[responsivevoice_button]
The fact that the United States and the Soviet Union successfully cooperated in defeating the Axis Powers did not necessarily mean that the two countries would continue to get along in the post-war world. After all, the two were organized on radically different principles—democratic capitalism in the former, totalitarian socialism in the latter.
By early 1945 it was clear that they would emerge as the world’s two “superpowers,” but it was also evident that they had conflicting visions for what that postwar world should look like. A number of issues divided U.S. and Soviet policymakers, but two loomed particularly large in 1945–46: the future of Germany and the future of Eastern Europe. As a result of these controversies, the chances of continued cooperation between the superpowers seemed bleak.
Truman Has Big Shoes to Fill
Franklin Roosevelt had repeatedly expressed optimism regarding the postwar relations between the United States and the Soviet Union. When differences between them emerged, he insisted, his personal relationship with Stalin would be enough to smooth them over. Whether he was right was impossible to say, but it became a moot point when FDR died in April 1945. Therefore, it was Roosevelt’s vice president of just 82 days, Harry Truman, who would be in the White House when serious problems developed.
At the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences of 1945 the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union had reached agreement on a number of topics, particularly the fate of postwar Germany and Eastern Europe. Most importantly, at Yalta they issued a “Declaration of Liberated Europe,” in which they pledged “to form interim governmental authorities broadly representative of all democratic elements in the population and pledged to the earliest possible establishment through free elections of Governments responsive to the will of the people.“
But within a few months, policymakers in the Truman administration had come to believe that Stalin was not living up to his side of those agreements. Instead, it appeared as though the Russians were trying to create a series of puppet states in Eastern Europe. For their part, the Soviets argued that their security required “friendly” regimes along their border as a sort of buffer zone from any potential future attacks from Germany, and it was unlikely that Western-style democratic elections would produce pro-Soviet governments. To Truman, this seemed like a betrayal of everything that the Allies had fought for in their war against the Axis. Moreover, large numbers of Americans of Eastern European descent were inclined to agree with him.
What to do with Russia?
As a result of this, the high hopes that FDR had for postwar cooperation had been largely dashed by late 1946, prompting a debate over what U.S. policy toward the Soviets should be.
George Kennan, deputy head of the U.S. mission to Moscow during World War II, saw in the Soviet Union a growing threat to world peace—one that had to be met with firmness and, if necessary, military force. Kennan’s sentiments were echoed in a speech given by the then former Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, on March 5, 1946, at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri. This speech is well-known as the “Iron Curtain” speech for in it, he said:
I have a strong admiration and regard for the valiant Russian people and for my war-time comrade, Marshal Stalin. There is sympathy and goodwill in Britain – and I doubt not here also – toward the peoples of all the Russias and a resolve to persevere through many differences and rebuffs in establishing lasting friendships. We understand the Russians need to be secure on her western frontiers from all renewal of German aggression. We welcome her to her rightful place among the leading nations of the world. Above all, we welcome constant, frequent, and growing contacts between the Russian people and our own people on both sides of the Atlantic. It is my duty, however, to place before you certain facts about the present position in Europe – I am sure I do not wish to, but it is my duty, I feel, to present them to you.
From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of central and eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in the Soviet sphere and all are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and increasing measure of control from Moscow. Athens alone, with
its immortal glories, is free to decide its future at an election under British, American and French observation. The Russian dominated Polish government has been encouraged to make enormous and wrongful inroads upon Germany, and mass expulsions of millions of Germans on a scale grievous and undreamed of are now taking place.
There were a few voices that tried to convince Truman towards a more moderate position towards Russia, which would acknowledge Stalin’s need for security, even if it meant tolerating Soviet dominance over Eastern Europe. The most notable of these was FDR’s former Vice President and then, Secretary of Commerce, Henry A. Wallace. In a letter dated July 23, 1946, Wallace urged Truman to build “mutual trust and confidence” in order to achieve “an enduring international order.” In response to this advice, Truman asked Wallace to resign.
Containment
President Truman would seek to lead America towards a new international role by announcing the so-called “Truman Doctrine” in March 1947. He told Congress that the United States should take responsibility for defending “free peoples” throughout the world from communist aggression. This policy first took concrete form as a substantial package of economic and military aid to Greece and Turkey, which were thought to be threatened by Soviet expansionist tendencies.
However, Truman and his advisers believed communism to be more than merely a military threat. Postwar Europe remained economically devastated in 1947, leading to fears that communist parties might succeed in taking power through legal means in places like France, Germany, and Italy. In order to assist in Europe’s recovery, the administration proposed the Marshall Plan—named for Secretary of State George C. Marshall, who introduced the concept in a June 1947 speech at Harvard University. The program was officially launched in 1948, and by the end of 1951 more than 13 billion dollars had been sent to Europe.
While some economic historians have questioned how effective it was in actually promoting economic recovery, it certainly generated considerable good will toward the United States among the nations of Europe. By the end of 1947 it was clear that the United States was becoming involved in European affairs to an unprecedented extent.
The strategy by this time had a name, which first appeared in an influential journal article by the previously mentioned George Kennan. According to Kennan, any aggressive moves on Stalin’s part needed to be met with a policy of “containment“—firm resistance in the hope that, if communism were prevented from spreading, the Soviet system would ultimately change from within.
Not everyone saw the adoption of “containment” as a positive development. Some Republicans, like Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio, argued that the United States could become overextended by committing itself to the security of other countries. Columnist Walter Lippman, on the other hand, believed that containment would ultimately result in a “cold war” between the United States and the Soviet Union. Of course, this is precisely the term that would come to apply to the entire period between 1945 and 1989.
What do you think? Imagine that you were Truman stepping into this situation? The immediate threat of the war is over, you have a devastated Europe, a strong Communist power in Russia, a struggling economy at home. What would you have done in Truman’s shoes?
Remember, I want you to not only post a comment with some substance on each day (an opinion, something you found interesting, questions, ideas) but I also would like you to reply to at least one other comment for that day. Thank you!
the phrase iron curtain really paints a picture about how he felt about things. i like that term i might use it more often
Yeah an iron curtain is not even a curtain at this point. It’s more like a wall.
I think Iron Curtain means separation, like how a regular curtain does
Isn’t it crazy how all the United states had to do was throw money at the problem to become liked by the European people? And yes, maybe Truman did over extend the united states a little, but he had to limit Russia and prevent them from becoming too powerful.
Humans are pretty simple like that. Build us a house, give us food and cheap consumer goods and we will be happy. That helped the struggling Europeans to see that Capitalism was a better option than Communism.
Well, it was pretty bad in Europe at the time.
I don’t find it that hard to believe considering the state that Europeans were in after the war. Any help they could get was gladly welcomed.
Great Britain did help the US with the Berlin Airlift
What was considered an “aggressive move” by Stalin? Trying to invade a territory? How would they react to it without making an “aggressive move” themselves or was that part of the containment act? Also why did no other countries join in on the Cold War? Did Britain not care that communism was rampantly spreading?
yea, I was thinking that too! Where was Britain at?
Britain, France certainly cared, but they were dealing with the fact that their empires were in revolt and that they were completely bankrupt from the war. They had to rely on the US and the Marshall Plan to rebuild.
I had the same question. That makes sense now.
Yeah, I think Truman had a lot on his plate, and stopping Russia was a top priority He did a good job in that situation, although there is always room for improvement
How would history be different if Truman had given West Berlin to Russia and not worried so much about Communism and just focused on rebuilding Japan as a new Americanized economy?
No one wanted a repeat of WW2. After all, it was devastating to Europe. However, Russia was on the rise. The US had to tread lightly. Maybe that’s part of why it was a cold war; it was kind of a fight, but not in the same way.
I agree with Truman’s actions while simultaneously acknowledging he spread the United States pretty thin by pledging to protect so many European countries. Was there nobody else to come to the aid of these devastated nations?
The real question is was saving West Berlin worth the risk of war with the Soviets? The US and Great Britain designed the Berlin Airlift which did help and resupply them. A plane would land about every 3 minutes carrying cargo such as food, coal and medical supplies.
I agree with Cecilia why was West Berlin worth the risk
With all the pressure surrounding everything. i think Truman handled it well and did the right thing for the US.
I had the same question as Cecilia, why was saving West Berlin worth the risk?
if I were truman I would’ve killed myself. im not trying to be funny im just saying that’s allot of pressure on someone
President Truman had an impossible job in front of him and no one could execute his tasks perfectly. But Truman, in my point of view, handled it very well and made the right decisions
I feel so bad for Truman the poor guy had only been vice for 82 days.
I guess the saying money doesnt salve all your problems comes into play here. The US wanted to help, but didnt want to get involved with the war, i guess Truman found a way toward the cause without being in the problem, but in the end it made them a target for the war and ultimately didnt help too much.