Essay Plans, c1945-1953
The United States was responsible for the collapse of the Great Alliance at the end of the Second World War. Assess the validity of the argument (25)
- Define the terms of the question:
- 'The Great Alliance' - otherwise known as the 'marriage of convenience' - was the term used to describe the somewhat cooperative relations between the USSR, the USA, and to a lesser extent, the UK, after WW2.
- Poland, and subsequent 'satellite states', as a microcosm for weaking relations -> shows the invalidity of the given argument:
- Yalta Conference (1946), and the Potsdam Conference (1946), were both failures in actually making clear-cut, long-lasting decisions - from issues about the sovereignty of nations to reparations.
- One of these issues was about the idea of a democratically free, self-determinant Europe, as spoke of in the 'Declaration of Liberated Europe'. It was weak because it was non-legally binding. As a result, this made the agreement all partners in the Great Alliance stood very weak - and easy to override.
- Poland: microcosm for weakening relations.
- Idea was for it to be democratically free, with cooperation from both the Communist and the US sides of government.
- As Poland was what started WW2, it could be argued that what happened here was most important.
- Nevertheless, it failed - and became a satellite state.
- For example, in 1947, 13 people in the government proclaimed to be of the communist persuasion.
- Lisbon govt., Warsaw govt. conflicts, rigged elections of 1948
- Significant as this reinforced the idea of the dangers that came from post-WW2 relations; after WW2, there was a 'power vacuum' in Europe, and both powers were fighting for power within Europe to maximise their influence and prestige on the world stage.
- Moreover, this reinforced the idea that the USSR was expanding westwards.
- Poland: microcosm for weakening relations.
- This is a significant argument as what happened in Poland happened to several other countries - e.g. the formation of a People's Republic in Romania @ 30 December 1947, with Dr. Petru Groza at the helm of the revolution.
- This was in itself significant as this heightened fears within the USA from many diplomats, including Truman himself, that the USSR was engaging in ideological expansion.
- US domestic and foreign policy as a RESPONSE to USSR expansion -> shows the validity of the given argument, but only because the US responded to the USSR:
- Kennan's Long Telegram: the spread of communism must be stopped, and, in doing so, force may need to be used to stop the USSR from engaging in territorial and ideological expansion.
- Churchill's Iron Curtain speech: the USSR is attempting to cast a communist shadow - of extreme isolation - on Eastern Europe.
- February and March of 1946.
- Shaped Truman's 'containment policy'
- Marshall Plan (Jan. 1947):
- Gave $13.5 billion to 16 countries
- Communism's rise, in the USA, was attributed to poor economic conditions. This was because the USA thought that, as many in Europe faced economically deprived conditions (because of WW2), they would turn to more radical options - believing the old capitalist 'status-quo' had failed them.
- Rise of communism in Western Europe: PCI went from 5,000 members in 1943 to 1.7 million in 1945.
- Stalin did not want the West though - he didn't want to spread his power 'too thin'.
- Overreaction from the US.
- Rise of communism in Western Europe: PCI went from 5,000 members in 1943 to 1.7 million in 1945.
- So the Marshall Plan was seen as a way to boost the economic conditions of these countries so they'd avoid communist uprisings.
- Further separated the economic frameworks in Western Europe from the USSR, making communist uprisings harder.
- The USSR saw this as a form of 'dollar imperialism' @ the Paris Conference of June 1947.
- This was because, in return for the money, the countries in receipt of these funds would have to trade more with the US.
- Thus, any form of communist rebellion WOULD indeed be unlikely as the foreign indebtedness of these countries would be too high. Subsequently, the vested interests America would have in these countries would maintain the capitalist 'status-quo'.
- 'Capitalism' was on the USSR's border.
- Somewhat significant argument - the issue of Poland, which was seen as the USSR's post-war 'original sin' - predated the Marshall Plan's release. Ergo, even though the economic conditions of Europe and preventing the rise of communism (because of the power-vacuum that had erupted in Europe) were seen as mutual by US diplomats (therefore validating this idea that they were serving their own economic interests) - this policy could be seen as a retaliation to USSR hostility (especially from individuals such as Molotov). This did not help the situation though, and did indeed increase tensions - especially as those in the 'iron curtain' also appealed for funds (like Czechoslovakia) - leading to the formation of Comecon. This was seen as a retaliation in it of itself - contributing to this idea of a 'never-ending spiral of escalation'.
- Marshall Plan (Jan. 1947):
- Germany was also a microcosm for increasing tensions -> shows the validity of the given argument, but only because the US responded to the USSR:
- Yalta and Potsdam: the agreement was that Germany was to be divided into 4 zones - with the capital, in Eastern Europe, was also to be divided into 4 zones (between France, the UK, the US, and the USSR).
- Idea that it would one day be reunited again.
- Reparations were to also be given to the USSR: $10 billion per anum.
- However, over time, the US became more hostile.
- General Clay removed reparations.
- Innate conflict over Germany: the US wanted to rebuild it, the USSR wanted to keep it weak (which in a way was achieved by these reparations) and prone to communist uprising.
- The formation of Bizonia @ Jan. 1947, and the formation of Trizonia @ June 1948.
- Further separation of the economic and cooperative relationships between the USSR, and the other three zones.
- Supported by the formation of the DM in 1948.
- US now had incredible vested interests in Germany, and was not going to give it up via a unification of the 4 zones -> FEARS IT WAS TO BE ANOTHER SATELITE STATE.
- Supported by the formation of the DM in 1948.
- Further separation of the economic and cooperative relationships between the USSR, and the other three zones.
- Rejected unification @ the Moscow conference, Spring 1947 (as the USSR did not want to change its economic framework in Germany, a 'successful failure')
- Fears it would become another satellite state + be prone to communist uprising, e.g. the formation of the SED in West Germany (socialist party) increased fears that the USSR was attempting a 'democratic uprising'.
- 'Perhaps there were plans of invasion?' -> US train of thought.
- General Clay removed reparations.
- Led to the Berlin Blockade from 24 June 1948, to 12 May 1949.
- Operation Villiers and Plainfare succeeded, showed the USSR that capitalism was to be on the USSR's border.
- Led to the formation of NATO @ 4th April, 1949 - significant as it reinforced the principles of democracy signed in the Treaty of Brussels a year earlier - and its exclusion of the USSR not only increased the threat of 'direct conflict' that the Truman Plan spoke of, but it was the nail in the coffin for the Great Alliance (another cause conflict in it of itself)
- Formation of the FDR (May 1949) was 6 months prior to the formation of the GDR (October 1949) -> US jumpstarted the gun for isolation between the sides.
- Only because of the blockade.
- Significant to most extent; although NATO did not create any further conflict; the Treaty of Brussels a year earlier fortified the principles of democracy, and NATO was only a reaffirmation of this AS A RESULT of the conflict that arose in Germany. Therefore, if the USSR was truly to increase its retaliatory efforts, it would've been a year earlier.
- Yalta and Potsdam: the agreement was that Germany was to be divided into 4 zones - with the capital, in Eastern Europe, was also to be divided into 4 zones (between France, the UK, the US, and the USSR).
- In conclusion, the United States was not solely responsible for the collapse of the Grand Alliance. The fact that the USSR began backtracking on its agreements @ Yalta and Potsdam with Poland resulted in a more hostile US foreign policy approach. Nevertheless, the collapse of the Great Alliance is not the fault of any one nation: both contributed to the increases in escalation, with the US' Marshal Plan making it seem like it was serving its own economic interests in Europe, and its refusal of unification adding to the fears of a 'direct attack' as the US was now on the USSR's border. Thus, the view is invalid.
The US' containment foreign policy also links to the The Korean War