Continued from P.1, Truman believed in American power and American righteousness.
So did his newly appointed secretary of state, James F. Byrnes. Byrnes was a
longtime Washington power broker, a former conservative senator from South
Carolina, Supreme Court justice, and wartime overlord of the American economy.
Truman liked Byrnes, who had befriended him as a new senator in the mid-1930s,
and thought him shrewd, knowledgeable, and tough. He let Byrnes do most of the
contentious bargaining at Potsdam on German reparations, Polish borders, and
the composition of the new governments in Eastern Europe. Once Stalin agreed in
the first days of the conference to attack Japan, Truman felt satisfied.
"I've gotten what I came for," he confided to Bess on July 18.
"Stalin goes to war August 15 with no strings on it. ... I'll say that we'll
end the war a year sooner now, and think of the kids who won't be killed.
That's the important thing."111
To Truman and Byrnes,
the atomic bomb meant more than the weapon that could defeat Japan and save
American lives. It was a vast new instrument of American power. Truman went to
Potsdam not knowing it would work; Admiral Leahy said it wouldn't; Byrnes
thought it might "but he wasn't sure." 112 By all accounts, and there
are many, news of the successful testing of the bomb enormously buoyed Truman's
self-confidence. It "took a great load off my mind," he confided to
Joe Davies.ll3 The president did not order the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima
to impress the Russians, as some historians claim; but nevertheless he believed
that it would impress them and make them more manageable.
At Potsdam, Truman
quietly took Stalin aside and elliptically mentioned that the United States had
a powerful new weapon to use against Japan. Nothing more needed to be said. Nor
did all the pressing issues have to be resolved at Potsdam. Truman was eager to
go home. He grew impatient with the incessant haggling at the conference.
Stalin, he thought, was stalling. He "doesn't know it," Truman again
wrote his wife, "but I have an ace in the hole and another one showing-so
unless he has threes or two pair (and I know he has not) we are sitting all
right." 114 The "atomic bomb," Byrnes also was thinking,
"had given us great power, and ... in the last analysis, it would
control." 115
When Truman ordered
that atomic bombs be dropped on Hiroshima and then Nagasaki, these were not
tough decisions for him. They were necessary, in his mind, to save American
lives. They vividly demonstrated American power; they confirmed that enemies of
America would pay for their transgressions. The Japanese did pay, and then they
capitulated, unconditionally, except for the preservation of the emperor. They
had little choice, for Stalin's troops attacked at the same time, seized parts
of Manchuria, invaded northern Korea, and set their sights on Hokkaido, Japan's
northernmost home island.116
The war ended. The
American people celebrated. Truman breathed a sigh of relief. He now eagerly
delegated the responsibility for peacemaking to Secretary of State Byrnes, who
he thought had performed ably at Potsdam. Truman wanted to turn his own
attention to demobilization, reconversion, and the domestic issues he knew and
understood. Byrnes for his part was eager to take command of the nation's
foreign policy. He was sure of himself. The atomic bomb, he told his closest
colleagues, was a great weapon that could be used to exact concessions from
potential adversaries.117 But experienced colleagues in the State and War
departments had their doubts. They deeply resented Byrnes's attempts to
monopolize American diplomacy. Many of them left office in September and
October 1945, however, exhausted from years of wartime responsibility, and
Byrnes was now in charge.
Byrnes was not as
shrewd as he thought he was, nor was the Soviet Union easily threatened. At the
first postwar meeting of foreign ministers in London in September, Byrnes
thought he could outmaneuver Molotov and arrange for more representative
governments in Romania and Bulgaria. But Molotov chafed at Byrnes's procedural
moves and sneered at his not very subtle efforts to use America's atomic
monopoly to leverage concessions. In fact, the Soviet foreign minister was
willing to negotiate on some of these points-that is, until Stalin ordered him
to stiffen his resolve. Let the conference end in deadlock, Stalin wired
Molotov. Let Byrnes stew for a while. Stalin's adulatory comments about Byrnes
in front of Truman at Potsdam had, typically, concealed the dictator's emerging
contempt for a man who wielded power so flagrantly. 118
Byrnes returned to
Washington chastened. The Russians would not be intimidated, he realized.
Perhaps, Byrnes now thought, the bomb could be used as a carrot rather than a
stick. Perhaps the Soviets could be lured into a favorable agreement to
regulate the future of atomic energy. Some of the Soviets' arguments, he
believed, had merit. He had to concede a certain hypocrisy in the American
insistence that the Soviets open up eastern Europe while the United States
locked the Kremlin out of Japan. He could understand why the Soviets feared the
revival of German power and why they wanted friendly governments on their
periphery. It might make sense, he thought, to acquiesce to what was happening
in Bulgaria and Romania, more or less, if in return the Kremlin promised to
withdraw Soviet troops as soon as the peace treaties were negotiated. Moreover,
a four-power treaty guaranteeing the demilitarization of Germany might hasten
this process. In other words, Stalin's obsession with security might be
assuaged by a demilitarization treaty while his domination of eastern Europe
might be diluted by his agreement to withdraw Soviet troops from Hungary,
Romania, and Bulgaria, as they just had been withdrawn from Czechoslovakia.1l9
To achieve an open
sphere in eastern Europe, contain Soviet power, sustain the wartime alliance,
and avoid hostile confrontations with Soviet Russia may have made sense, but
Byrnes's swift tactical changes coupled with his arrogant behavior alienated
cabinet colleagues, powerful senators, and key presidential aides. Truman grew
frustrated with Byrnes, as he did with so many of his advisers in that autumn
of 1945. The end of the war provided no respite for the inexperienced
president. He was worried by labor strife and spiraling inflation. He was
agitated by the biting criticism he was experiencing and by the souring of his
party's prospects to win the 1946 midterm elections. "The Congress,"
he noted in his diary, "is balking; labor has gone crazy; management is
not far from insane in selfishness." His cabinet had "Potomac
fever."120 Byrnes was conniving, striving for too much publicity, acting
too independent, arousing too much controversy, trying to be too clever, and
alienating friends and foes alike.
Truman liked things
in black and white. His closest advisers knew that he did not like nuance or
ambiguity. 121 In a major speech on Navy Day, 27 October, he set forth his
views. The United States, he said, forswore the acquisition of any new
territory. It championed democracy and self-determination. It favored freedom
of the seas, open trade, and global economic cooperation. It supported the
United Nations and Pan-Americanism. There would be no return to isolationism.
ever again, said Truman, would the United States be caught by surprise. Never
again would it relinquish its military superiority. It would hold the atomic
bomb as a "sacred trust" for all mankind. Its air and naval forces
would control the seas and dominate the skies. Aggression would not be
tolerated. America's interests would not be slighted nor would its ideals be
compromised. The United States would not "compromise with evil." 122
Although his writers
designed the speech to force "our diplomatic appeasers to pay closer
attention to the vital interests of America," there is no reason to think
that Truman thought he was breaking new ground with this speech.123 These
ideals and interests were like apple pie and ice cream to Truman. The nation
had to be strong and it had to be involved. Its interests and ideals had to be
protected. This was, after all, God's country. The war had taught key lessons:
no more surprise attacks, no more aggression. The United States had to be able
to project its power far from American shores. The country needed bases around
the globe. And no nation could be permitted to upset the balance of power in
the Old World and gain control of the industrial infrastructure, raw materials,
and skilled manpower of Europe and Asia. Germany and Japan had almost achieved
this in the late 1930s and early 1940s, and American interests and ideals had
been jeopardized. This could not be allowed to happen again.
The president jotted
his thoughts on a piece of paper. Byrnes had to stop "babying" the
Soviets. The Soviets had to get out of northern Iran, where they had been slow
to withdraw their troops. They had to stop putting pressure on Turkey for bases
in the Dardanelles. They had to install more democratic governments in Bulgaria
and Romania. They had to agree to strong central governments in Korea and
China. "Unless Russia is faced with an iron fist and strong language
another war is in the making." 124
By the end of 1945
Stalin and Truman were eyeing each other warily. They were both angry with
their foreign ministers for inclining toward compromise. They felt that their
respective nations had the power and the right to forge a new international
order that would enhance their security and their ideals. They were not
inclined to tolerate opposition. But they also grasped that confrontation made
little sense. They had more to gain from sustaining the alliance than from
rupturing it, though cooperation was logical only if it served national
interests. During 1946, they wavered between toughness and conciliation.
Stalin distrusted
capitalists, and fear of encirclement by them was a constant in his thinking.
Nonetheless, he had worked collaboratively with Roosevelt and Churchill during
the war, thinking the conflict would end with Germany's dismemberment and a
secure periphery. But then, suddenly, Roosevelt had died and Truman dropped two
atomic bombs on Japan. Stalin was shaken by Roosevelt's passing. He was wary of
Truman, but not disinclined to cooperate with him.125 Yet Truman had great
power and used it.
Stalin immediately
interpreted Hiroshima as atomic blackmail against the U.S.S.R. "Hiroshima
has shaken the whole world," he said. "The balance has been
destroyed." He thought the Americans and the British were backtracking on
the promise they had given at Yalta to allow the Russians to rule their sphere
as they liked. "They want to force us to accept their plans on questions
affecting Europe and the world. Well, that's not going to happen," Stalin
told his closest confidants. Even before Truman told Byrnes to stop babying the
Soviets, Stalin told Molotov that in dealing with the Americans and the
British, "we cannot achieve anything serious if we begin to give in to
intimidation or betray uncertainty. To get anything from this kind of partner,
we must arm ourselves with the policy of tenacity and steadfastness." 126
On 9 February 1946,
Stalin gave a famous "election" address at the Bolshoi Theatre in
Moscow, transmitted by radio to every part of the Soviet Union. Reviving the
ideological language that was his lodestar, he said the war had not been an
accident, nor was it the product of the mistakes of statesmen. "The war
arose in reality as the inevitable result of the development of the world
economic and political forces on the basis of monopoly capitalism."
Perhaps peace could be preserved if capitalists redistributed markets and raw
materials without conflict, "but this is impossible under the present
capitalist development of the world economy."
The Soviet Union had
become ensnared in this intracapitalist conflict, but
World War II was "radically different" from World War 1. The fascist
states had extinguished" democratic liberties" in their own
countries, established "cruel, terrorist regimes," and sought
"world domination." "As far as our country is concerned,"
Stalin said, "the war was the most cruel and hard of all wars ever
experienced in the history of our motherland." But it proved the
superiority of the socialist system, the vitality of the multinational state,
and the resiliency and heroism of the Red Army. The war also demonstrated the
wisdom of collectivization and industrialization. "The party remembered Lenin's
word that without heavy industry it would be impossible to safeguard the
independence of our country, that without it the Soviet system could
perish." Hence the need "to organize a new mighty upsurge of the
national economy," seeking the production of fifty million tons of pig
iron annually, sixty million tons of steel, five hundred million tons of coal,
and sixty million tons of oil. Alluding implicitly to the atomic bomb, Stalin
said that science, too, had to be promoted "to surpass the achievements"
of other countries. "Only under such conditions will our country be
insured against any eventuality." 127
Stalin's ideological
preconceptions and personal paranoia made him suspect enemies everywhere. As
the war drew to a close he confided: "The crisis of capitalism has
manifested itself in the division of the capitalists into two factions-one
fascist, the other democratic .... We are currently allied with one faction
against the other, but in the future we will be against the first faction of
capitalists, too." 128 Suspicious of the capitalists, fearful of Germany
and Japan, and proud of Soviet achievements, he would be satisfied with nothing
less than a friendly periphery. He wanted "to consolidate Soviet
territorial gains, establish a Soviet sphere of influence in eastern Europe,
and have a voice in the political fate of Germany and-if possible-of
Japan."129 He wanted security, and hoped to get it without rupturing the
grand alliance.
This explains why he
was so furious with Churchill's speech in Fulton, Missouri, in March 1946, when
the former British prime minister declared [hat Stalin was building an iron
curtain from the Baltic to the Balkans. "The following circumstances
should not be forgotten," Stalin stated in a Pravda interview. "The
Germans made their invasion of the USSR through Finland, Poland, Rumania,
Bulgaria, and Hungary. The Germans were able to make their invasion through
these countries because at the time, governments hostile to the Soviet Union
existed in these countries." As a result millions of people in Russia
died, many more than from the United States and the United Kingdom combined.
Perhaps Churchill was inclined to forget these colossal sacrifices, but Stalin
could not. "What can be surprising," Stalin fumed, "about the
fact that the Soviet Union, anxious for its future safety, is frying to see to
it that governments loyal in their attitude to the Soviet Union should exist in
these countries?"130
Stalin thought the
Americans and the British were maneuvering to squeeze the Soviet Union out of
Germany, undermine its position of power in eastern Europe, and deny it the ten
billion dollars in reparations it thought it had been promised at the Yalta
Conference.l31 Soviet officials looked cynically upon the four-power German
demilitarization treaty that Byrnes repeatedly proposed. Even Maxim Litvinov,
the prewar foreign minister who was known for his pro-Western orientation,
expressed dismay about U.S. motives. In July 1945, Litvinov had noted that the
Ruhr and other industrial parts of western Germany, now in French, American,
and British hands, produced 75 percent of Germany's coal and 70 percent of its
steel and pig iron. The industry of the Ruhr, he warned, could be completely
restored within one year and could support an army of several million soldiers.
"If a serious conflict escalates between us and Western states, we will
not be able to prevent the Western powers from turning the Ruhr region into a
supply base either for Germans, whom they would enlist as Allies, or for their
own armed forces." The Americans, Litvinov believed, were seeking to dupe
the Russians by creating the impression that Soviet security could be
guaranteed through this demilitarization treaty. In his view, which Stalin
shared, Byrnes was trying to lay the groundwork for the most dangerous scenario
imaginable, a premature termination of the occupation of Germany. 132
It was not only that
Stalin imagined threats; there were threats. Famine stalked his country. Unrest
pulsated through the lands he annexed. Low-scale insurgencies and guerrilla war
challenged his rule in the countries the Red Army occupied. Russian, Polish,
and Ukrainian documents make it clear that Stalin and his internal security
services "were profoundly concerned" with how Churchill's Fulton speech
might buoy the morale of rebels and insurgents. Speculation about a third world
war between the Anglo-Saxons and the Russians percolated through the resistance
movements against Soviet power and inspired Ukrainian and other nationalists to
imagine that in a new world conflict they might be liberated. "Throughout
Soviet-occupied Eastern Europe, Churchill's Fulton speech was like a call to
arms," or so it seemed inside the Kremlin and among Stalin's police
chieftains.133
Ideology conditioned
Stalin's thinking, but his suspicions were reinforced by experience and
reality. In Romania, Poland, the Balkans, Ukraine, and Turkey, British and
American officials conducted clandestine operations, albeit on a small scale,
to nurture unrest and establish ties with opposition leaders. Of course,
Stalin's brutal repression, his transfer of subject nationalities, and his
wrangling for bits of Iranian and Turkish territory also fomented instability
and encouraged the policies that exacerbated his suspicions.134
Yet Stalin was not
embarked on a cold war. He was vacillating, saying contradictory things,
pursuing divergent policies. Historians violently argue about Stalin's
motivations and his goals precisely because his rhetoric and his actions were
so inconsistent. In 1993, when Soviet documents from this period were first
becoming available, the Norwegian historian Odd Arne Westad
wrote, "Stalin's foreign policy is not as much inexplicable in its parts
as incoherent in its whole." This description seems even truer now, in
view of still more documents that have been brought to light.135
For although Stalin
delayed the withdrawal of his troops from northern Iran, asked for new rights
in the Turkish Straits, and installed progressively more communist governments
in Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria, he also withdrew Soviet troops from
Czechoslovakia and from the island of Bornholm in the Baltic; allowed free
elections in the Soviet occupation zone in Austria and in parts of Hungary and
Czechoslovakia; pulled Soviet troops out of Manchuria; and continued to
discourage revolution or communist seizures of power in Greece, Italy, and
France. In Germany, Stalin consolidated the Soviet hold over the Soviet
occupation zone yet talked repeatedly, both privately and publicly, about honoring
the Potsdam pledges to keep Germany unified and demilitarized. He told the
German communists whom he had placed in power in Berlin to cease radical
actions and plan for a unified Germany. He instructed them to join with Social
Democrats in a new Socialist Unity Party (SED) and to position themselves to
win elections in all four occupation zones. Yet the actions of Soviet armies in
eastern Germany brutalized the people and eroded any popular support the
communists might have garnered. Stalin, writes Norman Naimark, an eminent
historian of Stalin's European policies, "had no firm plan for post-war
Europe, not even what we would call today a 'road map.' ... He was too
tactically inclined for that" and too responsive to local circumstances
and unforeseen developments.136
Stalin did not want a
rift with the Western powers. Agreement with the United States, he told Polish
communists in late 1945, was still possible.137 Knowing that his election
speech of 6 February 1946 had been interpreted in the West to mean that he was
sundering the wartime alliance and resuming an ideological offensive, Stalin
made repeated public and private efforts to clarify his views. After telling
the new U.S. ambassador in Moscow, Walter Bedell Smith, that he believed the
United States and Britain were united to thwart Soviet Russia, he insisted that
he wanted to cooperate with them. "We should not be alarmed or
apprehensive," said Stalin, "because of differences of opinion and
arguments which occur in families and even between brothers because with
patience and good will these differences would be reconciled."
He said the same to Labour delegates and to journalists from Great Britain.
There will be no war, he told Alexander Werth, the correspondent of Britain's
Sunday Times. "I absolutely believe," he said, in the possibility of
long-standing cooperation with his wartime allies. "Communism in one
country is entirely possible, especially in such a country as the Soviet
Union." If he had been seeking to orchestrate opinion against the Americans
and British, it is hard to comprehend why he would have permitted such
interviews to be printed in the Soviet press. 138 And in his last meeting in
January 1946 with departing U.S. ambassador Averell Harriman, just two weeks
before his Bolshoi speech, Stalin told him, "As to our foreign policy
conceptions, the Soviet Union and the United States can find a common
language." He then inquired whether it might still be feasible to get a
large loan from the United States, as previously had been promised. He made
clear that he would not make political concessions in return for the loan, but
the money was still needed for postwar reconstruction. It would take six or
seven years, he admitted, to restore the devastated districts of western
Russia.139
But Stalin wanted
Western cooperation also in order to control the possible revival of German and
Japanese power. He was angered that the United States so blatantly monopolized
the occupation of Japan, a nation that he deemed a perennial threat to Russia,
and he could not accept American indifference to his strategic imperatives. He
wanted to be treated as a partner, albeit a junior one.140 In Germany,
understanding that the Western allies would not agree to dismembering the
country into separate zones and believing they were maneuvering to harness the
Western zones' latent power to serve Western interests, Stalin shifted course.
In mid-1945, he started to champion German unification and to favor German
economic revival. His aim was a unified, demilitarized Germany in the Soviet
sphere of influence, which he now believed would compete with Britain and
America and constrain their domination of the international economy. Still, a
unified, revived Germany might also maneuver out of control and join a Western
capitalist alliance against Soviet Russia, or it might act independently,
rearm, and aim for revenge and territorial revision. Conciliating the Germans,
Stalin grasped, might make Germany less revanchist, but it would be risky.
Hence cooperation with the Americans and the British was imperative, however
suspicious he might be. At the very least, he knew that cooperation was
indispensable if he was to get reparations from the western zones of Germany,
which he desperately wanted for Russian reconstruction.141
A unified Germany,
with all its attendant uncertainties, also made it more imperative to dominate
the Soviet Union's Eastern European borderlands. Hence throughout 1946 and
1947, Stalin ordered Molotov to work with Byrnes and British foreign minister
Ernest Bevin to complete peace treaties with the Eastern European nations that
had fought with Germany during the war. Stalin wanted, writes one of Hungary's
leading Cold War historians, to foster a communist "takeover in East
Central Europe by peaceful means, while preserving Soviet-Western cooperation
as well." 142
Truman did not know
how to deal with these twists and turns in Soviet policy, with the signs of
truculence and the contrary evidence of self-restraint. In February 1946, his
ablest diplomat in Moscow, George F. Kennan, sent a long telegram to
Washington, saying that "at the bottom of the Kremlin's view of world
affairs is a traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity." The
Soviets, Kennan concluded, did not believe in the possibility of any permanent
reconciliation with the West,143 But Ambassador Harriman left Moscow at about
the same time with a typically ambivalent view of the Soviet dictator:
It is hard for me to reconcile the courtesy and consideration that he showed me
personally with the ghastly cruelty of his wholesale liquidations. Others, who
did not know him personally, see only the tyrant in Stalin. I saw the other
side as well-his high intelligence, that fantastic grasp of detail, his
shrewdness and his surprising human sensitivity that he was capable of showing,
at least in the war years. I found him better informed than Roosevelt, more
realistic than Churchill, in some ways the most effective of the war leaders
.... I must confess that for me Stalin remains the most inscrutable and
contradictory character I have known-and leave the final word to the judgment
of history. 144
President Truman did not
have the luxury of waiting for the judgment of history, of course. He had to
make decisions in real time. He, too, wavered. He was angry with Byrnes's
temporizing. He was outraged by news of Soviet wartime espionage against the
Allies. He liked Churchill's tough words in his Fulton address. He told the
Soviets to get out of northern Iran. He instructed the Joint Chiefs of Staff to
draw up contingency war plans. He encouraged Byrnes to unite the British and
American zones in western Germany, to ameliorate conditions there, and to win
the support of the German people. If the Kremlin objected to Anglo-American
moves, their views could be ignored. 145
But Truman did not
seek a showdown. He recognized the unrepresentative, Soviet-imposed governments
in Romania and Bulgaria. In late 1945, he asked General George C. Marshall, the
renowned wartime army chief of staff, to go to China to work out a settlement
between the Communists and Nationalists there. He encouraged Under Secretary of
State Dean G. Acheson and his aides to work on a plan for the international
control of atomic energy. He continued to oversee the demobilization of U.S.
forces. He instructed Byrnes, much as Stalin instructed Molotov, to finish the
peace treaties regarding Eastern Europe, Italy, and Finland. He wanted General
Lucius D. Clay, the deputy military governor in Germany, to keep meeting with
his Soviet, British, and French counterparts on plans for the nation's
unification. Truman's closest aides, Clark Clifford and George Elsey, drew up a
long report in the summer of 1946 claiming that the Soviet Union was not simply
chiseling on its earlier agreements, as the president already believed, but
intent on world domination. When Secretary of Commerce Henry Wallace
remonstrated against this view and spoke publicly in behalf of a more
conciliatory policy toward the Kremlin, Truman fired him. Yet at the same time,
the president locked the Clifford-Elsey report in a safe and bided his time.
Truman was not eager
to sunder the great wartime coalition he had inherited from Roosevelt. A
breakdown would complicate his domestic priorities and weaken his party. Strife
with the Soviet Union, Truman knew, would require foreign aid to beleaguered
countries, more defense spending, fewer tax reductions, and spiraling
inflation. Republicans were already lambasting him for rising prices, labor
unrest, and high taxes. Notwithstanding the consensus among his foreign-policy
advisers that the Soviet Union was a great threat, Truman did not quite know
what to do. After his party suffered a humiliating defeat in the congressional
elections of November 1946, he asked General Marshall to become his secretary
of state, but gave him no marching orders, and the general himself was known
for his prudence and restraint. Marshall did not want confrontation. He wanted
to negotiate a German peace treaty with the Russians. Before he arrived in
Moscow, however, worsening international conditions dashed any lingering hopes
for a sustained detente.146
Neither Truman nor
Stalin wanted a cold war. Yet it came. Why? The Cold War came because
conditions in the international system created risks that Truman and Stalin
could not accept and opportunities they could not resist. Neither the president
of the most powerful country the world had ever known nor the cruelest dictator
the world had ever witnessed was in control of events. And the beliefs and
experiences of both men magnified their perception of threat and fear of
betrayal. Each felt he had to act because danger loomed. Each felt he had to
act because opportunity beckoned.
From the time World
War II drew to a close, nothing frightened American policymakers more than the
economic plight and social strife that the war had bequeathed. In April 1945,
as the fighting in Europe was in its last stages, John J. McCloy, the
influential assistant secretary of war, returned from a trip to Europe and
presented an apocalyptic account of conditions. "There is a complete
economic, social and political collapse going on in Central Europe, the extent
of which is unparalleled in history." The situation in Germany, he told
Secretary of War Henry L. Stin1son, was "worse than anything probably that
ever happened in the world." Writing in his diary, Stimson noted that he
"had anticipated the chaos, but the details of it were appalling."137
A few months later,
in July, Dean Acheson presented a similar view to the Senate Committee on
Banking and Currency: "There is a situation in the world, very clearly
illustrated in Europe, and also true in the Far East, which threatens the very
foundations, the whole fabric of world organization which we have known in our
lifetime and which our fathers and grandfathers knew." In liberated
Europe, Acheson reported, railway and power systems had ceased to operate, "financial
systems are destroyed. Ownership of property is in terrific confusion.
Management of property is in confusion." Not since the eighth century,
when the Muslims split the world in two, Acheson said, had conditions been so
serious. Europe's industrial and social life had "come to a complete and
utter standstill." The "whole fabric of social life," Acheson
warned, "might go to pieces unless the most energetic steps are taken on
all fronts." 148
People suffered.
People endured. People yearned for a better future. People discussed, disputed,
and imagined alternative political and economic orders. Capitalism was blamed
for the Depression, the war, and genocide. Describing conditions in
Czechoslovakia, the historian Igor Lukes writes that
after the war, "Many in Czechoslovakia had come to believe that capitalism
... had become obsolete. Influential intellectuals saw the world emerging from
the ashes of the war in black and white terms: here was Auschwitz and there was
Stalingrad. The former was a by-product of a crisis in capitalist Europe of the
1930s; the latter stood for the superiority of socialism." 149 In November
1945, the British historian A.J.P. Taylor commented: "Nobody in Europe
believes in the American way of life-that is, in private enterprise."
People, he said, "want Socialism, but they also want the Rights of
Man."150
This was not mere
rhetoric. What concerned U.S. officials was what was happening on the streets
and in the voting booths. Everywhere in Europe, communist and socialist support
seemed to be mounting. In Belgium, the Communist Party grew from 9,000 in 1939
to 100,000 in November 1945; in Greece, from 17,000 in 1935 to 70,000 in 1945;
in Italy, from 5,000 in 1943 to 1.7 million at the end of 1945; in
Czechoslovakia, from 28,000 in May 1945 to 750,000 in September 1945. In
France, Italy, and Finland, communists were already getting 20 percent of the
total vote; in Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Holland, and Sweden, it was close to
10 percent. In Eastern European countries, 20 to 50 percent of the populace
aligned with leftist parties.1511 Support for socialist parties made the left
appear even more threatening to those in the center and on the right. In Great
Britain, the Labour Party emerged triumphant in July
1945 and, to the astonishment of Americans, unseated Winston Churchill.
Everywhere, people seemed to be clamoring for land reform, social welfare, and
nationalization of industry. "They have suffered so much," said
Acheson, "and they believe so deeply that governments can take some action
which will alleviate their sufferings, that they will demand that the whole
business of state control and state interference shall be pushed further and
further." 152 To many Americans, private enterprise and free markets
appeared endangered by a resurgent left.
Conditions in Asia,
the Middle East, and Africa were no more reassuring. In Japan, fifteen million
people were homeless and the economy near collapse. China was engulfed by
political strife and civil war. In South Asia, the Congress Party under
Mohandas K. Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru was continuing India's long struggle
for independence. In Southeast Asia, revolutionary nationalist movements were
blossoming. The communist leader Ho Chi Minh clamored for France's recognition
of Vietnam's independence. Achmed Sukarno pleaded for
Dutch recognition of Indonesia's sovereignty. Indeed, embedded in the entire
international system was the problem of Europe's former colonies in Asia and
Africa that now wanted independence; the solution to this problem would gradually
reconfigure the international order, kin dling in
Moscow immense hopes for progress and change and generating in Washington
immense fear and never-ending frustration.
U.S. officials hoped
conditions would improve. In many places they did, but not enough to allay
officials' apprehensions. In March 1946, Acheson told a congressional
committee, "The commercial and financial situation of the world is worse
than any of us thought a year ago it would be. Destruction is more complete,
hunger more acute, exhaustion more widespread than anyone then realized. What
might have been passed off as prophecies have become stark facts."153 At
cabinet meetings, Truman's advisers discussed food shortages and the social
disorder and political upheaval they were engendering. "More people face
starvation and even actual death," the president acknowledged, "than
in any war year and perhaps more than in all the war years combined."154
What hovered over
these deliberations were fears that Stalin would try to capitalize on these conditions.
There would be "pestilence and famine in Central Europe next winter,"
Secretary of War Stimson had told President Truman on 16 May 1945. "This
is likely to be followed by political revolution and Communistic
infiltration." The next month, Undersecretary of State Joseph Grew gave
the president a long report on the international communist movement.
"Europe today," it concluded, was a breeding ground for
"spontaneous class hatred to be channeled by a skillful agitator."
Over the next two years, while Soviet and American officials wrangled over
Eastern Europe, Iran, and Turkey, this perceived threat did not abate. The
"greatest potential danger to U.S. security," the newly formed
Central Intelligence Agency concluded in September 1947, "lies ... in the
possibility of the economic collapse of Western Europe and of the consequent
accession to power of elements subservient to the Kremlin." 155
Heavy snows and
frigid temperatures during January and February 1947 transformed alarm to
action. British officials confided that financial exigencies would force His
Majesty's government to withdraw from the eastern Mediterranean, thereby
exposing Greece and Turkey to additional risk. "The reins of world
leadership," Assistant Secretary of State Will Clayton wrote, "are
fast slipping from Britain's competent but now very weak hands. These reins
will be picked up either by the United States or by Russia. If by Russia, there
will almost certainly be war in the next decade or so with the odds against
US."156 Clayton feared that the Greek communists would gain power and
align Greece with the Soviet Union. The success of the communists in Greece
would have a bandwagon effect throughout Europe. President Truman put it this
way:
If we were to turn
our back on the world, areas such as Greece, weakened and divided as a result
of the war, would fall into the Soviet orbit without much effort on the part of
the Russians. The success of Russia in such areas and our avowed lack of
interest would lead to the growth of domestic Communist parties in such
European countries as France and Italy, where they already were significant
threats. Inaction ... could result in handing to the Russians vast areas of the
globe now denied to them.157
Truman took action.
He delivered a special address to Congress on 12 March 1947, setting forth what
became known as the Truman Doctrine. Thereafter, it "would be the policy
of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted
subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." He asked
Congress to allocate four hundred million dollars in aid for Greece and Turkey.
A "fateful hour" had arrived. Nations had to choose "between
alternate ways of life .... If we falter in our leadership," Truman
warned, "we may endanger the peace of the world." 158
Three months later,
after failing to make headway on a German settlement at a conference in Moscow,
Secretary of State Marshall gave a commencement address at Harvard in which he
proposed that the United States help to fund Europe's reconstruction should
Europeans design a satisfactory plan for it. The Soviet Union was not acting
aggressively, but it was consolidating its influence in Eastern Europe and
maneuvering to capitalize on mounting unrest in Western Europe. "Europe is
steadily deteriorating," said Assistant Secretary Clayton on 27 May.
"Millions of people in the cities are slowly starving .... Without further
and substantial aid from the United States, economic, social, and political
disintegration will overwhelm Europe."
In the western zones
of Germany, rations were cut to twelve hundred calories per day per person.
Marshall and his assistants feared that without additional food deliveries they
would lose "the great struggle ... to prevent [Germany] going
communistic." 159
Truman understood
that he needed to put events in a context that the American people could
comprehend if they were to support the initiatives he was now contemplating. He
explained that it was a struggle berween alternative
ways of life. It was not a military struggle but a political one, an
ideological struggle, a spiritual struggle. Nations in much of the world,
Truman stated in a speech at Baylor University just days before he announced
the Truman Doctrine, were heading toward central planning. Free enterprise was
challenged everywhere. And where free enterprise was endangered, so were other
cherished freedoms, such as freedom of speech and of religion. In the
president's view, all these freedoms were indivisible. 160 They were at risk
because of the devastation wrought by the war, because of people's yearnings
for a better future. They were at risk because strong communist parties were
competing successfully for office, because armed minorities were willing to use
force to seize power, and because the Kremlin hovered in the background willing
to give succor to such efforts and eager to capitalize on them.
America's own future
was at risk. "Our deepest concern with European recovery is that it is
essential to the maintenance of the civilization in which the American way of
life is rooted," Truman explained. "If Europe fails to recover, the
people of these countries might be driven to the philosophy of despair [of
totalitarianism]. Such a turn of events would constitute a shattering blow to
peace and stability in the world. It might well compel us to modify our own
economic system and to forgo, for the sake of our own security, the enjoyment
of many of our freedoms and privileges." 161
U.S. officials were
motivated to act, then, not because Stalin was an evil dictator, killing
millions of people in his own country and subjugating peoples on the periphery
of the Soviet Union, but because of conditions in the international system, and
out of fear that social turmoil and economic paralysis in Europe would play
into communist hands, affording Stalin new opportunities to expand Soviet
power. They also feared that floundering occupation policies in Germany and
Japan might allow those countries to gravitate into a Soviet orbit and that
decolonization in the third world would be exploited by the Kremlin. They had
learned that once a totalitarian government possessed great power, it was
likely to wage war, and even if it did not wage war, its control of huge
resources and markets throughout Eurasia meant that it endangered America's
free political economy. "If communism is allowed to absorb the free
nations," Truman subsequently explained, "then we would be isolated
from our sources of supply and detached from our friends. Then we would have to
take defense measures which might really bankrupt our economy, and change our
way of life so that we couldn't recognize it as American any longer." 162
No country was more
critical than Germany. The integration of Germany into the postwar
international system was the overriding issue. "The only really dangerous
thing in my mind," said George Kennan in 1946, "is the possibility
that the technical skills of the Germans might be combined with the physical
resources of Russia."163 From the moment the war ended, top u.s. officials recognized that the revival of German coal
production was essential for the economic revival of the rest of Europe, on
which, in turn, social peace depended. During the Potsdam Conference, President
Truman had ordered General Dwight D. Eisenhower, then commander of American
troops in Europe, to make the production and export of twenty-five million tons
of coal the number one priority of U.S. occupation policy in Germany (other
than the health and safety of U.S. troops themselves). This priority had far
reaching implications. The successful large-scale mining of coal, acknowledged
General Clay, meant "some restoration of the German economy, and some
industrial activity to support coal mining." 164
But the economy in
the British, French, and American occupation zones floundered during 1946,
causing immense consternation in Washington. When officials went to work
designing the Marshall Plan, Kennan and his associates in the State Department
maintained that reviving German production was the key to European recovery,
yet they feared that a revived Germany might not be within their power to
control. There was no certainty how it would behave once the occupation was
over or how it would orient itself in the international system. When Marshall
went to Moscow to discuss the future of Germany at the Big Four Council of
Foreign Ministers in March 1947, he took John Foster Dulles, the prominent
Republican foreign-policy spokesman, with him. Germany's economic potential,
Dulles told Marshall, had to be integrated into western Europe without
"giving economic mastery to the Germans." This was a daunting
challenge, as Dulles recognized. Once they began recovering, he acknowledged,
the Germans would "almost certainly be dominated by a spirit of revenge
and ambition to recover a great power status." They might align with the
Soviet Union or act independently. Either way, danger lurked.165
But it could not be
avoided. Steps had to be taken to expedite coal production in the Ruhr. No
reparations in the form of raw materials, machine tools, or anything else
should be given to the U.S.S.R. German resources had to be harnessed for the
recovery of western Europe. The Moscow conference partly foundered on this
issue of reparations. Although Marshall hoped to sustain wartime cooperation,
he told Stalin, he could not continue to haggle about the future of Germany.
Action was imperative.166 At a meeting on 3 July, Secretary of State Marshall,
Secretary of War Robert Patterson, and Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal
agreed: "Germany must cooperate fully in any effective European plan, and
that the economic revival of Europe depends in considerable part on a recovery
of German production-in coal, in food, steel, fertilizer, ete.,
and on efficient use of such European resources as the Rhine River."l67 A
week later, General Clay was instructed to boost the level of industrial
production in the western zones.
The American
offensive-the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and the rebuilding of western
Germany-was a reaction to the anarchy in the international system, upon which
the United States believed the Kremlin might capitalize. Fear drove policy.
Truman and his advisers understood they were placing the reconstruction of
western Europe and the cooptation of western Germany over their desire to sustain
their wartime cooperation with the Soviet Union. They did not seek to provoke
Stalin or to endanger Soviet security, but they believed they had to act as
they did, even if it meant that the U.S.S.R. would feel provoked. Prudence
demanded action.
Stalin was not
surprised. The capitalists were acting as capitalists, seeking to form a bloc
against Soviet Russia. Initially, he pondered Soviet participation in the
Marshall Plan. He sent Molotov and a hundred technical advisers to a conference
in Paris in July 1947 to discuss Marshall's overture for the European Recovery
Program. But while Molotov negotiated, Stalin changed his mind. He saw
encirclement. He believed, quite rightly, that the terms for participation
included the opening of the east European nations where the Red Army was still
enforcing Soviet control. The financial credits would prove illusory, he said,
and would form a pretext to isolate the Soviet Union.
The Americans were
trying to maneuver their way into Eastern Europe. They were seeking to harness
German power against the Soviet Union. Stalin ordered the governments of
Czechoslovakia and Poland, which were mightily enticed to participate, not to
permit themselves to be lured by the American offer. 168
But Stalin did much
more than pressure his allies to rebuff American overtures. Seeing danger, he
orchestrated a new round of purges in Eastern Europe, reshuffled the
composition of governments, and planted his minions in power more firmly.
Soviet delegates walked out of the Allied Control Council that was supposed to
be governing Germany. The Kremlin tightened controls over access to Berlin, and
suppressed opponents of the SED in the Soviet zone in eastern Germany. In
Czechoslovakia, Stalin supported a communist seizure of power in February 1948;
almost overnight a democratically elected government was transformed into a
"People's Democracy." With other nations on the Soviet periphery,
Stalin negotiated defense agreements. Inside his own country, he boosted
military expenditures. "We do not wish for war," he said, "but
we are not afraid of it." 169
Stalin believed the
capitalists had thrown down the gauntlet. Although he had been planning the
move for quite some time, he convened a meeting in Poland in September 1947 and
established the Communist Information Bureau (Cominform) to improve his control
over and coordination among European communist parties. At this meeting, his
representatives announced that the world was being divided into two camps.
Peaceful coexistence was impossible. Western capitalist initiatives had to be
thwarted. The Marshall Plan had to be defeated. Efforts to unite and
reconstruct the western zones of Germany had to be challenged. If necessary,
Stalin would blockade Berlin. The former capital of Nazi Germany, although officially
administered by the four occupation powers and divided into four zones, lay
inside Soviet controlled east Germany and could be easily squeezed to counter
Western initiatives. At a special session of the Politburo on 14 March 1948,
Stalin explained his thinking: "The innumerable conferences taking place
in recent years indicated clearly to us that we cannot come to an agreement
with the camp opposing us just as water and fire are unable to come to terms.
The present situation of a hostile yet peaceful world may still last for a long
time but there will come a time when conflict, I repeat, will be
inevitable." 170
Ideology shaped
Stalin's interpretation of the actions of America and Britain, and provided a
menu of possible responses. He could try to exploit divisions among the
capitalist powers. He could try to mobilize the European proletariat to thwart
the actions of their bourgeois governments. In fact, Stalin denounced French
and Italian communists for their previous postwar collaboration with other political
parties and now encouraged them to obstruct implementation of the Marshall
Plan, but he also cautioned against adventurism, against acting too crudely,
against provoking even more ominous reactions from the capitalist adversary.171
Stalin told the Yugoslav communists that they should stop supporting the
communists in Greece. That struggle should be postponed for a more propitious
time, he insisted. "The entire question rests in the balance of forces. We
must go into battle not when the enemy wants us to, but when it's in our
interests." 172
But if there were
dangers in the international environment, communist ideology also postulated opportunities.
Ever since the 1920s, Stalin had ruminated about a "coalition between the
proletariat revolution in Europe and the colonial revolution in the East ...
against the world front of imperialism."173 Now, in late 1947 and early
1948, Stalin returned to this theme with greater emphasis than ever before. He
told a special session of the Politburo, on 14 March 1948, "we should
energetically support the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed peoples of
the dependent and colonial countries against the imperialism of America,
England, and France." Many countries once controlled by European powers,
Stalin explained, already "had entered the path of national
liberation." Their struggles would help precipitate the crisis of
capitalism long postulated by Marxist-Leninist theory. The Kremlin, he said,
could do much to hasten the revolutionary process in Central and South America
and, even more so, in Asia. We have already done a lot, he told his comrades,
to "accelerate the emancipation of Asiatic peoples, although I think
henceforth we should increase tenfold our work in this direction." China's
liberation movement, Stalin maintained, would become a model for the future.
Revolutionary nationalist turmoil in the third world provided boundless
opportunities for the expansion of communist influence and the erosion of
capitalist power.174
While Stalin
acknowledged weakness in Europe and opportunity in Asia and Latin America,
Truman and his advisers believed that they still had an opportunity to act from
a position of strength in Europe. "In the necessary delicate apportioning
of our resources," wrote Assistant Secretary of War Howard C. Petersen in
mid-1947, "the time element permits emphasis on strengthening the economic
dikes against Soviet communism rather than upon preparing for a possible
eventual, but not yet inevitable war." 175 If the passage of time was
likely to mean the further accretion of state power, more experiments in
central planning, and proliferating trade and exchange controls, it was urgent
to act now while the correlation of forces was still in America's favor. If the
food shortages, work stoppages, and political turmoil in the western zones of
Germany portended uncertainty about the future of Germany, it was imperative to
act now before the German communists and their Soviet backers outmaneuvered
Western-oriented parties and politicians.
By the fall of 1947,
U.S. officials no longer felt they had the time to try to work out cooperative
agreements. They had to act quickly to mobilize West German resources for the
economic reconstruction and financial stabilization of western Europe. At a
London meeting of foreign ministers in December, Soviet officials continued to
bargain meaningfully over the future of Germany even while the Kremlin fomented
riots and demonstrations in France and Italy against the proposed Marshall
Plan. Precisely because the international environment was so fraught with risk,
and precisely because the communists in Italy had a real chance to win the
elections scheduled for April 1948, Truman and Marshall pressed Congress to
pass emergency relief legislation, and then they capitalized on the news of the
communist coup in Prague to push for passage of the legislation supporting the
Marshall Plan.
Even more important,
they could no longer afford to haggle over the future of Germany. The Americans
and British wanted to unify the British, French, and American zones in a
federal republic, implement currency reform there, and boost industrial
production, thereby integrating this new West Germany into a plan for European
recovery. France equivocated and remonstrated, fearful that such Anglo-American
initiatives might provoke Soviet aggression in the short run or create a German
Frankenstein in the long run. "The thing that impressed me," said
Will Clayton after talking to French officials in the fall of 1947, "was
the intensity with which the French people ... regarded the possibility of an
attack by Germany again." Marshall tried to allay these worries, but he
was insistent on moving ahead. "Maximum German contribution to European
recovery," he wrote, "cannot be obtained without establishment of
political organization of western Germany. ... Failure to proceed would appear
to Soviets as sign of weak ness .... While
appreciating French concern, US government does not believe that western
nations can permit themselves to be deterred." 176
In other words, the
Soviet threats to blockade Berlin must not thwart the Western initiatives.
Truman, Marshall, and their colleagues did not think the Soviet Union would go
to war over Germany. George Kennan and Charles Bohlen, the nation's foremost
experts on Soviet Russia, did not believe Stalin would attack. Indeed, the
United States could try to build up West German power and leverage its way into
the Soviet sphere precisely because it calculated that the Soviet Union was too
weak to respond militarily. Stalin might threaten, might clamp down in his own
sphere, and might try to blockade Berlin, but he was not ready for war. He
could not ignore America's atomic monopoly. Stalin would defer to American
power, Marshall calculated, even while he denounced it or denied it. The Soviet
leader would bluster. He would repress. He would foment unrest. But these
actions, Marshall told his cabinet colleagues, reflected Soviet
"desperation," not strength. They are bluffing, said General Clay on
17 June 1948, "and their hand can and should be called now. "177
Conditions in the
international arena encouraged U.S. officials to go on the diplomatic offensive
in 1947 and 1948. Digesting the lessons of recent history, U.S. officials
believed they had to act before the skilled labor, resources, and industrial
infrastructure of Europe fell into the grasp of a totalitarian adversary, which
would put America's free political economy at risk. But if the existing
correlation of forces enabled the United States to act swiftly in Western
Europe and Japan, opportunities still abounded for the Kremlin to further its
influence and its power in Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
Stalin never forswore
his determination to safeguard Soviet security and to oversee the forces of
worldwide revolution. So long as cooperation with the West promised the
possibility of expediting reconstruction at home and controlling the revival of
German and Japanese power abroad, he was prepared to cool the ardor of his
revolutionary comrades and sometimes even betray them. But once Truman declared
that he was waging a war against evil for the soul of mankind, Stalin saw that
the international landscape was fraught not only with the dangers postulated by
Marxist-Leninist ideology, but also with opportunities.
Indeed, danger and
opportunity would define the Cold War. Embedded in the international system
were social forces of order and disorder, vacuums of power, and wars of
national liberation. Who would win the spiritual battle for the soul of mankind
after depression, war, and genocide? Who would fill the vacuums of power in
central Europe and northeast Asia after the defeat of Germany and Japan? How
would wars of national liberation in Asia and Africa shape the international
configuration of power after the demise of Europe's colonies? Stalin and Truman
pondered these questions. They were wracked with fear and inspired by hope.
Ideology and historical experience shaped the way they saw the dangers and the
opportunities that lurked in the international system. But so did domestic
politics.
Truman was not eager
to go on an offensive against the Soviet Union and international communism. By
1947-48, he knew that American public opinion had grown deeply suspicious of
Russia, and that the Republican Party was eager to attack him for appeasing
another totalitarian adversary. Yet he was far from certain that the public
would support a vigorous foreign policy, which would be costly. In November
1946, voters had repudiated his party and put Republicans in control of both
houses of Congress for the first time since the 1920s. But the election had
been fought primarily on domestic issues. Many newly elected senators, such as
Joseph McCarthy from Wisconsin and John Bricker from Ohio, were economic
nationalists and political isolationists, more eager to attack the president
for being soft on communists at home than to press him to do anything
abroad.178
Truman's prestige was
at rock bottom after the elections of November 1946, with only about 30 percent
of Americans thinking he was doing a good job. Fed up with shortages and
strikes, they were primarily concerned about the costs of housing and the price
of meat. Businessmen wanted to crush unions; southern segregationists wanted to
keep blacks in their place; America Firsters wanted to rid the country of
domestic spies and communist traitors.
Truman acted in the
international arena because he feared Stalin would exploit conditions to
aggrandize Soviet power, not because he felt a groundswell of public opinion
demanding new foreign-policy initiatives. The president and his advisers
believed they were far ahead of the public in wanting to take action, and
thought they had to "shock" or "electrify" the American
people into support. In meetings with Democratic and Republican leaders of
Congress, Secretary Marshall and Under Secretary Acheson realized they had to
pose the threat in stark ideological terms if they were to garner congressional
support for a policy of "containment." Truman's aides and State
Department officials invested a huge amount of time in drafting the president's
address to Congress asking for aid to Greece and Turkey. Truman insisted that
the message be framed in simple language that the American people could
understand. The looming contest was a struggle between good and evil, between
freedom and slavery.179 "I wanted no hedging in this speech," he
recalled in his memoirs. "This was America's answer to the surge of
expansion of communist tyranny. It had to be clear and free of hesitation and
double talk." 180
Domestic opinion was
ripe. Support for Truman soared in the spring of 1947 as he took the offensive
against the Soviet Union. Truman's intent was not to launch a crusade that
would entrap him and his successors, but he did. His ideological language
deeply resonated. Religious evangelicals and racial segregationists, right-wing
extremists, and anti-New Dealers thrived on anticommunist rhetoric. Truman's
creation of loyalty boards to screen the backgrounds of federal employees and
his support of legislation to create the CIA and the National Security Council
"neutered the Republican resurgence."181
But the president
also became a prisoner of his own rhetoric.182 Highlighting the communist
menace abroad, how could he ignore it at home? In July 1946, 36 percent of
Americans told pollsters that domestic communists should be either killed or
imprisoned.l83 Truman's conservative foes exploited this public attitude and
manipulated the president's language to suit their purposes. They wanted to
expel communists from the government, crush "leftists," and repudiate
the New Deal. Two weeks after the president delivered his Truman Doctrine
message to Congress, J. Edgar Hoover, director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, told the House Un-American Activities Committee that the
administration was not doing enough to root out subversives. Public ire, he
said, needed to be aroused. "Victory will be assured once communists are
identified and exposed, because the public will take the first step of
quarantining them so they can do no harm. Communism, in reality, is not a
political party. It is a way of life-an evil and malignant way of life."
184
The struggle to contain
Soviet power became an ideological crusade. This was understandable. The
American people had just vanquished one totalitarian foe; they now faced
another. They knew Stalin's regime was ruthless and knew he was imposing
"godless" communist governments on countries such as Poland and
Romania, from which some Americans had themselves emigrated. They did not ask
if Stalin was different from Hitler. They assumed the answer was clear. And
they realized that Stalin had support in many lands beyond the Soviet
periphery. Richard Nixon, a newly elected Republican congressman from
California who had run a strong anticommunist campaign, visited Europe in early
1947. He saw that French and Italian communists were capitalizing politically
on Europe's dire economic conditions. The threat was real, he believed, and
immediate. "Communists throughout the world owe their loyalty not to the
countries in which they live but to Russia," he said.185
Domestic political
battles, therefore, reinforced the ideological and geostrategic convictions of
U.S. officials. But Republicans and Democrats shared a common vocabulary: they
believed they were in a battle to preserve the American way of life. "If
Western Europe goes behind the Iron Curtain," declared Republican senator
William Knowland, "the whole productive
potential of that section of the world will fall into the Russian orbit ...
[and] the repercussions upon our own domestic economy would be ...
terrific." If the United States did not employ its vast power when it
still had an opportunity to do so, George Kennan warned, it would face a Europe
that "would be no less hostile" than the Europe of Hitler's dreams.
Such a Europe would force the United States to change, requiring increases in
defense spending, controls over the economy, more intense hunts for domestic
subversives, and more infringements on personal freedoms. The United States,
Truman predicted, might have to become a garrison state with "a system of
centralized regimentation unlike anything we have ever known."186
Stalin's evolving
policies were also a response to his domestic polity. Geopolitics, ideology,
and personality shaped his attitudes, but his behavior cannot be fully
understood except in the domestic context in which he operated. The Soviet
people, Stalin knew, wanted a better way of life. They expected benefits, not
more calls for sacrifice. Everybody, wrote the journalist ilya
Ehrenburg, "expected that once victory had been won, people would know
real happiness." The war itself was already being "remembered as a
time of freedom." It had catalyzed feelings of community and unleashed
people's creativity and ingenuity, since they had been forced "time after
time to make their own decisions, to take responsibility for themselves."
It had been a period almost of spontaneous de-Stalinization. After victory,
they expected better. We "believed that victory would bring justice,"
wrote Ehrenburg, "that human dignity would triumph." 187
Stalin was not blind
to the realities around him. His country was devastated, his people
impoverished. His armies had conquered new lands, but ones inhabited by
millions of discontented people. His soldiers returned with ideas and hopes
that could not be trusted. The U.S.S.R. contained subject peoples and
nationalities whose desire for autonomy had been intensified by resistance and
war. The Soviet armed forces had performed heroically but now might capitalize
on their popularity and challenge his power. Stalin had more stature than ever
before, but he was personally insecure and fearful for his life. The nation had
more power than ever before, but its long-term safety was far from assured.
Communism had more resonance than ever before, but the system tottered within.
Rumblings of
discontent abounded. Food was scarce, housing conditions abominable. In 1946,
the Soviet grain harvest sank to 39.6 million tons compared with 95.5 million
in 1940; in 1947, the nation had 14 million tons of flour compared with almost
29 million in 1940. And where food could be had, it was often inedible. "Workers
and even low-level managers in rural areas endured a state of poverty which was
almost beyond description." Parents could not feed or clothe their
children. "Dreams of a calm, even if slow, advance forward were dashed
forever." 188
Demoralization prevailed
everywhere, and Stalin's spies vigilantly reported news of spreading
discontent. General V. N. Gordov, conqueror of Prague
and Berlin, ruminated on conditions with F. T. Rybalchenko,
his former chief of staff. "People are angry about their life and complain
openly," Gordov said. "There is incredible
famine." Rybalchenko retorted, "Policies
are such [that] nobody wants to work. All collective farmers hate Stalin and
wait for his end." The recorded conversation was sent to Stalin. Gordovand his wife were executed.189
There was seething
discontent in the western borderlands of Soviet Russia and in the recently
annexed territories. Suppressed nationality groups and ethnic minorities wanted
a softening of the Soviet way of life and an opportunity for self-expression.
During 1946, Ukrainian nationalist rebels continued to fight tenaciously.
Stalin's secret police reported growing foreign espionage activity. Captured
suspects said they were paid by Americans and British intelligence to gather
information. Rebels spread rumors of an impending war between the United States
and the U.S.S.R. that would lead to the liberation of Ukraine. 190
Stalin's suspicions
were stirred anew. He was determined to "deliver a blow" against any
talk of "democracy," let alone subversion. He reorganized the
internal Soviet police system throughout the western borderlands. He ordered
Andrei Zhdanov to take charge of the propaganda administration in the party
secretariat and to re-impose ideological purity on the nomenklatura and apparatchiks.
He instructed Lavrenty Beria, the head of the secret
police, to use slave labor to accelerate the Soviet atomic project. He
reshuffled the top brass of the army and demoted Zhukov. The population of
political prisoners held in a huge network of Soviet labor camps grew from
1,460,677 in 1945 to 2,199,535 in 1948; the numbers of ethnic minorities and
repatriated soldiers forced to live in special settlements in forsaken places
totaled almost 2.5 million at the end of 1946. Prisoners died each year by the
tens of thousands: 81,917 in 1945; 30,715 in 1946; 66,830 in 1947; 50,659 in
1948.191
Stalin intimidated
his subordinates one by one, not killing them but striking fear into their
hearts, stripping away their independence, and reminding them that he was the
source of their authority, even of their lives. Yet it was often difficult to
discern what he wanted beyond a few key fundamentals: his unchallenged power, a
single-party state guided by Marxist-Leninist ideology, and Soviet imperial
control over the peoples of the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe. Over many economic
matters Stalin allocated responsibility to his Council of Ministers. Defense
and foreign-policy matters and ideological issues stayed within the province of
the party's Politburo, which met informally and infrequently and which Stalin
dominated. But the dictator's domination did not mean that his views were
predetermined.192
Soviet records reveal
that on many issues Stalin had no clear policy. On many matters he suspended
action. Top officials discussed complex, often intersecting issues among
themselves and with him-relations with the United States, the security of the
Soviet Union, the future of Germany, the orientation of the communist parties
abroad, the allocation of resources to industry and agriculture, the degree of
national and cultural self-expression. But Stalin intervened only episodically
and inconsistently.193 Russocentrism, however, loomed
larger and larger in his thinking. "The patriotic [Russian] component
steadily increased its relative weight in comparison with the Marxist."
194
But the mix remained
inchoate. Stalin's ideology did not provide him with clear answers, nor did
domestic politics shape his foreign policy. But at a time of international
turmoil and internal ferment, the ideology, mixed with his personal paranoia,
oriented his thinking and shaped his domestic crackdown. Nobody could be
trusted, least of all capitalists. He was prepared to work with the United
States, just as Truman wanted to get along with him, but on his own terms and
to serve his own interests. Cooperation with the Western powers did not mean
that he could allow Soviet security to be endangered or the communist
experiment to be imperiled. Capitalists were stirring up discontent and brewing
rebellion inside Eastern Europe and the western borderlands of the Soviet
Union. They were thwarting his ambitions in Iran and Turkey. They were intent
on rebuilding western Germany. They were dangerous scoundrels. The Marshall
Plan confirmed his worst suspicions. It "tore the alliance apart,"
writes a recent biographer. Stalin regarded it as a device "to destroy
Soviet military and political hegemony over Eastern Europe."195
Stalin now had no
alternative but to confront his foreign adversaries. Ideology and history
instructed that they could not be appeased. The loyalty and discipline of his
subordinates were deemed imperative not only at home but throughout Eastern
Europe. Dissidents were purged, obeisance demanded. As the iron curtain
descended across Europe, opportunity beckoned in Asia. Communists were waging a
tenacious struggle to gain power in China, and revolutionary nationalist
leaders such as Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam and Sukarno in Indonesia were battling
the French and Dutch in behalf of their people's freedom.
After the war, Stalin
initially did rather little to support prospective communist allies in Asia,
Africa, or Latin America. His attitude toward Mao Zedong and the Chinese
Communist Party's war against the Guomindang illustrated that his priority was
Soviet Russia. Stalin claimed that conditions in China were not ripe for
revolution, nor the material base and class structure conducive to
success. In August 1945, he had signed an agreement with the Nationalists,
since he wanted to secure Russia's periphery in northeast Asia, avoid a rift
with the United States, and temper Washington's penchant to intervene in Asia
on behalf of Jiang Jieshi. On key occasions, the
Soviet army in Manchuria did provide arms and assistance to the Chinese
communists, but Stalin urged Mao to compromise, share power, and reach a modus
vivendi with the Guomindang. These actions disheartened Mao but did not alter
his quest to gain power. As Stalin recounted to Bulgarian and Yugoslav
communists in February 1948, the Chinese comrades agreed "in words,"
"but in practice kept accumulating forces." 196
Stalin's priority was
not revolution in Asia and the third world but the reconstruction of Soviet
Russia and protection of its frontiers. Revolution, the ultimate goal, could be
deferred, even subordinated, while the Kremlin assessed whether and for how
long it could collaborate with its wartime allies in shaping the future of
Germany and Japan, Russia's traditional enemies. Because of Stalin's desire to
"take care of [his] relations with the United States," Mao had
acknowledged in December 1945, Soviet forces had not done all they might have
done to thwart the movement of Nationalist troops into key cities in Manchuria.
Mao's revolution could wait, Stalin thought, until he assessed the Americans'
willingness to share power in Japan. Revolution against France in Vietnam could
also wait, Stalin calculated, until he could determine Ho's reliability and
evaluate the evolution of French domestic politics. 197
But once the
Americans opted in the spring and summer of 1947 to focus on the reconstruction
of Western Europe, and once French officials aligned their nation with the
Americans and British in Germany and excised communists from the governing
coalition in Paris, Stalin turned his attention to the vast opportunities that
he thought he had to weaken the capitalists and encourage revolution in Asia.
When the Truman administration reversed course in Japan in early 1948 and
concentrated on rehabilitating Japan's economy rather than reforming its prewar
institutions, Stalin, too, reversed course in China. He told Mao's emissaries
that they now could count on him. "If socialism is victorious in
China," Stalin said, "and [if] other countries follow the same road,
we can consider the victory of socialism throughout the world to be
guaranteed." 198
World revolution
remained a distant goal, however, not to be pursued at the expense of the interests
and power of the Soviet Union. When he formed the Cominform in September 1947,
Stalin's aim was to gain tighter control over his minions in Europe, not to
encourage worldwide revolution. In fact, he chastised French and Italian
communists for allowing themselves to be outmaneuvered and warned them not to
engage in insurrectionary activity.199 Ideology did not breed affinity for
Stalin's communist comrades in foreign lands or make him more amenable to their
wishes. His allies and clients learned to their dismay that they had to
accommodate the twists and turns of his policies, even when they conflicted
with their own interests and aspirations.200
Stalin despised signs
of their independence and autonomy. He often was tentative and vague in
communicating with communists in other nations, masking his own uncertainties.
But when they acted on their own in ways he deemed harmful to Soviet interests,
he could be brutally clear. He would not allow the national interests of other
communist leaders to usurp his authority or interfere with his priorities. In
August 1947, he was furious with Bulgarian and Yugoslav communist leaders for
signing agreements without first consulting him. They were foolishly supporting
the insurgency in Greece, in his view, and mistakenly seeking to intimidate
Albania through the movement of Yugoslav troops. "These are leftist
infatuations," he declared. Hereafter, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia must
coordinate their foreign policies with the Kremlin. They must not do anything to
provoke the capitalist adversary. "Right now a great electoral struggle is
going on in America," Stalin lectured. "For us, it is of great
importance to see what the future government there will be, because America is
a powerful country, well armed. Its government is
headed not by intellectuals but by moneybags who hate us terribly and look for
any pretext to do us harm. "201
Stalin, alone, would
shape the foreign policies of his communist neighbors. Believing that Marshal
Tito in Yugoslavia was defying his leadership, Stalin tried to destroy him. In
June 1948, he orchestrated Yugoslavia's expulsion from the Cominform. And at
the same time he took action that provoked the United States far more than
anything Tito did: Soviet troops imposed a blockade on Berlin, stopping all
railroad traffic between the isolated capital and the West.
Stalin wanted to
prevent the formation of an independent West German republic that might become
part of a Western bloc led by the United States.If
Great Britain, France, and the United States repudiated the agreements they had
just signed regarding their zones in Germany, he said, he would lift the
blockade. Otherwise, he would keep Berlin isolated from the rest of western
Germany and seek to incorporate it into the Soviet zone.
Nothing he had done
since the war had been quite so daring. If the Americans were to challenge the
Soviet blockade, they might start a war in the heart of Europe. In fact, Stalin
hoped that fear of such hostilities would induce France to force a reversal of
the Anglo-American initiative.202
But Truman, Marshall,
and their colleagues worked brilliantly to reassure their European allies.
Believing that their own initiatives were critical to rebuilding Western Europe
and restoring hope in democratic capitalism, they would not back off.
Calculating that Stalin would not shoot down American planes and risk war, they
decided to airlift supplies to Berlin. Understanding that they were asking
their friends in Western Europe to take grave risks, Truman and Marshall acted
to allay their fears: Marshall made it clear that U.S. troops would stay in
Germany indefinitely, that Washington would provide military aid to France, and
that emergency war planning would begin in earnest. More important, he and
President Truman decided that the United States would join an alliance of
likeminded democratic nations in the North Atlantic region, an alliance
designed to deter Soviet aggression and provide reassurance against the
Germans.
For some time British
foreign secretary Ernest Bevin had been pressing the Americans to sign a North
Atlantic treaty that would guarantee peace and security in the Old World. For
150 years, the United States had eschewed "entangling" alliances, and
neither the public nor the Congress was demanding a rupture with this
tradition. But Truman and Marshall knew they had to satisfy their European
friends and guarantee their security. They knew they were asking the French and
other Europeans to incur risks that their electorates might not support. The
peoples of Europe, after all, yearned for peace and stability, not new crises
and new confrontations. If American leaders were asking them to comply with
American initiatives that might provoke a Soviet attack in the short run or
spur German revanchism in the long run, the United States had to assume
unprecedented risks and make unprecedented sacrmces.203
By responding to
British overtures and French pleas, Truman and his advisers were demonstrating
a capacity to empathize with allies in ways that Stalin could never emulate.
But Allied pressures did not motivate U.S. actions. Fear and opportunity lay
behind American actions: fear that the Soviets might otherwise gain control of
much of Eurasia without war unless the United States went on the offensive, and
opportunity in knowing that the United States still had the power and wealth to
defeat communism, contain Soviet power, and revive democratic capitalism. Once
these beliefs prevailed in Washington policymaking circles, prospective allies
were able to exert leverage in Europe and beyond.204 Very soon thereafter,
Truman and his advisers decided to support France in its war against
communist-led insurgents in Indochina. The struggle for the soul of mankind was
already assuming global dimensions.
Truman and Stalin
became locked in a worldwide struggle, yet the shape of the struggle was not
predetermined. Initially, both men saw reason to collaborate with their
ideological adversaries. Both men grasped that national self
interest could be served through cooperative arrangements. As much as
each leader preferred a world ordered along lines of either democratic
capitalism or communism, neither initially believed that postwar reconversion,
reconstruction, or security necessitated confrontation. Indeed, both men had
reason to believe and did think that immediate goals could be served by
containing competition and modulating conflict.
But the Cold War
came, and it engulfed the world. Why? Truman and Stalin could and did
articulate the reasons for national self restraint.
They could and did warn friends and potential allies not to fuel the suspicions
of sensitive and powerful adversaries. But they could not control their own
fears and instincts, their passions and aspirations. The structure of the
international system and their ideological mind-sets overcame their initial
desire to sustain their nations' collaboration.
The condition of the
international system engendered fears and opportunities. At the end of the war,
international society was astir with demoralized
peoples yearning for a better future after decades of depression, war,
genocide, and forced migration. In the center of Europe and in northeast Asia
the defeat of Germany and Japan left huge vacuums of power. In time-and not a
very long time, contemporaries assumed-the occupations would end and the
Germans and Japanese would reconstitute their governments and political
economies. They would then decide how they would configure themselves in the
international system, but their future trajectory was a huge, unsettling
question mark. Elsewhere in the world-in Asia, Africa, and the Middle
East-local leaders and indigenous elites felt emboldened to seek independence
as they witnessed their colonial masters' strength erode. They were inspired by
the rhetoric of freedom and the affirmations of the principle of national
self-determination. They wanted to modernize their countries, overcome the
humiliations of dependency, and extinguish the misery that came with poverty.
Would they choose free enterprise and liberal democracy, or planned economies
and the dictatorship of the proletariat?
Stalin and Truman had
to make sense of these realities, to integrate them into belief systems that
comported with their rational calculations of national self-interest, the
exigencies of domestic politics, and the aspirations and sensibilities of
potential friends and clients. They were agents of change and shapers of
international history. But they were enveloped by structure and belief.
Stalin had an immense
task of reconstruction ahead within the Soviet Union and confronted huge
uncertainties abroad. Germany and Japan were defeated, but they would recover,
as they had before, and they would have to be dealt with. Britain and America
had been partners in the war, but they were also potential rivals and they
could not be trusted. If there were challenges, there were also opportunities.
Soviet armies were spread across Eastern Europe and parts of northeast Asia.
Stalin had a unique opportunity to secure his borders and control Russia's
periphery for the indefinite future. Free elections in many of the nations
occupied by the Red Army would, he knew, bring in anti-Soviet governments. Why
permit them? Yet free elections in Western Europe and self-determination in the
colonial world offered considerable advantages.
Stalin had to balance
incentives to cooperate and temptations to compete. More than anything else
Stalin wanted to protect Soviet Russia against the revival of German and,
secondarily, Japanese power, goals mandated by tradition and experience, by strategic
necessity and national revenge. After World War II, no Russian or Soviet leader
could forsake the opportunity to control me periphery and to shape developments
in Germany and Japan.
The international
landscape was permissive. No nation existed that could contain Russian
expansion; the vacuums could be filled to secure long-term ambitions.
Marxist-Leninist thinking lurked in Stalin's actions. Cooperation with
capitalist countries might be possible, indeed desirable, at least in the short
term, but it was not likely to endure. Capitalist wars might engulf the
U.S.S.R., as had just occurred, or, more likely, capitalists might again seek
to crush the Bolshevik experiment. Even while he confided to Polish communists
that he was not ruling out agreement with the United States, Stalin believed,
not without cause, that Washington was seeking to use its atomic monopoly
"to intimidate us and force us to yield in contentious issues concerning
Japan, the Balkans, and reparations." Likewise, he thought the United
States was trying to maneuver its way into Eastern Europe and was hoping to
divide Russia from its newfound allies in Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and
Yugoslavia. Beware of this, he told Polish leaders.205
Suspicion pulsated
through all his transactions. Capitalists would trick, deceive, and try to
crush communists. Don't accept the invitation to go to London, he warned his
Polish comrades in 1945. "I assure you they are not inviting you for a
good purpose .... There is a group of complete rascals and ruthless murderers
in the Intelligence service who would fulfill any order given to them.
"206 Marxist-Leninist thinking about the world inclined Stalin to
exaggerate the dangers both of American atomic diplomacy and of AngloAmerican espionage, which was occurring in the Soviet
sphere of influence in Eastern Europe and even within Soviet Russia's western
borderlands. Knowing the magnitude of discontent and the possibilities for
widespread unrest, Stalin let his Bolshevik mentality and personal paranoia
take over. He accepted the division of Europe into two camps as soon as he was
convinced that the Americans were on the offensive, as they seemed to be when
they announced the Truman Doctrine, articulated a program for European
recovery, and orchestrated plans for the revival of the economies of Germany
and Japan. Marxist-Leninist theory provided Stalin with no blueprint for a cold
war, but it did give an explanation for the actions of capitalist adversaries
and did outline a vision of endless possibilities for communist advancement in
the third world.
Truman could not but
fear, and he, too, had to act, although he did not seek a cold war. Stalin
might not be seizing every opportunity to expand, as intelligence analysts
repeatedly pointed out, and might be smart enough to back down when resisted,
but he made enough aggressive moves to intensify Truman's anxieties. Just a few
years before, other totalitarian foes had made menacing signs and then,
unchecked, had declared war on the United States and dared to conquer much of
the world. Why wait to take action, Truman thought, when America's wealth and
power enabled it to act wisely and swiftly, if provocatively, to promote
Europe's recovery, coopt western Germany and Japan, lift morale among
dispirited peoples, and ignite hope in free-enterprise democracy?
Truman was a
straightforward man and saw things in black and white. What he saw now was the
incipient rise of another totalitarian power with an expansionist ideology. He
was motivated not by Stalin's brutality-indeed he rarely talked about it-but by
the challenge he saw toAmerica's way of life. Our
foreign policy, he said, "is the outward expression of the democratic
faith we profess."207
Inaction or retreat
meant that the American way of life would be endangered not simply abroad, but
also at home. It meant that prospective allies would be abandoned and their
resources and manpower relinquished to a potential adversary. Should this
happen, Truman warned, "it would impose upon us a much higher level of
mobilization than we have today. It would require a stringent and comprehensive
system of allocation and rationing in order to husband our smaller resources.
It would require us to become a garrison state, and to impose upon ourselves a
system of centralized regimentation unlike anything we have ever known.
"208 The president understood that the distribution of power in the
international system had immense ramifications for democratic capitalism in the
United States.
The structure of the
international system intersected with the beliefs of human agents to produce
the Cold War. Truman wanted to be sure that power centers such as Western
Europe, West Germany, and Japan were kept out of Stalin's grasp. But these
efforts had to be supplemented with additional irlitiatives.
As Stalin turned eastward and southward in accord with Marxist-Leninist
thinking about opportunities for communist advancement, Truman and his advisers
realized that the sources of raw materials, investment earnings, and markets of
the industrialized democracies in the third world had to be preserved.
"Curiously enough," Kennan wrote to Secretary of State Marshall in
December 1948, "the most crucial issue of the moment in our struggle with
the Kremlin is probably the problem of Indonesia. "209
A world in turmoil,
where decolonization and revolutionary nationalism were embedded realities,
meant that the Cold War could not be contained in Europe and northeast Asia.
The lure of future victories in distant lands tempted Stalin; the fear of
losses there agonized U.S. officials. In their very first national security
strategy statement, approved by the president in December 1948, Truman's
advisers explained their thinking: Soviet domination of Eurasia, they said,
"whether achieved by armed aggression or by political and subversive
means, would be strategically and politically unacceptable to the United
States. "210
Believing that
"Communist ideology and Soviet behavior clearly demonstrate that the
ultimate objective of the USSR is the domination of the world," Truman and
his aides agreed that containment would not suffice. Their first objective,
they said, was "to reduce the power and influence of the USSR to limits
which no longer constitute a threat to the peace, national independence and
stability of the world family of nations." Their second goal was "to
bring about a basic change in the conduct of international relations by the
government in power in Russia."211
111. Ferrell,
Dear Bess, 522.
112. Davies
Diary, 28 and 29 July 1945, box 19, Davies Papers.
113. For the
end of the war, see Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and
the Surrender of Japan (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2005).
114. For
Byrnes's thinking about the atomic bomb, see Brown Log, 16 July-1 August 1945,
James F. Byrnes Papers, Clemson University Library, Clemson, S.C
115. Davies
Diary, 28 and 29 July 1945, box 19, Davies Papers.
116. For the
end of the war, see Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and
the Surrender ofJapan (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 2005).
117. For
Byrnes's thinking about the atomic bomb, see Brown Log, 16 July-1 August 1945, James
F. Byrnes Papers, Clemson University Libraty,
Clemson, S.c.
118. For
information on Stalin, Molotov, and the meeting of the council of foreign
ministers, see V. O. Pechatnov, " 'The Allies
Are Pressing on You to Break Your Will .. .': Foreign Policy Correspondence
between Stalin and Molotov and Other Politburo Members, September 1945-December
1946," CWIHP, Working Paper No. 26 (Woodrow Wilson International Center,
1999), 18-32; Gorlizki and Khlevniuk,
Cold Peace, 19-23.
119. For
insight into Byrnes's thinking, see Messer, End of an Alliance, 137-55; Gregg Herken, The Winning Weapon: The Atomic Bomb in the Cold War
(New York: Knopf, 1980),66-94; Eduard Mark, "American Policy Toward
Eastern Europe and the Origins of the Cold War, 1941-46: An Alternative
Interpretation," Journal of American History 68 (September 1981): 313-36.
120. Ferrell,
Off the Record, 72; Blum, Price of Vision, 512-13; Minutes of Cabinet meetings,
October-December 1945, Matthew J. Connelly Papers, box 1, Harry S. Truman
Library (HSTL), Independence, Mo.
121. Clark
Clifford Oral History, pp. 180-84, HSTL.
122.
"Address on Foreign Policy," 27 October 1945, Harry S. Truman, Public
Papers of the Presidents, 1945 (Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office,
1961),431-38 (hereafter cited as PPP: HST, year, page).
123. For the
quotation, see Diary of William Leahy, 27 October 1945, William L. Leahy
Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C
124. Ferrell,
Off the Record, 79-80; Messer, End of an Alliance, 156-66; Spalding, First Cold
Warrior, 24-35.
125. Pechatnov, "Harriman's Mission to Moscow," esp.
26--27; Geoffrey Roberts, "Sexing Up the Cold War: New Evidence on the
Molotov-Truman Talks of April 1945," Cold War History 4 (April 2004):
105-25.
126.
Montefiore, Stalin, 445; Vladislav Zubok and
Constantine Pleshakov, Inside the Kremlin's Cold War:
From Stalin to Khrushchev (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1996),
42-43; Jonathan Haslam, "The Cold War as History," Annual Review of
Political Science 6 (2003): 92-93; Pechamov, "
'The Allies Are Pressing on You,' " 31.
127.
Joseph Stalin, "New Five Year Plan for Russia," 9 February 1946,
Vital Speeches of the Day 12 (1 March 1946): 300-304.
128. Banac, Diary of Georgi Dimitrov, 358.
129. David
Holloway, Stalin and the Bomb (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1994),
168.
130. Joseph
Stalin, For Peaceful Coexistence: Postwar Interviews (New York: International
Publishers, 1951),11-12.
131. Transcript
of interview between Stalin and Byrnes, 24 December 1945, G. P. Kynim and Y. Laufer, eds., SSSR i
germanski vopros,
1941-1949: documenty iz arkhiva vneshnei politiki Rossiiskoifederatsii
[USSR and the German Question: Documents from the Foreign Policy Archives of
the Russian Federation], Vol 2: May 9, 1945-0ctober 3, 1946 (Moskva: Mezhdunarodnye, omosheni, 2000),
335-36; Pechamov, " 'Allies Are Pressing on
You,' " 10-11.
132.
Memorandum, by Litvinov, 5 July 1945, in Kynim and
Laufer, USSR and the German Question, 171-75; Litvinov to Stalin, 25 May 1946,
ibid., 517-19; draft statement prepared by Litvinov and 1. M. Maiskii, 12 June 1946, ibid., 596--98.
133.
Jeffrey Burds, "The Early Cold War in Soviet
West Ukraine, 1944-1948," The Carl Beck Papers in Russian and East
European Studies, No. 1505 (Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press,
2001),25-30; Kuromiya, Freedom and Terror in the
Donbas, 251-323.
134. Burds, "Early Cold War in Soviet West Ukraine";
Jeffrey Burds, "The Soviet War Against 'Fifth
Columnists': The Case of Chechnya, 1942-4," Journal of Contemporary
History 41(2): 309-14; Eduard Mark, "The War Scare of 1946 and Its
Consequences," Diplomatic History 21 (Summer 1997): 406-407,410-11;
Richard J. Aldrich, The Hidden Hand· Britain, America, and Cold War Secret
Intelligence (New York: The Overlook Press, 2002), 142-45; Kuromiya,
Freedom and Terror in the Donbas, 313-16; Itina Mukhina, "New Revelations from the Former Soviet
Archives: The Kremlin, the Warsaw Uprising, and the Coming of the Cold
War," Cold War History 6 (August 2006): 397-411.
135. Odd Arne Westad, Cold War and Revolution: Soviet-American Rivalry
and the Origins of the Chinese Civil War, 1944-1946 (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1993),55; also see Haslam, "Making of Foreign Policy
under Stalin"; for most recent assessments, see Norman M. Naimark,
"Stalin and Europe in the Postwar Period, 1945-1953: Issues and
Problems," Journal of Modern European History 2 (2004): 28--56; Roberts,
Stalin's Wars; Vladimir O. Pechatnov, "The
Soviet Union and the Outside World, 1944-1953," Cambridge History of the
Cold War, ed. by Melvyn P. Leffler and Odd Arne Westad,
3 vols. (London: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).
136. Naimark,
"Stalin and Europe in the Postwar Period," 36.
137. Gomulka's
Memorandum of a Conversation with Stalin, third quarter of 1945, in
"Conversations with Stalin," 272, CWIHP.
138. Walter
Bedell Smith to Secretary of State, 5 April 1946, ibid., 293-94; "Report
of the Labour Party on Its Goodwill Mission to the
USSR," [Summer 1946], ibid., 330-32; "Answers to the Questions Posed
by A. Werth," 17 September 1946, ibId., 339-40;
"Answers to the Questions of Mr. H. Bailey," 26 October 1946, ibid.,
341-44; for the rheme of cooperation, also see esp. Roberts, Stalin's Wars; Pechamov, "The Soviet Union and the Outside
World."
139. Pechatnov, "Harriman's Mission to Moscow," 45-46;
"Answers to the Questions of Mr. H. Bailey," 26 October 1946, in
"Conversations with Stalin," 344, CWIHP.
140. Stalin's
concern with Japan emerges clearly in all the recent research. See, for
example, Pechatnov, " 'The Allies Are Pressing
on You,' " 11-16.
141.
These generalizations have been shaped by Naimark, The Russians in Germany;
Naimark, "The Soviets and the Christian Democrats"; Roberts, Stalin's
Wars, 228-45, 350-55; Vladimir K. Volkov, "German Question as Stalin Saw
It," draft paper for the conference "Stalin and the Cold War,
1945-1953" (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University, 1999); Wilfried Loth,
Stalin's Unwanted Child: The Soviet Union, the German Question and the Founding
of the GDR (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1998).
142. Csaba
Bekes, "Soviet Plans to Establish the Cominform in Early 1946: New
Evidence from the Hungarian Archives," CWIHP Bulletin 10 (March 1998):
135. These generalizations emerge from my reading of the many documents
assembled in "Conversations with Stalin," CWIHP; Roberts, Stalin's
Wars, 245-53; Mark, "Revolution by Degree"; Zubok,
Inside the Kremlin's Cold War; Holloway, Stalin and the Bomb; Mastny, Cold War and Soviet Insecurity; Pechatnov,
"'The Allies Are Pressing on You'"; Pechatnov,
"The Soviet Union and the Outside World."
143. The
"Long Tdegram" can be found in George F.
Kennan, Memoirs, 1925-1950 (New York: Bantam, 1967),583-98.
144. W. Averell
Harriman and Elie Abel, Special Envoy to Churchtll
and Stalin, 1941-1946 (New York:
Random House, 1975),535-36.
145. For U.S.
policy in Germany, see especially Carolyn Eisenberg, Drawing the Line: The American
Decision to Divide Germany, 1944-1949 (New York: Cambridge University Press,
1996),71-276; for Soviet espionage, see Katherine A. S. Sibley, Red Spies in
America: Stolen Secrets and the Dawn of the Cold War (Lawrence, Kansas:
University Press of Kansas, 2004); Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev, The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in
America-The Stalin Era (New York: Random House, 1999).
146. These
generalizations about Truman's policies in 1945 and 1946 are elaborated upon in
my book A Preponderance of Power: National Security, the Truman Administration,
and the Cold War (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1993),25-181;
for different interpretations, see Offner, Another
Such Victory, 1-184; Marc Trachtenberg, A Constructed Peace: The Making of the
European Settlement (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1999),3-65;
McCullough, Truman; Hamby, Man of the People; Deborah Welch Larson, Origins of
Containment: A Psychological Explanation (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press, 1985); John L. Gaddis, The United States and the Origins of the Cold
War, 1941-47 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1972).
147. Memorandum
for the president, by McCloy, 26 April 1945, box 178, President's Secretary's
File (PSF), Harry S. Truman Papers (HSTP), HSTL; Diary of Henry L. Stimson, 19
April 1945, Henry L. Stimson Papers, Yale University.
148. Acheson
testimony, 12 June 1945, U.S. Senate, Committee on Banking and Currency,
Bretton Woods Agreements, 79th Cong., 1st sess., (Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1945), 1-51, esp. 19,20,21,48-49.
149.
Quoted in Igor Lukes, "The Czech Road to
Communism," in Naimark and Gibianskii, eds.,
Establishment of Communist Regimes in Eastern Europe, 249; for an elaboration
of this idea, see Abrams, Struggle for the Soul of the Nation.
150. A.J.P.
Taylor, "The European Revolution," Listener 34 (22 November 1945):
576; see Judt, Postwar, 215-19.
151. Adam
Westoby, Communism Since World War II (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1981),
14-15; Roberts, "Ideology, Calculation, and Improvisation," 671;
Abrams, Struggle for the Soul of the Nation, 9-38.
152. Acheson
testimony, 8 March 1945, U.S. Senate, Committee on Banking and Currency,
Bretton Wood Agreements, 1: 35.
153. Acheson
testimony, 13 March 1946, U.S. Senate, Committee on Banking and Currency, AngloAmerican Financial Agreement, 79th Cong., 2nd sess.
(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Oflice,
1946),306.
154.
"Statement by the President," 6 February 1946, PPP: HST, 1946, 106;
Cabinet Minutes, January-March 1946, Connelly Papers, box 1.
155. Stimson to
Truman, 16 May 1945, box 157, PSF, HSTP; Joseph Grew to Truman, 27 June 1945,
Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, Potsdam, 1: 267-80
(hereafter cited as FRUS); Central Intelligence Agency, "Review of the
World Situation," 26 September 1947, box 203, PSF, HSTP.
156.
Memorandum, by Will Clayton, 5 March 1947, Frederick J. Dobney,
ed., Selected Papers of Will Clayton (Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1971), 198.
157. Harry S.
Truman, Memoirs: Years of Trial and Hope, 1946-1952 (New York: Signet,
1956),124-25.
158.
"Special Message to the Congress," 12 March 1947, PPP: HST, 1947,
176-80.
159. For
Marshall's speech, see Department of State Bulletin 16 (15 June 1947): 1159-60;
Clayton to Acheson, 27 May 1947, FRUS, 1947,3: 230--32; Howard C. Petersen to
Robert P. Patterson, 12 June 1947, box 8, general decimal@e,
Robert P. Patterson Papers, Record Group 107, National Archives (NA), Washington,
D.C.
160.
"Address on Foreign Economic Policy," 6 March 1947, PPP: HST, 1947,
170--71.
161.
"Special Message to the Congress," 19 December 1947, ,b,d., 516-17.
162.
"Radio and Television Address," 6 March 1952, ibid., 1952-1953,
194-95; also see "Special Message to the Congress," 6 March 1952,
ibid., 189.
163. Kennan,
"Russia's National Objectives," 10 April 1947, box 17, George F.
Kennan Papers, Seeley Mudd Library, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J.
164. Directive
to Dwight D. Eisenhower, 26 July 1945, FRUS, Potsdam, 2: 1028-30; Jean Edward
Smith, ed., The Papers of General Lucius D. Clay: Germany, 1945-1949, 2 vols.
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1974), 1: 44.
165. Memoranda,
by John Foster Dulles, 26 February and 7 March 1947, box 31,John Foster Dulles
Papers, Mudd Library, Princeton University.
166. Memorandum
of Conversation, 15 April 1947 ,PRUS, 1947,2: 339-44; Robert H. Van Meter,
"Secretary of State Marshall, General Clay, and the Moscow Council of
Foreign Ministers of 1947: A Response to Philip Zelikow," Diplomacy and
Statecraft 16 (2005): 139-67.
167. Meeting of
the secretaries of state, war, and navy, 3 July 1947, box 3, safe@e, Robert P. Patterson Papers, Records of the Office
of the Secretary of War, RG 107, NA.
168. Minutes of
a Visit to Generalissimo J. V. Stalin, by Czech delegation, 9 July 1947, in
"Conversations with Stalin," 395-99, CWlHP;
Geoffrey Roberts, "Moscow and the Marshall Plan: Politics, Ideology, and
the Onset of the Cold Wat," Europe-Asia 46 (1994): 1371--85.
169. For the
quotation, see "Stenographic Record of a Speech by Comrade J. V. Stalin at
a Special Session of the Politburo," 14 March 1948, in
"Conversations with Stalin," 432, CWlHP; Mastny, Cold War and Soviet Insecurity, 23-46; Zubok and Pleshakov, Inside the
Kremlin's Cold War, 50--52, 104-108; Kramer, "Soviet Union and the
Founding of the GDR," 1099-1102.
170.
"Stenographic Record," Stalin speech, 14 March 1948,
"Conversations with Stalin," 429, CWIHP.
171. Record of
a Meeting of Comrade 1. V. Stalin with the Secretary of the CC French Communist
Party Thorez, 18 November 1947, ibid., 403-405.
172. Report of
Milovan Djilas about a Secret Soviet-Bulgarian-Yugoslav Meeting, 10 February
1948, CWlHP Bulletin 10 (March 1998): 128-34.
173. Stalin,
"Foundations of Leninism," 110.
174.
"Stenographic Record," Stalin speech, 14 March 1948,
"Conversations with Stalin," 429CWIHP.
175. Memorandum
by chief of staff, ND Uuly 1947], ABC 471.6 Atom (17
August 1945), section E American-British Conversations, Records of the War
Department General and Special Staffs, 165, NA; also see Walter Millis, ed.,
The Forrestal Diaries (New York: Viking, 1951),350-51.
176. For
Clayton's statement, see Dabney, Selected Papers, 208; for Marshall's views,
see Marshall to (fery, 26 May 1948, FRUS, 1948,2:
284.
177. Marshall
statement, in cabinet meeting, 23 July 1948, box 1, Connelly Papers; for Clay,
see Smith, (Papers, 2: 708; for the views of Kennan and Bohlen, see FRUS,
1948,3: 152-54, 157-58, 177, 186; II nan to Lauris Norstad, 4 May 1948, box 33, Records of the Policy Planning
Staff, RG 59, NA.
178. Randall B.
Woods and Howard Jones, Dawning of the Cold War: The United States' Quest for
0, (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1991), 98-102; Meg Jacobs, Pocketbook
Politics: Econo Citizenship in Twentieth-Century
America (Princeton, N.].: Princeton University Press, 201 222-31.
179. Memo, by
Clayton, 5 March 1947, Dabney, Selected Papers, 198; Minutes of the First
Meeting of Special Committee to Study Assistance to Greece and Turkey, 24
February 1947, FRUS, 194i 47; Dean Acheson, Present at the Creation: My Years
at the State Department (New York: Nor! 1969),218-19; Joseph M. Jones, The
Fifteen Weeks (New York: Viking, 1955), 129-70.
180.
Truman, Memoirs: Years of Trial and Hope, 128.
181. Jonathan
Bell, The Lzheral State on Trial: The Cold War and
American Politics in the Truman ~ (New York: Columbia University Press,
2004),80.
182. Ibid.,
46-120; Richard M. Freeland, The Truman Doctrine and the Origins of
McCarthyism: For, Policy, Domestic Politics and Internal Security, 1946-48 (New
York: New York University Pr 1985); Thomas].
Christensen, Useful Adversaries: Grand Strategy, Domestic Mobilization, and S
American Conflict, 1947-1958 (Princeton, N.].: Princeton University Press,
1996), 49-69; Me Small, Democracy and Diplomacy: The Impact of Domestic
Politics on u.s. Foreign Policy, 1789-1 (Baltimore,
Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996),84-86.
183.
Christensen, Useful Adversaries, 52.
184.
Richard Gid Powers, Not Without Honor: The History of American Anti-Communism
(New Y. The Free Press, 1995),217.
185.
Ibid., 223; Bell, Liberal State on Trial, 92.
186. For Knowland's quotation, see Appendix to the Congressional
Record, vol. 93, p. A4915; for II nan's view, see Policy Planning Staff Paper
No. 20, "Effect Upon the United States If the Europ
Recovery Plan Is Not Adopted," Policy Planning Staff Papers, ed. by Anna
Kasten Nelson, 3 , (New York: Garland, 1983),2: 78-79; for Truman, see
"Special Message to Congress," 6 M, 1952, PPP: HST, 1952-53, 189.
187.
Ehrenburg, The War, 124; Merridale, Night of Stone,
213-14; Overy, Russia's War, 329.
188. Donald Filtzer, Soviet Workers and Late Stalinism: Labour and the Restoration of the Stalinist Sys After World
War II (Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 46-47, 76; Kurorr Freedom and Terror in the Donbas, 300-308.
189. Vladislav Zubok, "Limits of Empire: Stalin and the Lean Year of
1946," unpublished paper; slightly different renditions of this
conversation, see Kuromiya, Stalin, 177; Robert
Service, A, tory of Twentieth-Century Russia (London: Penguin, 1997),299.
190.
Burds, Early Cold War in Soviet West Ukraine; Kuromiya, Stalin, 174-80; Kuromiya,
Freedom Terror in the Donbas, 310-20; Swain, Between Stalin and Hitler.
191.
Service, Russia, 299; Applebaum, Gulag, 516-20; Gorlizki
and Khlevniuk, Cold Peace, 31. Werner G. Hahn,
Postwar Soviet Politics: The Fall of Zhdanov and the Defeat of Moderation
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1982).
192.
Service, Russia, 301; Gorlizki and Khlevniuk, Cold Peace, 1-65;}. Eric Duskin,
Stalinist Reconstruction and the Confirmation of a New Elite (Houndsmills, Eng: Palgrave,
2001).
193.
Service, Stalin, 531-40; Gorlizki and Khlevniuk, Cold Peace, 45-65; Naimark, "Soviets and
the Christian Democrats," 370-71; Kotkin,
"A Conspiracy So ltnmense."
194.
Ree, Political Thought of Joseph Stalin, 282-83; Brandenberger, National Bolshevism.
195. For
the quotations, see Kuromiya, Stalin, 188; Service,
Russia, 308; also see Volkogonov, Stalin, 531, 534; Zubok and Pleshakov, Inside the
Kremlin's Cold War, 50-51,104-108.
196. For
Stalin's negotiations with T. V. Soong, see the many documents in
"Conversations with Stalin," 144-246, CWIHP; for Stalin's reflections
on his own actions, see "Report of Milovan Djilas about a Secret
Soviet-Bulgarian-Yugoslav Meeting," 10 February 1948, CWIHP Bulletin 10
(March 1998): 131; for Stalin and Mao, see S. N. Goncharov,
John W. Lewis, Xue Litai, Uncertain Partners: Stalin,
Mao, and the Korean War (Stanford, Calif.; Stanford University Press, 1993);
Jung Chang and Jon Halliday, Mao: the Unknown Story (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
2005), 175-89, 281-92, 337-55; Michael}. Sheng, Battling Western Imperialism:
Mao, Stalin, and the United States (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University
Press, 1997); Chen Jian, China's Road to the Korean War: The Making of the
Sino-American Confrontation (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), 66ff
197. Shuguang Zhang and Jian Chen, Chinese Communist Policy and
the Cold War in Asia: New Documentary Evidence, 1944-1950 (Chicago, lli.: Imprint Publications, 1996),54; llya
V. Gaiduk, Confronting Vietnam: Soviet Policy Toward
the Indochina Conflict, 1954-1963 (Stanford, Calif., and Washington, D.C.:
Stanford University Press and Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2002), 3.
198.
Quoted in Ree, Political Thought ofJoseph
Stalin, 252.
199.
Record of the Meeting of Stalin and Thorez, 18 November 1947,
"Conversations with Stalin," 403-406; also see Pons, "Stalin,
Togliatti, and the Origins of the Cold War"; Judt,
Postwar, 139-45.
200. This
is abundandy clear in the collection of documents
"Conversations with Stalin," CWIHP; also see Banac,
Diary of Georgi Dimitrov, 421-23, 437-40; Pons, "Stalin, Togliatti, and
the Origins of the Cold War"; Iatrides,
"Revolution or Self-Defense?"; for Stalin's relations with Mao, see
citations in note 196 above.
201. Banac, Diary of Georgi Dimitrov, 439-440; "Report of
Djilas," 10 February 1948, CWIHP Bulletin 10 (March 1998): 129-33; Leonid Gibianskii, "Stalin's Policy in Eastern Europe, the
Cominform, and the First Split in the Soviet Bloc," 17-22, paper prepared
for the conference "Stalin and the Cold War."
202. Loth,
Stalin's Unwanted Child, 84-94; Roberts, Stalin's Wars, 354-55.
203. Leffler,
Preponderance of Power, 182-286.
204.
William Hitchcock, France Restored: Cold War Diplomacy and the Quest for
Leadership in Europe, 1944-54 (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina
Press, 1998); Geir Lundestad,
"Empire by Invitation? The United States and Western Europe,
1945-1952," Journal of Peace Research 23 (September 1986): 263-77; Mark
Lawrence, Assuming the Burden: Europe and the American Commitment to War in
Vietnam (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 2005).
205.
Conversation between Wladyslaw Gomulka and Stalin, 14 November 1945, CWIHP
Bulletin 11 (Winter 1998): 136.
206. Ibtd.
207.
"Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union," 5 January
1949, PPP: HST; 1949, 6.
208.
"Special Message to the Congress," 6 March 1952, ibid., 1952-53, 189.
209.
Kennan to Marshall and Robert Lovett, 17 December 1948, box 33, Records of the
Policy Planning Staff, RG 59, NA.
210. NSC
20/4, "U.S. Objectives with Respect to the USSR to Counter Soviet Threats
to U.S. Security,"
211. ibid.,
204-209.
For updates
click homepage here