The Cold War

1. The Cold War: A Clash of Ideologies and Incompatible Systems

Whatever the Grand Alliance’s triumphs in the spring of 1945, its success had always depended upon the pursuit of compatible objectives by incompatible systems.

Ideological Divide. The Cold War was fundamentally a conflict between two opposing ideologies: the American emphasis on liberty and justice through constrained power versus the Soviet embrace of concentrated authority to achieve a proletarian revolution. These divergent philosophies shaped their respective approaches to governance, economics, and international relations.

Asymmetrical Warfare. The United States and the Soviet Union had vastly different experiences during World War II. The U.S. emerged relatively unscathed, with a booming economy, while the Soviet Union suffered immense devastation and loss of life. These asymmetries influenced their post-war priorities and capabilities, yet both nations possessed global aspirations.

Tragedy of Victory. The Grand Alliance's victory was shadowed by the inherent incompatibility of its members. The war's conclusion forced the victors to confront their fundamental differences, leading to a breakdown in cooperation and the emergence of a new, ideological conflict. The tragedy lay in the fact that achieving victory required either abandoning core principles or relinquishing post-war goals.

2. Stalin's Post-War Ambitions: Security Through Domination

Wartime expenditures in blood and treasure, Stalin believed, should largely determine who got what after the war: the Soviet Union, therefore, would get a lot.

Stalin's Priorities. Stalin's primary goals after World War II were to secure his personal rule, his regime, the Soviet Union, and its ideology, in that order. He sought to expand Soviet territory and influence, particularly in Eastern Europe, to create a buffer zone against future threats.

Ideological Illusions. Stalin's understanding of his wartime allies was clouded by Marxist-Leninist ideology, particularly the belief that capitalists would inevitably turn on each other due to inherent greed. This led him to underestimate the potential for long-term cooperation between the United States and Great Britain.

Domination, Not Balance. Stalin's ultimate aim was not to restore a balance of power in Europe but to dominate the continent, much like Hitler had attempted. He envisioned a peacefully accomplished but historically determined Soviet domination, relying on the expected economic crises within capitalist nations to pave the way for communist influence.

3. America's Reluctant Rise to Global Responsibility

The reason had to do with the dilemma World War II had posed for them: that the United States could not continue to serve as a model for the rest of the world while remaining apart from the rest of the world.

From Isolation to Engagement. The United States had historically maintained an isolationist foreign policy, but World War II forced a reassessment of this approach. The nation's security was now inextricably linked to events beyond its borders, necessitating a more active role in world affairs.

Wilsonian Ideals. Roosevelt sought to create a post-war settlement that would prevent future wars by establishing a new collective security organization and promoting global economic integration. These aims were rooted in Wilsonian principles of self-determination and international cooperation.

Balancing Power and Principles. A key challenge for the United States was reconciling its ideals of self-determination with the realities of power politics, particularly Stalin's territorial demands and insistence on a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. This tension between principles and pragmatism would shape American foreign policy throughout the Cold War.

4. The Seeds of Distrust: Unresolved Wartime Issues

The tragedy was this: that victory would require the victors either to cease to be who they were, or to give up much of what they had hoped, by fighting the war, to attain.

Second Front Delays. The delay in establishing a second front in Europe fueled Soviet suspicions that the Western Allies were deliberately allowing the U.S.S.R. to bear the brunt of the fighting against Nazi Germany. This distrust contributed to post-war tensions and divisions.

Spheres of Influence. The division of Europe into spheres of influence, particularly in Eastern Europe, contradicted American ideals of self-determination. Stalin's broken promises regarding free elections in Eastern Europe further eroded trust between the Allies.

Atomic Diplomacy. The American use of atomic bombs against Japan, without prior consultation with the Soviet Union, intensified Soviet-American distrust. Stalin viewed the bombs as a tool for American blackmail and accelerated the Soviet atomic program in response.

5. Containment Takes Shape: Responding to Soviet Expansion

What would be needed, as Kennan put it in a published version of his argument the following year, was a “long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.”

Southern Vulnerabilities. After securing territorial concessions in Eastern Europe and Northeast Asia, Stalin turned his attention to perceived vulnerabilities in the south, particularly in Iran, Turkey, and the Mediterranean. These moves triggered a firm response from the United States.

Kennan's Long Telegram. George F. Kennan's "long telegram" provided a comprehensive analysis of Soviet behavior, arguing that it stemmed from internal necessities of the Stalinist regime. Kennan advocated for a strategy of "containment" to counter Soviet expansionist tendencies.

Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan. The Truman Doctrine committed the United States to supporting free peoples resisting subjugation, while the Marshall Plan aimed to reconstruct Europe and prevent the spread of communism through economic despair. These initiatives marked a significant shift in American foreign policy.

6. Korea: A Limited War in a Nuclear Age

The only decisive outcome of the war was the precedent it set: that there could be a bloody and protracted conflict involving nations armed with nuclear weapons—and that they could choose not to use them.

Accidental Occupation. The division of Korea along the 38th parallel was largely accidental, resulting from the rapid collapse of Japanese resistance at the end of World War II. This division set the stage for future conflict between the Soviet-backed North and the American-supported South.

Stalin's Miscalculation. Stalin authorized the North Korean invasion of South Korea based on the belief that the United States would not intervene. This miscalculation led to a bloody and protracted war that drew in the United Nations and China.

Nuclear Restraint. Despite possessing a significant nuclear advantage, the United States chose not to use atomic weapons in Korea. This decision established a crucial precedent for limited warfare in the nuclear age, demonstrating that conflicts could be fought without escalating to total destruction.

7. The Thermonuclear Revolution: A New Calculus of Destruction

Political leaders had almost always in the past left it to their military chiefs to decide the weapons to be used in fighting wars, regardless of how much destruction they might cause.

Truman's Precedent. Truman's decision to maintain civilian control over atomic weapons marked a significant departure from past practice. He reasserted the Clausewitzian principle that war must be an instrument of politics, not the other way around.

The "Super" Bomb. The development of thermonuclear weapons, far more powerful than atomic bombs, further complicated the calculus of warfare. The potential for global ecological consequences raised profound questions about the rationality of using such weapons.

Equality in Annihilation. The realization that thermonuclear war could lead to mutual destruction prompted leaders like Malenkov and Churchill to recognize the "equality in annihilation." This understanding, however terrifying, created a new basis for stability in the nuclear age.

8. The Fragility of Command: Limits to Superpower Control

It was as if Eisenhower was in denial: that a kind of nuclear autism had set in, in which he refused to listen to the advice he got from the best minds available.

Eisenhower's Nuclear Strategy. Eisenhower, despite his military background, understood the limitations of nuclear weapons. He insisted on planning only for total war, paradoxically to make any war less likely.

Khrushchev's Bluff. Khrushchev, seeking to compensate for Soviet weaknesses, engaged in nuclear brinkmanship, exaggerating Soviet missile capabilities to intimidate the West. This strategy, however, was based on a Potemkin village of deception.

U-2 Incident. The downing of a U-2 spy plane over Soviet territory exposed Khrushchev's bluff and led to the collapse of a planned summit with Eisenhower. This event highlighted the fragility of superpower control and the risks of miscalculation.

9. The Power of Spontaneity: The Erosion of Legitimacy

It was as if Kennan was in denial: that a kind of nuclear autism had set in, in which he refused to listen to the advice he got from the best minds available.

The Berlin Wall. The construction of the Berlin Wall, intended to stem the flow of East Germans to the West, became a symbol of communist oppression and a stark demonstration of the system's failures. It also highlighted the limits of Soviet control over its own sphere of influence.

The Sino-Soviet Split. The growing rift between the Soviet Union and China further undermined the notion of a monolithic communist movement. Mao's defiance of Soviet leadership and his pursuit of independent policies challenged the Kremlin's authority.

Espionage and Distrust. Espionage cases, such as those involving Alger Hiss and Klaus Fuchs, fueled anxieties about internal subversion and intensified the Cold War atmosphere. These events contributed to a growing sense of insecurity and distrust on both sides.

10. The Recovery of Equity: Morality Enters the Equation

The fact of the matter is that there is a little bit of the totalitarian buried somewhere, way down deep, in each and every one of us.

The Korean War. The North Korean invasion of South Korea triggered a decisive American response, but also raised questions about the limits of intervention and the potential for escalation. The war highlighted the challenges of containing communism in a complex and volatile world.

McCarthyism. The rise of Senator Joseph McCarthy and his anti-communist crusade reflected a growing sense of fear and paranoia within the United States. McCarthy's tactics, however, threatened civil liberties and democratic values.

The Hydrogen Bomb. The development of the hydrogen bomb, with its unprecedented destructive power, further intensified the nuclear arms race and raised profound moral questions about the future of warfare. It also made the need for arms control more urgent than ever.

11. The Triumph of Hope: The End of the Cold War

The world, I am quite sure, is a better place for that conflict having been fought in the way that it was and won by the side that won it.

The Cuban Missile Crisis. The Cuban missile crisis brought the world to the brink of nuclear war, but it also prompted a reassessment of superpower relations. The crisis led to a greater emphasis on communication, arms control, and crisis management.

Détente and its Limits. The period of détente saw a reduction in Cold War tensions, but it also revealed the limits of superpower cooperation. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the rise of human rights concerns strained détente and set the stage for a new phase of the Cold War.

The Reagan Revolution. Ronald Reagan's confrontational rhetoric and military buildup challenged the Soviet Union and forced it to compete in an arms race it could not afford. Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) further strained Soviet resources and undermined the logic of Mutual Assured Destruction.

Last updated: February 23, 2025