In 1945, amidst the end of the Second World War, the Allies countries of The United Kingdom, The United States and The Soviet Union gathered in Crimea to discuss the reorganization of war-torn Europe. This conference, titled the Yalta Conference, is where some of the first remnants of tension arose between the two great superpowers of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. This tension is what many consider to be the origin of future Cold War tensions. The Conference consisted of delegations concerning the restructuring of Eastern Europe, of whose states Stalin considered complementary as defensive measures after his efforts in the war. The United States, however, found it more suitable to bring aid to the countries through methods such as the Marshall Plan, which caused turbulence in Moscow. This is said according to Vladimir Yerofyev, member of Stalin's administration during the Marshall Plan. It is in this manner that clashing motives, which originated in the 1945 Yalta Conference, are seen to be the seeds that would grow to be the Cold War. 

The Cold War, according to John Green of Crash Course, is a perfect example of a "clash of civilizations" as it was the single most ideological war of earthly history, and it continues to be so.

As World War II came to an end and the Eastern European States came under the Soviet sphere of influence, America took an initiative that it found necessary in order to prevent any further expansion of communism. This initiative is known as Containment, which saw to retain what was perceived as communist aggression against other states. The Marshall Plan, being preceded by the Truman Doctrine, furthermore provided military and economic aid for states undergoing external conflicts with communism, particularly that of the Soviet Union. Therefore, by this traditional perspective, Containment was an appropriate response to Soviet expansionism. This further fueled American Exceptionalism, the ideology that suggested American diplomacy revolved around morality and could do anything to maintain this morality, which provided contrast to Stalin's policy of "Realpolitik" in its approach to the Cold War. Realpolitik, as described in the Key Terms and Concepts section is a purely "pragmatic and self-serving" policy according to Paterson and McMahon. The concept of American Exceptionalism is displayed by Kip Lyall, a commended political cartoonist, below:

Because this is a political cartoon, its audience is the general public and expresses an opinion of this same general public and therefore does not require credibility as it is expressing the public concern of false security in regard to one's country. 

Similarly, a portrayal of soviet expansion is provided below in the form of a political cartoon, by a miscellaneous author, displaying the views of the general public. This expansion was perceived as aggression and addressed accordingly by the American policy of Containment.

Containment, inspired by what was perceived to be Soviet aggression, further emitted an essence of Commercial Imperialism as perceived by the Communist superpower. This American Imperialism enhanced what would have been the same Soviet fear that caused Stalin to expand his nation's access to resources by utilizing control of the Eastern European states as satellites, or, in the view of the Traditionalist, soviet expansionism. This fear of "American Idealist Imperialism", as described by William Williams in his Revisionist rhetoric that debuted in The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, was further aided by the threat of nuclear power and the advantage the United States had over the Soviet Union. The Soviet perspective of American foreign policy with the leverage of the atomic bomb along with the policy of Containment expressed behavior that was equivalent, in a manner, to the American perspective of Soviet Aggression.

The events leading up to the Cold War are for the most part cathartic with neo-revisionist perspectives of the origins of the war due to the misleading concerns of communist and capitalist imperialism. This thesis is drawn by focusing on foreign policies and political actions conducted by both the United States and the Soviet Union in order to assess the degree of each country's participation in the build-up of tensions ultimately leading to the Cold War.


The argument showcased in this rhetorical essay is meant to showcase critical thinking in regard to Cold War history and origins. With this information, the reader can be more informed in regards to the ethical and psychological factors contributing to the history of the Cold War and, hopefully, take to heart the importance of understanding the possibly devastating war that was much closer to happening than most people would think.  This argument is meant not only to persuade, but also to inform about lessons that can be learned from such significant eras in history, therefore aiding in the prevention of similar conflicts. This can be done on an individual level upon which one learns of the affects that passive behaviors and common confusion could have on any relationship in any era. By being able to remember the past and realize its impact on modern relations throughout the world, we as a society can learn from the past and put that knowledge towards a better future that avoids all unnecessary conflict.   


The origins of the Cold War and the individual interpretations of it display the diversity of opinion among historians and the multiple perceptions of its historical context. As the United States perceived what the Soviet Union and Stalin saw as building influence as communist imperialism, so also did the Soviet Union perceive what the U.S. saw as bringing aid to victimized countries as capitalist imperialism.  Ultimately, the tension that existed as the Cold War enveloped itself was a result of underlying assumptions of imperialism, on both sides. However, whether or not the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. defined their actions as imperialistic does not defer whether or not they actually were. As a result, three interpretations of the origins of the Cold War currently stand in modern historiography: Traditionalist, Revisionist and Neo-Revisionist. These interpretations, according to acclaimed Cold War historians Robert McMahon and Thomas Paterson, constitute every possibly perspective of the cold war, with Neo-Revisionism having the "widest scope" (The Origins of the Cold War) because it includes any combination of Traditionalist and Revisionist perspective.

Crucial aspects of imperialistic motives lie in perceptions of the American Marshall Plan and the building of the Soviet sphere of influence which would become termed as the "Iron Curtain" by Winston Churchill for its division of Europe. The Marshall Plan held official intentions of restoring Europe and to defend nations under communist pressure; however, Stalin feared it was a capitalist attempt to "infiltrate European countries," according to his translator Vladimir Yerofeyev. The fact that that Stalin was scrambling in order to provide for himself a substantial sphere of influence and taking valuable resources from his buffer states separating the Soviet Union from Western forces, it is understandable that this interpretation of American aid could very well have been an illogical product of his own paranoia. Despite this, the Iron Curtain would still stand, leaving Eastern European countries practically under the will of Stalin and his frantic communist aggression. Nonetheless, America did still have much to gain in aiding countries within Eastern Europe; spreading democratic government would be the primary outcome, building capitalist expansion. 

As the Cold War began to hit the ground running, foreign policies began to collide. The United States' policy of Containment would give rise to mass paranoia in Moscow. This policy, being a response to what was perceived as Soviet aggression, provided an American motivation in Eastern Europe to protect nations from communist expansion. This perception would lead one to believe in a traditionalist interpretation of the Cold War, however, which is not necessarily the case. Containment was derived from George Kennan's Long Telegram in which he stated that the reality of Soviet ideology lies in the historic Russian nationalism and neurosis, rather than imperialistic attempts to siege power over Europe. It is because of this that the Soviet Union and its policy of Realpolitik labeled it as a serious threat to the Western Powers through its unreasonable actions and irrational understanding of American diplomacy.  It is in this case that there is fault in both Superpowers for causing the Cold War. The United States for its intimidation towards Soviet forces through Containment and Soviet Russia for its ruthlessness in absorbing Eastern Europe and promoting its seclusion from Western influence.    

On the other hand, the traditionalist and revisionist interpretations hold absolute fault towards one nation on particular, whether it be the United States or the Soviet Union. To point blame at one nation in particular would be to avoid the idea that the Cold War was inevitable between the tallest remaining nations after the Second World War, which is an arguable case. However, by placing fault in one nation ignores the truth in the justifications of the other. To state the Marshall Plan and its aid to be perceived as capitalist expansion would disregard the economic aid it brought to multiple countries within the Soviet Sphere of Influence in a war-torn part of the world. But, at the same time, justifying Soviet expansion for the sake of eliminating capitalist ideology without taking note of the political atrocities committed in doing so would be considered delirious judgment. It is to this extent that it is understandable to have absolute revisionist or traditionalist interpretations of the of the Cold War based on bias or specific aspects of the first actions of the War itself, despite policies of exceptionalism and realpolitik.


In conclusion the events leading up to the Cold War are for the most part cathartic with neo-revisionist perspectives of the origins of the war due to the misleading concerns of communist and capitalist imperialism, being the driving factor of tension between the two superpowers. However, if the neo-revisionism leans more so towards the traditionalist view than the revisionist in that it is because of inconceivable Stalinist paranoia that provoked the actions of the Soviet Union, whereas it was perceived as embellishing the economic and military state of the U.S.S.R., it was actually an attempt to rebuild off of lesser Eastern European States. It is to this extent that the leading causes of the Cold War were ultimately provoked by the Soviet Union, despite American involvement and foreign police within the Soviet sphere of influence.    

