Containment strategy research.

Running head: ATTRIBUTES OF CONTAINMENT

1

Attributes of containment

(Author’s name)

(Institutional Affiliation)

ATTRIBUTES OF CONTAINMENT

2

In this literature, I will generally focus on the attributes

of containment with reference to the sources provided. I will

paragraph each point and clarify certain phrases from authors of

the literatures. Containment was brought forth by a number of

reasons shown in this essay. The policy helped the US and its

allies to date, in a way that no threat could be posed again

against them and no more fear did they have (Chase, 1998 p. 56).

The essay offers clarification of why the policy of containment

came into action just after the Second World War. Up-to-date, the

features of containment are still felt by the concerned parties

due to the effect it brought fourth (Gaddis, 2005 p. 478).

Containment was a strategy of foreign policy that was

followed by the US during cold war. It was first laid out in 1947


3

by George F. Kennan. It stated that there’s need to contain and

isolate communism or it would extent to other neighboring

countries (Gaddis, 2005 p. 478). The Domino Theory would be

allowed to take hold in case the spread occurred which meant that

if a country fell to communism then each of the adjacent

countries would fall like a row of dominoes. The US intervention

in Central America, Grenada as well as Vietnam was ultimately due

to adherence of Domino Theory and containment (Crockatt, 1995

p.120).

The policy arose the time when East Europe was controlled by

the military, control of the Soviet Union, and when Western

European countries appeared to be waving from their democracies

for the reason that of collapsing economies and socialist

agitation. The policy was extended to cover the world, effecting

to US involvement in Vietnam, Korea and elsewhere (Leffler, 1994

p. 567)

Containment acted as a verdict policy. Throughout the Second

World War, the USSR and the United States were very reluctant


4

allies. Germany posed a threat to these two countries and they

were required to cooperate militarily. Germany had propelled a

brutal invasion into the Soviet Union in the end caused twenty

million deaths of the soviets. The USSR went ahead and asked the

allies from the western side to attack Germany on its western

front (Zakaria, 1997 p. 234). The under-resourced England and the

US were unwilling to launch this attack on the Germans, and

instead, on other fronts they engaged the Germans. This allowed

the soviets to push the Nazis back and regain lost territory. Due

to the vastly differing political philosophies between the US and

the Soviet Union, their relationship became strained and finally

broke apart during the war’s later part (Iriye, 1974 p. 345).

Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt met at the Yalta Conference

in February 1945, when a triumphant conclusion to their war with

Germany seemed inevitable. They began discussing crucial issues

of postwar and they made plans to defeat the Germans. Stalin

considered that the Soviet Union would allow Bulgaria, Poland,

and Romania to have free election after the war, of which would


5

be democratic (Crockatt, 1995 p.120). Upon the end of the war,

Stalin broke his promise quickly going ahead to install communist

governments in these countries without even election pretense.

Stalin’s betrayal stunned the US as well as its allies who feared

that they would be an attempt to increase communism throughout

Europe by the Soviets. According to Stalin, he was doing nothing

wrong (Zakaria, 1997 p. 234). He claimed that this would help

cover the Soviet Union against future hostilities. He claimed

that he was doing this by securing the loyalty of the western

neighbors of the Soviet Union. The US and the USSR regarded the

other as dangerous and treacherous hence resentment continued to

grow (Iriye, 1974 p. 345).

Stalin also broke the promise he pledged to remove troops

from Iran after the Second World War. The Soviet Union and the US

were both important allies to Iran, which was rich in oil. In

Iran, troops were stationed during the war top prevent attacks

from the Germans. All the major allies agreed to remove their

troops from Iran during the 1943 Tehran Conference (Zakaria, 1997


6

p. 234). However, a full whole year after the war the soviets

still had their troops stationed there. Stalin even went ahead

and used the military to aid a rebellion in 1946 in Iran.

Stalin’s betrayal made Truman very furious. Americans became

distrustful of the soviets and hence began worrying that

communism will spread to the Middle East (Iriye, 1974 p. 345).

Despite Winston Churchill’s defeat on recent elections he

remained popular within the United States.

The containment provided a solution to the Soviet threat.

When delivering a controversial speech at Fulton Missouri in

March 1946, he condemned the Soviet Union and Stalin as being

dangerous and opportunistic to the western nations (Iriye, 1974

p. 345). He went ahead to phrase “the Iron Curtain” in referring

the division between the west and the Soviets. The opinion of

Americans was sharply at odds over his speech since many leaders

desired cooperation with the Soviet Union. This made them so

upset with Churchill’s remarks. A major population of the

Americans feared the USSR expansion and Churchill’s explanations


7

increased the weightiness of the threat by soviets in many minds

of these Americans (Iriye, 1974 p. 345). The US was put in a very

unfamiliar role by the Second World War. Having chosen to stay

isolated, America was now cast to be as a leader of the world.

The leaders of America realized faster, that they had to make a

plan to address the Soviet Union. A brilliant US leader as well

as an expert on the Soviet Union, George F. Kennan who was

stationed in Moscow, was asked by the state department to clarify

the Soviet conduct recently (Kennan, 1947 p. 457).

A threat like communism was never seen by the whole world

which made the West very confused about hoe these issues would be

addressed. Kennan was given the task to create a policy that

would be used in dealing with this threat at hand. He was one of

the few western Soviet Union experts. In February 1946, Kennan in

a telegram to the state department drafted a response. In an

8,000-word reply, he covered the issue significantly. This

earned it the name “long telegram” (Kennan, 1947 p. 457). It

thoroughly covered how the USSR had shaped current policies. The


8

information he provided helped American leaders get a greater

insight into the mentality and background of Soviets like Stalin.

According to his advice, the USSR was ruthlessly expansionary but

cautious too. He stated that if the Soviets were left unchecked,

wherever and whenever possible, they would expand their regime

(Kennan, 1947 p. 457).

The plan

The containment aided in covering the effects of the Second

World War at fast rate. The west became desperate to cease

communism spread, as the apparent Soviet Union threat continued

to grow. In many parts of the war-atrophied Europe, the communist

community grew faster after Second World War (Herring, 2008

p.456). Countries like Greece which were European key were being

prevented from spread of communism by England. The British and

the US both feared that in case Greece became communist, so would

Turkey, hence the Eastern Mediterranean would be under control of

the soviets (Herring, 2008 p.456). The prevention of the spread

of communism to Greece was a difficult task for the British


9

because their economy had not yet recovered from the effect of

the Second World War. Therefore, they asked for assistance from

the US. Truman asked the congress for support on March 12, 1947,

on a new policy later referred to as the Truman doctrine. He

requested $400 million allocation in preventing the fall of

Turkey and Greece to communism, as he detailed. It was the

philosophy of the US to support free people who tend to resist

attempts of subjugation by outside pressures or armed minorities,

he stated (Herring, 2008 p.456).

Containment policy expanded the influence of the US abroad.

The U.S foreign policy was greatly impacted by this controversial

statement. Critically it was argued that the policy would make

other nations exploit the US in terms of “fighting communism.”

They feared that money would be elicited from the US, which would

be allowable due to this doctrine. Some others argued that Truman

was using this policy to earn his support domestically as well as

expanding Americas influence abroad (Herring, 2008 p.456). They

termed this as an exaggeration of the soviet threat. Despite the


10

critics the Truman Doctrine still went on and was the United

States official policy. The wedge between the USSR and the US got

deeper hence polarizing the whole world. Other nations were

placed in a position to either choose supporting the Soviet Union

or the US (Herring, 2008 p.456).

Contained aided fast recovery of economies. The Marshall

Plan and the Soviet Threat were both to be contained, an attempt

by the Truman Administration. There was little hope of recovery

of the western countries from their crippled economy brought

forth by the Second World War (the war had decimated the

infrastructure of nations like Italy, France and Belgium) (Hogan,

2007 p. 342). Communist influences got a ripe environment due to

the soaring unemployment and the widespread poverty. This

environment had limited improvement potential. A program of joint

economic recovery was proposed by George C. Marshall, the

secretary of state, between the US and its allies from the west

(Hogan, 2007 p. 342). In case the Europeans agreed to this plan,

then the US would offer financial support significantly. Leaders


11

from key democracies from the west met Marshall in Paris to

discuss the plan in details. Due to their despair of most of

these nations, 16 countries immediately agreed to the Marshall

proposal. He also offered his plan, which was immediately

rejected, to the cash-poor Soviets (Hogan, 2007 p. 342).

Containment brought peace, both socially and politically,

among concerned members. When Marshall returned home, the plan

was immediately presented to the congress by Truman. The plan

required distribution of $12.5 billion among 16 countries (Hogan,

2007 p. 342). The US had spent over $2 billion already in

rebuilding Europe; hence the congress became skeptical of the

huge amount needed and the Marshall plan. Then in 1978 February,

a Communist Government was installed by a Soviet-backed coup in

Czechoslovakia. This fast-spreading communism prompted the

congress to pass the plan in April 1948. For both America and

Britain, the Marshall plan was incredibly successful (Hogan, 2007

p. 342). The introduction of funding large amounts to affected

countries helped strengthen the local economies greatly. Most of


12

these countries, in a few years, were even exceeding prewar

economic levels. The westward spread of communism was halted by

these flourishing western European economies. The industry in

America also benefited through exports of goods and equipment to

Western Europe. This cooperation economic wise would aid the

formation of Eventually Community (EC) - a collective treaty

between these Western European nations and still exists to date

(Herring, 2008 p.456).

Containment allowed sustainable economic status. Germany on

the other hand, 20 years from First World War, had managed

rebuilding its economic status and military hence posed a threat

to the weaker neighboring nations (Hogan, 2007 p. 342). After

Second World War, with the blessings from their allies Britain

and France, America was very determined to stop the Germany from

regaining their power. This way was intended to keep Germany

economically weak, impoverished and unable to pose a threat. By

the month of March, 1948, the allies had already realized that

their approach was self-beating (Hogan, 2007 p. 342). Oppressed


13

citizens and widespread poverty allowed communism to grow in

Germany. Great Britain, Belgium, France, Luxembourg and

Netherlands agreed to help improve Germany’s economic status

through an alliance to work together. This was to create a

Germany that was stable economically and would be autonomous

despite still remaining demilitarized. The Soviet Union saw this

as being contrary to the treaty signed at Potsdam conference

(Hogan, 2007 p. 342). They also were skeptical of this motivation

by the allies and they believed that this was an intention to

undermine the ruling of the Soviets in Berlin and East Germany.

This made the Soviets to blockade all access to Berlin from the

west through surface in June 1948. This was a retaliatory move

that was intended to convey a message to the US as well as its

allies that they did not tolerate meddling of the western in its

territories (Logevall, 2004 p.480).

Contained brought forth trust. The policy allowed free

supply of necessity to the beleaguered countries thus the trust.

This bold move shocked the US and its allies. Over two million


14

German citizens at the west were cut off from necessary supplies

including food, by this blockade. The impoverished Berlin would

very soon fall in a crisis without these supplies. America as

well as its allies was not sure of the reaction to take (Saull,

2007 p.234). It seemed that there would only be two outcomes,

either abandon Berlin completely, or to engage the soviets troops

in a fight (Casey, 2005 p.123). The USSR had the largest army

throughout the world and so engaging them in combat was obviously

unthinkable. Also no one was even willing to engage them in a

fight. Berlin was the key city in Germany and therefore

abandoning it too was also impossible. A decision was made by

President Truman to provide the necessary supplies to the German

people who were beleaguered, without engaging the fight with the

Soviets (Saull, 2007 p.234). He called for the airlifting of the

supplies to West Berlin through a proposal. It was accepted

immediately and thousands of tons of food and other supplies were

airlifted into Germany daily- Berlin airlift. Over the blockade


15

period which took 11 months, over 1.5 million tons of supplies

were airlifted into Germany (Casey, 2005 p.123).

Containment added up to the public relations among the US

and its allies. Since the Soviet Union was not expecting such

actions from Truman, they faced a difficult time in trying to

make a decision. It was either they lift the blockader or start a

war with the west (Casey, 2005 p.123). They finally decided to

lift the blockade in May 1949 hence allowing free flow of the

food and other supplies into West Berlin. Due to that, the

Soviet Union lost face in what essential became a public

relations war. This row polarized and heightened further, the

tensions and pressures between the US and the USSR (Casey, 2005

p.123). This victory in overcoming the blockade benefited the US

greatly, since their respect grew with the Germans for the supply

they got. Hundreds of thousands of the West Germans benefited

from the food and supplies and were grateful in return. This also

made greater, the fear and distrust of the soviets within the

Germans conversely. Other western European countries looked on


16

America’s action favorably and saw them as a sign of their

commitment to Europe (Casey, 2005 p.123).

There was straining in the relations among nations of the

Western Europe. The effects of the world wars clearly showed that

there was great need for security and defense. The western

Europeans were brought together with the help of greatly

increasing Soviet threat as well as the aftermath of the wars.

Some several nations even started discussing a possibility of a

mutual defense organization. Some European leaders met to discuss

these ideas in a series of meetings. In 1948 a mutual defense

pact was signed in Brussels, Belgium, by several representatives

from France, the Great Britain, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and

Belgium (Casey, 2005 p.123).

Containment strengthened or advanced the US foreign policy.

It was considered historic since this was the first ever large-

scale pact of defense among the western European nations. The

United States was also invited by the alliance to join the pact.

This raised some difficult questions in America. Traditionally,


17

the US had viewed such peacetime alliances as being cumbersome

and ineffective (Casey, 2005 p.123). Many Americans argued that

due to their location it was excluded from enjoying the

advantages unlike the nations with closer geographical proximity

which gained benefits. The pact supporters claimed that if

America got involved then they would benefit in terms of

strengthening the defenses in north America and Europe against

the soviet union and also the extend the united states

containment policy (Casey, 2005 p.123). Some also thought that in

joining the alliance the western Germany would be brought into

the US camp eventually, and also reassure the Europeans that they

won’t get back to their isolationism. This issue divided the

congress deeply. In urging them to join this alliance, Truman

appeared before congress personally and eventually they agreed to

join. This led to signing of the North Atlantic Treaty

Organization (NATO) on April 4 1949 (Casey, 2005 p.123).

The first who signed included France, Great Britain,

Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark, Iceland, Norway,


18

Luxembourg and Portugal, while the US and Canada represented

North America. Turkey and Greece were later added to the pact in

1952. In 1955, the West Germany was also admitted to this

alliance. Since then the organization has moved on to expand and

include 19 nations (Hogan, 2007 p. 342). The world politics and

its defense were greatly impacted by the formation of NATO. NATO

had helped Europe emerge to being a collective power, improved

European unity dramatically and brought peace and security to the

world. . NATO has encouraged other nations to think outside their

borders by helping grow internationalism. It had also minimized

or prevented a number of conflicts in the world through

intervention, either diplomatically or militarily (Hogan, 2007 p.

342).

The decision by the congress to join NATO changed the United

States foreign policy significantly. The US emerged to be the

leader of NATO, therefore was required in international disputes

intervention. In the same way NATO strengthened US security. The


19

US and other members now spoke with a voice that the Soviets had

to take notice, as part of NATO (Hogan, 2007 p. 342).

Bibliography

A, Iriye. The Cold War in Asia: A Historical Introduction. Englewood:

Prentice-Hall, 1974.

F, Zakaria. " The Sources of Soviet Conduct, Foreign Affairs,

July 1947." The American Encounter (1997).

G, Herring. "Truman, The Cold War, and The Revolutiuon in U.S.

Foreign Policy." From Colony to Superpower, 1945-1953. 2008.

J, Chace. The Secretary of State who Created the American World. New York :

Simon and Schuster, 1998.

J, Gaddis. George F. Kennan and the Strategy of Containment. New York:

Oxford Uiversity Press, 2005.


20

—. We Now Know, Rethink Cold War History. New York: Oxford University

Press, 1997.

Kennan, George F. "The Sources of the Soviet Conduct." Foreign

Affairs 1947.

Logevall, Frederik. "A Critique of Containment." Diplomatic History.

2004. 473-499.

M, Hogan. The Marshall Plan: America, Britain and the Reconstruction of Western

Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

M, Leffler. Preponderance of Power: National Security , the Truman Administration

and the Cold War. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1994.

R, Crockatt. The Fifty Year War: The United States and the Soviet Union in World

politics. London: Routledge, 1995.

S, Casey. Selling NSC-68: The Truman Administration, Public Opinion, and the

Politics of Mobilization. 2005.


21

Saull, R. "The Cold War and After. Capitalism, Revolution and

Superpower Politics." Introduction: History and Theory in the Cold War

(2007).

The United States and the Making of the Modern World. New York: Basic Books,

1997.

Containment strategy research.

Documents

Transcript of Containment strategy research.