The Cold War commonly refers to the period of confrontation of the two superpower states – United States and the Soviet Union – after their successful defeat of the Nazi Germany. Due to the profound social, political and economic discrepancies, both countries sought to prove their military power and capabilities.
The tension between the Westernized and communist world led to military confrontation that had a negative impact on other countries involved into the conflict. Though the reasons for military, economic, and ideological discrepancies were clear, no unanimity was presented concerning the origins and the beginning of the Cold War (Sheehan 2003).
The majority of historians adhere to the idea that the period of ideological tension dates back to the period after the World War II whereas other scholars agree that its beginning refers to the end of the World War I since the actual tension between the Russian Empire and Western society had already existed since the middle of nineteenth century.
The supporters of the Cold War beginning after the World War II argue that the actual conflict relies on the events happened in 30s and 40s of the past century and, therefore, they do not relate directly to earlier periods. In particular, Levering (2002) is definite that the gaps between global, democratic and capitalist visions in a post-war era were the major underpinning for the emerging conflict.
In addition, Warner (2011) is also congruent with the arguments and refers to the Cold War period as to the one starting right after the World War II, although different underpinnings are highlighted in terms of origins.
In particular, the scholar states, “Control of strategic raw materials played a key role in the origins and outcome of World War II and continued to be a source of power and policy during the Cold War” (p. 177). Although ideological influences should not be underestimated, there is evidence in regards to the real political intentions and strategies that undermine peaceful co-existence of two powerful governments.
The second viewpoint on the onset of the Cold War also shed lights on different genuine reasons for the conflict. In this, Engerman (2010) suggests, “both Soviet and American leaders proclaimed the novelty of their respective views of international politics during World War I and the postwar settlement” (p. 25).
In this respect, the origins of the conflict should be interpreted in a much broader context before analyzing ideological discrepancies between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Thus, Russian vision on economic development contradicted liberal and democratic views proclaimed by the Americans. In addition, historical background proves that 1917 could be regarded as the starting year of ideological intervention and tension between the western and communist societies.
With regard to the above-presented debates, the beginning of the Cold War conflict can officially date back to the period after World War II, but the genuine contradictions had developed in the course of the World War I.
This is of particular concern to ideological and geopolitical confrontation initiated by the Soviet Union leaders, including Lenin and Stalin.
Even during the military actions, the two superpower states strived to win the dominance in terms of military strategies and weapon reserves to take an ideological and economic advantage on the global arena. Therefore, both historical school of thought have partially contributed to the analysis of the origins of the Cold War.
Reference List
Sheehan, S 2003, The Cold War, Black Rabbit Books, US.
Engerman, DC 2010, ‘Ideology and the Origins of the Cold War, 1917-1962’, In MP Leffler and OA Westad (Eds), The Cambridge History of the Cold War, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 22-43.
Levering, RB 2002, Debating the Origins of the Cold War: American and Russian Perspectives. Rowman & Littlefield, US.
Van Alstein, M. (2009). The meaning of hostile bipolarization: Interpreting the origins of the Cold War. Cold War History, 9(3), 301-319.
Warner, G 2011, ‘The Cold War in retrospect’, International Affairs, 87, 1, pp. 173-184.
The studies of the Cold War era are experiencing rejuvenation in the latest decade, mainly thanks to the availability of the previously classified documents. On certain occasions, the newly available documents play a major role in the understanding of a certain issue. However, much more often, the scholars are attempting an encompassing overview of all of the existing information, taking into account the newly available ones, to produce an objective bird-eye perspective.
The book Debating the Origins of the Cold War: American and Russian Perspectives is the example of the latter. The authors attempt to present two distinct viewpoints on the Cold War period in the form of reflective analyses. The book consists of two parts, each representing one side of the conflict. The main section of each part is an in-depth essay that explains the understanding of the Cold War by one of the superpowers. Each essay is followed by the set of carefully selected documents to back up the arguments laid out by the authors.
American Perspective
The essay by Levering and Botzenhart-Viehe presents a thoughtful historical background to the Cold War-era tensions. According to the authors, the foundations for enmity were laid in the early twentieth century, roughly at the time of World War I (Levering, et al. 14). By then, the American worldview was already visibly reshaped by the Wilsonian ideals. At the same time, Lenin’s take on Communism was steadily gaining support from the rest of the world where Communist uprisings were taking place. The situation reached an apogee in 1933 when Franklin Delano Roosevelt recognized the Soviet Union, the decision followed by a substantial strengthening of the American Communist Party.
In addition, the fact that the American Government seemingly ignored the growing threat of Soviet espionage further alienated the public and led to multiple anti-Communist activities, such as the formation of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). By the beginning of World War II, a distinct hostile attitude was formed in governmental policies which coincided with the public opposition to Communist ideology in general and Stalin’s course of actions, in particular, countered by Roosevelt’s attempts to minimize the growing tension between the countries. Roosevelt tended to view the Soviets as valuable allies in America’s ultimate goal of becoming a leader in global affairs (Levering, et al. 22).
Aside from the obvious contribution to overcoming the major threat of combined German and Japanese forces, the Soviet Union was viewed by Roosevelt as a way to manifest the intention of the United States to gain the upper hand in international affairs. As Roosevelt himself put it, “We can fulfill our responsibilities for maintaining the security of our country only by exercising our power and our influence to achieve the principles in which we believe and for which we have fought” (Levering, et al. 23). Such exercising of influence could be manifested, among other things, by extending the cooperation with the Soviets beyond the war dealings and into the peaceful period.
By the end of WWII, a distinct American outlook has formed in the minds of the citizens, finding its reflection in the government policies. The chief tendency was towards establishing a fair, democratic society that recognized basic human rights and treated all people equally. Obviously, Stalin’s regime did not fit that description, which gradually established a distinct “us versus them” mentality. As a result, Truman’s unsuccessful attempts to negotiate compliance with these new values eventually ceased and the US foreign policy became gradually more anti-soviet (Levering, et al. 37).
Specifically, the focus shifted from an overarching reach to secure partnerships across the globe to selective alliances with similar-minded countries, most notably the ones from Western Europe. Another aspect of the new direction was the growing role of atomic warfare as a means of domestic, as well as international, security, and preservation of global peace. This trend later contributed to the arms race and eventually became an iconic representation of the late Cold War, giving rise to a number of cultural and social phenomena. Importantly, while the latter triggered sufficient controversy and garnered much criticism, the former was readily embraced by the general public.
For instance, the belief in the superiority of the capitalistic values allowed the aid to Turkey and Greece, which was a part of the Truman doctrine, to be publicly accepted and supported. The same effect was largely responsible for the active participation of the US in the countering of the Soviet attempt to force communism in Germany.
In all, according to the essay, the American side of the Cold War can be viewed as driven largely by the belief in the ultimate righteousness of American internationalism. The latter, according to the overwhelming public understanding of the time, could be defined as a world driven by democratic and capitalistic values. This explains the economic support given to the countries of Western Europe and ceaseless attempts to discredit Communism along with the foreign policies aimed at raising geopolitical barriers to distance from what was perceived as a threat to democracy.
Russian Perspective
In contrast to the international scope of the American side, the Russian setting was more regional-oriented. Stalin’s early intentions were defined by the desire to strengthen the country’s integrity by securing the borders, which was achieved by amassing the support of the satellite countries. One of the results of such an approach was the reluctance to cooperate with external superpowers (which America was gradually becoming after the end of World War II).
More importantly, this changed Stalin’s perspective on certain events, such as the hesitation to open the second front. In Stalin’s eyes, this was interpreted as proof of the intention by the US to win the war using the Soviet Union as a tool. At this point, it is important to recognize the fact that such an opinion was not totally unjustified. According to Levering, et al., “The Red Army suffered fifty-five times more casualties than did U.S. forces and inflicted 93% of German combat losses between June 22, 1941, and D-day” (92). In addition, the secrecy of the Manhattan Project was viewed by the Soviet authorities as supporting the suspicion that the US was planning to challenge the security of the Soviet Union.
After the onset of Truman’s presidency, the conditions became gradually more challenging for the Soviets, even more so from Stalin’s perspective. The anti-Soviet policies adopted and exercised by Truman coupled with the intimidating effect of atomic weapons aligned with dictatorship-driven xenophobic paranoia common among the ruling elite of the country. In addition, the Soviet influence in Asia did not reach the planned magnitude because of the early termination of the war.
Finally, the takeover of Japan by the United States along with their growing influence on the continent convinced Stalin that he was pressed into a dire situation. In response, he launched a new five-year plan of raising industrial output, underpinned by the anti-capitalist ideology aimed, among other things, at purifying his political machine from disloyal elements (Levering, et al. 133).
The attempt by the US to change the world in its own image was perceived by the Soviet leaders as an indirect expansion ending in global hegemony. Consequently, to secure the integrity of his country, he was enforcing his ideological and political vision in Eastern Europe. Simultaneously, to strengthen his Eastern border, he sought partnership with China, which later played a major role in their shift to Communism. Overall, it can be seen that Stalin’s understanding of integrity and security was largely driving his interpretation of the actions by the US and, by extension, strengthened the antagonism between two powers.
Conclusion
Judging from the information presented in the essays, the chief reason behind the onset of the Cold War was an almost grotesque level of misunderstanding between two superpowers. Specifically, the American perspective prioritized the egalitarian values and bringing democracy to the rest of the world. On the other hand, the Soviet elite perceived integrity and sustainability as defining features of a powerful nation.
Basically, both countries chose expansion as a means of achieving their goals which, unfortunately, were contradicting when viewed from the other side. Aside from the set priorities, both were largely similar in their means, and the magnitude of economic and military power at stake further complicated matters. As a result, all of the actions taken by each side further widened the gap and solidified the hostility, rendering feeble attempts to establish communication uselessly.
Work Cited
Levering, Ralph, et al. Debating the Origins of the Cold War: American and Russian Perspectives. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002.
Historians attribute the occurrence of the conflicts in the 20th and 21st centuries to misperceptions among the nations. In this view, historians argue that Word War I, World War II, and the Cold War among significant wars rode on misperceptions among the major nations of the world. Misperception is a nation’s wrongful interpretation of the other nations in terms of actions and behavior.
The misperception between the Soviet Union and U.S after the WW II was the main cause of Cold War. After the WW II, the America rose to become the most powerful nation in the world, however, the USSR perceived this negatively, which resulted into fierce rivalry between the two nations and the war hang on this misperception.
Misperception; the cause of the Cold War
After the WW II, America emerged the most powerful country. Being the most powerful in the world therefore, the U.S was determined to spread the doctrine of capitalism to most nations in Europe. The USSR perceived this move as the United States’ attempt to control and colonize the other nations.
Since colonization and its effects, had spread across the world towards the end of First World War, USSR did not want the U.S. to bring back such situation in the world. In response, USSR began to spread communism to the close allies of the U.S. According to Ingimundarson, “the Soviet Union started to spread communism to the Western Europe countries, which were U.S capitalist territories” (1994, p.56).
Since the U.S was committed to combat any international influence in the region, severe rivalry between the two powers arose. Because of the superiority the U.S had gained in terms of economics and politics, USSR viewed it as a threat to communism in the world. In order to strengthen communism, USSR stretched beyond Europe with particular target to the U.S capitalist territories.
This led to clash of the two powers in Asia where communism controlled China and Korea. On its side, the U.S viewed USSR’s communism as outdated and autocratic and the U.S authorities had to do whatever possible to decimate its spread.
The U.S government developed Marshal Plan through which it provided support to the European nations and the rest of the world to discourage the spread of communism and embrace capitalism. Therefore, the rivalries preceding the Cold War were result of misperceptions between the USSR and US.
The two powers misperceived the technological advancement by the either side. In a step to strengthen its security, USSR invested significantly in military technologies. It was the first to design one of the most powerful weapons in history. In fact, the U.S started making hydrogen bombs immediately after USSR had constructed its own.
The U.S perceived the USSR’s military expansion as a threat to its security and that of the world. As a result, the U.S government strongly invested in armament and by the end of 1980’s, its nuclear arsenal had greatly grown. Economically, the U.S technological advancement in economy elicited uncertainties to the USSR authorities. To USSR, the economic expansion aimed to attract the third world countries into capitalism.
Since the expansion of capitalism created discontent among the Soviets, they developed competitive economic strategies. This further increased rivalry between the two nations, which precipitated into Cold war.
Stein clarifies that, “in order to maintain its economic dominance in Europe, America developed the Marshal Plan that offered financial support to these regions to ensure that they purchased the U.S products” (1992, p. 470). However, Soviet Union viewed this as a means to spread America’s dominance in the world.
The plausible truth is; America’s Marshal Plan was just a marketing strategy to capture and control a considerable international market. The plan did not aim to colonize any country at all. Due to their misperception, USSR vetoed its states from this plan.
The continued logic implantations between the belligerents resulted into growth in antagonism. The antagonistic activities led to formation of two rival groups in the world: the communist and the capitalist communities. The division of Germany into West and East blocks through the Berlin wall evidenced this rivalry.
Conclusion
The wrongful judgment of the other nations and their acts is what historians refer to as misperception. The Cold War occurred as result of the misperception between the USSR and the U.S. The Soviet Union viewed the U.S economic expansion as strategy to colonize the world while the U.S perceived the USSR’s communism as a threat to the expansion of capitalism.
Moreover, the U.S viewed USSR’s military advancement as a threat to its close allies such as Western Europe and Asia. The U.S technological advancement elicited discontent among the Soviet Union territories and resulted into competitive responses. The Soviet Union’s ascend into the moon was purposely to set standards and challenge the U.S technological achievements.
Because of these misperceptions, rivalry grew between the belligerents in support of their ideological allies. These rivalries led into splitting of Germany. They further resulted into arm’s race between the capitalists and communists, which culminated into what historians have come to refer to as the Cold War. It is therefore justifiable that misperception played a major role in the Cold war.
References
Ingimundarson, V. (1994). Cold War Misperceptions: The Communist and Western Responses to the East German Refugee Crisis in 1953. Journal of Contemporary History, 29(3), 463-481.
Stein, A. A. (1992). When Misperception Matters. Journal of World Politics, 34(4), 41-103.
Most countries of the world were significantly influenced by World Wars I and II and other major conflicts. In particular, Japan bore the greatest brunt of the Second World War and was forced to surrender in 1945 (Sebata, 2010). Virtually all countries sought to enhance their national intelligence services for purpose of self-defense. However, after the WWII, Japan embarked on more international-friendly policies.
Its foreign policies were harmonized with those of the United States and the United Nations which promoted cooperation among countries of the world. During the Cold War, Japan subscribed to the interests of the Western world especially in dealing with threats from the Soviet Union (Sebata, 2010).
Having assumed a relatively ‘peaceful’ stand, Japan was able to recover from the impacts of WWII to become one of the most powerful countries in the world at the end of the Cold War in early 1990s (Hayashi, 2006). Japan’s international policies during this period were geared towards enhancing economic and technological growth. The essay explores how the role of Japan has evolved since the end of the Cold War.
Japanese foreign policy drastically changed soon after the end of the Cold War. The government declared its support for global peace advocated for by the United Nations. Japan started sending its troops to war-torn countries in the 1990s and beginning of the 21st century (Hayashi, 2006).
In the meantime, the country sought to reform its national security and intelligence services which had collapsed due to continued threats from the US. This was triggered by the launching of ballistic missile, Tepodong I, fired over its territory by North Korea in August 1998 (Sebata, 2010). The East Asian region became a point of focus for Japan since it was also not in good terms with China.
It resolved to launch its reconnaissance satellites. By March 2003, it had launched two of the current four satellites. With the threats posed by international terrorism, Japan has continued to improve its security and level of intelligence since the end of the Cold War. These efforts, however, have been faced with the difficulty of implementation of proposed policy reforms.
It is evident that Japan’s regional and international roles and responsibilities have expanded significantly since the conclusion of the Cold War (Hayashi, 2006). Unlike the combative spirit during the Cold War period, Japan has resorted to the promotion of developmental efforts at the international level. Some countries have regarded these as reconciliatory initiatives to apologize for past mistakes (Sebata, 2010).
After the Cold War, Japan has modeled itself as a democratic state and has sought, together with the US, to spread this to other parts of the world. The country has also campaigned for the respect of human rights and dignity as well as the liberalization of world economy. This indicates that Japan has not only sought to pursue its own best interests but also those of the world at large.
In general, Japan has moved from its reactive role to a more assertive and proactive role since the end of the Cold War (Hayashi, 2006). Rather than wait for guidance from the United States, it is now making authentic contributions to the global community. Asia has for a long time been characterized by selfish interests of member countries especially during the Cold War period.
European countries have pulled their resources for a common course and mission, ranging from economic cooperation to security matters (Hayashi, 2006). With an aim of introducing a sense of unity in the East Asia region, Japan has proposed the formation of a “Pacific Alliance.”
Aware of the great challenge of developing shared values and interests, Japan is determined to create a political and security framework for the Asian region. This will go a long way in the development of quality human resource, advanced research opportunities, as well as intellectual and technological contribution that will in turn aid in creating a peaceful world.
Reference List
Hayashi, S., 2006. Japan and East Asian monetary regionalism: towards a proactive leadership role? Taylor & Francis.
Sebata, T., 2010. Japan’s defense policy and bureaucratic politics, 1976-2007. University Press of America.
The cold war was the period that ran roughly between 1946 and 1991 and was defined by proxy wars, military tension, political conflict and economic competition.
During this time, the communist world, the Soviet Union and its allies, was in economic competition with the powers of the Western world like Europe. There was no actual battle, but the conflict was apparent. The cold war took effect on the European continent and spread over to the Asia-Pacific region.
The primary difference in the cold war order of the Asia-Pacific and that of Europe was instigated by the reason for security arrangements between the two regions. Europe was intrinsically driven by the aim of preventing wars in Europe, and between East and West in Europe whereas Asia-Pacific was wedded to a more contemporary conception of sovereignty.
Europe and Asia-Pacific had been incorporated into America’s global grand plan of containing the Soviet Union during the cold war. Three principal objectives governed this grand strategy. One, there was the need to enhance the dominance by the US in international relations. Two, it was necessary to contain and finally acquire victory over the Soviet challenge.
The final objective was aimed at preventing an outbreak of a major war between the two superpowers, which could be catastrophic, due to their easy access to enormously damaging nuclear arsenals, and their immediate retaliation after an attack of whatever nature (Maull 1).
The Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) process was used as Europe’s principal institutional expression to pursue its objectives via collective defence arrangements like NATO. In addition, deterrence and formulation of a policy that would reduce tensions, through détente, were also used (Maull 2-3).
Asia-Pacific on the other hand pursued its objectives through balance of power and deterrence, which were developed based on bilateral security arrangements, and strategic rapprochement between China and America that had begun in 1972.
Europe’s security arrangement operated under the double containment security system, where the Brussels Treaty of 1948 was the nucleus of it. This treaty was used to contain both Germany, and the Soviet Union. Europe adopted a multilateral security system that led to the formation of the Western European Union.
The start of the mid-1950s to the end of the cold war was characterized by withdrawal of efforts aimed at foreseeing European integration, from security and the military. The European Economic Community (EC) and Euratom were developed under the treaties of Rome. The Euratom was aimed at ensuring that West Germany remained as a non-nuclear status.
The EC on the other hand aimed at developing strategies for use in the coordination of foreign policy. It eventually grew into a Common Foreign and Security Policy in the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, and the 1999 Common European Security and Defence Policy (Maull 6).
The Asia-Pacific built its bilateral security arrangements with Japan, and the Republics of China (Taiwan) and Korea. Multilateral security institutions played a discrete minor role. Unlike in Europe, the US became the sole occupation power in Japan.
America, during the Vietnam War, pushed the Manila Pact and the highly recognized collective defence organisation, the South East Asian Treaty Organisation (SEATO) that had spawned from it, via America’s direct leverage to South Vietnam.
The efforts by South Korea and America to build a North East Asia Treaty Organization as a collective defence security arrangement aiming at containment of North Korea and China was never a success because Tokyo pulled out of this plan.
In addition to SEATO, the ANZUS Pact, made up of Australia, New Zealand and the United, was among the existing collective defence arrangements that remained marginal to Pacific Asia’s security architecture (Maull 9).
Work Cited
Maull, Hanns W. Security cooperation in Europe and Pacific Asia: a comparative analysis. The Journal of East Asian Affairs (Korea), 19:2 (2005): pp. 1-32. Web.
The Cold War was the political and military tension that existed primarily between the USA and its allies, on the one hand, and the USSR on the other, even despite the fact that these forces were allies during the Second World War. The Cold War started after the ending of World War II and finished with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The Cold War was associated with the conflict of two inconsistent ideologies: capitalist (the U.S.) and communist (the USSR); the representatives of both sides tended to almost demonize one another.
There is a position according to which the USA’s politics were based on the desire of large American companies to justify the mass production of weapons in order to gain enormous profits (Zinn 546); economic motives can also be suspected to have been a motive for the USSR.
The Cold War started around 1947, when the USSR created Cominform, whereas Truman stated that it is necessary to counter the efforts of the Soviet Union to cause discrepancies and conflicts inside the capitalist world. The policy of containment of the Communist threat was proclaimed by the U.S. Somewhat later, in 1949, China became a communist state, turning it into a potential ally of the Soviet Union (Gaddis ch. 2), which by that time created its own nuclear weapons. Simultaneously, NATO was created to counteract the spread of Communism, thus turning the Cold War into a global phenomenon.
As the leaders of the USSR changed, the hope that the threat of Communist expansion would be reduced sometimes arose, but often proved short-lived; for instance, Khrushchev’s actions in Hungary in 1956 dispelled such hopes. There were a number of conflicts in which the sides of the Cold War engaged, for instance, the situation in Cuba in 1962, in which the sides nearly started a direct confrontation.
In the 1980s, the reforms of Mikhail Gorbachev, certain concessions made by the USSR started to alleviate the tension. The Cold War ended primarily due to the dissolution of the Soviet Union (Gaddis ch. 7).
‘End of empires’
The 20th century is called “the end of empires,” for, at the beginning of this century, most of the world lived in colonies which were parts of European empires, but practically all the empires were dissolved during that century (Florig n.pag.). The only currently existing empire in Japan, but the title is only nominal and originates from the fact that the head of the state is called an Emperor; however, in fact, the country is a constitutional monarchy.
There were a number of colonial empires at the beginning of the 20th century; the countries which had colonies included Great Britain, the U.S., Italy, France, German Empire, the Netherlands, and others (Florig n.pag.). In addition, the Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary, the Russian Empire, and the German Empire were also major empires.
Most of the dissolutions of these empires were related to the two World Wars, even though in certain cases the situation within the empires themselves was unstable. For instance, in the Ottoman Empire, the dissolution began with the Young Turk Revolution in 1908, when a multi-party form of government was established. During World War I, the country engaged in military actions, taking the side of the Central Powers. Furthermore, constant conflicts that occurred later drained the empire of its military power, causing its dissolution.
Austria-Hungary and the German Empire were engaged in World War I, being the core members of the Central Powers. Austria-Hungary collapsed at the end of the First World War due to the military defeat; a number of new states, such as the First Austrian Republic, the Kingdom of Hungary, Yugoslavia, the Union of Transylvania with Romania, etc., emerged. Germany also lost in World War I; during the November Revolution in 1918, the German Empire collapsed, and what later became known as the Weimar Republic was established.
In addition, a number of new states were created from the Russian Empire due to the revolutions that took place there; the Russian Empire also ceased its existence, and many of its territories became the Soviet Union. On the whole, numerous new states emerged in Europe on the ruins of the previously existing empires; as was mentioned, the same happened in the Middle East, where the Ottoman Empire previously existed (Florig n.pag.).
As history unfolded, the process of dissolution of empires continued. Many colonial empires ceased their existence after World War II; the power of European countries, such as Great Britain, was significantly undermined by the war (Darwin n.pag.). Decolonization mostly took place during the 1940s-1960s (Florig n.pag.). In addition, the attention of many of the Western countries was focused on the Cold War, which also stimulated the process of decolonization of the Third World.
For instance, the U.S. was concentrated on “building the global architecture of containment” (Fain 586), as were certain other countries. This provided the opportunity for the countries of the Third World to declare independence; also, a number of prominent political figures were able to obtain a good education, in Western countries in particular, and popularize the ideas of independence in the Third World.
Thus, the 20th century proved to be “the end of empires” due to the fact that practically all the empires and colonial empires disintegrated during that century. The main causes of these dissolutions were the World Wars and the Cold War; in addition, a number of cultural causes such as the spread of the ideas of independence were also essential for the dissolutions to take place.
Fain, W. Taylor. “Mapping the End of Empire: American and British Strategic Visions in the Postwar World.” American Historical Review 120.2 (2015): 585-586. EBSCOhost. Web.
Florig, Dennis. The History of the 20th Century. n.d. Web.
Gaddis, John Lewis. The Cold War. London, UK: Penguin Books, 2011. Google Books. Web.
Economic issues formed a core axis in defining power structure in the expansive Europe. The French revolution, for instance, was based on economic issues in France. (John 117) After the war, immense ideological shift emerged in the European nations. Most countries realigned their policies and ideology in tandem with the new political and socio-economic dispensation presented by the prevailing post-war conditions. (John 187)
After the war, the nations faced humongous economic slump, the pecuniary implications of the war took toll on the European Nations. Industries were affected with decline in business; there was thus an urgent need to resuscitate the civilian apathy in the region.
Cold war
An ideological dialectics emerged between the USSR and the US that polarized Europe into blocks. Factually speaking it was based on economic issues.
The emergent of capitalists who believed on a free market economy and the socialists who emphasised on the need to control the market structures catapulted Europe into an economical and industrial frenzy. The ideological inclination of European countries during the cold war defined the government of the day. (John 78)
Emergence of NATO, brainchild of North America, and the Warsaw pact, championed by the USSR led to a significant epoch in the region. The Eastern Europe aligned itself towards the USSR and were signatories of the Warsaw pact. It included such countries such as Bulgaria, Hungary, East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania; The NATO housed the Western Europe countries.
The orientation of the European nations in relation to the cold war greatly influenced the membership of both the NATO alliance and the Warsaw pact; USSR and the US were in a rush to attract the European nations under their influence. It would be very accurate therefore to argue that the two treaties were based on how the European nations “read and balanced the equation of Communism and Capitalism.”(John 97)
The formation of the UN in 1945, delivered an ideology in the post war era that remains significant in Europe’s history. The emergence of Human rights and freedom activism played a leading role in the post war era.
European governments responded differently at the inception of this ideology that opened up the socio-political space in Europe, one arm believed in civil liberty based on the respect for human dignity and social emancipation, the other axis of Europe ignored human rights and pursued governance where the civil participation was limited to the lowest level.
Germany, United Kingdom and Italy
Germany remained heavily polarised into western and eastern blocks according to their orientation in the Capitalism-communism axis. The Eastern bloc leaning towards the USSR while Western Germany were capitalists. End of cold war saw the demolition of the wall followed by immense industrial and market rationalization (John 101)
The UK ended the war with very large debts, they eventually withdrew from the lend lease program where they were to purchase American goods as the Americans offer them aid. One year after the war, the government introduced bread rationing. Policy changes took form to accommodate the “nationalisation” of industries. (John 179)
Italy underwent rapid economic rise after the war. It formally joined the European community in 1958; however, in 1970s and 1980s, Italy faced immense unrest after the actions of the Leftists Red brigades. Currently, Europe is facing an economic slump of unprecedented quotient.
Works cited
Merriman, John M.. A history of modern Europe: from the French Revolution to the present.. 3rd ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2010.print
The end of World War II has opened a new era in human relations and particularly, how Russians and Americans viewed the new world and each other.
The book by John Lewis Gaddis titled “The Cold War” gives accounts, different perspectives and analysis, as to what has happened after Hitler and Germany were defeated and what exactly transpired between the two superpowers.
The book not only looks at facts but also tries to explain why things happened the way they did, taking a deeper look into human emotions and governments of countries.
The book starts on a good note by creating a uniting link between Americans and Russians. Both nations were very much ready to start rebuilding the world but it was not as easy as it seemed.
The fear that started spreading became material and filled everyone with feelings of anxiety and lack of knowledge what to expect next. Of course, these sorts of things do not happen without a reason but here, the causes were not so apparent.
From the first triumphant celebrations it was adequate to conclude that the peaceful expectancies from Russian leader Josef Stalin and American, Franklin D. Roosevelt would be quite natural. But it turned out that there was tightness in the first moments of the war’s end celebration.
When looking for the beginning stages of the Cold War, John Gaddis reasonably asks of the reasons why the two nations have had separate surrender ceremonies”.1 It is obvious that the feelings that overwhelmed Russians and Americans were somewhat different.
For the Soviet Union, the war was a significant devastation and the amount of people and cities lost was enormous. Russian people felt torn into pieces and at the same time, proud that their unified efforts have helped to end the war.
The Americans felt that they have achieved a great step in the relationship with the Russian people and that it could not have happened without own efforts and cooperation. The first few events proved to be critical for the beginning of the conflict between two nations.
The suspension of shipments by Americans to the Soviets was seen as a specific gesture. For U.S.S.R. people and government this was an uncertain but factual display of some uncertainty and delayed hesitance.
At first glance, these minor events have been signs of animosity that existed between Russians and Americans, despite of winning the war.2
It is obvious that the governments of the two powerful world nations had their own expectations and assumptions, as to what has and might take place after the war was over. This was a political conflict that showed each nation with its unique qualities and differences towards the new world order.
The deep ideological views of the two nations have developed separately and events in each country have shaped what people were expecting of themselves and the governments.
John Gaddis compares the Bolshevik Revolution and the American Revolution as two great turns in each nation but the outcomes have been based on own reasons and expectancies.
The Russian leaders seemed eager to rebuild the world but what really happened, was further segregation and destruction of the order, peace and people’s hopes.
At the time of the Cold war, specifically its start, little was known of the regime that was taking place in the USSR. Even though the majority of people were led to believe that new brighter and better world was being born, the reality was much different.
The authority and truly cruel pressure that took place under the surface, was felt by the Soviet people but not seen from the side. It was known that people were being ruled with an authoritarian power but the interests of the government were not openly revealed which quickly created animosity between two peoples.
John Gaddis compares how the Second World War was fought by Russians in comparison to the Americans. The Soviets have lost “27 million” by official counts while Americans, “just under 300,000”.3
He reiterates that Americans very much had a choice of where and when to fight the battles and the war itself left the United States a country that had all the necessary resources to prosper.
Comparing to the Soviet Union, Americans have achieved a better world while the Soviets were in ruins and had to rebuild everything. This fact alone had placed a dividing line between the two nations and moved each one further away from understanding what had to be done and how.
The tight control that Josef Stalin had over the devastated people was surprising and undeniable. He has commanded for the Soviet troops to continue their pursuits in Iran, demanded control of the Turks and refusal to participate in some matters proposed by the Americans, which have distanced the nations.
The communication and cooperation that was expected by the American government did not take place and this has set even further misunderstanding in the matter of affairs.
An extensive part of the reasons, John Gaddis explains by the way other countries behaved and the actions of the superpowers in relation to smaller nations. These were actions that were not taken directly by the Soviets or Americans but the outcomes and alliances that each nation has had at that time.
The battles that were fought on “invisible fronts” between the USSR and Americans were numerous. The Korean War was one such example where interests of other countries and nations were involved.4 The Cuban Crisis and the Helsinki Process are other examples of indirect action between the powers.
The American government was using its resources to set control while the Soviet one was trying to do the same. Each newly elected government official had predispositions and plans that had their own ways of reaching the desired result.
The overall impression made by John Gaddis of the governments, is that all the conflicts were only a kind of “show” that seemed to be cutting and ending points in the Cold War.
These were mere isolated events; whereas the causes that led up to these events, as well as what took place after the conflicts died down, were the real perturbations of the Cold War conflict.
This was the time when people’s views of the world emerged. Every nation was in pursuit of its own order for itself and the remaining world. The reputation that the Soviet Union had in Europe was evident. It was respected and people had been given a glance of communism, lured by its benefits.
The rest of the world got the idea of how the Americans were going to set order, having an enormous amount of resources and liberal views of peace and human rights. Even though these “between the lines” conflicts and differences in opinions and goals might seem minor, they were the majority of what took place in the world.
People’s personal feelings, dreams and insecurities were spread over large populations of individuals and countries which were fuelling the Cold War and heating up suspicions.
John Gaddis acknowledges that it is not only the governments that partook in the war—regimes, personal views of selected groups, local rebellions and the fanatical reach for a better world order have upset the balance within nations and internationally.
Nations and societies were also at war, in their political ideologies, expectancies of peace and avenues of getting or forcing this peace onto others.
It is mentioned how easily the conflict could have been ended but people are often unable to see far into the future and thus, are left to their own intentions in fighting the immediate dangers, which are often produced out of insignificant insecurities and imprecise facts.
This goes to show how much limited cooperation and understanding there was between nations and people. It is shameful that history is full of examples when people acted towards fellow human beings in such a devastating and mistrusting way.
It would be safe to say that the Cold War was not between the two great nations but amounts to all people and their interests, and understating of what the world and life is all about.
These sorts of historical events should become an example of what animosity and antagonism lead to, while they are based on personal insecurities and thought up unreasonable fears.
Reference
Gaddis, John. The Cold War. New York, United States: Penguin Group Incorporated, 2006.
Footnotes
1 J Gaddis. ‘The Cold War, Penguin Group Incorporated, 2006, p. 6.
2 J Gaddis. ‘The Cold War, Penguin Group Incorporated, 2006, p. 7.
3 J Gaddis. ‘The Cold War, Penguin Group Incorporated, 2006, p. 8.
4 J Gaddis. ‘The Cold War, Penguin Group Incorporated, 2006, p. 60.
In the article from the Globe and Mail, the main argument is that Canada, as an ally of the United States and the United Nations (UN) was inclined to support military activity in Korea during the Cold War. However, as noted in the source, Canada had no adequate armed forces to send, including ground and air forces. After reviewing the assistance provided by such countries as Britain, Australia, and others allying with the UN, Canada expressed the desire to help them as well. To summarize the reason for its inability to participate in military activity, the Canadian government declared that a lack of proper planning, or even a complete absence of planning, resulted in failure to equip and train soldiers and sailors.
At the same time, the article does point out that Canada had previously sent some naval destroyers to Korea. This action displayed the true intentions of the country’s government and showed that the lack of armed forces was not merely an excuse. However, it is also possible to interpret Canada’s actions as, to some extent supporting its role as a so-called middle power, in which it tried to act as a peaceful country and end the war in Korea with minimal intervention and the fewest possible causalities. This interpretation seems to fit the available evidence, as Canada had previously expressed its peacekeeping ideals.
The second reading presents the views of James G. Endicott, a Canadian clergyman, socialist, and missionary activist. His argument is that the path of peace, through the use of negotiation and debate rather than war, is the most appropriate and effective way to resolve conflicts. Endicott emphasized that war between the Soviet Union and the Western powers is likely to be inevitable due to ideological tension between them. As for the war in Korea, the clergyman noted that no Canadians were afraid that the distant country would attack them or cause them any direct harm.
However, if the government followed the US and the UN, it might send soldiers to Korea or China to suppress the local population, who were struggling to change the existing order in a legitimate manner. The author also emphasized the act recently approved by the UN about a peaceful resolution of conflicts, thus showing that the organization was not complying with its stated mission and ideals. More to the point, Endicott asserted that the Government pushed people to blindly follow its intentions. It is evident, he states, that some powerful groups were pursuing engagement in war and encouraging others to do so for the sake of their own profit.
Comparing the two readings, it is safe to assume that the one by Endicott seems to be more convincing and to make more sense. The author clearly highlights the mission of the UN and then shows that the organization failed to comply with it. Another strong point of his argument is that he focuses on Canadians and the country’s affairs rather than mere assistance to allies. Endicott clearly understands that neither Korea nor China presented a threat to Canada and therefore argues that there is no need to participate in or promote war, while it is possible to apply peaceful measures. Indeed, it seems that Endicott was confident that the appropriate conclusion is to call people to ponder the government’s actions. The fact that the author provides some financial information regarding armament costs shows that he is quite familiar with business issues and understands them well. In general, the arguments by Endicott are more informative, reasonable, and clear than those expressed in the Globe and Mail.
There were many interesting pages in America’s history that continue drawing attention both of the US citizens and the representatives of other countries even now. One of such pages was the Cold War – the period of geopolitical tension that started after the World War II between the US and the Soviet Union. Some historians and politicians emphasize that despite the announced quest to safeguard the American things during that historical period, the government’s actions encouraged people to behave in the “un-American” way.
While the government made efforts to spread the idea of the Great American Boom and convince the world that everything was excellent in the country, there were many individuals who could disagree.1 The life was rather complicated and even “hypocritical” due to the citizens’ apprehensions about their future.2 One of the things that America had always been proud of was the high quality of life that it gave to its people. However, during the Cold War, the new economy led to the power of consumption that outlined citizens’ spiritual comfort. The habit of economizing that had always been the country’s pride stopped being patriotic.3
Another thing that was contradictory to the usual American values was the enormous gap between the level of life pertaining to White and Black people. While the US had always proclaimed the right to freedom, it appeared to be the place where that right was given only to a particular group of individuals.4 Popular TV shows glorified children as the center of family life, but that concerned only Caucasian families. The Blacks had no possibility to give their children the best things since they had to struggle to provide them with at least the most sufficient ones.
There was one more issue concerned with the racial inequality that undermined the endeavor to preserve the American things. While the country had always boasted its care about veterans, it provided those who returned from the war with unequal opportunities.5 The GI Bill offered a number of social security possibilities for the veterans such as housing and education. However, the opportunity door was closed for the Afro-American veterans. If a person was brave enough to enter a university, they were doomed to be left out of any social life events and sports activities.
A crucial issue related to the Cold War was the negligence of women’s rights. Although America had proclaimed the rights to work and independence, it was not in a hurry to provide females with those rights. Instead of letting women be equal participants in all the spheres of life, the government pictured them as the attributes and servants to husbands.6 Women were given the role of a caregiver rather than an individual capable of taking important decisions.
In his book “The Road to Serfdom,” Hayek mocked the ideas of collectivism and considered the central planning decision-making responsible for tyranny.7 The US was confronting the Soviet Union, but at the same time, many actions of its government made the lives of some people unbearable. Hayek mentioned that mobilizing the country’s economy led to the refusal of significant freedoms.8 Also, he emphasized that some promises made by the government were utopian, and people were being deceived deliberately.
Therefore, the Cold War America did not perform sufficient protection of the things that had been considered American. People’s apprehension grew stronger as they noticed the unfair treatment from the government. Such politics led to the initiation of civil rights movements and other actions of protest.