Then please show the historical evidence for that. You can't just disagree based on your opinion.

The US government has opened up a lot of documentation, we have a deeper insight into that process then most things in history. And pretty much all historians who look at it come to the same conclusion.

> You can't just disagree based on your opinion.

There is no rule that says that.

There is. Let's call it the rule of being interesting to other people. Your mother cares how you feel because you feel it, but other people care how you feel because you argued it well.

You're right. You can hold whatever opinion you want, with whatever evidence or lack thereof you'd like. It is a free country.

You'll have a hard time convincing most people that way, thankfully, though I'm sure it does work for convincing some.

You can disagree - but the evidence is pretty unequivocal. There was never mention in any of the decision making bodies of any context that it was a primary motive. What we have to go on was Stalin's paranoia.

It was very well documented that the entire push of the United States government was to involve Russia in the pacific theater. Major concessions had been given to get the Stalinist government to do so. While there certainly were hawks that viewed this as opportune to keep the communists in bay, the documentary evidence drives to the opposite conclusion.