The unity of the two great nations in World War 2 had brought hope and eventually victory to the allies, and the suffering people of the world. However, surely the ‘unnatural alliance’ between the USSR and the USA couldn’t last? The vast ideological gap, a difference in the leading figures contributed to the breakdown of friendship after the defeat of a common foe. Not only this, but it seems that the difference and change of the leading political figures, as well as the fear of spreading communism meant that the alliance was almost certain to fall apart.
It is almost an undeniable assumption that the alliance of the USSR and USA was, as historian Caroline Kennedy-Pipe says, it was an ‘alliance of desperation, not trust’, and thus it …show more content…

Being mostly technologically weak as well as having weak borders, it seems fair to say that Russia had some right to feel vulnerable after being consistently attacked throughout the years. Because of this, Stalin sought security through gaining territory, rather than by other means – many of his advisors such (such as Litvinov) were dismissed. It would appear that this is the most important factor, as (although Wilson proposed collective security) both superpowers felt the need countries around them – thus creating spheres of influence of east and west. This shows that both sides were to blame in this factor, and it seems that the post revisionist Mark 1 supports this by saying that ‘neither polarity can be blamed entirely’.
An idea that, for the most part, supports the essay’s proposition is that the personalities heavily contributed to the breakdown of cooperation after the war. During WW2, the relationship between Stalin and President Roosevelt had developed to the extent that they could be considered friends – with Roosevelt believing that the Russians were ‘good people’. However, Roosevelt's failing health, and death by the Potsdam Agreements in July 1945, meant that he was replaced by Harry Truman, who made it clear that he was very against Russia and the soviets. He stopped programs such as lend lease (the lending of war materials), as well as denying