American and Soviet Perspectives of the Cold War

American Perspective of the Cold War

In announcing the containment policy in 1947, Truman said, "The free peoples of the world look to us for support in maintaining their freedoms." His words echoed those of Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt in earlier crises. The belief that the United States has a responsibility to protect freedom and democracy became a moral rallying cry in the nation's Cold War against communism.
Containment, however, was not so much pro-democratic as it was anti-Communist. The United States found itself supporting dictators, such as those in Greece and Nationalist China, simply because they opposed communism. Furthermore, the use of military force against Communist rebels was viewed by some people, both in the United States and abroad, more as an effort to extend American power than as a struggle to protect freedom and democracy. In their eyes, both the United States and the Soviet Union were guilty of imperialism.
Has the quest to contain communism done more harm than good for the cause of democracy? That question, which continues to be asked to this day, emerged early in the Cold War. Not only was the Cold War pushing the United States into supporting dictatorships abroad but it was also threatening democracy at home. For on the "home front" during the 1950s, congressional committees were hunting for American Communists, as part of a new "Red Scare" similar to the one that had followed World War I.

David C. King, Norman McRae, and Jaye Zola. The United States and Its People (New
York: Addison-Wesley, 1995) 695.

Based on this perspective, what was the Cold War all about?

Soviet Perspective of the Cold War

Eastern Europe had, by 1953, become a mirror image of the Soviet system, economically, politically and socially. The collectivisation of land began, agriculture was ruthlessly exploited, and heavy industrialization was pursued under centralised Five-Year Plans. There was a genuine support for the change from long-standing Communists, anti-fascists, trade unionists and those who gained from the reforms, especially party officials, bureaucrats and managers. Otherwise-as in the USSR-the use of police-state methods, the control of the Communist party over employment, and political apathy after years of upheaval, helped secure the Stalinists in power. Mass organisations, the press, freedom of movement, all were under the control of a centralised leadership. In 1945 much of eastern Europe was a peasant-aristocratic society, as unsuited to proletarian revolution as Russia in 1917. But the Communists rapidly created a Soviet-style social system. The old ruling classes were destroyed, along with middle-class groups, like artisans, businessman and shopkeepers. The independent peasantry proved more resilient but collectivisation was eventually achieved, except in Poland, by about 1961. Professional groups, such as doctors, journalists and engineers were put into state employment, and ideals based on property and individualism gave way to nationalisation and egalitarianism. The urban working class, on the other hand, was greatly expanded as industrialisation gathered pace... This process of Stalinisation was carried out with little regard to local problems Nonetheless, the Stalinist economic model proved as effective in achieving rapid growth in Eastern Europe as it had been in the Soviet Union.

John W. Young Cold War Europe 1945-1989. (London: Edward Arnold, 1991) 171.

What kind of impact did Stalin have on Eastern Europe? Did it appear to be beneficial?