The cold war was a rivalry between the United States, the Soviet Union, and their allies. This was a result of power and the distribution of territories. Either ally wanted to have more power and control the others. This war affected numerous countries that needed to safeguard their territories. The war led to mass loss of people and countries fighting against each other. Tension was created as a result of the cold war as the geopolitical of different countries was affected, economic loss, and the rise of dangerous arms such as nuclear weapons.
European countries such as France participated in the cold war and suffered consequences. France engaged in the cold war, siding with the NATO alliances. It was also a United Nations Security Council member and opposed Soviet alliances. China was an Asian country that was also affected by the cold war in various perspectives. Consequently, during the beginning of this war, China sided with the Soviet Union. Therefore, these countries were affected differently by the cold war while also sharing similar ideologies.
France, a member of the Nation Security Council, had a crucial role in engaging different countries in the peace treaty. Despite China’s siding with the Soviet Union, it later participated in building political collisions. Contrary, the cold war had dissimilar impacts on France and China. The cold war aided France in retaining its economic status (Pannier & Schmitt, 2019). Additionally, its role in National Security Council ensured its security status and the military environment. The cold war led to a suspension of diplomatic ties of China with other states (Anievas & Saul, 2020). Further, China faced severe famine resulting from a disastrous economy. China faced political challenges that led to disorders in Taiwan.
In conclusion, the cold war had positive and negative impacts on different countries. Loss of lives in different states was a massive consequence of the cold war. Rather than France and China suffering, the cold war led to various conflicts. However, the attempt to engage in nuclear fights led to peace agreement treaties between the nations involved. Therefore, the cold war was a period of wrangling and destruction, which would later signify the end of tension due to differences in ideologies and state power and control.
The Cold War was a major global upheaval that left the world polarized more than ever before. Ideological differences characterized this rivalry since the West pursued notions of capitalism while the East popularized the concept of communism. The anxieties arising from the issue of European immigrants echo the sentiments of securitization and Islamophobia following the events of September 11. This argumentative essay gives a detailed analysis and comparison of these two historical developments.
Comparison and Discussion
Throughout the Cold War period, Western Europe and North America became the destinations of many immigrants from different regions across Europe. Most of these people managed to transform the economies and cultural values of their new nations (Bauder & Shields, 2015). Some Europeans started to move across the Atlantic fearing the possible consequences or outcomes of the war. During the time, many people opposed such a trend since it could disorient their experiences and lives. Some citizens argued that such a development could undermine the originality of the established cultural values. The Canadian Encyclopaedia (2020) indicates that mixed reactions continued to prevail since there were some parties who wanted to promote diversity while others supported homogenous societies.
Similarly, the collapse of the Soviet and the subsequent end of the Cold War triggered an unprecedented movement of Germans to the West. With such developments taking place, more people remained anxious and predicted that the increasing number of immigrants could jeopardize global peace and even trigger the spread of communism in Europe and North America. The majority of the immigrants in North America encountered numerous challenges, such as discrimination and prejudice. Many Americans applied the lenses of WWI and WWII whenever associating with these European immigrants (Bauder & Shields, 2015). They believed that such groups had disoriented global peace in the past. However, such thoughts were misinformed since the majority of the immigrants feared potential wars and unrests that could arise from the Cold War.
Similarly, negative sentiments have existed in the West following the infamous 9/11 attacks. A discourse of securitization and Islamophobia existed in the United States and across the west after this event. Many people developed negative views and thoughts regarding the position of Muslims and Arabs in different societies. The majority of the citizens chose to isolate, discriminate, and even disassociate with these individuals.
They believed that Islam was a radical religion that taught its followers to pursue terrorism to change the world (Islam Web, 2016). In America and Canada, cases of Islamophia increased significantly after the attack since the Arabs and members of Islam were seen as the new threat to economic, social, and political stability. The action different governments undertook to attack Afghanistan to fight global terrorism informed the decisions and views of the greatest number of people.
Despite such developments, many citizens have stood up to teach others about the nature of terrorism and why the existing forms of securitization and Islamophia remain misinformed. Those who pursue such acts are radical groups whose intentions and goals are not in accordance with the teachings of Islam (Mael, 2017). Such an understanding can guide the global society to understand this malpractice and find evidence-based solutions to it.
Conclusion
The above discussions have identified the major sentiments and anxieties that emerged during the Cold War due to the increasing number of European immigrants. These ideologies echo most of the perceptions and negativities towards Muslims in post-9/11 discourse. Historians should examine such issues carefully in order to guide more people to understand the realities of terrorism and learn how they can relate with others without prejudice.
References
Bauder, H., & Shields, J. (Eds.). (2015). Immigrant experiences in North America. Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Russia emerged from a civil war in 1921 upon overthrowing the centuries-old Romanov monarchy and became the newly formed Soviet Union. The world’s first Marxist-Communist state was anticipated to become one of the world’s most influential and biggest nations before its fall and ultimate dissolution in 1991 (Saikowski 1). The United Socialist Soviet Republic (U.S.S.R.) comprised fifteen republics. After the establishment of the Russian Empire, a long and bloody civil war erupted with the Red Army, supported by the Bolshevik government, defeating the white military, which constituted a large group of loosely allied forces involving supporters of socialism, capitalists, and monarchists (Gorbachev 403). Khrushchev, in his speeches, predicted that burying the capitalist West did not come true as the Soviets lost the cold war (Bostdorff 12). Therefore, the Soviet’s loss in the Cold War resulted from the Khrushchev Party.
Following the surrender of Nazi Germany at the end of the second world war, the uncomfortable wartime alliance between Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union started to crumble. By 1948 the Soviet Union had installed communist-leaning governments in eastern European nations, the U.S.S.R, and liberated from the control of the Nazis during the war (Rhodes 37). Both British and Americans feared communism spreading into Western Europe and across the world. As a result, Canada, the U.S., and its European allies formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949 as a political force to fight against the uprising U.S.S.R. and its partners. In 1955 the Soviet Union responded to NATO by consolidating power among Eastern Bloc nations under a rival alliance known as the Warsaw Pact, which set off the Cold War (Bostdorff 16; Truman 385). The cold war power struggle was waged on economic, political, and propaganda fronts amid the western and Eastern blocs and persisted in numerous forms until the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.
Nikita Khrushchev rose to power after the death of Stalin in 1953 and became communist party secretary in the same year and premier in 1958. The tenure of Khrushchev spanned the tensest years of the Cold War, and on several occasions, he made predictions about burying the capitalists. However, his prediction did not come true because, at home, he initiated a series of political reforms that made Soviet society less repressive (Triska 393). At this time, he criticized Stalin for arresting and deporting opponents, taking steps to raise living conditions, freeing political prisoners, loosening artistic censorship, and closing the Gulag labor camps. Deteriorating interrelationships with neighboring countries like China and the Soviet Union caused food shortages in the entire U.S.S.R., which eroded his legitimacy in the eyes of the communist party leadership (Tolz 195). In 1964, Khrushchev was removed from office by members of his political party, thereby not realizing his dream of burying the capitalist West.
In 1991, the Soviet Union was the most prominent nation worldwide, with more distinct nationalities and populations within its borders. The union had more nuclear weapons and boasted a sphere of influence across Eastern Europe. However, within a year, the Soviet Union had ceased to exist, marking the collapse of the Cold War. Several external and internal factors, including political and economic factors, constituted the collapse. Based on the political aspect, when Mikhail Gorbachev was announced as general secretary of the communist party of the Soviet Union in 1985, his key role was jump-starting the declining Soviet economy and restructuring the unwieldy government bureaucracy (Gorbachev 404). When the initial attempts failed to bear significant results, the secretary introduced the policies of openness to foster dialogue and restructuring quasi-free market policies to government-run industries. Instead of these policies reviving communist thoughts, they led to criticism of the whole soviet apparatus. The government then lost control of the public and media while democratic reform movements gained steam in the entire Soviet bloc.
Through restructuring quasi-free market policies, price controls in some markets were lifted, leaving existing bureaucratic structures intact. As a result, communist officials could push back against policies that were not beneficial to them personally. In the long run, the reforms of Gorbachev and his neglect of the Brezhnev doctrine accelerated the collapse of the Soviet empire. Towards the end of 1989, the Soviet Union borders began dismantling, and nations took concrete steps towards independence (Saikowski 5). The Birling Wall collapsed, and the Iron Curtain failed, with the Soviet Union not outlasting it for long.
Furthermore, economic factors contributed to the end of the Cold War. The Soviet economy, to some extent, was regarded as the second largest in the world in 1990. However, there was an expected shortage of consumer goods. Soviet black-market economy formed ten percent of the official G.D.P. of the country (Riddick 384). For many years the nation experienced economic stagnation following the restructuring of quasi-free market policy reforms that worsened the situation. The printing of money hiked wages that fueled an inflationary spiral, and fiscal policy mismanagement made the nation susceptible to external forces. A sharp drop in oil prices sent the Soviet Union’s economy into a tailspin. The Soviet Union had been ranked as the top global producer of energy resources, including natural gas and oil, in the 1970s and ’80s (Rhodes 37). The export of these commodities played crucial roles in shoring up the world’s largest command economy. The fall of oil prices contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union due to the drying up of external capital.
Works Cited
Bostdorff, Denise M. “Harry S. Truman, ‘Special Message to the Congress on Greece and Turkey: The Truman Doctrine (1947).” Voices of Democracy 4 2009: 1–22.
Gorbachev, Mikhail 402-405. “Vital Speeches of the Day.” (1992): 402-405.
Rhodes, Jack A. “Congressional Committee Reorganization in 1946.” The Southwestern Social Science Quarterly 1947: 36–52.
Riddick, Floyd M 384. “The Second Session of the Seventy-ninth Congress.” American Political Science Review 41.1 (1947): 384.
Saikowski, Charlotte, and Leo Gruliow, eds. Current Soviet Policies 4. Columbia UP, 1962.
Tolz, Vera. “The new role of the media and public opinion under Mikhail Gorbachev.” The Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 9.1 1993: 192–209.
Triska, Jan F 393-394. “Current Soviet Policies IV: The Documentary Record of the 22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Edited by Charlotte Saikowski and Leo Gruliow. From the Translations of the Current Digest of the Soviet Press. With a Who’s Who of the Central Committee, compiled by Mark Neuweld. New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1962. vii+ 248 pp. $8.50.” Slavic Review 22.3 1963: 393-394.
Truman, Harry S 385-386. Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Harry S. Truman, 1951, Volume 7. Vol. 7. Best Books on, 1965.
White, James, and D. Lenin. “The Practice and Theory of Revolution.”
The Cold War military conflicts in Asia were significantly marked by the active involvement of foreign parties, specifically the USA. A long history of Britain’s, France’s, and the US’s actions in China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam shows how these empires pursued their economic and political influence in the East to expand their dominance. As the southern and northern lands of Korea, as well as Vietnam, were separated due to the influence of foreign landlords and communists, the populations of these countries were exposed to wars. The USA claimed its purpose in both wars to be the support of democracy in the East. However, the true reason for its active involvement in the Korean and Vietnamese civil wars was to preserve inequality and hierarchal organization of society on these territories to expand its capitalistic rule. In this paper, the readings by two authors, Cumings and Neale, will be used to draw on the similarities between the US’s actions in the Korean War and Vietnam. The discussion is organized to argue that the military actions of America were motivated not by its fighting for democracy in Asia but to impose its capitalistic rule.
US’s Actions in Korea and Vietnam During the Conflicts
With the intensification of the Cold War in the 1950-s, the chase for dominance between the Communist countries and the US was manifested by the invasion of the empires into the domestic affairs of Vietnam and Korea. Although the United States’ authorities claimed that their intentions were guided by pursuing democracy, the actions the US army made in Asia demonstrate the opposite. As the readings of both Cumings and Neale show, the US forces were experimenting with some outrageous means of destruction of cities as a way to suppress the civil fights of the locals for their countries. In an attempt to threaten North Korean civilians and diminish their resistance to landlords, the US exploited experimental techniques of destruction. Since targeted bombing was not sufficiently destructive, deliberate burning of whole cities with the help of napalm and the disproportionate bombing of civilian territories was actively practiced (Cumings, pp. 150-151). At the same time, the publically reported actions portrayed American soldiers targeting separate bombs on the enemies.
Similarly, the same means of destruction were used in Vietnam. As Neale states, “the planes dropped over 8 million tons of explosives” on the cities of Vietnam, which caused devastating lives losses (p. 75). When comparing the deaths on the two sides, 58,000 and 250,000 South Vietnamese soldiers were killed (Neale, p. 75). However, the losses are much more significant if one counts the deaths of civilians. The air war that was extensively utilized by the US forces to destroy the lands was marked by inhumane cruelty. The means in possession of the American army significantly outweighed those of the locals, thus leaving them without a chance to respond equally. In such a manner, the US’s actions in Korea and Vietnam followed the same pattern and were aimed at suppressing the civilians to force the capitalistic rule over Asia.
The motivation for active inclusion in the civil war was similar to the US’s actions in Korea and Vietnam. Due to the intensification of the tensions between the Communist North and the pro-US South of Vietnam, there occurred a threat to the strength of anti-Communism in the USA (Neale, p. 74). Moreover, America had sent its numerous troops to Vietnam and was publically committed to delivering its claimed goals to preserve democracy. This propaganda that was aimed at covering the true reasons for the US’s invasion of Vietnam and Korea was the common feature of the two wars. While Korean and Vietnamese civilian people fought for the reunification of their countries, America pursued its capitalistic dominance on their lands.
The real-life depiction of the events that took place in Vietnam and Koreaallowsw for imagining the horrors imposed on the civilians. One of the shocking aspects of America’s actions in these wars is the use of napalm as a “wonder weapon” that tortured civilians who were “drenched in napalm” (Cumings, p. 153). It is disturbing how the thing that causes horrible suffering to people can be a reason of pride for the military industry of the US. Even the sanitariums where medical help to the wounded was provided were deliberately bombed by the Americans. As Neale states, strafing and bombing were targeted at patients; “the Americans returned again and again until the sanitarium has been destroyed” (p. 77). Overall, all these actions were motivated by the US’s intention to “kill the Vietnamese until they gave up,” in the same manner as it was done in Korea (Neale, p. 85). These facts only justify the discrepancy between the publically presented democratic goals and real capitalistic ones pursued by the USA.
Conclusion
In summation, the US’s influence on Vietnam and Korea was motivated by America’s need to dominate over the Communists. The vividly observed similarities in the propaganda and real actions of the US troops in Vietnam and Korea during the two wars show how America was ready to kill millions of civilians to maintain its capitalistic rule in opposition to Communism. The people of Korea and Vietnam only suffered from America’s destructive actions, which it called help.
References
Cumings, Bruce. The Korean War: A History. Random House Publishing Group, 2010.
Neale, Jonathan. ‘Firepower.’ A People’s History Of The Vietnam War, edited by Howard Zinn, New Press, 2003, pp. 74-97.
The end of the Cold War and dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 marked the considerable shift in global politics and economics, making reconsider a large number of issues in international relations and diplomacy. The break of rivalry between the USSR and the US that continued since 1947, as well as disappointment in the Communist ideology, caused Russia to search its new face in the world, making new allies and possessing new rivals. During the next two decades, the position of Russia has significantly changed, yet the country has remained an important global political and economic actor; the reasons for it will be explained below.
Since the end of the Cold War, the Russian position can be best characterized by mentioning the two key elements of it. The first point is implicit or explicit refusal to accept of the post-Cold War security order in the European Union, which has been openly demonstrated during the issue of Crimea annexation in 2014. This element is aligned with general suspicion towards the political, economic, and to a large extent, cultural position of the West, although such a view is not accepted by all the parties within the state. The second element is Russia’s claim to access the influence on the territory of its immediate periphery. The third element is Russia’s determination to access the global influence in the energy sector, having the world’s bigger resource of natural gas and tempting to maintain a monopoly in this area.
In regard to the first point, it is necessary to discuss that the Russian elite is divided into two sections, “siloviki” (mostly the officials of security service) and modernizers. The former party agrees with Putin’s determination to maintain a strong level of state control over politics and economics of the country, confronting the West by its means. The latter party advocates the Western approach in all these fields, thus, proposing the integration with the Western countries. As Putin’s rule has been lasting since the dissolution of the USSR, with the short intervention of Medvedev’s leadership, the general policy of Russia maintains within the frame of the first approach, experiencing the tension in the relations with the EU and the US.
Aiming to spread its power over the nearest territories, Russia pursues the stability of its influence in such countries as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, as well as Moldova and Georgia. Moreover, it gained power in Asia, including North and South Korea, and China. Some of Russia’s interventions, such as in Chechnya, Georgia, or Ukraine, causes deterioration of relations with Europe and the US. Some researchers argue that the country’s present strategy is to restore the Soviet Union in one or another form, thus returning to a certain degree to the position previously held during the Cold War.
However, Russia’s strategic importance makes the EU consider it as a powerful actor in the global arena. Its main reason is the country’s large resources of natural gas, which Russia supplies to European countries. With the aim to monopolize the energy sector, Russia implies international policies that attempt to keep economic control in this sector; in many cases, the members of the EU are compelled to compromise. Thus, it demonstrates the importance of keeping diplomatic relations with Russia, at the same time preventing the violation of the EU security order.
Cold War was a period in world history where the tension between the United States of America and the Soviet Union was at its peak. The counties and their respective allies were fighting for global influence in the fields of politics and economy. The Cold War was not waged with armies or weapons, as all the participants had access to powerful tools of mass destruction capable of incinerating much of the world’s population in minutes. It was the time when the world was closest to total annihilation. The War reached its peak around 1948-53, with the danger of a global catastrophe being closer than ever.
Nationalism
There were 3 primary participants in the Cold War, the three nations playing the biggest part in it’s events. During WW2 the rivalry for global domination and the threat of Nazi violence made it difficult for courtiers to see eye to eye. One of the key characters to improve the relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States was Franklin Roosevelt. Due to his attitudes and approaches, Americans were able to work in tandem with the Soviets against a common enemy. One of the problems facing Roosevelt was that the common perception of the Soviet Union was largely negative. Roosevelt was largely in favor of working with the Russian Government, seeing the alliance between the big three as beneficial (Weiss, 2012). He held Stalin in high regard and considered him an ally for establishing a democratic rule in the world (Weiss, 2012). Roosevelt is quoted to say: “I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of man. Harry [Truman] says he’s not… I think that if I give him everything I possibly can, and ask nothing from him in return… he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace” (Quotations: Origins of the Cold War 2019).
Winston Churchill was the Prime minister of Great Britain during the times of the Cold War. The period signified a time of tribulations for many, and Churchill was one of the people able to predict its occurrence. Churchill is recorded as stating: “We and all nations, stand at this hour in human history, before the portals of supreme catastrophe and of measureless reward. My faith is that in God’s mercy we shall choose aright” (Winston Churchill and the Cold War). Churchill felt like his country was caught in-between the struggle of two extremely powerful nations, and leaned towards a peaceful resolution that would satisfy both parties. He believed that the wellbeing and safety of Europe could be balanced with Russia’s desire for influence, saying “I do not believe that the immense problem of reconciling the security of Russia with the freedom and safety of Western Europe is insoluble…” (Winston Churchill and the Cold War).
With the defeat of Nazi Germany, the alliance of the three nations crumbled, and Russia began to solidify ins influence in Europe. Stalin, as the leader of the Soviet Union, was heavily opposed to capitalism and saw communism as a better approach to leading the nation. His main priorities lied in ensuring the peace and prosperity of the world and preventing another global war from occurring. In 1952, Stalin wrote: “Under a certain confluence of circumstances, the struggle for peace may possibly develop in one place or another into a struggle for socialism. This, however, would no longer be the present peace movement but a movement for the overthrow of capitalism”( Stalin on the Inevitability of War with Capitalism).
Ideology
While not being one of the instigators of the Cold War, Great Britain had its own stakes in the conflict. Britain, much like the US, was heavily rooted in capitalism and relied on its previous colonial tendencies to support the economy. The rising prominence of the socialist Soviet regime was seen as a threat to the established system, and Russia’s harsh territorial expansion worsened the relationship with the UK further. During the Second World War, the country has collaborated with the Soviet Union, but their relationship soon deteriorated, largely due to the latter’s actions in Eastern Europe (Britain in the Cold War 2018). Having an ideological clash with the Soviet Government, Britain opposed its expansion efforts and sided with the US.
The Soviet Union has been gaining power in the years preceding the Cold War. Under the leadership of Joseph Stalin, the nation has put effort into developing its infrastructure, military, trade, and production industries. The main ideology of the Soviets was socialism and communism, a left-wing belief centering on the power of the working class. In 1948, the Soviet Government has aided other East-European countries in being led by communist-sympathetic governments, creating a stronger base for support and trade. Similarly to America, the Cold War was a period to find new allies and establish its influence on the larger scale for Russia (What were Joseph Stalin’s goals as World War Two ended?).
The relationship between the US and the Soviets was already strained by conflicting ideologies and the fight for domination over new territory. Many at the time saw Russia as primitive and threatening to the capitalist society, making communication impossible. The United States, hailing capitalism and individualism as their primary ideology, had a severe clash with the values of the Soviet Government. The notions of sharing means of production and giving more power to the workers were something America was extremely aversive to, mainly because of the overwhelming influence of millionaires and the upper class.
Paranoia
The period was especially stressful to the participants because non knew what to expect from the enemy. In both the United States and the Soviet Union, rising tensions were used as an excuse to amass military might and contribute to the arms buildup. The U.S used weapons to contain and prevent communist expansion, contributing to the spending in defense. Atomic weapons were being developed on both sides, and their use was heavily considered on various occasions. Their tests have clearly shown the might and intentions of the two nations, and the outcome of the conflict seemed dangerous. The existence of weapons of mass destruction made communication and negotiation impossible, as they were filled with fearmongering and misinformation. The ideological and political slash between the U.S and the Soviet Union manifested in the creation of the Red Scare, a period when anti-soviet, anti-socialist sentiments were promoted. By shifting the public perception of the topic, America has rallied its people against its enemies.
The matters of the cold war have been regarded by historians from both sides of the ocean for the years, and everyone accuses the opposite side of starting the cold war.
If regarding things objectively, both sides behaved aggressively towards each other in sharing the conquered Germany. Both sides tried to capture additional spheres of influence, as both believed in the righteousness of the inclinations and aims.
As it is known, the official start of the Cold War is considered Winston Churchill’s speech in Fulton, which was called “The Sinews of Peace,” declaring that an “iron curtain” had descended across Europe. From the standpoint of the Soviets, the speech was an incitement for the West to begin a war with the USSR, as it called for an Anglo-American alliance against the Soviets. The worsening of the relations had been observed long before it, as the tension had been previously mentioned in “Long Telegram”, which became the basis for the further theory of containment, which in some measure added fuel to the common fire of the Cold War. The Long Telegram did not really cause the adoption of the Cold War policy via NSC-68 (National Strategy of Containment).
NSC-68 offered for a distinctly dissimilar type of containment than that stated in the Long Telegram. The Long Telegram called for financial embargoes against the USSR, whereas NSC-68 called for militaristic pressures. Kennan believed that it was satisfactory to permit the Soviets to increase Communism to nations adjoining the USSR as these countries would only serve the reason of comprising a rightful security buffer zone for the USSR.
Opposing Kennan’s opinion, NSC-68 stated that any and all “defeats” of nations to Communism (characterized in the Domino theory) were intolerable and a threat to US national security. While NSC-68 offered military force to discontinue these ” defeats,” Kennan felt that it was pointless to try to stop the Soviets in this attempt. These are two disconnect policies that offer two various means to attain two dissimilar ends.
On September 6, 1946, James F. Byrnes proclaimed a speech in Germany, disclaiming the Morgenthau Plan and warning the Soviets that the US meant to support an armed attendance in Europe indefinitely. As Byrnes confessed one month later, “The nub of our program was to win the German people it was a battle between US and Russia over minds.
It is necessary to emphasize, that the wartime coalition between the United States and the Soviet Union began to disentangle even before the end of World War II. When the war ended, the Red Army occupied much of Eastern Europe. The obvious weakness of Western Europe raised the ghost of communism spreading even further.
Although the Marshall Plan helped restore Western Europe, other events of the late 1940s kept tension high: the Communist coup in Czechoslovakia and Soviet blockade of West Berlin in 1948, the fall of China and the Soviet A-bomb in 1949. Soviet support for the North Korean invasion of South Korea in 1950 confirmed the threat in Western eyes.
References
Deighton, Anne. The Impossible Peace: Britain, the Division of Germany and the Origins of the Cold War. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.
Leffler, Melvyn P., and David S. Painter. Origins of the Cold War: An International History. New York: Routledge, 1994.
American reaction to the outcomes of World War II and the Vietnam War had a fundamental impact on the direction of US foreign policy in the decades that followed each war. Compare and contrast the differences in the way in which U.S. Foreign policy approached the Cold War in 1945-1968, and 1973-1993.
In what ways do you think our current post-September 11 approach to foreign policy reflect these legacies?
Introduction
The consequences of the Second World War, affected in varying degrees all countries in the world. In order to minimize the adverse effects for the U.S. related to the loss of traditional economic partners, weakened military devastation, the basis for action plan Marshall Plan was adopted to support the European economies – participating in the Second World War, and has also aimed at strengthening of the U.S. position on the European continent and the establishment of world domination.
Discussion
The Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine were the main programs of the USA in order to prepare the establishment of the NATO bloc. At the suggestion of England and France the main provisions of the Marshall Plan were discussed in 1947 at the Paris meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the United States, England and France.
In historiographies of many countries a great attention is paid to the problem of Cold War. A special attention is usually paid to the foreign policy of the USA and the USSR in post-war period. Many researches are dedicated to this issue. Nevertheless many aspects of this problem deserve further researching. One of these aspects is accounting for the rise and fall of Détente.
Is should be noticed that the relationship between the USA and the USSR appeared at the centre of international policy in post-war period. The close cooperation of the USSR and the USA was changed into the hard confrontation that got the name ‘Cold War’. This term was firstly used in 1947 by the American economist B. Baruch. His speech determined the ideological and political ground of historical works, left an imprint at the methods of analysis and comparative methods, touched different aspects of American foreign policy in post-war period. The Cold War was a huge mistake, which caused a huge strain giant material and human losses during the period 1945-1991.
As for the reasons of Cold War rise the Soviet scientists were unanimous. They saw the anticommunism character of Cold War.
In the post-war period the USA turned into the most powerful country in the spheres of economy, army and policy. This gave a good base for global American hegemony.
With the end of the war polarity of the world has changed dramatically – the old colonial countries in Europe and Japan lay in ruins, but moved forward the Soviet Union and the United States, only marginally involved in the global balance of power until then is now a unique and fill the vacuum after the collapse of the axis. And from that moment the interests of the two superpowers entered the contradiction – the USSR and the United States sought as far as possible to expand the limits of its influence, started the fight on all fronts – in ideology, to win the hearts and minds of people, in an effort to break ahead in the arms race to talk to the opposite side from a position of strength in economic indicators – to demonstrate the superiority of its social order, even in sport – as John Kennedy said, “international prestige is measured by two countries things: nuclear missiles and Olympic gold medals.” (Breen)
Another conflict has become the largest in the second half of the XX-th century; it captured the territory of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
The instability, corruption and unpopularity of the Southern Vietnamese government supported Vietcong with the significant military success. To prevent victory of Vietcong, the direct intervention of the United States was required. The direct U.S. intervention into the Vietnam War caused an immediate reaction from the socialist bloc, and even reconciled the USSR and China.
The active phase of the war lasted until the spring of 1973. On the one hand, the U.S. did not lose a single battle, on the other – lost 58 thousand people dead and more than three hundred – wounded, not achieved any success. Guerrilla war lasted, seizing all new areas and territories.
The war was becoming less popular in the U.S. and, eventually, President Richard Nixon replaced Johnson and had decided to withdraw the American troops from the territory of Vietnam.
Through the parallels with Iraq, one can conclude that the escalation of the conflict and increase the intensity of the fighting are not the way to victory – for the victory in Vietnam there was not enough half a contingent. Victory in this war can only be achieved while reasonable combination of political, economic and military methods, as necessary (though not sufficient) condition for success is the presence of conscious and understandable for the local population development model. The USA did not have such a novel 30 years ago. The do not have this model in Iraq also. It is unlikely that the outcome of these wars for the United States will differ by the data on human losses (Sheehan).
The massacre of the 11-th of September has not made the world “constructional” and did not call the new “architects” for its destructing. These dramatic events have stepped up no new trend “expansion” of NATO to the East (Afghanistan, Central Asia, Persian Gulf) and have also shown: the infiltration of the North Atlantic Union deep into Eurasia – not only geopolitical absurdity, but also undermine of the chances of international agreement on the actual tasks of terrorism.
September 11 put the U.S. and the entire West before the need to make a difficult step: to part with stereotypes of “humanitarian intervention”, to recognize that in Chechnya and Kashmir, in northern Macedonia continue to act not “freedom fightings” or “fighters for belief “, while those same international terrorist organizations, which once had their nest in Afghanistan. In this sense, really the fighting against terrorism, beginning with Afghanistan, can not end in Afghanistan.
Works Cited
Sheehan Neil, A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam: Vintage; 1st Vintage Books ed edition, 1989.
Breen T. H., The Power of Words, Volume II: Documents in American History (Power of Words Vol. 2): Longman, 1997.
The Cold War became a global geopolitical, military, and economic confrontation between the two blocs of states, the centers of which were the United States and the USSR, from 1946 to the end of 1980. The countries fought for a dominant position in world public opinion. One of the main roles in this confrontation was occupied by Africa because it had air and naval bases, and since Africa is rich in food and mineral resources, it was attractive to the opposing countries.
The Cold War led Africa to certain consequences, for example, the transformation of political systems as multiparty democracy is not suitable, moreover, threatens the needs of the new African states. This means that people will not organize and vote, and as Reynolds (2015) claims, they will form political parties based on ethnic affiliations. As a result, African leaders were first opposed, and then moved to eliminate multi-party systems, advocating a single party.
Another consequence that affected Africa was the military coup in 1966, which uprooted a corrupt regime. The leaders of this coup became heroes for their people, and the politicians disappeared from sight. In the south, people cheered, but in the north, the reaction was more restrained. Meredith (2005) states that the northerners began to weigh the consequences of the coup and they had some doubts about the true intentions of this coup. Over time, the northerners became increasingly convinced that the coup was staged not to root out corruption, but to seize power by one of the tribes. This suspicion was the cause of the civil war, which lasted for more than two years and claimed the lives of almost a million people.
In conclusion, the Cold War claimed millions of lives and was very costly. For many African countries that were engulfed by the war, this was a real tragedy, since the country’s internal problems were in the background for the United States and the USSR. All the problems of Africa that arise from the confrontation of countries remain to this day and remind us of the painful legacy of the Cold War.
References
Meredith, M. (2005). The Fate of Africa a History of the Continent Since Independence. New York.
Reynolds, J.T. (2015). Sovereignty and Struggle. Africa and Africans in the Era of the Cold War. Oxford University Press.
According to Fred Cooper, a “gatekeeper state” refers to African nations attempting to balance internal political unrest and instability with external elements and influence. He hypothesized that many African governments and countries had difficulty with forming functional economic-political systems due to incredibly tumultuous events in their history. This had much to do with European conquering, which had an organized and systematic nature, but did little in terms of ruling these countries in structured ways. This resulted in many African governments being unable to gain the trust and following of their citizens as they only began to interact with external economics and relations. As such, these governments were “gatekeeping” both their own people and the colonial forces from outside. The colonial powers prioritized resources almost exclusively, which planted deeply rooted issues that disregarded the well-being of African citizens and their future societal structure. The poor systemization resulted in African rulers at the time planning to impose strict rules to expand outwards later, which resulted in “gatekeeping.” However, with the independence of many nations, such political leanings became unwelcome.
During the Cold War, both the socialist motives of the USSR and the imperialist nature of the United States affected African nations and their changing political states. The US promoted notions of the anti-colonial roots of many countries and held sympathy for the emerging countries that pursued economic growth and free markets. The Soviet Union held more support for socialist revolutions that began to emerge in other African countries that directly opposed imperialism and had revolutionary prospects at the time. However, with the rise of the Cold War, the anti-American and anti-Soviet Union projection only stifled the relations and growth of many political movements. The US focused more on preventing socialist regimes that promoted independence and economic and political developments. The same was done by the Soviet Union towards African nations that preferred democratic ideologies. This resulted in severe but differing violence in several countries, such as Liberia and Somalia. In the case of Liberia, the most notable cases of violence occurred throughout civil wars, starting with the violence in the form of a coup against negatively regarded leader Samuel Doe. On the other side, Somalia was a socialist state with an equally violent history. Siad Barre, the president of Somalia at the time, was also opposed and responded with repressive and violent repercussions towards his citizens.