Skip to main content

Full text of "An inquiry into the development of cold war as a system of conflict."

See other formats






... .. Published on demand by 

University ' 


InfprnAtionpl 30 ° N ZEEB R0Aa ANN ARB0R ' Ml 48, ° 6 


Dudley Knox Library. NFS 
Monterey, CA 93943 


This is an authorized facsimile 

printed by microfilm/xerography on acid-free paper 

in 1984 by 


Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A. 


MOYNIHAN, John Joseph 


The American University, M.A., 1966 

Political Science, international law and relations 

University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan 


John Joseph Koynihan 

Submitted to the 

Faculty of the School of International Service 

of The American University 

In Partial Fulfillment of 

The Requirements for the Degree 



Dudley Knox Library , tiv 
Monterey, CA 93943 






1. Tlie Historical Background 3 

2. The Normalisation of the System .... 17 

III. THE LE330N3 0? BERLIN 33 

1. Non-Confrontation 3h 

2. Deliberatcness of Action ........ 40 

3. Territorial Limitation of Conflict ... M 

4. Cold V.'ar Negotiation 43 

5. The Techniques 52 

Propaganda 53 

Aid 5H 

The use of intermediaries ...... 33 

5. The Lessons 57 


1. Korea and Limited War . 59 

Crossing the parallel 63 

Sanctuary beyond the Yalu • 66 

The role of China . 67 

Non-extension3 69 



2. Covert Power Projection 7 Z '' 

Iran 75 

Guatemala 73 

An evaluation 81 

3. The ITon-interventions 03 

4. Political Warfare &5 

Historical development 85 

The nature of political warfare 08 

The weapons of political warfare .... 89 

5. The Roles of Diplomacy 9$ 



1. The Rules of Cold War 113 

Objectives of cold war 118 

Requirements to participate ■ . . 120 

The rules of conduct 123 

Winning in cold war . . . 126 

Ending ccld war 129 

Overview; . . , . . 130 


The limits of the system 132 

Evaluation of the system 134 

Applicability for today 137 

szlzct^d bibliography 139 


By the end of the Second World War, the United States 
and the Soviet Union had between them certain differences of 
interest and ideology that were too great to be ignored. The 
manner in which these differences were expressed and the ac- 
tions taken to resolve them have, over the past twenty years, 
come to be known as the cold war. The relations between the 
two powers in the postwar world have taken a form that is, in 
certain ways, new to the history of the world; a form that is 
directly a product of the age in which it came to be. 

This study will be concentrated upon form. It will be 
an inquiry into the form taken in the expression of the gen- 
erally hostile relations between the two great powers. It 
will attempt to demonstrate the acceptance by each of a method 
of conflict that had characteristics distinctly different 
from those of previous methods of conflict; and it will attempt 
to determine these characteristics and to trace their develop- 

The form in which the quarrel between the United States 
and the Soviet Union has been expressed was developed and re- 
fined through their first decade of conflict. During this 
period of time the developing and refining process consisted 


of the establishment of a series of precedents that were, 
through trial and error, tacitly accepted and reinforced or 
rejected by both sides. There have been times in the devel- 
opment of these precedents when the two powers came close to 
war with one another, but on every occasion so far it has 
been avoided. 

This paper will be an examination of the sum total of 
precedents for cold war action with a view toward the develop- 
ment of accepted rules of conduct by which a great-power con- 
flict has been expressed. It will evaluate any rules discov- 
ered to determine their strength or lack of strength. Finally, 
it will proceed from an examination of the Soviet-American 
action pattern to a view of cold war as a conceptual whole, 
the sum of rules and precedents, and attempt to judge its 
value for the conduct of conflicts other than the one that 
brought it into being. 

This author knows of no other study of cold war as a 
method of conducting conflict separate and distinct from .«" 
other methods of conducting conflict. The nearest thing to 
such a study would be The Cold V« r ar . . . And After , by Professor 
Charles 0. Lerche, Jr., of The American University. Professor 
Lerche uses a method he calls strategic analysis and studies 
the strategic interaction of the two opponents in the Soviet- 


American cold war. He looks upon the cold war as a distinct 
period in the relations between the two states, and he does 
not study it in the abstract nor attempt to draw from its events 
lessons for the conduct of future conflict. As his level of 
study is strategic, this will be tactical, for it is on the 
level of tactics, techniques, and weapons used that the cold 
war makes its claim to distinction and offers a pattern to be 
followed. While this study does describe some of the events 
already described in The Cold War . . . And After , they are done 
in quite different ways and toward different ends that this 
author hopes v/ill complement the previous work. 



The idea of cold war as a system of conflict comes 
from the notion of "war system" expressed by Walter Millis 
and James Real in The Abolition of War and also by Bert 
Cochran in his book The War System . In his book, Cochran 
never defines his term; but he implies it to mean the habit 
of resorting to war for the final solution of international 
problems; and he includes in it all the physical appurtenances, 
particularly the military establishments, built to support 
this habit. Millis and Real speak of a war system "as spe- 
cific to an age or culture as are its economic and legal sys- 
tems". They describe the war system as being: 

compounded of many elements — the weapons available; 
the forms of military organization and command; the 
relation of the military function to the economic 
and political functions of the societies involved; 
the legal, customary, or ethical principles sur- 
rounding the military instrumentalities and largely 
governing their use. It is the total war system, 
usually beginning with the weapons available and 
rising through the political and ethical systems 
based upon them, that determines the place of war 
in society, that puts limitations upon its use in 
in the affairs of the group or states concerned, and 
that defines the role of war in the larger problem 
of intergroup relations. 1 

^Walter K11113 and James Real, The Abolition of War , 
(New York: The Macmillan Company, 19o3T7 PP. 5-6. 


Mills and Real consider the modern war system to be 
deeply imbedded in the notion of the sovereign national state. 
This has led to the concept of total war fought, of necessity, 
for motives that would appeal to the nationalistic spirit of 
the citizens of the state . This sytem of warfare has been 
becoming less and less able to resolve' international issues 
as it has become more and more directed to the pursuit of ab- 
stract power; and with the advent of the balance of nuclear 
terror even a demonstration of the inability of total war to 
solve conflicts can be so costly as to be prohibitive to men 
of reason. 

Millis and Real, in their book, look for a future in 
which the residual problems of the Second World War are re- 
solved and in which a demilitarized international political 
system is in operation. The say that we will still 

have clashes of economic power and interest — politics 
is, in large measure, the resolution of power prob- 
lems — but they can be resolved today, we feel reason- 
ably confident, without the enormous suffering and 
quite needless waste of the early 1930 f s... Sooner 
or later it will become apparent that basic inter- 
national power problems can be resolved without the 
suicidal destruction of a major war. As this fact 
becomes apparent, we shall be on the road to an 
international political system from which major war 
has been eliminated, because we shall be on t^e road 
to seeing tha^j major war has become an anachronism... 2 

William V. Shannon has called world politics in recent 

2 Millis and Real, The Abolition of War , pp. 139-90. 


years "an attempt to work out the ground rules for political 
conflict In the thermonuclear age. Since the nature of nu- 
clear weapons makes it too dangerous to escalate conflicts 
into major wars, these conflicts have to be considered in a 
different light than heretofore. "3 Both Killis and Real and 
Cochran look for an abandonment of the present waj- system; 
and Millis and Real see, as an alternative to nuclear war, a 
demilitarized world in which "the irresolvable pov/er problems- 
most of them military power problems--need no longer enter 
into international politics."^ They admit, however, that the 
creation of such a world is still a part of the future. 

There is another alternative to nuclear war other than 
the abolishment of a war system and the formation of a demil- 
itarized world. This alternative is the replacement of the 
present war system — and even the word "present" may not de- 
scribe nuclear warfare accurately any more — with one better 
suited to the age of the balance of terror. The alternative 
system cannot be, strictly speaking, a war system, for war 
is the institutionalization of violence between states; and 
violence between states that possess nuclear weapons poses 
dangers too great to be acceptable. Rather, the alternative 

^From an unpublished paper, "Politics," for the Center 
for the Study of Democratic Institutions, quoted in Millis and 
Real, The Abolition of War, p. 190. 

^The Abolition of War, p. 197. 


system should be a system of conflict, a channel for the 
articulation and expression, and possibly but not necessarily 
the resolution — since even war cannot any longer guarantee a 
resolution — of major disagreements between states. War Is a 
system of conflict; but systems of conflict are not necessar- 
ily limited to war; and they can Include any method of compe- 
tition upon which the participants can agree and from which 
they can receive satisfaction. 

As an alternative to nuclear warfare for the expression 
of international conflict in the present age, one can look to 
the "cold war" that has been carried on between the United 
States and Russia for the past twenty years. From its events 
prior to the end of 1956, it is possible to discern a pattern 
of conflict articulation which has provided for those nations 
participating in it many of the advantages and few of the 
disadvantages of modern warfare. Advantages which are not 
capable of being provided by the cold war, such as definite 
resolution of issues, are those which have no certainty of 
provision in nuclear warfare either. The cold war, as it 
existed in its maturity at the end of 1956, will In this 
paper be analysed as a conflict system with is own rules of 
conduct and patterns of behavior, its own provision for score- 
keeping, and its own method of bringing about gains and losses, 


all of which had grown out of the events of the preceeding 
ten years and had been accepted by its participants. 

The theory of games of strategy can provide a basis in 
logic for the development of the cold war as a system of 
conflict. Thomas C. Schelling, in his book The Strategy 
of Conflict , applies game theory to, among other things, in- 
ternational relations; and in this light the cold v/ar can 
be looked upon as a two-player, nonzero-sum game in which 
both players stand to gain more by keeping the game alive or 
by ending it, without a decision, by mutual consent than they 
stand to gain by "winning". 5 This is so for tv/o reasons, the 
first important enough that it makes the second, while highly 
significant, unnecessary. The first reason is that winning 
the cold war could serve as intolerable provocation to one's 
opponent, thereby resulting in nuclear war from which both 
sides stand to lose, or in some other kind of action outside 
the limits of cold war that would be highly detrimental to 
both sides. An example of other kind of action would be, in 
the event of a winner in the Moscow- Peking cold war, the open 
and irrevolcable split in, and the resultant practical expul- 
sion of a key nation and its few remaining followers from, 
the world communist movement. This would bring about to the 

^Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict (Cam- 
bridge: Harvard University Press, i960) J Chapter 4: Toward 
A Theory of Interdependent Decision, pp. 83-118. 


winner a weakening versus his rivals in the non- communist 
world, that is greater than any weakening caused by the con- 
tinuance of a Sino-Soviet cold war. 

The second reason for not winning a cold war consists 
in the benefits conferred upon participants by its existence. 
These benefits are such things as the development and mainten- 
ance of a national consensus, a threat against which to main- 
tain allies that a participant can then use for his own pur- 
poses, and the very real ability to express, to the satisfaction 
of one's citizens, conflicts with other states. The benefits 
of cold war resemble very much those conferred upon the national 
state in the past by war or the immediate threat of war, but 
they are gained at. the expense of far less blood and wealth 
than are normally spent on war. 

Schelling relates how experiments in the theory of 
games of strategy have demonstrated that it is possible for 
two or more players, whether or not in direct communication 
v/ith one another, to arrive at a consensus when it is in their 
interest to do so." The events from the end of the Second 
World War until the end of 1956 Give indications that, with 
a minimum of direct verbal communication but with a maximum 
of signalling through strategic and tactical moves, the United 
States and Russia were able to arrive at at least a limited 

6 0£. cit., pp. 53-8. 


consensus upon what was and wliat was not acceptable in the 
new pattern of international conflict; and the events since 
1956 have further enforced, but not significantly added to; 
the pattern of action included in this consensus. 




Since the rise of the modern nation-state and the 
development of allegiance by individuals to the intangibles 
of fatherland and a particular way of life, the objectives 
of warfare have been expanded and its destructive power has 
been greatly increased. This expansion was a direct out- 
growth of the ideas and principles upon which nation states 
are based, and it has resulted in commitments by the citizens 
of the warring state to an extent much greater than had been 
true in the past. Ferdinand Foch, lecturing to the French 
War College in 1900, characterized the new warfare as follows : 

Truly, a new era had begun, that of national wars, 
unchecked in speed and scope because they were to con- 
secrate to the struggle all the resources of the nation; 
because they were to take as their goal not a dynastic 
interest, not the conquest or possession of a province, 
but the defense and propagation primarily of philosophi- 
cal ideals, secondarily of principles of independence, 
of unity, of non-material advantages of various kinds; 
because they were to put at stake the interests and 
personal resources of every common soldier and conse- 
quently his sentiments and passions — that is to say, 
elements of force which up to then had gone unexploited. 1 

^Ferdinand Foch, Do 3 Principes de la Guerre , quoted in 
Walter Killis and James Real, The Abolition of War (New York: 
The" KacMillan Company, 1963), p. 1$T 


Yet the new warfare of the nation state has been unable to 
attain its expanded objectives and to resolve conflicts over 
intangible goals, particularly the abstract questions of power 
and national ideology. 

The series of wars of the French Revolution and Napol- 
eonic eras was one of the earliest modern attempts to export 
an idea by force, and the results gained were used here pri- 
marily to increase the national power of the state personi- 
fying the idea being exported. The Congress of Vienna resulted 
in the formalization of a system in which the further projec- 
tion of such intangibles would be considerably more difficult. 
For a long time this system was successful. 

During the existence of the international system estab- 
lished at the Congress of Vienna, wars were fought by the 
countries, participating in that system. The Franco-Prussian 
War of I87O was fought by Germany using the new mobilization 
techniques of national warfare, yet it was limited both in 
objective and effect. Its comparatively few battles settled 
the immediate power issue between the French and German mil- 
itary systems out of which it had risen. It produced a 
decision within the limits of the European state system, and 
after it things went on much as they had before. The war had 
an objective that could be and was attained, the registration 


of a shift of the power position of Germany and France within 
the international system. Other wars fought on the fringes 
of the system, such as the Spanish-American V/ar and the Russo- 
Japanese War, were also limited in their objectives and in 
their effects on the territorial integrity and way of life of 
the participants' homelands. 

The area in which the Franco- Prussian V/ar exceeded the 
limits of the balance of power system was a direct outgrowth 
of the development of the national state. The annexation of 
Alsace and Lorraine was not a deliberate object of the war 

but v/as something added to increase the German sense of secur- 
ity in the face of a permanent Franco-German political enmity. 

It also served as a symbol of Germany's new position in the 

European system that could be understood by all of her citizens, 

as well as by those of France. 

During the near-century in which the system established 

at the Congress of Vienna was in effect, the European powers 

sought to project their power vis-a-vis one another by methods 

other than direct warfare. The French occupation of Algeria 

in the 1830 1 s can be looked upon as a desire to re-establish 

French prestige and power on the European scene. The British 

2 Hajo Holborn, The Political Collapse of Europe (Mew 
York: Alford A. Knopf, 195l), p.45. 


takeover in Egypt assured the protection of the Suez Canal, 
not only from the minor powers in the area, but also from 
Britain's European rivals. The Boer War of 1899 can be con- 
sidered in the same light in regard to the Cape Colony. 

There were, during this period, instances which demon- 
strated the inability of war to resolve satisfactorily ques- 
tions of power and to change the ideas of people, or at least 
the extent to which war would have to go to do so. Both the 
South African War in 1399 and the capture of the Philippines 
by the United States were followed by long and exhaustive 
guerrilla wars against people who did not know they had been 
beaten. The quick, decisive wars of the international system 
were being replaced by something that took longer, cost more, 
and still was unable to resolve the question at hand. 

The most significant example of the inability of war 
to satisfy intangible objectives was the American Civil War, 
the first of the modern total wars. The Civil War was fought 
by the Union in order to preserve the territorial integrity 
of the nation; it was fought by the Confederacy to defend a 
set of ideals and traditions and a way of life from impending 
domination by outside forces which, it was feared, would try 
to change them. By the time of General Lee' surrender it had 
become the bloodiest war in history; and its result was a 


demonstration that while methods of war could gain physical 
control of territory, they were powerless when it came to 
altering ideas held by people. The Union was physically 
preserved; the spiritual damage to it is being repaired even 

The assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand could 
better be termed the trigger than the cause of the First World 
War, It has been extremely difficult for historians to de- 
termine specific causes of the war; it was widely believed 
almost until it started that such a war was impossible, just 
as it was feared that it was inevitable. "The War had no 
cause other than the system "out of which it grew; the trag- 
edy lay in the fact that there was nothing in the ideas, the 
concepts, and institutions of the day to make possible its 
prevention. "3 The forty years since the Franco-Prussian War 
had seen the development by the other European states of 
military machines based upon the Prussian model. The search 
by each state for adequate security led to mutually increasing 
fear and suspicion; positions taken to gain the support of 
allies and the increasing rigidity of the defensive alliances 
removed from the international system the flexibility it 
needed to surmount this last of many crises. 

■^Millis and Real, The Abolition of War, p. 42. 


The war, like so many other wars, was expected to be 

short, but the deadlock on the Marne proved It otherwise. 

The Battle of the Marne was one of the decisive 
battles of the world not because it determined that 
Germany would ultimately lose or the Allies ultimately 
win the war, but because it determined that the war 
would go on.. .The nations were caught in a trap made 
during the first thirty days out of battles that 
failed to be decisive, a trap from which there was, 
and has been, no exit.^ 

By the end of 1916, when President V/oodrow Wilson 
made his effort to bring about a peace without victory for 
either side, the war had degenerated into a struggle over 
power for power* 3 sake. For two years evil had been person- 
ified for each side by the opponent, and all the troubles of 
the war had been blamed on him. By the end oC 1916, the Allies 
were fighting the war to defeat their opponent, to exercise 
domination over him, and not for any concrete or objectively 
realizeable gain. 

The Allied victory presented problems for v/hich the 
international system had no means of solution. The peace was 
imposed by the victors upon the vanquished, not negotiated 
between them; and its element of dictation without regard for 
, the interest of the defeated power v/as more apparent than any 
previous peace treaty of modern times. Secondly, the Treaty 
of Versailles, unlike any previous treaty of peace, v/as based 

^Barbara Tuchman, The Guns of August (lfCff York; The 
MacMillan Company, 1962), p. 4^0. 


upon a number of general principles enunciated during the war. 
"When departure from these principles was frequently made in 

the specific articles of the treaty, a handy argument was 

provided for those who later wished to oppose it. 5 

After Germany had been disarmed, there was little more 

that military power could do. The French occupation of the 
Ruhr. failed to extract by military means reparations that were 
not there to be extracted. The assigning to Germany of the 
guilt for the war j the political isolation to which she was 
subjected during the 1920 r s and early 1930' s, and the impossible 
burden of reparations only served to delay Germany's return 
to her rightful place among the nations and to warp her out- 
look when she did return. The problems of the 1920' s and 
1930 »s could possibly have been handled by the victors and 
vanquished working together. Instead, the conditions in the 
defeated power were allowed to become such as to precipitate 
the rapid rise of Adolf Hitler. 

The Second World War has often been referred to as a 
continuation of the first. It is relatively simple to iso- 
late its cause— the desire of Adolf Hitler to use the means 
of war to seek revenge for the peace which the principal mem- 
bers of the international system had imposed upon his country. 

^Edward H. Carr, International Relations Between the 
Two World Wars (London: i:acMillan I: Go. Ltd., 19^3), PP. 4-5. 

Both England and Prance seemed to be morally and physically 
tired; and, until the invasion of Poland showed that there 
was no reasonable point of termination of the German expansion, 
were unwilling to use the military power that each had de- 
pended upon to keep Germany as a defeated state. To bring 
that kind of military power to bear v/ould require, in both 
countries, a commitment similar to that of the First ;7orld 


War; and the governments and people of England and France 
were slow to believe that the war to end all wars had failed 
in its purpose so soon. 

The Allied objective of unconditional surrender has 
to be looked upon as a desire for total domination over their 
enemies. The Atlantic Charter, which required an Allied vic- 
tory to make it worth the paper on which it was written, was 
an attempt to impose terms of peace upon their third major 
ally through moral force. The Anglo- American blueprint for 
a future world was more humane than any world had turned out 
to be in the past, but it was still a set of war aims that 
Russia was expected to uphold but in whose formulation she 
had no part. The Charter itself was a collection of war ob- 
jectives, general in both language and content. The origin- 
ators of the Charter* thought of it as something to be applied 
toward the rest of the world, with themselves as enforcers 


not particularly bound by it.° Their greatest mistake was 
an expectation that everyone else on their side was fighting 
for the same objectives, and that with the changed circum- 
stances of victory all would still be in agreement. 

Russian objectives in the Second -,/orld War were a 
little more clear. Her initial one was to remain out of the 
war as long as possible and to enter on the side of the win- 
ner when convenient. Her goal was to increase her power and 
the power of the communist system by extending their influence 
over as much of Eurasia as possible, particularly those areas 
which Russia had lost after the First World War and others 
which have historically been objectives of Russian foreign 
policy. ? 

The end of the Second V/orld V/ar completed a time period 
in which "a political system intended to be balanced by force 

became transformed into one in which force might destroy peoples 

and cultures but could not win politically relevant objectives." 

Staughton Lynd, "How the Cold War Began" reprinted in 
Norman D. Graebner ed. The Cold V/ar (Boston: D.C. Heath and 
Company, 1953 ), p. 3. 

^George P. Kenna$ Russia and the V/est Under Lenin and 
Stalin (New York: New American Library, 19o0) , pp. 325-9. 

"Charles 0. Lerche, The Cold V. r ar ... And After (Englewood 
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1065), p. 5. 


The only objective accomplished by the Second World War was 
that which came as a direct result of its events,, the defeat 
of Germany and Japan and the bringing into being of the post- 
war International power structure. The war destroyed the 
German and Japanese aggressive expansionism, but this destruc- 
tion left In its wake a set of new problems, new powers, and 
new weapons. The methods by which the new powers have attempted 
to articulate their problems with each other, in the face of 
the new weapons, have evolved over the space of almost twenty 
years into the system we know today as the cold war. 


"Cold war" is a term that was coined early in the post- 
war conflict. At the time it was used to describe Soviet- 
American relations, generally hostile in nature, the future of 
which was obscure. Over the years, Herbert Bayard Swope's 
clever phrase has become a household word, and its meaning 
has changed from a strict Soviet-American connotation to "a 
conflict characterized by the use of means short of sustained 
overt military action"^ and open to application to conflicts 

^The term "cold war," which was popularized by Walter 
Lippman, was first used publicly by Bernard Baruch in a speech 
in April, 19^7. According to a statement made to the press in 

other than that between the United States and the Soviet 
Union. The cold war system as we know it today has it3 own 
vocabulary containing such words as bipolarity, balance of 
terror, nuclear blackmail, and crisis management. It has its 
own momentum, and to a considerable extent it has been devel- 
oping its own rules and limits. Before inquiring further to 
determine this extent, however, there will be a pause to re- 
view the paths taken by the United States and Russia in their 
involvement in conflict with one another and their formaliza- 
tion of this conflict. 

As soon as the defeat of Germany appeared certain, the 
cement of fear holding the Allies together began to crumble. 
At the same time, the postwar power positions of the Allies 
relative to one another began to come apparent. The wartime 
conferences produced "formulations, generalized pledges, and 
vague declarations of intentions" 10 which were amenable to 
interpretation by each signatory to suit his own interests. 

reference to the expression several years later, Mr. Baruch 
credited the expression to Herbert Bayard Swope, who had or- 
iginated the term as early as 19^6. James D. Atkinson, The Edge 
of War (Chicago: Henry Resnery Company, i960 ), p. 230. The 
present definition of cold war is from Webster's Seventh New 
Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield: G.&C. Merriam Co. I963). 

10 Richard W. Van Alstyne, "The United States and Russia", 
reprinted in Breabner, The Cold War , p. 27. 


The inadequate appreciation of each other's basic policy goals 
on the part of the Russians and the Americans produced distrust 
on one side and excessive optimism on the other. Russia sought 
to gain territory and extend her influence westward as a re- 
sult of the war; the United States did not appreciate or seem 
to take very seriously this objective. The United States had 
no territorial objectives in the war; the Soviets could not 
understand this and considered it as an attempt to cheat then 
out of their spoils. The American estimate of Japanese abil- 
ity to continue the war after the defeat of Germany made 
necessary Russian entry into the war against Japan, and Amer- 
ican leaders overestimated also their own ability to get 
Russian cooperation for the purposes of the United States in 
the United Nations. 

As the war with Germany neared its end, it was evi- 
dent that Eastern Europe would be at the disposal of Russia 
regardless of any commitments that were signed earlier. The 
Allies were willing to bring only moral force to oppose 
Stalin, and the Russian leader was aware of the inability of 
moral force to make any effect at all. American public dis- 
illusionment toward the idea of Russian cooperation in the 
world system desired by the United States was slow in coming. 
Winston Churchill's "iron curtain" telegram had been sent to 

President Truman four days after the German surrender, but 
any effect the Prime Minister's words had on the President's 
behavior was not noticeable. 

American disillusionment continued to grow throughout 
1946; but despite it demobilization continued, and there 
still remained some hope for Russian cooperation. The meet- 
ing of the Council of Foreign Ministers in Paris to formulate 
the secondary peace treaties was another exercise In frustra- 
tion, and a United Nations commission meeting to establish 
means of international control of atomic energy failed when 
the two major powers could not reach agreement. The Russian 
policy of secretiveness throughout their zone of occupation 
continued. In 19^7* the Truman Doctrine was proclaimed to 
assist Greece and Turkey; a communist government was estab- 
lished in Hungary; and later in the year Russia prevented any 
possible direction of Marshall aid to the countries of Eastern 
Europe. Through the last half of that year an awareness by 
the people of the United States of the realignment of the 
world political situation began to make itself evident in the 
gradually increasing support by the public for the European 
Recovery Program. The final blow came on February C5, 19^8, 
when a coup in Czechoslovakia resulted in that country being 
quickly pulled behind the iron curtain. The ERP was promptly 

passed by Congress; the acceptance of the ccld war was complete. 

It can be said that the cold war originated as a nat- 
ural reaction to a wartime alliance once the uniting circum- 
stances had been removed. It can also be said that the cold 
war came about simply because the United States and Russia 
found themselves alone as the two major powers in the world. 
From the circumstances in which the two powers found themselves 
at the end of the Second World V/ar, an eventual quarrel be- 
tween them was almost inevitable; that it wc"ld take the form 
it did v/as by no means certain at the time. The direction of 
the quarrel into its eventual form was partly due to the 
characteristics of the participants and partly due to a 
conscious effort on the part of each. 

Both major powers, at the end of the ^ar, were tightly 
oriented toward their conflicting ideologies. The Soviet 
Union and the United States each had a design for the future 
which it believed would contain the answer to all the major 
problems of the world. The Soviets voiced confidence in the 
inevitable success of their system, and they expressed their 
continued purpose of spreading the domination of their com- 
munist system throughout the world. The United States v/anted 
the international system sponsored by herself spread through- 
out the world to promote the American values of freedom and 


democracy. She considered her postwar role to be that of 
first anions equals in the promotion and enforcement of this 
Western value system, and she could not accept the unwilling- 
ness of any other important nations to consent to this idea 
upon which she had staked such hi^h hopes for the future. 
The conflicting ideologies exerted considerable influence on 
the outlook of each side toward the other and toward the world 
as a whole; the Russians' full of native suspicion and Marx- 
ist ideas of capitalist hostility, the Americans' more open, 
idealistic, and containing a lar^e measure of innocence born 
of Ion- isolation from European power politics. Cecil Crabb 
captured the effect of this added element of international 
disagreement when he wrote that the "injection of ideological 
conflict into international affairs on a scale seldom exper- 
ienced in recent history has intensified existing sources of 
disagreement and made problems, which were already inordinately 
difficult, well-nigh insoluble". 11 

Both the United States and the Soviet Union had, at 
the end of the war, a significant lack of knowledge of each 
other. Both were inexperienced in the great power role, and 
neither had maintained close involvement with the other or 

Cecil V. Crabb, American Foreign Policy in the Nuclear 
Ace (Evans ton: Row, Peterson, & Company, li?cC), p. 194. 

with Europe prior to the war. In each country the impression 
of the other was highly colored by wartime propaganda which 
in the United States oversold the Soviet Union as an enduring 
ally and in Russia belittled the role of the United States in 
the Great Patriotic War. The United States had considered 
Russian communism as evil until Russia suddenly became a war- 
time ally. Russian leaders considered the United States as 
a loose and lax country that was not to be taken too seriously 
in international affairs. 12 To make knowledge of one another 
even more difficult, each ideology had its own vocabulary 
which consisted of the same words but with considerably dif- 
ferent meanings not known to the other, so that each power 
ran into obstacles even in the communication of its position 
to the other. 

Significant also was the very recent completion of a 
highly destructive war, lessons of which had reinforced those 
of the First World V/ar and which had been brought to an end 
by the development of a weapon that would make future wars 
even more destructive. Stalin, as well as the United States, 
Mas aware of the value of the atomic bomb as an instrument 
of warfare, and he did not want to become involved in a war 

12 David J. Dallin, Soviet Foreign Policy After Stalin 
(Philadelphia: J. P. Lippincott Co., 196l), pp. 4b-7. 


with the United States until he had achieved parity in it. 1 ^ 
Even without the advent of the atomic bomb, Russia had absorbed, 
in the Second Uorld War, losses sufficient to make any large 
scale war a dubious prospect. The immediate Russian objective 
was to lay hold of any territory that might be available, but 
not to stretch her national resources any farther on adven- 
tures that might arouse the ire of the world's only atomic 

The end of the Second World War brought to the United 
States an immediate desire to return to overdue domestic 
affairs and to get the soldiers home. The physical security 
of the country was assured by her possession of the atomic 
bomb; the development of the United nations would assure the 
security of the rest of the world. In the meantime, demobil- 
ization would take place as rapidly as possible. Those who 
sav; Russian policy as a threat to the interests of the United 
States were unwilling to take the drastic steps necessary to 
establish an American consensus in support of containment of 
Russia. The task of winning one war had just been completed; 
and, with their traditional slowness to depart from precon- 
cieved 'notions, the people of the United States were unwilling 

^Marshall d. Shulman, Stalin's Foreign Policy Reap - 
praised (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963), pp. 20-2. 


and psychologically unready to go on with another. ™ 

The conflict between the United States and the Soviet 
Union did have an immediate objective in the territory 
occupied by each power at the end of the war. Russia had 
historically been an expansionist power wherever opportunity 
offered, and she considered the territory occupied by her 
armies at the time the shooting stopped as a suitable reward 
for her victorious struggle. It is possible that she would 
have settled for less and accepted a unified, dearmed, and 
neutral Germany that would signify a westward movement of the 
line of buffer states that had been established between East 
and West in Europe after the First World War. 1 ^ We never had 
a chance to find out, for the immediate American concentration 
was on the Polish rather than the German political situation 
after the war. 

The American lack of desire for territory as a result 
of the war implied a strong enough position in the concert of 
controlling powers that her Influence could be dominant wher- 
ever necessary throughout the world. This position was not 


Samuel P. Huntington, The Common Defense (New York: 

Columbia University Press, I96I), pp. 33-40. 

l-Sw. W. Rostow, The United States in the World Arena 
(New York: Harper & Row, 19SO), p. WT. 


based entirely upon military power, but also on the position 
of the United States as moral and economic leader and on the 
Tightness of the American principles upon which the new world 
system was to be based. The position required the coopera- 
tion of the other powers, and the United States expected that 
it would be given, rhe position of the United States Included 
on her part considerable tolerance for the interests of other 
nations, but it was still one in which she would be dominant. 

A propaganda offensive against the capitalist world 
had been an integral part of Soviet policy since 1917* and 
it had been discontinued only temporarily during the Second 
World War. Even before the end of the war it had been returned 
to full operation, this time directed primarily against the 
United States. By the latter part of 19 z *7, it had become 
sufficiently severe that it was the subject of diplomatic 
notes between American Ambassador V/alter Bedell Smith and 
Soviet Foreign Minister riolotov in which Ambassador Smith 
compared it to the work of the Nazi machine at its worst. 
What was considered by Ambassador Smith to be an "increasing 
flood of half-truths, distortions of truth and utter false- 
hoods" was defended by Molotov as the d£3ire of the Soviet 
press to "elucidate broadly as possible the actual situation 
and true facts of life in other countries, attaching special 


significance to the strengthening of friendly relations 
between peoples". flolotov then accused the American press 
of anti-Russian propaganda . ±0 

In addition to the propaganda attacks and the occu- 
pation of Eastern Europe by the Russians, the United States 
was, during this time, becoming concerned about what was 
taking place in the areas of Soviet occupation. Tight Rus- 
sian military and police control was maintained over Eastern 
Europe; and the Soviet treatment of opposition groups or in- 
dividuals was, to say the least, not carried on in a manner 
to which the United States was accustomed. The dismantling 
of industry in occupied countries and the enforcement of 
changes in their economic and social and political systems 
aroused in the VT st a concern for the interest of the people 
of Eastern Europe as well as for the ways in which the inter- 
est of the West would be directly affected by the continuance 
of Russian expansion. When the expansion was pressed into 
Czechoslovakia, the United States could maintain its position 
of relative inactivity no longer; it was time for the 

PP. 7^3-4. 

^Department of State Bulletin , October 12, 19^7, 

formalization of the conflict. 1 ? 

On the Russian side, the cold war was never formalized, 
but by 1948 it had been in operation for some time. W. W. 
Rostov/ dates its inception from the time the Politburo was 
sure Stalingrad would hold — roughly from the be^inninG of 
1943. At this time Moscow returned to the territorial pre- 
occupations which were at the center of her diplomacy in the 
period 1939-19^1* and the shift was manifest in the spirit 
and tactics of Soviet behavior in many areas during the year 

1943. l8 

'A continuing characteristic of the cold war has 
been its lack of absolutes on both sides. The fall of 
Czechoslovakia is chosen as the instance of formalization 
because it coincided closely with the resumption of the mili- 
tary draft in the United States and because it was followed 
by American policy speeches which expressed explicitly to the 
people the idea of a conflict between the United States and 
Russia. Earlier American action to combat communism can be 
considered comparable to the actions taken immediately prior 
to the declaration of hostilities in the Second World War 
because they were either a result of specific instances, such 
as the cancellation of advance reparations to Russia from 
the Western zones of Germany, or were promulgated in policy 
speeches which did not so clearly identify the assessor, 
such as the reference to "armed minorities or outside pres- 
sures" in the Truman Doctrine. 


W. W. Rostow, The United States in the World Arena , 

p. 141. Another authority <&tes the time of the Russian be- 
ginning of the cold war as March 1946. Ha Jo Holborn, The 
Political Collapse of Europe , p. 189. 


The American formalization of the East-West conflict 
came about over a much longer period. Firm action in Iran 
in 19^6, where American interests were directly threatened, 
had results; *9 but this was an isolated Instance, American 
policy toward Russian war reparations from the V/est zones of 
Germany hardened considerably during the Immediate postwar 
years, and American aid to Greece and Turkey helped to end 
the threat of Russian expansion to the south in the spring of 
1947. Secretary of State Marshall <5 speech in June 19^7 and 
George Kennan's "Sources of Soviet Conduct" in Foreign Affairs 
magazine the following month were strong indications of the 
changing policy, but it took some time before their effect 
was felt in the country as a whole. The completion of the 
change in policy toward a Europe threatened by the Soviet 
Union was officially promulgated by President Truman in his 
Address to the Congress on March 17, 1948. In this speech 
he said that "as long as Communism threatens the very exis- 
tence of democracy, the United States must remain strong 
enough to support the countries of Europe which are threatened 
with Communist control and policastate rule", and that "the 
time has come when free men and women of the world must face 

19 Rostow, p. 184. 


the threat to their liberty squarely and courageously". 

Two days later, at the University of California, Secretary 
Marshall made the position even more clear when he called 
the conflict between the United States and Russia "a v/o rid- 
wide strugsle between freedom and tyranny, between the self- 
rule of the many as opposed to the dictatorship of the ruth- 

less few". The battle had been joined, and now it would be 

up to the United States and Russia to work out their rules 

of conflict. 

pp. 418-420. 


Department of State Bulletin, March 23, 1943, 

2l Ibid., pp. 422-5. 



While the existence of the cold war was slowly being 
recognized in the West, the Soviet Union was taking steps 
in Berlin that were to lead to the first instance of direct 
conflict with the United States. The blockade of Berlin and 
the subsequent airlift provided several important steps in 
the development of the pattern in which the East-West con- 
flict was to be conducted, as well as a sign of the determin- 
ation of the West to resist Soviet efforts to expand into 
Europe . 

The City of Berlin provided a practically ideal sit- 
uation in which the Soviets could apply pressure upon the 
West. The Western enclave located almost in the center of 
the Soviet zone of Germany placed the Allied occupation forces 
in a situation of extreme vulnerability. The Russians had 
good reason to apply all possible pressure, for the presence 
of the Western powers in Berlin had prevented the incorpora- 
tion of the city into the economy of East Germany. Pressure 
upon the occupation forces of the Western Allies could, if 
successful, brinj about either the elimination of the Western 


enclave In Berlin or the inclusion of the Russians in a 
four-power agreement for the whole of Germany based along 
the lines of the Warsaw declaration of June 25, 1948. From 
the viewpoint of the Soviet policy makers, the most fortunate 
thing about the alternatives available to the West was that 
acceptance of either could be expected to shortly bring about 
the acceptance of the other. 

The situation whereby the Russians were able to use 
Berlin as a lever against the West came about as a result of 
the early Western policy in Berlin in the days when the cold 
war was a one-sided affair not yet acknowledged by the West. 
The question of access to Berlin was never pressed very hard 
by Allied commanders. General Clay reported that, at a 
meeting on June 19, 194.5, with Marshall Zhukov of the Soviet 
Union, he accepted an oral agreement providing for the use 
of one main highway, one rail line, and two air corridors be- 
tween Berlin and the west zones of Germany. General Clay 
reserved the right to reopen the question later in the Allied 
Control Council, but at the time he did not fully realize the 

Bulletin , Soviet Embassy, Washington, D. C, July 14, 1943, 
P. 398. 


W. Phillips Davidson, The Berlin Blockade, (Princeton: 
Princeton University Press, 195$), P. 26. This detailed and 
well-documented study provided the raw material for much of 
this chapter. 


difficulties that would be involved. Colonel Howley, chief 
of military government in the American sector of Berlin, 
called the Western policy toward the Russians one of "doing 
almost anything to win over the Russians, allay their sus- 
picions, and convince them v/e were their friends. The final 
agreement on air corridors, signed early in 19^6, was one in 
which the Western Allies had a considerable amount of bar- 
gaining power, and when it was signed it is quite possible 
that the Soviets considered it as more advantageous to them 
than to the West. 5 

The events in the blockade and airlift themselves were 
simple enough. The four-power government, from its inception 
in July 19^5* had been the scene of decreasing cooperation 
between the Western powers and the Soviet Union, and the 
different policies pursued in each sector of occupation led 
to a gradual splitting of the city. This split was in pro- 
gress, but by no means complete, when in the spring of 19^8 

-'General Lucius D. Clay, Decision in Germany , (New 
York: Doubleday & Company, 1950), p. 26. 

Frank Howley, Berlin Command , (New York: Put man, 
1950), p. 56. 

^Davidson, o£. cit ., pp. 35-6. 


the Soviets began to progressively tighten travel and trans- 
port restrictions between Berlin and the western zones of 
Germany. The increasing restrictions on ground transport were 
not seriously opposed by the West; but, following a mid-air 
collision between a Soviet fighter aircraft and a British 
transport in the air corridor to Berlin, the Allied powers 
became extremely sensitive to Russian violations of the air 
access agreement. A currency reform in West Germany took 
place on June 18, and the Western commanders in Berlin made 
overtures to the Soviet Military Governor with a view toward 
a new currency policy for the city. On June 22, the Russian 
commander announced an East German currency reform that was 
to include the entire city of Berlin. The next day the Western 
powers began to distribute West German currency in their sec- 
tors, and on June 24 a complete land blockade of West Berlin 
was announced by the Soviets. Two days later, on June 26, 
an airlift v/as instituted by the Western powers to bring into 
the city supplies needed by the people of 3erlin. 

The efforts of the four occupying powers to maintain 
or to increase their control in Berlin were conducted, as 

6 New York Times , April 6, 1943. 

early as 1946, in a manner In which they would not become 
directly involved in disputes with one another. This gener- 
ally involved, on the part of the Soviets, efforts to exert 
pressure through the people of Berlin and to obtain control 
of the city government to which the Western powers had come 
to grant a large measure of freedom and responsibility for 
the administration of the city. Pressure was applied by the 
Soviet occupation authorities and their local communist sup- 
porters upon each of the democratic political parties in 

Berlin, and this resulted eventually in splits between the 


pro-Communist and anti-Communist factions in each party.' 

The Russian authorities also applied various pressures upon 
prominent individuals in the city government, the most flag- 


rant case being the burgomaster crisis of April, 1947. Sim- 
ilar methods involving cajolery, threats, occasional mob 
action, and harassment of opposition were used to obtain con- 
trol of or to force splits in the prominent nongovernmental 
institutions of Berlin; and the use of these methods was 
facilitated by the foresight the Russians had shown in moving 
the headquarters of the important city organizations to the 
east sector prior to the arrival of the V/estern occupation 

7 Howl 

C£, op. cit., pp. 104-8. 8 Ibid ., pp. 143-9. 


During the tine prior to the blockade the policy of 
the V/estera powers was one of accomodation and cooperation 
as much as possible with the Soviet authorities. In the cases 
of conflict between Soviet-supported elements and democratic 
forces in the city government, the i/estern pov/ers officially 
remained uninvolved and maintained that these were purely 
affairs of the Germans. Privately, however, a number of 

American and British officials save the democratic leaders 


what help and encouragement they could. v During the months 

immediately preceding the blockade, the Allied policy was to 
sidestep rather than directly oppose Russian attempts to 
tighten control. In March 19^8, the United States and Great 
Britain cancelled military train service to the west rather 
than comply with a Soviet directive; and for approximately 
ten days they operated a small airlift capable of carrying 
in 60 to 100 tons of supplies per day. 1 The one area in 
which the Allied powers made no effort to avoid any confron- 
tation in the pre-blockade period was in the case of the air 

^Davidson, c£. cit ., pp. 5^-9. 

10 Lowell Bennett, Berlin Bastion , (Frankfurt: rriedrich 
Ruhl, 1951)* PP. 28-31. Lucius Clay, o£. cit ., p. 35l. 


corridors, probably because this was something to which the 
Soviets had signed an agreement ri^ht there in the Control 

The currency reform of June 1948 provided a typical 
example of the operating techniques and methods of the Soviets 
and the Allies in any Berlin situation. The East Hark was 
introduced by the Soviets as le~al tender for the entire city; 
but , in spite of threats, they made no overt move to enforce 
its acceptance in the west sectors. 3 - 1 The V/est I-Iark was in- 
troduced in response to the Soviet action, and it was done as 
an extension of the V/est German currency reform and with no 
claims to validity outside the v/est sectors. The final reso- 
lution of the currency reform — which currency would be accepted 
where — was left to the Berlin Kaglstrat and Assembly, which 
decided in favor of the West. The decision was followed by 
riots in the area of city hall (east sector) in which several 
assemblymen were beaten. The next day the complete land 
blockade was imposed. 

Once the blockade be^an, the Allied decision was a^ain 
to sidestep rather than oppose it, although the methods in- 
volved in sidestepping the land blockade offered no guarantee 

Davidson , op. cit., p. 9^. 

of success. The initial actions were to freeze in West Ber- 
lin all food supplies scheduled for the Soviet zone; and 
British authorities immediately suspended all deliveries of 
coal and steel from the Ruhr to the Soviet zone of Germany. ^ 
After the airlift had been in operation for a few days, 
President Truman in Washington made the decision that the 
United States was coins to remain in Berlin; but at the time 
he gave no indication how it was to be done. J The President's 
reliance upon an uncertain airlift and his later refusal of 
General Clay's suggestion that the blockade be challensed by 
a three-power armored column was due to a concern with the 
lesal rights of the United States in Berlin, the lack of any 
written agreement concerning land access, and, Clay reports, 
to an expressed intention to avoid a direct confrontation, 
at least until the issue had been placed before the United 

In the few areas where the West was willing to risk 
a confrontation, the Soviets were not. Even before the air- 
lift be^an, a Russian barrage balloon was seen flying in the 

12 New York Times , June 25, 1?4S. 

13 Walter Millis (ed.), The Forre 
rhe Viking Press, 1951), pp. W- 

^Clay, Decision in Germany , p. 37*^. 

^Walter Millis (ed.), The Forrestal Diaries , (New 
York: The Viking Press, 1951), PP. W-5. 

Soviet zone, either near or in one of the air corridors. Af- 
ter a British protest, the balloon was lowered. ^ During the 
airlift, occasional harassment of the Allied transports took 
place; and every so often there were Soviet protests against 
alleged violations of air traffic regulations by the West. 
No attempts were made, however, to physically disrupt the 
operations of the airlift through such things as communications 
Jamming, construction that could interfere with the landing 
pattern, or the like. 

Soviet pressure was applied to the instruments of the 
city government whose headquarters were physically located in 
East Berlin. This generally had the effect of forcing the 
democratic elements to set up new headquarters in the west 
sectors. The city police department was split on July 26, 
and the movement of the Magistrat to the west completed the 
split of the city government on November 30. ** These actions 
ivere followed by Soviet protests and allegations as to the 
illegality of the separate governmental structure in the west 
sectors, but these protests were never followed by attempts 
to actually change the situation. During the entire period 

*5jfew York Times , June 25, 1948. 

l6 Davidson, The Berlin Blockade , pp. 171-4, 209-19. 


of the blockade there v/ere kidnappings and arrests of people 
in the west sectors by Soviet occupation authorities or East 
-Berlin police; but these were hit-and-run affairs, and the 
Soviet military governor never admitted responsibility for 
them. It must be noted, however, that physical action was 
never taken against the more prominent anti-Soviet officials, 
a^ain probably due to Soviet desire to keep Allied indigna- 
tion within reasonable limits. *7 


A second characteristic of the Berlin blockade and 
airlift having applicability for the cold war as a whole was 
a certain delibcrateness of action by the major powers in- 
volved. The pattern of challenge and response was such as 
to sive the impression that each power was trying to avoid 
startling the other by any too-rapid change Ip.the state of 

The first example of delibcrateness of action is the 
Cradualness with which the Soviets established the blockade. 
The "creeping blockade" had begun as early as January with 
the tiehtenins of regulations governing German passengers on 


Davidson, o£. cit ., p. 1^3. 


interzonal trains. 1 " In March the Russians attempted to es- 
tablish their right to check barrage and passengers on mili- 
tary' trains running through East Germany, and rather than 
accept this the Allies cancelled their military train service 
altogether. ^ The "baby airlift" was instituted at this time, 
and it operated until the restrictions were removed. 

New restrictions followed shortly, and almost every 
day during Hay and June the Berlin press reported new restraints 
on the movement of goods and persons to and from the city. 20 
Frequently, the restrictions were attributed to "technical 
reasons". The actions immediately preceding the blockade were 
as follows: June 15, the Soviet withdrawal from the Kommanda- 
tura; June 18, the prohibition by the Soviets of all vehicu- 
lar and passenger train traffic between the Soviet zone of 
Germany and the west, and the imposition of strict inspection 
on all freight traffic moving by rail or canal; June 21, the 
Soviet currency reform; June 23, the 'Jestern currency reform 

1 Notes on the Blockade of Berlin , issued by the Control 
Commission for Germany (British Element), February, 19^9. 

Clay, o£. cit., pp. 358-9; Bennett, Bastion Berlin , 
PP. 35-9. 

20 Davidson, p. 65. 


in Berlin; and June 24, the ending of freight traffic be- 
tween Berlin and the West. Even this did not completely 
seal off the city, for throughout the summer food was ire- 
quently smuggled into Berlin from both the west and the So- 
viet zones of Germany. 2 * 2Iew restrictions on travel between 
V/est Berlin and the east sector and neighboring areas of 
East Germany closed this hole in October and November. A 
food program operated by the Swedish Red Cross was terminated 
in December, and the International Red Cross, the last im- 
porters of food by means other than airlift, was forced to 
cease feeding operations in January. 22 

The Soviets attempted to conduct a similar campaign 
against air traffic to Berlin, but here Western resistance 
was encountered from the very beginning. Since all necessary 
facilities for air operations were in the hands of the Western 
occupation forces, no progress whatsoever was made by the 
Russians. 2j 

The Allied actions followed a similarly deliberate 
pattern. The currency reform was instituted for West Ger- 
many on June 10; but it was not applied to V/est Berlin until 


Notes on the Blockade of Berlin , p. 14; Howley, 

pp. 210-1. 


! Davidson, o£. c_it.,pp. 127-0. 2 ^ Ibid ., p. 199. 


June 23, and then after Russian provocation. The blockade 
was instituted on June 24, the decision to start the airlift 
was made the following day, and on the next day the first 
supplies arrived in Berlin. Even this much swiftness of ac- 
tion, which cave the impression of deliberateness rather than 
indecision, was due to the efforts of General Clay, for at 
that time neither the controlling authorities in Washington 
nor Moscow placed much confidence in the ability of an air- 
lift to supply Berlin. 2 ^ 

The counter-blockade be^an, in a small way, on the 
same day as the blockade, when for "technical reasons" the 
British suspended coal and steel shipments from the Ruhr to 
the Soviet zone.* The next day, further restrictions on 
trade with the Soviets were announced by the U. S. -British 
Bipartite Economic Commission. 2 " In July, the Allied author- 
ities stopped rail traffic across the bizonal area between 
the Soviet zone and the non-German countries, a^ain due to 
"technical difficulties". 2 ? In September, American authorities 

^Davidson, op. £it., pp. 109, 148. 
25 IIcw_York Times , June 25, 1943. 
25 Ibid., June 26, 1940. 
27 Ibid., July 27, 1943. 

be^an to enforce more stringently regulations concerning 
smu££lin^ from the American to the Russian zones of Berlin, 
but the other «e stern allies did not folio:: the American ex- 
ample. 28 It was not until the beginning of 194° that the 
Western counter-blockade tras fully implemented. 2 ^ 


In a consideration of efforts to limit the area af- 
fected by the 3erlin conflict and events directly resulting 
fron that conflict, the concept of limitation of conflict 
must be viewed in tv/o aspects. The first of these is the 
effect of the Ijerlin confrontation on the overall east-west 
relationship. This has to be regarded as inconclusive, for 
the Berlin situation was a symptom and not a cause of the 
generally bad relations between the United States and Russia. 
Instances of cooperation between the tv/o powers were rare 
during the tine period between the Czechoslovak coup and 
the endins of the war in Korea, but this cannot be blamed on 
the blockade of Berlin. 

More noticeable an aspect of limitation of conflict is 

28 Times . o£. cit., October 22, 1948. 
2 %owley, Berlin Command , p. 2^4. 

the lack of direct interference by either power in territory 
for which the other had a legal basis of control. It was 
almost a case of whoever arrived first and laid claim to 
something would not have his claim directly challenged. In 
this aspect it can be considered that the highways and rail- 
roads running across East Germany were Soviet territory; but 
the air corridors, for which an agreement had been signed, be- 
longed to the West. 

The borders between the east and west sectors of Ber- 
lin were generally respected. In the early days of Allied 
occupation, arrangements had been made whereby each occupying 
power had authority over the police in his sector^O and could 
control the removal of objectionable borough officials in 
his sector. 3 1 During the time of the blockade, these arrange- 
ments were upheld. 

There are no reported instances of Western interference 
in affairs in the east sector of Berlin. It is entirely pos- 
sible that none occurred, because of the Western hands-off 
policy toward the affairs of the Berlin city government. 
This policy led to non-interference by the West even during 

J Office of rniitary Government, U. S. Sector, Berlin, 
Berlin Sector : A Four- Year Report , July 1, 1945 - -3eptenbcr 1 , 
19^9, P. 53. 

Kowley, op_, cit ., p. 25^. 

major events such as the city hall riots of June 23, 19^8, 3 2 
and the demonstrations against the city assembly on September 
6, in which it was apparent that the east sector police were 
making no effort to give protection to pro-west individuals.-^ 

Direct Russian interference in affairs in West Berlin 
and in the air corridors was the exception rather than the 
rule of operations during the blockade period. The Soviets 
made repeated threats and protests over the Allied use of the 
air corridors and occasionally they conducted flights in or 
near them, but no serious physical action was taken to hamper 
airlift operations. Counter-pressure to these threats was 
applied by the Allies in the buildup of American combat air- 
power in Europe. 

Russian activity in West Berlin, once conditions be- 
came stabilized after the early days of four-power occupation, 
was also limited. For some months after the Western troops 
had entered the city in 19^5j the personnel of the Red Army 
had continued the disorderly behavior that had been charac- 
teristic of the months of sole Russian occupation; but this 
ended in the face of Western threats to stop it by force if 

3 2 Davidson, o£. cit ., pp. -95- 
3 3 Ibid ., pp. 185-7. 


necessary. 34 Through the entire period of the blockade, 
there were frequent press reports of kidnappings and beatings 
of persons in the './est sectors by communist police and Soviet 
military personnel. Several would-be kidnappers '//ere caught 
by Western authorities, and they were always found to be 
members of the Soviet sector or Soviet zone police agencies. 35 
As late as April 19^9> Soviet troops attempted to occupy the 
locks in certain waterways in the British sector but were 
prevented by the arrival of British troops; and on the last 
day of the month, a raid was carried on by East sector police 
on a farm house in the British sector. 36 There is no record 
of raiders of this type ever being pursued beyond the borders 
into the east sector. 

From the preceding paragraphs it can be seen that any 
development of respect for the territory controlled by the 
cold war opponent had, at least on the Russian side, a long 
way to go before it could be considered a rule of cold war 
operation. Although there were no attempts to enforce Rus- 
sian ordnances within the west sectors, there was conducted 
against the people and authorities of V.'est Eerlin a level of 

S^Howley, o£. cit ., pp. 65-74. 
•^ Berlin Sector , p. 66, 
3 °Davidson, p. 258. 

violence near to that of guerrilla warfare whenever the 
Soviets thought the;' could get away with it. The Western 
lack of interference in the east sector, even in the cases 
of the major riots, were part of what W. Phillips Davidson 
terr.13 as the Western tendency to interpret the Berlin situ- 
ation in terms of lav; rather than power, 37 a tendency very 
common among those who do not consider themselves as having 
the power to interpret a situation otherwise. After the 
first few weeks of blockade, the Soviet consolidation of 
their position in East 3erlin and their control of the every- 
day life in the sector were much more stringent than that 
exercised in the west sectors, so that East Berlin would 
have been a much more difficult target for hit-and-run 
operations even if any had been contemplated. 


Negotiations to reach a settlement of the Berlin prob- 
lem were begun in Moscow on July 30, at the instigation of 
the Allies. After a month of generally unsatisfactory con- 
ferences between the three Western ambassadors and Stalin 
and Kolotov, agreement was reached on a directive to be sent 

37Davidson, o£. clt ., p. 151. 

to the four military governors. The directive provided for 
a removal of the blockade in exchange for the introduction 
of the East Mark as the sole currency for Berlin, with a 
vaguely worded provision for joint currency control by the 
military governors. Details of the implementation of the 
agreement were left to the military governors. 

Historically a willingness to negotiate has implied 
a desire to reach some agreement on the subject under dis- 
cussion. As far as the cold war is concerned,, this implica- 
tion cannot be considered valid. From the Soviet viewpoint, 
willingness to negotiate, especially when the negotiation is 
proposed by someone other than themselves, means a willing- 
ness to discuss and not necessarily anything more. In Mos- 
cow this lesson was expensively impressed upon the Western 
representatives. Walter Bedell Smith, the American ambassa- 
dor to Russia and spokesman for the Western delegation, re- 
ports in his book that the idea of reaching an agreement was 
vital to the West as a barometer of Soviet sincerity; and that 
in order to get an agreement the Western representatives were 
willing to accept one that left many questions still open. 3" 
Other comments concerning the Moscow directive, particularly 

3n/altcr Bedell Smith, Hv_ Three Years in woscow , (New 
York: J. B. Lippincott, 1950_. p. 251. 

those made by Americans wor!cing in the military governments 
of Germany and Berlin, were not so charitable. 

The Soviet style of negotiation with the Uest was no- 
thing new, and it would be repeated many times during the 
course of the cold war. The style basically consisted in 
the application of pressure of some kind in order to gain a 
concession, then negotiating to determine how much of that 
pressure would be removed after the concession had been gained. 
In Berlin the pressure of blockade had been applied in order 
to bring about either the postponement of the formation of a 
Y/est German government or an Allied withdrawal from Berlin; 
the tloscov/ negotiators offerred to remove part of the pres- 
sure in exchange for measures that would result in loss of 
Allied control of happenings in the city. 

The technical discussions among the four military 
governors for the implementation of the Moscow directive were 
unsuccessful. Here each side took a harder line than had 
been taken in Iioscow.39 The failure to reach agreement can 
be explained by the real and imagined power relationships 
between the two antagonists. The Russians still thought that 
they could achieve their goals without making any concessions.^ 


"^Clay, Decision in Germany , p. 371. 

^°Davidson, The Berlin Blockade , p. lpl. 


The Western representatives, in Berlin if not in the Allied 
capitals, uere by this time (early September, 19^3) begin- 
ning to believe in the capability of the airlift to improve 
the Western bargaining position with the passage of time so 
that any concession made at this early date would be un- 

An exchange of notes and sporadic negotiation attempts 
in the United Nations Security Council occupied, unproduc- 
tivel: r , the remainder of the year. The ending of the blockade, 
when it did come, came about quickly, quietly, and easily. 
By the spring of 19^9, the Russians realized that the block- 
ade had failed and was now becoming a detriment to their suc- 
cess in other areas, such as the peace offensive that had be- 
gun in January. 2 Once the power positions of the Berlin 
opponents had become approximately equal — the continuing block- 
ade and Russian consolidation in the east sector being bal- 
anced by the counterblockade and a firm democracy supported 
by the successful airlift in the west — their political objec- 
tives could come into coincidence. The negotiations between 
Phillip Jessup of the United States and Jacob Malik of the 

Davidson, o£. c.^t ., pp. 183-4. 

Marshall D. Shulman, Stalin's Foreign Policy Re- 
appraised, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 19^377 


Soviet Union were conducted in secrecy and in an atmosphere 
totally unlike that of the earlier negotiations; that they 
would be successful was apparent almost from their beginning. 3 
It is significant also that the first indication of Russian 
willingness to reach a negotiated solution to the Berlin 
problem came in an interview granted by Stalin to a Western 
correspondent rather than through any diplomatic method. f * 


3Tie Berlin situation was one in which the positions 
of both Russia and the West were dependent upon the attitudes 
of the people of West Berlin. If they could be made to want 
the V/estern Allies to leave the city, the Allies would be 
forced to go. Even if the people became discouraged enough 
that they succumbed to the enticements offered them by the 
Soviets in the east sector, the position of the Allies would 
have become untenable. Efforts to persuade the West Berliners 
to accept Soviet rather than four-power control brought about 
the use of methods of warfare that were new in that here they 
were used alone rather than as adjuncts to military power. 


^Department of State Bulletin , May 8, 1949, P. 591. 
^Davidson, op. cit ., p. 254. 


In Berlin, propaganda and promises of material assistance 
were used on a large scale, and pressure placed upon the West 
Berliners was expected to be transmitted to the Allied occu- 
pation forces. 

Propaganda . The press and radio on both sides of di- 
vided Berlin were used to bolster or erode the morale of the 
West Berliners, depending upon the source. The Soviet- 
controlled press in East Berlin spread rumors of imminent 
Allied withdrawal^ anc j repeatedly expressed belief that the 
airlift could not succeed in supplying Berlin. ^ Also promul- 
gated were what have become the standard Communist denunci- 
ations of the West: "facist warmongers, reactionaries, im- 
perialists", and the like. 

Davidson reports that the vigorous communist propaganda 
effort in connection with Berlin was almost entirely ineffec- 
tive. ' This was due to two reasons. First, the facts of 
Berlin life were too available to the West Berliners; they 
could see for themselves; and any propaganda not conforming 
to the reality at hand would be immediately dismissed. Sec- 
ondly, the Berliners had become highly critical of any 

Davidson, o£. cit ., pp. 63-4. 
4 6 Ibid ., pp. 163- 2 U 
47 Ibid., p. 377. 


propaganda after their long exposure to it as promulgated 
by the Nazis, the Soviets, and The West. 

Allied propaganda in Berlin was less ambitious in its 
purpose. Its objectives were merely to reassure the people 
that the Allied occupation forces were planning to remain 
and that their ordeal was being closely observed by the out- 
side world. Since Berliners could see the airlift in oper- 
ation, and since important visitors frequently came to 3erlin, 
it was generally successful. 

Aid. Aid, either the delivery or promise of food and 
supplies from outside, was a more important lever than propa- 
ganda throughout the blockade period. If the Western Allies 
had not been able to supply the city by air, there would have 
been no question of their withdrawal from Berlin unless they 
were willing to fight for it. The counterblockadc provided 
some leverage for exerting pressure upon the Russians by 
depriving them of sorely needed materials from the non- 
communist world. 

While the blockade was in effect, the Soviets used 
offers of relief to try to influence actions of the people 
of West Berlin. One of their levers was the issuance to 
workers of a free warm noonday meal that could be withdrawn 
if the political action of the workers wa3 not in accord with 


Soviet desires. ° At one time during the blockade, the 

Russians attempted to win the allegiance of the West Berliners 
by offering to provide food in the east sector for all citi- 
zens of the city. 9 This offer was supplemented shortly af- 
terward by Soviet offers of work to. all Berliners unemployed 
because of the blockade. 5° When it is considered that during 
this time the West Berliners were subjected to stringent food 
rationing and that there was high unemployment due to lack 
of raw materials, it is a tribute to their resistance that 
these offers were not accepted by more than a very small per- 
centage of the population. 

The use of intermediaries . The final characteristic 
of the Berlin blockade in its implications for the future was 
the use of indirect pressure, applied by or through inter- 
mediaries, instead of pressure applied directly by one power 
to another. Along this line, the Russians showed an early 
preference for mob action as an arm of policy; " and they 
also made frequent use of the East Berlin police for acts of 

Davidson, o£. cit ., p. 98. 
** 9 USSR Information Bulletin , August 11, 1943, p. 459. 

5 °Howley, Berlin Command , p. 245. 


Davidson, The Berlin Blockade , pp. 181-2, 192. 

violence against citizens of West Berlin. The blockade itself 
was a large-scale attempt to make the hardships imposed upon 
the people of West Berlin bring about the departure of the 
Western occupation forces in order to have them alleviated. 
Only during periods of negotiation v/as direct pressure brought 
to bear upon the Allies, and then it v/as only psychological. 
When action that could be considered as offensive em- 
anated from the west sectors of Berlin, it v/as generally 
caused by the V/est Berliners themselves rather than the occu- 
pation forces. In most cases of this nature, such as the 
splitting of the branches of the city government, the mass 
meetings, and the establishment of the Free University, the 
Berliners were acting on their own behalf and not as instru- 
ments of Allied policy. Yet, if the Allies had a policy of 
open resistance to the Russians and if they had chosen to 
implement it through the use of the Berliners, this is a 
logical way in which it could have been done. On one occasion 
when the West Berlin police were ordered to crack down on 
smugglers who were removing goods from the American sector, 
they acted eagerly to carry out the American policy. ^ 2 It 
is also noticeable that pressures applied in areas not directly 

5 %ew York Times , September 27 , 19^8. 


related to the blockade, such as the Marshall Plan and NATO, 
were instrumental in its ending." 


From the Berlin blockade and airlift and the events 
connected to them can be determined through hindsight the 
early development of a pattern in which the cold war would be 
conducted. Both major antagonists in Berlin made obvious 
efforts to avoid direct confrontation between them, but they 
still applied pressure and counter-pressure to try to gain 
their objectives. The restraint used by each side was due 
in part to the position of Berlin as an important but not 
vital interest to either, one not worth risking war over, 
at least until all other means of solution had been exhausted. 
In Berlin the Allies chose to reply to the blockade, which 
in past situations could have been considered as an act of 
war, by using non-violent means that offered no guarantees 
of success; and the Russians, knowingly or otherwise, did 
not back the West into such a position that their only re- 
course would be to military action. 

The deliberateness of action, followed intentionally 

^Davidson, o£, cit ., p. 251. 


or otherwise by both sides, helped to reduce the possibility 
of an inadvertent outbreak of war over Berlin, as did the 
maintenance of diplomatic contact between the opposing powers 
at all times during the crises. There was tacit acceptance 
by each power of the unchallengeability of the other by di- 
rect military means in the territory under his control, but 
indirect challenges by the Russians were frequent. In gen- 
eral, more respect was shown for the territory of the oppon- 
ent than if the powers had been at war, but less than if 
they had been really at peace. 

The pattern of action in Berlin developed partly in 
accord with the intentions of the actors, partly accidentally 
or even contrary to their intentions. Regardless of the rea- 
sons, its development was accepted, and neither power tried 
to change it. This pattern provided a set of precedents which, 
by virtue of having been used before without arousing exces- 
sive objection by the opponent, were available to be followed 
again whenever convenient. Some of the precedents were ex- 
tremely indistinct in their form; there would later be added 
the details and embellishments to expand the precedents in- 
to a system of conflict. 




The Korean War provided the first large-scale shooting 
confrontation between forces of the United States and forces 
supported by the Soviet Union. Here again each side tried, 
this time with greater success than in Berlin, to conduct 
their conflict through intermediaries. The United States 
took advantage of a Russian boycott of the United Nations 
Security Council to successfully introduce resolutions calling 
for, on June 25, 1950, an immediate cease-fire and withdrawal 
of North Korean forces and requesting, on June 27, all UN 
members to give such assistance as may be necessary to the 
Republic of Korea. The United Nations established a unified 
military command, under the leadership of the United States, 
to resist the North Korean invasion; and the command was di- 
rected to report to the Security Council whenever it deemed 

A word is necessary here to place in their proper per- 
spective the roles played in the Korean War by the United 

^Allen S. Whiting, China Crosses the Yalu , (New York: 
The MacKillan Company, 19o0), pp. 47-3. 

States and Russia. First, the United States played, from 
the be^inninc, a leading role in Korea because it was the 
only Western power with immediate interests in the country; 
and it had acquired these as a result of the power vacuum 
created by the Japanese defeat in the Second World V.'ar. Sec- 
ondly, the United States was the only lie stern power with mil- 
itary forces in position where they could be, and were, moved 
quickly to ICcrea. The call to the Security Council was made 
to acquire U1J backing for the protection of interests the 
United States was maintaining for what it considered the 
benefit of the non-communist world as a whole and from which 
the country had or would receive no significant advantages. 
?inally, the United Nations had no military forces of its own 
to carry on any resistance, so a unified command had to be 
established under one nation. Considering the ability of 
various nations to contribute to this force, the United States 
was the locical choice for command. 

Russian participation in the Korean War was not so 
direct. Although Russian equipment was present in great quan- 
tity, only the armies of North Korea and the Chinese People's 
Republic were utilized. There is even a certain doubt con- 
cerning the extent of Russian control of the Communist effort 
in Korea." Most earlier works on the subject credit Russia 


with instigating and controlling the conflict, with the 
Chinese army merely being used to carry out the policies of 
Moscow* Recently, however, a new school of thought has em- 
phasized Chinese rather than Russian Initiation of the con- 

flict. The one thing reasonably certain about the Russian 

involvement is that the' plans for the war were discussed at 
the IIoscow meeting between Stalin and Hao Tse-tung in Decem- 
ber 19^9. 

Regardless of the degree or reason for involvement, it 
is clear that the United Nations* forces were acting in accord 
with policies of the United States and the Communist forces 
were acting in accord with policies of Russia. With these 
facts in mind, the Korean War had been considered by historians 
in various ways: as the success of collective security in 
resistance to aggression, as a sign of the determination of 
the West to resist Communist expansion, and as the instance 
that caused further Russian attempts to extend their influence 
to be made through economic warfare, propaganda, and subver- . 
sion. As its contribution to the development of the cold war 
system of conflict, the Korean War Introduced the first in- 
stance of limited war between the Western and Communist worlds. 


The position of Russian responsibility for the Korean 

War is taken by Allen S. Whiting, China Crosses the Yalu , p. 
45; and David J. Dallin, Soviet Foreign Policy Since Stalin, 

With the idea of limited war came the principle of sanctuary 
for the opposing forces in areas other than that of direct 

The amount of concern expressed since the Korean War 
about the escalation of limited wars into major ones has 
shown the flimsiness of limited war as a principle. W. If. 
Rostow, writing about the Korean War, mentioned an implicit 
set of rules for conducting hostilities. He said that when 
a truce line was crossed, the aggrieved party could counter- 
attack by any means aval lable within his own boundaries and 
it would not be taken by the initiator as justification for 
enlarging the area of hostilities or for launching major war. 
He said that the maintenance of the truce line, and the im- 
plicit rules governing action on either side of it, have 
been the basis on which major war has been prevented since 
the Second World War. In Korea, the development of this 
implicit set of rules did not come about in a manner calculated 

(Philadelphia: Lippincott, i960), p. 60. Increased stress 
is given to Chincese influence in the origination of the war 
in Marshall D. Shulnan, Stalin's Foreign Policy Reappraised , 
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963) . 

W. W. Rostow, The United States in the World Arena , 
(New York: Harper & Row, i960), pp. 244-5. 

to inspire confidence for future action. In fact, evidence 
points to the contrary. In an examination of the development 
of these rules, the Korean truce line has to be viewed more 
closely in four instances: the crossing of the 38th parallel 
by the forces of the United Nations, the failure to bomb 
north of the Yalu River, the Chinese intervention and counter- 
offensive of the spring of 1951 > and the war at sea and be- 
hind the ON lines. 

Crossing the parallel . The United Nations 1 resolutions 
passed immediately after the invasion by the North Koreans 
provided means to "repel the armed attack and to restore in- 
ternational peace and security in the area", with no apparent 
intention to extend the ground war into North Korea. Between 
this time and the time when the UN General Assembly resolu- 
tion on October 7, 1950, endorsed "all appropriate steps to 
ensure conditions of stability throughout Korea", 5 there can 
be seen the ease with which the objectives of a war can be 
expanded as the initial ones are achieved. 

Between August 7 and 11 the North Korean advance was 
stopped short of its goal of ejecting the UN forces from 

^United Nations Bulletin , Vol. IX No. 2; July 15, 

1950; P.T3: 

^United Nations Bulletin , Vol. IX No. 9; November 1, 
1950; p. ^9. " 

Korea, and the UN forces within the Pusan perimeter began 
to rapidly increase their strength. At this tine, the be- 
havior of Jacob Malik, now back in the Russian seat on the 
Security Council, suggested a willingness to compromise on 
his earlier terms for ending the war. In the United States, 
however, success brought a hardening line. On August 17, 
American Ambassador to the United Nations Warren Austin ex- 
pressed his government's desire to have the UN forces liber- 
ate all of Korea from the Communists. 7 Within the next sev- 
eral days a more aggressive stance was taken by several prom- 
inent military leaders, and repudiation of this new stand by 
President Truman led to the resignation of Secretary of De- 
fense Louis Johnson in favor of someone considered more mod- 


erate in his approach. 

As early as September 19, Sygman Bhee of South Korea 
had announced his intention to pursue North Korean troops 
across the 33th parallel of latitude, regardless of UN inten- 
tions. On October 1, the day Rhee's intention was carried 

Whiting, eg. cTt., pp. 74-6. 

' United Nations , Security Council , Official Records , 
Fifth Year, 483th meeting, Aug. 17, 1950, No. 30. 

^Whiting, o£. cit., p. 96. 

out, General MacArthur publicly ordered North Korea to sur- 
render." MacArthur's proposal to move UN forces northward 
across the 3^th parallel had been backed by Washington and 
London even before the action by the Korean troops; 10 and 
when his order was carried out on October 7, it was endorsed 
the same day by the Unit ed Nations General Assembly. 

The decision to move the ground war into North Korea 
can be seen as a conscious expansion of the war, brought on 
by success in attaining the earlier objectives and the desire 
to remove the conditions that enabled the war to be started 
in the first place. The possible retaliatory expansion of 
the war by the Communists was considered, and warnings were 
made by Washington against Chinese intervention. Announce- 
ments from Peking that China would enter the war were in 
general taken lightly, and there are conflicting opinions 
even now as to whether or not that country would have entered 

• ^Hea rings Before the Cora-nit tee on Armed Services and 
the Committee on Foreign Relations , United States Senate, 
82nd Congress, ""[Washington, 1951), P. 3^82. 

1 David Rees, Korea ; The Limited War , (New York: St. 
Martin's Press, 1964) 9 pp. 100-4. John W. Spanier, The 
Truman - Mac Arthur Controversy and the Korean War , (Cambridge: 
Bellcnap Press, 1959), PP. 95, 101-2. 

n Whiting, pp. 97-S. 

in force if the U27 advance had stopped at the waist of Korea 
and not gone on toward the Yalu. 

Sanctuary beyond the Yalu . The decision not to cross 
the Yalu River by aircraft was made against the recommendation 
of the United Nations' commander in the field, and Great 
Britain and France exercised some influence on the decision 
of President Truman. 2 Nevertheless, the Yalu was crossed 
on occasion. On August 27, 1950, the Communist Chinese ac- 
cused aircraft of the United States of having machine-gunned 
some Chinese facilities in Manchuria. Allen Milting reports 
in his RAND study that v/ithin a few days American authorities 
conceded the possibility of a "mistake" and offered compensa- 
tion, provided appropriate inspection of the alleged damage 
could be made. 1 ^ Also reported is an attack by two U.S. jets 
on a Soviet air base in Siberia. After the Chinese inter- 
vention in the war, it became American policy to bomb the 
Korean side of the Yalu bridges, increasing the risk of acci- 
dental overflight but at the same time showing willingness 
to add to the hazards of these missions by refusing to order 


Recs, Korea: The Limited War , pp. 130-1. 

13 Whiting, 0£. cit., p. 97. 

1 Spanicr, 0£. cit ., p. 111. 


attacks on the air defense emplacements on the Chinese side 
of the river. *5 

General MacArthur continually advocated the extension 
of the air warjnto China. His pressure on President Truran 
was somewhat balanced, however, by the' contrary recommenda- 
tions of Secretary of State Acheson and the representatives 
of the Allies in Washington. Although the policy of bombing 
north of the Yalu never came into being, it is significant 
that it was considered; and the expressed reason for not ex- 
tending the war wa3 avoidance of further pressure on the 
Soviet Union to enter. 


The role of China . The Chinese intervention in Octo- 
ber 1950 was another conscious expansion of the war. In 
August and September a massive redeployment of the Chinese 
army had positioned many of its best troops in Ilanchuria. 
It secr.13 now that the final decision to intervene was depend- 
ent, as wa3 advertised at the time by Chou En-lai, upon the 
crossing of the 38th parallel by the American forces, although 
this decision could have been reversed later if the UN ad- 
vance had not gone as far north as it did. ' It is entirely 

15 V/hiting, 02. clt .j pp. 138-9. 

1 Spanier, op., cit., pp. 248-9. 17 '/hitirig, p. 103. 

possible that the movement of the United States Seventh Fleet 
into the Formosa Straits in June 1950 had prevented a Chinese 
move in that direction while the majority of the American 
forces ucre tied up in Korea, for there were previous indi- 
cations that such an invasion was imminent. - Lu 

The Chinese intervention v/as carried out with the same 
.deliberateness of action as was characteristic of the cold 
war operations in 3erlin. The initial Chinese penetration 
into Korea was made in the middle of October; and the first 
contacts were made with HOK forces on October 26 and American 
forces on November 2. Then, on November 7, the Chinese "vol- 
unteers" broke off action, and things were quiet on the front 
until the counterattack on November 26, in response to 
MacArthur's "end the war" offensive. " Whiting lists several 
possible reasons for the November lull, and amon^ them is a 
Chinese desire to observe and evaluate the UN response to 
their entry and any immediate effects of this entry on further 
expansion of the war. 

Once the Chinese intervention had been brought about 
successfully, it ac;ain became easy for one side to expand the 

1 9^ 

WhitinCj China Crosses the Yalu , p. 49. 

1 9 Ibid ., pp. 116-7. 2° Ibid., p. 132. 

war objectives. The Chinese offensive in the spring of 1951 
could by no means be called limited and v;as best described by 
Admiral Struble as "a major war confined to a small area". 
This confinement seems almost entirely to have been due to 
Chinese inability to extend the war territorially any more 
than they did, particularly in View of the American commit- 
ment to defend Taiwan. The Chinese advance down the Korean 
peninsula had as its objective the renoval of the UI! forces 
from Korea, and no special recognition was given to the pre- 
war truce line when it was crossed. 

Non-extensions . Some veterans of the Korean T .7ar speak 
of an agreement whereby, in return for the failure of the 
United States 1 aircraft to bomb targets in I.anchuria or to 
pursue Communist aircraft beyond the Yalu River, the Communists 
would not attack the United nations 1 fleet offshore or con- 
duct air strikes against targets behind the W lines in South 
Korea. There was no such agreement, although it seems as 
though this limitation was intended by both sides and that a 
tacit understanding did develop over a period of time. Gen- 
eral Vandenbergj Chief of Staff of the United States Air 
Force, said in a speech that any Russian limitation was out 
of fear of retaliation rather than respect for any international 


proprieties. Whatever the reasons, there were indications 
of positive efforts by the Soviets, if not their Asian allies, 
to limit these areas of conflict. 

One indicator of Russian limitation of the conflict 
was in the composition of the air force supplied to China by 
the Soviet Union. The MIG-15, like the F-36 flown by the 
American pilots, was a high-altitude interceptor; and the 
Chinese air force did not contain any modern aircraft suitable 
for operations against ground targets. 22 Any air attacks on 
targets behind the UN lines or at sea could have been carried 
out only by strike aircraft delivered by Russia specifically 
for that purpose, and an act of this nature would open the 
possibility of immediate nuclear retaliation. Any attacks 
behind UN lines, even in South Korea, were carried on by 
Communist guerrillas, probably more cheaply and more effec- 
tively than they could have been done by air. 

After the destruction of the North Korean PT boat force 
early in the war, a fairly intensive mining campaign was the 
only Communist effort made against UN ships operating in Korean 
waters. Even here the restraining influence of Russia was 


Address by General Iloyt Vandenberg to the California 

State Chamber of Commerce, November 29, 1951; quoted in U.S. 

News and Uorld Report , December 1^, 1951. 

22 Vandenberg, loc. cit . 


evident in the nines supplied to the North Koreans. The 
mines were of an obsolescent type; and, had mines of more 
advanced design been used, they would have been considerably 
nore costly to combat. 3 

The Korean truce talks which be^an in June 1951 were 
the result, as in Berlin, of secret conversations between 
Soviet UN Delegate Jacob Malik and representatives of the 
Western powers in Hew York. By this time both sides were 
willing to settle for a peace without victory. For the first 
tine in the war both sides had the identical political-mili- 
tary objective of an armistice based on the continued parti- 
tion of Korea. 2 ^ The Soviets Imew that the forces they were 
supporting could not win; the United States considered the 
cost of victory to be higher than the country was willing to 

The opening of the truce talks and the decision of 
the United Nations not to continue the advance up the Korean 
peninsula served the Soviet purposes as well as a cease-fire 
would have. The talks themselves cave further indications of 
the Communist negotiating style previously demonstrated in 
Berlin, and they showed a^ain that the act of nesotiatins 

c ~\Jame3 A. Field, History of United States Naval Oper - 
ations — Korea , (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 
19557; p. 372. 

Ree3, Korea : The Limited V/ar , p. 3-5. 


can be an end in itself and is not necessarily indicative of 
desire to reach agreement . ^5 The talks dragged on for two 
years, with no apparent Communist desire for agreement so 
lon^ as they were not losing territory. David Hees reports 
that the truce agreement was finally signed due, secondarily, 
to the death of Stalin, but primarily to American threats to 
expand the war, by atomic weapons if necessary, into China. 

The example of the Korean War, which has not been re- 
peated, but which bears certain similarities to the developing 
Vict Nam situation, shows the weaknesses of limited war as a 
part of the cold war system of conflict. The war in Korea 
was limited only when the limiting power considered it in hi3 
interest to do so in each particular situation, when his po- 
tential gains were either unlikely to bo realized through 
escalation of the war or would not be worth the increased 
cost of such escalation. In limited war, Korea showed that 
it is easy for the winner to increase his objectives once he 
has achieved his initial ones, and that the losing side must 


A detailed analysis of the Communist negotiating 

style demonstrated in Korea is presented in the book by the 

Senior Delegate representing the United Nations at the Korean 

Armistice Conference; C. Turner Joy, How Communists negotiate , 

(New York; The Macmillan Company* 1955) . 

2o Rces, oj>. £it., pp. 402-420. 


resort to more and more drastic measures If he wants to win 
or even stabilize a war coins against him. 'The Korean oppon- 
ents were unwilling to settle for less than victory until 
each had had a chance to attain it and failed because his 
enemy poured more reserves Into the contest. In the nuclear 
balance of terror situation, escalation would be even more 
dangerous for both sides than it would have been in Korea. 
Both sides have since remained aware of this dancer, and 
their awareness has helped to direct their conduct of the cold 
war away from such situations since then. 


While the limited but still hot war was taking place 
on the Korean peninsula, other areas around the world were 
scenes of East-West conflict conducted on a violence level 
far below that of open war and in which the stakes of the 
great powers involved were far less than they were in Korea. 
These were the instances of shadow warfare, the projection 
of force and counterforce by covert means in which the level 
of commitment is kept so low that the chains of command from 
Washington and Moscow to their respective participants could 
at the time be but faintly traced. In the cold war or non- 
war system of conflict, there have been instances in which 
both opponents have relied completely upon projection of 
power by covert means to attain v/ar objectives and have ac- 
cepted defeats resulting from such methods of operation 
rather than resorting to open intervention. Whether such 
techniques have resulted in success or failure, the sponsoring 
power has not admitted any direct involvement and has been 
extremely reluctant to even claim any connection with what- 
ever was happening in the country in question. 

Two important instances of covert projection of power 
during the time with which this paper is concerned are the 


cases of Iran and Guatemala. In each of these the factions 
friendly to the United States were successful. In Cuba., in 
later years, Soviet-influenced elements brought about a take- 
over by methods having some similarity to those used in the 
earlier instances but that did not repeat their mistakes. 

In the two earlier cases that will be described briefly, 
and in the Cuban venture, there is even now little that can 
be proved about the great power involvement. There are, how- 
ever, several works containing undocumented accounts or spec- 
ulations that have never been denied or affirmed by the coun- 
tries concerned. Interesting as they are, these accounts re- 
main unproved; and the exact degree of involvement by the 
cold war opponents remains undetermined. 2 ? 

Iran . Soviet military occupation of Iran had been 
accomplished during the Second World War, and after the war 
Stalin had refused to withdraw his army from the country. 
The problem was taken to the United Nations; but, even while 
the fruitless debate was going on, a strong protest by 
President Truman was influential in bringing about a Soviet 


Two of these insufficiently documented accounts 

that were consulted but net cited are: Andrew Tully, CIA ; 
The Inside Story , (New York: William Morrow and Company, 
1962); and David Wise and Thomas B. Ross, The Invisible 
Government , (New York: Random House, 1964) • 



withdrawal. ° Even as the troops were being withdrawn, how- 
ever, the organization of the Iranian Communist (Tudeh) Party 
was being strengthened. Mass organizations of the type com- 
mon to Soviet-dominated countries were brought into being, 
and a systematic pattern of violence became evident through- 
out the country. This violence included an attempt on the 
life of the Shah of Iran in February 1949, and the assassin- 
ation of the Premier , General Easmara, in February 1951. 2 9 

The new Prime Minister was Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, an 
ardent nationalist. In the next two years, Mossadegh nation- 
alized the Abadan refinery of the British-owned Anglo- Iranian 
Oil Company, severed diplomatic relations with Britain, and 
turned increasingly toward the Soviet Union. The Tudeh Party, 
although outlawed, became increasingly active in the country; 
and Mossadegh came more and more under its. control.-' In May 
1953> an Iranian request for financial aid from the United 
States was accompanied by indications that, if the aid were 


Harry S. Truman, Memoirs by Harry 3. Truman , (Garden 

City: Doubleday and Co., 1956), Vol. II, p. 95. 

2 ^ Janes D. Atkinson, The Edge of War , (Chicago: Henry 

Regnery Company, i960), p. 248. 

3°Henry C. Atyeo, "Political Developments in Iran, 1951- 
1954," Middle Eastern Affairs , August-September, 1954; David 
J. Dallin, Soviet Foreign Policy After Stalin , (Philadelphia: 
J. P. Lippincott Company, 1961), p. 210. 


not granted as requested, the alternative would be increas- 
ingly close economic and military relations with the Soviet 
Union. In mid-July the Shah attempted to depose Mossadegh 
from the Premiership, but riots in Tehran forced his reap- 
pointment.^ 1 

During that summer, there were certain suspicious 
happenings involving American nationals. U. S. Erigadier 
General K. N. Schwarzkopf, who had recently spent seven years 
training and assisting the semi -militarized constabulary of 
Iran and v/ho had many close friends in influential positions 
in the Iranian army, made a vacation trip to Iran in August 
to renew old friendships. Other people were vacationing 
elsewhere, and those in Switzerland included American Ambassa- 
dor to Iran Loy Henderson, CIA Director Allen Dulles, and 
Princess Ashraf, the twin sister of the Shah.^ 2 

On August 16 it was suddenly announced that the Shah 
had again deposed Dr. Mossadegh as Prime Minister and that 
General Zahedi was designated to take his place. Mossadegh 
refused to accept the order, and the Shah and his family 
suddenly left the country. On the 19th, rioting broke out 
in Tehran, with demonstrators proclaiming loyalty to the Shah. 

31 Dallin, p. 211. 

3 2 Atkinson, o£. cit ., pp. 250-1. 


At the sane tine the ami;- declared for the Shah, and Mossa- 
degh and his followers were arrested. General Zahedl was 
Installed Prime Minister, and three weeks later it v/as 
announced that President Eisenhower had made available $45 
million for emergency economic aid to Iran.-'-' 

There are a couple of interesting sidelights to this 
affair. One of these is that between the time of the depart- 
ure of the Shah from the country and the defeat of Mossadegh 
by the army, the Tudeh party was in control of Tehran but 
did not move to take over the government. One source reports 
that this action was not taken because the Tudeh leaders 
doubted their ability to defeat the non-Communist forces, 
and that it had been made clear that Moscow would not provide 
overt assistance. 3 ^ Another sidelight is that shortly after 
Mossadegh wa3 arrested, the Soviet Ambassador to Iran, Anatol 
Lavrentiev, suffered a heart attack and was incapacitated 
for nearly a month. 35 

Guatemala . The cold war conflict in Guatemala sim- 
mered even longer that that of Iran before coming to a head. 

33 Dallin, o£. cit., pp. 211-3. 

^Ibid., p. 213. 

3 ^New York Times , September 2 and 9, 1953. 


By the time the showdown took place, Communist control of the 
country was farther advanced than It had been in Iran; but 
some Communist mistakes made it even easier to bring their 
control to an end. 

Communist influence in Guatemala had begun to be felt 
in the late 1940' s in the government of Juan Jose Arevalo, 
although the Communist Party itself was illegal in the 
country. 3° The leading known Communists in Guatemala made 
several trips to Moscow during the period of the Arevalo 
government; and the expected successor to Arevalo, a strong 
ant i- Communist, was mysteriously assassinated shortly before 
the presidential election was due to be held. In the elction 
of 1950, Colonel Jacobo Arbenz, the choice of the Communist- 
dominated political parties, was elected president. 

During the years of the Arbenz government, the Commu- 
nist pattern of consolidation shown earlier in Eastern Europe 
was closely followed. 3' The labor unions and other mass 
organizations became more important in the political power 
structure of the country, and a people's militia was in the 

3°U # S. Government, Department of State, A Case His - 
tory of Communist Penetration : Guatemala , (Washington: U.S. 
Government Printing Office, 1957), PP. l#-9. 

3 7 Ibid ., pp. 30-5. 

process of being established. Of particular significance to 
the United States was the changing orientation of Guatemala 
on the international scene. Close ties were maintained by 
the Communist Party of Guatemala, legal since 1951, with the 
international communist movement; and economic and diplomatic 
relations were increased between Guatemala and the countries 
of the Soviet bloc. Even more important to the United States, 
Guatemala was becoming a base from which Soviet influence 
and subversive elements were being spread into the Western 
Hemisphere. ^ 

In Guatemala the mistake of attracting the attention 
of the United States through a blackmail threat such as that 
made by Mossadegh in May 1953 was not repeated. However, 
another opportunity for action was given. Colonel Castillo 
Armas, an anti-Communist Guatemalan officer, had been im- 
prisoned following an unsuccessful coup attempt when it was 
becoming apparent that Arbenz would be elected president in 
1950. In 1951> he had escaped from Jail and fled the country. 
In early 195 2 *, he wa3 in Honduras trying to organize forces 
to overthrow the Arbenz regime; and by June he had under his 
command some two hundred exiles whose arms and equipment, it 

9R* c *t ., PP« 30-5; Ronald M. Schneider, Communism 
in Quatemala ,~i[New York: Praeger, 1953), PP. 275-5oT 


Is suspected, were supplied by the United States. His occasion 
to attack cane when a report was made public by the U. S. 
Department of State that a shipment of Czechoslovak small 
arms had been loaded aboard a Swedish ship at Stettin and was 
destined for the Guatemalan people's militia.-'- 7 Castillo 
Armas and Ills band moved across the border but were contained 
by the Guatemalan array. The army, however, had been only 
slightly penetrated by Communist influence and v/as fearful 
of plans that the Communists might have for its members as 
individuals. It feared also that the people's militia would 
be used to consolidate Communist control, and so it refused 
to allow the militia to be armed and finally forced the resig- 
nation of Arbenz. The new government, in which Castillo 
Armas emerged as president, was strongly pro-United States 
and anti-Communist; and the Party in Guatemala was again 
forced to go underground. 

An evaluation . The governmental upheavals in Iran 
and Guatemala were examples of the conduct of a great-power 
conflict on an intermediary level in which neither great 
power could be held responsible by the other for anything 

3 9 Dcpartr.ent of State Bulletin , May 31, 1954, P. 835. 
^°Schneider, og. cit., pp. 310-2. 

that happened in the country concerned, although each knew 
of the other's involvement. In neither instance were the 
stakes unimportant, but the outcomes would not be significant 
on the levels of national security or even prestige since the 
presence of direct great-power involvement would not be pos- 
itively determined. All that could result from episodes such 
as these, if the great-power involvement remained covert, 
would be a slight increase in the world-wide influence of one 
major power at the expense of the other. This should not be 
enough to make the loser resort to nuclear warfare to redeem 

In this view it is necessary to consider briefly the 
Communist takeover in Cuba. Castro consolidated his position 
in the country and got rid of American influence before pro- 
claiming himself a Marxist. By the time this was done, any 
significant internal opposition had been eliminated. The 
United States chose to combat the takeover by the same means 
as had been successful in Guatemala, but here the circumstances 
v/ere different enough to both force discernable American in- 
volvement and to result in a complete defeat for the invaders. 
Even when confronted with defeat for the elements they were 
supporting and a major loss of face for the government of the 
United States, President Kennedy and his staff chose to accept 


the consequences of their miscalculations rather than re- 
sorting to overt use of force to accomplish their purpose. 

Prom these events there has been established the pat- 
tern of covert power projection that has become one of the 
primary channels of cold war conduct. The exact extent to 
which it is used cannot be determined, because there are 
taking place so many instances in which cold war manipula- 
tion is possible but doubtful. The techniques used, varying 
in degree from guerrilla warfare to minor instances of espion- 
age and subversion, are such that it is hard to prove the 
presence of the controlling elements if they do exist. Yet 
these techniques can bring about results favorable to an 
interested foreign nation, and so their place is assured among 
the important elements of the cold war system. 


As part of the efforts by both the United States and 
The Soviet Union to avoid a direct confrontation between them, 
there have been in recent years certain instances of inaction, 
begun in the case of the Berlin blockade and repeated else- 
where, that have become part of the pattern cf cold war con- 
duct. In the Berlin confrontation, neither power would overtly 
intervene in areas where the opponent had legal basis for 

control or where legal basis was indistinct, but the opponent 
was in physical possession of a piece of real estate. The 
areas included here were the two halves of the city, the land 
access routes, and the air corridors. 

This pattern of action was reinforced in later years. 
The Soviets did not openly assist the Tudeh party in taking 
control of the Iranian government while the Shah was out of 
the count ry in August 1953; and, having received no legal 
invitation due to the shortage of tine, they did not render 
aid to the Arbenz government in Guatemala in 1954. Later, 
when the Americans and British acted upon the invitations of 
the legal governments to send troops into Lebanon and Jordan 
in 1958, the Soviet opposition took only the form of protests. 

The United States has followed the same pattern of 
action. During the uprisings in East Berlin in 1953 and 
Hungary in 1956, only moral support against the Soviets was 
given by the West. The Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba was in- 
terference by the United States in a Soviet-controlled terri- 
tory, but it was intended to be covert; and at the crucial 
point the American decision was to remain within the estab- 
lished pattern of conduct and refrain from overt intervention 
on the side of the invaders. 

During the cold war years, the failure of the United 

States and Russia to intervene openly in each ether's af- 
fairs was a result of decisions that, quite likely, ~ave 
little concern, at the tine, to the establishment cf a pat- 
tern of action. Yet, from them a pattern of action did de- 
velop. By the end of 195^, there could be discerned the 
principle of action by which each side would enccura~e dis- 
sident elements within the territory of the other and use 
any incidents resulting from their actions as cold war prop- 
asanda. However, except for any covert action that may be 
carried out, no other measures would be taken. This principle 
of action demonstrated an acceptance by the United States 
of Russian control over Eastern Europe that would not be 
challenged by American military power, and it indicated a 
shifting of the primary cold war battlefield from Europe to 
the vast areas of the world where neither power had control. 


Historical development . The concept of political war- 
fare is a Marxist one, and it is based upon the inseparability 
of peace and war as lon^ as capitalism exists anywhere in the 
world. 41 From the bc^inninG, to the Marxists, "strussle" or 

Robert Strausz-Haupe ct. al., Protracted Conflict , 
(New York: Harper, 1959), p. 109. 


"battle" did not necessarily include the use of armed force. 
The status of political rather than military warfare was de- 
noted in Trotsky f s plan "to stop the war, not to conclude peace" 

in February 19l8> and the uniqueness of such an idea almost 

brought about its success against Germany. Lenin's philos- 
ophy of war was dependent to a great extent upon the work of 
Clausewiczj and his efforts to influence the men of the Ger- 
man army during the Brest-Litovsk negotiations showed his 
appreciation of the non-military aspects of warfare. * The 
elimination of the dividing line between peace and war was 
further expanded upon in the theoretical writings of Lenin and 
Stalin, and the entire history of the Soviet Union can be 
looked upon as a series of attempts to expand Communist in- 
fluence into Europe and Asia by means other than open warfare. * 

The First World War saw the large scale use of economic 
warfare and startling developments in the fields of public 
opinion aid propaganda, all of which were applicable to uae 
in time of peace as well as in time of war. In the First 
World War, when vast conscript armies took the field and were 

E. H. Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution , (New York: The 
Macmillan Company, I96I) Volume III., p. 36. 

^Stefan T. Possony, A Century of Conflict , (Chicago: 
Henry Regnery Co., 1953 ), PP. 21-3* 

Atkinson, o£. cit ., p. 63. 


in turn supported by millions of workers in munitions and 
supply industries and when it became possible for the first 
time to communicate with these millions on a mass basis, the 
total morale of the nation became of prime importance. * In 
the postwar Western world, however, these developments were 
considered as part of warfare and fell into disuse as writers 
and thinkers continued to concern themselves with the tra- 
ditional distinctions between war and peace rather than about 
the changes that were beginning to muddle the differences 
between the two. James Atkinson calls attention to the atti- 
tude, especially strong in the United States, that such ac- 
tivities as espionage and intelligence work were excusable 
and even acceptable during a state of declared war but that 
they were not quite the sort of thing that nice people did 
when the shooting was all over. 

In the Second World War, although overshadowed by the 
vast military campaigns, the elements of political warfare 
were employed on a scale greater than that of the earlier 
conflict. Psychological and economic warfare were used more 
extensively than in the past, .and guerilla warfare and resist- 
ance movements took place in the enemy-occupied countries. 

^Terence 11, Qualter, Propaganda and Psychological 
Warfare , (New York: Random House, 19^2), pp. 5^-5. 

^Atkinson, Edge of War, p. 109. 


Still these methods continued to be looked upon In the West 

as adjuncts to, rather than as substitutes for military 

action. ? 

When the Second World War ended., Russia continued her 

efforts at political warfare, turning them now against the 

V/est. Since 19^5, Professor Atkinson considers this form of 

warfare to have been brought by the Soviets to a near-perfect 

state. He cites as the conditions making possible the full 

development of political v/arfare four revolutions of modern 

times: the revolution in education that brought about the 

mass audience for propaganda and a large intelligentia capable 

of acting upon it, the revolution in communications enabling 

the propagandist to contact his mass audience, the revolution 

in weapons that makes other forms of warfare less attractive, 

and the revolution effected by the politicisation of warfare, 

the merging of politics and war brought about by the combin- 
ation of Marxist theory and Communist experience. ° 

The nature of political v/arfare . The thing that is 
here called political warfare has been considered by other 
writers under various names. Atkinson called it unconven- 
tional warfare, but that term has since come to be restricted 

^7Qualter, o£. clt ., p. 125. 


Atkinson, o£. clt ., pp. 272-5. 


to guerrilla and counter-guerrilla operations. It has been 
called cold war, but that tern better describes the system 
within which it is used. It has also been referred to as 
competitive co-existence. The originators and users of these 
terms are all concerned with the same thing, and that is the 
manner of warfare by which the cold war is conducted. This 
manner of warfare is one that includes the use of propaganda, 
economic warfare, sabotage, espionage, subversion, strikes, 
civil disturbances, terrorism, and guerrilla warfare; and it 
includes their use against an opponent with which the pro- 
tagonist is technically at peace. None of the techniques 
listed here is new in itself; what is new is the way in which 
they are employed on a massed and coordinated scale as a sub- 
stitute for, rather than an adjunct to, military action. The 
technique of political warfare is a synthesis of all the other 
techniques, conducted on any scale appropriate to the ends 
desired. ^9 

The weapons of political warfare , Louis Fischer has 
described the cold war as a competition between the United 
States and the Soviet Union for the friendship, good will, 
diplomatic support, allegiance, and alliance of other countries. 5° 

^Atkinson, og. cit ., pp. 196-7. 

* Loui3 Fischer, Russia , America, and the Uorld , (New 
York: Harper & Brothers, i960) , p. 8. 

Such objectives, all of which are intangible, are not readily 
attainable by the overt use of military means, but they do 
lend themselves to being achieved through the non-military 
methods of political warfare. Most of the political warfare 
techniques that have been listed above can be grouped under 
the general heading of projection of power by covert means, 
but even covert projection of power can be used best in com- 
bination with other efforts. The two overt means of attracting 
support throughout the world that have been most adaptable 
to the cold war system are propaganda and economic warfare, 
the latter conducted primarily through trade restrictions and 
foreign economic assistance. Each of these techniques can be 
used in an entirely non-violent atmosphere, can get certain 
results, and can safely be carried to any degree considered 
necessary by the nation using it. There have been a number 
of excellent studies done on each of these techniques,-^ so 
here there will be discussed only briefly their use in the 
cold war system. 

Propaganda, in its current use in international rela- 
tions, has been defined as "the deliberate attempt by some 
individual or group to form, control, or alter the attitudes 

A listing of excellent studies on both propaganda 
and economic warfare is contained in the bibliography to this 

of other groups by the use of the instruments of communica- 
tion, with the intention tiiat in any given situation the re- 
actions of those so influenced will be that desired by the 
propagandist. 5 2 jn the cold war system, propaganda, due in 
part to the revolutions in communications and education around 
the world, has become amenable to use to an extent much great- 
er than ever before. Its particular significance in the cold 
war is that it, like many of the other techniques of politi- 
cal warfare, is here used on a large scale for the first 
time as a substitute for, rather than an auxiliary to, mili- 
tary engagement. 

Cold war propaganda is distributed by both the United 
States and the Soviet Union through almost every conceivable 
medium, although the Russians spend considerably more money 
and effort on it than does the United States.^ Each najtion 
has its own official propaganda agency, the Department of 
Agitation and Propaganda of the Communist Party of the Soviet 
Union and the United States Information Agency. Each has 

* Qualter, o£. cit ., p. 27. 

"a detailed and scholarly examination of the Soviet 
propaganda organization is contained in Frederick C. Barghoorn, 
Soviet Foreign Propaganda, (Princeton: Princeton University. 
Press, 1964) . This author knows of no comparable study of the 
American propaganda organization. 

its official government radio station — ours is prohibited 
from operating in this country — which operates in many lan- 
guages throughout the v/orld. Both sides use magazines, trade 
fairs, cultural exchanges, and education programs generally 
offered to students from third countries. Russia also uses 
various front organizations and the foreign Communist parties 
whenever convenient, while propaganda organs of this type 
have generally been unavailable to the United States. The 
basic advantages of propaganda as a weapon for both sides 
have lain in its cheapness, its ease of propagation, and its 
suitablility to combination with other cold war techniques. 

Propaganda in the cold war system is a weapon that has 
been used with great effect by both sides to take maximum 
advantage of opponents 1 policy errors or of circumstances 
innately favorable to one's own interests. The United States 
exploited the propaganda elements in the Hungarian uprising 
of 1956 with good results, and she v/as able to use this inci- 
dent to help isolate the Russian position in the Suez crisis. 
Russia did the same with the U-2 incident and the cancelled 
Summit meeting of May 1960.-^* The Soviets have effectively 
used the twin themes of nationalism and anti-colonialism in 

3 David J. Dallin, Soviet Foreig n Policy After Stalin , 

pp. 414, 510-1. 


their appeals to the under-developed world, and they have con- 
tinually preyed upon the universal desire for peace and fear 
of nuclear war.^ p Yet propaganda load its distinct limitations, 
the first being that talk can only be effective so long with- 
out being followed up by action. Propaganda, especially of 
the Soviet variety, tends to be repetitiousj and it is said 
to lose its appeal as the level of audience sophistication 
rises. 5° Propaganda is most effective when it had as its 
subject something against which the opponent is unable to build 
a counter-argument, and efforts which are seriously combatted 
by the cold war adversary can generally be neutralized. 

Foreign economic assistance is best utilized in the 
cold war system in conjunction with an active propaganda 
campaign. It was first used as a weapon against Russian ex- 
pansion by the United States in Greece and Turkey in 19^7* 
and its success there and in Western Europe prompted its use 
by the Soviets in the early 1950' s. Foreign assistance with- 
in the cold war system can be given for any of several pur- 
poses; its value to the giver is dependent upon its effect on 

55Barghoorn, Soviet Foreign Propaganda , pp. 300-1. 


Ibid., pp. 312-3. The decreasing effectiveness of 

Soviet and Allied propaganda during the ten months of the Ber- 
lin blockade is shown in W. Davidson, The Berlin Blockade , pp. 


the political beliavior of the recipient nation. ^' 

The American foreign assistance program is primarily, 
but not entirely., a result ox* the cold war. It is motivated 
by a combination of altruism, the long-range desire for a 
better world, and the short-term goal of increasing the in- 
fluence of the United States in a specific area or preventing 
the growth of Soviet or Chinese influence in that area. 5° 
The Soviet foreign assistance program to non-Communist coun- 
tries, which has been referred to as economic penetration 
designed to lead to political takeover, °* is, according to all 
evidence, conducted almost entirely in the cold war context. 
The Soviet program is considerably more narrow in scope than 
that of the United States and is generally directed to places 


Six types of foreign aid are described by Hans J. 

Morgenthau in his article "Preface to a Political Theory of 
Aid," which has been reprinted in several anthologies. His 
six types are humanitarian foreign aid, subsistence foreign 
aid, military foreign aid, bribery, prestige foreign aid, 
and foreign aid for economic development. These aid types 
are still the best short description of purposes for which 
aid can be used, and all can be considered as applicable 
within the cold war context. 

^^Hollis B. Chenery, "Objectives and Criteria for For- 
eign Assistance," Why Foreign Aid ? R. A. Goldwin ed., (Chi- 
cago: Rand McNally, 19^3)., P« 33. 


Howard K. Smith et. al., The Ruble War , subtitled 

"A Study of Russia's Economic Penetration versus U. S. For- 
eign Aid. (Buffalo: Smith, Keynes & Marshall, 1958). 

where political results can be expected. 

Tfte effect of economic assistance as a weapon in the 
cold war is dependent upon the amount of political leverage 
that it can gain for the giver in a recipient country. Even 
access for one's propaganda material to the communications 
media of the recipient country can lead to increased good 
will toward the donor nation and decreasing friendship with 
the cold war opponent. Aid can also give a firm ally the 
strength to maintain political stability, and its threatened 
withdrawal can possibly discourage unfriendly actions by the 
recipient nation. 

In practice, the use of aid as a cold war weapon has 
been disillusioning for both sides. Because of its avail- 
ability from the cold war opponent, aid has not resulted in 
the development of strong allies unless there were present 
other conditions more important than aid in the determination 
of cold war side- taking. Many neutral nations have begun to 
play one cold war opponent against the other, drawing aid 
from both and giving political benefit to neither. Aid has 
been successful in such cases when the interests of the giver 
and recipient have been in accord, such as the bringing into 
the neutralist grouping nations that would otherwise be more 
influenced by the cold war opponent. Examples here include 

Yugoslavia for the United States and Egypt for the Soviet 


The extensive use of political warfare in the cold war 
system of conflict has resulted in the development of a new 
role for diplomacy in addition to its traditional place in 
international affairs. The new role is a public one, and it 
has grown out of both the Wilsonian and the Trotskyite distaste 
for secret agreements. The occasional resort to public threats, 
the "missle rattling" and "nuclear blackmail" are only a small 
part of this role; and its most frequent employment is in the 
arena of public negotiation about subjects that really have 
very little chance of resolution. 

The new role of diplomacy consists primarily in the 
conduct of negotiation for "side-effects" rather than for the 
purpose of reaching agreement. Side-effects of negotiation 
have been defined as effects, not concerning agreement, which 
flow from the very process of negotiation." Fred Charles Ikle 
notes that "proposals and speeches at the conference table, 

Fred Charles Ikle, Hoi7 Nations Negotiate , New York: 
Harper & Row, 1964, p. 42. Here the author studies the ne- 
gotiating process within the theoretical framework laid down 
in Thomas C. Schilling's The Strategy of Conflict , cited 
earlier in this paper. 


contacts with the opponent's diplomats, and the interest a- 
roused among third parties may all contribute to various pol- 
icy aims without leading to the settlement of the issues openly 
discussed. "k* He lists as among the most 1-portant side- 
effects of negotiation those of maintaining contact, substi- 
tuting for violent action, gaining intelligence, deception, 
propaganda, and the impact of negotiation on third parties. 
In the cold war system the most important of the side-effects 
is that of propaganda, including the impact of the negotiation 
on third parties. 

Professor Ikle writes that propaganda can be either a 
technique for getting good terms of agreement or a side-effect 
which serves other foreign policy objectives. The latter use 
of propaganda he examines in three aspects: "negotiating to 
have a sounding-board, negotiating to gain prestige, and ne- 
gotiating to show rectitude like the Pharisee saying his pray- 
ers. 2 The sounding-board effect of negotiation occurs mainly 
at summit meetings and other high-level conferences; and it 
serves to give a government's positions and policy goals more 
publicity than they might otherwise receive, especially when 
they are put forth as negotiating proposals. Proposals made 

6l Ikle, o£. cit., p. 42. 6 2 Ibid ., p. 52. 


In the glare of such publicity can be done with little regard 
for their acceptance by one's opponent, and attention can be 
directed instead to their effect upon the people of the oppos- 
ing nation or upon world opinion. 

Negotiating for prestige is of value to those govern- 
ments who feel that their name and political standing are en- 
hanced by attendance at such international meetings, much the 
same as the prestige of a national leader is enhanced through 
state visits to or from the leaders of important nations. 
This cannot be ruled out of the frequent Russian demands for 
summit meetings during the 1950 's, but neither can it be con- 
sidered as of more than minor importance. 

The practice of negotiating to show rectitude and to 
place one's opponent in an unfavorable position in regard to 
world opinion comes from the prevalent notion that negotiation 
is a "good thing" and that the mere act of negotiating and the 
presentation of proposals can gain favor in the eyes of the 
world. Both cold war opponents have made and explained the 
Tightness, and therefore the uncompromisability, of their pro- 
posals for the reunification of Germany, but each proposal 
contained a first step that was unacceptable to the opponent. 
Negotiating to show rectitude has become quite common in the 
Geneva disarmament negotiations, which one writer describes as 


an "international farce" and accuses the negotiators of both 
sides of "playing the game of political warfare, busily put- 
ting each other in t he wrong before the bar of world opinion. "°3 

John Spanier breaks down the elements of gamesmanship 
used by both sides in the Geneva negotiations. He lists them 
as: first, the carrying on of negotiations amid a continual 
barrage of propaganda; second, the oversimplification of issues 
to increase their appeal to world opinion; third, the drawing 
out of negotiations by presentation of proposals that had 
previously been rejected; and fourth, and most important, the 
posing by each side as the representative of virtue and the 
picturing of the opponent as the offspring of the devil. He 
considers the object of this Soviet-American gamesmanship *o 
be "to reject the proposals of the other side without appearing 
to sabotage the negotiations, to portray one's ovm plans as 
reasonable and realistic and thoso of one's opponent as un- 
workable and unfair, and to place the blame for the failure of 
the negotiations on the other side." This is done through 
the introduction of the "joker," the one condition in every 
disarmament proposal that makes it unacceptable to the opponent. 

°3john strachey, On the Prevention of War , London: 
Kacmillan, 1962, p. 162. 


This joker can be a condition inserted into the proposal for 
the purpose of making it unacceptable, or it can be a pro- 
vision included because it is considered to be necessary to 
the security of the nation making the proposal. Either way, 
its effect is the sane. 

An outstanding example of the new role of diplomacy was 
that grandest of recent international conferences, the Geneva 
Summit Meeting of 1955. The event was hailed with great en- 
thusiasm by world opinion and by several of the non-partici- 
pating world leaders, and a record thirteen hundred represen- 
tatives of the world press applied for press cards. Both sides 
came to the conference with the misconception that the other 
was ready to make major concessions, and the optimistic mood 
was furthered by the friendly behavior of the Soviet delegation 
during the pre- conference festivities. 5 

The differing programs put forth by the heads of the 
delegations were viewed as only the first stage of bargaining. 

John W. Spanier and Joseph L. Nogee, The Politics of 
Disarmament , New York: Praeger, 19o2, pp. 48-54. The use of 
the joker is in no way confined to proposals concerning disarm- 
ament, and its use has already been mentioned above in the con- 
flicting conditions presented by Russia and the United States 
for the formation of an all-German government. 

° 5 David Dallin, Soviet Foreign Policy After Stalin , p.28l. 


President Eisenhower spoke or three issues: Germany, Eastern 
Europe, and international communism; but all except Germany 
were shortly afterward vetoed as agenda items by Bulganln. 
Three issues proposed by Russia — cessation of the cold war, 
neutrality, and Asia and the Par East — were likewise rejected. 
This left Germany as the sole subject for serious discussion; 
and when, after three days, neither side had budged from its 
original position, the conference closed and the problems were 
turned over to a conference of foreign ministers to be held 
soon afterwards. 

Although the only agreement reached at Geneva was a 
tacit one of acceptance of the status quo in Germany in the 
face of continued disagreement as to its resolution, the side- 
effects of the conference had an importance of their own. By 
their acceptance at the conference, the Russians were accorded 
a status of equality by the Western powers. The great amount 
of publicity given the conference enabled the Soviets, who 
frequently had met resistance to their attempts to spread 
their propaganda through the non-communist news media, to 
speak over the heads of the other delegations and directly to 
the people of the world. For some time afterward the Russian 
press treated the conference as though it had been successful, 
and the "spirit of Geneva" continued to be mentioned by Moscow 

even after the failure of the conference of foreign ministers 
in November. 00 The largest apparent success for the American 
side came in the Eisenhower "open skies" proposal, which is 
reported as being made primarily for its propaganda value to- 
ward combatting the rising European indifference to NATO and 
unenthusiasm for American bases on European soil. 

While one aspect of cold war diplomacy was that of a 
technique of political warfare, the normal diplomatic contact 
maintained at all times between the United States and the 
Soviet Union can be best considered within the historic defin- 
ition of diplomacy rather than as part of the cold war system. 
The traditional methods of secret diplomacy and private nego- 
tiation were the ones chosen whenever there arose issues upon 
which agreement was of interest to both sides. Already men- 
tioned in this paper were the negotiations conducted by Soviet 
UN Delegate Jacob Malik that led to the termination of the 
blockade of Berlin and the cease-fire in Korea. The relative 
effectiveness of public and private negotiations was graph- 
ically illustrated by the rapidity with which the Limited 
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was negotiated in private, after years 

6 Dallin, o£. cit., p. 285. 

'Robert J. Donovan, Eise nh ower ; The Inside Story , 
New York: Harper & Brothers, 195o, pp. 3^4 -o^ 


of public effort without agreement in Geneva. 

It is worthy of note that the private diplomatic contact 
between the United States and the Soviet Union has not resul- 
ted in any steps to end the cold v.*ar or to resolve any of the 
concrete issues over which the cold war originally came to be. 
Rather, the diplomatic efforts of both powers have been direc- 
ted toward keeping the conflict between them within the con- 
fines of the cold war system; and ever since the start of the 
cold war constant contact has been naintained between the two 
• nations to try to prevent misunderstandings that could cause 
intensification of the conflict and lead to the possibility 
of its getting out of control. Frequent examples of diplomatic 
efforts to keep the cold war controllable and within its sys- 
tem are available} and recent ones include the Test Ban Trea- 
ty, the pronouncements of the destructiveness of nuclear war 
by both President Kennedy and Chairrian Khruschev, and the 
« establishment of a line of direct cocnunication between Wash- 
ington and Moscow. All of these steps have taken place since 
the advent of the balance of nuclear terror situation and 
after the specific time period under discussion in this pa- 
per; and all of them are efforts, not to resolve the cold war 
conflict, but merely to keep it on a level on which it can be 



With the introduction of foreign assistance programs 
on a large scale by both sides, the cold xvar system of con- 
flict as it is known today was brought to its full develop- 
ment, and even as it was reaching this full development the 
bipolar world that fostered it was beginning to come apart. 
The first cracks became visible in the great power maneuver- 
ing following the Egyptian nationalization of the Suez Canal, 
while at the same time splits were appearing in the Russian 
empire in Eastern Europe. 

The actions of the United States and Russia in the 
Suez Canal crisis of the fall of 1956 demonstrated the matur- 
ity of the cold war system of conflict, but as a result of 
this crisis a new element was added to the relationship be- 
tween the two powers. The maturity of the system was shown 
by the use, at one time or another, and in accord with the 
rules of conduct established over the previous years, of all 
the applicable cold war techniques which are in use at the 
present day. Economic and military assistance, propaganda, 
diplomatic maneuvering and threats, attempts at a form of 


intervention that would have to be accepted by the opponent, 
and snail-scale warfare were all used by at least one of the 
several participants. The new element was that of the United 
States and Russia being united in opposition to the desires 
of Great Britain and France, the first time during the period 
of cold war that the two ^reat powers were on the same side 
in any major international issue. From this time on, the 
possibility of Russian and American cooperation toward a com- 
mon Goal, whether for the 3ane or for differing reasons, was 
one tliat would have to be considered; and each of the two 
nations v/ould be forced to abandon the position of automatic 
opposition to anything the other had done simply for the 
reason that the other had done it. 

The Suez incident had been building since the overthrow 
of King Farouk of Egypt in 1952 and particularly since Gamal 
Abdel Nasser's official assi^iption of power in 195^. Since 
the early part of 1955, trade and diplomatic relations had 
been increasing between Egypt and the nations of the Soviet 
bloc; and Russian arms and technicians had been brought into 
Egypt in increasing numbers. 1 Nasser v/as not the first leader 

*By the end of October 1956, the number of Russian and 
Ea3t European diplomats and technicians in Egypt was estimated 
to be a3 high as two thousand. Mew York Times , October 29, 

of a snail nation to make the cold war work to ills advantage, 
but he was the first to try to play the great powers against 
one another to do so. Assistance from the Soviet Union did not 
pull Nasser into the Soviet bloc., whether or not that xvas its 
purpose; but it did enable him to act in what he considered 
his own interest and also the Russian interest without fear 
of Western economic reprisals. 

The financing of the Aswan High Dam had originally been 
offered in part by the United States; but in July 1956, Sec- 
retary of State John Foster Dulles withdrew the American of- 
fer. Dulles 1 ostensible reason for this action was some finan- 
cial difficulty concerning Egyptian ability to pay its share 
for the construction of the dam; his actual reason has been 

described as that of Egypt's policy stands contrary to those 

of the United States." W. W. Rostow called the withdrawal 

of the offer of assistance on the dam "a virtual challenge to 

Nasser, in effect ending the awkward interval of two-way 

Egyptian blackmail and inviting Nasser to do his worst. "' 


Guy V/int and Peter Calvocores3i, Middle East Crisis 

(Hammond smith, Middlesex! Penquin Books, 1957), PP. o7-9. 
Cecil V. Crabb, American ?oreign Policy in the Nuclear Age 
(Evans ton: How, Peterson, & Company, I960), pp. 27^-5. 

"Hf. VJ. Rostow, The United States in the World Arena 
(New York: Harper £: Row, i960), p. 357. 


Nasser's v/orst v;as the nationalization of the Suez 
Canal, a step that hurt Great Eritain and Prance more than 
anyone else. Both of these nations had, since the end of 
the Second World War, lost ciost of their prior influence in 
the Arab world; and they had little nore to lose through any 
Ill-will that would be created by their taking over the canal 
by force of arms and thereby possibly unseating Nasser. Still 
they acted with caution. Their attack on the canal did not 
take place until diplomatic efforts had failed three months 
after nationalization, and then it was done in concert with 
a move by Israel through the Gaza strip. 

The United States and Russia each had an interest in 
the prevention of hostilities in the Suez area. Both were 
concerned about the controlability of any war that mi^ht break 
out in the Iliddle East. The Russian objective in Egypt had 
been the replacement of Western influence in the country with 
her own, and she had been proceeding toward it quite well 
through propaganda and the use of economic and military assist- 
ance* The United States wanted to preserve her influence in 
the area in the face of Russian expansion. She saw communism 
as the real enemy in the Iliddle East and regarded Arab 

Wint and Calvocoressi, op, cit., p. 107. 


nationalism as a potential ally against it. The American pol- 
icy makers, therefore, "v;ere by no means disposed to encourage 
communism by conniving at an attack on Egypt which they re- 
garded as being inspired by predatory Anglo-French imperial 
interests. "5 

During the period of time between the nationalization 
of the canal and the British and French paratroop attack, 
Russian propaganda, in its normal cold war way, continued to 
equate the interests of the three major Western powers with 
one another. This was done on doctrinal as well as practical 
grounds, in accord with the "primary Soviet principle" of 
opposition to the United States, as well as for the practical 
objective of bringing about the total discrediting of the 
West in Arab eyes.? Whether or not the Soviets believed their 
own propaganda, their continued promulgation of the position 
of Western solidarity left Russia unprepared when the United 
States took the lead in opposition to Great Britain and France. 

As early as the Second London Conference in September 
195^1 differences were observable among the Western allies in 

*Mohn Marlowe, Arab Nationalism and British Imperial - 
ism (New York: Praeger, 1961), p. 142. 

David J. Dallin, Soviet Foreign Policy After Stalin 
(Philadelphia: J. P. Lippincott Co., 1961), pp. 412-20. 


'Wint and Calvocoressi, o£, cit ., p. 93. 

their desires concerning the proposed Suez Canal Users 1 
Association, and their differences were expressed by Dulles 
at his news conference on October 2. A momentary appearance 
of harmony was shown at the United Nations on October 13, 
when Dulles voted in favor of the Anglo-French Security 
Council resolution designed to implement the principles upon 
which the Users ' Association was to be based; but Dulles voted 
as he did for political reasons of his own rather than from 
any necessary convergence of his interests with those of 
Great Britain and Prance. Shortly after the Russian veto 
of this resolution came increasing* coolness between the United 
States and Great Britain and France and the trip of Anthony 
Eden and Selwyn Lloyd to Paris. Russia, having doubts about 
the results of the Paris meeting between the British and French 
prime ministers and soon to be occupied with her own problems 
in Hungary, shortly afterward reduced her polemics over the 
Suez developments and remained relatively Inactive regarding 
the Middle East question until after the outbreak of hostilities 

Dulles had promised to support the Anglo-French res- 
olution in return for British agreement to his suggestion that 
the meetings of the Security Council be held in closed session, 
in which the Anglo-French, the Egyptian, and the Russian prop- 
agandists would be unable to mount their appeals to world opin- 
ion. V/int and Calvocoressi, Middle East Crisis , p. 77. Her- 
man Finer, Dulles Over Suez , (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1964), 
P. 297. 


on October 29. 

Upon the commencement of hositillties, the Unitc-d States 
acted at once to try to restore order. The U1I Security Coun- 
cil net on October 30 to consider an American resolution cal- 
lins for Israel to sive y P the territory seined from £~ypt 
and fox* everyone else to refrain fron usin^ force. The reso- 
lution was supported by Russia but vetoed by Great Britain and 
Prance. The Canadian cease-fire resolution in the General 
Assembly two days later v;as also supported by the United States 
and Russia and opposed by Great Britain and Prance. 

The cold war Issue at stake in the Suez Canal Incident 
v/as the desire, held by Russia and the United States, to each 
increase her influence in the Arab world at the expense of the 
other. To this end, the American efforts were directed toward 
getting the British and French out of the Canal Zone; and 
American pressure has been credited by some observers as the 
decisive factor in bringing about the withdrawal. 9 Early 
Russian attempts to lead the opposition to the An^lo-French 
action took the form of unsuccessful efforts to mobilize the 
Bandung powers and to hold another Afro-Asian conference on 

°Marlowe, o£. cit . , p. 141. French Foreign Minister 
Pineau is reported to have rated American pressure as second 
only in importante to British internal division amonc the fac- 
tors causing the Anglo-French withdrawal from Suez. Dallin, 
o£. clt.j p. 418. 


the Issue of Egypt. 10 Later Russia tried, through threats 
aimed at Great Britain and France but made after the Anglo- 
French announcement of intent to withdraw from Egypt, to pose 
as the defender of the Arabs. A Russian proposal of Soviet- 
American collaboration to "guarantee the end of agression 
against the Egyptian people" was rejected by the United States, 
and the rejection was accompanied by suggestions that the 
Soviets get out of Hungary. 1 After the announcement of the 
cease-fire, Russia offered to send volunteers to Egypt in 
case Great Britain and France refused to withdraw their troops 
from Egyptian territory, but the timing of this offer indi- 
cates that it was made only after it was virtually certain 
that its implementation would not be required. 12 

When the Suez crisis of 1956 is looked upon as a cold 
war confrontation between the United States and Russia, the 
action pattern described above gives indications that the 
maneuvers of each great power were designed primarily for 
their effect upon the cold war opponent and only secondarily 
for their effect upon Egypt, Great Britain, and Prance. The 
United States wanted to restore order quickly, for any 

10 Dallin, p. 415. n lbid ., p. 41?. 


•/alter Z. Laqueur, The Soviet Union and the Middle 

East (New York: Praeger, 195977 P. 239. 


lengthening of the period of instability would only give in- 
creased opportunity for Russian intervention through the 
sending of more technicians and canal pilots, to say nothing 
of the threatened "volunteers." Russia was less interested 
in preventing injury to Egypt than she was in the recruitment 
of other nations that she could lead in loud opposition to 
the Anglo-French action. The Egyptian act of nationalization, 
done in reprisal against an action of the United States and 
Great Britain, was something more easily supported by Russia 
than by the United States; and a judgment between conflicting 
interests was necessary before America could into 
the fray. 

That the Suez incident was indicisive in altering the 
Soviet-American power balance in the Arab world was not due 
to the inability of the techniques used to cot results, but 
rather due to the fact that the actions of the two powers 
served to counter one another. If either had remained unin- 
volved, the other could have made some real, though temporary 
advances. Russia continued the propaganda battle long after 
the Suez incident itself had been ended; and the continued 
and unopposed effort, along with inept presentation by the 
United States, enabled the Soviets to bring about a rejection 
by Arab public opinion of the Eisenhower Doctrine. 1 - 


Laqueur, o£, cit ., pp. 241-4. 

The real winner at Suez, however, was Nasser, who by the end 
of 1956. had increased his prestise and Influence throushout 
the Arab world and had the two leading world powers vying for 
his friendship. Neither the United States nor the Soviet 
Union was able to dominate the Middle East, and each could 
act there only In accord with the interests of local powers. 
Arab nationalism remained the dominant force In the region. 

The Suez crisis brought a rounding out of the techniques 
of the cold war. Since then there have been minor modifications 
of techniques seen earlier, such as the prestise competition 
in space; but here have been no new techniques introduced. 
Suez also showed the limits of applicability of the cold war. 
It was a case i/here the cold war was used for the benefit of 
a third party more than either participant and a case where 
common Interest of the competing powers almost dictated open 
cooperation between them. For the United States and Russia 
the Suez incident was a demonstration that their quarrel could 
be turned to the benefit of others and that there should, in 
the future, be Instances in which it would be to their benefit 
to act in common, each want ins the same end although for pos- 
sibly different rea3on3. 



The incidents of the cold war that have been discussed 
in the course of this paper have been covered from a very 
narrow viewpoint and with no attempt to analyze their signif- 
icance on world affairs as a whole. The discussion has been 
• concerned entirely with a demonstration of the contribution of 
these events to the development of the system of conflict that 
shows its full maturity at Suez in 1956. The cold war events 
since Suez have generally been conducted within the rules that 
had by then been established; and only one incident, with its 
implications for the system, has to be considered in any de- 
tail in order to brine the system up to date. Before that is 
done, it will be of value to analyze the system as it existed 
at the end of 195^, to break down the rules under which it 
operated, and to consider it as a conceptual whole rather than 
as a series of loosely connected events. 

By the time of the Suez crisis, the objectives of the 
cold war had been clearly stated by each of the two competing 
nations; the rules of conduct had been established, and there 
was a method of determining who was winning. Both sides had 


shown a willingness to express their conflict in the manner in 
which it was being done, and this willingness demonstrated 
before 1956 was to become even more apparent during the ensuing 
years of the nuclear balance of terror. There was still no 
guarantee that the cold war would stay cold, and there is none 
even today; but the public and official concern shown by both 
sides over a possible Soviet- American confrontation indicates 
that the United States and the Soviet Union will continue to 
accept this system of conflict as an alternative to thermo- 
nuclear war for the settlement of all issues short of direct 
peril to their survival as great powers. 

The basic expressed objectives of each side in the 
Soviet-American cold war have not changed since its inception, 
and they have not come any closer to being fulfilled. Since 
the Soviet Union developed the national power to start ex- 
panding territorially during the Second './or Id : ,. r ar, she has 
preached of the. collapse of an economic and social system 
called capitalism and of the dominance of Russian communism 
over the world. She has so far shown no verbal willingness 
to halt her struggle until her desired conditions are brought 
about. The United States still has as its announced objec- 
tive "the granting of political freedom to Eastern Europe in 
exchange for a European armaments and security agreement, and 


the creation of an effective international system of nuclear 
arns control." The United States, since the inception of the 
cold war, has connitted herself enough times to these objectives 
that she could renounce them only v;ith great difficulty. 

The objectives expressed above have in common the facts 
that neither concerns an interest vital to the continued ex- 
istence of the nation espousing it, and that there is no ser- 
ious pressure presented for an immediate solution of the prob- 
lems raised by either objective. Each objective comes down 
finally to a question of abstract power, for power to bring 
about the acceptance of such an objective by an opponent would 
place the holder of that much power in a position so 3trong 
that he could force his opponent to accept almost anything 
else too. Unexpressed objectives of Russia and the United 
States, including some which are even capable of political or 
military realization, can all be considered as included in the 
larger expressed objective, and the resolution of a minor in- 
dividual issue does nothing to reduce the abstract objective 

Neither expressed objective is immediately realizeable 
by military means. A Russian military victory could not bring 
about the acceptance of communism by anyone, but it would only 

W. W. Rostow, The United States in the Korld Arena 
(New Yorlc: Harper & Rev:, i960), p. 422. 


result in a military occupation until such tine as Russia 
would be no longer interested in seeing superficial compli- 
ance with a Soviet-imposed social system. An American mili- 
tary victory would eliminate the necessity for the European 
agreements sought by the United States, as there is no need 
for the vanquished to asree to actions taken by "the victor. 
It is possible that the expressed cold war objectives may have 
been of high importance to the participants at one time, but 
their lack of attainability over the years has decreased what 
importance they may have had. Also tending to decrease their 
importance is the ease with which their unattainability can 
be accepted, provided no public admission is made of it. 

The willingness to carry on their conflict within the 
cold war system has been signified by both the United States 
and Russia through the efforts of each to avoid a direct mil- 
itary confrontation between them. This has taken the form, 
in head-to-head situations such as the Berlin blockade and 
later the Cuban missile crisis, of never placing the opponent 
in a situation from which there is no way out but to fight. 
In indirect confrontations such as Iran in 1953, Hungary in 
1956, and Lebanon and Jordan in 1953, it has taken the form 
in which the creat p v/er first intervening in a le^al manner 
will not be opposed later by the other. In Suez in 1956, 

neither power was able to get into a position whereby he could 
openly intervene, by invitation of Nasser, under conditions 
that would have to be accepted by the other. At the same time, 
Joint action by the United States and Russia prevented suc- 
cessful intervention by others. 


Objectives of cold war. Historically, war3 have been 
fought for almost every imaginable reason; but the basic and 
immediate objectives of warfare have always been the same. 
The basic objective of warfare is to make one's enemy do what 
one wants him to do, or to destroy his ability or his will to 
resist the carrying out of whatever designs one may have on 
him. In a parallel manner, the basic objective of cold war 
can be termed as that of demons tra tine to one's enemy the fu- 
tility of his resisting your designs on him by means other 
than ones of intolerable violence, and that in opposing your 
designs he is in a minority position to you and all those 
other nations who support your point of view. 

The immediate objective of warfare has in the past been 
the destruction of the enemy's army; in more recent years there 
has been added to this the occupation and control of the ter- 
ritory of the enemy. In the cold war system thi3 objective 

has to be scaled down to a level commensurate with the weapons 
used. On tills level the immediate objective of cold war is 
the spreading of one's influence over real estate and the in- 
habitants of that real estate, generally, but not necessarily, 
at the expense of one's enemy. This can be done by maneuvering 
to brinr; abcut the political, economic, and moral isolation of 
one's opponent, in part through a demonstration to the uncom- 
mitted or about-to-be committed world of the superiority of 
one's own national ideology and institutions to those of the 
opponent, as veil as the superiority of one's national power. 
Thi3 must be cone in such a manner as to avoid a direct mili- 
tary confrontation, and the resulting chance of total war, be- 
tween oneself and one's opponent. 

Modern technological developments have reduced the 
necessity for the above objectives of cold v/ar to be capable 
of beinjj gained by the means used. In the past, wars have 
generally resulted in the attainment of their basic and im- 
mediate objectives by one of the participating nations; and 
when neither was successful the war was considered a draw, a 
solution was negotiated, and all major participating states 
were assured of their continued survival. In the present age, 
it is generally considered that the most likely results of 
all-out nuclear vrar between the United States and Russia would 


be the attainment of the above objectives by neither of the 
participants but possibly by a tiiird party who remained un- 
involved during hostilities, and the rmitual destruction rather 
than the survival of the major participants. Prom this alter- 
native, the objectives of cold war do not/have to be attain- 
able; they Just have to be as nearly attainable as they would 
be by other means, v/hile being less costly to pursue. 

Requirements to participat e. ISie nature of cold war as 
it was developed before 195j and refined since then places 
certain requirements upon those nations who would participate 
in it. The requirements concern the nation itself, the op- 
ponent, and the prize sought. They can be listed as follows: 
1. A legitimate reason for conflict with one's oppon- 
ent. This can be a conflict of interest, of prestige, or of 
ideology, all of which have been reasons for wars between na- 
tions in the past. The limits upon this reason for conflict 
to malce it a reason for cold war are that it must not be of 
vital interest to the nation concerned for then more violent 
means would probably be resorted to irnediately regardless of 
possible cost, or it must not be an issue easily resolved by 
compromise or mediation. Ideally it should be an issue whose 
resolution is not urgent but which is able to arouse the nation- 
alistic sentiments of the people and keep them aroused over an 


extended period of time. 

2. A national ideology. The nature of cold war makes 
ideology a necessary element In it. Since the objective of 
cold war is the conversion of third parties to one's point of 
vie:-/ and against the point of view of one's opponent, ideology 
provides a messianic impulse in a nation and a basis upon 
which to appeal to the world. National ideology can take many 
forms — communism, democracy, Zionism, pan-Arabism — its only 
requirement is some kind of -ism or anti-ism to which people 
of third countries are more likely to emotionally or intellec- 
tually respond than they are to the national interest of a 
nation other than their own. 

3. Enough national power that the cold war participant 
will be taken seriously by the opponent and the v/orld that he 
is trying to convert to his point of view. This precludes the 
possibility of cold war between a large, powerful nation and 
one that is small and weak. This would be so because the small 
nation v/ould be unlikely to have the capability of doing in- 
Jury to the large one by cold war means, while the large one 
v/ould have little incentive to refrain from military action. 

4. A prize to be won. Some other nations of the v/orld 
must not be so concerned with other things that they remain 
unaware or inattentive to the conflict in spite of all efforts 


made to atract their notice. Cold war is basically a struggle 
for allies to assist in the massing of world opinion and eco- 
nomic and social pressure against one's opponent; therefore, 
there must be in the world some potential allies who are wil- 
ling to be courted and capable cfbeing won. 

5. Bipolarity. *.»hile not absolutely necessary for 
cold war participation, a situation of at least temporary or 
partial bipolarity is of great value. By bipolarity here is 
meant a condition whereby a third nation is in such a position 
that it is forced to choose the friendship and support of one 
or the other of cold war opponents; it cannot afford to choose 
neither. This is best illustrated at the present day by the 
case of Russia and China, presently vying for the leadership 
of world communism. Communist parties throughout the world 
that are not in power, and frequently those that are in power, 
still need outside support/ and this support must come from 
either Russia or China. These two nations are, therefore, 
able, if it is to their advantage, to force others to choose 
between them. 

6. Reason to choose cold war over the alternatives of 
either hot war or negotiation for the resolution of conflict. 
Participation in cold war could take place for either positive 
or negative reasons, or both. The negative reason, the most 


simple, is the desire to avoid the mutual destruction of nu- 
clear war, and this desire must be greater than any urgency to 
resolve the issues of conflict. Reasons for choosing cold war 
over negotiation could be the hope of improving a ne~ctiatinc 
position through the use of cold war methods, -a lack of desire 
to resolve the issue at question or a knowled3e that any pos- 
sible solution acceptable to one side would be unacceptable to 
the other, or the desire for the maintenance of a wartime at- 
mosphere for its contribution to the development of internal 
consensus or the holding close of reluctant allies. 

The rules of conduct . By 195^ the rules for the con- 
duct of the cold war had developed into a pattern of sorts. 
This pattern was not ri^id, and it was not officially accepted 
by either of the competins powers. It was entirely a result 
of tacit agreements between the United States and Russia, and 
it included areas such as the limiting of war in which even 
tacit agreement was lacking. Each time a nation acted in 
accord with the established pattern, that nation did so because 
to do so wa3 in the national interest at that particular time 
and place with consideration given to the materials available; 
and there was no apparent concern £iven to the development of 
a system of conflict. Yet the pattern did exist, and every 
action accepted by the cold war opponent contained within 

itself the likelihood of its repetition by either side. Once 
the precendent was established, action within the pattern 
tended to become safer and easier, especially so as the pos- 
sibility of winning the cold war became more and more remote. 

By 1956 the pattern of cold v;ar conduct included at- 
tempts to win allies to one's side and to isolate one's op- 
ponent by any means short of direct military activity. Sub- 
version, espionage, and other covert means of projection of 
power were becoming accepted by both sides, with the under- 
standing that these attempts could be quelled by the govern- 
ment concerned by any means available to it and with the sup- 
port, but not the direct intervention unless by invitation, 
of the cold war opponent. Any internal disturbance which had 
been brought about by cold war maneuvering in a country would 
be handled as an internal matter, with or without great power 
support, and retaliation would not be carried across the bor- 
ders of the country concerned. There was given practical 
acceptance by this time to the freedom of action of either 
great power, without organized interference by the other, in 
the territory under its direct control, and to the informal 
designation of the vast area of the world controlled by neither 
as the area of battle. There was also the question of limited 
war between one great power and forces directly supported by 


the other, but the implied rules for limitation of war cannot 
be said to be sufficiently developed, especially in areas of 
vital security interest to either the United States or to 
Russia, to contain adequate guidelines for the future. 

Keeping in mind the tacit quality of the rules and 
precedents of cold war and the qualifying statements already 
> made about thef^ it is possible to list the major guidelines 
of cold v/ar conduct. They are as follows: 


I. Thou Shalt not become involved in a direct military 
confrontation with thine enemy. 

II. Thou shall not meddle overtly in the affairs of thine 
enemy on his ovm territory, nor shalt thou send thy soldiers 
into places already occupied by the soldiers of thine enemy. 
(Soldiers of a satellite nation or other acceptable third 
party may be sent, if they are available and conditions favor 
sending them.) 

III. Thou shalt make all thy moves with caution, to convince 
thine enemy of thy (immediately) limited intent. 

IV. Thou shalt not press thine advantages to their fullest, 
lest thine enemy be forced into acts of desperation. 

V. Thou shalt make war on thine enemy only by means not 
directly traceable to thyself. 


VI. Thou shalt set someone else to do thy dirty work. 

VII. Thou shalt not confess to any action detrimental to the 
Interests of thine enemy, even if thou art caught red-handed 
at it. 

VIII. Thou shalt remain in communication with thine enemy at 
all times. 

IX. If thou shouldst become Involved in a direct military 
confrontation v/ith thine enemy,, thou shalt take immediate steps 
to lower the tensions regardless of the attainment of other 
objectives; and thou shalt expect thine enemy to do the same. 

X. Thou shalt accept as unalterable by military force any 
minor chances in the power balance brought about by enemy ac- 
tion within the limits of the above commandments. 

'Jinnin;; in cold war . No nation has ever won a cold 
war, so there Is no basis in fact from which to extrapolate 
the position to be held by such a victor. When the objectives 
and the 15,mits of the cold war system are considered, it is 
doubtful that a nation would be desirous of o°lnj so far as 
to win; at least the powers that have so far been invloved in 
cold war have shown no eaccrncss to do so. V/hile victory, how- 
ever, may not be important in cold war, the process of winning 
certainly is; and the system does provide a method of keeping 
score and of tolling which side is In the process of winning at 


any particular Moment. 

Scorelceepin^ in the cold v:ar is done initially by ex- 
pressed world opinion; and later, in an extreme case, it could 
be determined by the tangible effects of the increasing or de- 
creasing influence on the world scene of a competing power. 
ScorekeepinG by world opinion is done through indication of 
preference by other nations for the institutions of one cold 
war opponent over those of the other, and by increasingly close 
tics between formerly uncommitted nations and one opponent 
at the expense of the other. 

SSie process of winning in the Soviet-American cold war 
has come to be measured by the portion of the world and its 
people over which the influence of either of the competing 
powers is felt, and this can be roughly translated into the 
number and strength of either pov/er' s allies at any £iven time. 
Alliances with one of the cold war powers can be reflected 
through treaties or the Granting of such privileges as mil- 
itary bases, but they are more often determined through such 
things as voting in the United Nations or even favorable treat- 
ment of a competing power in the press of a third country. 
Informal alliances reflected through IEJ voting or press treat- 
ment are usually unstable and highly vulnerable to chancing 
circumstances, so the score of the United States or Russia in 

cold war competition can change almost from day to day. Louis 
Tischer considered this when he said that there could be no 
cold war if all states now aliened with one or the other of the 

great powers were unalterably or hopelessly aligned and if all 


unaligned governments were unalterably neutral. 

Aside from territor}^ gained as a determination of stand- 
ins in a cold war, there seems to be some modification, either 
as a bonus or as a penalty, given by world opinion in recog- 
nition of the methods used to sain the territory. The Soviets 
have been considered to have "paid a dear price for the re- 
conquest of Hungary in the loss of support they suffered from 
sympathetic states in the Western and non-Western worlds, in 
the loss of confidence from satellite regimes, and in the in- 
creased efforts they were henceforth required to make in or- 
der to maintain their satellite empire."^ At the very least, 
it is possible for a single incident to be productive of ter- 
ritorial sain for one side and a balancing propaganda victory 
for the other. 

As an outgrowth of cold war scorekeeping, there arises 
a weakness in the system because of its requirement for nations 

Louis Fischer, Russia , America ar.d the World (New York: 
Harper C: Brothers, i960), p. 4. 

Charles C, Lerche, The Cold War . . . And After , (Engle- 
wood Cliffs: Frentice Hall, Inc., 1963), P. lO'l. 

that can be enticed into indicating a preference between 
cold war opponents. A cold war cannot be carried on success- 
fully between two nations unless soneone else will pay atten- 
tion to their struc^le. Even more bothersome to competing 
nations is the ease with which cold v/ar lends itself to beinc; 
turned to the advantage of powers other than those directly 
involved in it. This has been particular^' evident in the 
handling of economic warfare and foreign economic assistance. 
Neutral or non-committed nations today all too frequently take 
assistance from both cold v/ar participants for their own pur- 
poses and do not Give support to either except where the cold 
war participant is acting directly in accord with the interests 
of the neutral. Ilasser of E^ypt was the pioneer in this pat- 
tern of action; but he has since been joined by Afghanistan, 
Pakistan, India, and others. The situation at the present day 
has reached the point where the United States and Russia, 
lacking the bipolar! ty still remaining in the Sino-Soviet 
conflict, are becoming quite disillusioned about the value of.* 
forei£n economic assistance as a weapon against one another. 

Ending cold war. Given the unlikelihood of any nation 
winning a cold war in absolute terms and the fact that no cold 
v/ar started since 19^5 has been brought to a conclusion, any 
Judgment on the ending of a cold war will have to be based on 


speculation. In the course of the Soviet- American and Sino- 
Soviet cold wars, each nation has made ideological committments 
that it would find extremely difficult to break. It is quite 
possible that the interests of the competing nations, through 
the necessity to unite in the face of a common threat or the 
arising of business more important than the prosecution of 
that particular international quarrel, would incline them away 
from the active participation in cold war and into other pur- 
suits. In this case it is most likely that the substantive 
issues over which a cold war is being waged would decline in 
relative importance, and the ideological issues would tend to 
gradually become ignored rather than renounced. In this way 
a cold war could be brought to an end without a victory for 
either side. There have been occasional signs of this happen- 
ing in the Soviet-American cold war, but every time so far 
something has come up to return it to a more important posi- 
tion in the relations between the two states. 

Overview . The foregoing analysis has attempted to show 
that there has been developing in the years since the end of 
the Second VJorld War a new pattern of conflict tailored specif- 
ically to the age in which it has been taking place. The 
analysis describes a pattern of action, a record of the actions 
of two great powers over a space of almost ten years, which by 

2 31 

its completeness as a conceptual whole is capable of belnc 
viewed as a system of conflict distinct from nuclear war or 
limited war or any other system of conflict. The rules of 
cold war have been enforceable only Inasmuch as they have been 
In accord with the interests of the competing powers, and ac- 
tion will cease to be in accord with them as soon as the action 
they prescribe becomes contrary to the interests of the states 
involved. One of the more remarkable things about the cold 
war system as a v/hole is its stability, . the fact that it con- 
tinues to be used even by nations other than those through 
whose actions it came to be, and in spite of its obvious 
short coming. 



The limits of the system . For some time after 1956 
the cold war stayed comfortably within its limits. The Kid- 
East interventions of 1953 were respected by Russia. Khrush- 
chev's withdrawal of his ultimatum on Berlin in 1959 avoided 
a major confrontation, and the American failure to admit open 
involvement in the Bay of Pigs episode did the same thing. 
The Berlin wall demonstrated the Soviet freedom of action with- 
in their own territory and the acceptance by the United States 
of Soviet dominance behind the iron curtain. The war in Viet 
Nam was not escalated, partly because of the lack of guidelines 
in the system for the escalation into limited or unlimited war. 
Then came the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. 

In the Cuban missile affair, the Russians did not ex- 
ceed the bounds of the cold war system by having missiles in 
Cuba; their military value was minor compared to the nuclear 
striking power possessed by either great power. '.There they 
exceeded the limits of the system was in flaunting these mis- 
siles in the face of the United States after their initial 
discovery had been made and thereby turning an annoying Russian 


satellite of limited value into a direct affront to American 
security and, more directly, to American prestige as a great 
power . 

Before the speech by President Kennedy, the United 
States made war preparations sufficient to convince Russia 
that she was willing to fight if necessary to have this threat 
to her well-being removed from Cuba. Any action on the part 
of the United States would be directed entirely against the 
missiles in Cuba, but because of Russia's inability to defend 
this area by any limited means the fighting could not stop in 
Cuba without a serious prestige loss to the Soviet Union. At 
the same time, President Kennedy's political demands upon Rus- 
sia were moderate. She would be required only to remove the 
offensive weapons from Cuba, and there would be no on-site 
inspection to ensure that all the weapons were taken away. 
The demands left the implication that some missiles could be 
left behind, so long as a reasonable number were removed and 
any left behind were not situated so as to be visible to Amer- 
ican reconnaissance aircraft. Once these requirements had been 
met, Russia was effectively prohibited from making any cold war 
capital from whatever missiles, if any, she had remaining in 

The Cuban missile crisis demonstrated that there can 


arise situations of national status or security which are be- 
yond the capacity of the cold war system to handle. These 
situations must be avoided when possible. Once involved in 
such a situation, one power has to retreat; but that retreat 
must be made as painless as possible by the other. Here the 
common interest of both powers in the avoidance of an intol- 
erable level of violence must override whatever national power 
interest each is pursuing. The common interest in the avoid- 
ance of nuclear hostitities in the Cuban missile crisis was 
effective in bringing the cold v/ar opponents to cooperate to 
reduce the level of international tension; no one is ea^er to 
again push this common interest to the extent it was pushed 

Evaluation of the system . Like any other systematic 
pattern of action, the cold war system of conflict has its 
strengths and its weaknesses. The first strensth of the cold 
war system is that it does provide a channel for the expres- 
sion of conflict between nations. In the past this wa3 not 
so important; but in the present day, to use the words of 
Charles 0. Lerche, the provision of a channel by which nations 
can "conduct conflict that is tense, permanent, and wide- 
ran^ins in an era of total ideologies and hydrogen bomb3 with- 
out blowing everyone to bits is a major accomplishment." 

Charles 0. Lerche, The Cold V/ar ... And After (En^le- 
wood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc., 193FL p. 3^. 


As well as providing a means for conflict expression, 
the cold war system has the capability of bringing about the 
resolution of minor issues between nations. Toward this end 
its techniques may be a way of mobilizing world opinion to 
encourage settlement of an issue by arbitration or other non- 
violent means more favorable to one side than the other. For 
larger issues, it could theoretically make the influence of 
one competing power sufficiently greater than his opponent; 
that the issue at stake would be thereby reduced in importance, 
if net resolved. 

Already mentioned has been the value of cold war to the 
government of a competing power for its effect on the internal 
political conditions of a nation. It allows a government to 
exercise wartime powers without facing wartime dangers. It 
permits expression of the dissatisfaction of a nation with the 
conduct of another state through a method easier than that of 
war, and it can assist in the maintenance of an internal con- 
sensus in support of the government in power. A cold war in 
progress can be of value also in the maintenance of alliances 
which give economic or other benefit but which would tend to 
disintegrate in the absence of an external threat. 

The principal weaknesses of cold war as a system of con- 
flict would appear to be its expensivencss, its indecisivness, 


the dangers Involved in Its conduct, and its susceptability to 
use by others. Cold war in all its ramifications, from pres- 
tige competition in space to the maintenance of large estab- 
lishments for foreign propaganda and economic assistance, Is 
a costly business; and It draws upon funds that could be put 
to more productive use in other fields. While the cold war 
may be theoretically capable of resolving issues, the exper- 
ience of the Soviet-American and Sino-Soviet conflicts has 
shown that little can be expected to be resolved by cold war 
means. There is danger involved in the prosecution of cold 
war, for although the possibility of Inadvertant hot war can 
be kept small, it cannot be entirely eliminated. Finally, 
there is the frustrating experience of watching a neutral ac- 
cept assistance without giving acceptable political behavior 
in return or being able, through the threat of giving support 
to the cold war opponent, to force a great power to act con- 
trary to its own Interests in support of the neutral. 

The deciding factor In favor of the continued existence 
of cold war as a system of conflict is a comparison between it 
and its alternative as a system of conflict for this age. The 
cold war is not inexpensive, but it is less expensive even 
than the conventional wars of the past. It is indecisive, but 
so have been other wars fought for intangible objectives; and 


the best prospect available to even an exhausted victor of a 
future nuclear exchange would be to be ripe for domination by 
a power that had not participated in the exchange. The inten- 
sity of cold war has to be controlled at least at the upper 
limit,, but in the age of the balance of nuclear terror it is 
in the interest of the survival of all states to exercise 
this control. The system does allow the possibility of making 
limited ^ains while conducting and articulating a great-power 
conflict through relatively non-destructive means; and this 
small. capability, set against its alternative, gives the sys- 
tem its value at the present day. 

Applicability for today . At the present tine there are 
two cold wars being waged In the world. Each has been in ex- 
istence for some years and shows no signs of soon coming to 
an end. Simultaneously, there are several other international 
disagreements, those between the United States and France, 
Indonesia and Ifelaysia, and Israel and the Arab world, whose 
expression involves some of the techniques of cold war but 
fail to meet some of the requirements of the system. In the 
contemporary world the cold war system of conflict has been 
providing a relief valve for the expression of great-power 
conflict, and the experience of the participating nations has 
demonstrated their ability to draw some satisfaction from it. 


The cold war system has served as a vehicle of expression of 
conflicting interests of the participating nations, as well as 
for the airing of uncor.proniseable ideological differences 
that are not amenable to resolution by any means and whose 
resolution is not really required in the normal relations be- 
tween states. Until there is found a better method of airinj 
and expressing conflict or until ideology declines in impor- 
tance in the makeup of national states, it can be expected that 
the cold war system will continue to serve its present func- 
tion in international affairs. 



1. Documentary Sources 

Control Commission for Germany (British Element). Motes on 
the Blockade of Berlin . Berlin, February, 1949. 

Office of Military Government, U. S. Sector, Berlin. 3erlin 
Sector : A Four-Year Report , July 1 , 1945 — September 1 , 
1949 . Berlin, ipo. 127 P. . 

United States Congress, Senate, Committee on Armed Services 
and the Comriittee on Foreign Relatione. Military Situ - 
ation in the Far East . Hearings before the committees. 
82nd Congress, 1st Session. Washington: Government 
Printing Office, 1951. 3^91 P. 

Senate, Committee of Foreign Relations. Events in 

the Middle East . 85th Congress, 1st Session. Washington: 
Government Printing Office, 1957. 25 P. 

, House of Representatives. Select Committee on Com- 

munist Agression. Report of the Subcommittee to Inves - 
tigate Communist Agression in Latin America . 33rd Con- 
gress, 2nd Session. Washington: Government Printing 
Office, 1954. 18. p. 

United States Department of State. American Foreign Policy , 
1950 - 1955 . Washington: Government Printing Office, 1957. 
Two Volumes, 3245 p. 

. American-Soviet Political Relations , January 6 , 1947 - 

May 12 , 1948 . Extracts from Department df State Bulletin. 
Washington: Government Printing Office, 1948. 102 p. 

. The Berlin Crisis: A Report on the Moscow Discussions . 

Washington: Government Printing Office, 1948. 6l p. 

_. Confuse and Control ( Soviet Techniques in Germany ) 

Washington: Government Printing Office, 1951. 107 p. 


. The Geneva Conference of Heads of Government ; July 
18-23 , 1955 . Washington: Government Printing Office, 
1955. B8~p. 

. A Case History of Communist Penetration : Guatemala. 

Washington: Government Printing Office, 1957. 73 P. 

2. Memoirs 

Clark, Mark tf. Prom the Danube to the Yalu . New York: Harper 
& Brothers, 1954. 369 P. 

Clay, Lucius D. Decision in Germany . Garden City: Doubleday 
& Company, Inc., 1950. 522 p. 

Howley, Prank. Berlin Command . New York: Putnam's Sons, 1950. 
256 p. - 

Jones, Joseph II. The Fifteen Weeks , ilew York: The Viking 
Press, 1955. 296 p. 

Joy, C. Turner. How Communists Negotiate . New York: The Mac- 
nillan Company, 1955. 175 p. 

Hillis, Walter (ed.). The Porrestal Diaries . New York: The 
Viking Press, 1951. 5^Tp^ 

Truman, Harry .'£ Memoirs by Harry S. Truman . Garden City: 
Doubleday Co Company, 195^>. Two Volumes, 1190 p. 

Smith, Walter Bedell. My_ "Three Years in Moscow . New York: 
J. P. Lipplncott, 1950. 346 p. 

3. Periodical Sources 

United Nations, Department of Public Information. United 
Kations Bulletin . 

United Nations, Security Council. Official Record . 

Soviet Embassy, Washington, D. C. USSR Information Bulletin . 

United States Department of State. Department of State Bulle- 



1. General Works 

A^ar, Herbert. The Price of Power. Chicago: University of 
Chicago Press, 1957. 200 p. 

Carr, Edward Hallett. International Relations Between the 
Two World »fers . London: MacIIillan & Company, LTD., 
19^3. 303 P. 

Cochran, Bert. The liar System . Hew York: The Kacmillan 
Company, 1965. 274 p. 

Crabb, Cecil V. American Foreign Policy in the Nuclear Age . 
Evanston: Row, Peterson, & Company, i960. 532 p. 

Dallin, David J. Soviet ?orei3n Policy After Stalin . Phil- 
adelphia: J. P. Lippincott Company, l§5l" p3 p. 

Donovan, Robert J. Eisenhower : The Inside Story . New York: 
Harper & Brothers, 1955. 423 p. 

Fischer, Louis. Russia , America , and the World . Hew York: 
Harper £ Brothers, i960. 244 p. 

Graebner, Horman A. Cold War Diplomacy . Princeton: Van 
. Host rand Company, Inc., 1952. 191 p. 

(ed.) The Cold War . Boston: D. C. Heath and Com- 

pany, 1963. 105 P 

Holborn, Ha jo. The Political Collapse of Europe . Hew York: 
Alfred A. Knopf, 1951. 207 p. 

Huntinjton, Samuel P. The Common Defense . Hew York: Columbia 
University Press, l§Sl. 500 p. 

Kcnnan, Cccr~e ?. On Dealing with the Communist World. Hew 
York: Harper £ Row, 1954. 57 P. 

. Russia and the './est Under Lenin and Stalin . Boston: 
Little, Drown, & Co., 1Q61T 5ll p. 

Lerche, Charles 0., Jr. The Cold War ... And After . En^lewood 
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 19^5. 150. p. 


Luard, Evan (ed.) The Cold \Jar : A Re- Appraisal . Hew York: 
Praeger, 1964. 34? p. 

Lukacs, John. A History of the Cold War . Garden City: Double- 
day & Company, 1952. 348 p. 

Killis, './alter and Janes Real. The Abolition of War . New 
York: The Macmillan Company, 19%T. 217 p. 

Osgood, Robert E. Limited War . Chicago: University of Chicago 
Press, 1957. 315 P. 

Ro3tow, Walt V;. The United States in the World Arena . New 
York: Harper & Row, i960. 532 pp. 

View From the Seventh Floor . New York: Harper £; 

Row, 19&4, 178 p. 

Shulman, Marshall D. Stalin's Foreign Policy Reappraised . 
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963. 320 p. 

Snyder, Richard C. and Edgar 3. Furniss. American Foreign 
Policy . Hew York: Rinehart & Co., 19fPH 35(3 p. 

Tuchman, Barbara. The Guns of August . Hew York: The Mac- 
nillan Company, 1962. 511 p. 

2. Events of the Cold War 

Aerospace Studies Institute, Air University. Guerrilla War - 
fare and Airpower in Korea , 1950-53 * Maxwell Air Force 
Base, Alabama, 19637 243 p. 

Adans, Michael. Suez and After . Boston: Beacon Press, 1953. 
225 P. . . 

Bennett, Lowell. Berlin 3astion . Frankfurt: Fricdrich Ruhl, 
1951. 253 p. 

Cagle, Malcon W., and Frank A Manson. Sea War in Korea . 

Annapolis: United States Naval Institute, 1957. 555P. 

Davidson, W. Phillips. The Berlin Blockade . Princeton: 
Princeton University Press, 1957~i ^Z p. 

Fehrenbach, T. R. This Kind of War . Mew York: The Macmillan 
Company, 19$3. 689 p. 


Tield j Janes A. History of United States "aval Operations — 
Korea . Washington: Government Printing Office, 1952. 

Finer, Herman. Dulles Over Suez . Chicago: Quadrangle 3ooks, 
1964. 533 p. 

Good e- Adams, Richard. John Foster Dulles — A Reappraisal . 

New York: Appleton-Century-Crof ts, Inc., 1962. ' 309 p. 

James j Daniel. lied Design for the Americans : Guatemalan Pre - 
lude . New York: John Day Co., 1956. 347 p. 


Jensen, Any Elizabeth. Guatemala : A Historical Survey. 
York: Exposition Press, 1955. 263 p. 

Laqueur, Walter Z. 'The Soviet Union and the Kiddle East . 

Hew York: Praer;er, 1959. 355 p. _ „ 

Leckie, Robert. Conflict: The History of the Korean Uar . 
New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1952. 443 p. 

Marlowe, John. Arab Nationalism and British Imperialism . 
New York: Prae^er, 1951. 235 p. 

Marts, John D. Communist Infiltration in Guatemala . New 
York: Vantage Press, 1956. 125 p. 

Poats, Rutherford ?.. Decision in Korea . New York: The 
McBride Company, 1955. 340 p. 

Rees, David. Korea: The Limited Uar . New Yor!c: St. Martin's 
Press, 1954. 511 P. 

Schneider, Ronald M. Communism in Guatemala . New York: 
Praetor, 1953. 350 p. 

Spanier, John U. The gruna n - Ma c Ar t hu r Controversy and the 
Korean Uar . Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1959. 311 p. 

Stebbins, Richard P. (ed.) The United States in Uorld Affairs , 
1954. New York: Harper & Brothers, 195c 

Stone, I. F. The Hidden History of the Korean War. New York: 
Monthly Review Press, 1952. 364 p. 


United States Military Academy, Operations in F.orca . West 
Point: United states Military Academy Print ina Office, 
1954. 50 p. 

Uniting, Allen 3. China Crosses the Yalu . Mew York: The 
Kacmillan Company, i960. 219 P. 

V/int, Guy and Peter Calvocoressi. Middle £ast Crisis. 

Kanmondsirorth, Middlesex: Penguin Looks, 1957. 141 p. 

Political Warfare 

Acheson, Dean. Meetings at the Summit : A Study in Diplomatic 
Method . Durham, IT. II.: University of New Hampshire Press, 

Atkinson, James D. The Sd^e of V/ar . Chicago: Henry Re^nery 
Company, i960. 313 p. 

Bar^hoorn, Frederick C. Soviet Foreign Propaganda . Princeton: 
Princeton University Press, 1954. 329 p. 

Bell, Coral. Negotiation From Strength : A Study in the Poli - 
tics of Pov:er . Hew York: Alferd A. Knopf, Inc., 1963. 

Dulles, Allen. The Craft of Intelligence . Hew York: Harper 
& Row, 1963. 277 P. 

Paramo, Ladiolas. Uar of Nits . New York: Funk & Na~nalls 
Co., 1954. 379 P. 

Goldwin, Robert A. (ed.) \!h? Foreign Aid ? Chicago: Rand 
Kcllally, 1963. 140 p. 

Gordon, George N., Irving ?~11:, and William Hodapp. The Idea 
Invaders . Hew York: Hastings House, 1953. 255 p. 

Hcle, Fred Charles. Ho 1 .: ! T ations Negotiate . Mew York: Harper 
fc Row, 19o4. 274 p. 

Overstrcet, Harry and Bonaro. The Nar Called Peace . Mew Yorlc: 
W. \! m Norton C: Company, Inc., 195l"^ §33 p. 

Posscny, Stefan T. A Century of Conflict . Chicago: Eenry 
Re^nery Co., 1953T 439 p. 


Qualtor, Terence H. Propaganda and Psychological "'arfare . 
lieu York: Random House, IS 52. 175 p. 

Hanson, Barry Kov/e. Central Intelligence and National 3 sour - 
ity. Car.brid-e: Harvard University Press, 195-'. 2-7 P« 

Schellin^, Thomas C. The Strategy of Conflict . Cambridge: 
Harvard University Press, i960. 309 p. 

Scott, John. Political Warfare (A Guide to Competitive Co- 
existence* )^ I lev/ Yorlc: 'The John Day Company, 1955. 255p. 

Smith, Howard K., et. al. The Ruble War . Buffalo: Smith, 
Keynes, and Marshall, 1953. 71 p. 

Spanier, John W. and Joseph L. Ho^ee. The Politics of ns - 
arrnancnt : A Study in Soviet- American Gamesr.ians.iip . 
Hew York: Praemer, 19^2^ 225 p. 

Strachey, John. On the Prevention of War . London: riasnlllan, 
1962. 334 p. 

Strausz-Haupe, Robert, et. al. Protracted Conflict . !r«? 
Yor!:: Harper & Row, 1959. 203 p. 

Tully, Andrew. CIA : The Inside Story . New York: Y.lllian 
i:orrov: and Company, 1952. 27 o p. 

Warburm, Jar.C3 P. How to Co-B::ist Without Playing the ;Cr?n - 
lin's Game . Boston: Beacon Press, 1952. 22o p. 

Wise, David, and Thomas B. Ross. The Invisible Government . 
Hew Yor!:: Random House, 1954, 375 p. 

*• Pericdical Sources 

Atyeo, Henry C. "Political Developments in Iran, 1951-1954" 
Middle Eastern Affairs, Vol. V, Hoc. 8-9 (Aucust-Ssptem- 

"Developments o? the Quarter: Comment and Chronolosy* --- 
Fall of Ilossadeq." Kiddle ^ast Journal , VIII, No. 1 
(Winter, 1954), 59. 

Miller, 2. ::. "Troubled Oil and Iran." United Statos ::aval 

Institute Proceedings . Volume 30 (November, 1954) ll39ff . 


lieu Yorl: 

U. 3. I lews and T ..'crld Report 

5. Unpublished ratcrial 

Uisbet, Andre;;. "The Berlin Blockade" Unpublished I. aster's 
thesis, Columbia University, Hew Yorl:, 1953. 59 p.