Origins of the Cold War

Item Type thesis

Authors Kiesow, Michael

Download date 25/03/2024 01:12:27

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12648/5458

 Origins of the Cold War

By

Michael Kiesow

August2007

A thesis or project submitted to the D~partment of Education and Human

Development of the State University of New York at Brockport in partial fulfillment
Qf the r~~nnrements for the degree pf Masteys pf Science in Education
Origins of the Cold War

By

Michael Kiesow

Date

Date
 Table of Contents

Part 1: Historiography-Origins of the Cold War: Orthodox, Revisionists, and the

Post-Revisionists ...... 1

Part II: Original Research: Document Analysis and Personal

Reflection .............. .. .................. ....24

References Parts
I and II. ........... ..... . ................................. . ..... .... .. .. .. .. ... .. . .......... 47-50

Part III: Option 1-Course portfolio on sources, organization of topics, methods and
materials ............ .51

Reference List and Works Cited

(Part III) ..... ...... ............ ...... ... . .. .. . ... .. ... ..... .. ... . ..... . . .. ..... 65-66

A{>pendices: Student Worksheets

1
Part 1: Historiography-Origins of the Cold War

Tensions and hostilities grew out of the closing stages of World War II, which

would lead to a massive economic, ideological and militaristic confrontation. On

,April25, 1945, Soviet and American soldiers embraced each other along the Elbe

while they made their final thrust into the heart ofNazi Germany, the Grand Alliance

was beginning to tear apart. Both the Soviet Union and United States had differing

viewpoints on what the post-World War II should look like. 1 As a result the "Cold
War" and its ramifications would guide the entire world for much of the remainder of

the second millennium and the possibility of destruction on the level of biblical

proportions existed.

While the Cold War developed as a result of the volatile conditions within

Europe, its roots lied within the ideologies of capitalism and communism. Two

conflicting economic principles that would combine with the scramble by the Soviets

and Americans to assert their strength, interest, and ideology over every continent on

the face of the earth. The Soviet Union saw the United States as the aggressor and

charged the Americans with seeking global domination and threatening the security

of the U.S.S.R. The United States claimed that they were only trying to stop the
(

Soviets from grabbing territory, subduing their neighboring countries, and pushing for
2
their commun,i.st revolution to enslave the world.

Since the origins of the Cold War, a plethora of historians have researched the

conditions which led the Soviets and Americans to engage in a global war for over

1
William E. Leuchtenburg, The Great Age ofChange, ed. The Editors of Life (New York: Time
Incorporated, 1964), 9.
2
Dennis Merril and Thomas G. Paterson, ed., Major Problems in American Foreign Relations vol. 2,
Fifth ed. (Boston: Houghton~Mifflin Company, 2000), 201.

1
four decades and have come to different conclusions. Which country was the true

aggressor, and how did the economic, social, and political conditions of the era play

into the rise of the Cold War. What happened? How could such a promising time

after World War II lead to a state of brinkmanship between the Soviets and

Americans. How have historians viewed and interpreted the origins of the Cold War

overtime? This historiography will primarily focus on the revisionist viewpoint of the

late 1950s and 1960s that exploded onto the scholarly world stage. The revisionist

perspective contradicted the orthodox or traditional position, which was that the

Soviets were the true aggressors. Upon the in-depth look at the revisionist movement

I will shift the historiography towards the perspectives of scholars who have done

research on the origins of the Cold War since the fall of the Soviet Union. Moreover,

I will also review the literature from the Soviet perspective of the post 1991 world.

The revisionism of the 1950s and 1960s questioned the actions of the United

States and targeted American foreign policy as being the key factor in the

development of the Cold War. Revisionist historians looked at the previous history of

the United States and the expansion and empire building that it had undertaken

through the majority of the nation's existence. Questions which were researched and

discussed by revisionist historians and those who opposed this new outlook led to

many scholars looking for the truth to the beginning of the Cold War.

Was it truly fair to make such statements against the United States at the time

of Cold War revisionism of the SO's and 60's? Professors and scholars of the United

States did not have access to the archives of the Soviet Union. They did not have all

of the intentions of Stalin and his views on the world after World War II. Right or

2
wrong the revisionists propelled further research into the field of the origins of the

Cold War. With the demise of the Soviet Union and the fall of the "Iron Curtain" in

Europe came an explosion of research due to the available docwnents within Eastern

Europe. Would the eastern bloc docwnents now available to the people of the world

agree with the revisionist viewpoint or reflect a different tale to the evolution of the

Cold War and support the traditionalists such as Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.

Yet, were there clues which would lead to such a conflict that inspired Robert

McNamara to say, "Cold War, Hell it was a Hot War,"3 in the docwnentary Fog of

War. Clearly the Secretary of Defense for Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon

Baines Johnson saw the Cold War as an extremely intense period between the two

superpowers. Furthermore, prophetic quotes made by two colossal figures of history

are as follows;

"There are now two great nations in the world ... the Russians and the Anglo-

Americans ... [E]ach seems called by some secret design of Providence one day to hold in its hands the

destinies of half the world." -Alexis de

Tocqueville, 18354

"With the defeat of the Reich ... there will remain in the world only two Great Powers capable

of confronting each other-the United States and Soviet Russia ... both these Powers will sooner or later

find it desirable to seek the support of the sole surviving great nation in Europe, the German people."

-AdolfHitler, 19455

At the height of the Cold War a book entitled, The Tragedy ofAmerican

Diplomacy by William Appleman Williams, was published in 1959. The ground-

3
The Fog ofWar,DVD, directed by Errol Morris (2004; Sony Pictures Classics)
4
John Lewis Gaddis, We Now Know: Rethinking the Cold War (New York: Oxford University Press,
1997), 1.

3
breaking work put a unique perspective on the outlook on the origins of the Cold War

and is seen as the beginning of a scholarly approach to looking at the Cold War with a

revisionist method. Some scholars would even claim it to be "radical.'' Within

Tragedy, Williams' theme centers on the "persistence of expansionism"6 and points to

the "open door imperialism"7 of the United States.

Professor Williams maneuvers Tragedy at the onset of the post World War II

em towards the United States looking to its former Democratic presidents Woodrow

Wilson and his protege Franklin Delano Roosevelt and their principles in the

capitalistic economy. In 1914 President Wilson stated to the corporation leaders of

America that, "[t]here is nothing in which I am more interested than the fullest

development of the trade of this country and its righteous conquest of foreign

The Americans had the monopoly of the A-Bomb and an economy ready to

transition from wartime to peacetime with scores of men and women ready to go back

to work or school through the G.I. Bill. Economic prosperity would not be hampered

and Williams proposed that the leaders of America were ready to "thwart the evil

designs of Russia and to rehabilitate the rest of the world for the beneficent

application of American leadership."9 "Williams, emphasized the economic

expansion of American capitalism and the search for foreign markets as the primary

6
Bradford Perkins, "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy: Twenty-Five Years after," Reviews in
American History> Vol. 12. No. 1 (Mar., 1984): 2.
7
1bid. 2.
8
William A. Williams, Tragedy ofAmerican Diplomacy. (Cleveland and New York: The World
Publishing Company, 2001), 16.
9
1bid. 17.

4
cause of the Cold War." 10 Williams reminded Americans in 1959 that the Soviet

Union emerged from World War II in a weakened state and that many Soviet policies

were defensive. Additionally, Professor Williams viewed the actions by Marshal

Stalin and the Soviets were solely a response to American aggressiveness. 11 "The

vacillation of Eastern Europe governments laid bare the internal fragility of the Soviet

alliance structure when subjected to the pressures of U.S. economic might. The

imposed Sovietization of Eastern Europe ensuing the summer of 1947 was a product

of the Cold War and not its cause.'' 12

In continuing with his "open door policy,. Williams proclaimed that the

United States would try to thwart its dominance over the globe because of the pure

strength, which lied within the country. "[I]n fact, negotiation from strength meant

no negotiations, because it defined negotiation as the acceptance of American

proposals... 13 Yet Williams initiates that because of this policy of American

assertiveness that it spawned a forceful conflict and resistance by the Soviet Union.

Even though for a time the United States had a monopoly on the Atomic bomb it

could not propel the Soviets into following the role of a nation kowtowing to the

Americans.

The ensuing details given by Professor Williams would fuel critics of Tragedy

and charge him with producing a pro-Soviet tract and a sympathizer of Stalin

10
Samuel J. Walker, "The Origins of the Cold War in United States History Textbooks."
The Journal ofAmerican History> Vol. 81. No.4 (Mar., 1995), 1658.
11
Perkins. 10.
12
Patrick Flaherty, "Origins of the Cold War." Monthly Review 48, no. 1 (1996). Drake Memorial
Library: /nfoTrac. 8.
13
Williams. 151.

5
 14
b.imself. Die-bard revolutionists did propose that the Soviet Union shoul4 "secure a

base for militant revolutionary activity throughout the world." 15 According to

Williams, Stalin would side with the conservatives and their cautious proposal for a

post World War II Soviet Union and Communist expansion. Stalin looked at two

factors for success: "(1) limiting and controlling revolutionary action by foreign

communists, which otherwise would antagonize the United States, and (2) reaching

an economic and political understanding with America, an agreement that would

enable Russia to handle the problem of recovery and at the same time relax certain

controls and pressures inside the country ... He was confident that if given a peaceful

opportunity to develop its program in Russia, communism would gradually appeal to

16
more and more countries of the world."

With the above affirmations by Williams and the following statements made

by the Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson such as "it is a problem of

markets ...You must look to foreign marke~ ... "

17
His Congressional audience would

concur on Acheson's proposals. Williams stressed that ''the philosophy and practice

of open door expansionism had become, in both its missionary and economic aspects,
18
the view of the world."

Tragedy ofAmerican Diplomacy was written in the year 1959 only two years

removed from the launching of Sputnik and a bit over a decade since the beginning of

the Cold War. In addition to the achievement of Sputnik. the Soviet Union had

developed the A-bomb and the H-bomb, China had turned to Communism, the

14
Perkins. 10.
15
Williams. 155.
16
lbid. 155.
17
lbid. 167.
18
Ibid. 180.

6
Korean War ended up a stalemate, and there was increased involvement of the United

States in Vietnam. It was clear that the Soviets and Communism would not be

contained and thwarted as the United States had desired. "The Soviet Union neither

surrendered nor collapsed nor embarked upon an effort to remodel itself in the image

of Western liberalism." 19

William A. Williams would ignite other historians to look into the

alternative reasons geared toward the origins of the Cold War. Many historians

would look closer at the economic factors that they saw attributed to the involvement

of the United States, however, they did not approve of the sympathetic outlook on

Stalin's Soviet Union. "And they agree with Williams in placing policies aimed at

trade expansion within a broader context... [T]hey almost unanimously argue that

Soviet leaders, though grasping and brutal, had no blueprint for world revolution.'.2°

Throughout the 1960's the revisionist historical outlook was still raging and

was most commonly applied to the study of foreign policy. Moreover, the term

revisionism was associated within a Marxist context and had "come to mean the

questioning of established interpretations of history and the presentation of new

interpretations ... where the revisionists are willing to admit the impurity of American

motives and the possibility that 'the other side' has a valid case."21 Shortly after

Williams' groundbreaking work, Tragedy, Professor D.F. Fleming ofVanderbilt

published The Cold War and its Origins. Fleming looks back to the Russian

Revolution and centers his work on the concept that the Cold War began in 1918,

19
1bid. 205.
20
Perkins. 13.
21
Paul Seabury, "ColdWa:rOrigins, I" Journal ofContemporary HiStory> Vol. 3. No.1 (Jittl.., 1968):
169.

7
when the West supplied the White Anny who backed the Czar and intervened in their

Civil War. The Marxist inspired revolution struck fear into the hearts and minds of

the leaders of the powerful and industrialized nations of the West and East, as Japan

also supplied troops. Furthermore, Fleming stated that the war had been 'lost,' by

1960 by the West. 22 Fleming made a bold statement fueling the revisionist outlook

on the Cold War. It was quite obvious at the time the Cold War was far from over,

but the Communist camp was spreading at an alarming rate. But did Fleming truly

mean the West had lost or did he see that the United States had fueled the Cold War

and inflicted the wounds upon itself.

Looking back to post World War I and Fleming's premise that the Cold War

started during this time it was obvious that the West was fearful of Bolshevik

expansionism. Winston Churchill, who was the Secretary of State for War in 1919,

reflected on the Bolsheviks and their advancement into the Ukraine. "[t]he

Bolsheviks were taking Nicholiev and Kherson, and were advancing on the Black

Sea. Odessa might soon be invested ... It was idle to think we should escape by sitting

still and doing nothing. Bolshevism was not sitting still. It was advancing, and unless

the tide were resisted it would :roll over Siberia until it reached the Japanese ... " 23

Professor Fleming was inspired to look into the origins of the Cold War, when

he began to examine what, the ''architect of containment'' himself, George F. Kennan

had stated about the derivations of Soviet demeanor. Fleming believed that we were

on the offensive side and " ... made the Soviets suspicious, hostile, and sometimes

22
1bid. 169.
23
Learning Curve. Did the Cold War really start in the period 1919-1939.
http://www.leamingcutve.gov.uk/coldwar/Glldefaulthtm Extract from the minutes ofa meeting ofthe
British War Cabinet in March 1919.

8
aggressive."24 Yet Fleming also argued that had Roosevelt survived his fourth term

he would have cooperated with Stalin. "Fleming accused Truman of attempting to

intimidate Stalin by curtailing Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union, and he also argued

that Stalin had not broken his pledge to hold :free and fair elections in Poland."25

In the infamous 4'Long Telegram," written by George F. Kennan on February

22, 1946 in the U.S. embassy in Moscow, Kennan cynically contemplated the post

World War IT Soviet Union. This telegram would lead to Kennan working as head of

the State Department's Policy Planning Staff and developing the policy of

"containment'' as a Cold War doctrine. 26 Within the telegram Kennan believed that,

" .. .we have here a political force committed fanatically to the belief that with US

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,

.. .if Soviet power is to be secure.'t27

Possibly upon reflecting on his original viewpoint on the Soviet Union and

feeling that the policy of containment had be come to drastic Kennan shows a

different attitude later on. Kennan stated in his book, Kennan: Memoirs 1950-1963,

[w]hen World War IT came to an end, the leaders of the Soviet Union had no desire to

face another major foreign war for a long, long time to come ... [the war] had meant a

24
Seabury. 170.
25
Jacob Heilbrunn, "The Origins of the Cold War in Europe." The New Republic 211, no. 7 (1994).
Drake Metttorial Libtaty: lnfoTrac. 3.
26
Merril. 203.
27
Ibid. 211.

9
setback of approximately a decade in the effort of the Soviet leaders to make out of

the traditional Russian territory a powerful military-industrial center."28

The year 1965 saw the publication of David Horowitz and his book entitled,

Free World Colossus. Horowitz continued on with the revisionist point of view and

he saw the United States opposing any threat against the determination of the United

States government. According to Horowitz the foreign policy of the American

government was to "crush any movement anywhere in the world that threatens radical

change against the will of the United States govemment.~~29

Horowitz was a clearly a follower of the movement proposed and pushed

forward by Williams and Fleming and deemed the West led by the United States

ignited the Cold War. The Soviet Union had no choice but to become distrustful and

aggressive in its reaction to the policies of the United States. Prior to the revisionist

movement of the origins of the Cold War, the actions taken by the Soviet Union such

as the rejection of the Marshall Plan, the creation of Cominform, Czech coup, and the

Berlin blockade were the result of the US containment policy. 3Q Had the Americans

looked to a post World War II world without the fear of Soviet expansionism,

Fleming pursued that the Cold War could have been avoided.

Revisionism continued to develop during the 1960's and the historical

revisionist camp continued to push aspects of the Cold War began with the aggression

of the United States. Yet by the mid-60's the statement that the U.S. had lost the

Cold War had begun to deteriorate. The United States was clearly not leaving the

28
George F. Kennan, George F. Kennan Memoirs: 1950-1963 (New York: Pantheon Books, 1972),
331.
2
~orman A. Graebner, "Cold War Origins and theContinuingDebate." The Journal ofConjlict
Resolution> Vol. 13. No. 1 (Mar., 1969): 129.
30
1bid. 129.

10
Soviets behind, however by 1965 the U.S. stood up against the Soviets in the Cuban

Missile Crisis and were beginning to pull out ahead in the missile gap. Furthermore,

the Socialist camp was beginning to break down and the construction of the Berlin

Wall was a loud statement that communism was not working.

Gar Alperovitz, s Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam, proposed that

the Americans could not penetrate the Soviet sphere through their own economic

with .the three revisionist. leaders of Williams, Fle~ing, and

31
.power. .. Alperovitz-Sides

Horowitz, yet pushes forth the concept that Truman looked to the newly created A-

Bomb to display the new style of foreign policy of the United States. With the show

of such force the Soviet Union would be reluctant to influence Eastern Europe after

the war. Moreover, Alperovitz suggested that, "Truman delayed his trip to Potsdam

until the bomb had been developed."32

At the Potsdam conference, after the Atomic weapon had been used on Japan,

President Truman stated the following in a speech, "[h]aving found the bomb, we

have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl

Harbor ... We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan's power to

make war . .. The Atomic bomb is too dangerous to be loose in a law-less world. That

is why Great Britain and the United States, who have the secret of its production, do

not.intend to reveal the secret .. ,,33 Withthe use of the bomb on Japan, [t]he

showdown over Eastern Europe never came."34

~ 1 Ibid. 130.
32
Ibid. 130.
33
Learning Curve. How strong was the wartime friendship between Britain, the USA and the USSR
1941-1945? http://www.leamingcurve.gov.uklcoldwar/G2/default.htm
34
Graebner. 130.

11
 The year 1966 would witness the traditionalist viewpoint strike back at the

revisionists. Stalin's paranoia and rigidity were at the core of the orthodox stance on

the origins of the Cold War. Arthur M. Schlessinger, Jr. wrote a letter to the New

York Review ofBooks and stated that, "[s]urely the time has come to blow the whistle

before the current outburst of revisionism regarding the origins of the Cold War goes

much further." 35 According Professor Schlesinger, the revisionist thesis was that:

"after the death of Franklin Roosevelt and the end of the Second World War,

the United States deliberately abandoned the wartime policy of collaboration

and, exhilarated by the possession of the atomic bomb, undertook a course of

aggression of its own designed to expel all Russian influence and to establish

democratic·.capitaliststates.on the very border of the Soviet Union."36

Commenting on the case of the Atomic bomb being used to deter the Soviet

problem, which was emphasized by revisionists? Schlesinger stated that, "the

revisionist argument that Truman dropped the bomb less to defeat Japan than to

intimidate Russia is not convincing [although] this thought undoubtedly appealed to

some in Washington as at least the advantageous side effect on Hiroshima."37

The debate between the revisionists and the traditionalists would become

bitter and heated by the end of the 1960's. Yet the two dominating 'different schools

of thought, one led by Williams and the other by Schlesinger would begin to be

counteracted by a new school of thought. Post revisionism grew out of the revisionist

movement in the sense that, "postrevisionsists often stressed many of the same points

35
Ibid. 131.
36
Michael Leigh, "Is There a Revisionist Thesis on the Origins of the Cold War?"
Political Science Quarterly>Vol. 89. No.1 (Mat., 1974): 103.
37
Ibid. 113.

12
made previously by revisionists, including the emphasis on economic factors and the

United State's expansionist postwar agenda.'.38 However, post revisionists would not

accept the conclusions that were being made by the revisionists.

The "father" of post revisionism is considered to be John Lewis Gaddis who

wrote The United States and the Origins of the Cold War: 1941-1947. This

innovative work was published in 1972 and sided with the traditional belief that

" ... Soviet expansionism was the primary cause of the Cold War" and ''that American

officials worried more about the Soviet Union than about the fate of capitalism in

designing the policy .of contaimnent. '.39 Gaddis would make the declaration that post

revisionism exceeded the orthodox explanation in four different areas. According to

Gaddis the new synthesis was based on:

1. Post revisionist historians accept that the United States used

economic instruments to secure political ends.

2. They emphasize that Stalin had no ideological blueprint for

communist world revolution. Instead he is seen by post revisionists

as an opportunist who exploited any opening to advance Russian

national influence.

3. Post revisionists confirm the revisionist contention that the United

States government did at times exaggerate the external danger of

Soviet communism in order to achieve certain internal political

objectives.

38
Edward Crapol, "Some Reflections on the Historiography ofthe Cold War."
The History Teacher> Vol. 20. No.2 (Feb., 1987): 258.
39
Ibid. 258.

13
 4. They accept the existence of an American empire, although they

contend it was primarily a defensive empire, erected by invitation

and not through coercion.40

The final point by Gaddis is where the post revisionists separate themselves from the

traditionalists.

The year 1991 would see the crumbling of the Soviet Union and mark the end

of the Cold War. Could the traditionalists, revisionists, or post revisionists have

imagined that the Cold War would end in the fashion that it did? A plethora of

factors went into the Soviet Union collapsing, which included the massive amounts of

dollars spent on developing an absurd nuclear arsenal and other weapons to keep on

track with the United States for over four decades. In addition, the policies of

glasnost and perestroika set by Mikhail Gorbachev just to name a few. The principal

factor for the end of the most powerful communistic nation lay in the core aspects of

communism itself. Eastern Europeans and Soviets pursued freedom and

independence from the totalitarian governments they lived under, and the people were

the foremost reason for the end of the "Evil Empire."

With the "Iron Curtain" gone, crucial documents would become available to

historians to determine who was at fault for the Cold War. Continuing on with John

Lewis Gaddis and his school of thought, post revisionism, this historiography will

focus in on the post Cold War era and what historians were determining with their

new found knowledge.

Professor Gaddis published the appropriately titled book, We Now Know:

Rethinking Cold War History. Moreover, would Gaddis still stand by the four points
40
Ibid. 259.

14
he pointed out in 1972 and his definition of what a post revisionist was? Dr. Gaddis

alludes to some discontent towards historians who were writing the end of the Cold

War, before it was actually over. In his work, We Now Know, Gaddis stated that

" ... until recently their real histories resembled our imaginary histories of the two

world wars: they lacked equivalent access to archives on each side, and they were

written without knowing how it would all come out. Despite divergent and often

discordant interpretations, all Cold War historians-whether of orthodox, revisionist,

post-revisionist, fell into the unusual habit of working within their chosen period

rather than after it.41 Professor Fleming is the key example of an historian working

within their period, when he stated the west had "lost" the Cold War. A major

turning point in the Cold War indicating that the west was bound to win the Cold War

was in 1961 with the creation of the Berlin Wall. A system that has to build a wall to

keep its people in is bound to lose. Unless you believed the communist camp, when

they referred to the wall as a way to keep capitalism and imperialism out.

Gaddis clearly looks at the "old" history of the Cold War with a very critical

eye. As stated above, he is critical of historians looking at the events and making

predictions, before all of the facts are in. But also, Gaddis points out that the amount

of scholarship of the Cold War was disproportionately geared towards the United

States, its allies, or its clients. The reasons for this are quite simple. The Marxist-

Leninist camp was very careful not to expose its documents and its intentions and

historians of the west had little access. "[U]ntil the late 1980's none had even begun

to open the kind of archives routinely available in the west. "Realist" and

41
Gaddis. 282.

15
"neorealist" theorists of international relations regarded what went on inside people's

heads as hard to measure, and therefore easy to dismiss."42

Throughout We Now Know Gaddis revisits aspects of the Cold War from the

Origins to the Cuban Missile Crisis. His most brilliant work in the book is when

Gaddis proposes questions to correct and help historians and novices grasp the new

knowledge that historians were gathering to connect the pieces of the complex puzzle

known as the Cold War. John Lewis Gaddis proposes hypotheses and explanations

based on the "new'' found historical data and records. One of these hypotheses is

centered on that ''the United States and the Soviet Union built empires after World

War II, although not of the same kind. ,,...3

In regards to the above stated hypothesis, Gaddis, twenty-five years after his

publication of The United States and the Origins of the Cold War, 1941-1947 was

answering two of the four areas he proposed in his accounts of what post revisionism

is. Gaddis uses "new" Cold War history to back the point that Stalin was an

opportunist and would exploit anything to advance Russian national influence. With

the victory of Mao Zedong in China, Stalin looked to Asia to continue with the

expansion of the communist revolution. Stalin pushed for the Chinese to save Kim 11-

Sung during the Korean War. Furthermore, Gaddis suggested " ...that Stalin appears

also to have hoped for an invitation, especially in Germany, perhaps elsewhere in

Eastern Europe, possibly even Japan."44 As the United States and its NATO allies

began to show loyalty and commitment the Soviet Union recognized that its presence

in Eastern Europe did not have the same effect. According to Gaddis, with much

42
Ibid. 282.
43
Ibid. 284.
44
Ibid. 285.

16
confidence, " .. .is why free elections within Moscow's sphere of influence ceased to

be held."45

In We Now Know, Gaddis insinuates that the Americans did indeed create an

empire after World War II. However, it was out of a "by-product of having rushed to

fill a power vacuum in Europe, a reflex that would cause Americans to meddle

wherever else in the world they thought there might be a Soviet threat ... credibility

became the currency in which the United States, like most empires in the past,

counted its assets. 46 "The Americans constructed a new kind of empire-a democratic

empire-for the simple reason that they were, by habit and history, democratic in their

politics ... The Russians, coming out of an authoritarian tradition, knew of no way to

deal with independent thinking other than to smother it. The slightest signs of

autonomy, for Stalin, were heresy, to be rooted out with all the thoroughness of the

Spanish lnquisition.'.47

In concurrence with John Lewis Gaddis, Campbell Craig of the University of

Canterbury, New Zealand proposed the viewpoint that the Cold War was the result of

the hostility of Joseph Stalin and the insecurity it caused in the United States and the

west. Dr. Craig embodies the role of a true post-revisionist as he uses the line of

reasoning that the United States was expanding its economic influence throughout the

globe since 1890. With all of the major global markets shattered from World War II,

45
Ibid. 285.
46
Ibid. 285.
47
1bid. 289.

17
" ... the United States sought to fill the vacuum left by the reduction and retrenchment

of its economic rivals. " 48

Campbell focused on three key events that influenced Truman and his aides to

look at the Soviet Union as a serious long-term threat and with the intentions to

expand its power therefore threatening the security of the United States. "On

February 9, 1946 Stalin delivered a public address in which he revived a form of

volatile communist rhetoric that had been suppressed during war ... On February 16,

1946 the U.S. government announced the discovery of a spy ring in the United States:

agents of.the Soviet Union .. .infiltrating U.S. atomic facilities ... "49 A week later the

infamous "Long Telegram" was received by the American diplomat, George F.

Kennan, in Moscow.

The "father'' of post-revisionism does have his critics and is seen by some as

more of a traditionalist if anything. Professor Ronn Pineo of Towson University

alleges that John Lewis Gaddis continues to support the orthodox view of the origins

of the Cold War even with the new found evidence within the post 1991 Cold War

documents. In the words of Dr. Pineo, " ...most Cold War scholars (if clearly not all

of them) have come to individual conclusions that the new evidence undercuts several

essential assumptions of the orthodox view of the Cold War/'50

Professor Pineo contends with the traditionalist point of view that Stalin did

set up communistic regimes between the Soviet Union and Germany, primarily to

48
Craig Campbell, History In Dispute: Volume 1, The Cold War. Ed. Benjamin Frankel Detroit, St.
James Press, 2000.
49
Ibid. 261.
50
Ronn Pineo, "Recent Cold War Studies." The History Teacher 31, no. 1 (2003). 2.
http://www.historycooperative.orgljournals/ht/3 7.1/pineo.html

18
protect the Soviet Union from a possible future invasion. However, the new

documents reveal that Stalin did not share the belief that the Soviet Union would

press for a world wide revolution in the name of communism, especially in Latin

America where he accepted that that particular region of the world fell within the

American sphere of influence. Stalin also believed that socialism would ultimately

prove the victor over capitalism without the need for all out war to inflict it upon the

people of the world. 51

Another giant of Cold War history is Walter LaFeber who first published

America, Russia. and the Cold War: 1945-1967, in 1967. LaFeber falls under the

classification of"(t]he New Left diplomatic historiography that first emerged in the

1960's and 1970's nearly reversed the picture, portraying the Soviets on the

defensive and American "aggression" as responsible for the near catastrophe and

bitterness that marked the postwar era," 52 Since then~ La.Feber has had his hoek

published six more times to the latest seventh edition which brought his continuing

work to 1992. LaFeber's work, when it was first published in 1967 as ''very

revisionist; today it is widely perceived as the best survey of its subject, an indication

of how much of revisionism (and William's Tragedy's spirit) has been absorbed."53

Professor LaF eber directs his attention towards the late 19th century when

" .. .they first confronted one another on the plains of North China and

Manchuria ... That meeting climaxed a century in which Americans had expanded

51
1bid. 3.
52
Joseph M. Siracusa, "The "New'' Cold War History and the Origins of the Cold War." The
Australian Journal ofPolitics and History 41 no. 1 (2001) Drilke Memorlitl tibrilry: 1nfoTrac.3.
53
Perkins. 11.

19
westward 0ver half the gl0be and Russians moved eastward acr0ss Asia~" 54 From the

beginning of the book LaFeber's work is very much in the revisionist fashion, albeit

not as radical as William Appleman Williams, Tragedy. The center, to the origins of

the Cold War is based primarily around economic factors, which pushed for "open

doors."

LaFeber mentioned the viewpoint of Harry S. Truman in 1941, shortly after

the invasion ofNazi Germany into the Soviet Union. Truman stated, "If we see that

Germany is winning we should help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help

Germany and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see

Hitler victorious under any circumstances."55 Did American forces land in Africa

first so they could drive towards the belly of Europe and strike the Nazis by going

through Italy? Or did American forces want to force their Russian allies to fend for

themselves and exhaust their physical and human resources as much as possible

during the war?

In persisting with the economic opportunities that America needed, LaFeber

pointed out that, "By 1945 the Red Army stood astride Eastern and much of Central

Europe. Roosevelt and Churchill, moreover, would have to discuss Stalin's demands

in a strikingly different world, for the allies were destroying Germany and Japan, two

nations that hist0rically had bl0cked Russian expansi0n int0 Europe and Asia."56

These two nations stood at each end of the Russian empire and blocked it from

spreading further.

54
Waiter taFeber, America Russia and the Coid War: 1945-1992.( New York: Mcdraw-H:iU, tnc.,
1993), 1.

ss Ibid. 6.
56
Ibid. 9.

20
 LaFeber's work in progress from the 60's-90's is strikingly different from that

of Gaddis. To LaFeber, the United States feared a return to the Great Depression

after World War II unless the American government could influence the world

economy to that of"open doors." With the availability of new documents on the

Cold War LaFeber continued to see and had more reason to believe that the economic

policies of the United States helped flame the origins of the Cold War.

Like Gaddis, LaFeber also has those historians who do not look to the "open

doors" as the core root of the Cold War. Professor William R. Forstchen of Montreat

College proposed the viewpoint that Stalin needed the Cold War in order to justify

repression in the U.S.S.R. and Soviet control of Eastern Europe. The Red Army

sacrificed millions to ensure the continuation of the U.S.S.R. as they defended their

nation and then defeated the greatest threat to civilization during the twentieth

century, the Nazi war machine of Germany. But as Eastern Europe was freed from

Nazi tyranny it was replaced with Soviet rule. Because of the nuclear monopoly of

the United States, Stalin was paranoid of an atomic strike on the Kremlin. Forstchen

proposed that "[t]he only alternative then for maintenance of control in the occupied

territories, the continuance of an Orwellian warlike mentality in the homeland, and

the expansion of power was a war of nerves: the Cold War. It served all three

purposes well ... Communists governments were installed, which immediately

received the backing of Soviet troops in the name of communist solidarity." 51

When looking at a spectrum of Gaddis and LaFeber, you would find that

Gaddis would be a bit right of the center and LaFeber would be much more to the left

51
William R. Forstchen, History In Dispute: Volume 6; The Cold War. Detroit, St. James Press,
2000. Showalter, Dennis E. and DuQuenoy, Paul ed.

21
 end of the spectrum. H.W. Brands, the author of The Devil, We Knew: Americans

and the Cold War, promotes the idea that aspects of the Cold War began during the

rise and rule of Lenin. Brands really focuses in on the Yalta conference as the major

turning point in the development of the Cold War. Four main issues evolved around

the Yalta conference; first, the entrance of the Soviet Union into the war in the Pacific

within three months of the defeat of Germany. Second, the partition of Germany

among the Big Three and France. Third, postwar international security organization

(United Nations), and finally the crux of the Yalta conference, the Polish question. 58

According to Brands, "[h]ere the divergence between the Soviet and

American views became clearest ... Stalin [inferred] that Poland for the Soviet Union

was more than a matter of honor: "It is also a question of the security of the state, not

only because we are on Poland's frontier but also because throughout history Poland

had always been a corridor for assaults on Russia." 59 Roosevelt pushed for free

elections to be held in Poland, but a democratic Poland would not be friendly to the

Soviet Union. For the mere reason that Stalin knew the previous statement to be true,

Stalin did not allow for free and open elections in Poland. To H.W. Brands there was

the Polish question and also the German question. Yet, the post World War II world

could be remade to enable the Americans towards " ... remaking of the world political

economy in the image of the American political economy. " 60

Henry Kissinger, the former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State

under President Nixon published a book in 1994 entitled, Diplomacy. Kissinger

58
H.W. Brands, The Oevil We :Knew: Americans and the Cold War. Oxford University Press, 1994.
9
' Ibid. 5-6.
60
Ibid. 12.

22
proposes more a traditionalist point of view on the subject matter. "Truman inherited

Roosevelt's top advisers, and he began his presidency intending to pursue his

predecessor's conception of the Four Policemen."61 Stalin is presented by Kissinger

as a diplomat returning ''to his old ways of conducting foreign policy, and demanded

payment for chis victories in the only currency he took seriously-territorial control. "62

The fall of the Soviet Union led to the opening up of countless resources for

historians to study and come to conclusions based upon the Cold War. However,

agreement between the traditionalists, revisionists, and post-revisionists on how and

why the Cold War started has still not occurred. Access to a wealth of knowledge,

which Cold War historians now have, have led to many historians, such as John

Lewis Gaddis and Walter LaFeber, to finding resources that further back their claims

on the origins of the Cold War. The debate will continue between all of the schools

of thought and a clear concise answer to the question of who started the Cold War

will most likely never be truly determined. Nevertheless, this is a boon for history as

it will keep historians of the past, present, and future continuing to research and

expose information that has not yet been encountered.

61
Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994.
62
1bid. 427.

23
Part 11-0riginal Research

"The great day of victory over Germany has come. Fascist Germany, brought

to its knees by Red Army and Allied forces, has recognized its defeat and announced

unconditional capitulation ... From now on, over Europe will fly the great flag of

freedom for the nations, and peace between the nations ... The time of war in Europe

has come to the end. The time of peaceful development has begun ... "

-Marshal Josef Stalin63

The question of who started the Cold War has been an issue of bitter debate

among historians and policymakers for more than five decades. In the first years of

the Cold War most of what was written in the late 1940s and 1950s about the origins

of the Cold War came to be defined as "orthodox'' or ''traditional." One of the

preeminent traditional historians was Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. who focused on the

Soviet Union as the instigator of the Cold War.

In the late 1950s and 1960s a new interpretation of the sources of the Cold

War emerged and was referred to as "revisionist" because of its dispute with the

orthodox analysis. By the late 1970s a reaction towards revisionism would take

place, headed by John Lewis Gaddis. Professor Gaddis would lead the way as the

"father" of the post revisionist movement throughout the 1980s and into the post Cold

War era. As the archives in the Soviet Union and Soviet-bloc countries opened to

Western scholars, the post-revisionist interpretation of the origins of the Cold War

blazed even brighter.

Traditionalists put the blame for the Cold War on the Soviet Union. They

argued that the Soviets' denial of free elections in Poland and Czechoslovakia, their
63
"An address of Comrade J.V. Stalin to the Nation," Pravda, May 10, 1945

24
interference in Greece, Turkey, and Iran, their assistance to Communist forces in

China, and their opposition to the United States sponsoring postwar plans for

controlling weapons and promoting economic development, such as the Marshall

Plan, caused the Truman administration to take a hard line stance towards

communism. There are differences among traditionalists regarding the driving

motivation behind Soviet conduct, but traditionalists squarely place the blame on the

aggressive actions taken by Stalin and the U.S.S.R. at the end of World War II and

after.

Revisionists argue that Soviet behavior was largely defensive in nature. After

the devastation of World War II, the Soviet leadership was interested in rebuilding its

country and addressing justifiable security concerns, especially making sure that the

countries of east and central Europe would no longer be used as a corridor of invasion

into Russia. Furthermore revisionists stress that it was the United States, driven by a

capitalist need for markets and raw materials that adopted a confrontational, bullying

tone toward the Soviet Union, leading to the outbreak of the Cold War William

Appleman Williams would open the door of revisionism and inspire other scholars

such as Walter LaFeber to question the motives of the United States over the ones of

the Soviet Union. Professor Williams clearly posed the theory that the United States

was an empire, which naturally needed to expand its influence and increase its wealth

and power. Through the market system the U.S. would push for dominating the

marketplace on an international scale.

Post revisionists reject the revisionist interpretation to an extent, but they also

challenge what they consider an excessive emphasis by traditionalists on the role of

25
Communist ideology in guiding Soviet foreign policy. Post revisionist analyses
)

emphasize geopolitical considerations and strategic realities to suggest a more

balanced view of responsibility for the Cold War. Each side was vying for their

spheres of influence throughout the world and it was a race for each of the super

powers. In their writings, however, there is a return to traditionalist themes, as they

point to proactive Soviet actions and to an exceedingly belligerent Soviet rhetoric as

major contributing factors in the breakdown of cooperation between the two countries

and the onset of the Cold War.

My original research will continue to look at the historical debate of the

scholars of the Cold War. However, I will be conducting my own research of

primary sources related to the origins of the Cold War. The primary sources will be

an array of information that focuses on the three major conferences between the "Big

Three" during the Second World War. Issues that were left unresolved would directly

play a part in heightening the Cold War. I will also be examining news articles from

the New York Times and Pravda, a Soviet controlled paper, to comprehend how these

historic events would be reported to the people of the United States, Soviet Union,

and the world. Furthermore, there have been many documents that have been

declassified, which were once considered Top Secret and are now available to the

public. This will lead myself to deem a personal perspective on the origins that led to

this social, political, and economic vie for power within the post World War II era.

Additionally, I want to develop new questions, which could be posed towards the

three schools of thought on the origins of the Cold War. Would the Cold War have

developed or been averted if President Roosevelt had lived longer? How did the

26
relationships change between the leaders of the Grand Alliance during the three major

conferences; Teheran, Yalta, Berlin? IfPoland chose Communism during free

elections, what would the United States have done? Was the Cold War unavoidable

from the time the system of capitalism was developed and the philosophy of

communism? What if the Grand Alliance left with the Poland and German Question

answered and solved?

Traditional questions, which have guided historians as they research the Cold

War, focus on an international context. Such as: "[w]as postwar conflict inevitable

because of the wrenching changes wrought in the international system by the Second

World War? How was power redistributed in that system, and which nation held

most? What restraints and opportunities did the state of the world present to the

United States and the Soviet Union? Which of the two was more responsible for the

Cold War-or must they share responsibility? ... [d]id the Cold War evolve because the

two sides simply misunderstood one another? ... [w]as the Cold War inevitable ... ?',64

Out of necessity World War II would bring two economic systems, which

were poles apart from each other, together out of necessity. The capitalists of Great

Britain and the United States would forge an alliance with the communist nation of

the Soviet Union. The ardent conservative Churchill was not thrilled with the

coalition with the Soviets and in the British Prime Minister's sarcastic sense of humor

stated that, "If Hitler invaded Hell, he [Churchill] would at least make a favourable

64
Merril and Paterson. 202

27
reference to the Devil!"65 However, Roosevelt did not have the same reservations

that Churchill held against the Soviets and Stalin.

In the late fall of 1943 the first of three major conferences would take place in

Tehran, Iran. Ironically, the conferences that would lead to the end of the World War

would also sow the seeds of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet

Union. President Roosevelt would show a sign of immense gratitude towards

Marshal Stalin by staying at a Soviet lodge during his conference in Tehran. To

demonstrate his trust and thanks Josef Stalin had the room Franklin Roosevelt

"bugged" during his stay. 66

The Tehran conference, which was held from November 28-December 1 in,

1943, brought together the President of the United States Franklin Delano Roosevelt,

Great Britain's Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and was hosted by the Premier of

the Soviet Union Josef Stalin. In 1943 Iran was a common ally to all three major

powers and "[t]he common understanding which we have here reached guarantees

that victory will be ours. " 67

Agreements reached at this conference indicate a strong forging of powers,

which would destroy the Nazi regime, and the language which is used deemed that it

would be possible to set up a post World War II era filled with peace and

understanding of the United Nations of the world. "We recognize fully the supreme

responsibility resting upon us and all the United Nations to make a peace which will

command the goodwill of the overwhelming mass of the peoples of the world and

65
Kissinger. 410.
66
Kissinger. 411.
67
Th~ Avalon Project at Yale Law School, "The Tehran Conference,''
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalonlwwiiltehran.htm

28
banish the scourge and terror of war for many generations.,,68 Diplomatic language

that resonated the movement of the world in a positive direction, which would be led

by a new world order of the Soviet Union and the United States. It was quite clear by

this time that the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. would be replacing the traditional dominate

world powers, especially the British, and the world would be within their spheres.

"With our Diplomatic advisors we have surveyed the problems of the future.

We shall seek the cooperation and active participation of all nations, large and small,

whose peoples in heart and mind are dedicated, as are our own peoples, to the

elimination of tyranny and slavery, oppression and intolerance. We will welcome

them, as they may choose to come, into a world family ofDemocratic Nations ... [W]e

look with confidence to the day when all peoples of the world may live free lives,

untouched by tyranny."69 The term democratic nation was used in the discussion, yet

both the United States and the Soviet Union believed that the nations free from

German tyranny would each democratically choose their political and economic

system.

This would be one of the major causes of the Cold War, as many nations

"liberated" from the Nazi's by the Soviets in Europe were poised to choose

government officials who were more sympathetic to the United States. Ironically, the

nation which held the Tehran Conference, Iran, later would choose a socialist leader

Mohammad Mosadeq. The Eisenhower administration would have no part of the

Moscow leaning leader and used this instance to wage a "low-intensity conflict" by

the Central Intelligence Agency and topple the regime. Shah Pahlavi would replace

6S Ibid.
69
Ibid.

29
the former Iranian leader and be a key United States ally until the Iranian revolution

ofl979. 70

Yet at the Tehran Conference the "Big 'Three" stated that, ''the Government of

Iran [it is in] their desire for the maintenance of the independence, sovereignty and

territorial integrity of Iran. They (the Big 'Three) count upon the participation of Iran,

together with all other peace-loving nations, in the establishment of international

peace, security and prosperity after the war, in accordance with the principles of the

Atlantic Charter ... " 71

The conference in Tehran was not one that was held in secret from the world.

A New York Times article reported that a Berlin radio station had heard and

broadcasted the information of the "Big Three" meeting, "somewhere in the Middle

East ... and that Premier Stalin on his way to meet them, had arrived at Teheran,

lran. 72

Tadeusz Romer, the Polish Foreign Minister was looking forward to hearing

about the agreements atthe Tehran conference. According to an article, "[h]e said it

was imperative that such an understanding should be reached before the Soviet troops

entered Polish territory, which he pointed out, might happen soon." 73 Poland had

grave concerns on the encroaching Soviets as they knew it was Poland, which was the

gateway of the Germans on their way to invading the Soviet Union twice in the last

thirty years.

70
Showalter and DuQuenoy. 131.
71
The Avalon Project "Tehran Conference."
72
"Conference Begun, Berlin Says," New York Times, Nov. 30, 1943, ProQuest Historical Newspapers
73
"Poles Watching Conference," New York Times, Dec. 4, 1943, ProQuest Historical Newspapers

30
 According to the agreements made at the conference Poland would have

nothing to fear, as all nations would have sovereignty following the war. In addition,

democracy and choices of the citizenry would guide the future of the world with the

three powers ensuring these rights. Yet, this was not to be as the Soviets would

simply replace the Nazis as a brutal occupying force and some of the concentration

camps would change into gulags for the U.S.S.R. Most importantly the country of

Poland would play a major role in the origins of the Cold War. The Poles were to be

allowed to choose their own system of government, yet when the people were willing

to accept the American model of government the U.S.S.R. enforced communism and

turned the nation into a satellite within their "buffer zone."

With the Tehran conference also came the realization that the tide was in fact

turning against the Nazis. The "Grand Alliance" was coming together and

strategically defeating the Axis powers and it was only a matter of time before the

maliciousness of the Nazis would be dealt its fmal blow. According to an article

titled, Allies Achieve Unity For War And The Peace, "[t]he presence of military

advisers in Teheran suggests that the problem of coordinating the Russian attack in

the east with an Anglo-American invasion in the west was undoubtedly under

review." 74 Finally the Anglo-American alliance would open up its offensive against

Germany and the Soviets, upon the defeat of Germany, would declare war on Japan

and look to gain revenge for the humiliating loss to Japan in the early portion of the

20th century.

74
"Allies Achieve Unity For War And The Peace," New York Times, Dec. 5, 1943, ProQuest Historical
Newspapers

31
 Finally in looking at the historic Teheran conference did Stalin have a great

respect for President Roosevelt and vice versa. "It was a great concession, and a

spectacular bid for Russian friendship, for Mr. Roosevelt to take the long, hard and

risky journey ... to fulfill his desire to meet the Soviet leader face to face ... [I]t was

also a great concession for Mr. Stalin to travel even a short distance beyond the

bounds of Russia to meet the President of the United States. It was widely predicted

that he never would. It is more than he has done for any reason for thirty years. It is

more than he did for Mr. Churchill."75 Was Franklin Roosevelt the binding force of

the Grand Alliance? Was this someone Josef Stalin felt he could work with and could

trust~ "[T]he most significant thing about the Teheran conference is that Stalin was

there."76 Not only was Stalin there, he was considered "the life of the party.'m The

boisterous Bolshevik "Toasted Him (President Roosevelt) and Churchill as 'Fighting

Friend' ... There is no doubt that all got on excellently. The day after Mr. Roosevelt

had moved into the Russian Embassy, Premier Stalin gave a dinner for him there with

a colossal Russian menu, including plenty of caviar." The time spent between the

three leaders was not purely diplomacy and meetings; the Grand Alliance was making

strides towards a peaceful post World War II world with the first meeting of the 'Big

Three' ... what happened?

Marshal Stalin was the leader of a totalitarian state in which he made all of the

final decisions, including many of the battle decisions during the war. Traditionally

the Soviets/Russians were islolated and mistrustful of the West and would be seen

75
"Abroad; Stalin's Record Breaking Trip to Teheran," New York Times, Dec. 6, 1943, ProQuest
Historical Newspapers
761bid.
77
"Personal Contact Close in Teheran," New York Times, Dec. 7, 1943, ProQuest Historical
Newspapers

32
throughout the Cold War. Furthermore, he was the face of the Bolshevik Revolution

and his propaganda posters were everywhere, even though many Soviets had never

seen him in person. 78 Would there be an "enduring peace" 79 that could be constructed

and respected?

From February 4th-11th of 1945 the Grand Alliance would reconvene for the

second of the three major conferences deciding the fate of the Axis powers and the
'

future of the world. Much had changed since the meeting in Iran, such as the

expansion of the Soviet Union into Eastern Europe and the historic D-Day invasion; it

was only a matter of time until V - E Day would take place.

There was a feeling of optimism surrounding the Yalta Conference and

avoiding the mistakes of World War I. By February 15, of 1945 the meeting in the

Crimea was being reported and also the plans for the San Francisco meeting for the

United Nations. "It has long been certain that the United Nations would win a

military victory. Now we can reasonably hope that they will also be able to create a

just, secure and lasting peace... The last Nazi will not have been disarmed by April

25 ... But this conference, if it is as successful as it promises to be, will be as decisive

as a great military victory. It can make peace and freedom the way of the future. It

can put a final period to the German-Japanese conspiracy to destroy civilization.',so

Unfortunately this would not be the state of affairs in the post war world.

This would also be the last meeting of the original Big Three as President

Roosevelt was in failing health. Nevertheless, FDR traveled many miles to push his

78
1bid.
79
"Allied Blueprints," New York Times, Dec. 5, 1943, ProQuest Historical Newspapers
80
"The Road Toward Peace," New York Times, Feb. 15, 1945, ProQuest Historical Newspapers

33
ideas upon Stalin about a post war world. The conference was held at a lavish white

granite palace overlooking the Black Sea, which Tsar Nicholas II had built in 1911 .

It seems that Josef Stalin did not mind living like the Tsar's and the ideals that the

Bolshevik Revolution fought against.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt knew it would not be wise for the United States to

hold back its power as it did after World War I. Yet did and could Roosevelt have

predicted the conflict, which evolved into theThe Cold War? President Roosevelt

knew of the natural opposing forces of capitalism and communism, but with the

United Nations coming to fruition it could be possible that these nations could coexist

peacefully. The world body organization, which FDR's mentor Woodrow Wilson

pressed for after World War I, would bring the nations together to prevent the horrors

of another world war.

The World Organization coming together was at the top of the agenda for

President Roosevelt for the post war world. Woodrow Wilson pressed for the United

States to join the League of Nations following World War I, but met stiff resistance

from the Republican dominated senate. At the Yalta conference, the date for the
81
United Nations was set for April 25th of 1945. Did FDR see the future as a timt; 9f

coexistence where problems and crises could be presented and solved at the United

Nations? The diplomacy among the "Big Three," though not perfect, was progressive

and must have been encouraging when seen on paper.

"The Government of the United States of America, on behalf of itself and of

the Governments of the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and

81
The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, "The Yalta Conference,"
http://www.yale.edu/1awweb/avalonlwwii/yalta.htm

34
the Republic of China and the Provisional Government of the French Republic invite

the Government of------- to send representatives to a conference to be held on 25

April, 1945, or soon thereafter, at San Francisco, in the United States of America, to

prepare a charter for a general international organization for the maintenance of

international peace and secwity.',82 Finally, the mentee of Woodrow Wilson w~

bringing to life a world body where the United States would be a crucial component

and host the world body on U.S. soil.

The Yalta conference also included the treatment of Europe once the Nazis

were completely defeated. "The Premier of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,

the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the President of the United States of

America have consulted with each other in the common interests of the people of

their countries and those of liberated Europe. They jointly declare their mutual

agreement to concert during the temporary period of instability in liberated Europe

the policies of their three Governments in assisting the peoples liberated from the

domination ofNazi Germany and the peoples of the former Axis satellite states of

Europe to solve by democratic means their pressing political and economic

problems ... democratic institutions ... oftheir own choice ... a principle of the Atlantic

Charter-the right of all people to choose the form of government under which they

With the destruction of Germany would come the end to a nation which

within fifty years had been on the losing side of two world wars. Germany had also

caused destruction on an immeasurable scale, especially in the Soviet Union. Yet the

82
Ibid.
83
1bid.

35
British and the Americans both realized that the oppression of the Gennan people

through extreme reparations could lead to disaster once again. France and the Soviets

had different viewpoints and would have settled on a much more destructive

treatment of Germany. At Yalta, the dismemberment of Germany would be decided

upon to create peace and stability, yet the nation would play a crucial part throughout

the Cold War. "The United Kingdom, the United States of America and the Union of

Soviet Socialist Republics shall possess supreme authority with respect to Germany.

In the exercise of such authority they will take take such steps, including the complete

dismemberment of Germany as they deem requisite for future peace and securit.Y~"
84

Traditionalists and post-revisionists will point to Poland very promptly when

placing the blame for the Cold War on the Soviet Union. At the Yalta conference the

people of Poland, like the rest of the nations liberated from Nazi tyranny, would

achieve the right to choose their government through democratic means. "A new

situation has been created in Poland as a result of her complete liberation by the Red

Army. This calls for the establishment of a Polish Provisional Government which can

be more broadly based than was possible before the recent liberation of the western

part of Poland. The Provisional Government which is now functioning in Poland

should therefore be reorganized on a broader democratic basis with the inclusion of

democratic leaders from Poland itself and from Poles abroad. This new Government

should then be called the Polish Provisional Government of National Unity."8s

At the time of the meeting there were six to seven million Poles living in the

United States and President Roosevelt felt, that they would play a major role in the

84
Ibid.
85
Ibid.

36
 elections back home. Many of the Poles pressed for what land would be given to

foland after the end of the war. However, the most important issue being brought up

by the U.S. President, influenced by the Poles, was "A government which would

represent all five major parties is what is wanted."86 During the meeting with Stalin

and Churchill it was evident that Roosevelt wanted a freely elected Poland, but he

also specifically mentioned to Stalin, "[w]e want a Poland that will be thoroughly

friendly to the Soviet for years to come, This is essential."87 Prime Minister Win~~m

Churchill was vocal in the freedom of Poland. He stated, " .. .I am more interested in

the question of Poland's sovereign independence and freedom ... we drew our sword

for Poland against Hitler's brutal attack."88

Prior to the Yalta Conference there were concerns within the Polish

Government in London, a group of Poles dedicated to keeping the realization of

Polish sovereignty after World War II. In January of 1945 Polish representatives

"handed to United States Secretary of State Edward R. Stettitius Jr. and British

Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden documentary particulars of alleged deportations and

transfers of Polish populations by the Soviet government."89 As the Soviets pushed

the Nazis out of Poland, the Polish government ordered the Polish Home Army to

cooperate with the Red Army. The Soviet Union took drastic steps and actually had

commanders arrested and began to disarm the Polish home army. Soviet

expansionism was beginning before the war was over and it is very likely Soviet

86
Notes on Meeting at Yalta Between the Big Three 4-8 p.m., Feb. 6
http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/coldwar/documents/episode-2/05-0 l.htm
87
Ibid.
88
Ibid.
119
"Protest of Poles Backed By .Britain," New York Times, Feb. 20, 1945, ProQuest Historical
Newspapers

37
Union knew they had to infiltrate their occupied territory with pro-Stalin and pro-

Soviet representatives in Eastern Europe. According to the article, "[b]y Oct. 10 in

the Lublin area, at least 21,000 Poles had been arrested, it was alleged, and the

liquidation of the Home Army and underground personnel was being carried out by

impri~onment ~<1 <J~p()$tiQn ... ••90

During the Yalta Conference President Roosevelt wrote a personal letter to

Marshall Stalin stating his personal concerns over Poland. On February 6, two days

into the conference Roosevelt stated in his letter," ... so far as the Polish Government

is concerned, I am greatly disturbed that the three great powers do not have a meeting

of minds about the political setup in Poland. It seems to me that it puts all of us in a

bad light throughout the world to have you recognizing one government while we and

the British are recognizing another in London... Surely there is a way to reconcile our

differences ... I have to make it clear to you that we cannot recognize the Lublin

government as now composed .. .It goes without saying that any interim government

which could be formed as a result of our conference with the Poles here would be

pledged to the holding of free elections in Poland at he earliest possible date. I know

this is completely consistent with your desire to see a new free and democratic Poland

emerge from the welter of this war."91

Roosevelt knew the Soviets were paranoid of a possible revival of Germany

and rightfully so. Historically, it was Poland which the French led by Napoleon

Bonaparte and then the Germans, twice in less than thirty-five years, used as a

90
Ibid.
91
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, "Top Secret, Attachment to Notes, Fourth Formal Meeting of
Crimean Coriference, !/P.M.. February 7,
1945.http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/coldwar/documents/episode-2/06-0l.htm

38
corridor to attack the heart of the U.S.S.R. The Soviets lost twenty million men and

women of its population during the brutal Second World War, which was obviously

prevalent at the Yalta conference. Marshal Stalin referred to his future satellite nation

by stating, "Russia today is against the Czarist policy of abolition of Poland. We

have completely changed this inhuman policy and started a policy of friendship and

independence for Poland. "92

Two months removed from the Yalta Conference Marshal Stalin was such

good "friends" with the "independent" Poles that he and the Soviet Union posed a

request that the Soviet sponsored Polish Provisional Government be invited to the San

Francisco Security Conference. The United States and Great Britain stood firmly

together against inviting the Soviet backed Polish government, and the jovial "Uncle

Joe" Stalin of the Tehran conference must have seen so far removed. Ambassador Sir

Archibald, "made inquiries of the Russians concerning the whereabouts of the

"missing Polish underground leaders/' but the only thing the Ambassador was able to

report back to th~ Briti~h Q9vernment W!ls. th~t inquiries were being m~e."93

With the protests of the Polish, how could President Roosevelt not take a

stronger stance against Josef Stalin? Did FDR believe that taking a strong stance

against the Soviet Union and their actions in Poland could lead to the break up of

their now shaky relationship? As the war came to a close could we coexist in a post

World War IT world?

The Polish question would not be resolved and would play a major role in the

development of the origins of the Cold War.

92
Notes on Meeting at Yalta
93
"New Russian Note On Polish Dispute," New York Times, April19, 1945, ProQuest Historical
Newspapers

39
 The Red Army "liberated" the nation of Poland but the Polish citizens soon

saw the Soviet army as another brutal occupying force simply replacing the Nazis and

their wickedness. Stalin believed that Poland would elect the Soviet implanted

communist leaders to guide their nation towards the socialist state of a workers

paradise. However, whether the Poles chose communism or not Stalin believed that

"[t]his war is not as in the past; whoever occupies a territory also imposes on it his

own social system. Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach.

It cannot be otherwise."94 This example of realpolitik by Stalin was not the intentions

of the post war agreement and certainly not what President Roosevelt envisioned in a

world led by the United Nations.

When total victory was achieved in Europe by the Grand Alliance, the Soviet

Union would enter the war against Japan in return for territory it had lost dating back

to the Russo-Japanese War. "The leaders of the three great powers-the Soviet Union,

the United States of America and Great Britain-have agreed that in two or three

months after Germany has surrendered and the war in Europe is terminated, the

Soviet Union shall enter into war against Japan on the side of the Allies ... " 95

From July 17 to August 2, 1945 the Potsdam Conference would take place

between the "Big Three." However, the faces of the leaders of the Grand Alliance

had changed quite a bit. "Uncle Joe" Stalin would still be in charge of the Soviet

Union and therefore representing the U.S.S.R. Prime Minister Churchill was in

attendance at the Potsdam Conference, yet during the conference his party was voted

out of power from the British Parliament and Clement Atlee would come to represent

94
Kissinger. 417.
95
The Avalon Project "Yalta Conference."

40
Great Britain. Harry S. Truman took over for President Roosevelt upon his death

completing the new look Grand Alliance. President Truman kept personal notes

while he attended the Potsdam Conference and well into the meeting of the three

major powers Truman was demonstrating how distraught he was over the Soviet

Union and its Ut¢-cs~ <;>n ltJ.ly 26th ~f 1945 he wr~~' "The C9mm~~ Party in
Moscow is no different in its methods and actions toward the common man than were

the Czar and the Russian Noblemen (so called: they were anything but noble) Nazis

and Fascists were worse. It seems that Sweden, Norway, Denmark and perhaps

Switzerland have the only real peoples governments on the Continent of Europe. But

the rest are a bad lot from the standpoint of the people who do not believe in
96
tyranny." So far into the conference it w9~4 ~ve b~~n tm1ikely th~t T11liil~ CQWd

have had a positive feeling about the outcome of the rest of the meeting and the post

war world.

President Truman would be at the Potsdam Conference knowing that the

Soviet Union would be getting ready to join the British and the Americans against the

Japanese in the Pacific War. A major achievement by the United States government

had taken place with the success of the "Manhattan Project." Harry S. Truman did

tell Josef Stalin about the Atomic Bomb, which was successfully tested on July 16,

1945. On a personal note attached to a picture of a meeting Truman wrote down the

following line, "This is the place I told Stalin about the Atom Bomb ... He didn't

96
President Harry S. Truman PeFSonal Notes, July 26, l-945,
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_ collectionslbomb/large/documents/B04_ 0 ...

41
realize what I was talking about!..."97 With the development of the A-bomb the

Soviet Union would not be needed in the final offensive against Japan.

At the Potsdam Conference Germany dominated the talks of agreements

between the Allies. "[S]upreme authority in Germany is exercised; on instructions

form their respective Governments, by the Commanders-in-Chief of the armed forces

of the United States of America, the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist

Republics~ and the French Republic, each in his own zone of occupation."98

"To prepare for the eventual reconstruction of German political life on a

democratic basis and for eventual peaceful cooperation in international life by

Germany... During the period of occupation Germany shall be treated as a single

economic unit."99 General Eisenhower recognized the sacrifices made by the Soviet

Union in defeating the Nazis of Germany and because of this the Soviets would be

allowed to enter the city of Berlin as the conquerors of Germany. The Red Army had

defeated a wicked foe and would relish by showing the people of Germany that the

nation, which Hitler wanted to destroy had survived and was now walking down the

streets of Berlin in control.

While the Soviets were in Berlin, they took advantage of the time to begin to

infiltrate the city with communists and also would take control of all outlets of media

and place pro-Soviet workers within the city. Berlin was to be communist if the

Soviets had their way.

97
President Harry s. Tftiifian Petsonal Notes,
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collectionslbomb/sma1Vmb06.htm
98
The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, "The Potsdam Conference,"
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decade 17 .htm
99
1bid.

42
 The Polish question at the Potsdam Conference seemed to be under control by

the allies. "The Three Powers note that the Polish Provisional Government of

National Unity, in accordance with the decisions of the Crimea Conference, has

agreed to the holding of free and unfettered elections as soon as possible on the basis

of universal suffrage and secret ballot in which all democratic and anti-Nazi parties

shall have the right to take part and to put forward candidates, and that representatives

of the Allied press shall enjoy full freedom to report to the world upon developments

in Poland before and during the elections." 100

With the end of the war the final of the "Big Three Meetings" should have

been a time where the conditions of peace for the post World War ll world should

have been set between the United States and the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, there

were still uncertainties between the nations, which brought an end to the most

destructive war ever witnessed on the face of this earth. James Reston wrote about

the "new order'' which was being formed in contrast to Hitler's dream. "A "new

order'' is finally being worked out for Europe as Adolf Hitler predicted ... The great

difference is that it is being planned not by the German Fuehrer and his Italian

Henchman but by the leaders of three nations which Hitler helped bring into coalition

almost against their will." 101 It was prevalent throughout the war that the relationship

between the United States and the Soviet Union was one based on necessity and there

was great mistrust amid the two new superpowers of the world.

100
Ibid.
101
"Three Big Uncertainties at Big Three Meeting," New York Times, July 22, 1945, ProQuest
Historical Newspapers

43
 Victory had been achieved in Europe but Reston reported on the concerns of

the post world. At the Potsdam conference there was a fear of uncertainty~ "others

here are afraid that this very rigidity of the Russians, backed by geographical position

and strength, will impose on Europe a system which neither the peoples of Europe

nor of Britain and the United States will be prepared to sustain." 102 Other major

concerns were over the commitment of the Soviet Union to allowing the people of

Europe, under their sphere of influence, to actually freely choose their leaders and

live by their own free will, Poland being the perfect example. Of course the German

Question would still also be unresolved by the end of the third meeting of the "Big

Three."

Marshall Stalin and the Soviets would agree to allow the nations of Eastern

Europe to choose their own governments in free elections. Stalin agreed to the

condition only because he believed that these newly liberated nations would see the

Soviet Union as their savior and create their own Communist governments. When

they failed to do so, Stalin violated the agreement by wiping out all opposition to

communism in these nations and setting up his own governments in Eastern Europe.

The Cold War had begun with these actions. The world would be divided into

opposing camps by the United States of America and the Soviet Union. Each would

accuse the other of having plans to take over the world and impose their will on the

people of the world. The Soviet Union accused the United States as being

imperialists and exploiting the resources of the world for their own benefit. Josef

Stalin pushed forth the idea that it was the Soviet Union which would continue on

with the crusade of the peasants and workers of the world. President Truman spoke
102
Ibid.

44
of two spheres one free and the other bent on subjugating struggling nations. The

United States and other democratic nations accused the Soviets of imposing their

ideologies on emerging nations to increase their power and sphere of influence.

Western nations envisioned themselves as the champions of freedom and justice,

saving the world for democracy. Or were both nations working for their own security

and economic advancements?

It is my opinion that both the United States and the Soviet Union were both

influenced by a national agenda The United States needed Europe to rebound from

the war for its own economic gain. America could not have prospered if the

Europeans were held down by a depression or communistic aggression. The system

used by the Soviet Union was considered to be a world wide revolution. There is no

denying that communists wanted to spread their system around the world. At the

same time the Soviet Union had faced much destruction from two World Wars and

wanted security from any possibility of a future attack.

I also believe that if the Poland and German questions were resolved by the

end of the Potsdam Conference the potential for both the United States and the Soviet

Union were too great for both countries to sit idle and take their place in the world as

Alexis de Tocqueville had predicted. With the official demise of the British Empire

the markets of the world were ready to be tapped into by the United States. With the

weakening of the Colonial powers the third world nations of the world were also

vulnerable as they sought sovereignty but also economic assistance. The perfect

recipe was created for both the United States and the Soviet Union to infiltrate and

expand their spheres of influence.

45
 A plethora of circumstances led to the heating up of the Cold War following

World War II. The natural opposing economic and political systems of the

Americans and Soviets were prevalent prior to the Three Major Conferences. Amid

the issues that would at first divide Europe would clearly go onto dividing the rest of

the world. The two superpowers that arose after World War II were poised

militaristically, socially, and economically. The tensions and engagements would be

unprecedented as the conflict was fought on every continent of the world and the

competition would drive the governments and the people themselves against each

other to the brink.

46
Bibliography: Parts I and II

Brands, H.W. The Devil We Knew: Americans and the Cold War. Oxford
University Press, 1994.

Crapol, Edward. "Some Reflections on the Historiography of the Cold War."

The History Teacher> Vol. 20, No.2 (Feb., 1987), pp. 251-262

Flaherty, Patrick. "Origins of the Cold War." Monthly Review 48, no. 1 (1996).
Drake Memorial Library: lnfoTrac.

Frankel, Benjamin, ed. History in Dispute: Volume 1, The Cold War. Detroit, St.
James Press, 2000.

Gaddis, John Lewis. We Now Know: Rethinking the Cold War. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1997.

Graebner, Norman A. "Cold War Origins and the Continuing Debate.''

The Journal ofConflict Resolution>Vol. 13, No. 1 (Mar., 1969), pp. 123-132

Heilbrunn, Jacob. "The Origins of the Cold War in Europe." The New Republic 211 ,
no.
7 (1994). Drake Memorial Library: lnfoTrac.

Leigh, Michael. "Is There a Revisionist Thesis on the Origins of the Cold War?"
Political Science Quarterly> Vol. 89, No. 1(Mar., 1974), pp. 101-116

Judge, Edward H. and Langdon, John W. ed. The Cold War: A History Through
Documents. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1999.

Kennan, George F., George F. Kennan Memoirs: 1950-1963 New York: Pantheon
Books, 1972.

Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994.

LaFeber, Walter. America Russia and the Cold War: 1945-1992. New York:
McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993.

Learning Curve. Did the Cold War really start in the period 1919-1939.
http://www.learningcurve.gov. uklcold war/G 1/default.htm

Learning Curve. How strong was the wartime friendship between Britain, the USA
and the USSR 1941-1945?
http://www.learningcurve.gov.uklcold war/G2/default.htm

Learning Curve. Who caused the Cold War?

47
http://www.leamingcurve.gov.uk/cold war/G3/default.htm
Leuchtenburg, William E., and the Editors of Life, The Great Age ofChange. New
York:
Time Incorporated, 1964.

Levering, Ralph B., Vladimir 0. Pechatnov, Verena Botzenhart-Viehe, and C. Earl

Edmondson. Debating the Origins ofthe Cold War: American and Russian
Perspectives. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield
Publishers, Inc. 2002.

Merrill, Dennis and Thomas G. Paterson. Ed. Major Problems in American Foreign
Relations vol. w, Fifth ed. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 2000.

New York Times, "Abroad; Stalin's Record Breaking Trip to Teheran," Dec. 6, 1943,
ProQuest Historical Newspapers

New York Times, "Allies Achieve Unity For War And The Peace," Dec. 5, 1943,
ProQuest Historical Newspapers

New York Times, "Allied Blueprints," Dec. 5, 1943, ProQuest Historical Newspapers

New York Times, "Conference Begun, Berlin Says,''Nov. 30, 1943, ProQuest
Historical Newspapers

New York Times, "New Russian Note On Polish Dispute," April19, 1945, ProQuest
Historical Newspapers

New York Times, "Personal Contact Close in Teheran," Dec. 7, 1943, ProQuest
Historical Newspapers

New York Times, "Poles Watching Conference," Dec. 4, 1943, ProQuest Historical
Newspapers

New York Times, "Protest of Poles Backed By Britain," Feb. 20, 1945, ProQuest
Historical Newspapers

New York Times, "The Road Toward Peace," Feb. 15, 1945, ProQuest Historical
Newspaper-s

"Three Big Uncertainties at Big Three Meeting," New York Times, July 22, 1945,
ProQuest Historical Newspapers

Notes on Meeting at Yalta Between the Big Three 4-8 p.m., Feb. 6
http://www.gwu.edu/%?Ensarchiv/coldwar/documents/episode-2/05-0 l.htm

48
Perkins, Bradford. "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy: Twenty-Five Years after."
ReviewsinAmericanHistory>Vo1.12.No.1 (Mar., 1984),pp.l-18

Pineo, Ronn. "Recent Cold War Studies." The History Teacher 37, no. 1 (2003).
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/3 7.1/pineo.html

Pravda "An address of Comrade J.V. Stalin to the Nation," May 10, 1945

Roberts, Geoffrey. "Stalin's Drive to the West, 1938-1945: The Origins of the Cold
War." Europe-Asia Studies 49 no. 8 (1997). Drake Memorial Library: lnfoTrac.

Roosevelt, President Franklin Delano "Top Secret, Attachment to Notes, Fourth

Formal Meeting ofCrimean Conference, 4P.M, February 7,
J945.http://www.gwu.eduf0/o7Ensarchiv/coldwar/documents/episode-2/06-01.htm

Seabury, Paul. "Cold War Origins, I"

Journal ofContemporary History>Vol. 3, No. 1(Jan., 1968),pp.l69-182

Showalter, Dennis E. And DuQuenoy, Paul ed. History in Dispute: Volume 6, The
Cold War. Detroit, St. James Press, 2000.

Siracusa, Joseph M. "The ''New'' Cold War History and the Origins of the Cold
War."
The Australian Journal ofPolitics and History 47 no. 1 (2001) Drake Memorial
Library:
lnfoTrac

The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, "The Potsdam Conference,"

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalonldecade/decade17.htm

The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, "The Tehran Conference,"

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalonlwwii/tehran.htm

The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, "The Yalta Conference,"

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalonlwwii/yalta.htm

The Fog of War. DVD. Directed by Errol Morris (2004; Sony Pictures Classics)

Truman, President Harry S. Personal Notes, July 26, 1945,

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_ collections/bombllarge/documents/B
04 0 ...

Walker, Samuel J. "The Origins of the Cold War in United States History
Textbooks."

49
The Journal ofAmerican History> Vol. 81. No.4 (Mar., 1995), pp. 1652-1661

Williams, William A. Tragedy ofAmerican Diplomacy. Cleveland and New York:

The World Publishing Company, 2001.

50
Part III: Curriculum Development-Option 1-Essay

Origins of the Cold War

On December 31, 1991 the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics came to a

cease and dissolved as a world superpower. For much of the 20th century the world

witnessed the United States and the Soviet Union square off against each other

politically, economically, and of course militarily. Each power pushed each other to

the brink during the Cold War and the tension between them almost led to a nuclear

holocaust in October of 1962. The Cold War did end with an American victory,

however, the crises that face the United States today can be directly correlated back to

the era of the Cold War.

To be able to make a positive change, citizens of today must have an

understanding of what is going on in the world around them. In addition, people must

also comprehend the origins of the problems and situations within our global

community that we all are facing currently. The subject of social studies allows for

people to learn about the past and the effect it has on the world today and will have on

them in the future.

The Cold War and its origins occurred over a span of time and at the core of

the conflict were the economic systems of the United States and Soviet Union.

Historians have debated which nation actually started the Cold War since the

evolution of the severe tension between the two superpowers that emerged after

World War ll. Did capitalism drive the Americans to create an empire based around

acquiring natural resources and markets for their goods? Or was the Soviet threat one

51
that truly would endanger the entire world if the United States did not keep the

Soviets contained?

Teaching about the origins of the Cold War requires the educator to present a

plethora of information which must be understood by their students. There are

numerous books, journals, museums, and websites which have an enormous amount

of documents and historical information available to use when teaching the Cold War.

In spite of this, how does a teacher create and use these materials in a useful and

educational way that will allow students to form their own opinions and add to the

discussion on who started the Cold War.

Framework:

The origins of the Cold War are extremely complex and cannot be truly

understood with a minimal investigation into this topic. The following curriculum

was developed to be used with an International Baccalaureate class called History of

the Americas. Lessons and materials were created to enable the students to develop

an in-depth understanding of the origins of the Cold War encompassing the years

1943-1949. Furthermore, educators need to enlighten the students on differing

viewpoints of historians and their interpretations on the origins of the Cold War.

History of the Americas takes place over two-years and the second year of

the course concentrates on 20th century topics. Quite naturally the Cold War

dominates the class because of the involvement of the United States and the Soviet

Union in world affairs from 1945 to 1991. The course is rigorous and students are

expected to work at the collegiate level to develop a deep comprehension of the

material and conflicting viewpoints of the era being researched. As an educator and

52
student of history the History of the Americas allows for a proper investigation of the

past, which benefits the students and is a chance for the educator to teach a college

level course to high school students.

I. Alignment to the International Baccalaureate Curriculum

D. Where to Begin?

• Alexis de Tocqueville and AdolfHitler

• The Big Three

• New York Times Articles

III. Working with Primary Sources: Three Major Conferences

• The Tehran Conforence (1943)

• The Yalta Conference (1945)

• The Berlin/Potsdam Conference (1945)

IV. Compare and Contrast: Looking at Differing Perspectives

• Joseph Stalin's Election Speech (1946)

• Winston Churchill's Iron Curtain Speech (1946)

V. Frayer Model: Understanding Terms and Events

VI. Final Assessments: Using Technology and the Written Word

• Windows Movie Maker: Understanding the Origins of the Cold

War

• RAFT: (Role, Audience, Format, Topic)

VII. Conclusion

VIII. Resource List and Works Cited

53
 )( Sources used in gathering information and creating lessons on the

Cold War

IX. Worksheets

I. Alignment to the International Baccalaureate Curriculum

The work presented within this course portfolio is directed towards meeting

the curriculum and standards of the International Baccalaureate class; History of the

Americas. Students are required to retain a plethora of information on a variety of

20th century topics including the origins of the Cold War. Furthermore, International

Baccalaureate students should also have the knowledge of how historical events have

been viewed and interpreted by a variety of historical perspectives for. The origins of

the Cold War is a notable topic for the reason that many historians have debated this

topic. Students must also be able to develop their own particular viewpoint on

historical events and be able to express themselves through the written word on their

major examinations at the end of the year.

Portions of these lessons would be applicable to both Global Studies 10 and

the United States History curriculum. The following information would enable the

teacher to add information, which may not be required by the social studies

curriculum, to present a well balanced view on the beginnings of the Cold War. Each

of the lessons and material presented were also created in accordance with the New

York State Social Studies Standards; Standard 1-History of the United States and

New York, Standard 2-World History, Standard 4- Economic, and Standard 5-Civics,

Citizenship, and Government.

D. Where to Begin?:

54
 I like to begin the course by having students reflect on how and where the

United States is currently involved in the world today. Students usually think of the

obvious answers such as Iraq and Afghanistan and give a limited response on why we

are there and why we are fighting. I also ask students if they feel the United States is

a world leader and if they are truly acting in the best intentions of the people of the

world or if we are self driven seeking out our own national interests. Furthermore, I

also inquire if they know when the United States became one of two global powers

seeking to influence the world and if we should still be acting in this manner.

Upon completion of our class conversation based around where the United

States is involved today and how we arrived at the point of a major global power I

have students look at two fascinating quotes; one by Alexis de Tocqueville in 1835

and the other by Adolf Hitler in 1945.

"There are now two great nations in the world, which starting from different points, seem to be
advancing toward the same goal: the Russians and the Anglo-Am.ericans ... [E]ach seems called by
some secret design of providence one day to hold in its hands the destinies of half the world."
-Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835

"With the defeat ofthe Reich and pending the emergence of the Asiatic, the African, and perhaps the
South American nationalisms, there will remain in the world only two Great Powers capable of
confronting each other-the United States and Soviet Russia. The laws of both history and geography
will compel these two Powers to a trial of strength, either military or in the fields of economics and
ideology."
-AdolfHitler, 1945

Both of the quotes allude to the point that the Soviet Union (Russia in the case

of Alexis de Tocqueville) and the United States would become the preeminent powers

of the world. Both individuals were correct. Upon completion of a brief discussion

of the quotes I have the students take a gallery tour and look over pictures of the Big

Three at the major conferences and reflect on how the leaders of the United States

(Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman), Great Britain (Winston Churchill,

55
Clement Atlee) and the Soviet Union (Joseph Stalin) were portrayed to the public.

News articles and propaganda of the era are also used to display how the public

persona of the times portrayed the three nations as tremendous allies on their

destination to destroy fascism around the globe. (Appendix A)

To help students understand how they will interpret historian's viewpoints on

who was responsible for starting the Cold War, I use a segment from Owosing

Viewpoints in World History: The Cold War. The book does a wonderful job giving

viewpoints to a number of topics throughout the Cold War. Very early on in the book

it describes the schools of thought that surround the origins of the Cold War. "From

the earliest days of the Russian Revolution until the end of the Cold War, Moscow

viewed the United States as unalterably hostile." 103 Thus is the viewpoint of Glenn

Chafetz describing how the Soviets feared the advancement of the Americans, which

would occur after the defeat of the Nazi's in Germany. Historian Mary Hampton

posits that the Soviet's and the American's was self-interest at the heart of what they

wanted to accomplish during the Cold War.

"Arguments that seek to explain the Cold War competition in terms ofideology ... should

anticipate that the United States would have supported democratic reform movements and

uprising throughout Eastern Europe in this period ... In fact, the Soviet Union resolved these

crises without the intervention from the United States or its Western Allies." 104

III. Working with Primary Sources:

103
Louise I. Gerdes, Book Editor, Opposing Viewpoints in World History: The Cold War. New
York; Greenhaven and Thomson Learning, 2004. 12.
104
Ibid. 15.

56
 By 1943 the United States and the Soviet Union both began to envision a post

war world that would include each of the powers in global affairs. America would

not isolate itself as it had done following World War I and President Roosevelt would

push for the creation of a world body organization; the United Nations. Joseph Stalin

also viewed the Soviet Union in the post World War II era as a nation that would

ensure its own security. Marshal Joseph Stalin also envisioned the Soviet Union

forcing its will on nations it controlled " ... whoever occupies a territory also imposes

his own social system .. .It cannot be otherwise." 105

During the years 1943-1945 the leaders of the United States, Great Britain,

and the Soviet Union met at three significant conferences that would shape the post

war world but would also sow the seeds of a hostile relationship between the socialist

and capitalistic nations of the world. Portions of each of the objectives and results of

the Tehran Conference (1943), Yalta Conference (1945), and the Berlin Conference

(1945) are distributed to each of the students. I have students record the decisions

and major goals of the conference and try to speculate on what motivated each of the

leaders present at the conference. (Appendix B) Upon completion of the in-depth

look into the three major conferences I have students share with each other and

investigate if they have left out a major goal out or if they can help out their fellow

classmate grasp the meetings of the Big Three. As a closing activity I have students

prepare a radio address that each of the leaders would present to their people after one

of the three conferences.

IV. Compare and Contrast: Looking at Differing Perspectives

105
Gaddis. 14.

57
 On February 9th of 1946 Joseph Stalin gave his "election" speech at the

Bolshoi Theater in Moscow. In his speech to the Communist Party, Stalin reasserted

his beliefs on the continuation of the spread of Marxist-Leninist thought. He also

blamed the imperialistic West for World War II and the Soviet Union had survived

through the bloodiest war in history. Stalin stated, "[t]he war has shown that the

Soviet multi-national state system has successfully stood the test, has grown still

stronger during the war and has proved a completely vital state system." 106 A

declaration of war or conflict? The students will pose their own thoughts on Stalin

and if he was simply defending his nation or instigating a conflict between the East

and West. The language used by Stalin had not been heard since 1941 and the leaders

of the Western nations saw the speech as an aggressive approach towards their way of

life and considered it as a declaration of the Cold War.

Winston Churchill, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, visited the

United States and revealed his true concerns of Stalin and the threat that the Soviet

Union was formulating against the West. President Truman and Winston Churchill

both believed it was time to persuade the American public perception against the

totalitarian regime of Marshal Stalin. On March 5, 1946 Churchill delivered his

infamous "Iron Curtain" speech in Fulton, Missouri. "From Stettin in the Baltic to

Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent."107

The majority of students who are taking History of the Americas are familiar

with the "Iron Curtain'' speech in the sense that it was a warning to the West of the

evil intentions of the Soviet Union. However, I have yet to come across a student

106
Judge. 13.
107
Ibid. 15.

58
who has heard of the ~~Bolshoi Theater'' speech given by Stalin, which led to

Churchill's retaliatory address. History should never be taught from one perspective.

Student's must be given a variety of viewpoints and encouraged to use their own

critical thinking skills to come up with their own opinion. In comparing and

contrasting the two speeches of 1946 individual students can look at the concerns,

fears, and threats from each side and contemplate who, or if both sides, had their hand

in starting the Cold War.

Students should be encouraged to develop their own analysis on particular

aspects of history. However, it is very important to provide questions for the students

to answer prior to coming to a sound opinion. The following questions would be

appropriate to help the student:

For investigating Stalin's Election Speech:

1. How did Stalin explain the outbreak of WWII?

2. Why did Stalin emphasize so strongly that the Soviet social and state

systems had triumphed, in addition to the obvious victory of the Red Army?

3. Why was this speech viewed with alarm in Washington and London?

4. How can you tell that Stalin's explanation is based on Marxist principles?

For investigating Churchill's "Iron Curtain" Speech:

1. What evidence did Churchill give of Soviet Expansionism?

2. If Churchill recognized '~e Russian need to be so secure on her western

frontiers," why did he object so strongly to what the Russians were doing in

Eastern Europe?"

59
 3. Why did Churchill assert that '1he old doctrine of the balance of power is

unsound"?

4. Since Churchill was no longer prime minister, why did his speech have

such a powerful impact? (Appendix C)

V. Frayer Model: Undentanding Terms and Events

Social studies is rich with historical figures, places, events, and vocabulary.

Students can become overwhelmed with glossary terms and long lists of items to

know and understand for examinations. Therefore, when a student simply writes

down a definition for a plethora of words in can become mundane and very tedious.

Processing of information does not take place when a student uses a monotonous way

of recording definitions.

The Frayer Model (Appendix D) is a strategy that is designed to analyze and

assess the attainment of concepts. The strategy is a graphic organizer that breaks the

definition down into concepts. The Frayer model works well with all levels of

students and it can be accomplished alone or with a partner. Retaining information is

more successful because the student defmes the word in his/her own words, gives

specific characteristics of the term or event, examples are given along with an image

to help students also see a visual reminder of the term. The Frayer Model can be used

with readings and videos to help students target in on terms that will help them use

specifics when writing or discussing a particular time period.

VI. Final Assessment: Using Technology and the Written Word

As the students learn about the Origins of the Cold War, they are required to

read a great deal of material surrounding the era. Much of the mandatory reading are

60
primary sources based around the early part of this conflict between the Soviet Union

and United States. Seeing that the students have a great amount of background

information I like to see if the students can create a movie on the Origins of the Cold

War using Microsoft Moviemaker. (Appendix E)

Each student is required to research and design a 15-20 frame clip for

Windows Moviemaker informing their audience about the evolution of the Cold War.

Each person utilizes the sources and knowledge they have obtained over the previous

classes to put together a historically accurate video segment. Specific events the

students must include come from the book Maior Problems in American Foreign

Relations, which is edited by Dennis Merrill and Thomas G. Paterson. The

documents selected help the student gain a first hand perspective into the break up of

the Alliance that held together the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union

during World War II.

There are ten documents that outline the differences between the major

superpowers after World War II. In document 1, Harry Hopkins, who was a

representative of the United States was sent to talk to Joseph Stalin about the ending

of the Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union and the influence of the Soviet Union in

Polish politics. 108 Both of these issues caused a m~jor rift between the Americans and

Soviets as each were beginning to see the other as more and more of a legitimate

threat. These primary sources do a tremendous justice towards individuals being able

to form their own opinion on whose fault it was for starting the Cold War. A specific

way in which the student can see the viewpoint of the Soviet government is when

Marshal Stalin replied to the questioning of Mr. Hopkins by stating " .. . it may seem
108
Merril and Paterson. 205.

61
strange although it appeared to be recognized in United States circles and Churchill

in his speeches also recognized it, that the Soviet government should wish for a

friendly Poland. In the course of twenty-five years the Germans had twice invaded

Russia via Poland." 109 Stalin presents a very real problem to the United States for the

reasoning of the great influence on Polish politics by the Soviet Union. However, the

agreement at Yalta was that nations would choose freely on what type of government

would represent the people.

The architect of containment, George F. Kennan and his "Long Telegram," of

1946 are also included within the segment of primary sources. This telegram would

outline the policy of the United States for the next fifty years. Communism must stay

where it exists and not spread any further. George F. Kennan inspired the Truman

Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, which is also, included amongst the students

readings.

With these types of sources the student can develop an appealing final project

in which he or she must use creativity along with their understanding of the Origins

of the Cold War. Technology is usually embraced by the students and they enjoy

being able to create something on their own but with the ability to access an

abundance of pictures and images relating to the beginning of the Cold War.

Upon completion of the Windows Moviemaker project, I have the students

determine who they feel is at fault for causing the Cold War. By the end of the unit

they have read over many primary sources and have also taken a look a variety of

historian's viewpoints on the Origins of the Cold War. I require them to write an

R.A.F.T. essay (Appendix F) (Role, Audience, Format, Topic) to allow them to

109
Ibid. 206.

62
express themselves in a written format, but with a different method. They have the

option of taking on the role of an historian with a new book entitled: I Know Who

Started the Cold War. The audience is a group of fellow scholars, both Soviet and

American. Format of the written work is a lecture on your findings and how you

have come to this decision. The topic of course is who started the Cold War.

It is necessary for students to be able to express themselves in the written

word. The RAFT format also allows themselves to become a bit imaginative and

they do not have to hear the word "essay." Yet they must still be able to provide an

ample amount of information backing their particular viewpoint on who caused the

Cold War.

VII. Conclusion

The United States continues its role as a world superpower in the 21st century.

With the influence our nation encompasses and the role citizens have as voters it is

crucial that there is a deep understanding of our past. A course such as the History of

the Americas allows for students to gain insight to our history but also permits the

individual to use their insight to form their own opinions.

Much of our involvement in global affairs today stems back to the Cold War.

This is precisely why the subject of history and the topic of the origins of the Cold

War are very important for students to learn about and comprehend. As our nation

became more entangled with the Soviet Union our influence spread at a faster and

farther rate. Our nation once again is increasing its global influence and it is very

63
important that our leaders of today and leaders of tomorrow can reflect back on

history to come up with solutions that will bring success and long-term security to our

nation and the world.

64
VIII. Resource List and Works Cited

Helpful sources and resources used in creating lesson plans for the Origins of the

Cold War.

Books

Brands, H.W. The Devil We Knew: Americans and the Cold War. Oxford
University Press, 1994.

Frankel, Benjamin, ed. History in Dispute: Volume 1, The Cold War. Detroit, St.
James Press, 2000.

Gaddis, John Lewis. We Now Know: Rethinking the Cold War. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1997.

Judge, Edward H. and Langdon, John W. ed. The Cold War: A History Through
Documents. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1999.

LaFeber, Walter. America Russia and the Cold War: 1945-1992. New York:
McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1993.

Merrill, Dennis and Thomas G. Paterson. Ed. Major Problems in American Foreign
Relations vol. w, Fifth ed. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 2000.

Showalter, Dennis E. And DuQuenoy, Paul ed. History in Dispute: Volume 6, The
Cold War. Detroit, St. James Press, 2000.

Williams, William A. Tragedy ofAmerican Diplomacy. Cleveland and New York:

The World Publishing Company, 2001.

Journals

Flaherty, Patrick. "Origins of the Cold War." Monthly Review 48, no. 1 (1996).
Drake Memorial Library: lnfoTrac.

Newspapers

New York Times, "Abroad; Stalin's Record Breaking Trip to Teheran," Dec. 6, 1943,
ProQuest Historical Newspapers

New York Times, ''New Russian Note On Polish Dispute," April19, 1945, ProQuest
Historical Newspapers

65
New York Times, "Three Big Uncertainties at Big Three Meeting," July 22, 1945,
ProQuest Historical Newspapers

Pravda "An address of Comrade J.V. Stalin to the Nation," May 10, 1945

Internet

http://www.coldwar.org/

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/

http://www.leamingcurve.gov.uk/cold war/G2/default.htm

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrellcoldwar.htm

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/hst/g.htm

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalonldecade/decade17 .htm

Works Cited

Gaddis, John Lewis. We Now Know: Rethinking the Cold War. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1997.

Gerdes, Louise 1., ed. Opposing Viewpoints in World History: The Cold War. New
York: Greenhaven and Thomson Learning, 2004.

Merrill, Dennis and Thomas G. Paterson. Ed. Major Problems in American Foreign
Relations vol. w, Fifth ed. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 2000.

Judge, Edward H. and Langdon, John W. ed. The Cold War: A History Through
Documents. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1999.

IX. Worksheets (Appendiees)

The ensuing worksheets may be used for the activities described in this teaching

portfolio.

66
Appendices: Student Worksheets
 Appendix A
Name
-----------------------------------------
Date--:----------
m: History of the Americas
Origins of the Cold War

Task: Please read the two quotes below and respond with your reaction to each
particular quote. Upon a brief discussion around the quotes and your thoughts we
will take a gallery tour around the room. We will be observing pictures of the "Big
Three," propaganda, and news articles surrounding the three major conferences of
World War II .

.!3!11: Foreseeing the World

"There are now two great nations in the world, which starting from different points,
seem to be advancing toward the same goal: the Russians and the Anglo-
Americans ... [E]ach seems called by some secret design of providence one day to
hold in its hands the destinies of half the world."

-Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835

"With the defeat of the Reich and pending the emergence of the Asiatic, the African,
and perhaps the South American nationalisms, there will remain in the world only
two Great Powers capable of confronting each other-the United States and Soviet
Russia. The laws of both history and geography will compel these two Powers to a
trial of strength, either military or in the fields of economics and ideology."

-AdolfHitler, 1945

1. How could de Tocqueville and Hitler foresee the rise of the Soviet Union (Russia)
and the United States? (Hint: Look at the years and consider what was happening
in our history.)

Part II: Gallery Tour

Picture A: The Big Three at Yalta Picture B: The Big Three at Potsdam
(Berlin)_
1. Who made up the original Big Three? 1. Who made up the "new'' Big Three?

2. How do they appear to be getting 2. How do they appear to be getting

along? along?
 Propaganda A: Pro Allies Pro_I!aganda B: Pro Allies '
I. What symbols do you see? I. What symbols do you see?

2. What is the point being expressed? 2. What is the point being expressed?

3. Who are the individuals? 3. Who are the individuals?

4. Give the propaganda piece your own 4. Give the propaganda piece your own
title? title?

New York Times: "Abroad; Stalin's New York Times: "The Road Toward
Record Breaking Trip to Teheran, " Dec. Peace," Feb. 15, 1945
6, 1943
1. What perception is being reported to 1. What perception is being reported to
the public? the public?

2. What are the main points of the 2. What are the main points of the
conference? conference?
 AppendixB
Name
----------------------------------------
Date_ _ _ _ __
IB: History of the Americas
Three Major Conferences

Introduction: During World War II the Big Three met at key conferences to
determine what the world would look like upon the ending of World War II. It
seemed as if the world would be a safer and more peaceful planet upon the ending of
World War II. But would it be?

Task: You and a partner will look over assigned portions of the agreements made at
the three major conferences between the Big Three during World War II. Upon the
completion you will share with the class your findings from your research. Finally
you will prepare a radio address for one of the leaders that made up the Big Three.
(Directions below)

The Tehran Conference (1943): Read only section(a) and answer the_questions.
1. What were the goals of the conference and what motivated each of the leaders
present at the conference?

2. List three things you feel are important?

a.
b.
c.

3. Write a question which you feel is left unanswered by the document:

The Yalta Conference (1945): Read on!!_ section II and answer the questions.
1. What were the goals of the conference and what motivated each of the leaders
present at the conference?

2. List three things you feel are important?

a.
b.
c.

3. Write a question which you feel is left unanswered by the document:

The Potsdam (Berlin) Conference (1945): Read only section (a) and answer the
questions.
1. What were the goals of the conference and what motivated each of the leaders
present at the conference?

2. List three things you feel are important?

a.
b.
c.

3. Write a question which you feel is left unanswered by the document:

Closure Activity: Choose one of the leaders we have been studying about and
prepare a radio address. How would your particular head of state address their
public? Be sure to include their nation's goals and how they will achieve them with
the help of their fellow allies. (Please utilize the back for your address)
 AppendixC
Name
Date -----------------------------------------
----------
m: History of the Americas
Different Perspectives

Task: Please read the two historical speeches; Stalin's election speech (Bolshoi
Theater Speech) which was given on February 9th, 1946. And Winston Churchill's
"Iron Curtain" speech, which was delivered on March 5, 1946. After the completion
of each speech please respond to the questions below.

Stalin's Election Speech:

1. How did Stalin explain the outbreak of WWll?

2. Why did Stalin emphasize so strongly that the Soviet social and state
systems had triumphed, in addition to the obvious victory of the Red Army?

3. Why was this speech viewed with alarm in Washington and London?

4. How can you tell that Stalin's explanation is based on Marxist principles?

Churchill's "Iron Curtain, Speech:

1. What evidence did Churchill give of Soviet Expansionism?

2. If Churchill recognized ''the Russian need to be so secure on her western

frontiers," why did he object so strongly to what the Russians were doing in
Eastern Europe?"

3. Why did Churchill assert that ''the old doctrine of the balance of power is

unsound"?

4. Since Churchill was no longer prime minister, why did his speech have
such a powerful impact?

• Based on your prior knowledge from the in-class assignments, previous

homework readings, and the two speeches, who do you feel is more responsible
for starting the Cold War? Please elaborate on the back.
 AppendixD
Name
Date
-----------------------------------------
-----------
IB: History of the Americas
Key Vocabulary

Task: Please complete the Frayer Model diagrams below to help you comprehend
the key vocabulary terms on the Origins of the Cold War.

Definition (in own words): Characteristics:

Where the state or central power has total Single Ruling Power
control over everything Usually Dictators

Examples: Totalitarian Image:

Hitler

Stalin

Mussolini

Defmition (in own words): Characteristics:

Examples: Image:
Defmition (in own words): Characteristics:

Examples: Image:

Defmition (in own words): Characteristics:

Examples: NSC-68 Image:

 AppendixE
Nmne________________________________________
Date
------
IB: History of the Americas
Windows Movie Maker

Task: To research, design and create a 15-20 frame clip for Windows Moviemaker
informing your audience about the Origins of the Cold War (Be Creative!) Your
research must utilize all prior resources from class so that you are able to bring your
"movie" to life with the parameters of this assignment.
• You need pictures and pi~es of text (no more than 15 words per slide)
• Picture size has to be greater than 400 x 600 resolution
• Total length of your clip cannot exceed 3 minutes
• You can use any transitions that you want
• Sound should be added as the last step

Use websites listed to aid you in your research.

htt,p://www.coldwar.org/
htt,p://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/
http://www.learnin2curve.2ov. uk/cold war/02/default.htm
htt,p://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/coldwar.htm
httj?://www.trumanlibrary.org/hst/g.htm
htto://www.wilsoncenter.org/
htt,p://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalonldecade/decade 17.htm

Work must be cited in the closing credits, so keep track of where your information
comes from

Directions for using XP Moviemaker

Start Menu>AU Programs>Accessories>Windows Moviemaker

Use your movie task menu to guide you in your filmmaking. You should only need
to use menus 1 and 2 (Capture Video and Edit Movie Menu).

To get pictures or video go to the Menu 1 Capture Video and click on Import Video
or Import Pictures.

To get those pictures of video in the timeline just click and drag.

To add text, effects or transitions go to the Edit Movie Menu and select the desired
edit.
 AppendixF
Nmne________________________________________
Date
------
IB: History of the Americas
R.A.F.T.

Task: Please complete the R.A.F.T.letter. Each segment is explained below and
your response should be well detailed and full of specifics for making your points.
This letter should be at least two-pages (typed).

I Know Who Started The Cold War!!!!

R. Role An American m: Soviet historian who just finished a new book

called I Know Who Started The Cold War
A. Audien£e Group of fellow scholars both Soviet and American
F. Format A lecture on your findings and how you have come to this decision
T. Topic Who started the Cold War