Source 2 certainly contradicts Gaddis’s central argument. Describing how Russia “emerged from war in ruins”; it clearly portrays how weak the USSR was in 1945 following WW2 with enormous losses (such as 27 million deaths). Due to this devastation suffered by Russia, Stalin was clearly in no position to provoke another war (especially with the USA, generally considered as the true victors of WW2 with minimal losses and a thriving economy). This therefore justifies Hobsbawm’s claim that the USSR had no “interest in antagonising” the USA and presents the more revisionist view that the USA was in fact responsible for the development of the Cold War. Source 1 however also alludes to this mentioning, how the USSR failed to account for the “evolving post-war objectives of the United States”. This inadvertedly connotes conflict with those of the USSR and consequently highlights America’s culpability. Source 3 supports this, outlining the USA’s objective as the maximisation of its “hegemony over world politics”. A clear example of this would be the introduction of the Marshall Plan in 1947. Whilst praised by Churchill as an “unselfish act”, one could argue that Marshall Aid was in fact a political weapon crafted by America to assert its dominance and indirectly attack the USSR. By exploiting the economic weakness of Western Europe, the Marshall Plan effectively rendered the European nations reliant upon the USA. However aid was also offered to Eastern Europe as long as certain conditions were met: i.e. the adoption of a capitalist framework. This clearly posed a threat to the Soviet sphere of influence and was a contributory factor to major crises such as the Berlin Blockade in 1948-49. Hence, it could be argued that the USA was the main offender in the development of the Cold War with the USSR’s actions merely in reaction to America’s advancement. However, this argument is compromised by the fact that perhaps the USA acted on perceptions and possible misinterpretations of