxford University Press, 1988, pp 107-108.9 Gaddis, J. The United States and the Origins of the Cold War 1941-1947. London and New York Columbia University Press, 1972, pg 18.10 Ibid., pp. 18-23.11 Bagby, W. Americas International Relations Since World War I. Oxford and New York Oxford University Press, 1999, pg 56, pp. 141-142.12 Cole, W. An Interpretive History of American Foreign Relations, Homewood, Illinois The Dorsey Press, 1968, pg 473.13 Gaddis, J. The United States and the Origins of the Cold War 1941-1947. London and New York Columbia University Press, 1972, pp. 353-354.14 Ibid., pg 31.