The United States was primarily responsible for instigating the Cold War

In this round, I will primarily be rebutting my opponent's arguments - both from his opening statements and first rebuttals. To begin his opening arguments, my opponent asserts that the Truman Doctrine is 'widely considered' to be the "starting point" of the Cold War. My opponent makes a rather odd argument here - he asserts that the Soviets and Soviet-backed states had no involvement in Greece, but argues that the US support of the Greek government in its fight against communists is what sparked the Cold War. If he is true, that argument is nonsensical - if the Soviets had no stake in the Greek Civil War, why would they care if the US opposed the communists? The only reason the Soviets would care is if they stood to gain from the situation. Far from a 'jealous move' by the US in fear the Soviets would expand their sphere of influence (far from an invalid fear, really), the Truman Doctrine was a logical response to Soviet expansionism and a valid support mechanism for the free countries of Europe - the goal wasn't to expand democracy at the expense of communism, but to contain communism by protecting the democratic states against Eastern-backed communist insurgents. But, more bizarrely, my opponent seems to completely misunderstand the containment policy. He asserts - without any evidence - that containment was "the American practice of trying to spread Democracy and Capitalism to as many countries as possible in order to hinder the spread of Communism and Soviet expansion in general". That is rubbish. The containment policy was not designed to push back Russia out of it's satellite states - far from it. The American people had no interest in another ground war. Rather, the goal was to stop Soviet expansionism by supporting the established governments in countries where communists were attempting to usurp power. [1] My opponent also asserts the Korean and Vietnam wars were caused by the United States, which is bizarre - I established in my opening statements that "the Soviets encouraged communist North Korea to attack non-communist South Korea. Although North Korea did the fighting, the USSR was responsible for the planning and initiation of the invasion". In Vietnam, the war was sparked not by the US, but by a conflict between communist Ho Chi Minh's guerrilla army and the French, who all sides (including the Soviet Union) agreed was the colonial power in the country. The French later withdrew, leaving the war to be between the Soviet-backed North Vietnam (led by Ho Chi Minh) and the Western-backed South Vietnam. [2] The misunderstanding of the cause of these wars is understandable, but not excusable. This can be best summed up when my opponent asserts that "the United States initiated the Truman Doctrine with virtually no prior Soviet aggression" - sure, if you exclude all the Eastern and Central European countries they took over and their support of communist revolutions in Asia and the Middle East. My opponent also notes the existence of NATO, arguing it helped spark the Cold War. I disagree - it would be fair to argue that NATO probably was an aggressive act, yes. However, the creation of it was due to the strong ties the member states had developed during World War II, as well as a reaction to the Soviet Berlin Blockade. [3] NATO was not an aggressive alliance, but a defensive one - if any nation of NATO was attacked, all nations of NATO would respond to defend them. Given the Soviet history of expansionism, this is a completely reasonable alliance model, one that the Soviets themselves copied with the creation of the Warsaw Pact. Of course, the difference between the two was that the nations of NATO were all sovereign, democratic and independent states, while the Warsaw Pact nations were all puppets of the USSR. Now, my opponent devotes the second portion of his opening to defending the USSR. He argues Stalin had no intentions of aligning against the US - this is an interesting concept, but one that isn't supported by history. Through the second World War, Stalin was very suspicious of the other two members of the Big Three (US and UK). He felt they had conspired to make Russia be the ones bearing the brunt of the ground war against Nazi Germany. [4] As I established in my opening statements, after the war, the nations all disagreed on how to best ensure their security - the Western states felt there should be free, democratic states that could resolve their differences through diplomacy, while the Soviets wanted to control the states surrounding them to increase their own security. [5] My opponent agrees the Berlin Blockade was the Soviet's fault, which is a key admission - the Berlin Blockade is regarded as the first escalation in the Cold War conflict. [6] The cause of the blockade wasn't the Truman doctrine, but the Soviet's dislike of the Western Allies' creation of a united West German currency. [6] As I established in my opening, Stalin feared a strong Germany. The cause here, accordingly, was Soviet fear - not the Truman Doctrine. I'll now begin my response to my opponent's rebuttals. Before he begins, my opponent notes I pin the blame for the Cold War on the USSR - this is only partially true. I place about equal blame on the USSR and Josef Stalin. In response to my assertions of Soviet expansionism, my opponent's response is a bit disappointing. He cannot rebut the fact that Soviets were aggressively expansive, but argues the US and other Western powers had expanded before, so there is nothing wrong with the Soviets doing it. Unfortunately, this fails for pretty obvious reasons - first off, it is a massive reversal from his opening round, where he argued the Soviets had no expansion. Second, the US and allies hadn't expanded in decades at most - the US had gotten rid of it's biggest colony, the Philippines, in 1946, and the UK was actively disposing of it's biggest colonies like India and Pakistan. This is the key difference - while the US and allies were letting nations decide their own fate, the Soviets were robbing people of their right to self-determination and, more importantly, were using their land as a buffer zone against the free states of Europe. Their expansion didn't cease, and would inevitably reach the borders of Western Europe. More importantly, he argues the expansion 'wasn't harming' the West - however, this is simply silly. The expansion of the Soviets into Eastern and Central Europe certainly harmed economic trade, national security, and territorial integrity. He argues that I attempt to paint the US as the hero, stopping evil Soviet expansionism, when in fact the West was just as bad and instigated the war. I've already rebutted this, but this is silly - the West and the USSR were not moral equivalents and, more importantly, it was the USSR - not the West - that instigated the Cold War through a relentless march of expansionism. In regards to the Berlin Blockade, my opponent's argument can be summed up as "Well, the Soviets were wrong, but they weren't that wrong". Bizarrely, he's argued I've presented my points without evidence (which is rubbish as everything is sourced). He asserts that the Marshall Plan was the result of an "irrational desire for containment on the part of the American government". My opponent had never given a reason why it is 'irrational' to not want communism to spread to western Europe, however. My opponent also argues that "The Marshall plan was certainly implemented with the intent of promoting democracy in potential regions of Soviet influence, so there was good reason for the Soviets to wish to prevent the flow of American aid to regions under their control". This is an interesting complaint - he seems to think it is bad the US wanted to give free money to everyone, and that the Soviets were justified in rejecting this free money because it could have 'spread democracy'. This is a narrow view of the situation, because the Marshall plan worked. From 1948 to 1952, Europe underwent its fastest period of growth in history. Both industrial and agricultural production increased dramatically, poverty went down, and standards of living were improved. It also provided political stability to the more unstable Western European countries. [7] You can judge for yourself if that is a bad thing - in my opponent's opinion, it seems he is fine with Soviet expansionism, but not fine with economic aid for Europe. In mine is inexcusable Stalin rejected this aid, as it would have vastly improved the quality of life in the Soviet satellite states and the USSR itself. But back to the Berlin blockade, my opponent simply has no ground to stand on here. The Soviets instigated in a power grab attempt, and they lost. Finally, my opponent attempts to dismiss my arguments on continuing Soviet expansionism throughout the Cold War, arguing "t matters not what happened during the war, but what *started* the war". This is silly. My opponent noted issues that went on during the war in his opening statements (in particular, the Korean and Vietnam wars), so he's being a bit hypocritical here. I extend all these points. I look forward to my opponent's conclusion. References:1. . http://www.ushistory.org...2. . http://www.historyplace.com...3. . http://www.ushistory.org...4. . https://en.wikipedia.org...5. . https://en.wikipedia.org...6. . http://www.coldwar.org...7. . https://en.wikipedia.org...