Assess the View that Stalin's Policy in Eastern Europe was mainly Defensive in Nature
Assess the View that Stalin’s Policy in Eastern Europe was Mainly Defensive in Nature
Stalin’s policy in Eastern Europe can be construed to seem very defensive; however arguments can be made to suggest that there were alternative motives to his desire to expand Soviet influence in the Eastern nations. The legitimacy towards a defensive claim is due to the critical nature of the Nazi invasion of Russia during the Second World War, which was through countries such as Poland and Czechoslovakia. Therefore Stalin’s fear of further invasion, especially in a nuclear world as proved by the Americans in Japan, allows his policy to be justified. This is only to a certain extent though because there were instances where some might argue that Stalin’s policy took a much more aggressive turn towards the expansion of Communism. Despite these two radically different attitudes regarding Soviet policy, action and response of the USA and Soviet Union suggest a misunderstanding of each other’s aims for the future of Europe, thus creating a rift between the two resulting in the Cold War. Stalin’s attitude is arguably mainly defensive due to the destruction of the Soviet economy, infrastructure and population during the Second World War. Over 20 million were killed, but this wasn’t the only instance where Stalin’s trust was betrayed. Source A points out these events that took place over the course of the former half of the 20th century: “the West had poured thousands of troops into Russia between 1917 and 1920, refused to cooperate with the Soviets during the 1930’s, tried to turn Hitler against Stalin in 1938, reneged on promises about the second front and in 1945 tried to penetrate areas Stalin deemed crucial to his security”. From this long extract, it seems completely justified that Stain’s policy would be defensive. Furthermore, his intentions in Eastern Europe did not surpass that of the territory which he had been given. Source B backs this by claiming that “The Russians
Stalin’s policy in Eastern Europe can be construed to seem very defensive; however arguments can be made to suggest that there were alternative motives to his desire to expand Soviet influence in the Eastern nations. The legitimacy towards a defensive claim is due to the critical nature of the Nazi invasion of Russia during the Second World War, which was through countries such as Poland and Czechoslovakia. Therefore Stalin’s fear of further invasion, especially in a nuclear world as proved by the Americans in Japan, allows his policy to be justified. This is only to a certain extent though because there were instances where some might argue that Stalin’s policy took a much more aggressive turn towards the expansion of Communism. Despite these two radically different attitudes regarding Soviet policy, action and response of the USA and Soviet Union suggest a misunderstanding of each other’s aims for the future of Europe, thus creating a rift between the two resulting in the Cold War. Stalin’s attitude is arguably mainly defensive due to the destruction of the Soviet economy, infrastructure and population during the Second World War. Over 20 million were killed, but this wasn’t the only instance where Stalin’s trust was betrayed. Source A points out these events that took place over the course of the former half of the 20th century: “the West had poured thousands of troops into Russia between 1917 and 1920, refused to cooperate with the Soviets during the 1930’s, tried to turn Hitler against Stalin in 1938, reneged on promises about the second front and in 1945 tried to penetrate areas Stalin deemed crucial to his security”. From this long extract, it seems completely justified that Stain’s policy would be defensive. Furthermore, his intentions in Eastern Europe did not surpass that of the territory which he had been given. Source B backs this by claiming that “The Russians