AWA: Academic Writing at Auckland

The period following 1945 did not witness the creation of a meaningful peace^t, but instead saw America and the Soviet Union – along with their European allies – engage in a new kind of war, the Cold War.[1] Whilst many expected peace and security following World War II, the strained relations, conflicting ideologies and mistrust between the two nations did not allow for meaningful peace to be established. Instead a new kind of war, cold war, was embarked upon, in which much of Europe and other overseas nations acted as the frontline.[2] This new kind of war was unlike anything the world had seen beforehand and was based on the principles of differing ideologies and the balance of power in the world.[3] Hence my purpose here is to discuss why a meaningful peace was not established following World War II, how the Cold War was a new kind of war and the ways in which this new war was fought.

The creation of a meaningful peace after 1945 was impeded, by the differing political ideologies of America, a capitalist state (encouraging the freedom of individuals to develop, control and own resources[4]), and the Soviet Union, a communist state (based on the idea of societal equality, in which the government controls everything). America felt seriously threatened by communism because of its lack of freedom. Hence tension between the U.S. and the Soviet Union became inevitable as America attempted to stop it spreading westward.[5] To America, communism challenged everything the U.S. stood for, as well as what was known in terms of power in the world.[6] Therefore America felt that the containment of communism was mandatory to ensure a free world with an open economy.[7] The U.S. sought to contain the spread of communism firstly through The Marshall Plan, which guaranteed American financial aid to support economic recovery following World War II, in Europe.[8] America hoped that through this plan, the countries that joined would prosper and that it would portray communism as an unappealing ideology, that did not have the strong economic means that capitalist America had[9] – thus economically, the balance of power favoured America greatly, over the USSR. This diplomacy was also a feature of this new kind of war as both the US and USSR sought to win the support of new allies in the Cold War rivalry. Containment was also evident in the Korean and Vietnamese wars, where the U.S. sent troops, munitions and other vital war supplies to fight against communist groups, who were in turn supplied by the Soviets. Therefore, the conflicting ideologies of the two superpowers led to tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, meaning that peace after 1945 was unsuccessful.

Perhaps the most important factor that contributed to the absence of any kind of meaningful peace, was the dropping of the atomic bombs in Japan in 1945 by America. Such weaponry, and the arms race that it caused was also significant in the way in which the Cold War was fought. The dropping of the two bombs increased Stalin and the Soviet Union’s sense of insecurity, and hence created mistrust between the two nations.[10] Stalin also felt that through American use of the bombs, had jeopardized the Soviet Union’s international position and distorted the balance of power – which was also fundamentally important in terms of a failed peace after 1945.[11] The Soviet’s own atomic project from this point forward was given top priority,[12] further increasing the mistrust between the nations as each aimed to gain the upper hand militarily, and further shift the balance of power in their favour. This mutual suspicion particularly increased in 1949 following the detonation of the Soviet Union’s first atomic bomb. America no longer had the upper hand in terms of nuclear weapons, and a nuclear attack by one side, would almost definitely be reciprocated with nuclear retaliation from the other side.[13] Thus, a nuclear arms race was embarked upon in which it was no longer about who had atomic bombs, but who had the most.[14] Both historians Alan Axelrod, and Melvyn Leffler agree with this approach. By 1966, the U.S. had 32 000 nuclear warheads in their arsenal, and as the Soviet nuclear stockpile increased to match the American’s, the arms race became about whose weapons were more powerful and could cause more destruction,[15] an idea known as MAD – Mutually Assured Destruction.[16] The idea behind MAD was that a nuclear attack by either nation would evidently lead to total destruction of both sides. This concept soon became the focus of the arms race and a significant development in the Cold War.[17] Te dropping of the atomic bombs was not only significant in why peace was unattainable but also in terms of the way in which the Cold War was fought.

Following the conclusion of World War II, both America and the Soviet Union had differing objectives regarding the post-war structure of Europe, making the establishment of a meaningful peace difficult. Both America and the Soviet Union had conflicting agendas. The Soviets wanted to keep Eastern Europe under their control, and under communist influence, so it could act as a ‘buffer zone’ to ensure the protection of the Soviet Union from Western Europe.[18] America however, wanted to contain Communism and encourage the spread of capitalism in Europe, particularly in Western Europe. Hence there was disagreement, especially as the Soviets – the liberators – felt it their right to dominate Eastern Europe. Whilst the two nations had differing objectives for Europe as a whole, it was in Germany that these objectives were particularly contentious.[19] Whilst the de-militarisation, ‘de-Nazification’ and division of Germany into four temporary zones (occupied by America, the Soviet Union, France and Britain) was agreed upon, the main powers (USA, USSR and Britain) due to mutual suspicion of each other, failed to agree upon a peace settlement in Germany.[20] America and Britain agreed that economic recovery, along with the promotion of western ideas was best for Germany, while the Soviet Union and France were determined to keep Germany crippled economically by demanding unreasonable reparations.[21] Thus the differing objectives of the two states, made establishing a meaningful peace difficult as each power refused to agree to each others terms.

The lack of physical combat between America and the Soviet Union, along with the introduction of nuclear weapons, were underlying features that made the Cold War a new kind of war. The Cold War saw no physical combat between American and Soviet troops, clearly making it distinctly different to any other war seen before in the world. It was for the most part, the result of the atomic bomb that made the conflict so different. It made total war unthinkable due to the amount of death and destruction that would be caused through the use of such a weapon.[22] On top of this, neither America, nor the Soviet Union wanted another war. World War II had impacted both nations, although the USSR suffered to a much greater extent, emerging with a shattered economy, huge loss of life and complete destruction of many towns and villages[23]. Neither could afford (economically or in terms of manpower) to send troops to fight another war. Historian Mark Wilson concurs with this thinking.

In many instances following World War II, America and the Soviet Union, used conflicts in other areas of the globe, such as Asia and the Middle East, as indirect conflicts between the two powers.[24] Instead of directing conflict at one another in order to make territorial advances, America and the Soviet Union could fight for their core beliefs, and thus against their rivals beliefs, without committing to a full scale, and possibly nuclear war. This was particularly evident in Vietnam, where America sent troops in the 1960s, in an attempt to contain communism and discontinue its spread further into Asia. Thus the Americans were able to fight communism and its spread, but did not have to do so against the Soviet Union, which would have been a far more destructive conflict for both sides. Likewise the Soviets in Afghanistan fought for communism on behalf of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, to whom they also sent military aid.[25] Thus through the use of client states, America and the Soviet Union, found a way to fight for their beliefs and contain the ideas of their rivals by indirect conflict. Hence this form of conflict was an important feature that became characteristic of the Cold War and how it was fought.

Therefore, lasting peace and security were not established following the conclusion of World War II. Instead a new kind of war – the Cold War – was embarked upon, which saw the world once again standing on the edge of an international conflict, led by the Soviet Union and America.[26] Whilst America and the Soviet Union had previously been allies, it was the result of strained relations between the two that caused the creation of a meaningful peace to fail. Such a strained relationship had been born due to the divergent ideologies of the two nations, along with their mutual mistrust of each other and their differing objectives for post war Europe. The dropping of the atomic bombs by America in 1945 however, also played a fundamental role in the absence of a meaningful peace in the period after 1945. Such actions resulted in increased mistrust and thus strained U.S.-Soviet relations further. Hence a new kind of war in which direct conflict between the two superpowers was avoided and instead other means of contest, such as using client states to fight on their behalf and a build up of nuclear weapons in each state, were used to fight such a war.

^t The term ‘meaningful peace’, refers to a stable position of understanding and agreement between nation states, in which there is an absence of any form of conflict.

[1] Walter Chin, ‘The Transformation of War in Europe 1945-2000’, in Jeremy Black ed., European warfare, 1815-2000, London, 2001, p.193

[2] Ibid.

[3] Martin Walker, The Cold War: a history, New York, 1994, p.5

[4] Mark Wilson, ‘The Search for Security in the Nuclear Age 1945-Present’, in Dina Cloete ed., Year 12 History: study guide, 2nd edn, Auckland, 2004, p.216

[5] J. Samuel Walker, Prompt and utter destruction: Truman and the use of atomic bombs against Japan, Chapel Hill, 1997, p.17

[6] Odd Arne Westad, ‘Origins, 1917-1945’, in Jussi M. Hanhimäki et al., ed., The Cold War: a history in documents and eyewitness accounts, New York, 2003, p.1

[7] Melvyn P. Leffler, ‘Assuming Hegemony 1947-1950’, in The Specter of Communism. The United States and the Origins of the Cold War, 1917-1950, New York, 1994, p.96

[8] Alan Axelrod, The Real History of the Cold War, New York, 2009, pp.122-123

[9] Ibid.

[10] Wilson, p.222

[11] Walker, Prompt and utter destruction, p.81

[12] Ibid.

[13] Axelrod, p.150

[14] Ibid.

[15] David S. Painter, The Cold War. An International History, London, 1999, pp.57-58

[16] Ibid., p.58

[17] Ibid.

[18] Axelrod, p.35

[19] Westad, p.70

[20] Wilson, p.224

[21] Ibid.

[22] Chin, p.193

[23] Axelrod, p.32

[24] Wilson, p.211

[25] Axelrod, p.392

[26] Wilson, p.211