Was President Truman Responsible for the Cold War? Essay

One of the first diplomatic moves by the U.S. in the Cold War was atomic bomb drop on Hiroshima August 6th 1945 and three day later one Nagasaki. Revisionist Gar Alperovitz argues that President Harry S. Truman and his Secretary of State, James F. Byrnes, could have ended the war without using the atomic bomb and that the weapon was more of an instrument to intimidate the Soviets. The intention was to end the conflict before the Soviet Union had an opportunity to declare war on Japan, march

In the 1930’s and the 1940’s there was a change in American leadership. Having this change not only changed the outcome of the war that we were currently in, but how the rest of the world would view our country after the war. The decision that Harry Truman was forced to make on the choice to drop the atomic bomb or to attempt more land invasions was a choice that shaped the outcome of the war. There were major influences and side effects from the dropping of the atomic bomb and what it did to the country of Japan. Having the option and the weight of the moral decision weighing on Truman’s shoulders about what decision should be made, he was the only one who was capable of making the decision that shaped the outcome of the war. Having dropped the bomb on Japan, as a statement of power and a means to an end in a form was the only way that American lives could have been spared as comparing that to the lives that would have been lost in a land invasion. Knowing what the issues with the bomb was; one has to look at the moral issues, the results of the incident, and also how it played in the rest of the development of the world.

He faced many important challenges and decisions. The war in Europe ended when Germany surrendered on May 8th. The United Nations signed a charter. Roosevelt participated in the Potsdam Conference to discuss treatment after the war with Churchill and Stalin. Soon after this, President Roosevelt passed away and Truman took office. In order to end the war in the Pacific and prevent the loads U.S. casualties that would happen from an invasion of Japan, Truman approved the dropping of atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan surrendered, however, Truman’s atomic bomb was one of the most controversial decisions of any American

Some policies that affected the Cold War include the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and the Internal Security Act.

In a nutshell, these arguments surround the notion that Truman had taken over Roosevelt’s policies. These policies were driven by the determination to end the war with minimal U.S. casualties. However, dropping the atomic bombs would also in a sense serve as a “diplomatic bonus” where the Soviets were concerned. Moreover, Bernstein attempts to explain the reasons for why alternative methods hadn’t been seriously considered and whether or not these methods could have been successful at the time (Major Problems in the History of World War II, pg.

developed as a series of chain reactions as a struggle for supremacy. It can be

John Lewis Gaddis offers a different opinion of the one responsible for the Cold War. He believes that Stalin’s authoritarian vision was a minor issue; the big issue

The decision to drop the atomic bomb, made by President Truman, was largely influenced by political factors rather than military factors. Traditionalist historians argue from the military perspective that the bomb was used to end the war as quickly as possible and with as minimal causalities as possible. Revisionist historians, on the other hand, argue the political perspective where they believe that the bomb was dropped as a diplomatic tool to intimidate the rising superpower that was the Soviet Union. In 1945, there was little reason to doubt the traditionalist perspective; however, in retrospect, with the evidence now gathered and available, it was very likely there were other strategic reasons that played a larger role in the decision Truman had made. By observing the historical timeline, the Cold War began shortly after World War II. Truman was aware of the rising power of the USSR and the threat of the spread of communism into Europe and Asia. The fear of this threat was what likely influenced him and Congress to use the bomb more so than the desire to end the war more efficiently.

President Truman helped in the process of putting an end to World War II by taking the decision of using an atomic bomb on Japan. He used the bomb to give a message to the Soviet Union that the United States was not afraid of using nuclear weapons if it was necessary. Also he wanted to find a quicker way to stop the war without losing troops.

Stalin’ actions were responsible for initiating the Cold War, through his machination to expand communism throughout Eastern Europe. In 1945, Stalin violated the Yalta agreement and inflicted Soviet expansion in Eastern Europe provoking tension. Stalin’s expansion of communism was enacted with invigorating force , as diplomatic historian Richard H. Ullman states, ‘communist regimes had been thrust upon them

When discussing the Cold War, there are two questions that never fail to come up: When did it start? And, when did it end? While the latter is more difficult to pinpoint, there is a clear starting point for the Cold War. Most arguments for the beginning are in fact post WWII events and nothing more. As the Cold War progressed there is much blame to go around, but it started with President Truman. With fear of the United States falling back into the Depression, President Truman used post WWII fallout to justify the Soviets as and enemy and in turn start the Cold War. By looking at the progression of events, and Truman’s actions, it cannot be clearer that he manipulated his citizens to march forward into a war that would last for many years

The Cold War: A New History written by John Lewis Gaddis (a professor at Yale University who wrote other books such as The United States and the Origins of the Cold War and Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security) delivers a summarized, yet skewed interpretation of what had happened during the era known as the Cold War. Throughout the book, the author attempts to provide history of the Cold War, while adding in generalizations, incomplete facts, as well as flat out bias.

The traditional, orthodox interpretation places the responsibility of the Cold War on Stalin’s personality and on communist ideology. It claims that as long as Stalin and the authoritarian government were in power, a cold war was unavoidable. It argues that Stalin violated agreements that he had made at Yalta, imposed Soviet policy on Eastern European countries aiming at political domination and conspired to advocate communism throughout the world. As a result, United States officials were forced to respond to Soviet aggression with foreign policies such as the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. Yet revisionists argue that there was “no proof of Stalin promoting communism outside Russia” and that Stalin’s decisions were first and foremost, pro-Soviet and not of communist intentions. Up until 1947, it is evident through Marshall Plan as well as statements and interviews made by Stalin that he was still thinking of cooperation with the United States, Britain and France. Despite post-war conflicts and instability of Soviet-American relations, the USSR’s initial embrace of the Marshall Plan at its announcement expressed

However, the Cold War was not completely inevitable. Both revisionist and orthodox historians agree that the war “resulted from essentially unilateral actions by one or another power and that therefore the cold was an avoidable tragedy” (Crockatt 65).

President Truman in early July made a public show of sending three squadrons of B-29 bombers--the planes designated to carry atomic bombs--to England and Germany. The aircraft did not carry any atomic bombs, no one had any way of knowing that. In rushing the reconstruction of West Germany because of an irrational fear of communist takeover, Truman only increased hostility and moved the US into another war. He should have consulted more often with the Soviets on currency issues and industrial policy.