ORIGINS OF THE COLD WAR

1. ORIGINS OF THE COLD WAR FROM A “GRAND ALLIANCE” TO A BI-POLAR WORLD

2. TIMELINE 1941 • (June) Atlantic Charter • (Dec) Pearl Harbor 1943 • Comintern Dissolved • Tehran Conference 1944 Bretton Woods Dunbarton Oaks 1945 • (Feb) Yalta • (April) San Francisco Conference • (May) War ends in Europe • (May) Lend Lease ends • (July) Potsdam • (Aug) Hiroshima, Nagasaki – Pacific War ends

3. 1946 • (Feb) Kennan’s Long Telegram • (Mar) Churchill’s ‘Iron Curtain” Speech 1947 (Jan) rigged elections in Poland (Mar) Truman Doctrine (June) Marshall Plan (Sept) Cominform; Zhdanov ‘Two Camps’ speech

5. KENNAN

6. Kennan and the Long telegram. In the beginning of 1946 the State Department asked the embassy in Moscow to give a general analysis of the Soviet Policy. The task ended up on George Kennan’s desk. Kennan was a high diplomat who had served in Moscow. He took the oppurtunity and sent a 8 000 word long telegram. The Long Telegram: Hispoint is: ”In summary, wehavehere a political force committedfanaticallyto the beliefthatwith US therecan be no permanent modus vivendithat it is desirable and necessarythat the internalharmonyofoursociety be disrupted, ourtraditionalwayoflife be destroyed, the international authorityofourstate be broken, ifSovietpower is to be secure.”

7. Kennan and the Long telegram. Febr 1946. According to Kennan, Russia's policy was: to undermine the general and strategic potential of major western powers by a host of subversive measures to destroy individual governments that might stand in the Soviet path, to do everything possible to set the major Western powers against each other.

8. 2005 • Obituary • George Kennan, diplomat and historian • Mar 23rd 2005 From The Economist print edition • IN LATER life, George Kennan felt his words had been much misunderstood. Worse, they had inadvertently loosened a large boulder from the top of a cliff. Yet he always chose his words skilfully, making an art of cables and memos as well as his 22 books. Dean Acheson, whom Mr Kennan served when he was secretary of state, once put it this way: The trouble with George is that he writes so beautifully, he can convince you of anything. Then he put it another way: George reminded him of his father's old horse, which, when crossing wooden bridges, would frighten himself with the noise he had made http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=3786321

9. CHURCHILL

10. Churchill’s Fulton Speech, March 5 1946.

11. SUMMARY • Churchill’s speech summed up his beliefs: • Moscow wanted to control the eastern part of Europe. • He didn’t believe in appeasement(as happened at Munich) • He meant that Stalin and Moscow admired power and had no respect for weakness. • He didn’t think that USSR wanted a war. ”I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines.”

12. CONSEQUENCES 1. The phrase”Ironcurtain” wasnowcommonlyused in the West todescribe the new geopoliticalreality in Europe. 2. USA and UKshouldjoinforcesagainst USSR. 3. Hewanteda settlementwith the Russians. Hesuggestedthat the threatshould be met by the US and the Commonwealth and settledwithin the framework the UN. ”Thiscanonly be achieved by reachingnow, in 1946, a goodunderstanding on all pointswithRussia under the general authorityof the United Nations Organisation and by the maintenanceofthatgoodunderstandingthroughmanypeacefulyears, by the world instrument, supported by the wholestrengthof the English-speakingworld and all itsconnections. There is the solution which I respectfully offer toyou in thisAddresstowhich I have given the title "The Sinewsof Peace.”

13. Churchill & Stalin • Read both passages: A) Churchill’s Iron Curtain Speech B) Stalin’s Pravda Reply Q: Compare the views expressed in Passages A and B on Soviet influence in Eastern Europe Compare and Contrast When you are asked to compare sources, you must make sure that you do not just paraphrase first one document and then the other, leaving the vital task of comparison to the end. It is a good idea to start your answer off with a very brief introduction summing up the overall differences of both documents. What is required first and foremost is a comparison of the views in the two passages.

14. ►B is a direct reply to A and is an attempt to rebut Churchill’s criticism ►To Churchill Eastern Europe was cut off, with the exception of Czechoslovakia, and increasingly coming under the control of Moscow, whereas Stalin stresses that he is attempting to secure in these countries ‘governments loyal in their attitude to the Soviet Union’ ►Churchill views Eastern Europe through the eyes of a Western democrat, who wants free elections where (presumably) non-Communist majorities would be elected. Stalin, on the other hand, is above all concerned about the need to secure the USSR’s frontiers from a future attack from the West.

15. 6. La Grèce et la Turquie dans l’endiguement en Europe http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/02/game/

16. TRUMAN DOCTRINE • CONTAINMENT • DOMINO THEORY: IF ONE FALLS, THE REST WILL FOLLOW • ASSIST ANY COUNTRY ‘RESISTING ARMED MINORITIES’ OR ‘OUTSIDE PRESSURE’. • AID TO GREECE AND TURKEY

17. WHY SO QUICK? • FEAR OF APPEASEMENT • NEW GLOBAL POWER AND COULD BE THREATENED BY NON-CAPITALIST MOVEMENTS • MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

19. Marshall http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/03/maps/

21. “An unnatural alliance that was bound to fall apart after the defeat of the common enemy.” To what extent does this statement explain the origin of the Cold War? This question offers a quotation for candidates to use as a structure for their answers on the origin of the Cold War. The “unnatural alliance” should be examined, both from the point of view of the previous enmity and divergent views and ideologies of the participants of the “unnatural alliance”, the communist USSR and the democratic free market exponents, USA, Britain and France and why they were drawn together to fight a common enemy: Hitler and Nazi Germany. The “falling apart”, between 1945 and 1948, should then be analysed and a judgment formed as to how far the split was caused by ideology and previous enmity, and how far by the disagreements, fear and mutual recriminations of the two sides in post war Europe, especially in both sides’ policies toward Germany and Eastern Europe. Finally a verdict should be given as to the “bound to fall apart” in the quotation. 0 to 7 marks] for vague general comments on the Cold War . [8 to 10 marks] for narrative of the origin of the Cold War, with implicit assessment of the quotation. [11 to 13 marks] for explicit assessment of the quotation. [14 to 16 marks] for well structured analytical answers which address the demands of the question by focusing on the quotation, and giving some attention to “To what extent”. [17+ marks] for perceptive interpretation of the quotation and question.