Essay Plans, c1945-1953

#essayplans

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.
- 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.
    - 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'.
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.
    - 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.
  - 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.
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 Marshall Plan marked the beginning of the Cold War (25)

Define the terms of the question: the Marshall Plan was an economic programme that sought to provide financial aid to European Countries in return for increase trade with said European countries.
- It provided $13.5 billion in aid to 16 countries
Many European countries were turning communist; this was because WW2 had left many European countries’ finances in a dire state. Therefore, more people were inclined to reject the capitalist status-quo and thus sought greater political extremes.
- Just months prior, USA diplomats had responded to the USSR’s breach of the Declaration of Liberated Europe - as it had been gradually turned into a satellite state because many communists were brought into the Lisbon/Warsaw government (weakening the influence of the Polish officials who fled to London, but came back).
  - Both countries were fighting for greater status and prestige on the world stage: WW2 had left Europe in much of a power vacuum which both administrations were fighting over.
- Moreover, France and Italy, Western European countries, were also gradually turning communist
  - The PCI went from 5,000 members to 1.7 million members from 1943 to ‘45.
  - November 1946: the PCF was the largest party in the state-legislature, winning 29% of the total seats.
    - Despite this, Stalin did not want Western Europe, becuase he feared doing so would provoke a direct attack from the USA; furthermore, he feared expansion westwards would spread his power too thin.
    - The communist ideological expansion in these countries could be seen as a manifestation of the worsening economic conditions in these very countries, which thus effected voting behaviour and threatened the former capitalist status-quo.
      - Thus, the goal of the Marshall Plan was to improve the economic conditions of these very countries in the hope that this would show that capitalism had been ‘working’.
      - Yet, Communists like Molotov saw this as a form of ‘dollar imperialism’ as the USA was serving their own economic interests.
        
        The Marshall Plan required countries in receipt of aid to increase their trade with the USA.
        
        Soviet Union diplomats such as Molotov saw this as a way to entrench American power by increasing the reliance of these countries on American trade. As the USA produced 50% of the world’s goods by this time, the USSR saw this as America’s way to create a political system in Europe that was over reliant on American trade and thus prevent the overthrowing of the very system American trade relied on (by restructuring European economic in a way that not only were full of American vested interests, but also, in a way that made these very economies an extension of the USA’s own industrial economy).
        
        The USA created the Marshall Plan to improve the economic conditions of these countries, but by doing so, it could be argued that it also served its own interests - as by protecting the capitalist status-quo, it became heavily involved in these countries. Thus both aims, economic and ideological, could’ve been seen as mutually important for America.
        
        It could be argued then that this increased the hostility between both powers as the USSR implemented its response via the formation of Comecon in January 1949.
        
        Arguably, they not only did this because of the Marshall Plan, but because America had increased the diplomatic tensions between both powers (which allowed for the formation of the Marshall Plan).
        
        February 1946: Kennan’s Long Telegram argued that America may have to use ‘direct force’ against Communism to maintain the liberal democratic order.
        
        March 1946: Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech argued that the USSR was creating an ‘iron curtain’ of atrocity between the west and itself - a “glacis of states”.
        
        These documents shaped US foreign policy.
        
        It didn’t help then that countries in the “iron curtain” were interested in the Marshall Plan (e.g. Czechoslovakia).
        
        Again prompting diplomatic response from the USSR (to reinforce their power and unite the economic frameworks of Eastern European countries even further by making them over reliant on the USSR) as this threatened their “glacis of states” idea.