The end of World War II marked the beginning of the cold war. This war was between world’s super power nations: the United States and its allied nations against the Soviet Union and its allies on the other side. This war took place between 1946 and 1991.
According to Ted and Reim cold war was not a physical battle, but a prolonged state of competition between the United States and the Soviet Union in terms of weapon sophistication, technology advancement, economic stability and political influence (19). The aim of this article is to depict what transpired during the cold war and several factors about the Cold war.
These factors include difference in ideologies between the two nations. The United States and the Soviet Union had two opposing types of government. Klaus and Lane states that the United States government supported multiparty system, democracy, capitalism, personal freedom and free elections but the Soviet Union was opposed to this system of governance. The country practiced dictatorial and communist system (17).
Economically, the United States supported international free trade but the Soviet Union was opposed to it and barred free international trade. The United States and the Soviet Union had power rivalry. Both nations were fighting to dominate the other after decline of Europe. Also, there relationship had deteriorated during World War II after the United States supplied weapon to Russian opponents. Additionally, the United States had turned down Russia’s request to help in stabilizing the economy after the Second World War.
Klaus and Lane state that this war came to be known as the cold war because the two sides: the Soviet Union and the United States never engaged in a physical fight. This led to use of others nations as battle fields by these super powers to prove there supremacy (1). For instance, “during Vietnam War the Soviet Union supported North Vietnam while the United States supported South Vietnam” (Klaus and Lane 139).
Klaus and Lane argue that the United States is seen as the winner of cold war, because the Soviet Union finally agreed terms of the United States which led to signing of START I treaty between George H. W. Bush and Gorbachov (185). According to this treaty, the Soviet Union agreed not to interfere with affairs of Eastern Europe.
It also agreed to “establish contact with other countries and invited external investors to invest in the Soviet Union, a move they had opposed before” (Ted and Reim 128). The United States managed to defeat the Soviet Union through imposing economic sanctions. The United States destabilized the country’s oil market by “requesting Arabia to increase the oil production to cater for world’s oil demand” (Ted and Reim 124).
This led to deterioration of the Soviet Union economy forcing them to introduce restructuring reforms. These reforms allowed external investors to invest in the Soviet Union. In order to revive their devastated economy, “Soviet Union agreed to sign intermediate range nuclear force treaty with the United States to regulate nuclear weapon” (Klaus and Lane 192).
From the cold war we learn, that any form of war has a negative impact on the economy growth. Both the Soviet Union and the United States spent a large portion of their revenue to support the cold war through funding projects to invent new sophisticated weapons, paying a large number of soldiers fighting in the war and channeling other resources towards the war.
Unity among nations is crucial to the growth of the nation’s economy, because it prevents trade malpractice and sanctions from competitor nations. Democratic government is better as opposed to autocratic government. It is important to allow people freedom, multiparty system and free trade at local, national and international level. Also, it is essential to introduce and support international security, trade and political policies to prevent occurrence of another war.
Lessons emerging from cold war have contributed to consultative decision making by countries on matters concerning international security, economy, trade and politics. In addition, these lessons are one of key factors which have led to formation of international union to create and enact policies on international security, politics, and trade.
Wastage of funds on military operation in foreign country is one lesson which has not been taken in to account by modern American foreign policy. The United States up to date sends the soldiers to fight in different nations. If these military operations are not well planned, they can adversely affect its economy as witnessed in the Soviet Union.
In addition, the United States has been developing nuclear technology and expanding its military capacity. Risks associated with these mistakes include: high chances of triggering another war, economic turmoil, lose of life and jobs and global division across interest lines.
War on terror is a characteristic by product of cold war because the militia who perpetrate terror attacks are funded and supported by individuals, nations and groups with common interest against the United States.
Additionally, fight against terror attacks seems to be between the United States and its supporters against terror groups who are backed up by some nations. From the lessons of the cold war, victims of terror attacks can opt to negotiate with the terror groups to solve this problem. Also, they can use military attacks, economic and financial sanctions to destabilize these terror groups network.
In conclusion, the cold war was between the United States and the Soviet Union. Although it was not physically fought on their soil, the two nations were adversely affected especially in terms of economy. The Soviet Union was much devastated by aftermath of the war and opted to sign treaties with the United States which led to the end of the cold war in 1991.
Works Cited
Klaus, Larres and Anne Lane. The cold war: Essential reading. Massachusetts: Blackwell publishers Inc, 2001. Print.
Ted, Gottfried and Melanie Reim. The cold war. New Milford: The Millbrook Inc, 2003. Print.
The Cold War started in the year 1945 and ended in the year 1990. This war was characterized by military and political enmity between the US and the Soviet Union. After the collapse of the Nazi government, in the year 1945, the US and the Soviet Union became the world superpowers.
The Cold War initiated several changes in the American society during and after the war. These changes were enhanced by the differences in democratic values between the US and the Soviet Union. During the early 1990s, the Cold War had greatly influenced America’s domestic and foreign policies.
Before the Cold War, the US government was not involved in foreign affairs. For instance, during the leadership of President Gorge Washington, the American government did not participate in foreign affairs and alliances. During the year 1935, Neutrality Act was enacted.
Through this act, the US Government was forbidden from participating in foreign wars and affairs. Equally, during the World War II, the US government never got involved in foreign affairs. However, after the fall of the Nazi government in Germany, the US perspective on foreign policies and affairs changed.
After the year 1945, the US considered the Soviet Union as a threat to its security. Notably, the communist expansion and Russia’s advancements in weaponry forced the American government to be involved in foreign affairs.
As witnessed from various government administrations during the Cold War, the US foreign policies and domestic policies were changed constantly to thwart the spread of communisms, and to stop Soviet Union from attacking America and its allies. For instance, Three months into office president Dwight D. Eisenhower conveyed a meeting in the Solarium house at the White House.
At the meeting, the president met with three different teams to deliberate on appropriate foreign policies required to secure the country’s security systems. At the end of the meeting, the president agreed to change the country’s foreign policies. Through these changes, the US had to help its allies resist the spread of communisms. As a result, the adopted policies enabled the American government to help its allies with military resources. By doing so, the US strengthens its allies’ abilities to resist communism.
In the year 1961, Kennedy’s administration had to change the country’s foreign policies through the adoption of diplomatic and military initiatives. Unlike before, Kennedy formed and deployed new intelligent foreign experts in various countries to tackle the emerging diplomatic challenges. In support with Eisenhower’s strategies, Kennedy preferred diplomacy to violence in tackling conflicts with the Soviet Union.
With regard to domestic policy, the Cold War had several impacts on the American society. Notably, the American security agencies influenced the Hollywood producers to create more anticommunist films with the aim of reinforcing negative attitudes about the communists in American societies.
Out of these initiatives, patriotism was enhanced leading to increased mistrust in communist actions across the US. During this period, communist proponents were wrongfully accused, fired from their jobs, and their human and civil rights abused.
During the war, the US government realized the need to abolish racial discrimination and other forms of social discrimination in the country. This move was fueled by the need to enhance the country’s international image as a reformed nation. Through these reforms, several social injustices in America were abolished leading to the long awaited changes in domestic policies.
Near the end of the World War II, upon the surrender of the Nazi, there emerged strong alliances among nations that had participated in the world war. On one hand were the US and the Great Britain and on the other were the Soviet Union and their allies. Immediately after the end of the World War II, there emerged a silent rivalry among these two blocs which was merely economical, political and was waged on propaganda on superiority of weaponry among the blocs.
term ‘cold war’ was used for the first time by an English writer by the name George Orwell. This appeared in an article by George which predicted about the nuclear weaponry advancements in the Great Britain, The Soviet Union and the US[1].
Close to the end of the World War II, there was a partial division of Europe in wartime-alliance manner. The Soviet Union installed government systems in countries that she considered her liberals and had been salvaged by the Red Army. This was threatening to the United States who feared Domination of Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union. By 1948, The US started showing interest to Western Europe through availing of aid as provided in the Marshall Plan[2].
Cold war strongly took shape between 1949 -1953. During this period, the Soviet was unable to secure her influence in West Berlin. The US and its allied nations formed a military command, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), whose aim was to barricade the presence of the Soviet’s forces in Europe.
During this period the soviet tested their first atomic bomb a phenomenon which was aimed at putting the US influence at check[3]. Around the same period, North Korea’s communist powers attacked the South Korea which was greatly supported by the US. This war lasted for four years ending in 1953.
After the end of the longtime Soviet leader Joseph Stalin’s reign, the tension between these two political blocs somehow eased. The Warsaw Pact was signed by nations allied to the Soviet Union and around this time also West Germany entered into NATO.
In 1962, the Soviet Union began installation of missile launchers in Cuba. The US and allied nations felt threatened by this move and went into confrontations which almost triggered war between them. However, before war could spark, an agreement was signed which saw the Soviet agree to withdraw its missile installations from Cuba.
This incidence made it clear that none of these blocs was ready to put into use their nuclear weaponry. In 1963, the Nuclear Test-ban Treaty was signed. This treaty banned testing of nuclear weapons on above the ground. During this whole period, there was no practical warfare confrontation between these blocs.
They however engaged military operations to maintain their influence in Europe and to protect their allies. There were troops in communist nations sent by the Soviet Union. Presence of such troops was rampant in countries like East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, Guatemala and Hungary. In similar circumstances, the US troops were involved in Cuba, Grenada, Dominican Republic and North Vietnam[4].
There was an unpredicted change in course of the pattern through which the world had been split. At around 1970, the world was not divided into two opposing blocs. Divisions had occurred in the Soviet Union where China detached itself from this relationship. The division had spread to other parts of the world a phenomenon which shuttered the unity and organization of the communist bloc.
This disparity was also experienced in the other bloc where Japan and Western Europe become independent as they experienced a dynamic growth in their economies. These differences among the communist bloc nations and consequent differences in nations allied to the US somehow eased the tensions which held cold war intact. Sign of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks I and II greatly influenced the ending of the cold war.
In the 1980s, the leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev began democratizing the Soviet Union. This led to the rise in power of East Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. This was followed by the unification of the two blocs of Germany. Weakening of the Soviet Union led to the shift of power to Russia and in 1991, it was marked the collapse of the Soviet Union where 15 nations were born. This marked the end of the cold war[5].
The effects of the cold war were far reaching than could be assumed. It greatly influenced the socio-political and economic aspects of the two blocs. There were scientific inventions in military weaponry in the two blocs that occurred during this time. The internet for instance was invented during this time and was to be used by the military. Later, an agreement was signed that allowed civilians access to the internet.
Social integration among the people allowed for ideological relationships and agreements were made which finally saw the end of the cold war. Economic powers also emerged in some nations in Europe which reduced the dependency of such nations upon assistance from the super nations.
In conclusion, the emergence and subsequent appropriation of the cold war taught the world peace lessons that have kept it intact and war free up to today[6].
References
Gaddis L. John. We Know Now: Rethinking Cold War History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Hanhimaki, Jussi and Odd Arne Westad. The Cold War: A History in Documents and Eyewitness Accounts. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Henretta, James A. and David Brody. America: A Concise History, Volume 2: Since 1877. 4th ed., Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s Publishers, 2010.
Lendvai, Paul. One day that shook the Communist world: the 1956 Hungarian uprising and its legacy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2008.
Towle, Philip. “Cold War”. In Charles Townshend. The Oxford History of Modern War. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Turner, Henry Ashby. The Two Germanies since 1945: East and West. London: Yale University Press, 1987.
Footnotes
Jussi Hanhimaki and Odd Arne Westad, The Cold War: A History in Documents and Eyewitness Accounts (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 29.
James A. Henretta and David Brody, America: A Concise History, Volume 2: Since 1877. 4th ed. (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s Publishers, 2010), 67.
Henrreta., 69
Paul Lendvai, One day that shook the Communist world: the 1956 Hungarian uprising and its legacy (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2008), 121.
Philip Towle, “Cold War”. In Charles Townshend. The Oxford History of Modern War (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 78.
John Lewis Gaddis, We Know Now: Rethinking Cold War History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 46.
The Cold War was the repercussion of World War II following the emergence of two key supremacy blocs in Europe one of which was subjugated by ideologies of the democracy of the capitalist America. The other one was led by communism and the Soviet Union ideologies.
The two blocs never involved themselves in actual battlefields. In 1947, Baruch, an adviser to Harry Truman, popularised the term Cold War. Baruch used the words Cold War while addressing the legislature of South Carolina State on 16 April 1947 (Baruch and Melly 425). One can trace the origins of the Cold War back based on the relations that existed between the United States, Soviet Union, France, and Britain between 1945 and 1947 as the paper reveals.
Pre-World War II Economic Differences
The revolution that occurred in Russia in 1917 to form the Soviet Russia forms the basis of the Cold War based on the big differences of ideologies and economic positions that arose between the western powers and the capitalist nations. This was happening at a time when Russia was isolated by other major nations in matters of global diplomacy (Lee and Josey 59). There existed variations in economic and political organisation in Russia.
The western powers took advantage of this situation to predate Russia. In 1918, the United States of America sent its troops to Russia to assist the anti-Bolsheviks during the civil war in Russia. This was the first major source of suspicion of the Soviet concerning the Capitalist America (Gaddis and Lenny 570). At this point Russia had differed with the western powers due to its decision to become part of the democratic capitalist economy of the world during the 19th century.
Russia therefore became determined “to break from this dependence through a radical pull out from the economic system of the world that was dominated by the capitalist” (Tucker and Carlos 34). This formed the basis of the mistrust that ensued later on between the two blocs and hence the Cold War. This fuelled the gap between America and Russia further through fear and mistrust.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
Another foundation of the Cold War is the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. This followed the signing of a trade pact by Germany and the Soviet Union (Ericson 57). This agreement was to allow the exchange of civilian and military equipments from Germany for industrial raw materials from the Soviet Union (Shirer 1990, p.668).
This was known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. However, this agreement had a hidden side where Germany and Russia agreed to control the eastern part of Europe and Poland by themselves (Day et al 405). This was followed by the invasion of Poland by Germany just a week later (Tearsy and Kennedy 82). However, this agreement was broken by Germany in 1941 due to a series of aggressions.
The two powers continued to trade especially through the Soviet Union acquiring weapons from Germany in exchange of rubber, oil, and manganese. This was a foundation of the relationship between the two powers before the World War II. However, the “Soviet Russia found itself isolated from international diplomacy” (Tearsy and Kennedy 82). With the Soviet Union unsatisfied with this, other countries suspected that the Soviets could decide to attack them any time when they were unaware and hence the war.
The World War II Differences
When Germany invaded Russia, the soviet united with the western European countries and with America. This was aimed at winning against Adolf Hitler who was their seemingly common and major enemy. This war changed the balance of power in the world. Europe became weaker while the United States and Russia became super powers.
These super powers had a great strength of the military. The alliances formed at this point were war based. They did not live long since, by the beginning of 1943, every side of the alliance was looking at its own interest of the war. For example, Russia took control of many parts of the Eastern Europe where she intended to install her ideologies in the countries in a bid to shield them from the influence of the capitalist.
Regardless of complains from the other members of the alliance, Russia continued with her efforts to impose its communist ideologies on what they conquered. Russia was so powerful to the point of leaving the other members watching her impose her ideologies on large parts of Eastern Europe, Balkans, and even Poland. After the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, “the Soviet under Stalin immediately protested since Tuman gave it minimal influence of occupying Japan” (Tucker and Carlos 35).
Immediately after the Second World War ended, the United States of America embanked on shipping of materials to the United Soviet Socialist Republic from America. This indicated that the relationship between the two nations was only formed for winning the war with nothing else to bid it. The two nations differed on this and began a quick competition between them in order to determine who was superior to the other hence the Cold War.
Period of distrust between Capitalist and Communist
After the end of the Second World War, there existed a variation of perceptions between the United States and the Soviet Union. Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union assumed that he would be assisted by America in reconstructing his country after the war in a bid to make Russia a good market for her industrial goods.
The need for assistance arose because industrialisation and marketing of industrial goods had enabled the United States get out of the great depression. Therefore, Stalin envisioned the urgent America’s need for market (William 63) though this did not materialise.
When World War II ended in 1945, there were two bloc divisions in Europe. Armies from western part of America occupied one side while armies from Russian east occupied the other bloc. The two blocs, capitalist America and communist Russia, had two opposing aspirations for Europe. The capitalist America wanted Europe to be democratic with no influence from communism while Russia sought after a non-capitalist Europe where it subjugated.
At the beginning, Joseph Stalin of Russia believed that capitalism would easily collapse due to the in fighting of its leaders (Wettig and Haron 24). However, with time, the leaders became more organised and powerful. This intensified the rivalry. The west feared that Russia would invade them. On the other hand, Russia feared that the capitalists would make atomic bombs.
Russia also feared that the west would dominate the world’s economy while the capitalists feared that their economy would collapse due to this competition. The two blocs also differed in ideas of how the world order should be directed. The Soviets also feared that Germany might rearm herself and cause havoc in the world again. Winston Churchill, as Tucker and Carlos 34 confirm, “referred this fear (Cold War) and division of the west and the east as the Iron Curtain in 1946”.
The Marshall plan and Economic Division in Europe
When the threat of global destabilisation by the Soviet Union became more apparent, America responded through enactment of the containment policy. To begin with, in 1947 March12, the United States’ congress commenced an action to bar the Soviet Union from expanding its interest further with the aim of disrupting its status as a super power.
In 1947, the communist expansion seemed to expand with an alarming rate. For example, in Hungary, the government got into the hands of a true communist party that entrenched the idea of one-party communism rather than democracy while the Czech Republic was taken over by a communist government that got into power through a coup.
The bitterest part of these dynamics was that these two nations were determined to exist as neither communist nor capitalist. Secondly, the western European nations were still struggling to come out of the economic devastation by the impact of the Second World War.
This made the United States believe that countries that sympathised with these Soviets would be influenced by their deteriorating economies (Galley 242). This made the United States initiate the Marshall Plan. This was an economic order of economic aid, which was aimed at developing markets for both agricultural and industrial goods from America. It was also aimed at furthering the impact of the containment policy.
The Marshall plan was carefully presented to countries in both west and east. However, this plan was met with utmost rejection from soviet inclined countries due to the influence of Joseph Stalin. This confirmed the earlier doubt of its acceptance by the United States and hence the Cold War.
The Marshall plan was a great counter plan by the United States. The plan bore fruits for example when the communist coalition members were driven out of the government in France due to the impact of economic aids on America. America gave out foreign economic aids worth 13 billion dollars to 16 western nations from 1947 to 1952.
This made the economies of these nations better, at the same time widening the gap between the nations and the soviets. The Marshall plan also created a clear economic partition between the soviets communist and the capitalist. This division became so as evident as the economic divide that existed earlier on. Joseph Stalin countered the Marshall plan through the formation of the Commission for Mutual Economic Aid (COMECON). This was for all the communist member countries.
This would exaggerate trade relations between communist member countries. In addition, he formed an organisation that united the communist countries from all parts of the world with the sole aim of making communism a world order (Caley 78) against the wish of the majority. On the other hand, the United States continued with its containment efforts. In 1947, it was able “to impact on the election result of Italy using money to ensure that a Christian Democratic party defeated the communist party” (Tucker and Carlos 34).
The Berlin Wall
Following the impact of the 1947 political and economic outwits on the communist and the capitalist nations, Europe became a victim with one side, the capitalist being supported by America while the other side, the communist, was supported by Russia. East Germany was made a soviet satellite kind of state (Wetting 96). Germany now became a political and an economic battlefield for the two powers. Four powers namely France, Britain, Russia, and even America occupied parts of Germany.
The capital of Germany fell under the Russian soviet side. However, it was divided. Joseph Stalin made a physical blocade that separated the side of Berlin City in order to compel the Allies to halt their move to divide Germany (Miller and Galley 25). To counter the effects of the Berlin wall, the Allied powers turned to physical airlifts of supplies to Berlin.
This Berlin Airlift went on for about eleven months. Worse still, the airplanes that were airlifting supplies to Berlin had to fly over the soviet air space, an act that would have provoked Stalin to order for their shooting for violating their airspace. However, due to the fear of the occurrence of another war, the communists did not provoke war, as they realised that their earlier move of constructing the Berlin Wall did not work. Stalin opened the wall in 1949. In Berlin, Germany, the Cold War foundations almost led to real battle.
The two major blocs openly provoked each other with physical insults. The communist built a blocade to physically block the capitalists from supplying aids to their regions while the capitalist flew their supply airlift planes over the communist territory with an open will that, if they shoot on their planes, the battlefield war would emerge immediately.
The formation of (North Atlantic Treaty organisation) NATO
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was a military alliance that was formed in 1949 by the signing of the NATO treaty. This treaty was signed by western powers in Washington. At this time, the Berlin wall was still in enforcement by the soviets. The NATO was formed for the purposes of offering defense to the capitalists in case the soviets assaulted them within the ensuing competitive conditions.
In retaliation, Russia intentionally detonated her first homemade atomic bomb in 1949. This was aimed at deterring the speed that America was taking by diverting her attention to the eventuality of a nuclear war if Russia tried to assault the soviets. Following this act, the NATO members decided to rearm to include western Germany into NATO. In 1955, West Germany became a member of the NATO.
To counter the impact of the formation of the NATO and the inclusion of West Germany into it, the eastern countries formed their own military alliance. The Warsaw Pact was formed just one week after West Germany became a member of the NATO. The Warsaw pact became the military wing of the soviets led by a soviet commanding officer. Their counterpart, the capitalists, put this military team in place to offer defense to members of the communist bloc in case of an assault.
Differences between the two major blocs
Following the above discussion, it is evident that, by 1949, two distinctive blocs were already formed in the world. These power blocs were opposed to any idea that came from their counterparts. The Soviet Union believed that the United States and her allies were a real threat to their existence and the existence of their ideologies. At this point, the two blocs never involved themselves in any traditional forms of warfare. Their attitude towards each other became sour every day.
It was almost evident that the third World War was on the offing especially with the Berlin blocade by the communist and the counter blocade strategies by the capitalist. The nuclear competition and standoff between the two major blocs and the widening ideological gap became a cause of worry to the whole world. There emerged the historical Red Scare especially in the United States.
On the other hand, there was a crush of dissent on the side of Russia. The Cold War did not just develop because of the happenings in Europe and America. By 1947, it had spread beyond the European boundaries to the global arena. For example, China joined the communist bloc (Harry 66) while Korea and Vietnam became capitalists after the intervention of America in their wars.
The Cold War was also perpetrated to a great effect by the show of might in nuclear weapons by the two major powers, the United States of America and Russia. The United States created its thermonuclear weapons of mass destruction in 1952. On the other hand, the United Socialist Soviet Republic (USSR) also created thermonuclear weapons of mass destruction in 1953. This changed the world order since, at the end of the Second World War, only the US had atomic bombs. The Soviet Union would not have posed any threat to it.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Cold War was a war of ideologies, economic, and military competition that existed between the two major blocs that emerged after the Second World War. This war did not involve the actual battlefield war that could have been regarded as hot war. The Soviet Union led the communist bloc while the United States led the capitalist bloc. This war also involved other states. It was even fought on foreign grounds.
Later, following the intensified fear and tension created by this war when America and Russia began making thermonuclear weapons, the war ended with the collapse of the USSR in 1990s. These weapons would result to more expansive destruction of the world than even the two bombs dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the Americans airplanes during the Second World War.
Prevalence of these weapons of mass destruction in the hands of opposed blocs almost assured the world of a total destruction in the eventuality of another world war. However, this tension and standoff in nuclear weapons made the world safe in the sense that neither the USSR nor the US could provoke the other into a battlefield war since any actual war ‘hot’ war would result in total destruction of the world.
Works Cited
Baruch, Gordon, and Bernard Melly. “Vital Speeches of the Day.” Cold War 13.14(1947): 425. Print.
Caley, Martin. The origins of the Cold war 1941-1949. Connecticut: Yale University Press. Print.
Day, Neol et al. A Political and Economic Dictionary of Eastern Europe. London: Word Press, 2003. Print.
Gaddis, Farey, and John Lenny. Russia, the Soviet Union, and the United States— An Interpretive History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Print.
Galley, John. “The Columbia Guide to the Cold War.” Political Science Quarterly 87.2(1972): 242-269. Print.
Harry, Truman. Memoirs. New York: Doubleday. Print.
Lee, Kelly, and Stephen Josey. Stalin and the Soviet Union. London: Routledge,1999. Print.
Miller, Noel, and Roger Galley. To Save a City: The Berlin Airlift, 1948–1949. Texas: A&M University Press, 2000. Print.
Tearsy, Robberts, and Geoffrey Kennedy. Stalin’s Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939– 1953. London: Yale University Press, 2006. Print.
Tucker, Pearl, and Robert Carlos. Stalin in Power: The Revolution from Above, 1928 – 1941. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1992. Print.
Wettig, Pennyl, and Gerhard Haron. Stalin and the Cold War in Europe. Oxford: Blackwell, 2008. Print.
William, Onsley. Stalin Embattled, 1943–1948. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1978. Print.
The Cold War refers to the enduring situation of opinionated divergence, proxy hostilities, and economic rivalry in the period following the Second World War. These hostilities were between the Communist nations, mainly the Soviet Union and its protectorate states and associate, and the authorities of the West-leaning nations, principally the United States and its associates (White, 2000, p. 5).
Even if the main protagonists’ armed forces never formally collided directly, they articulated the dispute by way of armed forces alliances, tactical conformist force operations, far-reaching aid to regions and nations reckoned to be susceptible, proxy conflicts, spying, misinformation, conservative and atomic arms races, petitions to nonaligned countries, enmity at games events, and scientific contests like the Space Race.
In the face of being associates opposed to the Axis powers, the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics differed in relation to opinionated philosophy and the arrangement of the post-conflict world at the same time as taking up majority of Europe. The Soviet Union formed the Eastern Bloc.
This was jointly with the nations in the east of Europe. It also took control of some while upholding others as protectorate states. Some of these were afterwards merged as the Warsaw Agreement (1955 – 1991). The United States and its associates on the other hand brought into play suppression of communism as a key tactic, crafting associations such as NATO (Walker, 1981, p. 207).
United States financed the Marshall Plan to set up a more swift post-conflict resurgence of Europe, at the same time as the Soviet Union would not allow a majority of Eastern Bloc members take part.
To a different place, in Latin America and Southeast Asia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics lent a hand and aided promote communist insurgencies, resisted by a number of Western nations and their regional associates. They tried to push back some of these western foes and came out with mixed effects. In the midst of the nations that the USSR propped up in support of communist uprising was Cuba, which had Fidel Castro as its leader.
The nearness of communist Cuba to the United States bore out to be a major battle front of the Cold War. The USSR set several atomic projectiles in Cuba, igniting fiery tension with the Americans and ending up in the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, a point in which full-blown atomic war threatened. A number of nations joined NATO and the Warsaw Agreement, while others crafted the Non-Aligned Movement.
During the 80s decade, following the Reagan Doctrine, the United States augmented ambassadorial, armed forces, and economic demands on the Soviet Union, at a period when the nation was by then going through economic doldrums. Towards the end of the same decade, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev brought in the easing up changes.
The Cold War stopped following the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991. This meant that the United States was left as the overriding armed authority, and Russia having power over the largest part of the Soviet Union’s atomic arsenal. The Cold War and its proceedings have had a momentous effect on the world up to the present times.
Historiography of the Cold War
As soon as the reference Cold War was vulgarized, understanding the path and genesis of the divergence has been a starting place of frenzied debate amongst historiographers, opinionated scientists, and members of the press (Garthoff, 2004, p.21). Particularly, historiographers have harshly differed as to who was accountable for the go kaput of Soviet-US associations following World War II.
There is also a disagreement on whether the war involving the two world powers was to be anticipated, or could have been steered clear of. Historiographers have as well differed on what precisely the Cold War was, what the foundations of the war were, and the way in which to unravel outlines of action and retort involving the two sides.
Even as the details of the genesis of the war in scholastic forums are intricate and varied, quite a lot of general philosophical systems on the subject matter can be made out. Historiographers normally talk of three parallel approaches to the subject area of the Cold War. These are; the orthodox, revisionism and post-revisionism.
Orthodox perspective
The initial perspective of analysis to come out as regards this war was the orthodox perspective. For more than ten years following the end of World War II, a small number of historiographers faced up to the formal United States explanation of the origins of the Cold War.
The orthodox school of thought lays the blame for the Cold War on the Soviet Union and its spreading out into Eastern Europe. For instance, Thomas A. Bailey indicated in his 1950 America Faces Russia that the collapse of post-conflict harmony was the consequence of Soviet expansionism in the straightaway post-conflict years (Davis, 1999, p. 10).
Bailey felt that Stalin went against guarantees he had made at Yalta, enforced Soviet governed establishments on reluctant Eastern European populaces, and schemed to extend communism right through the world. From this perspective, United States administrators were compelled to act in response to Soviet antagonism with the Truman Doctrine, strategies to control communist insurrection around the world, and the Marshall Plan.
A policy maker, George Kennan wrote his interpretation of the origin of this conflict also at around the same time when the orthodox perspective held much meaning. Kennan wrote an article in 1947 in which he argued that the Soviet had a longing to spread out their domain as a consequence of a fearful uncertainty as a result of the Civil War.
The article was titled Sources of Soviet Conduct and it indicated that the communist philosophy required that capitalism be seen as a peril. Kennan was of the idea that the Soviet Union could not be relied upon as a result of its ideological dedication to wiping out capitalism, which Kennan was convinced that the Soviets would do all that they possibly could to make certain this would take place so as to uphold their place of sway in the world.
He referred to the 1917 uprising of the Bolsheviks as an illustration of the extents the Soviets would go to protect their authority (Berezhkov, 1994, p. 268). As a result, Kennan insisted that the Soviet Union must not be consented to spread out and put on any force that could intimidate the United States.
Kennan’s sway can be made out in the initial times past of the foundations of the Cold War. William Hardy McNeill, University of Chicago Professor, held Joseph Stalin responsible for the whole war. The Professor argued that Stalin was to blame for the conflict by not sticking to his pledge of holding free and fair polls in Eastern Europe following World War II.
As a result of this, America could not rely on anything that Stalin assured, and began to view him with immense suspicion. In addition, McNeill intimates that, Stalin slipped back to Bolshevik catchphrases and ideas, which led to the thought of a global communist interest group. These deeds yet again put the United States on the protective in its labors to safeguard its interests in west of Europe.
Tallying with McNeill’s analysis of the Cold War was Martin F. Hertz. Hertz argues that when Stalin declined to consent to Poland to hold a free and fair poll, the western democratic states, at the time feeling remorse for consenting to the Poles to be surrendered in 1939 by the Nazis, disapproved to consenting Staling to enforce a gracious administration on his territory.
Hertz is convinced that if Stalin would have let Poland and the other eastern nations to uphold an aspect of sovereignty or self-sufficiency, no conflict would have occurred (Tucker, 1997, p. 273).
The initial explanations of the Cold War are vital to comprehending the progress of the conflict itself. On the other hand, these versions do not take into contemplation even a single one of the United States’ overseas policies and their impact on the Soviet Union. Kennan, McNeill and Hertz are all of the idea that the only means to have steered clear of the Cold War was to have someone else heading the Soviet Union.
Every reader of these accounts has as well to bear in mind the opinionated atmosphere of the 50s decade. McNeill’s paperback was put out in 1957, only four years following the Joseph McCarthy trials and at a period when Americans were all the time more conformist in their take on the Soviet Union. Hertz’s paperback was not put out until the mid-60s.
This was a period when the United States had eased up in response to the overly conformist 50s. Nonetheless, Hertz was completing his education during the 50s, which without a doubt had a role to play in his point of view on the world. To add to that, for at least the initial three-fourths of the 50s, the hostilities involving the United States and the Soviet Union were declining to the position where a lot of analysts of political occurrences were saying the Cold War was approaching a close.
The decrease of anxieties led to a lot of American citizens feeling as if their post-conflict paragons of autonomy for all countries were turning out to be spot on. This facilitated the vulgarization of a number of feel-good times past. McNeill’s paperback, and to a certain level Hertz’s paperback despite the fact that it was written later, is a pleasant, feel-good on the subject of America history publication.
The orthodox understanding has been depicted as the formal United States account of Cold War history. Even if it dropped its authority as a means of chronological contemplation in scholastic forums in the 60s, it keeps on being important.
Revisionism
The United States taking part in Vietnam in the 60s disenchanted a lot of historiographers with the grounds of suppression, and consequently with the suppositions of the orthodox perspective to understanding the Cold War. Revisionist perspectives came out in the wake of the Vietnam War, in the background of a better reconsidering of the United States responsibility in global matters, which was perceived more in relation to American domain or power.
Even as the emerging school of thought resulted in a lot of disparities among individual academics, the accounts that were part of it were by and large rejoinders of one form or another to publications carried out in the 50s (Suri, 2002, p. 60).
As Americans commenced on freeing up their country another time in the 60s, Cold War chronicles altered also when William Appleman Williams held the United States responsible for the conflict. This was in his turning point 1962 hardback, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy. Williams referred to himself as a self-declared extremist and articulated that the United States had in times gone by thought about the open-door guiding principle as vital to the constant successfulness of the United States.
Williams points at quite a lot of past illustrations of this guiding principle and wraps up that the United States could not arrive at any post-conflict pact with the Soviet Union till the Soviets consented to the United States open business in Eastern Europe, which is contradictory of the socialist states the Soviet Union desired to have in the area.
As a result of this, Williams further indicates that America piled up too much pressure on the Soviets by way of schemes like NATO and the Marshall Plan, which left the Soviet Union on the justificatory. Immediately the Soviet Union ingrained itself so as to keep its sakes, no allowance was left for finding the middle ground on the structure of post-conflict Europe.
Being of the same opinion as Williams was Norman Graebner. Graebner’s 1962 paperback indicates that American leading lights put into use speechifying too antagonistic to the Soviet Union in desires of talking into the citizenry of America and Western Europe that any Soviet menace could with no trouble done away with. This showed the way to the leaders of the US to be in a position to give up nothing to the Soviets minus appearing sapless to the populace.
A number of other revisionist historiographers have placed other American deeds and guiding principles at the focal point of the cause of the Cold War (Combs, 1983, p. 67). According to Gar Alperovitz, the US ought to have the acclaim for starting the Cold War due to its use of the nuclear bomb against Japan.
Alperovitz indicates that Truman dropped the bomb not to preserve lives and bring the war with Japan to an end, but he did it so as to fright the Soviets into agreeing to the US to come up with the procedure for the post-conflict world. Nevertheless, going by Alperovitz, Stalin perceived Eastern Europe as even more significant for the safety of the Soviet Union. Following Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Stalin required a safeguard district so as to become aware of any effort by the US to drop a nuclear bomb on Moscow.
Post-revisionism
The revisionist explanation created a climacteric response of its own. In an assortment of ways, post-revisionist intelligence, prior to the collapse of Socialism, faced up to past works on the genesis and path of the Cold War, and a number of American Scholars carry on with refuting the existence of an American domain.
Post-revisionism faced up to the revisionists by agreeing to a number of their conclusions but refuting a majority of their main assertions. Author George Herring centered his work on the United States’ incapacity to foresee Stalin’s conduct as a key root of the Cold War.
What’s more, Herring considered that Stalin saw the US’s economic agenda as an undeviating competition to the Soviet Union (Tucker, 1997, p. 281). The author admits that he holds no proof to back up his Stalin assertion but uses psychosomatic outlining of Stalin’s responses to American resolutions to draw his windings up.
Robert Messer sustained the exertions of the post-revisionists by laying emphasis on the misapprehension of each other by the leading lights of the two world powers. Messer indicates that the US and the Soviet Union could not reach a pact on the definite description of what a free and fair poll would involve and who would be in charge of ensuring the voting would be devoid of deceit.
In the continuing investigation among western historiographers for the genesis of the Cold War, the post-revisionists appear to have attained more impartiality as compared to the preceding orthodox and revisionist schools of thought. In their views, there was no super-patriotism, nor were there any condemnations of the US administration. Nonetheless, the revisionists do away with all culpability for the Cold War and arrive at the wrapping up that the Cold War was an inescapable destiny.
On the other hand, history is filled with persons who stood up against impossible odds to alter destiny and, consequently, history (Suri, 2002, p. 92). A scrutiny of leading lights of both the US and the Soviet Union will turn out loads of individuals that were more than competent of altering this destiny, but these people did not have confidence in one another to accomplish what they had pledged to do.
Reference List
Berezhkov, M. (1994). At Stalin’s Side: His Interpreter’s Memoirs from the October Revolution to the Fall of the Dictator’s Empire, trans. Sergei I. Mikheyev (New York: Birch Lane Press, 1994), pages 268-270.
Combs, Jerald. (1983). American Diplomatic History: Two Centuries of Changing
Interpretation. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983).
Davis, N. (1999). Rethinking the role of Ideology in International Politics During the Cold War, Journal of Cold War Studies 1 (1), (Winter 1999), pages 10-109.
Gaddis, J. (1972). The United States and the Origins of the Cold War, 1941-1947.
(New York: Columbia University Press, 1972).
Garthoff, R. (2004). Foreign Intelligence and the Historiography of the Cold War. Journal of Cold War Studies 2004 6(2): 21-56. Issn: 1520-3972 Fulltext: Project Muse.
Suri, J. (2002). Explaining the End of the Cold War: A New Historical Consensus? Journal of Cold War Studies – Volume 4, Number 4, Fall 2002, pp. 60-92 in Project Muse.
Tucker, R. (1997). The Cold War in Stalin’s Time: What the New Sources Reveal,
Diplomatic History 21, (Spring 1997), pages 273-281.
Walker, J. (1981). Historians and Cold War Origins: The New Consensus, in Gerald K. Haines and J. Samuel Walker, eds., American Foreign Relations: A Historiographical Review (1981), 207–236.
White, T. (2000). Cold War Historiography: New Evidence Behind Traditional Typographies. International Social Science Review, (2000).
The Cold War was a political conflict characterized by military tension between the Soviet Union and the United States and its political allies that occurred between 1946 and 1991. The conflict did not involve direct military confrontations; nevertheless, propaganda, espionage, and nuclear threats were common. During the Cold War, the U.S. was engaged in public diplomacy by promoting its ideals and national interests.
The U.S. promoted the ideals of democratic governance and respect of basic human rights through its public diplomacy strategy. President Jimmy Carter (1977-1981), at the height of the Cold War, following the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, declared that the U.S. would use public diplomacy and if need be, military force to protect the oil rich Persian Gulf. This doctrine was appropriate and calmed tensions in international relations between the US and the Soviet Union.
The U.S. Foreign Policy
The hallmark of President Carter’s rule was his human rights public diplomacy in all nations. Upon taking office, Jimmy Carter undertook to streamline domestic policy by pardoning an estimated 10,000 draft men who refused to fight in the Vietnam War of 1959-1975 (Ross, 2003, p.21). This move, although opposed by war veterans, aimed at unifying gesture as far as the U.S. foreign policy was concerned since the war was over. Additionally, this move implied the unwillingness to pursue the Cold War rivalry with the Soviet Union.
Among the situations that called for America’s diplomacy during the Cold War include the deliberate efforts to improve relations with the Soviet Union and ease the hostilities between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The easing of tensions between the two nations, termed détente, began in 1969 to 1972, and needed America’s diplomatic efforts.
The public diplomacy efforts during the Cold War were led by the United States Information Agency (USIA), which had the primary role of preventing the spread of communism and combating propaganda from the Soviet Union (Wilson, 2004, p.147). However, Carter’s approach was more of an activist and involved the assessment of foreign opinion before policy formulation.
The Hostage Crisis in Iran
President Jimmy Carter’s doctrine was occasioned by the hostage crisis in Iran. At the time, the U.S. had little intelligence information on events taking place in Iran. Carter attempted to develop cordial relations with Iran’s military government to secure the release of 52 U.S hostages held in Iran.
However in 1979, the relations between the two countries worsened following the admission of Shah, who was suffering from cancer, into the U.S. for treatment. This action caused a diplomatic row as the Tehran military government sought Shah to stand trial for criminal charges. It sparked violent protests and an angry mob raided the U.S. embassy in Tehran to push the U.S. to return Shah to Iran. Following these events, the public diplomacy collapsed, and the U.S. hostages remained captive in Iran.
President Carter invested considerable personal efforts in resolving the crisis. He immediately suspended all oil imports originating from Iran, and froze assets owned by Iranian military government in the U.S. as an economic sanction to secure the release of the U.S. hostages.
He also deployed a military rescue unit to Iran to secure the release of the hostages. However, the raid failed, and the negotiations reached a stalemate. In 1980, the Iranian government agreed to free the hostages on condition that the U.S. unfreezes Iranian assets in the U.S and stops interfering in Iranian affairs.
The Effects of Public Diplomacy
According to Wilson (2004), the approach of public diplomacy used by President Carter turned to be effective during the Cold War in many respects. Firstly, it gave confidence to the dissidents including artists, politicians, and intellectuals from the Eastern bloc, who favored policies of the West (p.142). It also helped to spread the ideals of democracy eventually leading to the collapse of communism. It was clear, after the war in Vietnam, that the US image had been politically damaged.
As Lacquer writes, “Due to public diplomacy, America had to give propositions to other countries as opposed to commanding or military intervention in other countries” (1994, p.25). Recognizing this, Jimmy Carter embarked on promoting foreign exchange programs to promote cultural understanding. Additionally, he undertook to promote access of foreigners into American institutions to ensure a satisfactory cross-cultural understanding.
Through public diplomacy, the communist propaganda was disseminated leading to the collapse of communism from within. Additionally, public diplomacy ensures stable relations between countries thereby reducing their chances of going into war. Through continued dialogue such as the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) II talks, better relations between the US and the Soviet Union were ensured even though government-to-government relations were not persuasive (Brinkley, 1995, p.782).
The diplomacy also promoted the recognition of human rights and increased economic interdependence between the nations. The sanctions imposed against the Soviet Union affected its economy. Likewise, the shortage of oil occasioned by the Cold War affected the US economy. The public diplomacy, therefore, enhanced cultural and economic interdependence between the nations.
The public diplomacy approach used by President Jimmy Carter served to ease strained international relations between the US and the Soviet Union. It allowed dissidents, within the Eastern bloc, to understand the ideologies, human rights, and values of the West, which contributed to the collapse of communism.
The diplomacy also contributed to the ratification of the SALT II treaty that prevented arms war between the US and Soviet Union. However, the sanctions that accompanied public diplomacy affected the economies of many countries and created a shortage of oil.
The End of the Cold War
Although many observers viewed the end of the cold war as victory for capitalism over communism, the events that led to the eventual end of the cold war were more complex and involved many dynamics over a lengthy period. In addition, even though an element of bad blood still existed between Russia and the US, the two nuclear nations had to maintain civility and even cooperation, especially in matters concerning proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The ideals of democracy and the benefits of capitalism slowly entered the ideological beliefs of many liberals within the Soviet Union. According to Suri, the common thread amongst the crises that established cracks in the Soviet communism and the institutional changes of later years was the desire for change in governance and governing principles (2002, p.62). As the cold war neared its end and many satellite nations become independent of Moscow’s influence, the average American heaved a sigh of relief.
The world at large was also able to breath easy, and the continuous and ceaseless fear of an imminent nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the US that many keen followers of the Cold War had to live with for decades now ceased somewhat.
Suri further states that, no singular event led to the end of the cold war and that the actual end came as a surprise even to the keenest of observers (Suri, 2002, p.63). However, the two former antagonist nations would soon realize the need to cooperate in efforts to limit the availability of nuclear weapons worldwide.
The Current State Of US-Russia Relations
Since the end of the Cold War, several events on the world stage have led to the need for the limitation of nuclear weapons. The increase in terrorism, the emergence of rogue states with nuclear warheads such as North Korea, and an emphasis on diplomacy as means of averting war have all created a need to ensure that nuclear weapons do not fall into “wrong” hands.
The Current US president Barrack Obama has been a powerful proponent of limitation of nuclear arms. The US president has long envisioned a nuclear free world and has engaged his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, in his quest to limit nuclear weapons proliferation.
In April 2008, both President Obama and President Medvedev signed the historic Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, which enjoined the two countries to reducing their nuclear warheads by 30%. Both the US and Russia currently hold nearly 90% of the world’s stock of nuclear weapons and their leadership in reducing their nuclear weapons stock will, therefore, have a large impact on the global scale.
The US and Russia are also involved in the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), which aims to monitor and limit the availability and use of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in the world, including nuclear weapons.
The PSI promotes international cooperation in its efforts to reduce the availability and use of these weapons (Rand, 2009, p.400). According to Michael, even though the treaties and nonproliferation pacts that were signed and created during the cold war had served a noble purpose, they should not be discarded, but rather re-negotiated and sustained (2010, p.12).
Michael states that policies that take cognizance of the danger posed by state and non-state agents obtaining nuclear weapons for terrorism and blackmail purposes should be pursued. In this regard, the US and Russia have also cooperated in ensuring that proper measures are put in place to monitor the worldwide manufacture of WMDs, with the creation of the PSI in 2003.
The Future of US Diplomacy
The advent of globalization has necessitated a reorganization of the means and medium used in the pursuit of diplomatic ends. Smyth states that, the US has had to adapt its diplomatic policies to suit the advent of the Internet age (2001, p.423). The US is currently reeling from the effects of leakage of its treasured diplomatic cables from ambassadors in countries all over the world.
Julian Assange, the founder of the whistle blowing site ‘Wikileaks’ was able to obtain the diplomatic communication write ups of US ambassadors and other sensitive government diplomatic information, and subsequently undertook to releasing the information on the Internet for worldwide access. The highly embarrassing and potentially endangering leak has been a source of ceaseless shame for the US government.
Besides the increased use of the Internet as a medium of communication and information exchange in pursuit of diplomatic goals, the US has also engaged nongovernmental agents in its quest for change in developing countries. Unlike in previous years, the robust presence of civil societies in many countries has prompted the US diplomatic force to use these nongovernmental agents as a means of achieving various policy targets.
Conclusion
The US foreign policy has been a subject of much analysis and debate since the US emerged as a global leader after the end of the Second World War. The US foreign policy has been able to adapt with the times; alternating between aggression, subtle threats, actual wars and direct diplomacy to achieve certain diverse ends.
Reference List
Brinkley, D. (1995). Jimmy Carter’s Modest Quest for Global Peace. Foreign Affairs, 17, 782-8.
Lacquer, W. (1994). Save Public Diplomacy. Foreign Affairs, 73, 25-30.
Michael, N. (2010). Planning the Future U.S. Nuclear Force. Comparative Strategy, 29(1/2), 1-216.
Rand, P. (2009). The Proliferation Security Initiative: A Model for Future International Collaboration. Comparative Strategy, 28(5), 395-462.
Ross, C. (2003). The pillars of Public Diplomacy. Harvard international review, 25, 21-26.
Smyth, R. (2001). Mapping US Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 55(3), 421-444.
Suri, J. (2002). Explaining the End of the Cold War: A New Historical Consensus?. Journal of Cold War Studies, 4(4), 60-92.
Wilson, P. (2004). Inventing Public Diplomacy: The Story of the U.S. Information Agency.
Conflicts of interest between the United States and the Soviet Union were the main cause for the cold war which replaced the Second World War in the year 1945. The war started as a major dispute about how Europe could end up in future but became a major confrontation that affected the entire world later on.
Those wars of words were almost always carried out through substitutes. Most of the cases occurred through economic strain, discriminatory aid, diplomatic contrive, misinformation, political assassination, low strength military actions among others. The main aim of this tactics was in order to steer clear of a direct conflict that could have shown the way to a nuclear warfare. In fact, on more than a few occasions, the two states came very near to just such a disaster, but through mutual luck and policy they made to keep away from it.
The wartime coalition between the United States and the Soviet Union was a coalition of expediency. The United States granted military aid to the Tsarist government, best known as the White factor. This side attempted to tumble the Bolsheviks subsequent to Vladimir Lenin’s pulling out from World War I and had remained up to 1933 to award diplomatic acknowledgment to the Soviet Union’s government (Graham, 67).
As the Second World War approached a close, the Soviet Union clarified that they deemed Eastern Europe to be contained within their area of influence and a powerless Germany to be a non flexible outcome of the disagreement. To make sure their intentions, the Soviet Union founded the “Soviet Alliance System” in 1943, which facilitated them to introduce military and opinionated power over Eastern European states.
The Soviet Union had considered the nuclear power possession by the United States as a potential threat which was also strategic. This led to the Soviets exploding their atomic bomb in 1948. The explosion prompted the United States to produce an extra powerful H-Bomb. This was against some vehement opposition from the people who had created the bombs. It followed suit that barely a year after the bomb was tested; the Soviets had come up and exploded such a bomb too (Graham, 65).
Throughout the 1950’s, the United States boasted of greater numerical power over the Soviets in nuclear power. This was due to production of more superior weapons which were aided by computer proliferation. The Eastern side had more of other kinds of weapons. The Soviets later came up with Sputnik in 1957. This was a missile that could be able to reach America without any defense in place. This prompted a reaction from the United States which led to a race that led to a race of weapons.
Conditions within the Soviet Union and hoe they related with the United States changed with the rise of Mikhail Gorbachev as the communist secretary. He brought about a line of thinking that despised the arms race and considered a point of uselessness in whichever military prowess a country could assume. He nullified the race and offered a concession to the United States due to n imminent collapse of the Soviet’s economy.
The war helped create a stable political atmosphere as it was evident that there were no uprisings, civil wars and other upsurges during this period. The military buildup that was as a result of the war caused some great positive changes in the world’s economy The American “Marshall Plan” and the communists’ “Molotov Plan”, the arms race, the military buildup created some political stability and prosperity in the economy (Hopkins, 921).
Works Cited
Graham, Loren. “Big Science in the Last Years of the Big Soviet Union.” Osiris 7 (1992): 49-71
Hopkins, Michael F. “Continuing Debate and New Approaches in Cold War History,” Historical Journal, 2007, 50(4): 913–934.
The cold war and the US anti-communism had significant role on the development of world history between 1960s and 2000. While the role of both the cold war and the western-anticommunism were observed in almost every part of the world, especially in Asia, South America, Eastern Europe and to some extent Africa, it is clear that South-eastern Asia is one of the regions of the world where the two phenomenon left a significant mark on history.
In particular, it has been argued that the rise of democratization, millenarianism and authoritarianism in the region cannot be understood without a clear understanding of the role that both the Cold War and the US (or western) anticommunism had on the history of the region.
Although the Southeast Asia was at the peripheral of the US-USSR differences that defined the Cold War, it is worth noting that the area was the main battleground of the increasing tensions between the west and the USSR. Although the Cold War never produced any real war in Europe, its impacts on the Southeast Asian region went to the extreme because the real wars that took place in a number of nations in the region were largely influenced by the US-USSR tensions.
According to Lau (292), one of the best examples of the impact of the cold war on Southeast Asia is the rise of Militarism in a number of nations. Specifically, Vietnam provides one of the best examples of the nations that suffered direct impacts of the US-USSR tensions during the cold war (Hack and Wade 442). The conflict in Vietnam involved two long-lasting wars- the First Indochina war of 1946-1954 and the Vietnam War of 1954-1975. While the two conflicts involved local forces, the impact of the Cold War was evident.
According to a number of studies, the increasing interests and involvement of the western world and the USSR in the region inspired the rise of the Militarism in Vietnam during the War. Studies have shown that the Vietnam conflict resulted from the ideological conflicts between the socialist and capitalist blocks, with the USSR and the US playing the major roles. For instance, the defeat of the efforts to enforce radical reforms during the reign of King Tu Duc was a major setback in the process of democratization.
Japan and China were encouraging the king to make changes to the country’s political system to save it from western colonialism, especially because France was already showing interests of direct rule. However, the failure to enforce these changes led to the rise of Militarism. In the northern Vietnam, the Chinese and Russians contributed to the rise of militias opposing the influence of the European and American on the national politics. On the other hand, the America and its European allies funded the pro-western government and local militia, contributing significantly to the rise of the Militarism in the country.
Apart from Vietnam, the two Koreas experienced the impact of the Cold war and the increasing anti-communist efforts that the US and its western allies were making. For instance, while South Korean remained heavily influenced by the western world, North Korea remained a communist state under the influence of the Russians and the Chinese.
While the US and its western allies influenced the process of democratization in South Korea, Russia developed good relationships with North Korea and contributed to the rise of Authoritarianism and increase of the military power under the reign of Kim Jung. Scholars have argued that the failure of the two Koreas to unite after the Second World War was a direct results of the opposing ideologies between the capitalists and communists, which defined the Cold War.
In Burma, Thailand and Indonesia, the role of the Britain, Australia, the US and Russia played a great part to the rise of armed conflicts that contributed to the rise of military power. Between 1958 and 1960, the split in the ruling AFPFL was an in-direct influence of the US and Russia in the national politics. It led to the rise of the military rule. In 1962, the USSR-funded section of the military, under Ne Win, staged a coup with an objective of setting up a socialist state under the military regime.
Similarly, conflict between the communists under the communist party of Indonesia and the pro-capitalist Sukarno’s Guided democracy resulted from the influence of the USSR and the US in the region (Hack and Wade 441). Surkano’s ideologies were under the influence of the US, while the PKI wanted to institutionalize communism under the influence of the Russians. The conflict led to the rise of the military power, which helped Surhato to retain presidency since 1965 (Hack and Wade 444).
In conclusion, it is evident that Southeast Asia played an important role as the battleground between the Western capitalist ideologies and the Russian communist and socialist ideologies. Since both sides wanted to influence the national politics in most Southeast Asian nations, the result was the rise of militarism, which has contributed significantly to the development of the region’s history (Hack and Wade 443).
Works Cited
Hack, Karl and Geoff Wade. “The origins of the Southeast Asian Cold War”. Journal of Southeastern Asian Studies, 40.3 (2009): 441-448. Print
Lau, Albert. Southeast Asia and the Cold War. Hoboken: Routledge, 2012. Print.
Determine why the Cold War ended so quickly. Touch on at least two of the following areas: social to include both religion and education, political, economic, cultural and global forces.
Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union that had been going on ever since the end of the Second World War lasted for decades and involved all of the spheres of the life in these two countries. The United States and the Soviet Union used to be allies in the times of the World War II, these two massive and powerful states never engaged into any kind of confrontation through their histories. At the end of 1940s the world was too scared of another all-consuming conflict. The most influential powers of the world were trying to avoid an eruption of a new armed confrontation that could lead to the third war; this tension gradually grew and led to the mutual suspicions between the United States and the Soviet Union. Both sides accused each other of having imperialistic moods and attempts of increasing their influence on the rest of the world. That was the beginning of the Cold War. The end of it was very brief. The confrontation that was developing for decades stopped its existing within just a couple of years. This happened because of several important economical and political factors that appeared all at the same time.
The economical factors that contributed to the ending of the Cold War were the serious financial issues the Soviet Union was going through due to the expenses of the arms race that were escalating very quickly.
The country was devastated by the race; most of its resources were directed at sponsoring the production of weapons. Another serious factor that influenced the economical situation in the Soviet Union of that time was the war in Afghanistan, which lasted for nine years and by the end of the 1980s exhausted the financial costs that could be used for its further support. The Union no longer had the proper economy to support its influence in the countries of Eastern Europe; this is why the Eastern Bloc started to fall apart gradually. The Hungarian leaders removed the border separating them from the West of Europe, and the Soviet Union did not react to his event. This is the political factor that caused the weakening of the Soviet power and the loss of its influence. One of the main symbols of the reduction of Soviet authority in Europe was the fall of Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany that happened in 1989 (Cold War: A Brief History, par.
That year is also known for massive uprisings in the majority of Eastern European countries, the nations demanded independence and the leaders were powerless against such global moods and movements. In 1990 the republics that were included into the Soviet Union one by one started to declare their independence. The territory of the Soviet Union was shrinking rapidly. Finally, in 1991 the Union fell apart completely and stopped its existing. This was the official end of the Cold War that lasted for forty five years.
The rapid ending of the Cold War was caused by multiple factors that hit together and at the same time. The Soviet Union could not last under the growing social, economical, political and cultural pressure and other global forces, it was torn apart within a couple of years and this put the ending to the Cold War with the United States.
This paper looks at the end of the Cold War and emergence of peace in Europe, the internal consistency that brought about the cold war and that which has prevailed in the post Cold War era. It goes deeper to explain theories post the Cold war era, its evidence and assumptions made during this period and after. Finally, it looks at the instabilities that were brought about by the Cold War in Europe.
Introduction
As the Cold War came to an end, the threat of war which had been in the offing for more than forty years was dying and there were new hope for peace. Military bases being renovated to parks, playgrounds and condos (Mearsheimer 1990, 5). Nevertheless, the past actions brought forth from the war raised an issue in Europe that concerned breaking out of another cold war. Thus, they were concerned with what actions they would take and the survival of their countries.
Countries want power and achieving this means that they need to influence others when it comes to making decisions concerning the other state. This is termed as neo-colonialism, which is an indirect form of Cold War among the super power states. The superpowers gained influence over developing nations in form of economic relief, therefore forcing the developing states to ally with them in case something happened or when it came to decision making in the international realm. However, peace was vital and people need it, the issue however came about when a state felt threatened by each other and opted for warfare to solve the dispute.
In reality, the Cold War was beneficial to many developing countries as they received funds and assistance they needed to start developing their fractured economies and military prowess but it was a different scenario for the countries that started the Cold War. The East and the West were the super powers who were ideologically different and wanted to dominate less developed countries by selling their ideas.
It was beneficial to them as these superpowers got raw materials from the developing countries as well as using the countries as markets for their finished products. The Cold War came with different ideologies that helped the under developed countries grow into developing nations. Mearsheimer (1990, 8) notes that this imbalance brought class stratification, which was broadly grouped into three classes; that is, the first world countries (developed nations), second world countries (developing nations) and third world countries (under developed countries).
Intellectuals who were concerned with security matters during the Cold War put aside their ideological differences over military policies and stability evaluations, and instead put their minds together in an attempt to find ways of preventing global warming and how to conserve and safe guard the ozone layer (Mearsheimer 1990, 5). These intellectuals turned their attention to saving the world from global warming so as to conserve the earth. Therefore, the expertise from the Cold War could be turned around and be used in current issues such as global warming and the ozone layer problem. The end of the cold war led to the dissolution of pacts made among different states in Europe, Far East, and Russia among others; hence the world was now free of their oppressors and could now begin to rely on themselves without any inclination to a superpower or ideology.
Literature review
Internal consistency
Internal consistency in the cold war was characterized by security measures taken by the participating countries. Traditionally, a state’s is first and foremost concerned about its security and the safety of its citizens. States are anarchical in nature and competition on all fronts is expected, for instance by internally building up the military or externally thorough means of diplomacy and alliances (Mearsheimer 1990, 17).
Nevertheless, countries will at most times put an emphasis on the internal structure in order to ensure security and stability. Hence, a country’s’ military might is a key issue; however this cannot be fully implemented without the use of external agents who include the strong and influential diplomats and foreign actors. This shows that for consistency to take effect in the Cold War, the participating states on either side, East or West, needed a strong military capability and strategic alliances.
These alliances were mostly from the European countries as they chose which side to align themselves with. Internal means were directly under the states control, easily managed, proficient and more likely than not able to produce real comparison between two states (Mearsheimer 1990 p. 19). Both sides of the Cold War, the East and the West, were balanced off by internal means and nuclear weapons that played a critical role in ending the war (Mearsheimer 1990, 26).
Theories
According to the peace-loving democracies theory, democracies do not go to war against other democracies and also they are not particularly placatory when facing other authoritarian states (Mearsheimer 1990, 30). This theory however cannot take credit for the Cold War constancy as the Soviet Union and its allies in Eastern Europe were not democratic.
Another theory is the obsolescence of war theory. This theory suggests that it is impossible to view and think of war as a rational way to achieve goals as current standard war had become extreme in the twentieth century. This theory fully gives an account of the stability of the Cold War as the countries involved did not want any more bloodshed that had already taken place during the first and second World Wars. This theory however did not give the difference between nuclear and conservative war. Nevertheless, a conservative war had a winner and a loser but nuclear war had no winner or loser as both sides could escape destruction from the other.
Economic liberalism theory proposes that the European community would spread out to incorporate Eastern Europe and maybe the Soviet Union would eventually bring peace and affluence to these regions. Mearsheimer (1990, 41) observes that a Western European super power is more likely to emerge and Germany would be part of this state, as well as the other European states and this would promote peace all over Europe. Economic theory advocates for economic interdependence among states meaning that since the states have to maintain peace between them, as each state is at the mercy of the other in the economic front (Mearsheimer 1990, 43)
Evidence and facts
Evidence collected from various sources shows that nuclear weapons developed during the Cold War era were responsible for the enduring peace in Europe after the Cold War. When equivalent opposing sides came forth, nuclear weapons were developed and this created a space to make peace. This evidently shows that there is a relationship between nuclear weapons and peace (Mearsheimer, 1990 21-22). States are afraid of nuclear weapons because of the devastation these weapons bring not only in the present but also in the future. The thought of going to war and using these weapons that may wipe out the globe makes states live, co-exist and maintain peace between them for the assurance of their survival. This shows the evidence that proves that nuclear weapons can be used to bring and maintain peace between two adversarial states.
However, there is no conclusive evidence which suggests that European states consider war as obsolete (Mearsheimer, 1990, p.41). War is not out dated, it only takes one country to result to war as a way of solving disputes and war would erupt again, in this case not between the two parties involved but also a chain of allies.
Most European countries are living on the edge as they know war may break out any time. This is the reason why most of the European countries have developed nuclear weapons and have declared it so that other countries may not wage war against them. This shows that if these countries go to the great lengths of developing and building nuclear weapons for defense, then they do not think war is outdated, they may be actually arming themselves in readiness for a war that is likely to erupt.
Assumptions
It is assumed that nuclear weapons have brought about peace and stability in Europe. This is based on the argument that since superpowers has the economic capability to manufacture such weapons; they do so to scare away any enemies. Nuclear weapons may have brought about the tolerance amongst these states but are sure of war not erupting again and these weapons not being put to use. Since this is an assumption, it is not certain that these superpowers are not waiting for a moment to come where they can put their nuclear weapons to use and test them.
Then, why are the superpowers keen on developing these weapons and storing them in case of war? Are the super powers planning to wipe out the globe so as to test and show off their superiority when it comes to nuclear weapons? The assumption brings with it a lot of questions that cannot be answered; only speculations can be raised. On the other hand, the European super powers may be developing these weapons so as to scare their enemies who would wage war on them.
Europeans and Americans tend to assume that peace and tranquility are the usual order of things in Europe and that the first forty five years of the 1990’s were irregularities. This was comprehendible as majority of the population in Europe was born after World War II thus they do not have a direct history with war (Mearsheimer 1990, 11).
This is a wrong assumption as European state system has experienced war since its foundation, just because one has not lived in the era of war, they cannot conclude the devastating things happened in the past. Europe is not a peace and tranquility-filled place; it is filled with tolerance for each other so as to avoid wars from erupting. This has been seen significantly as the European States settle their disputes diplomatically before turning to war as a resolution this is evident from the end of the Cold War in 1991 to date.
Conclusion
The Cold War was basically between two different ideologies, capitalism in the West and Communism in the East. It is in human nature for human beings to try and impose superiority over others by taking up measures and actions that would instill fear on ‘lesser beings.’ Individuals or nations considering themselves as more superior are always in conflict with those they term ‘lesser beings’ because they do not share the same ideologies, feelings, beliefs and political inclinations and tend to be forceful.
This was evident in the buildup of the Cold War that characterized post World War II. In a bid to compete with one another, and hopefully outdo each other, these two fronts went to great lengths to show and secure their superiority over the other. Some of the ways that they did this include; developing and showcasing nuclear weapons, this act was commonly done during the mid nineties to the early twenties and was commonly referred to as the ‘arms race’ and was characterized by periods of high tension and suspicion.
It is recommended that these weapons be eliminated and action be taken on any state manufacturing such weapons. In addition, countries that have the weapons should eliminate them or have a policy in place that will seek to cut down the number of such weapons. These weapons are more of a liability than an investment for any country. Its adverse effects have been felt especially in Japan where the US dropped atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the Second World War and have affected the people then and continues to do so to date. It’s traumatizing to think about what would happen if all the states with nuclear weapons presently used them, these weapons should be done away with for the safety of the current and future generations.
Reference
Mearsheimer J.,1990. “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War.” International Security, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 5-56.