Mao criticised Khrushchev for his policies such as de-Stalinisation and his secret speech. He was also very critical of the policy of Peaceful Coexistence as he believed it was a way of being friendly with the United States (the enemy) and also Mao saw it abandoning millions of comrades struggling to free themselves of capitalist and imperialist oppression. This, therefore, made the USSR an ‘enemy’. How could two countries work together if they had such differing beliefs about how to run their countries? This problem had a big contribution to the split as they couldn’t agree on anything, and if they did, it was because their national interests were at risk.
Although both Truman and Stalin helped increase tensions in Europe and East Asia in the years immediately following World War II, the Cold War itself was likely inevitable. The alliance that had formed between the United States and the USSR during World War II was not strong enough to overcome the past decades of suspicion and unease between the two nations. Moreover, as both leaders sought to achieve their postwar security objectives, which were often mutually exclusive, neither was willing to compromise. The United States and the USSR had always generally disliked and distrusted each other, despite the fact that they were allies against Germany and Japan during the war. Americans had hated and feared Communism ever since it had appeared in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and had refused to recognize the new Soviet government, especially after Bolshevik leaders promoted the destruction of capitalism.
Even Lloyd George, who took a much tougher political approach towards the reparations, received criticism. Also, at the beginning of the period, Keynes was unsuccessful and his view of the Treaty of Versailles had very little influence at all. However, there was an acceptance during the 1920s that the Weimar Republic, a new democratic Germany, had emerged. There was perhaps, a realisation that the permanent peace of Europe should be based on mutually accepted agreements. In addition, the British governments under Prime Ministers such as Lloyd George, Bonar Law, Baldwin and
American strategy remained torn between simply containing Communism or rolling it back by actively supporting the Soviet Union’s opponents. For historians of the Cold War, the great debate has been between traditionalists who tend to see the United States as the defensive power in the Cold War (and the Soviet Union as the aggressor) and revisionist historians who tend to see the United States and the Soviet Union as equally aggressive and equally at fault. Revisionists (those critical of American foreign policy) are usually accused of forgetting the ‘lessons of Munich’. It is argued that World War Two arose partly because too many historians thought Germany was unjustly treated after World War One by the Treaty of
The limited nature of the revolution was one of the main factors which weakened prospects for democracy, when Ebert was trying to form a government he still had a problem that the radical communists were still looking to turn Germany into a communist state similar to the Soviet Union and thus to put down this rebellion and get support of the army he made an agreement with Groener. The agreement was that the army would support the government if the army and civil service were left unchanged. This was the main reason that democracy was irreversibly weakened, because the civil service and army generals were all right-wing conservatives providing a powerbase for the radical right. This limited democracy because the radical right thought that democracy was weak and indecisive, the radical right though was weakened because the radical left was way more powerful initially in post war Germany, but the radical right would help democracy until the radical left was no longer a threat and would act as ticking time bomb of support. This could have acted as a powerbase for the Kapp Putsch and the eventual rise of the Nazis.
The result of the 1945 election was a shock to not only the people of Britain but also the parliamentary parties, one of the main reasons thought to have led to Labour’s victory, was Churchill’s radio broadcast, in which he stated socialism could not be established without a ‘Gestapo’. Source one, an extract from Margaret Thatcher’s book, explains her thoughts when listening to Churchill’s 1945 radio broadcast. Thatcher believes Churchill said was correct in what he said, but his use of the word ‘Gestapo’ was inappropriate, and wasn’t particularly helpful for post-war Britain. However it could be argued Thatcher knew that what Churchill said was a mistake, but as she was part of the same conservative party as he was, she couldn’t admit it. Although, she does admit even she was shocked when listening to the speech, as she explains “the line was not believable”.
Another reason to why America is to blame is after the success of the atomic bomb the members of the Grand Alliance began to see changes in Truman’s behaviour as he started to control the meetings they had and Stalin refused to be bossed around so arguments between Stalin and Truman started, they started. The USSR is to blame for the breakdown of the Grand Alliance for many reasons. One reason is that the USSR wanted to impose big respirations on Germany but America and Great Britain refused as they knew how it would affect Germany and could cause another war. A second reason is that Stalin wanted most of Europe to become communist, Roosevelt and Churchill didn’t agree. After Truman became Americas new President there was a lot of tension at the Potsdam Conference.
Because of the disagreement with the foundation of a countries’ structure, the USA and the USSR were strange bedfellows during the Second World War. Their alliance was purely strategic. The underlying differences between the supreme capitalist nation (the USA) and the original communist state (the USSR) were bound to re-emerge once Germany and Japan had been defeated. Both of the Superpowers saw each other as a threat to its continued survival and adopted strategies to preserve their positions, which brought a high level of tension after World War 2. At the final stage of World War Two, it was quite clear that the Allies would get the final victory, so in February 1945, Stalin (USSR), Churchill (UK) and Roosevelt (USA) met at Yalta to discuss
In the early 30’s US due to President Hoover’s views on Foreign Policy believing that the US should not go into “firm commitments” where they would have to promise security to other countries. He did however believe in treaties but opposed using economic sanctions against dissentients, saying it would only cause military involvement. This almost detached was the US was going is looked back at was our stage of isolationism. We started severely isolationist in the start of the 30’s as time progressed towards the late 30’s and early 40’s America does a 180 and starts to interfere sneakily with the World’s problems. As the economy started to fail America seemed to have stepped back from foregin affairs and focused on problems within their own
However, the breakdown in relations between the emerging superpowers during the war and the consequences of the disbandment of the Grand Alliance can be interpreted as the start of the Cold War. Tensions during wartime conferences paved the way for post-war conflict and it can be argued that as soon as the common enemy of Hitler was destroyed, the disparity in post-war aims of the superpowers led to the Cold War. The conferences of ‘the Big Thee’ at Yalta and Potsdam produced areas of tension surrounding plans for Germany and Poland, highlighting the USA fear of USSR’s expansion. Therefore Stalin’s policies for these countries can be construed as an attempt to form an ‘Eastern Bloc’, knowing this to be in complete contradiction with Western ideals for a world without spheres of influence. However, there is not much evidence to suggest the USSR’s was pursuing expansionist aims at this point, and in fact was simply securing its borders.