The western view of the time saw Stalin as doing one of two things: either continuing the expansionist policies of the tsars, or worse, spreading communism across the world now that his one-state notion had been fulfilled. Admittedly, the first view of Stalin, as an imperialist leader, may be twisted. The Russians claim, and have always claimed, that Stalin's motives were purely defensive. Stalin wished to create a buffer zone of Communist states around him to protect Soviet Russia from the capitalist West. In this sense, his moves were not aggressive at all -- they were truly defensive moves to protect the Soviet system.
As a result, the Soviet Union had to buy time so as to catch up with its rival. Peaceful Coexistence was the perfect resort. By declaring its interest in peace, the Soviet Union could fend off any likely attacks from the United States at its weakest hour. By no means was Khrushchev a radical departure from Stalin. However, small changes took place, and they were the embodiment of the policy of Peaceful Coexistence.
The goals of the United States were to rebuild a war-devastated region, remove trade barriers, modernize industry, and make Europe prosperous again. The act was named after Secretary George Marshall. The Marshall Aid was so important because it was used to restrict the Soviet “sphere of influence” from expanding as European countries preferred the idea of being rich instead of having to share their wealth with others. Many countries that were unofficially owned by Stalin were more interested in joining the USA with the Marshall Aid, but Stalin managed to “persuade” them to protest against Truman’s methods. Despite this, the Marshall Aid was a success and it bolstered the armies of Europe significantly, which put Stalin in a more vulnerable position.
This, however, was seen by the Soviet Union as a form of economic expansion through which the Americans were bringing Eastern European states into their own sphere of influence, and was a direct challenge to their authority. It is possible to argue that the Americans were indeed trying to help struggling states with their growth and that the aims were purely altruistic in nature. However, it must be noted that the Marshall Plan did have strings attached, forcing the countries that it provided aid for to open their markets for American goods and not advancing it to countries who did not do
A Cold War was not fundamentally necessary if the USA was to become a global superpower, it was merely a by-product of the USA’s actions in order to establish global supremacy. When the USA put forward the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, they knew it would create some sort of division between East and West because the West would accept American loans whereas the communist states in the east would be forced by Stalin to decline American loans and therefore create a barrier between the two sides of Europe. What the Americans did not intend to do was create war with the USSR, their actions were merely for economic gain, whereas the USSR saw the Marshall Plan and Truman Doctrine as purely aggressive and a threat towards communism, hence the start of the Cold War. Furthermore, by expanding it’s economic influence in Eastern Europe, the USA would also gain military power. This would further enhance the policy of containment and would help to prevent the spread of communism into the west.
James Monroe beleived that the United States should not become involved in European affairs because of the weakness of the US. They didn’t want to get involved in foreign affairs because they did not have the resources to deal with war if war should come. They decided that it was better to not get involved than to get involved and not be able to deal with the situation. This belief resulted in the Monroe Doctrine. In my opinion, the Monroe Doctrine is not still used in the United States.
Because of allegations leading up to the 1960s, the ordinary western resident would most probably blame the USSR for the war’s happening (obviously the element on pride and patriotism are to be taken into account) but to the more historically taught persons, further elements can be taken into account. For example, the difference in ideologies or “clash,” the aims of the Soviet Union and the USA, former resentments and historic grudges and of course the events leading to the Cold War. “The clash of ideologies” is a term often used to describe the differences the two Governments shared. This phrase can refer to the governmental views on the ruling of a country; Americans hated the very prospect of Communism, as did the USSR hate Capitalism. Though a war over government preferences is arguably a farfetched reason to wage war, it was apparent that these ideologies had a huge influence on lifestyle.
In his work, Fleming explained that if the Soviets wanted to attack the united states of America they had done it because they had all the necessary equipment but at that period the nation was more interested in its inner politics than conquering the world. Seeing the Soviet Union as its biggest threat and being afraid of the “Domino” effect, the American government decided to take actions by supporting the rebels in Latin America and countries that were gaining their independence in a hope that these societies will adopt the capitalist ideology. The decisions that the USA made where not always elaborated and in some cases they did more harm than good. Isolating the U.S.S.R from the world politics was
Primary Causes Of The Cold War The conflict between the US and the formerly known USSR occurred because of several political conflicts. Both the US and the U.S.S.R. felt that their ideology was better and because of World War 2, pre-existing strife had built up. The major ideological difference was that the U.S.S.R. was supporting communism, whilst the US was supporting capitalism. With the actions of the soviet union, helping to liberate the defeated countries, it was understood that the liberators may stay and help them install their form of government and leave. Fear of the other country laying influence of their ideology, as a means to gain power, tensions rose.
McNamara’s advice to withdraw military personnel prior the coup was no longer an option as instability in Vietnam posed a threat to national security. Although McNamara concedes the conflict was a civil war, he presses the importance of understanding the conflict as an element of the Cold War. Out of fear for further spread of communist interest, the US began to unilaterally support South Vietnam militarily. McNamara however argues that had the US been more able to empathize with and to better understand the Vietnamese, large-scale military intervention could have been avoided. America’s duty to act where others can not or will not stems from McNamara’s belief that there’s something beyond oneself.