Cold war is the difference between the Communist and the Democratic nations. They were directed by the Soviet Union and the United States respectively. All means were adopted in this war such as; economic war, diplomatic quibbling and military clashes etc. The cold war was fought everywhere whether Asia, Africa or any outer space (Chung, Para 1).
Causes of the Cold War: Before the Second World war there were some economic and political differences between the United States and the Soviet Union and these differences became more powerful after the Second World War (Chung, Para 2).
The main causes were; Economic: The United States was interested in supporting free trade in the whole World but The Soviet Union did not show any interest in this venture as it feared if it would trade with the West, it would be influenced by the West.; Power rivalry: Both the powers wanted to dominate each other; Ideological: The United States and the Soviet Union both have different systems of government. The United States is governed by democratic people whereas; the Soviet Union is governed by the Communist Party (Chung, Para 2).
After World War II, Germany as well as its capital Berlin was divided into four zones and controlled by each of the allied forces: United States, Great Britain, France and Soviet Union (Rosenberg para 3).
The atmosphere turned hostile and aggressive, with the collapse of relationship between USSR and rest of the three allied forces. Germany was turned into West versus East or democracy versus Communism with the development of this new relationship between the forces (Rosenberg para 4).
United States, Great Britain and France formed the West Germany (The Federal Republic of Germany) together from their occupied zones, followed by USSR forming East Germany (The German Democratic Republic) (Rosenberg para 4).
This same division was done for Berlin (Rosenberg para 5).
With the help of the three allied forces West Germany saw a rapid growth in the region, where as the East under USSR was pilfered by them, equipments and valuables were shipped to Russia. The economy was in a poor shape, people were restricted of freedom. As a result, East Germans started migrating to West Germany in hope of getting a better life (Rosenberg para 6).
The easiest approach to West Germany was through West Berlin. East Germany with the help of USSR tried many times to take over West Berlin but was unsuccessful in front of combined forces of the USA, Great Britain and France (Rosenberg para 7).
The Berlin Crisis: Russia stopped land traffic between Berlin and West Germany, when the western nations were feeling insecure (Chung, Para 7). The western nations made efforts to stop Russian efforts which became the reason of conflict between the East and the West. This was known as Berlin Crisis (Chung, Para 7).
Confrontation over Berlin (1948): The bitter relationship between the Soviet Union and the United states before 1948 already made the Berlin crisis predictable. The Western powers wanted to introduce a new currency in German economy (Chung, Para 10).This currency reform in 1948 also created Berlin Crisis.
The shortage of food and inflation in Germany resulted the growth of money circulation in the post war years. The Soviet Union felt insecurity of its domination in East Germany so when the new currency was introduced in West Berlin, The soviet Union stopped all land communication between West Berlin and Germany’s other zones (Cold war 1: The Berlin crisis, Para 5). Blockade of Berlin started on June 24, 1948 (Chung, Para 12).
Due to these crises, almost two million citizens had to starve in Berlin. General Clay, the military governor of the American zone said, “When Berlin falls, West Germany will be the next” (Chung, Para 14).
The Western nations started supporting Berlin by supplying food and other necessary things by air flights as they wanted to stop Russian Communism. May 9, 1949 was the day when Stalin realized that he would not be able to remove western nations from Berlin so he decided to end Berlin Blockade (Chung, Para 15).
Significance of the Blockade:
Soviet Union was strong-minded to show strength and determination even in the moments of defeat from the allied nations, worsening the chances of Cold War (Chung, para16). Also some events where in USSR was not in agreement with the allied nations, led to blockade in East and West Germany.
The major three events were; the Truman Doctrine and the institution of the Marshall Plan and European Recovery; the London conference of 1948; and the London Program which called for a separate, economically revitalized West Germany (Chung, para16).
In desperation, finally, East Germany decided to build a wall separating East Berlin from West Berlin just past mid night of August 12-13, 1961 (Rosenberg para 8).
While the Berliners were asleep, trucks with soldiers and construction workers started tearing up streets entering West Berlin. All the connection to west was severed including phone lines. The border was covered with barbered wires and concrete posts (Rosenberg para 8).
The Berlin wall also played an important role in this war. It was so big that it totally cut off West Berlin from East Germany, stretching over hundred miles (Rosenberg, para 9).
The making of Berlin Wall shows the heightened tension between the Allied forces and USSR during the Cold War period. It was a primitive solution by USSR to the rise of mass emigration of East Germans to West, resulting in brain drain (Explain the significance of the Berlin Wall in the Cold War, para1).
The wall was the result of Khrushchev’s show of power in Berlin. Even the slightest dissent was treated with the iron fist by the Russian ((Explain the significance of the Berlin Wall in the Cold War, para 2).
It also symbolizes Russia’s failure in developing the East Germany and provided enough scope for the citizens to stay back ((Explain the significance of the Berlin Wall in the Cold War, para 3).
Germany was divided as a result of the disagreement between the allied forces (USA, Great Britain, France and USSR) at Yalta and Potsdam about the future structure of the German Government.
It also started the Cold war between the USSR and the now combined forces of United States, the Great Britain and France. The construction of wall also negated Germany’s importance in the cold war ((Explain the significance of the Berlin Wall in the Cold War, para 4).
As the construction of Berlin wall had significance so is its demolition. The construction symbolizes the divide between the West and East, while the destruction symbolizes victory of democracy in East. It also symbolizes the failure of communism as doctrine by the Soviet Union ((Explain the significance of the Berlin Wall in the Cold War, para 5).
The role of Berlin Wall during its existence, from construction to demolition, was largely symbolic. Its construction represents the existence of conflict between the USSR and the remaining allied nations. While the demolition represents the end of communism or Soviet Union ((Explain the significance of the Berlin Wall in the Cold War, para s6).
Works Cited
Chung, Tien Kan. “Cold War: 1945-1960” 2007. Web.
“Cold War 1: The Berlin Crisis” 2002. Web.
“Explain the significance of the Berlin Wall in the Cold War”. April 4 2010. Web.
Rosenberg, Jennifer. “The Rise and Fall of the Berlin Wall”. 2010. Web.
The Cold War The Cold War is an interesting name given to a conflict between two superpowers. But there is no other way to describe the conflict between the Union Soviet Socialist Republic (“USSR”) and the United States of America because the armies from both countries did not clash in a battlefield.
The conflict was played out in the anticipation of World War III through the stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction as well as through proxy wars fought by their respective allies.
The United States played defense and at the same time became proactive by supporting other nations to strategically weaken the power of the USSR.
The conflict between the USSR and U.S. did not come from the desire to expand their territories. The Cold War is the byproduct of a conflict in ideology. The United States government is a government by the people and of the people while the USSR is a government ruled by the communist party.
The Americans believed in the principles of democracy and free enterprise while the Russians believed that the whole world must convert to a system of governance according to the teachings of Karl Marx and Lenin.
At the core of these teachings is the idea of social equality as the masses triumph over the elite and creating a utopian society in the process. It is a seemingly attractive proposition but Karl Marx and Lenin did not anticipate the impact of human nature such as greed, lust for power, the need to control people, and more importantly the corruption that comes from having a central government.
Nevertheless, the advocates of communism felt so strongly for their cause that they are willing to transform nations into a communist country and one by one they came into the fold starting from China then North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and Eastern Europe and even half of present day Germany.
Introduction
It must be made clear that the dilemma brought by the Cold War did not happen overnight. It can be argued that without the implications of World War II then there would be no two superpowers trying to subdivide the world into what they label as the free world and the Communist bloc. The end of World War created shift in the political arena creating a vacuum that must be occupied by America or the USSR.
At the end of World War II the Germans were devastated as well as its allies Italy, Japan, and the Ottoman Empire. Great Britain emerged victorious, however, its people paid a tremendous price for glory and so after becoming the unofficial leader in two world wars, the British decided that they no longer have the energy and the resources to become the watchdog and enforcer of international laws in the international stage.
France, Belgium and other European powers were also in a state of decline. As a result there were only two superpowers left standing and these are the United States and the USSR.
Defensive Mode
American presidents in the post-World War II era could not help but be threatened by the rapid acceleration of the USSR in terms of political, economic and military might. It was an understandable reaction; the fear regarding the rise of Soviet power is expected when the memory of Nazi Germany was still fresh in the minds of American political leaders.
It was impossible to ignore the behavior of Stalin and later on Khrushchev and not consider their propensity for world domination. As Eastern Europe and most of Asia went under the influence of the Soviets there was cause for worry. When the Russians invaded Afghanistan their worst fears were confirmed.
The unfolding events from China’s decision to openly embrace Marxism-Leninism to the Korean War of the 1950s prompted the American government to strengthen its military capability. This was viewed as a threat by the USSR and so in response they enhanced their fighting capability.
It can be argued that most of the time the purpose of the massive military build-up was just a mere show for the purpose of telling the world who possess the best form of governance. This chest-thumping and ego boosting activities extended even to outer space as both countries tried to outdo each other when it comes to their space program.
However, the stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction as well as the funding of an oversized military force created a stalemate. The United States government and the Communist Party of the USSR both understood so well that if World War III becomes a reality then the combined arsenal of these countries can destroy Central Asia and North America in mutually destructive attack.
Proxy Wars
When the Soviets began to finance and support the takeover of weak monarchies and governments and transform nations almost overnight into communist countries the United States government found itself in a terrible dilemma. After World War II the Allied forces shared a common sentiment that nothing good can be had out of war.
The promulgation of democracy as well as the establishment of the United Nations headquarters in the U.S. mainland made it morally and politically impossible for the American government to attack the USSR. And more importantly the prospect of a nuclear holocaust forces them to be defensive minded. Nevertheless, the United States and the USSR found a way to battle each other out in numerous theaters of war.
It is now known as “proxy war” because American forces and Soviet forces did not actually meet in the battlefield but their proxies. The best example is the Korean War in the 1950s and the Afghanistan conflict where the United States government provided military aid to Afghan warriors in order for them to defeat the superior forces of the Soviets.
The first proxy war was held in the Korean peninsula that resulted in what is now known as North and South Korea. The allies of both the United States and the USSR did the dirty work for them while they stayed in the background. It was a proactive participation on both players because they supplied intelligence gathered through their spy networks, state-of-the art weapons, and provided help whenever it is needed such as logistical support.
The alliance that the United States made with Korea in World War II made this possible. On the other side of the fence the alliance of USSR with China gave them the ability to venture into the Far East.
But According to one historian it was the first time when a proxy war almost became a full-blown war and he wrote, “It was the only occasion in the Cold War when the military forces of the People’s Republic of China, the Soviet Union, and the United States us its Western allies) met in combat … the Korean War was not merely a war fought between proxies of the major powers, like the latter conflicts in Vietnam or Afghanistan, but a much more significant conflagration.”[1]
It was almost like seeing the beginnings of World War III but the United States and the USSR were clever enough to mask the truth by making it appear that it was a war fought by armies in the North and South of Korea in a fight for the Korean peninsula.
Aside from the war in Vietnam, it can be argued that the second major proxy war was held in Afghanistan. It has to be pointed out that the nation of Afghanistan was a creation of Great Britain as it tried to develop a buffer zone protecting its interests from other powerful nations in the region. But as mentioned earlier the end of the Second World War also revealed the depleted power of the British government. Moreover, there was no use to spend money in maintaining forces in a land lacking in desirable levels of natural resources.
In the words of one commentator, “The Afghan’s homeland is green and pleasant only in the memory of the exiles … summers are hot and dry and winters bitter, especially in the high country, and from November to mid-March snow makes travel difficult.”[2] The Soviets however saw a strategic location and they were more than willing to take over.
According to Alexander Haig, the former U.S. secretary of state, “The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan to undermine the strengthening of the Islamic fundamentalist belt at its southern borders.”[3] But there is another major reason why the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.
In the words of one Russian historian, “by the mid-seventies our military had reached a state of parity with America … they (USSR) were anxious to try their strength somewhere” and Afghanistan seemed to be the best place to test newly acquired military advantage.[4] The stage was set and the war between two superpowers resulted in hundreds of casualties and yet it was not clear what the actual outcome of the war was.[5]
Ronald Reagan
Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Carter played important roles during the Cold War but the person who ended it was none other than Ronald Reagan. His reaction to the Soviet threat has been celebrated in books and movies.
It was truly an amazing feat but no one really knew the burden that he carried with him during those dark days when the whole nuclear program of the Soviets were focused on the destruction of the United States of America. The following is a mere overview of what the political arena looked like during the time of Reagan:
By New Year’s Day of 1980, the international wreckage caused by recent Soviet advances was visible virtually everywhere. In Southeast Asia, South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos had fallen into Soviet orbit; in southern Africa, Angola and Mozambique had fallen, with the aid of tens of thousands of Cuban troops; in the Horn of Africa, it was Ethiopia and South Yemen, again with the help of Cuba; in the Caribbean, Nicaragua and Grenada; and finally …. like a dagger at the heart of the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan.[6]
There were many historians and political analyst who argued that the success of Reagan’s administration when it comes to the Soviet threat is attributed to his being a realist.[7]
Leaders like Truman and Carter, “tried to play it safe and they espoused the principles of détente and containment to be their main foreign policy regarding the Soviet Union.”[8] No U.S. president dared to imagine what the world will be like in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust and so the goal was to prevent war at all cost.
Reagan did not believe in the exchange of intercontinental ballistic missiles loaded with nuclear warheads. However, he understood the following principle: “Every single geopolitical nation, together with its current leadership, struggles for power and wants more of it; every single geopolitical nation, together with its current leadership, struggles for security and wants more of it.[9]
He knew that the Soviet Union will not stop until the perceived threat to the sustainability of their way of life has been eliminated and the thorn in their path is the United States.[10]
Reagan was ready to fight and he used his great power of communication to clarify to the American public what they are facing. He said that nothing good can come out from the Communist Party and he labeled the USSR as the evil empire of Communism. As a result he prepared the country in order to defend itself and if needed to counterattack. Reagan authorized multi-billion dollar expenditure in the creation of the greatest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction the American people had ever seen.
Reagan worked tirelessly to weaken the hegemony built by the Soviet Union and he did it through an arms race.[11] He was always doing something to create an advantage over the Soviets. But after eight years of massive military build-up he recognized that the Cold War had to end.
In an extraordinary feat of political maneuvering he met with his Russian counterpart, Gorbachev and using his skills and charm once again he made the Soviets agree to his terms and that is to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in the arsenal of both countries. In a few years time Reagan succeeded and the Soviet Union was no more.[12] Regan ended the Cold War.
Conclusion
The Cold War began after the end of the Second World War. In the United States there were many presidents who tried to deal with the Soviet threat and their strategies range from appeasement to the participation in proxy wars.
Nobody wanted to start a Third World War. The United States had a defensive mindset and yet at the same time proactive in doing indirect actions in order to weaken the Soviet Union’s power.
However, it was Ronald Reagan who created deliberate steps to finally end the Cold War. He did by spending billions of dollars to create a deterrent and in the final stages he masterminded an arms reduction program that forced the Soviet Union to end its bid to conquer the world.
Footnotes
Carter, Malkasian. The Korean War (University Park, IL.: Osprey Publishing, 2001), p.7.
David, Isby, Russia’s War in Afghanistan (UK: Osprey Publishing), p.3.
Artyom, Borovik, The Hidden War: A Russian Journalist’s Account of the Soviet War in Afghanistan, (New York: Grove Press, 1990), 9.
Ibid.
James Huston, Outposts and Allies: U.S. Army Logistics in the Cold War, (New Jersey:Associated University Press, 1988), 20.
Andrew Busch, A Ronald Reagan and the Politics of Freedom, (MD: Rowman & LittlefieldPublishers, 2001), 186.
Odd Westad, The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times.(New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 247.
Ibid.
Ashley Tellis, “Reconstructing Political Realism: The Long March to Scientific Theory,” in Roots of Realism, ed. Benjamin Frankel (Portland, Oregon: Frank Cass, Inc., 1996), 3.
Peggy Noonan, “Ronald Reagan: He Brought Big Government to its Knees and Stared Down the Soviet Union,” Time Magazine.
Alexei Filitov, Victory in the Postwar Era: Despite the Cold War or Because of it?” In The End of the Cold War, ed. Michael Hogan (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 78.
Lee Edwards, The Essential Ronald Reagan, (Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005), 77.
Bibliograpy
Borovik, Artyom. The Hidden War: A Russian Journalist’s Account of the Soviet War in Afghanistan. New York: Grove Press, 1990.
Busch, Andrew. A Ronald Reagan and the Politics of Freedom. MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2001.
Edwards, Lee. The Essential Ronald Reagan, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005.
Filitov, Alexei. Victory in the Postwar Era: Despite the Cold War or Because of it?”
In The End of the Cold War, edited by Michael Hogan, 77-90. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Huston, James. Outposts and Allies: U.S. Army Logistics in the Cold War. New Jersey: Associated University Press, 1988.
Isby, David. Russia’s War in Afghanistan. UK: Osprey Publishing, 2002.
Malkasian, Carter. The Korean War. University Park, IL.: Osprey Publishing, 2001.
Tellis, Ashley. “Reconstructing Political Realism: The Long March to Scientific Theory,” In Roots of Realism, edited by Benjamin Frankel, 3-20. Portland, Oregon: Frank Cass, Inc., 1996.
Westad, Odd. The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
The Cold War was one of the most famous and crucially important conflicts between the United States of America and the Soviet Union. It lasted almost the half of the century, and its results are still recognizable and significant. The ideas of capitalism and communism – this is what actually bothered the representatives of the Cold War. Government wanted to provide the citizens with freedoms and suggested as many reliable ways as possible.
However, such points like universal ideas to nation membership, peace and war principles, and failure to present constant economic security called numerous contradictions. All these contradictions turned out to be the major reasons of the Cold War’s end. It is necessary to admit that the end of the Cold War could not but promise really good future for the world, global prosperity, and human rights.
The Cold War was one of those types of wars, which made a significant impact on the development of human rights in the whole world. All those competitions, which happened between the representatives of the Soviet Union and the United States, created two different teams, which supported human rights in different spheres. One of those teams was all about the principles of individualism, based on the American ideas of freedom.
The brightest examples were the right to live, the right to own, the right to believe and have own opinion, etc. Continental Europe was all about to provide people with other types of rights, like the right to equal work and equal pay, the right to get free elementary education, the right for the obligatory social services, etc. These principles of social justice helped to present people more freedom in their development and proper opportunities to earn and live.
The question is whether the representatives of both countries achieved the desirable purposes. Well, of course, we all have the right to live and choose the preferred religion; however, not every person has the right to equal work, because nowadays, lots of things depend on education and personal skills.
It is crucially important to underline that the end of the Cold War was rather dramatic for lots of countries. For example, West Germany was proud of its wealth and prosperity, and the representatives of the East Germany could not achieve the same results and suffered a lot.
Russian people did not have an opportunity to buy bread or even socks, because the government did not provide them with necessary sums of money. This is why the appearance of Gorbachev changed lots of things, as he offered to loosen numerous repressions on liberties. The representatives from different governments came to conclusion that it was useless to provide people with all types of freedoms, this is why, it was better to create certain limits and follow that people do not break the established rules.
In general, the end of the Cold War brought certain changes to all participants of this conflict: the United States took its leading positions in the world, Russia defined its supporters and opponents, and people got to know more about human rights and learnt to prove them: Civil Rights Movement, protests against Vietnam War, Perestroika in the Soviet Union. These movements influenced considerably the development of the countries under consideration and born the desire to prove and fight against human rights and freedoms.
The world history of the twentieth century after the Second World War was by large dominated by the relationships that formed as a result of the opposition between the United States of America and the USSR.
The two mega-powers were struggling for global influence, and since they possessed completely antipodal views on what the ideal state should be like, this confrontation shaped into the so-called Cold War. Among the main features of this bloodless war was arms race that involved a harsh competition, inter alia, in the sphere of nuclear weapons.
The post-war United States could boast a yet unsurpassed advantage over the military arsenal of any other country: their main strategic weapon was the atomic bomb, which became an almost legendary symbol of the US power. The attitude to the atomic bomb and its role in the Cold War sufficiently changed with the course of time, and this change is reflected, in particular, in the coverage of Cold War events by the US Life magazine.
The atomic bomb explosions on Hiroshima and Nagasaki allowed the USA to demonstrate an unprecedented military might and to declare their ambition of global control by means of atomic weapon. The devastating power of the latter allowed the US military authorities to build ambitious strategies involving the use of atomic bomb as a nuclear deterrent and annihilator of the enemy.
Provided that the US atmosphere was strained in the expectance of the enemy strokes and acknowledgement of the “ever-returning concept of war”[1], atomic bomb was an impressive weapon of intimidation.
Inspired by the immense destructive force of the atomic bomb, military officials built ambitious hostility strategies that were characterized as “military profitable” due to the involvement of the atomic bomb[2]. But despite this confidence in the offensive qualities of the atomic bomb, strategists remarked on the necessity for updating the military fleet for more efficient bomb application[3].
As the communistic regime took over Hungary, the US military recognized the increasing speed of the threatening danger and emphasized the importance of not only creating new superfast and light aircrafts for carrying the atomic bomb, but also adapting the US building styles and relocating industrial so that the devastating effects of the possible USSR attack were minimized[4].
The anti-soviet attitudes grew with the news of the coup-d’état in Czechoslovakia, when the United States realized that “the remote threat of the atomic bomb was no match for Red guns and tanks on the borders” and that Communism was an obviously uncooperative regime[5]. Americans realized that power was in their hands as long as they kept the monopoly on the atomic bomb which is the only device for balancing the Russian military weight in Europe[6].
The feeling of insecurity grew, as the United States realized that the chances of involving into a war were growing with every day[7]. After the Soviets surpassed the expectations of the US military and detonated their own bomb in 1949 instead of working on it till the predicted mid-1950s, the understanding of the non-absolute character of the atomic bomb came[8].
Doubt in the exclusive efficiency of the atomic bomb in fighting the enemy appeared in a discussion on what exactly constitutes success in fighting the Russians. Analyzing the course of the World War II, American experts on psychological warfare remarked that “as Hitler’s reliance on physical force let him to scorn the help of the Soviet people, reliance on the atomic bomb could lead us into comparable folly[9].”
Panic was slowly but steadily spreading over the American population which could not avoid worrying about the atomic war threat since information on it was literally everywhere: in February 1950, Life dedicated a whole issue to discussion of the atomic bomb under a motto that no compromise could be reached with the communists and that war was inevitable[10].
Psychologists connected the reaction to the possible atomic war with the US baby boom of the late 1940s: “The war psychology must have changed our values, and the Cold War and atomic bomb have brought on a revival of the will to survive[11].”
In the atmosphere of society experiencing great psychological stress of the atomic threat, cardinal changes also occurred in the specialists’ attitudes. More openly than ever, scientists voiced their opposition to further development of the mass-destruction bombs[12].
In their letters to the editors of life, representatives of Research Institute of America call to common sense and express harsh criticism of the atomic defense plan in terms of general humanity principles[13]. Atomic bomb and weapon in general was no longer regarded as the best way to work out the contemporary geopolitical problems, since considering the huge military potential of both hostile mega-powers any serious warfare with them could lead to catastrophic consequences.
On the one hand, appeals were published in the press to revise the approach to warfare and stop putting the whole responsibility for military success or failure on scientific achievements[14]. On the other hand, claims were made to review the application of atomic energy for not military but peaceful use since “all the heads of the state including even the Russians [were] pulling back from atomic abyss[15].”
The press coverage of the Cold War events appears to have been quite sensitive to the changing role of the atomic bomb in the nuclear arms race. Positioning the Russians as a thoroughly uncompromising enemy to be fought at any rate, the Life magazine nevertheless demonstrates a significant shift in the attitude to the atomic bomb function. First envisaged as a crucial and universal weapon, the atomic bomb gradually loses its positions as the Russians acquire a bomb of their own and the world realizes the possible catastrophic consequences of a nuclear war.
References
The atomic bomb. (1950, February 27). Life, 28(9), 91–100.
Bullitt, William S. (1948, August 30). How we won the war and lost the peace. Life, 25(9), 83–86.
Bush, Vannevar. (1949, November 14). Scientific weapons and a future war. Life, 27(20), 112–130.
Carroll, Wallace. (1949, December 19). It takes a Russian to beat a Russian. Life, 27(25), 80–88.
Hyland, T. S. (1949, December 26). The fruitful mountains. Life, 27(26), 60–67.
Letters to the editors: Atomic defense plan. (1951, January 8). Life, 30(2), 4.
Murphy, Charles J. V. (1947, January 20). The Polar concept: It is revolutionizing American strategy. Life, 22(3), 61–62.
The nature of the enemy. (1950, February 27). Life, 28(9), 30–31.
Spaatz, Carl. (1948, July 5). If we should have to fight again. Life, 25(1), 34–44.
Spaatz, Carl. (1948, August 16). Phase II Air War. Life, 25(7), 90–104.
Strauss, Lewis L. (1950, July 24). Some A-bomb fallacies are exposed. Life, 29(4), 81–90.
US foreign policy takes a licking. (1948, March 8). Life, 24(10), 27–30.
The US surveys its weak defense. (1947, June 16). Life, 22(24), 27–33.
Wallace, Henry. (1956, May 14). Henry Wallace tells of his political odyssey. Life, 40(20), 174–190.
Footnotes
Charles J. V. Murphy, “The Polar concept: It is revolutionizing American strategy,” Life (January 20, 1947), pp. 61–62.
Ibid.
Charles J. V. Murphy, “The Polar concept: It is revolutionizing American strategy,” Life (January 20, 1947), pp. 61–62.
“The US surveys its weak defense,” Life (June 16, 1947), pp. 27–33.
“US foreign policy takes a licking,” Life (March 8, 1948), pp. 27–30.
Carl Spaatz, “Some A-bomb fallacies are exposed,” Life (August 16, 1948), pp. 81–90; Carl Spaatz, “Phase II Air War,” Life (July 24, 1950), pp. 90–104.
William S. Bullitt, “How we won the war and lost the peace,” Life (August 30, 1948), pp. 83–86.
Vannevar Bush, “Scientific weapons and a future war,” Life (November 14, 1949), pp. 112–130.
Wallace Carroll, “It takes a Russian to beat a Russian,” Life (December 19, 1949), pp. 80–88.
“The atomic bomb,” Life (February 27, 1950), pp. 91–100.
T. S. Hyland, “The fruitful mountains,” Life (December 26, 1949), pp. 60–67.
Lewis L Strauss, “Some A-bomb fallacies are exposed,” Life (July 24, 1950), pp. 81–90.
“Letters to the editors: Atomic defense plan,” Life (January 8, 1951), p. 4.
Lewis L Strauss, “Some A-bomb fallacies are exposed,” Life (July 24, 1950), pp. 81–90.
Henry Wallace, “Henry Wallace tells of his political odyssey,” Life (May 14, 1956), pp. 174–190.
History stipulates that for nearly forty years after the Second World War, there had been intense conflict among the leading economies of the world. This conflict was not manifested through physical war but via the development of nuclear weapons. Watson argues that both the West and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) tried to destroy and undermine each other, but were careful not to let their conflict reach the level of actual fighting (59).
This paper offers a detailed and chronological discussion of historical events that took place between the years 1945-1964 which shaped the history of the entire Cold War. It is also imperative to note that the events that took place prior and after the Cold War era were profoundly significant in shaping the world history.
Background of the Cold War
In his publication, Stokes points out that after the Second World War in 1945, sections of the Soviet Army remained in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Austria as well as Germany (148). During the Yalta conference in 1945, Joseph Stalin, a representative of the Soviet Union made a promise that elections in Poland as well as in other nations in the East of Europe that the Soviet Union occupied would be carried out in a free and unfettered way.
However, analysts point out that Stalin knew that allowing free elections would result in election of leaders especially in Poland who would be critical of him as well as the Soviet Union. It is imperative to note that many deaths of citizens in Poland that occurred during the Katyn massacre were directed by Stalin (Stokes 148).
The Soviet Union and her close allies feared the rise of Poland into power having known its history of hostility to one of the prominent revolutions of the Bolshevik and its strength of invasion as was witnessed in the 1920’s when it invaded the soviet territory.
The USSR and her allies were aware that giving Poland an opportunity to conduct free elections was going to offer the latter immense power to rise against them. Rouland indicates that to Stalin, establishing a regime in Poland that would ensure security and spreading his policies, was a strategy that would not provide much needed positive results, because a liberated and democratic Poland would threaten the Soviet Union with an invasion or war (61).
It is against those reasons that Stalin went against his promise to allow nations under the occupation of the Soviet Union to have a free election. History stipulates that it is at this point that the friendship which existed between the USA and the Soviet Union was ruined.
Angered and disappointed by the policies of Stalin and his colleagues in Poland and his inability to keep his promise, President Harry Truman declared hostility towards the Soviet Union (Rouland 61). This created what came to be known as the Cold War, and which was later enhanced by possibilities of war and insecurities.
Rivalry between the USA and USSR
Rigden points out that in his leadership during the Great wars and shortly before the Cold War period, Stalin had chosen to use dictatorship ideologies to reform the Soviet Union after the death of Lenin (47).
He posed as a great threat to the western powers through the use of excessive force in a bid to exert power and influence. In addition, Stalin used bureaucracy that ensured high production in the local industries and a stable industrial base. Studies indicate that these immensely changed the state of affairs and forced people to become prisoners of his dictatorship.
It is imperative to point out that Stalin took much of his time and resources to establish alliances with arch-rival states (Rigden 47). Having emerged as a super-power, the Soviet Union was perceived as a potential threat to world peace which triggered conflict.
In his reforms, Rigden further points out that Stalin employed a tactic which was meant to restructure and foster quality control and private ownership of land and other commodities (47). This tactic allowed multicandidate election and as well decentralization of power. This was done to counter the stagnation experience in economy and reduce military spending in Russia.
However, analysts point out that the policy empowered people to openly express their views, hence, criticize him. As such, he brought about radical changes that controlled freedom of speech and expression and which he used .to ensure that conservatives who opposed his reforms were pressured to support him through debates and participation in open forums (Rigden 47).
In his mission to establish close relations with other western countries Stalin resorted to improve trade activities in order to perk up the Soviet’s economy. This offered him chance to establish joint ventures with overseas companies. Needless to say, he aimed to integrate the Soviet nature by liberating it from political imprisonment. He saw the previous political government as an internal exile that discouraged open politics. This attributed to harmonized cultural diversity and religion.
It is imperative to point out that by not honoring his promise, Stalin was not only interested in the security that Soviet Union might have lost with the independence of Poland, but also with his own selfish interest of protecting the Soviet Union that was the work of his creation. Parent and MacDonald point out that Stalin was interested in protecting Stalinism, which was of utmost importance and that overrode the need to maintain a good relationship with the west (35).
Indeed, Stalin still considered himself to be at war with capitalism, filled with the notion that the capitalist economies were top face the deadliest economic depression. Studies point out that in 1945, the west, under President Truman strongly reacted to the policies set by Stalin in Poland by stopping all its support to the Soviet Union and expressing massive misgivings about the rivalry between the nations of the world and the Soviet Union (Parent & MacDonald 35).
Matusow posits that the differences that existed between the US and the USSR were because of ideological differences (1036). Earlier on, they had worked together to destroy the Germans and the Hitler’s Nazi. However, their underlying differences are due to their various ideologies and policies made Cold War inevitable.
It is important to point out here that the USA was represented by the capitalist democracy while the USSR was characterized a communist dictatorship. In their separate ideologies, each side believed in its ability to dominate the world, and transform the human race. Besides, Stalin was not pleased with Britain and America’s intervention in the Bolsheviks civil wars of 1918-1921 and helping the whites.
In addition, Stalin hoped that the Germans would be ruined by reparations while he surrounded himself with nations that were friendly to Russia (Matusow 1038). On the other hand, America and Britain claimed the reason for the Second World War was the Nazi-Soviet Pact made in 1939. Besides, they wanted to form partnership with the capitalist Germany to prevent communistic ideas from spreading to the west. These reasons widened the gap between the West and Russia.
Potsdam and Yalta (1945)
During the Yalta conference in 1945, the Second World War was still on and tension was high. In his publication, Lears posits that even though it was clear that Hitler was going to be defeated, signs of conflict were still seen and as such, the allies felt the need for them to organize how they would want Europe to be after the second world was over (13). It is imperative to note that it was easy for the allies to bring to trial all Nazi war criminals and have Russia under the United Nations.
Besides, they also thought that after the war, Germany should be divided into four zones which will be occupied by USSR, USA, France and Britain. However, tensions surrounded their plans on the kind of governments to establish in those regions and in Eastern Europe with special emphasis in Poland.
In July 1945, the allies met in Potsdam after President Roosevelt had died and Hitler had been defeated. Truman was by this time the president of the USA and unlike Roosevelt who liked Stalin, Truman aggressively expressed hid dislike towards communism (Matusow 1036). Therefore, at Potsdam, the tensions that were felt at Yalta come into the open with disagreements about Eastern Europe and reparations.
Fulton speech and Salami tactics (1946)
The Eastern Europe communists who were established in Russia had been trained by Stalin during the war played an important role after the Potsdam since they were sent back to their own countries to assume leadership roles (Parent & MacDonald 35). In their own nations, some of them became government ministers and participated in elections. However, during their leadership, they discredited non-communists alongside facilitating their arrests.
These actions made observers in the west to draw close attention to what was happening. It was against this background that in 1946 while in Fulton America, Winston Churchill, a former primer minister of Britain gave a speech where he declared that Eastern Europe was separated by an iron curtain from the free world and was thus subjected to the influence of the Soviet Union, police governments and totalitarian control (Parent & MacDonald 46).
Analysts point out that the speech made by Churchill was in favor of the United Nations and far from anti-communism and anti-internationalism of the fascists (Kovrig 437). This triggered an aggressive response from Stalin who stated that the speech by Churchill was similar to a declaration of war. Stalin indicated that the threat from the capitalist west made conflict inevitable, and were reasons to have the west follow his leadership and policies.
The Marshall plan and the Truman Doctrine (1947-48)
Historical records indicate that the nation of Greece ended up in a stiff civil war which was largely occasioned by British intervention and German occupation (Kovrig 437). The US and the British government offered their strong support to the Greece’s monarchial government. Even though Stalin had promised not to interfere with Greece, a group of Greek communists made forceful attempts to take over the government.
The British soldiers tried to stop them but that did not last as they pulled out forcing Truman to send American soldiers. In March 1947, Truman informed the congress that America had the duty of ensuring that democracy and freedom are preserved in Europe (Kovrig 437). He intended to contain communism and prevent it from spreading and expanding to other regions, a basis that later came to be referred to as the Truman Doctrine.
General George Marshall of America went to Europe in June 1947 with an intention of surveying the level of communist actions and offering assistance to curb their expansion. He claimed that poverty in Europe was a strong factor that was turning even the loyal individuals to communism.
As such, instead of war and military action to fight communism, Marshall recommended that an intervention was to be made in terms of cash for aid that would not only enhance and boost the economy of Europe, but would also ensure that individuals are prosperous. Hollander points out that Marshall argued that free and prosperous people had no reason to turn to the communists for help and support (73).
He, therefore, requested an injection into the European economy, a sum of approximately $17 billion (Hollander 73). This was not well received by the congress until February 1948 when the whole of Czechoslovakia embraced communism and its Prime Minister Masaryk died giving room for Stalinist hard liners to take over that the congress adopted the Marshall plan to assist Europe.
In 1948, the war ceased as the unity between Greece’s communists was affected by the split between Josip Tito of Yugoslavia and Stalin. The split rendered the once strong support to Greece’s resistance by Stalin practically absent. Studies indicate that Stalin ceased his support to keep his word on the agreement that he had made with Churchill (Hollander 73).
Edoho points out that the Cold War in the West is often attributed to the actions by American to fight aggressions by Stalin and defend the freedom of humanity (102). Analysts disagree with him stating that the argument is partly true as it fails to clearly reflect the feelings of Russians and the views of several historians (Lears 13). In fact, it was at Potsdam Truman declared that he was going to be aggressive at Stalin due to the disagreements.
Scholars like Parent and MacDonald argue that Russia did not actually send any of its forces to force eastern European nations to follow communist ideologies, instead, the nations turned to communism of their own accord (35). As already mentioned, Stalin kept his promise to stay away from Greece, but America thought it was wise to bring in military intervention.
The Berlin blockade
The period between the years 1945-48 was marked by efforts from USA and Britain who were trying to re-build Germany. The early conflicts of the Cold War characterized direct confrontations in Eastern Europe and several disagreements between allies over the treatment Germany deserved.
In the early 1947, two zones were created in Germany referred to as Bi-zonia and in 1948 a new currency was introduced (Kovrig 437). Contrary to the efforts by the USA and Britain, Russia was invading factories east of Germany and stripping them of machinery as reparations.
In addition, the Russians blocked access to Berlin by stopping all rail and road traffic into Berlin. Boix points out in his publication that this was an act that Stalin carried out with an aim of protecting the economy of East Germany from the new currency that had earlier been introduced (809). Analysts point out that this move was interpreted by the western powers as a move to starve West Berlin until it surrendered to him.
It is imperative that the move by Stalin to block Berlin provoked tensions and called for war by General Clay who felt that military intervention would lift the blockade. However, Truman was opposed to it, instead ordered that supplies be made by air into West Berlin. This continued until May 1949 when Stalin finally surrendered and reopened the borders (Boix 810).
Consequently, the western allies came in 1949 and set up the North Atlantic Treaty organization (NATO) which was to be a defensive alliance in opposition to Russia. In the same year, France, Britain and America joined their zones to form the West Germany or the Federal Republic of Germany. On the other hand, Stalin formed East Germany also called the German Democratic Republic (Boix 820).
Dwight Eisenhower and the Cold War
The election of Eisenhower as the president of the United States introduced a new and unprecedented era in the United States of real change in domestic and foreign affairs. Unlike his predecessors, Eisenhower was a war hero who was very popular with people due to his homely and natural manner.
In the years following the Second World War, he served as the head of NATO and the army chief of staff before seeking nominations as the republican president. In his publication, Watson posits that Eisenhower shared the same vies on foreign policies that Truman had (59). He regarded the struggles of the communist society as a monolithic force that targeted gaining world supremacy.
The basic commitments of Eisenhower were strong, and were witnessed by the manner in which he increased the reliance of America on shield. It is imperative to point out that the atomic bomb used in the Second World War was a Manhattan project.
Truman, fearing expansion of communists, authorized in 1950 the creation of new weapons and development of more powerful weaponry such as the hydrogen weapon. Eisenhower did it more differently. In an effort to control budget expenditures, he went for the policy of total retaliation. Under his doctrine, he declared that the United States would use atomic weapons should any nation threaten its vital interests.
In actual practice, Eisenhower was cautious when deploying military forces. He resisted calls for him to use nuclear weapons in Indochina during the war that saw Vietnamese communist forces oust the French in 1954 (Parent & MacDonald 40).
In addition, in Taiwan, he failed to fulfill the United States pledge to intervene in fighting the People’s Republic of China which was attacking the Nationalist Chinese Regime. His resistance to use force persisted even in the Middle East Suez Canal where the French and British forces occupied and were invaded by the Israeli in 1956.
Fight against segregation on African Americans and constitutional rule.
Miller points out in his publication that the Cold War period was also characterized by the above mentioned issues, and as such witnessed a serious struggle for equality and against segregation as applied to African Americans (20).
In agreement, studies point out that one such incidence occurred in 1954 by a serious case between Brown and the Board of Education. This was a legal suit against segregation of black student in public schools, and an important indication of the struggle against segregation. This case consolidated the other five similar cases which sought to find out whether the segregations were constitutional or not.
In almost all cases, a federal court denied the presented facts by citing a former case filed by Plessey against Ferguson. But according to a rule that was made later by Judge Warren, the court found and ruled that the segregation of such students was totally unconstitutional (Miller 20).
Miller continues to indicate that in the fall of 1955, the Montgomery bus boycott that led to the revolutionary change in racial segregation in America might have been organized by the soviets (24). After the arrest of Rosa Park, sermons were made to Martin Luther Jr., leaders of the NAACP and church reverends to carry out a protest against her trial and prosecution for failure to give up her sit for a white person on a bus.
The protest, which lasted for one year and approximately one week, was non-violent and totally peaceful. Top counter the protests, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) movement started violence to intimidate blacks against the boycott but they resisted violence.
After that period, the Supreme Court found out that bus segregation systems were illegal. In 1957, Martin Luther King Junior in collaboration with his followers founded SCLC in Georgia formed an organization to counter segregations. This organization had the intent to coordinate, make assistive efforts to available organizations that were struggling for fairness of African Americans.
With its headquarters in the South, major activities happened in the south but with slight extensions. The organization was responsible for carrying out leadership preparation programs, offering citizen education prospects and sensitizing people on their rights to vote. This organization played a crucial role in the civil rights struggles (Miller 24).
During the same period, crises of segregation erupted in Little Rock School, Kansas that was attributed to the Cold War propaganda.
Hollander posits that the 1954 court ruling on segregation against African Americans triggered a strong resistance from the segregated group that vehemently contested the rulings and started violence campaigns. The President Dwight Eisenhower, the city authorities and the Supreme Court faced accusations linking the actions and Cold War.
It is imperative to note that the court ruling also triggered a mixed feeling that caused certain institutions to admit black student amidst rejections. This triggered violence actions from white students that included mob violence to resist their presence.
Studies indicate that many students of the African American origin were affected by the issues of segregation and propaganda that related them with the communists (Jacoway 45). After two and a half consecutive years of resistance from the white community through violence, the then US president, Eisenhower, gave direction in 1957 for using of troops in Little Rock High School to contain the situation.
The troops had stayed in the school for the whole year but were not effective enough to protect the lives of the endangered students. With continual mistreatments, an intervention by the Supreme Court with an immediate integration order forced the Little Rock High school to observe integration immediate as a requirement of the law, which led to the end of chaos at the school (Jacoway 45).
Race for space supremacy
Newman argues in his publication that in around 1957, many dominant nations competed over supremacy in domination of the space (150). Cold War tensions between the US and the USSR were triggered and enhanced by the great need to dominate the space (150). This was attributed to the USSR developed and launched its first orbital satellite on space which displayed unique abilities of orbiting the earth at a speed of approximately ninety eight minutes.
These steps made America seem to be scientifically, politically and economically inferior thus commencement of a space race between the two countries. After the first launch, the second Sputnik changed space perceptions. Following its show of superiority by launching an impressive sized rocket, the Americans feared the Russians of their capabilities to launch ballistic missiles.
Studies indicate that the years that followed saw the American government approve funding to also commence a space program. Newman posits that this led to the innovation of a space program and equipment known as NASA. Thus NASA was launched with a first launch of Explorer I in the early 1958, which led to a successful discovery of magnetic radiations in space and made America regain confidence in regards to space science and technology.
In 1959, the USSR again made another stunning effort by sending the first probe ever to the moon. This also created a lot of tension in America, questioning its supremacy on space science. The probe by the USSR was successful with documentation on the contents available on the moon (Newman 150).
Improvement of infrastructure and betterment
In 1956, a unanimous decision by Congress agreed to pass the Interstate Highway Act. This act was aimed at constructing a 40,000 mile highway that was to link all states in America to each other and safeguarded a budget worth $25billion and was expected to be completed in a decade’s time. Also at this critical period, the minimum wage per hour in America was raised from seventy five cents to reach the one Dollar par.
According to miller (62) millions of Americans worked in the casual labor industries and their living conditions were worsened by the fact that their wages were close to extreme poverty levels. Treatment on American labor employees was not in accordance with the wage they received. Thus by application from worker unions and presentations by opinion leaders, the Congress was thus forced to take into consideration the pleas of labor workers.
The television influence
In his publication, Hollander indicates that the media played an important role in spreading propaganda and ideologies during the period of the Cold War. In 1955, a great rock concert was held in American which featured a great star Elvis Presley, and who was a great anti-communist.
Having served in the US military in Germany and fought in the Vietnam War, he was well aware of the effects of communism which he countered in some of his songs such as the Suspicious Minds. The concert was televised live and was considered as one of the most memorable moments of American television industry. Television gained more fame and became a medium of judgment on content and personality.
In following year, Elvis Presley’s appearance on national television was highly influenced by political interests. Boix indicates that television greatly influenced political outcomes and ideologies related to capitalism. After an announcement of running for a second time, Eisenhower was shown on television with his competitor Nixon.
During the whole debate, television images depicted Nixon as incompetent, alien and not presidentially focused and favored Eisenhower. The latter was depicted as a character of strong ideologies, convincing, hopeful, focused, confident and highly competitive and was re-elected back to White House.
East-West diplomacy and the Struggle for power
In the mid fifties, exactly in 1955, attempts were made to reconcile national differences between the East and the West. With institutionalizing its East Europe alliances, the Soviet pioneered the signing of a treaty aimed at cooperation, friendship and mutual assistance.
This treaty was similar to previous ones and with inclusion of multilateral alliances gave the soviet more power. Prior to this period, the United States together with its friends came to an agreement on re-arming West Germany and encouraged its entrance into NATO.
The Soviet demanded that allowance be made for a formation of a single state German which would vote as a single block, indicating its immense interest in West Germany. With its power, it pushed to a signing of the Warsaw Pact in 1955. This later led to a formation of a single Germany state.
In the same year, Cold War continued with the Soviet showing proximity support for countries neighboring the USA. For instance, Cuban President Fidel Castro came to power under a sever Coup ’de tat. With immense support from the soviet, he managed to overthrow the then government and ascended to power. This East support was intended at showing the West how powerful and might the USSR can get by supporting immediate neighbor of the latter (smith 13).
Conclusion
To sum up, it is vital to reiterate that the discussion in this paper has largely supported the thesis statement that the period of Cold War between1945-1960 has been considered as one of the toughest times that witnessed increased rivalry and conflict between the USSR and the Western powers.
The discussion has clearly exemplified that different ideologies held by the capitalist west and the communist Soviet Union was one of the factors that precipitated the Cold War era. Moreover, while we may not conclusively argue out that the USSR and western conflicts were solely responsible for Cold War, it is worth to note that the two parties contributed heavily towards the devastating impacts of the war.
In addition, the analysis has strongly indicated that President Eisenhower era during the Cold War was unique bearing in mind that his domestic and foreign policies supported peace, even though he was firm in using atomic weapons if any nation interfered with the interests of the United States of America. In a concluding note though, the paper has summed up the discussion by recapping the events that took place prior and after the fifties that were influenced by the Cold War and its propaganda.
Works Cited
Boix, Carles. “Democracy, development, and the international system”. The American Political Science Review105.4 (2011): 809-828. Print.
Edoho, Felix. “Globalization and marginalization of Africa: Contextualization of China- Africa Relations”. Africa Today58.1 (2011): 102-125.Print.
Hollander, Paul. American travelers to the Soviet Union in the Cold War Era. Society44.3 (2007): 73. Print.
Jacoway, Elizabeth. Turn away thy son: Little Rock, the crisis that shocked the nation. Boston: Wiley, 2007. Print.
Kovrig, Bennett. “Failed Illusions: Moscow, Washington, Budapest, and the 1956 Hungarian revolt”. The International History Review 29.2 (2007): 437. Print.
Lears, Jackson. “American oracle: The uses & abuses of Reinhold Niebuhr”. Commonweal 138.18 (2011): 12-14.Print.
Matusow, Allen. “The admirable radical: Staughton Lynd and Cold War Dissent, 1945- 1970”. The Journal of Southern History 77.4 (2011): 1036-1037.Print.
Miller, Jake. The Montgomery Bus Boycott: Integrating Public Buses. New York: McMillan, Jake Miller, 2004.Print.
Newman, Kitty. Macmillan, Khrushchev and the Berlin crisis 1958-1960. London: Taylor & Francis, 2006.Print.
Parent, Joseph & MacDonald, Paul. “The wisdom of retrenchment: America must cut back to move forward”. Foreign Affairs90.6 (2011): 32-47.Print.
Rigden, John. “Eisenhower, Scientists, and Sputnik”. Physics Today60.6 (2007): 47.Print.
Rouland, Michael. “Aircraft of World War I, 1914-1918/Aircraft of the Cold War, 1945- 1991”. Air Power History58.3 (2011): 61.Print.
Smith, Wayne. The Russians aren’t coming: new Soviet policy in Latin America. New York: Springer, 1992.Print.
Stokes, Lawrence. “How the Cold War began: The Gouzenko affair and the hunt for Soviet spies”. Dalhousie Review87.1 (2007): 148.Print.
Watson, Garrett. “Matterhorn: A Novel of the Vietnam War”. Air Power History58.3 (2011): 59. Print.
The cold war is a historical event that took place between1945 to 1960. This is a period where there was an intense conflict between the nations in the Soviet Union (communist nations) and the democratic nations (for example, United States of America). The war is perceived to have started because the democratic nations and the communist’s nations had two different systems of government and neither of the two governments could compromise theirs to follow another (Gasiorowski 1998, 6).
Other factors that contributed to the war include; economic indifference where U.S wanted the world to practice free trade while the Soviet union wanted nothing to do with international trade, the power rivalry where each of the nations wanted to dominate the other, another cause of the war was that the Russians, a member of the Soviet Union had extended Its influence to Europe which displeased many politicians in the united states advocating for the resistance against Russian expansion.
It was then in 1947 when the United States secretary of state, George Marshall announced that the United States would aid in the regaining of a well economic trend in the world but laid conditions that implied the European countries that were to get their aid from U.S would have to disclose their economic records to the united states a move that the Soviet union regarded as intrusion of states affair.
Together with many other factors the Soviet Union declined U.S offer but America, Britain and other nations got together to form the military alliances that resulted to the cold war.
When it came to Middle East, the Americans and British had their own reason to not favor the influence of the Russian spreading across the region. Britain and the United States had certain interests on the Iranian soil including the oilfields. To prevent Iran from falling into the hands of the USSR and to recover the oil company, the British and Americans responded by helping in the coup. The Iranian coup de tat of 1953 set the stage for this Islamic revolution that would come twenty six years later.
When the weak Mosaddeq’s government nationalized a British oil company, Afterwards in 1979, the virulent anti American Islamic regime ousted the Shah, who was an American sympathizer. It is thus practical enough to hypothesize that the coup, brought about by the cold war (Amuzegar 1991, 28; Curtis 2007).
Iranian revolution is also called the Islamic revolution. It can also be referred to as the 1979 revolution. 1979 is the year which the Iranian monarch was ended by the emergence of the Islamic Republic. This phenomenon was preceded by demonstration against the monarch in the year 1978 (Ruud 2008, 454).
The main difference with this revolution and other world revolutions was that this revolution was not caused by normal factors like the under privileged classes opposing oppression from the elite class of people nor was it because of issues of inequality, but it was seen different from other revolutions experienced there before in countries like France and the US. This revolution was supported by the whole society from the rich to the poor all these people revolted against their own state governance (Iran Chamber Society, 2010).
Despite this lack of customary causes, the revolution resulted into rigorous changes within a short time. It was a massive and popular revolution that ended up toppling the system of monarch led by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Thus, the revolution oversaw the replacement of the modernizing monarch by a theocracy. It is therefore believed that the cold war was a recipe for the Islamic revolution.
Summary of the evidence
This study tries to explain how the major superpowers who were once allies during the Second World War influenced the emergence of the Iranian revolution. As a matter of fact, the end of the Second World War was a precursor to the beginning of the cold war. As already stated, Cold War started as a result of hostile relationships between the United States of America and the former USSR. The conflict arose due to issues related to sharing the plunder of the Second World War.
Since Iran was one of the victims of the plunder, the United States wanted to avoid the fall of Iran into Russia’s hands. The U.S. and Britain strengthened their interests in Iranian oil by overthrowing the democratically elected civil government and helping an American friendly government seize control of Iran. By doing this, Americans were trying to spread their influence into Iranian soil thereby blocking the USSR influence (Nayeri & Nasab 2006, 7).
However, more than two decades after, the Iranian government faced strong rebellion because of its monarch system and the anti-American movements, in 1979; the same government of the Shah was overthrown by the Iranian revolution that oversaw the reinstatement of a religious system of governance that persists up to date (Houghton 2001, 74).
The Iranian coup de tat of 1953
The Americans and the British joined in the cold war in order to have control over the Iranians oil, because at the set time the Russians were gaining control over Iranian oil fields (Gottfried 2003, 18).
Mosaddeq and his colleagues wanted to attain a complete oil independence to establish a lasting democratic government in Iran. This objective was obliterated by the 1953 coup de tat that was carried out by a combination of domestic and foreign forces. The 1953 coup marked the first important turning point in post war Iranian history (Gasiorowski & Byrne 2004, 11).
After Iranian Prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, was ousted from office, Shah Pahlavi assumed his position. Shah Pahlavi was actively involved in the coup of 1953. He was a pro-American figure who received a lot of support from the United States in return.
After the Iranian coup, he began projects that aimed at westernizing Iran in all sectors including academic institutions. The shah wanted the universities to follow after the highly esteemed United States universities. The 1960’s saw the adoption import substitution industrialization approach to development.
Enormous efforts were being made to industrialize Iran by building factories to ensure that goods no longer had to be imported to Iran. Thus, he wanted the goods to be produced within its borders (Wagner, H. 46). As a result, there were several huge construction projects that were launched in Tehran. Roads, dams, railways, airports and hospitals were built because of this initiative.
Oil output also increased, thereby guaranteeing greater revenue for Iran. To expound on the success of the Shah’s ambitious project, Iran was able to rise from the smallest oil producing and exporting country in 1960, during the formation of OPEC, to one of the largest in 1967. The shah saw Iran’s oil as a way for the country to change the global political dynamics (Hogan 1992, 153; Kinzer 2008, 59). His strength of leadership was obliterated after the Islamic revolution that oversaw his downfall.
Evaluation of sources
During the research of the study, a number of reference books were used including other reference material like the periodicals in the internet, and journals about Iranians Revolution among others.
Specifically, from an online periodical titled “MacroHistory and world report: The Iranian revolution” the author has cited the precise happenings dates as to why and how the revolution took place in Iran. The article has elaborated profoundly the happenings before up to the time the revolution was said to have taken place at a point the author states, “After returning to power in 1954, the shah launched an effort to modernize Iran economically and socially.
He was seeking to balance his increase in power with changes, which would be favored by the normal Iran people.” Another reference material used was the Encyclopedia of the Cold War, Volume 1 that clearly brings out the facts about Iranian revolution. The book is written in simple English that as a reader I was able to understand it very well. It defines the historic times events between 1945 and 1991 when the United States was in collusion with a group of nations that dominated world politics the USSR.
From this reading, discussions of how states joined together to act against the other in way to show who was more superior are clearly brought out it also examines how nations continuous anxiety arose, widened and eventually calmed down. The author of the book is keen to note the time line of each occurring event: “The 1960s and 1970s saw significant rise in the observance of religion in part as a reaction to Shah’s reforms whish directly targeted the clergy and the core supporters” (Wagner 2010, 53).
He also examines the military (CIA) efforts that contributed to the success of the coup that heard planned on including the diplomatic help from states that saw Iran not falling into Russians’ hands together with the evolution of the political arrears in Iran not forgetting its impact to the people of Iran. Using a geopolitical style of writing, the author is able to capture the readers attention to try and help the reader get to know the perspective of all the nations that participated in the cold war.
From the two sources it is clear that as a researcher, is well equipped to analyze whether the Cold War had any impact to the revolution of Iran. The accounts produced were meaning full to the coming up with the study above. Without the referencing over the accounts mentioned in the study, the events would be seen as unclear occurrences that leaves a reader having doubts as to whether the events that have been mentioned are true or just a story has been made up (Macrohistory and world report, 2011).
Analysis
When doing the research going through the historical context is quite important as the researcher gathers information and facts necessary to support the research question. When using a historical context, one needs to note the precise dates to establish the sequence of events instead of having vague dates.
Knowing the historical background of an event from a historical context makes it easier to analyze the event thoroughly and more accurately. Hence, by considering historical context during a study it means there is essential balanced view to critically analyze the event or happening since there is enough evidence to prove it’s a true happening and the information present is usually needed for its restoration. The analysis of a historical context forms the base of the study conducted.
Conclusion
The cold war between Russia, the United States and Britain, and the Mosaddeq government played a major role in the onset of the 1953 Iranian coup that led to the subsequent downfall of the Shah Pahlavi’s government and the revolution of Iran came to birth. Pahlavi was a pro-American figure who had good diplomatic relationship with the United States.
As a result the United States through the CIA helped the Shah oust Mosaddeq from the prime minister’s position through an organized institutional coup. The main reason for this action was because Mosaddeq’s government had nationalized British property. Mosaddeq’s government was also weak and the U.S. and Britain feared that Iran would fall into Russia’s hands.
Shah Pahlavi succeeded in the coup and engaged in major infrastructural and economic developments. However, not every Iranian citizen benefited from his projects.
Consequently, students started demonstrating thereby paving way for stronger anti-Shah campaigns. The Americans overlooked the strength of these anti-Shah protests. Mainly who were the conservative Shiite Muslims who wanted their nation to be governed using Islamic Law. This led to the Islamic revolution that oversaw the ousting of the Shah in 1979.
The revolution in 1979 had been supported for by practically every person in the Iranian society. Though during that time there were conflicts within some Muslims groups to mention: Islamic tendencies that included Islamists, Marxist-Islamic and democratic-Islamic and Marxist-Leninist tendencies that included fada’I, Tudeh, Maoist, and others this conflict was seen not to be major as compared to the Shahs rule that they wanted to over through. These groups did not let their conflicts deter them from overthrowing Shahs governance. Instead, they united together in efforts to bring down the Shahs governance and overthrowing the state.
Although there were several Muslims who were of no particular tendencies, they were also said to participate in the overthrowing of Shahs governance in Iran. These people were regarded as the modern middleclass people who single solidly objected the removal of shah but were threatened to be accused of treason if they didn’t join the rest of their Muslim brothers in removing Shah from power.
References
Amuzegar, J., 1991. The Dynamics of the Iranian Revolution: The Pahlavis’ Triumph And Tragedy. New York: State University of New York Press.
Curtis, M., 2007. The Coup in Iran, 1953. WordPress. Web.
Gasiorowski, M. & Byrne, M., 2004. Mohammad Mosaddeo and the 1953 Coup in Iran. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Gasiorowski, M., 1998. The 1953 coup de tat in Iran. Department of political sciences, Louisiana State University. Web.
Gottfried, T., 2003. The cold war: the rise and fall of the Soviet Union. Brookfield, Connecticut: Twenty first century books.
Hogan, M., 1992. The End of the Cold War: Its Meaning and Implications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Houghton, D., 2001. US Foreign Policy and the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The period of the Cold War can be considered the time of depression or the time of dramatic progress and changes. As two superpowers competed in all possible domains, it was apparent that athletic fitness and physical training could become the same premises for a competition as the arms race or other areas where some rivalry between the United States of America and the Soviet Union occurred.
As such, Thomas M. Hunt analyzes the rise of competition in the field of physical training, especially in Olympic Games in the period of the Cold War. The author claims that the time of Lyndon B. Johnson presidential administration shifted the priorities in the sports national policy and vision of sports rivalry in the United States.
Analysis of the thesis
“Addressing the subject in terms of federal initiatives during the 1960s, this article will argue that the years of the Lyndon B. Johnson presidential administration served as an important transition period between competing visions of American sport policy” (Hunt 274).
Though Hunt suggests that vision of the rivalry in sport shifted in the years of Johnson administration, this change had efficient premises and was a matter of time. I believe that the thesis is rather strong though it makes the readers think about other factors that could have contributed to reorganization of the sports policy in the United States.
However, the thesis in this article is well-though and formulated on the basis of an introductory part where the author explains his point of view. For instance, Hunt discussed rivalry between two superpowers in the period of Cold War and inferred from it that sport policy is another area for competition and that the administration of Lyndon B. Johnson contributed greatly to shifts made in physical training policy and vision of the conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States.
Evidence to support the thesis
Hunt uses reports and facts to support the thesis why I believe that the entire discussion of the topic lacks analysis of other perspectives that could be interesting in this issue. First, the author mentions Kennedy’s attempts to propagate physical fitness as a way to make the mute conflict even more tensed as well as Eisenhower’s vision of the level of physical fitness in the national framework.
As such, Kennedy claimed that “Communist system possesses the vigor and determination necessary to satisfy awakening aspirations for progress” (Hunt 275) which can be treated as a way to make people more ideologically concerned with their physical fitness in order to be ready to reflect the enemy’s ‘aggression’. On the other hand, this fact supports the ideas introduced in the thesis: Cold War period shifted priorities and the nation became more concerned with the rivalry in the domain of sport policy and Olympic Games.
The rivalry in physical fitness could also reflect the desires of the nation and its administration to attain superiority and show that the American people can succeed in other areas than technological development and arms race.
Hunt did not discuss rivalry broadly in other domains in terms of failures and victories of each side while other factors could be essential for Johnson administration to bring the concept of physical fitness into a brand-new level. The war in Vietnam was not as effective as the Americans thought it to be and thousands of people were not satisfied with the policies of the President administration to get involved into other military conflicts.
As such, the only way to distract the population from the administration was to give people another enemy to fight against. Consequently, physical fitness concept and sport policies, as well as competitions in the international athletic arena, became the primary goal of all people whereas this strategy was not more than a mere propaganda.
Two superpowers in the period of Cold War were in the condition of permanent stress and every event was treated as a chance to demonstrate superiority over the rival. The arms race is the most essential domain in which no winner could be while physical fitness and sports competitions became a matter of efforts, propaganda, sacrifice, and many other issues that became important for people who thought about the conflict and believed it necessary to do everything to support their compatriots.
Hunt analyzes the emergence of physical fitness concept and its increasing importance in the period of Cold War which is the strength of the author’s argument while every domain was the ‘field of battle’ and people specializing in different domains were encouraged to perform a labor feat as a means to demonstrate patriotism and loyalty to the country.
In this respect the weakness of the argument is that it could have focused on physical fitness and sport policy as one of numerous displays of the Cold War but not emphasize that the President Johnson and his administration catalyzed desire of the American people to win all the competitions in sport by means of telling them that it is great to develop physical fitness.
Conclusion
The tension apparent for the period of Cold War can be evaluated with regard to achievements in different domains though Hunt attempts to prove that sport policies are the result of shifts in the consciousness of the president administration in the years of Johnson when the matter of physical fitness and victories at the Olympics were considered a feat in the name of the country.
The evidence is rather convincing, while many other ideas emerge while reading the article. The author focuses on the sports policies and tries to identify who began the shift in the domain whereas there are other important factors that could have been evaluated in terms of contribution to the development of sports propaganda.
Work Cited
Hunt, Thomas M. “American sport policy and the cultural Cold War: The Lyndon B. Johnson presidential years.” Journal of Sport History, 33.3: 273-297. Print.
America’s corporate connections and role to Hitler’s Holocaust
The role that corporate America (the likes of IBM, General Motors, the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Motor Company and the Carnegie Institute of Science) played on Hitler’s Holocaust cut across corporate, academic and financial relations. This was evident in the 1920s and 1930s leading up to the Second World War.
The relations were also seen during the war. However, a question still lingers on whether the German genocidal desires would have taken place without this “help” from corporate America. Black states that “the holocaust would always have occurred with or without assistance from America, however, the assistance the Hitler regime did receive, enormously magnified the astronomical dimensions and statistics of that genocide” (45).
Black outlines the role of Carnegie Institute of Science, and Eugenics, in the plot to create a master race. According to Black, “Hitler’s war against humanity was always wrapped in pseudo-academics, falsely medicalized, coated with fallacious race science and twisted intellectualism” (39).
Hitler’s desire to create a race that represented him and his interests according to Black was “postulated that heredity not only transmitted physical features, such as hair color and height, but mental, emotional and creative qualities as well” (15, 459). Eugenics refers to “the study of all agencies under social control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations” (18).
The holocaust was carried out by Hitler and his cohorts. He victimized a whole continent and turned Germans against a whole race and finally exterminated millions of Jews in his pursuit in creation of a master race. But this cannot be said to have started with him. The notion of a “white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn’t originate with Hitler.
The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. Californian eugenicists, played an important, although little known role in the American eugenics movement’s campaign for ethnic cleansing” (27).
These corporate firms knowingly committed themselves to supporting Hitler’s barbaric action in Europe. From Ford’s, Jew hatred and political racism-Hitler was especially, personal had a high regard for the anti-Semitism of Henry Ford-; to the Carnegie’s involvement in creation of a Master Race; the relationship between Rockefeller and Joseph Mengele; and GM’s Motorization of the Reich.
“Ironically, most of these corporations have admitted their crimes and apologized. This includes Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller and even General Motors. Only IBM has remained silent a decade after the revelations of its genocidal conduct first became known” (Black 180).
“IBM Germany, known in those days as Deutsche Hollerith Maschinen Gesellschaft, or Dehomag, did not simply sell the Reich machines and then walk away. IBM’s German subsidiary in full knowledge of its New York headquarters, enthusiastically custom-designed complex devices and specialized applications as an official corporate undertaking for the Reich.
Dehomag’s top management was comprised of openly rabid Nazis who were arrested after the war for their Party affiliation. IBM NY always understood-from the outset in 1933- that it was courting and doing business with the upper echelon of the Nazi Party. The company leveraged its Nazi Party connections to continuously enhance its business relationship with Hitler’s Reich, in Germany and throughout Nazi-dominated Europe” (Black 59).
Corporate America was mainly driven by realizing profits for their organizations. Black stated that “each of these corporations had a direct involvement in the actual genocide perpetrated by Hitler against the Jews” (423).
COINTELPRO and its main purpose
COINTELPRO or better known as Counter Intelligence Program was widely used by the FBI-Federal Bureau of Investigation- especially during the 1960s and 1970s. It is characterized by a series of covert and in most cases illegal ventures being carried out by the United States of America’s FBI in opposition to domestic groups.
These ventures were aimed at providing surveillance, infiltration, discrediting, and disruption of domestic political organizations (Friedman 237). Among the strategies the FBI used by utilizing COINTELPRO were, discrediting of targets through psychological warfare; smearing reputations through forged letters; harassment and aggravation; use of extralegal violence and assassinations; planting false reports in the media; and unlawful imprisonment/detention (Zinn and Arnove, 507).
These covert operations mainly took place between the period after the Second World War and the beginning of the cold war. They became widespread between 1956 and 1971 even though the Federal Bureau of Investigation has made use of clandestine operations to counter domestic political groupings since it was set up (Friedman 271).
Friedman stated that the main purpose of COINTELPRO was to “neutralize political dissidents, and that the formal COINTELPRO’s rationales of 1956-1971 were broadly targeted against radical political organizations; for instance, in the early 50s, the Communist Party was declared illegal in the United States” (236). COINTELPRO was mainly driven by the urge to “protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order” (Zinn and Arnove, 507).
During the period between 1960 and 1970, the role of the FBI’s COINTELPRO program was involved in neutralizing individual leaders such as; Black Liberators such as; Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael, H. “Rap” Brown, Elijah Muhammad, Maxwell Stanford, Dick Gregory, Huey Newton, David Hilliard; and Key Activists such as, Tom Hayden, David Dellinger, Jane Fonda, John Lennon, Jean Seberg, David Herreshoff, David Simpson among others (Zinn and Arnove, 507).
The techniques were adopted wholesale from wartime counterintelligence, and ranged from the trivial (mailing reprints of Reader’s Digest articles to college administrators) to the degrading (sending anonymous poison-pen letters intended to break up marriages) and the dangerous (encouraging gang warfare and falsely labeling members of a violent group as police informers).
Martin Luther King, Jr. was a target of the bureau all through his life from December 1963 until his death in 1968 due to his alleged subversive activities (Friedman 157). The bureau stage an intense campaign to investigate and “neutralize” Martin Luther King, Jr. as an effective civil rights leader (Zinn and Arnove, 507). There were also deep feelings among the bureau that he had communist leanings or influences.
The targeting of Martin Luther King Jr. and john Lennon came on the backdrop of effects of the just concluded Second World War. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover directed that any groups, or individuals that were considered “subversive,” “including communist and socialist organizations; organizations and individuals associated with the civil rights movement” were to be stooped and reports indicate that more than 85% of COINTELPRO resources were used for this (Friedman 157).
Friedman states that those specifically targeted were Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and any persons associated with civil rights movements within the United States; the Congress of Racial Equality and other civil rights organizations and black nationalist groups, to name but a few.
The targeting on Martin Luther King Jr. and john Lennon was meant to “expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize” them especially due to their being vocal on issues to do with civil rights and against the war in Vietnam for the later (Zinn and Arnove, 507).
The FBI tried to justify the use of COINTELPRO and covert/illegal missions as protecting national security by preventing violence. Friedman states that the only explanation that offers insight into COINTELPRO’s main purpose is that “the Bureau has a role in maintaining the existing social order, and that its efforts should be aimed toward combating those who threaten that order”, this somehow sheds light on the use of actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation “which had no conceivable rational relationship to either national security or violent activity” (275)
Extent to which “media control” exists today and why
Noam Chomsky in his book, media control: the spectacular achievements of propaganda, looks into the possibility of being able to live in a free society or whether individuals are satisfied with living in what amounts to a self imposed totalitarianism.
Democracies the world over have utilized propaganda to create a general feeling that serves the interests of a few. As a result of “media control”, people have long lived devoid of awareness of how media has been diverting the bewildered herd. The question therefore is what extent does media control exist today and why does it? (Jowett, O’Donnell and Jowett 64).
To understand the extent to which media control exists in today’s present world one has to first grasp the relationship between the role of the media in contemporary politics. Chomsky extensively explains this by stating that the question on having a free society or not is wholly dependent on the type of democracy one wants to be (Chomsky, 7).
There are two conception types of democracies according to Chomsky. One states that democratic societies are places where the public has a right of participation in administration of their own personal affairs and that information is free and open to each individual (Jowett, O’Donnell and Jowett, 256).
On the other hand, the second alternative notion of what democracy is, states that the public have got to be excluded from administering their own affairs, and that information should be narrowly and firmly controlled. This is where media control comes into play. The later conception though it may seem odd but is the most prevalent in today’s society (Chomsky, 8).
Propaganda has been widely used and is still in use today as a tool of media control. From the First World War to the conflicts affecting the world today, there are strong inclinations of the use of propaganda. The Nazis used propaganda, America’s election of president Woodrow Wilson in 1916 on a platform of “Peace without Victory” in the middle of World War 1 necessitated the use of propaganda to win the war (Jowett, O’Donnell and Jowett, 44).
Chomsky states that “each divergence in opinion is at any rate fought on two grounds: on the battleground and in people’s minds and aided by propaganda” (26). It’s always a question of who is misleading the public, but both the “good guys” and the “bad guys” are guilty of controlling the masses actions and thinking by use of distortion of information, exaggerations, subjectivity, inaccuracies, fabrications and misleading in order to serve their interests and gain legitimacy (Jowett, O’Donnell and Jowett, 15).
Media control/propaganda use was also evident when Germany was preparing for the Second World War. There were various forms of this and it was necessitated by two primary reasons (Nazi agendas): 1) to be able to persuade the public to join in the war and fight; and 2) that it was necessary to go to war.
Woodrow Wilson’s administration committed itself to going to war and had to convince the public of why they had to engage Germany in war. “The Creel Commission (a propaganda commission) established to undertake convincing of the public, managed within six months, in turning a pacifist population into a hysterical, war-mongering population which wanted to destroy everything German, tear the Germans limb from limb, go to war and save the world” (Chomsky, 8).
Jowett, O’Donnell and Jowett state that this was a major achievement for the commission and the government and was also utilized during the red scare. The hysterics whipped up during this time “succeeded pretty much in destroying unions and eliminating such dangerous problems as freedom of the press and freedom of political thought” (44).
Promoting or fabrication of information with an intention of misleading mainly by providing a negative aspect/image of what one deems as his “enemy” is usually reinforced by a “rhetoric about the righteousness of those promoting propaganda” (Chomsky, 32). Media control in most cases tries to make the public be afraid of the government but in real sense it is the government that should be afraid of the public.
Chomsky touches on how the modern public relations industry has been influenced by Walter Lippmann’s theory of “spectator democracy,” in which the public is seen as a “bewildered herd” that needs to be directed, not empowered; and how the public relations industry in the United States focuses on “controlling the public mind,” and not on informing it.
Media controls are usually an attempt to gather together support for government and nurture belief in people that the actions intended by the government are necessary and positive and will be beneficial to the interest of everyone (Jowett, O’Donnell and Jowett, 44). Chomsky states that over and over again, the main ideologies put into use to demonize perceived “enemies”, are not used to “judge the self, leading to accusations of double standards and hypocrisy” (47).
Works Cited
Black, Edwin. IBM and the Holocaust: the strategic alliance between Nazi Germany and America’s most powerful corporation. Crown Publishers: New York, 2001. Print.
Black, Edwin. Nazi nexus: America’s corporate connections to Hitler’s Holocaust. Dialog Press: Hesse, Germany, 2009. Print.
Black, Edwin. War against the weak: eugenics and America’s campaign to create a master race. Four Walls Eight Windows: Arundel, 2003. Print.
Friedman, John. The secret histories: hidden truths that challenged the past and changed the world. Picador: Iowa City, 2005. Print.
Jowett, Garth, O’Donnell, Victoria and Jowett Garth. Propaganda and persuasion. Sage: New York, 2006. Print.
Zinn, Howard and Arnove Anthony. Voices of a people’s history of the United States. Seven Stories Press: New York, 2004. Print.
Several reasons resulted to the emergence of the cold war, which involved the USA and the USSR right after the World War II. However, the most significant underlying factor was the growing suspicion between the two countries (Hurst 156). Some of these reasons included the Americans fear of attacks from the communists because the Russians disliked capitalism. Additionally, the development of mass destruction weapons was also of concern.
During the Second World War, America and the USSR were strong allies. However, this turned different after the war as they shared different views about various aspects. They eventually grew apart confirming that their union was illusionary. Furthermore, before the war, the US described the USSR as a reincarnation of the devil but the feeling was mutual; the USSR did not see the US any different from the devil.
The US and the USSR only became allies during the Second World War because they had a common enemy. The suspicion grew even further when the United States refused to share its nuclear secrets (Hurst 156).
Moreover, Joseph Stalin (The Soviet leader) did not know about the nuclear weapon that the Americans were going to use to destroy Japan until reports came back to Moscow about the Hiroshima bombing. The major difference between the Russians and the Americans was that the Americans had sophisticated technology in terms of weapons while the Russians had a vast army.
Some of the ideologies that led to the emergence of the cold war include elections, whereby the Americans believed that elections should exist, and they should be free, while the Soviet Union believed that there should be no election. Secondly, the American believed in democracy, while the Soviet Union supported dictatorship or Autocratic form of leadership.
The third reason is that Americans were capitalists, while the Soviet Union supported communism. Furthermore, the Americans believed in survival for the fittest, while the Soviet Union believed in helping each other.
The difference in the economy, for instance, America being a superpower while the Soviet Union was a small and poor economy also contributed to the emergence of the cold war. Similarly, The American believed in personal freedom, while the Soviet Union was in support of secret police controlled society. In addition, the United States believed in freedom of the press, while the Russians completely censored the media.
In 1945, the Americans dropped a bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which led to the arms race. Consequently, in 1947 Stalin refused Marshall from providing aid to Eastern part of Europe. Additionally, the establishment of NATO in 1949 and china becoming a communist also contributed to the emergence of the cold war. In 1950, the South Korea started a war with North Korea where the United Nations supported the South Koreans, while the republic of China supported the North Koreans.
In 1953, the Americans tested their first hydrogen bomb hence confirming that they were engaging in the development of mass destruction weapons. As a result, the suspicion increased between the United State of America and the USSR. Furthermore, Hungry broke away from the USSR in 1956, which also majorly contributed to the emergence of the cold war. Czar Nicholas II contributed to the Bolshevik revolution in 1957, when he made eleven million people to participate in the First World War.
As a result, the Russian people were extremely agitated and could not take the injuries and loss of lives caused by the war any more hence this set the stage for one of the biggest revolution in the history of Russia. However, after the revolution erupted, Czar Nicholas tried to use force to contain the situation, by the use of military action but the protestors supporting the revolution converted the military.
The formation of a provincial government replaced the fallen Czar regime. However, the provincial government did not live up to its promise of putting to an end Russian involvement in the war (Hurst 156). Instead, things deteriorated; the formation of the Bolshevik party rose against the government and seized various social amenities and institutions in the night of November 6, 1917 with the order and guidance of the Soviet’s Military committee.
The Bolshevik formed the new government, which supported socialism. This was the beginning of the soviet regime, which supported socialism. Such a development was one of the causes that led to the emergence of the cold war because of ideological conflict between the US and the USSR. Most of the people in Russian believed that the Bolshevik party was going to provide better leadership and direction to the country through their Communism.
In 1959, Cuba let by Fidel Castro became a communist nation. Similarly, in 1961, the United States sent military troops to Vietnam, and it is in the same year that the Germans built the Berlin wall.
The difference in ideologies between the super powers was also evident in the allies of these super powers. As a result, there was a distinct separation between the United States allies and the USSR allies. However, throughout this period, the United States and the Soviet Union openly showed their might through space expeditions and advancement in technology.
As a result, it increased the fear between the two countries. The cold war did not start until Truman who was by then the current president of Russia embarked on the Marshall plan. Additionally, the extension of the Russian influence into Europe by use of the red army also contributed to the development of the cold war. Similarly, eastern Germany also fell under the Russian control.
Towards the end of the Second World War, Russia started to put together her control in Europe. The Russians did this by intimidating the voters of the newly formed states and imposing their influence on them. Due to this, the bulk of the votes went to the communists hence making Russia have an enormous influence on the newly formed governments.
The Russians were incredibly tactful; they took control of the military and the entire defense of these newly formed governments. In addition, these were the strongest sectors of the newly formed states. However, there are several reasons that made the cold war not to start until the end of the Second World War for instance; both Russia and the United States of America were busy developing their own economies and form of governance.
In addition, Russia was not stable politically, it was going through revolutions and their internal affairs were not in order. Similarly, neither the United States nor Russia had come up with unique capabilities for instance the bomb, which could raise suspicion and instill fear. These were the reasons that delayed the cold war until the end of the Second World War.
In conclusion, the cold war was because of mistrust and fear between the Soviet Union and the US. This suspicion grew even more when the United States of America invented the bomb, which was one of the most powerful mass destruction weapons at the time. However, Russia also went ahead and invented the bomb hence showing stiff competition between the two countries. In addition, there was a rush between the two countries to form allies. The reason for this was to get support for their ideologies and forms of governance.
Works Cited
Hurst, Steven. Cold war US foreign policy: key perspectives. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 2005. Print.
The cold war was a war between two superpower nations, the Soviet Union which believed in communism and the United States which advocated for free governance hence supporting a democratic government. The cold war can be said to have been caused by the difference in ideologies that existed between the two nations and the hunger to control and dominate the world as the superpower.
The cold war did not use military or army weapons; it used other measures to curb the power and the influence of the other nation. Economic restrictions and spread of propaganda against each other were used as the war weapons, as each nation tried all available means to destroy and weaken the ability of the other nation in expanding and gaining popularity.
The beginning of the cold war can be traced way back even before the beginning of the second world war that is after the Bolshevik Revolution and formation of Russian union in 1917. According to Leffler in his book “The Specter of Communism”(1994) the cold war was a political and economical war between the United States and the Soviet Union, which started few years after the end of the First World War, as they struggled to gain popularity and control over the world.
The two nations had differences in terms of governing, whereby the United States dominated by the capitalism and the Soviet Union dominated by the communism. Each state believed that its governing policy was more superior and should be adopted by all nations, thus they tried to influence other countries to form allies against the other superpower nation in order to reduce their power.
The major threats of cold war started with the raise of the Russian revolution under the readership of Bolshevik regime which was determined to spread the communism all over the world, by influencing and cooperating with various countries in order to outfit the Americans.
The United States and the Soviet Union did not involve themselves in any war, but aided the ally’s nations in fighting their opponents. In 1918 to 1920 the United States and Britain joined together to fight Bolshevik regime, but they were unsuccessful. After this inversion, the relationship between the Americans and the Russian worsened, the soviet attitude regarding the Americans and the west became even worse.
Upon the Bolshevik revolution, Russia was a semi-peripheral state and was still struggling to catch up with west which was viewed as most industrialized by then, thus the Russian spent most of its time and economic in strengthening its army. It also invested a lot in the manufacturing of the atomic booms and military ammunition in preparation to defend itself in case of war outbreak. Russia was suspecting that the United States were manufacturing the atomic bombs and they may use them in attacking them.
The landing of the American troops in Russia to assist the anti- Bolshevik in the Russian civil war increased the tension and suspicion within the communism leadership over the capitalism. After the involvement of Americans in the Russian civil war, the relationship between Russians and the Americans became a major point of suspicion and mistrust. 1n 1935 the Stalin adjusted his policies; he started forming alliances with the democratic powers in the western in order to fight the Nazi of Germany.
His initiative failed and he decided to sign the Nazi-soviet pact with the leader of the Nazi the Hitler. The signing of the treaty only increased the anti-soviet tension and the hostility in the western nations. This treaty delayed the beginning of the war between the two superpower nations.
In 1941, Germany invaded the Russians breaking the treaty signed between Germany and the Russian nations. After the attack, the Stalin withdrew his cooperation with the Germans and supported Britain under the rule of the Churchill.
Churchill and Stalin signed a treaty to form a formal alliance to fight against Adolf Hitler. The United States did not join the treaty as it wanted to remain neutral and concentrated in military upgrading. After the American Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Hitler, the United States joined the union formed between Russian and Britain in aid to fight Germany.
This alliance did not last long due to the disagreement that arose between Poland which was an alley of Britain and the Soviet Union concerning the support and cooperation of Stalin with Hitler after Hitler ordered the killing of Polish officers. Despite this suspicion, the western allies and the soviet continued to cooperate in order to defeat the growing strength of Adolf Hitler.
During this war, both sides had a lot of disagreements on various military strategies especially the opening of the second fight against Germany. The Soviet Union believed that Britain and the United States delayed the invasion intentionally in order to attack at the last minute so as they can influence the settlement of the peace with a view to dominate Europe.
Stalin saw that the United States and Britain waited for him and his troops to get exhausted so that they can defeat him and take control. Soviet Union suffered a great loss as it recorded a high number of casualties. This increased tension and hostility among the allied powers.
In conclusion it can be said that cold war started in mid 19th century some years before the beginning of the world war two. The major causes can be attributed to the suspicion and high tension that existed between the Soviet Union and the United States over control of the world.
The Americans viewed communist as enemies who needed to be monitored and controlled as they threatened to take control of the world. On the other hand, Russia under the Soviet Union viewed the United States as a major threat to their ambition of expansion, as they posed the main challenge to Russia.
The war remained cold without the use of military as each nation did not want to be directly associated with the cause of the war. The two nations just supported other nations that were fighting.
Americans supported the British army while Russia supported Germany army in the Nazi war until the time when the Nazi invaded Russia forcing the Soviet Union to collaborate with Britain and America in fighting the Nazi. The real effects of the cold war were fully seen and felt after the second ward war, where each nation viewed the other nation as an enemy, and they had to keep an eye on each other.
Reference
Leffler, M., P.(1994) The Specter of Communism. New York. Hill and Wang