Category: Cold War

The Cold War was a significant period for the history of the United States, the Soviet Union, and the Eastern Bloc, as well as other countries. The term Cold War is used to describe the period between 1946 and 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed. This essay aims at analyzing the role of ideology in the Cold War, addressing the impact of capitalist and communist ideologies along with the perspectives of realism, idealism, and liberalism.

Capitalist and Communist Ideologies

It is possible to say that ideology was key to the tensions that arose during the Cold War; this point can be analyzed from several perspectives. On the one hand, the Cold War presented the conflict of capitalist and communist ideologies. Capitalist ideology has several peculiar traits that reflect the values a government has. For instance, capitalist states are driven by the principles of democracy, have clear class distinctions, such as working, middle, and upper class, focus on individuals’ needs as opposed to collective ones, advocate for the freedom of speech, and allow wealth to be distributed unevenly.

At the same time, in communist states, the governmental system is totalitarian, education and healthcare are provided by the government, society is classless, and the focus is on the local community rather than individual needs. This conflict is evident, as the economic and political organization of the Soviet Union and the United States were highly different. The former was communist and tried to install communist regimes in Eastern Europe while the latter brought the Western part of Europe under its capitalist influence and feared the domination of the Soviet Union and its ideology. It is possible to conclude that both of the countries were convinced by the superiority of their approaches.

The factors presented above show that ideologies were significant in the Cold War. If both the Soviet Union and the United States were capitalist, they would have similar goals, and there would be no contrast in their objectives. However, being a totalitarian state, the Soviet Union wanted to achieve hegemony in Eastern Europe, while the United States aimed at perceiving liberal democracy. As a result, tension emerged and was not eliminated until the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Realism

On the other hand, the Cold War can be analyzed from the theoretical perspective of realism. This theory emerged as a way to justify the actions the U.S. took to maintain its hegemony. According to the theory of realism, conflicts and tensions in politics arise due to the egoistic nature of humans; it is based on the anthropological pessimism that can arise as a result of collective interests. Realism argues that conflicts between international systems arise naturally because all of them are anarchic and seek to expand their powers. From the perspective of realism, moral principles are not significant for the resolution of a conflict, and they do not guide governments’ decision-making processes.

It is possible to say that in the case of the Cold War, this theory is particularly significant, as for both the Soviet Union and the United States, their national interests were above each other’s ones. Moreover, they perceived each other’s goals as barriers to achieving success because the Soviet Union wanted to expand its powers while the U.S. sought to preserve them. Thus, the theory of realism reflects the events of the Cold War.

Idealism

Idealism is a theory that opposes the perspective of realism presented above; its main bases are peace, prosperity, freedom, and progress. From the perspective of idealism, the internal policies and philosophies a government has should be the objectives of its external policies, too.

It is possible to say that both the Soviet Union and the United States were guided by the principles of idealism, as both of the governments aimed at extending their viewpoints onto other states. They believed that by making European countries communist or capitalist, respectively, they would ensure freedom and prosperity for the states they controlled.

Liberalism

Liberalism is also a significant perspective on international relations that can explain the significance of ideology in the Cold War. It can be considered a theory that was derived from idealism. Liberalism does not perceive power politics as the only possible result of international relations, focuses on cooperation between governments and mutual benefits, and states that free trade can lead to wealth and peaceful cooperation.

Moreover, one of the ideas of liberalism is that the spread of democracies and the establishment of democracies in various countries, in particular, can lead to the minimization of wars. Liberalist ideas can also be considered significant for the period of the Cold War, as each of the states tried to ensure cooperation with its allies; moreover, the United States practiced liberal approaches as opposed to totalitarian ones the Soviet Union had.

However, the liberalist approach may be considered inapplicable for the primary cause of tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States because the countries did not aim at cooperating with each other to achieve their goals. Instead, each of them wanted to pursue their own objectives, such as gaining power.

Analysis

It is possible to say that the perspective of realism is the most convincing for describing the role of ideology in the Cold War. The arguments presented above show that both states tried to act not according to moral principles but the goals they had, regardless of their opponents’ persuasions. The Soviet Union wanted to acquire and keep new territories using autocratic methods to ensure its security. At the same time, the Soviet Union perceived the excessive power the United States had and the expansion of its influence to Western Europe as a threat, which meant that it had to protect its interests instead of cooperating with the enemy.

It is crucial to add that realism can be considered a general theory that applies to all great powers, including the United States and the Soviet Union. The examples presented above prove this claim and show that the principles of realism were crucial for the tensions and outcomes of the Cold War.

The Cuban Missile Crisis Analysis

The Cuban Missile Crisis is the event that happened in October 1962 and led to a direct conflict between the Soviet Union and the U.S., which could potentially lead to a nuclear conflict. The crisis started when the Soviet Union began building nuclear missiles in Cuba, which could affect the United States because a potential attack could reach many cities in the country.

As a result, the U.S. blocked Soviet ships, and the Soviet Union removed the missiles from Cuba after an agreement with the United States. This paper aims at exploring the idea that the Cuban Missile Crisis was a security dilemma in action, analyzing the aspects of a security dilemma as a term, as well as the factors affecting Kennedy’s and Khrushchev’s decisions and motives.

Security Dilemma

It is first crucial to identify the meaning of a security dilemma from the perspective of international relations. The term can be used to describe a situation in which a country’s measures to enhance its security are perceived as a threat by another state. As a result, the latter may start taking measures to heighten its security, too; for instance, it may make alliances, increase its military strength, or commit to use weapons, including nuclear ones. These actions may lead to a conflict even when none of the sides desires it, which might have happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The Cuban Missile Crisis as a Security Dilemma

It is possible to say that, on the one hand, the event was an example of a security dilemma due to several reasons. First, the United States had wrong perceptions of the goals of the Soviet Union’s missile program and might have an unrealistic view of Soviet concerns about its and Cuba’s security. The U.S. believed that the USSR wanted to expand socialism or communism. As a response to that, the country started blocking Soviet ships headed to Cuba and warned the USSR to remove the nuclear missiles from the country.

The Soviet Union, in its turn, shot down an American reconnaissance plane, which lead to direct confrontation between the countries. The concerns of the United States only stopped after the countries agreed to each other’s requirements. This situation shows that the countries did not want to engage in a conflict from the beginning. Instead, Khrushchev wanted to build missiles in Cuba to help Cuba in exchange for Communist support.

For the President of the Soviet Union, such a decision was vital, as it allowed him to have a Communist state next to the U.S. However, it is possible to say that the Soviet Union did not wish to engage in a war with the United States and built nuclear missiles for a different purpose, causing misunderstanding from the American side.

From an alternative perspective, there are arguments showing that the Cuban Missile Crisis could not have been a type of a security dilemma. For instance, there are opinions that Khrushchev wanted to build nuclear missiles in Cuba because he wanted to put additional pressure on the positions the United States had in West Berlin.

From this perspective, it is impossible to say that Khrushchev did not have an intention to harm or threat the U.S.; his motives were offensive and not applicable to the concept of a security dilemma. Moreover, it is possible to say that Khrushchev knew that the reaction from the United States would follow his actions. One of the goals he potentially had was to remove the American nuclear missiles from Turkey, which was close to the territory of the Soviet Union.

Finally, one of the other arguments for this position can be the fact that at that time, Kennedy was a new president, and Khrushchev wanted to test his powers. From this perspective, the Cuban Missile Crisis was not an example of a security dilemma, as it contradicted the aspects of the concept. If the USSR did not want to defend its interests and built nuclear missiles next to the territory of the United States on purpose, the conflict was not caused by misunderstandings and a lack of communication between states. However, one may claim that the Soviet Union did not want to confront the United States or attack it using nuclear weapons in Cuba. Thus, it is possible to conclude that the crisis was primarily a case of a security dilemma.

Theoretical Perspectives

The Cuban Missile Crisis can be analyzed from various theoretical perspectives on international relations, including realism, idealism, and constructivism. From the view of realism, countries are inherently aggressive and concerned with their security. This viewpoint can be a significant argument for the position that the crisis was an example of a security dilemma, as it shows that the Soviet Union wanted to protect itself by ensuring instability for the United States.

On the contrary, from the perspective of idealism, countries do not wish to start wars with each other, conducting diplomatic actions instead. Although the Cuban Missile Crisis resulted in an agreement between the involved states and the claims of the Soviet Union and the United States were mutually met, the countries did not aim at collaborating at first. The theory of constructivism perceives international relations as socially and historically constructed as opposed to the consequences of human nature. This perspective does not seem convincing from the view of the Cuban Missile Crisis, as the primary focus of the conflict for both parties was to preserve their security.

Summary

The facts presented above show that the perspective of realism is the most applicable view on international relations that can be studied on the example of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The arguments presented above reveal that the crisis was likely an example of a security dilemma because both the Soviet Union and the United States were highly concerned about their security. The latter perceived building of nuclear missiles in Cuba as a direct threat while it was not the primary purpose of Khrushchev. As a result, the U.S. took action to protect its security, which resulted in a conflict.

Bibliography

Heywood, Andrew. Political ideologies: An Introduction. London: Macmillan International Higher Education, 2017.

Kamei, Katsuyuki. “Crisis Management.” In Science of Societal Safety, edited by Seiji Abe, Mamoru Ozawa, and Yoshiaki Kawata, 141-150. Singapore: Springer, 2019.

Park, Allen. “Game Theory and the Cuban Missile Crisis.” The PPE Review 7 (2018), 31-45.

Sanghro, Rafi Raza et al., “How Did the Tripartite Relationship Among the United States, the Soviet Union and Cuba Lead to the Cuban Missile Crisis and Complicate Efforts to Resolve the Crisis?” Journal of History Culture and Art Research 7, no. 3 (2018): 199-207.

Walt, Stephen M. “US Grand Strategy After the Cold War: Can Realism Explain It? Should Realism Guide It?” International Relations 32, no. 1 (2018): 3-22.

Wohlforth, William C., and Vladislav M. Zubok. “An Abiding Antagonism: Realism, Idealism and the Mirage of Western–Russian Partnership After the Cold War.” International Politics 54, no. 4 (2017): 405-419.

Explain the regional economic and political changes that took place in Europe due to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The collapse of the Soviet Union, which occurred after the end of the Cold War, led to profound political and economic changes in many countries. Most of all, these alterations concerned the former participants of the Soviet Union that gained independence upon the disintegration. In the political sphere, the most prominent event was the collapse of communism and its failure as the main regime. A “strong disquiet” among the Communist Party officials was inevitable.

Another important change concerned the reconstruction of national identities of the former Soviet Union constituents. This process was closely associated with economic aspects since national identity was dependent on landscape development. However, not all means were peaceful, some of the newly separated states started military campaigns against smaller ones. As Schneider puts it, there occurred the reconciliation of “domestically feuding camps.” One of the bloodiest and most dramatic examples was the military action of Yugoslavia against Kosovo in the 1990s. Still, in comparison to previous decades, the situation in Europe was largely peaceful. Even though some wars emerged in Eastern Europe in the 1990s, they were not initiated by the major European powers and were stopped with the help of the USA.

At the same time, the dissolution of the Soviet Union also had an impact on Western European countries. While the countries in Eastern Europe separated, the Western European states tried to coordinate their efforts in the positive development and initiated the formation of the European Community. To be able to strive for a better future together, these states even partially surrendered some of their sovereignty. While the optimistic expectations of the European Community did not become true immediately, these countries were able to overcome the dramatic aftermath of the Cold War. Hence, the political and economic changes that happened after the Soviet Union disintegrated had a great effect on both Eastern and Western Europe and gave way to the modern international relations organization.

Evaluate the impact of the twentieth century on modern Europe.

Influential people are not always the good ones, but their decisions and actions usually have a considerable impact on the development of history. If I were the editor of the Time Magazine, I would select Adolf Hitler for the cover of the issue speaking about the most dominant figure of 20^th-century Europe. Undoubtedly, Hitler’s military campaigns and his nationalistic ideas brought about a series of devastating occurrences in the continent. However, it is not the choice of the most pleasant leader but of the most decisive and forceful one.

Hitler made himself widely known when he adopted fascism as the form of authoritarian ultranationalism power which he borrowed from Italian leader, Mussolini. This is the first indication of Hitler’s effect on history: even though he was not the creator of fascism, his name appears in the minds of people first of all when they hear this word. The second infamous feature of Hitler as an influential individual was the initiation of World War II. It was because of this war that major changes occurred in almost every part of the world. The war was devastating in financial and human losses, but it made everyone afraid of Hitler and wait for his next steps with awe and terror. Finally, another historical process that Hitler initiated was the Holocaust: the politics of eradicating a whole nationality off the face of the earth. Furthermore, the relationships between Germany and other countries after World War II, which deteriorated because of Hitler, led to the Cold War. Because of these infamous but rather significant aspects, Hitler may be considered as the most influential figure of 20^th-century Europe.

Bibliography

Cox, Michael. “Why Did We Get the End of the Cold War Wrong?” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 11, no. 2 (2009): 161–176.

Kosovo: Of Blood and History. 1999. Web.

Kramer, Mark. “The Collapse of East European Communism and the Repercussions within the Soviet Union.” Journal of Cold War Studies 7, no. 1 (2005): 3–96.

Mearsheimer, John J. “Why Is Europe Peaceful Today?” European Political Science 9, no. 3 (2010): 387–397.

Paxton, Robert O., and Julie Hessler. Europe in the Twentieth Century. 5th ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2012.

Rosato, Sebastian. “Europe’s Troubles: Power Politics and the State of the European Project.” International Security 35, no. 4 (2011): 45–86.

Schneider, Peter. “The Other Europe.” Salmagundi 166–167 (2010): 22–37.

Unwin, Tim. “Contested Reconstruction of National Identities in Eastern Europe: Landscape Implications.” Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift – Norwegian Journal of Geography 53, no. 2–3 (1999): 113–120.

Introduction

The Iron Curtain is one of the historical aspects considered when focusing on World War II and the Cold War. Different countries engaged in conflicts, which led to the development of political boundary that alienated European countries into discrete regions. The Iron Curtain primarily involved the Soviet Union blocking some European countries from accessing their satellites. The Soviet Union ensured that the East side of the Iron Curtain connected its allies. The military was also involved in the Iron Curtain since alliances were developed on both sides.

The Iron Curtain impacted the economy since various countries operated market finances with their allies, leading to limited trades between nations from the East and West. Immigration restrictions were enacted since the movement of people from the East to the West was restricted. Therefore, one can focus on the various issues involved during the Iron Curtain period and how they relate to contemporary problems.

The Identification of the Historical Figure and Background

Different events in various countries characterized the Iron Curtain. It was developed in 1946 and ended in 1991 after the Cold War (Burohaima Lobna, 2016). Although many people knew the phrase, its use by Winston Churchill during a speech in Missouri in 1946 increased its popularity (Burohaima Lobna, 2016). One of the Iron Curtain events is the Cold War since it was extended to the airwaves and led to changes in relationships among countries. It primarily involved the Soviet Union, the US, and their respective allies.

Thus, the Soviet Union ensured that it heightened its isolation with the non-communist states. Surprisingly, many people claimed that Churchill’s speech increased tension in many countries since more people learned about the Iron Curtain. The expansion of the Soviet Union was addressed, creating awareness in the world. Moreover, many people termed the Churchill’s event as the Iron Curtain Speech since it focused on limiting the Soviet Union from its extension of power without any constraint. Churchill encouraged the US and the UK to unite and ensure that they ended the actions that the Soviet Union was exercising (Larres Klaus, 2018). Thus, the speech’s popularity led many people from the West to learn and accept the metaphor.

Stalin heard about Winston’s speech and responded in the Pravda newspaper, where he accused him of warmongering. Stalin defended the Soviet Union claiming that Eastern European states had a strong relationship with his nation and their aim was to safeguard against another invasion (Larres Klaus, 2018). Additionally, he claimed that Churchill created conflicts in Eastern European states and wanted more countries to invade the Soviet Union. Stalin also accused Churchill of criticizing the Soviet Union’s agenda for protecting its territories.

A decline in economic development is another factor that was experienced during the era of the Iron Curtain. Typically, disputes impact businesses since investors focus on their products’ safety and ensure that they limit the chances of experiencing losses. Moreover, international trades are primarily affected by wars and disputes. Therefore, Iron Curtain had a significant influence on varius countries’ economies and global budget by large (Batáry et al. 2014).

Soviet Union allies ensured that they avoided engaging in trading activities with other non-communist states. Additionally, many people were afraid of working in countries that were mainly part of the conflicts. For instance, foreigners from some European countries evaded opportunities in the Soviet Union due to the fear of encountering wars. This issue is also experienced in the modern world, whereby many investors and workers do not invest in countries associated with insecurity. For instance, individuals do not capitalize in countries such as Syria and Somalia due to the increased cases of terror attacks. Similarly, the escalating tension due to Iron Curtain limited development in different sectors, leading to low economic growth.

Immigration restrictions are another significant aspects that were associated with the Iron Curtain. The movement issue was addressed in Yalta Conference, whereby the Western allies ensured that they would return all Soviet Union citizens present in their regions to their country. Many individuals were affected by these restrictions since they were forced to relocate to other areas. For instance, laborers encountered problems since they were required to leave their jobs and return to their states (Levering Ralph, 2017).

Correspondingly, refugees were forced to flee their camps as tensions increased in various regions. These aspects can also be compared to different issues that are being experienced in the contemporary world. For instance, there are cases of refugees who have been forced to relocate due to tension in some areas. Cases of immigrants who have been attacked in their encampments have also been reported in various regions. Additionally, some people have been forced to return to their origins due to disputes among different countries. Therefore, these issues relate to what was experienced during the Iron Curtain’s era.

A physical entity was also developed during the Iron Curtain period, whereby border defenses were introduced. Some countries, such as West and East Germany, built a wall that separated the two regions (Viol et al. 2018). The Berlin Wall is one of the borders that was designed due to the Iron Curtain. Eastern and Western European countries also used double fences to create boundaries. Many people were also forced to relocate since villages that were close to the borders were destroyed. For instance, many Erlebacch village occupants were mandated to move by the East Germany authorities since they were close to the wall (Eckert, 2019). Their houses were demolished to ensure no obstacles limited a clear view on the border.

Similar issues regarding building physical borders have been experienced in the modern world due to different aspects. One of the most recognized and debated issues involves the building of the southern border wall. The US claimed that the increased cases of drug traffickers and illegal immigrants from Mexico have led to more violence. Therefore, the wall was designed to limit the easy entry of convicts into the country. Like the Iron Curtain and Berlin Wall, many people opposed the Southern border construction, claiming that it would alter the US and Mexico relationship. On the other hand, some individuals supported the strategy, arguing that it would heighten both countries’ security.

The Israeli West Bank barrier is another issue that can be compared to the Iron Curtain. The wall was constructed to separate Israel from Palestine and led to many controversial debates. For instance, Israel stated that the blockade was essential for its citizens’ security since many people have lost their lives due to border conflicts. Terrorism has also been experienced in the two countries, whereby Israel designed the wall to curbs acts of terror. Palestine defended itself by asserting that the wall was a form of racial segregation and was not the best solution to the region’s unending disputes.

Challenges were also experienced by many people living in the area since they were forced to move to other places. For instance, farmers were had to leave their land since transportation of goods became more difficult. Other issues included the separation of families and children being transferred to other institutions due to conflicts and movement issues. Therefore, these issues can be analyzed and matched with what was experienced during the Iron Curtain.

Political issues are another significant aspect that was experienced during the Iron Curtain period. Many parties were focusing on ways of attaining power and ruling others. Additionally, countries engaged in disputes since no state wanted to be under the ruling of the other. Thus, individuals such as Stalin and Churchill had disagreements involving the Iron Curtain (Elena Kochetk, 2020).

In most cases, people politicize issues that affect disputes between countries. The case was also experienced in many European countries, whereby legislation increased oppression among some countries. For instance, the People’s Republic of Romania and the Hungarian People’s Republic were converted to satellite states by the Soviets.

A military dictatorship is another issue that was steered by politics and was exercised in Greece. The ruling had an impact on Greece since it faced significant challenges such as an economic crisis. The issue of communists and non-communists was a factor that led to the Iron Curtain. However, politics have been mainly involved when focusing on government structures. For instance, the Soviet Union claimed that the West campaigned against its plans to secure its citizens.

The Cold War was another aspect involved in the communist and non-communist states and was steered by politics and power. The Soviet Union and the United States engaged in the Cold War since both nations focused on superiority. The two superpowers ensured that they expanded their territories, leading to the Cold War. Politics also increased tension in the world since leaders gave speeches that increased confrontation between the nations. Therefore, these various historical events and aspects reveal that the Iron Curtain was a significant issue and critically impacted different countries.

Conclusion

The Iron Curtain had affected various sectors in different countries. Many countries experienced low economic growth due to limited trades and business performance. For instance, nations such as Greece and Hungary experienced financial challenges during the era. Stalin and Churchill are some of the key figures that influenced the Iron Curtain. For example, the Iron Speech had a significant effect on the Iron Curtain, which increased the matter’s debate.

Stalin’s response was another aspect that can be analyzed when focusing on the Iron Curtain since he led the Soviets during the Iron Curtain era. Physical barriers were also developed, such as the Berlin Wall during that period. These walls led to increased challenges as people were forced to relocate, leaving their lands and houses. Immigration is another aspect analyzed since countries such as the Soviet Union ensured that citizens from non-communist countries did not move into the country.

The different aspects that have been analyzed can also be compared with some of the issues experienced in the modern world. Many people have experienced challenges due to conflicts between countries. Economic crises have also been experienced in some nations that have encountered disputes. For instance, terrorism in Syria has primarily impacted the country, whereby businesses have been affected and properties destroyed, leading to limited development. The Southern border wall is another aspect that can be analyzed when focusing on the Iron Curtain.

Both barriers involved separating nations to prevent illegal movement of people and to heighten security in the countries. Therefore, these aspects reveal that the Iron Curtain can be analyzed to determine its various elements and how it can be linked to different contemporary world topics.

Sources Used

The sources used have been of great significance in this research since they have provided adequate information about the topic. Many historians have researched the Iron Curtain to determine some of its factors, such as its impacts and causes. Therefore, utilizing the data provided has made this report successful.

Moreover, using different sources is vital since it helps an individual acquire more information and analyze the sources’ differences and similarities. In this case, the references have been evaluated to determine their strengths and weaknesses. One of the advantages is that they are peer-reviewed and are credible. Therefore, the information is valid and can be used by other researchers.

Furthermore, the sources’ credibility shows that the results of this survey can be used by other people when addressing the same topic. Another strength of the sources is they have cited other reports, which is essential in surveys. Although the materials have various advantages, one can focus on the weakness. The major problem with the sources is that some do not provide detailed information about the topic. Consequently, an investigator is forced to read different researches to ensure that detailed information is acquired.

Own Observations, Opinions, Findings, and Analysis

Based on the research information, one can learn that the Iron Curtain led to various communities’ challenges. Tension is one of the issues that people experienced, and many sectors were affected. I have also learned that disputes among countries can impact the economic development of a nation. Another aspect that I have observed is the impact of a leader’s speech. In this case, the iron Speech had a significant influence during the Iron Curtain, whereby people learned about the disputes, and increased pressure was experienced.

People can have different opinions after analyzing the iron curtain. The Iron Curtain was not the best solution since it led to high challenges in societies. The paramount resolution for disputes is dialogue, as it helps parties settle their issue without harming others. Thus, the communist and non-communist groups should have ensured that a better way to solve the matter was developed. Leaders would have debated the topic and developed a plan to end the disputes in a friendly manner.

The research findings are that the Iron Curtain was a strategy by the Soviet Union to limit its engagement with non-communist countries. The wall was meant to secure their land and ensure business transactions between the Soviet Union and its rivals were curbed. Another finding is that politics were also a factor that was primarily involved during the era. Many leaders were focusing on attaining power and guaranteeing that their countries were superior to others. Thus, these aspects led to some disputes, resulting in the development of the Iron Curtain.

The analysis of this research includes focusing on the impacts of the Iron Curtain. For instance, the consequences show that many people experienced various community challenges due to disputes. The relationship between countries was also affected since the barriers separated different regions. The Cold War is also another issue that affected how nations engaged and influenced the Iron Curtain. The communist and non-communist countries avoided engaging in trading activities due to the increased tension. Thus, one can note that the Iron Curtain was developed to show that the communists did not want to engage in alliances with the non-communist.

References

Btáry, Péter, Róbert Gallé, Friederike Riesch, Christina Fischer, Carsten F. Dormann, Oliver Mußhoff, Péter Császár, Silvia Fusaro, Christoph Gayer, Anne-Kathrin Happe, Kornélia Kurucz, Dorottya Molnár, Verena Rösch, Alexander Wietzke & Teja Tscharntke “The former Iron Curtain still drives biodiversity–profit trade-offs in German agriculture.” Nature ecology & evolution 1, no. 9 (2017): 1279-1284. Web.

Burohaima, Lobna A. “Churchill’s Iron Curtain Speech: Translation and Commentary.” PhD diss. University, 2016.

Eckert, A. M. West Germany and the Iron Curtain: Environment, Economy, and Culture in the Borderlands. Publishing City: Oxford University Press, 2019.

Kochetkova, Elena. Nature and the Iron Curtain: Environmental Policy and Social Movements in Communist and Capitalist Countries, 1945–1990. Edited by Astrid Mignon Kirchhof and JR McNeill. Publishing City: Publisher, 2020.

Larres, Klaus. “Churchill’s ‘Iron Curtain’ Speech in Context: The Attempt to Achieve a ‘Good Understanding on All Points’ with Stalin’s Soviet Union.” The International History Review 40, no. 1 (2018): 86-107. Web.

Levering, Ralph B. “Toward Cold War thinking: editorial reactions to Churchill’s iron curtain speech in North Carolina newspapers.” Journal of Transatlantic Studies 14, no. 4 (2016): 340-349. Web.

Viol, Maren, Louise Todd, Eleni Theodoraki, and Constantia Anastasiadou. “The role of iconic-historic commemorative events in event tourism: Insights from the 20th and 25th anniversaries of the fall of the Berlin Wall.” Tourism Management 69 (2018): 246-262. Web.

Introduction

One critical question that bogs the minds of most people when talking about the Cold War is the concern of securing the national interests of the United States. A substantial number of people argue that the Cold War, which lasted for four decades, was a contest of ideologies whereby the United States sought to spread its national interests across the globe. The development of the war had implications on the political and cultural standing of the United States.

The Cold War was an ideological war in which the United States and the Soviet Union were engaged in a war whereby each country sought to propagate its policies through the pursuance of different courses in different parts of the world. In this paper, it is argued that the nature of policy goals that were pursued in the Cold War period had implications on the political and cultural setup of the United States.

This paper discusses the Cold War. The paper seeks to explore issues surrounding the US foreign policy in the course of the war, as well as the implications of the war on the United States’ society and culture.

The Cold War marked a period in the world history after the Second World War. The two main countries that battled in the war are the United States and the Soviet Union. This war was not an actual physical battle between the two countries, but it entailed the utilization of foreign policy by both countries to advance national ideologies.

However, proxy wars were fought as the two countries applied their containment strategies in proxy nations in different regions of the world. The United States embraced the ideology of capitalism, while the Soviet Union embraced communism. At the end of the Second World War, the United States insisted on the pursuance of a course that was meant to see the world pursue self-determination and the continuity of free trade.

On the other hand, the Soviet Union focused on molding its influence on Eastern Europe and the restructuring of its economy to gain power and influence in the region and the world at large. The most critical question that rings in the mind of most people concerns the possibilities of avoiding the Cold War at that time, given the political status of the world during the post-World War II.

Most of the commentators argue that the war could not have been easily avoided, given that a political vacuum prevailed in the world after the Second World War. The United States and the Soviet Union, which were the two main powers in the bipolar world order, engaged in a battle that resulted in a unipolar state, with the United States becoming the key dominant power in the world.

According to Kennan (para. 4), one main thing in the Cold War was the application of containment strategies that were embedded in the foreign policy activities. The foreign policy of the United States, just after the end of the Second World War, was shifted to containing the Soviet Union. What ought to be asked is whether the containment strategy of the US was welcome by the citizens of the country.

The other question concerns the impact of the pursuance of the containment strategy by the United States during the Cold War on the American society. Several documents have been authored on the historical developments in the post-World War II period, which marked the period of the Cold War. Most of the documents point to the political discourse in the Cold War period. The Cold War was a political development, thus it is quite difficult to eliminate the question of political discourse when talking about the Cold War.

Arguing from the perspective of the world wars, the distribution of power was one of the main issues that shaped the developments at the international stage during the world wars. The cold war was, therefore, an extension of power politics in the international arena; only that this point in time, the power struggle shifted to two states in the world (Truman para. 1).

According to “NSC 68 and the Ideological Cold War” (591), both the United States and the Soviet Union, which were the main powers that presented a hegemonic state in the international arena, were involved in the pursuance of different policies that were aimed at consolidating power. The United States under its leaders presented issues in the foreign countries in the manner that presented the attention of its citizens and the search for support in implementing the foreign policies of the country.

An example that can be given here is the presentation of the situation in Greek by Harry Truman, the then US President. Truman argued that the situation that prevailed in Greece had implications on the national security of the United States as he addressed the US Congress. The address pointed out that the Greek government was being negatively affected by the communistic advancements, a situation that warranted the support of the United States (Truman para. 1-5).

According to Lippmann (para. 1), the policy of containment used during the Cold War period called for the use of different tactics by the players in the war. The United States was, therefore, forced to be strategic in terms of crafting and implementing its foreign policy to match the strategies of the Soviet Union.

There was an expansive pressure on the United States, which resulted from the policies of the Soviet Union. The main way through which the United States would respond to the pressure was, therefore, through the deployment of diplomatic tactics in containing the Soviet Union’s influence in the world. Foreign policies were vital in the planning and implementation of containment strategies since it authorized the actions of the US government.

This has shaped the culture of the United States in such a way that policies are often subjected to the public. The United States is highly organized based on the principles of participation and democracy. The question of policy support in the United States also came out during the Cold War in which the US was quite active in terms of the search for policy support locally.

The other aspect of culture and society in the United States as was depicted by the Cold War revolves around the question of freedom in terms of policy making and participation. Capitalism, which is an ideology that was fully backed by the United States, entails the embrace of diversities of people in diverse sectors.

The free trade of ideas is, therefore, one of the most critical components of a free market of ideas. While this ought to be the nature of the American society, there are still a lot of pointers to the embrace of absolutism in the country. A free society ought to give each individual a chance to exercise and pursue his or her goals, which is contrary to what the United States policy entailed during the Cold War (“NSC 68 and the Ideological Cold War” para 2-5).

The civil rights movement that was experienced in the United States in the course of the Cold War can be taken as one of the indicators of the lack of embrace of free ideas and the value of every individual course, which are core features of capitalism. The differences in terms of race came out strongly during the Cold War. While the United States struggled a lot to contain the actions of the Russians through policy, it did less in pursuing a domestic policy to contain racial segregation within the country.

The United States government concentrated a lot on the pursuance of foreign policy, rather than addressing the issue of civil rights in the country. The American society can be depicted as an expansionist society due to a lot of focus on foreign policy at the expense of addressing the domestic issues (President’s Commission on Civil Rights para. 1-4).

According to McCarthy (para. 2), the pacification of the world seemed to be the main Agenda of the United States. This was depicted by its efforts to see the establishment of the United Nations during the Second World War. However, the actions of hatred and the support of proxy battles was an order of the Cold War, which made it impossible to attain the goals of peaceful existence of people in the world.

Conclusion

This paper has explored the Cold War and how the domestic and foreign policy of the United States was shaped during the war. From the discussion, it has come out that the foreign policy goals of the United States during the early periods of the war were largely centered on containing Russia. This barred the US from pursuing domestic policies that were critical in addressing domestic issues.

Works Cited

Kennan, George, F. The Sources of Soviet Conduct, 1947. Web.

McCarthy, Joseph. Enemies from Within, 1950. Web. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6456/

NSC 68 and the Ideological Cold War, 1950.

President’s Commission on Civil Rights. To Secure These Rights, 1947.

Truman, Harry S. Excerpts from the Truman Doctrine, 1947.

Walter Lippmann. A Critique of Containment, 1947.

The foreign and the domestic policy by the US was featured by the increased fear of communism, and all the efforts were aimed to struggle with the leftist views, regardless of the fact, that the people’s freedoms were often violated. The policy of McCarthyism was paranoidly chasing the citizens, who were suspicious in communistic views. Sometimes these suspicions were groundless, and it is argued, that Joseph McCarty used this approach in his personal interests. As for the Nuclear Weapons Race, it should be stated, that the whole world lived in the fear of nuclear war. Regarding the international policy of the Cold War Period, it may seem, that the USA chased only its own interests, regarding the other states as the tools of achieving the American Dream.

American Freedom

First of all, it is necessary to mention, that the idea of freedom is ever-present in the US, and this concept followed with the principles of our policy throughout the history of independent America. Eric Foner, in his “The Story of American Freedom,” regards it as the matter of constant conflicts and debates, as freedom is the matter of lots of arguments by its nature, as freedom for one sometimes means the loss of freedom for the other. Moreover, the society, that called itself the society of the widest freedoms and opportunities could not discriminate against the racial minorities, but the US society did.

McCarthyism and the domestic freedoms

McCarthyism was primarily aimed to struggle with communism and the leftist views in the government and among celebrities. Initially, the principles of witch-hunt were widely accepted, and the citizens, who were suspected in the communistic views, were fired from their jobs and subjected to the allover shame.

The period of the 1940s – 1950s was featured by the increased tensions in the Cold War. Consequently, the fear of the communists was also increasing, and the witch-hunt often acted with no investigation and trial. The “Hollywood blacklist” included the names of well-known politics, actors, and scientists, who were suspected of sympathizing with the communists. The absurdity of the situation was so ridiculous, that even Albert Einstein – the man who was particularly indifferent to politics ‑ was included in this list. From this point of view, it should be mentioned, that most suspects were groundless. Consequently, it is a direct violation of human freedoms, as tyranny and totalitarianism use the same means to get rid of the people, who oppose the system (Foner, 1999).

Finally, the witch-hunt was regarded to be in the personal interests of Joe McCarthy, as he included into the blacklist even those, who helped him to struggle with the communists in the government, and “repressed” them. The Hollywood blacklist in particular, and the witch-hunt and the McCarthyism in general ruined lots of lives and careers, as innocent people suffered from it. The absurdity of the situation was also in the fact, that the blacklist included homosexuals, while sexual minorities rarely passionately support any political views, consequently, it is another argument against the righteousness of the McCarthyism approach.

Nuclear Weapons Arms Race

The arms race, as another indicator of the Cold War tensions, was the way for both sides to show supremacy, and it was considered, that the bigger the nuclear potential – the larger the influence. The Cuban Missile Crisis may be regarded as the peak of the tensions, caused by the arms race. The violation of human freedoms, and chasing personal ambitions was prevailing for the US. It is known, that the missiles were set up in Cuba in response for the setting up the American missiles in Turkey. Initially, the US government and President Kennedy considered, that the USSR did not know about the location of the missiles in Turkey, and wished to force the Soviet government to take off the missiles from Cuba. Before that, the military top of the US persuaded President Kennedy to start the bombing of Cuba – the state, that just wanted to live free and grant happiness and welfare to its citizens. When it was found, that some missiles are ready for launch, Kennedy refused to bombings, as it could cause the war conflict. Nevertheless, Cuba was under economic blockade for they only wish to be free, and have someone, who would support it in this strive.

Cuba is just the brightest example of the violation of human freedoms by the USA during the period of the Cold War. In general, the whole world was under the fear of nuclear war, when the tensions of the Cold War increased. Luckily, there were few serious precedents for the tension escalation, nevertheless, only two Superpowers kept the whole world (Breines, 2002).

The containment strategy was aimed to amass the number of nuclear payloads enough for the mass attack that was aimed to destroy the most significant infrastructures and the governmental buildings. The USSR, in its turn, aimed to amass a larger amount of nuclear weapons, in order to contain the USA. This race could last eternally until the heads of the two states (Leonid Brezhnev and Jimmy Carter) agreed to decrease the number of nuclear weapons. This was the only moment of the Cold War when the superpowers agreed to think not only about their ambitions but also about the possible destiny of the world if there is a place for mistake.

The nuclear weapon race itself is a violation of human freedoms not only because of the danger of possible nuclear war, but also because the nuclear payloads are rather expansive for manufacturing, stockpiling, and, finally, eliminating. These resources could be directed for the help of starving children, for the help to cancer and AIDS deceased and so on.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is necessary to mention, that American freedoms are spread only along with the US territory, and the USA often violate the freedoms of other peoples, and even of the American citizens to satisfy personal political interests. It is necessary to mention, that the approaches of McCarthyism and the Nuclear Arms Races were given as the brightest examples of the violation of freedoms. It should be emphasized, that his violation takes its origin in the concept of superiority (superiority of political beliefs, or the superiority on the basis of power), which is initially faulty, as everyone is free to choose the political views, and it is one of the key principles of democracy. Thus, the policy, held by the USA during the Cold War contradicted the principles of democracy and threatened world safety.

References

1. Breines, B. Taking it to the Streets New York Press publishing, 2002
2. Foner, E. The Story of American Freedom W. W. Norton & Company publishing, 1999

Threats to National Security

The era of the Post Cold War period was considered to be the time of rehabilitation. By this period there was observed the formation of the American foreign policy measuring in connection to Soviet threat. The principal mission of the American policymakers after the Cold War period was containment. It should be noted that the National Security of the USA faced certain threats leading to national interactions.

After the Cold War period the US faced certain dangers and threats. All the threats faced by the USA can be divided into the following groups:

• Threats of mass destruction weapons. These threats are connected with the promotion of chemical and biological weapons.
• Dangers to the reform and democracy.
• Aggression on the part of regional governments. Regional dangers resulted in religious conflicts and state terrorism.
• National security faced economic dangers being the principal obstacle on the way of strong economy building (Hook, 2006).

The US tried to create and develop steps aimed at prosperity, freedom and safety. It was reached due to security partnerships adaptation and expansion. The US managed to build a stronger democratic nations community. The promotion of new regional security was organized with the purpose of potential aggression reduction and deterrence improvement. It should be noted that the US managed to form the treaties of Strategic Arms Reduction Talks. It helped to reduce strategic nuclear arsenal dramatically. US strategies were aimed at advancement and protection of national security; to reach political freedom and people’s prosperity through the fulfillment of principle national goals (Neuchterlein, 2000).

The Limits in Humanitarian Crises

Humanitarian Military intervention is connected with warlike roles change into peaceful ones by Western countries; it can be explained by the fact there was no need in battles after the period of the Cold War. The demand for military intervention was connected with regional instability and plenty of refugees caused by armed conflicts.

The analysis of humanitarian crises has shown the establishment of principle limitations and problems. The first limit is connected with the improper military organization being completely unsuitable for humanitarian goals. In addition to it the notable limitations of military involvement are merely caused by certain differences in principles considering humanitarian agencies and military forces cooperation.

The humanitarian crises provided restrictions to the complete military operations of the US. It was stated that the interference of military involvement with humanitarian operations could be perceived by the community as a reflection of political considerations. (Neuchterlein, 2000)

The leaders of the US military strived to dominate state military operations through humanitarian assistance involvement; though in the time of crises their positions and ideas were pressed through general tension. At the period of standard humanitarian development the US military provided complete support to the humanitarian community. Nevertheless the principal problem in the usage of the US military for humanitarian development is closely connected with the destruction of humanitarian principles such as neutrality, impartiality and humanity. The conflicts and restrictions appeared due to the ineffectiveness of military-humanitarian programs resulting in crises expansion. The misconception in humanitarian organizations and military forces is considered to be the background problem.

US Military Forces and Post Cold War Conflicts

US military campaign is usually directed at post-conflict activities. Nevertheless the US military forces were not completely prepared for the conflicts of the post-Cold War period. It should be stated that the US faced danger in the spheres of retention, readiness and morale.

The unpreparedness of the US military forces is connected with the new strategic realities of the post-Cold war period. The post-war American position influenced its leadership in the international arena and its ability to act as an ally. The downfall of the US military was followed by an increase in overseas deployments and contingency operations and a decrease of available resources leading to the disability of forces to fight basic regional conflicts simultaneously (Hook, 2006).

It should be stressed that dramatic increase of operations tempo appeared to create hindrances in the actions of military forces. The US military experienced the problem of its structural organization; crises faced by the US in that period required appropriate organization and deployment of expeditionary forces. Besides the quantities of weapons were insufficient during the period of conflicts increasing the level of threats (Neuchterlein, 2000).

It is important to stress that US military forces had no sufficient preparedness for the conflicts of the post-Cold War period; nevertheless, they tried to develop certain steps and programs for conflicts regulation.

References

1. Hook, S. and Spanier, J. 2006. American Foreign Policy since World War II. CQ Press. 241-267.
2. Neuchterlein, D. 2000. America Recommitted. Scholarly Book Services Inc.199-280.

The process and outcomes of the Cold War identified the political and economic development of Latin America. While the internal actors played a great role, external factors included the environmental conditions of the political process, such as socioeconomic, sociocultural, and ethnic-demographic. In the given case, these are economic and political processes that influenced the actions of Latin American politics, which were impacted by globalization processes. The fall of the Soviet Union and the associated crisis of the left movement at the end of the XXI century was another factor that influenced political views in Latin America. Internal factors involved changes in the subjects, forms, methods of the political struggle of left radicalism, its ideological foundations, and tactics. These factors in the evolution of diversity politics included fidelismo, communism, and peaceful coexistence, which affected the Latin American region.

In the conditions of the Cold War, namely in the middle of the 1940s-1970s, Latin America was the arena of the struggle for the spheres of influence of the US and the Soviet Union. It should be noted that the period under study is also characterized by an active phase of the revolutionary movement in Latin America, which led to the victory of the left (socialist) movements in Cuba (Latin America in the era of the Cuban Revolution). When discussing this period in the history of Latin America, it is necessary to take into account the characteristic features of the region that are associated with its specific political culture. Namely, this region tried to preserve its independence and balance between the two dominating and powerful countries. On the one hand, the US policies ranged from military invasions to progressive developmentalism, and the main idea was to tie Americas and make them act as a united front. On the other hand, the Soviet Union tried to achieve domination and control in Latin America.

In Latin America, leftist ideas and radicalism had strong roots, which occurred due to the existence of deep contradictions in the socio-economic and socio-political spheres of society. A great influence on modern left-wing organizations in countries of Latin America had the contribution of Ernesto Che Guevara, the Cuban revolutionary. He entered with criticism of the countries of real socialism and argued that with the decisive role of the individual in history, it is possible to accelerate the process of revolutionary transformations, even in the absence of material conditions (Latin America in the era of the Cuban Revolution). This activist considered the basis of the revolution to be the agrarian reform, which meant the transfer of land to the peasantry. Any use of capitalist mechanisms, including goods as an economic unit of society, profitability, personal material interest as a lever of development, was considered to be fraught with the degeneration of the revolution.

According to Guevara’s view, it seems that the goal of the revolution was not only to change the world but also to change people. It should have been done to achieve their liberation from alienation and from the results of labor. Labor could be freed only by abolishing property, and this abolition is a social revolution. Guevara opposed various forms of people’s participation in government to bourgeois democracy. At the same time, this revolutionary stated that where the government came to power in a more or less democratic way and where at least the semblance of constitutional legality is maintained, the emergence of a partisan movement is ruled out. It was a characteristic feature as the possibilities of peaceful struggle have not yet been depleted. Therefore, Guevara can be identified as the compass for the left in the 1960s-1970s, and his ideas also influenced modern Latin American politics.

Fidel Castro, another leader of the revolution in Cuba, relied on a combination of the concept of armed struggle, the provisions of Marxism, and national liberation ideas. He outlined the fundamentals of his vision of the future state structure of Cuba after the revolution during his speech at the trial. Castro formulated five laws that planned to be adopted after the revolution. The first revolutionary law was to restore the 1940 Constitution, the second to transfer land to pthe roperty to all tenants, the third revolutionary law should give workers the right to thirty percent of the profits of all enterprises, except agricultural ones, whose work will be regulated by the agrarian law. The fourth law concerned the redistribution of profits from the cultivation of sugar cane in favor of its growers, and the fifth provided for the confiscation of property acquired dishonestly (Fidelismo and the radicalization of Latin American politics). After the victory of the revolution in Cuba, Castro proclaimed the rejection of the values ​​and living standards of the consumer society, emphasizing the need to create conditions for ensuring a decent life for every member of society, but without luxury and waste.

The reformist course of the Soviet Union that was headed by Khrushchev was reflected in the new foreign policy doctrine. Its main provisions were a return to the Leninist principles of the policy of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems, the expansion of competition between the two social systems, and the possibility of creating conditions for preventing wars in the modern era (Khrushchev on peaceful coexistence). The diversity of forms of transition of different countries to socialism and the ways of its construction were also recognized. In addition, proletarian internationalism was accepted to provide comprehensive assistance to both the countries of the socialist side and the world communist and national liberation movement. According to Khrushchev, even when imperialism and bourgeois reaction create a military threat to the socialist countries or present humiliating demands that infringe on their sovereignty and dignity, the socialist countries should still make concessions and constantly adapt.

The main provisions of the concept of the Chilean Revolution and Conversations with Allende can be defined as criticism of the communist and reformist parties, as well as countries of real socialism and the concept of peaceful coexistence. From the position of this author, a peaceful path of revolution is impossible, and legal methods of political struggle are ineffective (Allende’s Chile). For Latin America, the only way to bring about revolutionary change is through guerrilla warfare. The guerrilla movement must be composed of professional revolutionaries and peasants. The mobile partisan column should replace both the party and the propaganda work with the population. In Latin America, the revolution was regarded as possible because the constant population growth exacerbated social problems.

To conclude, this paper discussed that were several political views on the changes in the world, with a focus on Latin America. Guevara proposed the importance of revolutionary transformations ann agrarian reform. In turn, Castro believed that the combination of Marxist and national liberation ideas is the best solution that should be implemented. According to Khrushchev, the strategy of a peaceful coexistence could provide more benefits due to its non-violent nature that contributed to avoiding war. Ultimately, Allende’s views about Chile criticized the concept of peaceful coexistence as it was seen as non-applicable in terms of the social and economic problems of Latin America.

References

Allende’s ChileFideliomo and the radicalization of Latin American politics, 41-59.

Khrushchev on peaceful coexistence, 160-163. Latin America in the era of the Cuban Revolution.

Herbert Norman’s suicide was as a result of witch-hunt and malice of the Cold War America. Norman was claimed to be spy for the communists and was seen as a sell out by the American intelligence forces. The causes of his death can be traced back to his days in the university through to his diplomatic work and associations. It is therefore apparent that, his suicide was prompted by stress and depression stirred by the claims of being a communist, soviet mole and being disloyal to the oath. This can be confirmed by the suicide notes that Norman left to his wife and the Swedish ambassador to Cairo¹. In this essay, I will discuss the causes of Norman’s death. It is important to note that, Herbert Norman committed suicide because of a series of reasons which all amount to witch-hunt. Among these causes are: Norman’s quest to study communism, false information compiled by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), his work in the Middle East, and his position in solving the Suez crisis.

Herbert Norman’s quest to study communism at the university contributed to the cause of his suicide. During his life as a student in Toronto, Herbert was interested in studying political theories. He was specifically interested in studying theories of Marx, Lenin and Trusty. This he did, but was strictly confined to reading. He however became more practical when he entered Cambridge. While in Cambridge, he started attending socialist sponsored meetings though categorically asserting that his mind was open and therefore could not be influenced. Norman later returned to Toronto where he studied his post graduate degree on communism, here he was mainly concentrated on reading. During this time Norman had not known any communists nor left wingers. In 1937, Harvard was the next stop for Norman. While here he participated in study groups though very conscious. He says that he would not accept any theory without questioning it.

In 1937, the world was in the middle of the depression. Norman like everybody else was concerned about the collapse of the capitalist systems and was open to receive any theories that would offer a solution to the problem². Herbert Norman asserted that through his studies on communism for over five years, he could not see a solution in it. He was equally skeptical of the socialist system and concluded that, the British form of democracy was far much superior to all the other forms. To sum up his life at Harvard, Norman strongly disputed the existence of groups such as the “Harvard communists” and the “Harvard progressive” groups. Herbert Norman’s quest to knowledge sparked interest from his follies and hence associations put to question. This is especially seen when Norman is put under investigation by the American Senate Sub-committee. This sub-committee accused him of having been part of the communist cell when he was a student at Cambridge. The sub committee further insinuated that, the Cambridge four had a conspiracy against the king and Canada as a country. The report also alleges that, Harman was a KGB Soviet recruit. Furthermore some of the people he associated with during his study time were also alleging that Norman was a communist. One of such was people was Halperin, who made Norman’s name appeared severally in his note book. It is important to note that, Halperin was a communist³. Norman’s appearance in his book only meant that, he was a communist too. Norman strongly refuted this claims and says that, he knew Halperin as a college mate and was not aware of his affiliations to communism. He further says that his discussions with Halperin were limited to student days. We see Harman as constantly defending himself. This he does not do for pleasure, but to clear himself from already souring allegations of him being a communist. As we can deduce, Herbert Norman wanted to study communism and only associated with people colored with red. His explanations are reasonable enough⁴.

It will be significant to say that Herbert Norman’s suicide was caused by the false information that was secretly compiled by Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). The inaccurate information was then handed over to the FBI in 1950. The information that was given to the FBI accused Norman of being a communist, a possible spy for the Soviet and not keeping his oath of loyalty. The release of this wrong and malicious information took place when Heeney was the Deputy Minister of external affairs in Canada. When this sensitive report was compiled and sent to the FBI, Herbert Norman remained unaware that he was being investigated. Moreover he was not given a platform or a chance to state his position about the accusations made against him. The report forwarded by the RCMP was later found out to have been short of insight about the issue⁵.

It is important at this point of the discussion to mention that, Canada became an ally of the United States of America in 1945. This then meant that, Canadians worked in close collaboration with the United States especially in matters pertaining to communism. In addition, Canadian affiliation to the United States meant that, their diplomats were left with no option but strike a balance of speaking for National interest and playing on the American team. Some of the Canadian diplomats walked through this road and were completely subdued to the American’s wishes. One such diplomat was Lester Pearson. He however did not earn more respect in Canada. On the other hand, those who tried to contradict the United States policies were treated unfairly and lived with frustrations. This was because they were often branded as communists. One such case was Herbert Norman. The big disadvantage that Canada faced for accepting an ally to America was that, it could not influence the events that were going on in Washington. A special case in time was when Norman’s case could not be addressed exclusively in Canada. It happened that, the then external affairs minister, Lester Pearson was aware of the implication of such a report when it reached Washington. He tried to stop it but it was too late. It later turned out that the inaccurate RCMP report sent to the FBI only aggravated Americans need to cub Herman because to them he was a communist⁶.

The third cause that can be attributed to Herbert Norman’s suicide is his role and work in Asia. Herbert Norman took an active role and participated in issues pertaining East Asia. It is eminent that, Norman was a specialist in Japanese history. He was one of the core officials when Japan was occupied. What prompted Norman to be pursued by the Americans was his constant contradiction of the policies issued by the United States to East Asia. Because of his stern positions, he got an uncalled for attention from Willoughby, who was McArthur’s head of intelligence. McArthur simply worked with him as a colleague because he wanted to use Norman’s knowledge of the country to his advantage⁷.

Notably, Norman was not the only one who was a victim of the United States intrigues in East Asia. Among the victims is George Patterson. He was a Canadian diplomat who formerly used to work for YMCA in Toronto. While in Korea, he worked as an acting Canadian representative to the United Nations in Korea. Patterson got American’s attention by working to avoid the division of Korea to North and South. On the other hand the United States had planned to establish a regime on the South. The two had a contradiction of interest. This scenario made Patterson fall victim of the United States witch hunt because he was branded a communist by John Hedge, the head of the United States operations in Korea. Another victim of the McCarthy witch hunt of the 1950’s was Chester Ronning. He too was a Canadian diplomat. Chester served in China during the world war. He openly supported the many issues concerning the communist programs in China. In 1949, he lobbied for the Chinese communist government. He was immediately not allowed to visit Washington⁸.

To the United States, the above mentioned only confirmed an existence of a Canadian spy ring that was active in East Asia after the war. All the accusations leveled by the United States was purely because, the United States government wanted to have a direct influence on Asia. It therefore served their interests when the United States officials viewed those who were not reading from the same script with them in terms of policies as serving the interests of their enemies. In a matter of fact the United States officials were trying to simplify facts that that were of grave concern, a pure characteristic of authoritarian and populist regimes. In other words the United States used anti-communism as a tool to deal with the challenges posed to them⁹. Therefore, Herbert Norman, George Patterson and Chester Ronning are only but a few who fell to this trap. The continued suspicion and accusations leveled against Norman were building up and affecting him psychologically. When it came a time he could not bear them, he turned to suicide.

To Cairo, Egypt, Herbert Norman’s suicide was basically caused by the Middle East stalemate. Harman gave his support to the Egyptians during the July Suez Canal crisis. Furthermore, Norman condemned the 1956 tripartite aggression of the Suez Canal by the French the British and their Israeli ally. When the Suez Canal crisis occurred, Nasser was the then president of Egypt. Having the military experience, he forcefully and successfully drove away the British forces who had invaded the Suez zone. Nasser’s success antagonized the colonialists in the area, that is, Britain and France and their ally Israel¹⁰. This then led the three Nations to meet secretly to plot a way forward on the matter. This meeting saw Israel ambush a surprise attack on Egypt. Britain and France then pretended to come for rescue and ordered Egypt and Israel to vacate the area. Both parties obliged and what that meant was that the Britain and France invaded the zone.

The situation in the Suez Canal made the United States feel left out because they were not involved in the British French and Israeli’s cunning plot. The problem in the Suez Canal called for an immediate and lasting solution. This need prompted the Canadian minister for external affairs, Lester Pearson to step in. Pearson did not however work on this alone. He worked in collaboration with John Foster, the United States secretary of state. Pearson introduced and presented an emergency resolution at the United Nations general assembly. Pearson proposed the formation of the United Nations Emergency Force which was specifically intended to replace the occupying British and French forces in the Suez zone. Pearson’s resolutions were adopted.

The United Nations resolutions were well received in New York. But then the resolutions faced a major problem. President Nasser was very skeptical of the idea to allow the United Nation forces take charge of the Suez zone. To him he could not understand how replacing the British and the French forces with the United Nations contingent would bring the Suez Canal back to the Egyptians. Nasser’s arguments were based on the fact that, United Nations was also a western brain and will only serve the western interests. It then took the effort of one honorable man; Herbert Norman to convince President Nasser to accept the United Nation’s resolution. Norman had only stayed in Cairo for two months before the Suez crisis broke. Peyton, the man who was commissioned to investigate Norman’s case described him as a man who won President Nasser’s confidence and properly used it in helping in the establishment of the United Nations emergency force¹¹. This marked the first United Nations peace keeping operation. His endeavors to work with the Egyptian Government won him more follies from Britain, France and Israel. What this translates to is that, Norman in addition to being branded a communist and a soviet spy, was now adding to his frustrations and stress new follies who worked together to destroy him.

When Norman committed suicide, the cordial relationship that existed between Canada and the United states deteriorated. In Canada the people viewed his death as having been prompted by the United States Senate Sub-committee on internal Security. Canadians were furious and described the activities by this committee as “Trial by Suspicion” and “Murder by Slander”¹².

To sum it up, spying was at the heart of all major Cold War studies. This was eminent especially between the two forces, that is, the United States and its allies against the Soviet Union. The Cold War era also led to malice and witch hunts especially from the United States as a communism crusader. Herbert Norman was one of the victims to this witch hunt. He fell prey after he constantly contradicted the United States policies while in Asia. He was branded a communist by the United States military deployed in Japan. At that time, Tokyo played an important role in the anti-communist Asians and Americans. Therefore, any attempts to scuttle United States bid to have a stake in Asia was treated with mischief and witch hunt. Herbert Norman’s death was therefore caused by stress and frustrations he faced from the United States military and intelligence. The contributors of his depression date back to his quest to study communism, an incorrect report compiled by the RCMP which was then forwarded to the FBI, his work in Asia and his involvement in the Suez crisis.

Footnotes

1. E. Herbert Norman Suicide Notes, April, 1957.
2. Unknown, “RCMP Report on Norman,” (: November 27, 1950.
3. Library and Archives Canada, Canadian Security Intelligence Service Access to Information Act Request, 117-89-109
4. Library and Archives Canada, Canadian Security Intelligence Service Access to Information Act Request, 117-89-109
5. John Price, “Learning from Herbert Norman, Historian of Japan, Canadian Diplomat” August 28, 2007.
6. John Price, “Learning from Herbert Norman, Historian of Japan, Canadian Diplomat” August 28, 2007.
7. Lester Pearson, MacArthur’s Cold War Plan for Japan, Mike: The Memory of the Right Honorable Lester B Pearson Volume 2, 1948-1954
8. John Price, “Learning from Herbert Norman, Historian of Japan, Canadian Diplomat” August 28, 2007.
9. John Price, “Learning from Herbert Norman, Historian of Japan, Canadian Diplomat” August 28, 2007.
10. E. Herbert Norman on British and French in Suez Crisis, January 3, 1957.
11. Jack Brayley, Norman Swayed Nasser’s Decision, Montreal Gazette, April 29, 1957.
12. William Stevenson, Norma seen Victim of U.S. Witch Hunters, Toronto Daily Star, April 4, 1957

The post World War II world emerged as an arena between its victors. United States, which sustained the minimal damage during the apocalyptic war, was elevated to the status of the savior of the new world in the west whilst mighty Soviet Union whose winters not only mercilessly massacred the Nazi hordes but showed no mercy to even her native inhabitants, took command of the free east. What ensued afterwards marked the dawn of new breed of warfare that was garbed in diplomatic smiles and technological race.

The Cold War is among one of the most important chapters in the history of the United States. It wasn’t just a mounting conflict between two powerful and egotistic nations, but titanic collision between two ideologies and lifestyles. Many saw it as a conflict between two rival nations, utilizing all their resources to prevent another 3^rd Reich. That mutual hostility between both nations was based on half a century worth of warfare and revolutions and both were unwilling to give each other a chance to step forward and lead the free world.

But the Cold War didn’t only affect the rival states; it also created turmoil within the both nations. In the east, the newly painted red Soviet Union, absolutely drunk on power and freedom became the flame tongued preacher of communism. With Stalin as the impeccable leader of the Soviet regime, a form of tyranny and totalitarianism prevailed in Soviet Union where freedom was crushed and restricted in the name of Leninism. Same way, United States underwent an anti-communist frenzy that had its political and social ramifications as the frenzy started to gnaw on the pillars of the state from within. The anti-communism frenzy that came to be regarded as McCarthyism was not only used as propaganda tool, but also as an instrument for political gains.

The World War II came to an end in 1945 when an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, thus ending the pacific war. Under the leadership of President Truman, United States had ushered the world into an era of freedom, but in doing, had garnered an adversary in the form of an independent and very red Soviet Union. The immediate difference became stark right after the end of war when Stalin and Truman got off on the wrong foot regarding economic co-operation.

The socialist-capitalist schism suddenly evident and silent waves of hostility surged form both Kremlin and White House. The fear was mutual. The Soviets, in the words of Whittaker Chambers, a rouge communist spy, believed that the ‘Western civilization was doomed to collapse or revert to barbarism’ (Chambers-Truman, 1). On the other hand Truman was facing conflicts at home just as well and rallying against the nuisance of communism sounded like an adequate elusive tactic.

To further deteriorate the situation, in August 1948, Whittaker Chambers, a senior editor in Time magazine and a defrocked former soviet spy made a testament before House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) in which lodged allegations against some really high State Department officials including Alger Hiss, advisor to the former President Roosevelt and on of the leading names in the establishment of United Nations, of being communists. Even though the allegations were without any concrete evidence, they planted an incipient ‘spy scare’ throughout the whole Washington.

‘This atmosphere of anti-fascist cooperation, anti-capitalist conviction, and lax security precautions enabled a small number of Washingtonians to lead dual lives as professional bureaucrats and devoted communists.’ (Chambers-Truman 54).

Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy used it as a political weapon and started rallying against the Truman establishment. This not only tarnished Truman’s reputation but also coined the term McCarthyism which meant hatred towards everything red. Whilst United States was vehemently opposing communism, Soviet Union was on the cusp of Stalin’s Great Purge and Eastern Bloc was being dominated by the sickle and hammer. President Truman on the insinuation of his advisors in 1947 issued Truman Doctrine thus parting the gulf between east and west further. The term Cold War appeared first in an American newspaper in 1946, which Truman dabbed as ‘war of nerves’ (Chambers-Truman essay, 30).

Ironically a war that itself was made up of an oxymoron was tearing the Truman establishment apart. As Soviet Union tested its first nuclear weapon in 1949, panic spread throughout the corridors of White House. The Soviet nuclear testing was a harbinger of an epoch where the world was rent apart into bipolarity. Truman blew the trumpet of war using the pretext that communism would swipe away the capitalist markets. By doing so, Truman managed to ‘scare the hell out of congress’ (Holsti 214). He even fired Henry Wallace, the ex vice-president and the then Secretary of Commerce because he rejected Truman’s anti-Soviet policy.

The Cold War entered a new phase after President Truman when Eisenhower took the Oval office in 1953. As for the East, Nikita Khrushchev became the ultimate Soviet leader and the war took a new form. Khrushchev intended to take the war from the battlefield to the space laboratories and economic fortifications, hoisting the banner of ‘peaceful coexistence’ (Gaddis 70) yet flagrantly threatening the west with nuclear resistance. The Warsaw Pact of 1955 widened the gap further. The Soviet block, imbibed by the spirit of proletariat revolution also instigated many other oppressed and agitated nations to gain freedom under the red banner.

United States, the vanguard of Democracy and the scourge of tyranny had to do a number of objectionable acts so as to save many potentially explosive states from falling into the communist lap. The toppling of Iran’s democratically elected government in 1953 through Operation Ajax is one of the examples. The Development of ICBMs and the race to reach the moon or own the limitless space shows how much friction both rival nations generated. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 literally left the both USA and USSR on the verge of a nuclear war.

The cold war may have ended by the disintegration on USSR in 1991, but the truth is, the war wasn’t so cold for the states that were forced to pick sides in a two sided world. Korea, Vietnam, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, all was the collateral damage. Caught between the crossfire of two giants who were hell bent on sustaining superiority over the other. Both USSR and USA had never had to face each other during the war, instead, pawns were moved and sacrificed resulting in the checkmate of USSR.

Works Cited

Holsti, Ole (1996). Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. p21.

Gaddis, John Lewis (2005), The Cold War: A New History, Penguin Press p70. The Truman-Chamber Essay.

After the Second World War, there was a long period of tension between the democracies of the Western World and the communists’ countries of Eastern Europe, which is called The Cold War. It was a division between Russia and the United States and its allies, like Britain. The Cold War led many people to suffer great misfortunes. The United States and Russia continually provoked each other through political maneuvering, military conditions, and propaganda. Throughout the Cold War, communist and capitalist nations tried to outdo each other, competing to develop the best technologies and weapons. The war resulted in losses and destruction of property and massive killings.

Latin America

Latin American nation’s relationship with the United States considerably changed during the Cold War due to the spread of communism and capitalism. Fulgencio Batista, a Cuban dictator, allied with the United States to hinder the spread of communism in Latin America (Week 11).

In 1959, the Cuban revolution led by Fidel Castro forced out Batista and his government (Week 11). Castro nationalized American-owned properties and allied himself with the Communists party by signing military and economic agreements with the Soviet Union. After Castro proclaimed to be a communist and became friendly with America’s s Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union, the United States enacted a trade and travel embargo and severe diplomatic and economic ties with Cuba (Week 11). Considering Latin America was no longer beneficial at the end of the Cold War, both the Soviet Union and the United States left the Latin American region (Week 11). Most of the Latin countries were worn out and in need of reconstruction.

European Jews

As a result of the Holocaust, many people in the Middle East have were displaced Jews significantly. Several Jewish survivors remained in camps run by the Allied Powers and the United Nations Refugee and Rehabilitation Administration in Germany (Week 9). The Jews had were massively murdered in the Holocaust, where roughly six million Jews died. There was hatred of the Jews, Antisemitism in Europe, bringing tension to the Jews (Week 9). Fear killed their confidence, and they became afraid of their homeland (Week 9). Many of them relocated to Israel, the United States, and other nations across the world.

Arab-Israeli

The Suez crisis was raised from the increased nationalism in Egypt during the Cold War. France and Britain united with Israeli in talks on planning an attack against Egypt (Week 9). In 1956, the Israeli armed forces pushed into Egypt toward the Suez Canal. The Egyptian air force was knocked down through bombings when Gamal Abdul Nasser made the Suez Canal a state ownership property (Week 9). In the end, the U.N. Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold ordered for the suspension of hostilities, and Britain, French and Israeli governments withdrew their troops in late 1956 and early 1957.

The Arab-Israeli war, which is well known as the six-day war, was influenced by the 1956 Suez war. The Johnsons’ administration was fostering the concept of “land for peace” (Week 9). The United States pushed Israelis to draw out of the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza strip following the Suez crisis, but they dismissed all the petitions. The Johnson administration’s aim to stop the Arab-Israeli conflict failed (Week 9). Another war broke out despite the efforts of the United States. Israelis inhabited parts of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan after they fought a winning battle against them. The warfare took massive lives and left many people displaced.

References

Week 11. Latin America and the Cold War. Primary Source World. Web.

Week 9. The Suez Crisis. BBC. Web.

Week 9. Holocaust Encyclopedia. Web.

Week 9. Web.