The Cold War was an important period of history that shaped the geopolitical landscape of the 20th century. In its general understanding, this term refers to a prolonged ideological confrontation between Western democracies and Communist states, mainly represented by the Soviet Union. While there was no direct military engagement between the world’s superpowers, local proxy conflicts still spread across the globe. Dr. Caleb Fisher notes that the feeling of looming nuclear doom threaded through the Cold War period. Residents on both sides continuously feared that a devastating war was to erupt once the tensions rise beyond the point of no return. At the same, Fisher states that the possibility of such a nuclear conflict was averted because of the fear of mutual destruction. Having sufficient arsenals to end all life on Earth, the leaders of the superpowers preferred not to engage each other directly, limiting the confrontation to the ideological front and proxy wars in Vietnam, Korea, and Afghanistan.
In such difficult times, as the Cold War and the spread of terrorism, the role of Christians is to pursue one of God’s main principles, which is hope. Such a perspective is conditioned by a range of factors that revealed themselves across history. The Biblical story of Nehemiah serves as an important lesson to humanity. More specifically, while God is there to protect and guide all people, they are not to rely solely on divine intervention. The idea of benevolent choice is central to the Christian faith, becoming the Lord’s ultimate test for each soul (Moyn 2020). People cannot refrain from making a choice in difficult situations. Instead, Nehemiah’s example teaches Christians to become confident through making the meaningful choice in the name of God.
Moreover, Christianity helps the public find its voice and make its values known to policy-makers. In this context, Nehemiah provides another excellent example for faithful people to follow. He was a true believer, which is why God answered his prayers and empowered him to hold a conversation with the king. The principles of Christianity guided Nehemiah and allowed him to contribute to the rebuilding of Jerusalem. In the present context, this example shows how God’s will can be made known to major policy-makers. The era of the Cold War virtually presented a threat of mutual and total destruction enabled by the lack of ability to compromise or negotiate from either side (Kirkpatrick 2021, 200). When politicians struggle to make positive decisions, it is a Christian’s obligation to remind them about the virtues of God and the value of human life.
Overall, in periods of global unease and conflict, Christianity has the potential to become the ultimate mediator. God’s teaching promotes love, acceptance, and forgiveness as the major virtues of all Christians. The Cold War was a clash of communism and capitalism in an attempt to redefine the global geopolitical landscape (Huntington 2011). Furthermore, amid political disputes, actual human lives remained under the constant threat of destruction. This Earth and the soul of each being that populates it are the Lord’s greatest gift, meaning that humanity is to treat them with due respect (Tutu 2017, 168). Apostle Paul spoke in favor of a united humanity, saying that “for we are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God” (Eph 2:19, NKJV). When confrontations erupt, this principle becomes compromised in pursuit of power and wealth (Black 2016). Thus, the main role of Christians is to mediate the conflicts, reminding global decision-makers that all choices should be in light of the interests of all humanity.
References
Black, Jeremy M. 2016. Geopolitics and the Quest for Dominance. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Huntington, Samuel P. 2011. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Kirkpatrick, David C. 2021. “A Gospel for the Poor: Global Social Christianity and the Latin American Evangelical Left.” Journal of American History 108 (1): 200-201.
Moyn, Samuel. 2020. Christianity and Human Rights. New Haven, CT: Yale Law School.
Tutu, Osei-Acheampong Desmond. 2017. “Biblical Perspective on Christians Participation in Politics.” World Wide Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development 3 (9): 165-170.
The paper is focused on the great historical event which had a great impact on the history of both countries – the USA and the USSR. Cold War had great political, cultural, and economic results for both countries. The paper shows the development of the event with every decade.
Introduction
After the Second World War, the world was actually divided into spheres of influence of two blocks with different social systems. The Soviet Union sought to expand and strengthen the so-called «socialist camp»; Western countries led by the U.S. tried to destroy the camp, incorporating the socialist countries in the zone of influence, which has helped create favorable conditions for activities on their territory private corporations and their increasing influence in the world. Despite this difference between the two systems, the basis of their conflict, lying, and general features. Both systems were based on the principles of industrial society, which required industrial growth, and thus increase the consumption of resources. The global struggle for resources of the two systems with different principles of regulation of industrial relations could not but lead to clashes.
The beginning of “Cold War,” 50-ies – 60-ies
On the 5th of March in 1946, speaking in the presence of U.S. President Truman in Fulton, W. Churchill accused the Soviet Union of the deployment of global expansion and the attack on the territory of “the free world.” Churchill called the “Anglo-Saxon world,” ie, the U.S., Britain, and their allies to resist the Soviet Union. So, the speech in Fulton became a declaration of “Cold War.”
But the front of the “Cold War” does not lie between the countries but within them. Nearly a third of the population of France and Italy supported the communistic Party. The poverty of war-torn Europe was a breeding ground for the success of the Communists. In 1947 U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall stated that the U.S. is ready to provide material assistance to the countries of Europe for economic recovery. Initially, even the Soviet Union engaged in negotiations for the provision of assistance but soon discovered that American aid would not be provided to countries where communists are in power. The U.S. demanded political concessions in exchange for economic assistance: the Europeans had to withdraw from their Communist governments. Under pressure from the United States, it was excluded from the Communist governments of France and Italy, and in April 1948, 16 countries signed the Marshall Plan to provide them with the assistance of 17 billion dollars in 1948-1952. Eastern European countries did not participate in the plan, creating a group of the socialist system. In January 1949, most Eastern European countries united in the economic union – the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Gaddis, 2006, p54).
Rivalry USSR and the USA would inevitably lead to an arms build-up of the two blocks. Opponents sought to achieve superiority in nuclear weapons and their means of delivery. Soon such means, in addition to bombers, have become missiles. Start of the race, missile and nuclear weapons, which led to the extremely tense economy of both blocks. To ensure the needs of defense created a powerful association of public, industrial, and military – the military-industrial complex. They need to leave the huge funds, the best scientific forces. Initially, the leader of the “race” was the U.S., which have atomic weapons. USSR makes every effort to create its own atomic bomb, worked on the task of Soviet scientists and explorers. Several engineering solutions have been obtained by means of the secret American intelligence agencies, but these data can not be used if the Soviet scientists at that time did not come close to creating nuclear weapons themselves. The creation of atomic weapons in the USSR was a matter of time, but this time was not; therefore, data exploration was of great importance. In 1949 the Soviet Union tested its own atomic bomb. The presence of bombs in the Soviet Union kept the U.S. from the use of atomic weapons in Korea, although this possibility has actually been discussed and senior U.S. military (Sewell, 2002, p130 – 131).
The first clash of the two systems took place in China. The second major clash of the two systems in Asia occurred in Korea. After the Second World War, the country was divided into two zones of occupation – the Soviet and the American.
“Cold War” resulted in both “camps” turned to repression against dissidents and people who advocate cooperation and rapprochement between the two systems. In the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, people were arrested on charges of “cosmopolitan” (lack of patriotism, cooperation with the West).
But by that time and the USSR could make an impression on the United States and the world for its achievements in the field of high technologies, and above all – in space exploration. The system of state socialism allowed concentrating more resources on solving one problem at the expense of others.
60-ies – 70-ies
In 1960 relations between the USSR and the U.S. have deteriorated again.
New U.S. President John Kennedy had attempted to overthrow the communists regime of Fidel Castro in Cuba. This operation has been prepared by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) – the main intelligence service of the U.S. – even with the Eisenhower. The Americans had hoped to overthrow Castro’s hands of Cubans, but the planting of counter-revolutionaries in Cuba ended their complete defeat.
By the time the Soviet Union was surrounded on all sides by the U.S. military bases, where there were nuclear weapons (Gaddis, 2006, p60).
As a result of the crisis, which brought the world to the brink of rocket and nuclear holocaust, a compromise was reached: the Soviet Union removed its missiles from Cuba, and the U.S. withdrew its missiles from Turkey and Cuba to guarantee non-interference of the military.
Caribbean crisis learned a lot like the Soviet and American leadership. The leaders of the superpowers realized that might lead people to death. Having reached a dangerous point, the «Cold War» slowed down. USSR and the USA first started talking about limiting the arms race (Warren, 1996, p99).
70-ies – 80-ies
In 1976 the Soviet Union began to modernize its medium-range missiles in Europe. They could easily reach targets in Western Europe. As a result of the modernization of disturbed balance of nuclear forces on the continent. In the case of the war, these missiles could be in a few minutes to destroy the USSR’s largest cities, while the U.S. at the time would remain invulnerable.
The final relaxation buried the invasion of Soviet troops in Afghanistan in 1979. “Cold War” resumed. In 1980-1982 the United States against the Soviet Union entered a series of economic sanctions. In 1983, U.S. President Reagan called the Soviet Union “Empire of Evil.”
By the middle of the 80 countries of “socialist” entered into a crisis. A bureaucratic economy could no longer ensure the growing needs of populations, wasteful use of resources has led to a significant reduction in the level of social consciousness of people has grown so much that they began to understand the need for change. The country was increasingly difficult to bear the burden of the “cold war,” to support allied regimes around the world, to wage war in Afghanistan. All the more prominent and dangerous was the technical backwardness of the USSR capitalist countries (Powaski, 1997, p87).
In these circumstances, the U.S. president decided to «push» the USSR is estimated to weaken the Western financial community; the foreign exchange reserves of the USSR accounted for 25-30 billion dollars.
In 1983, U.S. President Ronald Reagan put forward the idea of “the Strategic Defense Initiative” (SOI), or the “Star Wars” – space systems that could protect the U.S. from nuclear attack. The program is conducted in circumvention of the ABM Treaty. In the USSR, there were no technical possibilities to create a similar system.
Together with the external, internal factors significantly undermine the system of socialism. The economic crisis in which the Soviet Union put on the agenda the question of “savings in foreign policy.” Although the possibility of such savings was exaggerated, which began in the Soviet Union, reforms have led to the completion of the “cold war” in 1987-1990.
80-ies – 90-ies
In 1985-1986 Mikhail Gorbachev proclaimed a policy of broad reforms, known as the «adjustment.» There were plans for the improvement of relations with capitalist countries on the basis of equality and openness (new thinking).
In November 1985, Gorbachev met with Reagan in Geneva and offered significantly reduce nuclear weapons in Europe. However, after a meeting in Geneva, relations between the USSR and the USA once again deteriorated. USSR supported Libya in its conflict with the United States. U.S. refused to abide by an agreement on SALT, which was carried out even during the years of confrontation, 1980-1984. That was the last burst of the “Cold War” (Walker, 1995, p165).
In 1986, the U.S. administration abandoned its frontal attack on the USSR, which had ended in failure. However, it was that financial pressure on the Soviet Union, the United States, in exchange for various concessions, persuaded the Saudi authorities to dramatically increase oil production and lower world oil prices. Revenues Soviet Union depended on oil prices, which began to fall steeply in 1986. The Chernobyl accident has further undermined the financial equilibrium of the USSR. It is difficult to reform the country’s “top” and led an initiative to encourage more active bottom.
But by that time, the methods of pressure on the Soviet Union had changed. In 1990, to power in most countries of Eastern Europe came early supporters of “Westernization,,” ie the restructuring of society according to Western models. The reform, based on “neoliberal” ideas that are close to the Western neo-conservatism and neoglobalizm. The reforms were carried out in haste, without a plan and preparation, resulting in painful breaking society. They are called «shock therapy» because it was believed that after a short «shock,» it is easing. Western countries have provided some financial support to these reforms, in the end in Eastern Europe succeeded in creating a market economy on the western model. Entrepreneurs, middle layers of the young people have benefited from these changes, but a large part of society – workers, servants, and pensioners – have lost, and Eastern European countries have been financially dependent on the West.
Conclusion
Almost the exact completion of |”cold war” and the collapse of the Soviet Union led the world in the debate about the relationship between these phenomena. Perhaps the conclusion of the “cold war” is the result of the collapse of the Soviet Union and, consequently, the U.S. won that “war.” But by the time of the collapse of the USSR, the “cold war” has ceased – for a few years before that event. Given that the 1987 missile crisis was resolved, in 1988 an agreement on Afghanistan, and in February 1989 the Soviet troops were withdrawn from the country, disappeared in 1989 the socialist government in almost all countries of Eastern Europe, the talk of continuing the “cold war” after 1990 are not accounted for. There were removed the problems that caused the escalation of international tensions, not only in 1979-1980 but in 1946-1947. Such propaganda does not remove the fact that in 1990-1991 signs “cold war” is already gone. Completion of the “cold war” and the disintegration of the Soviet Union have a common cause – the crisis of state socialism in the USSR.
References
Gaddis John Lewis (2006). The Cold War: A New History, Penguin.
LaFeber Walter (2006). America, Russia and the Cold War 1945-2006, McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages; 10 edition.
Levering Ralph B. (2005). The Cold War: A Post-Cold War History (The American History Series), Harlan Davidson; 2 edition.
Powaski Ronald E. (1997). The Cold War: The United States and the Soviet Union, 1917-1991, Oxford University Press, USA.
Sewell Mike (2002). The Cold War, Cambridge University Press.
Westad Odd Arne (2007). The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times, Cambridge University Press.
Walker Martin (1995). The Cold War: A History, Holt Paperbacks.
Whitfield Stephen J. (1996). The Culture of the Cold War (The American Moment), The Johns Hopkins University Press; 2nd edition.
Warren James A. (1996). Cold War: The American Crusade Against World Communism, 1945-1991, HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
Research Question: How has the United States’ strategy-making process evolved from its Cold War ideology to combating the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) in preparation for the next possible conflict with a near-peer advisory?
Purpose Statement
Before the collapse of the United Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) in 1991, the United State’s strategy during the Cold War era had been one of deterrence to the potential threats of the USSR and its allies within the Warsaw Pact. September 11, 2001, marked a drastic change in the scheme for the United States as it began to address its vulnerability in facing the GWOT. As the United States ends its 20-year war in Afghanistan, we will examine the United States National Security Plan framework and its approach to imposing that policy within an emerging peer-to-peer multi-domain environment. We will view the different elements and variables that constitute a Grand blueprint and explore other documents that articulate the ends, ways, and means produced from this Grand Strategy. Then study how these documents shape the military-methodology campaign plan based upon the geographic theater of operations.
Hypothesis
The elements and variables that make up a nation’s grand strategy, the documents produced from the initiative, demonstrate how the scheme for the U.S. has evolved from its Cold War ideology to combating the Global War on Terrorism. We see through the framework of the National Security Plan that the United States has addressed its current progress toward the future of securing national and international interests in a multi-domain environment in preparation for the next possible conflict with a near-peer advisory.
Literature Review
Introduction
In the past 20 years, the United States has formulated a system for combating the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). Over the decade, the American government focused on Cold War and the imminent threats posed by Russia with the allies from the Warsaw Pact. In this case, the literature review focuses on the dynamic definitions of Grand Strategy and explores the program concept and the Geo-combatant commands area of operations. The literature further establishes the comparative frameworks on alleviating security issues while determining the apparent U.S. approach.
Grand Strategy
Definitions
Understanding the definition of Grand Strategy is an essential factor that fosters prominent insight into the security intention of the U.S. government. The establishment of a scheme means the presence of enemies and the interest of a particular power approach. According to Platias and Koliopoulos (2010), Thucydides focused on interpreting the mainframe under distinctive elements. In this case, the primary role of the blueprint encapsulated the diplomatic, demographic, economic, military, and psychological overview of the ideology. The researchers postulate that Thucydides in-depth focuses on the perspective as a broad spectrum without relying on the military and the acquisition of power.
War is a necessary concept under different scenarios cause of the attainment of power and balance. Clausewitz stipulates that a grand strategy is a map of a battle to overwhelm and subdue the counterpart. In this case, the philosopher focuses on a particular state of the framework under the military mainframe. It is crucial to establish a firm decision regarding the adoptive initiative to win and protect the territories. During the Cold War, the U.S. focused on alleviating the influential aspect of communism among its affiliate nations. The clarity of wrangles amplifies the soldiers’ understanding of the main priority during the encounters. After 9/11 terrorism, the American government implemented dynamic policies, including Homeland Security, to augment the attainment of the main objective. In a different spectrum, Yager (2008) depicts that the tactic involves directional power control that enhances the achievement of certain objectives. Primarily, the author focuses on the paradigm shift of dominance between the different parties. Contest emerges once there is a variance of the intentions among the participants, and the core baseline encompasses indicating the aptitude.
Composition
The Framework of a Grand Strategy
Different researchers establish distinct overviews regarding the framework of a grand strategy. In a study by Yager, the author establishes four components: ends, ways, means, and risk. Ends refer to the key objectives in a war as the reflection of national interests. Winning the battle means accomplishing the core initiatives from the spectral view of the involved leaders and the political influence. Ways is another component that fosters the aspect of resource utilization to achieve the initiative during the encounters. In this case, the researcher argues that the phenomenon renders the insight based on the next step of the process, such as a consequence for overwhelming a particular realm. Means is the definition of the dynamic utilities used during the exercise, mainly weaponry and the number of soldiers in combat. The reserves, either intangible or tangible, facilitate the operations’ effectiveness and include certain variables such as intellect, equipment, and money. The last component of grand strategy enshrines the articulation of risk indicating the gap between the set goals and the available assortments. It is the key ideology that drives the development of a plan for the practice.
Elements of a Grand Strategy
A grand strategy is a multidimensional phenomenon that enshrines the interplay of distinct variables. The different elements of the conceptual framework involve movement and surprise. The two components significantly contribute to the tactical handling of the major challenge. On the one hand, motion renders amazement to the enemies during combat hence emerging as a proactive initiative. On the other hand, the calculated psychological approach nurtures the overwhelming influence on the opponents. The main purpose of war involves demonstrating the authoritarian and dominant state of a certain philosophy. Therefore, Hart establishes the dynamic essentials as contributory insights to the foundation of an effective system.
Different Levels of Strategy
National Strategy
Grand strategy is an essential factor for the American government in combating terrorism that evolved along the gradient of power dynamics and is distinct from Cold War intentions. There are variate levels of the initiative based on the vertical dimension. The first phase of conflict entails the national spectrum that the administration and incorporates a map outlining the main entities to facilitate the acquisition of a component that spans the interests of the citizens.
Military Strategy
The second recline of the battle entails a military scale that encapsulates a plan for the movement and surprise by the soldiers during the tactical approach. It is crucial to establish the integral aspect of tackling the opponents’ intentions to attain power forcefully. In this advance, the blueprint indicates a profound insight into compellence and deterrence. Researchers establish that the mechanism supports a broader and more intense effect on the national program.
Campaign Plan Strategy
The campaign plan scheme fosters the prominent, influential value of the operations among the commandants and the institutional leaders to establish the inherent accrual outcome. There is an interdependent relationship amidst the definite stages of the methodology.
Documents produced during the Grand Strategy
U.S National Security Strategy
The grand strategy demands the national security plan policy presentation that fulfills the legal framework established in 1986 by the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act. In this case, the plan indicates the objectives of the government in promoting the safety of the citizens. Therefore, different administrations present a dynamic mainframe articulating the key goals of intensifying and investing in ideological resources. It is crucial to indicate the impartial ambition among the leaders on nationalism and independence.
Joint Strategic Campaign Plan
The campaign plan focuses on the initiatives posed by the military commandants regarding the advisory perspective offered to the Secretary of Defense. The framework plays a proficient role in the indication by the chairman about the major outcomes and opportunities of the grand strategy. Primarily, the mainframe enshrines an indication of the core element of interpreting and establishing the roadmap in the implementation of the objectives by the administration. It is the responsibility of the representatives of the armed forces to provide practical and timely details that attribute the decision-making amidst the executive team of the American government.
National Defense Strategy
The national defense strategy of the American territories engulfs the restoration of America’s glory in socio-economic and security frameworks locally and globally. The initiative fosters the alleviation of China and Russia’s influential aspect into the country’s adeptness and the alteration in the balance of propensity. America, China, and Russia emerge as major political dynasties internationally. However, the individual parties indicate that the prominent goal encapsulates leveraging proficient opportunities from other republicans. Therefore, the key outline engulfs protecting the sovereignty of the current order through such initiatives as United Nations.
National Military Strategy
The main goal of the national military strategy involves articulating the main approaches to incorporate towards accomplishing the interests of the citizens and the U.S. government. The main outlier is attaining the three composite elements within the mainframe, including war fighting, deterrence, and peaceful engagements. Ideally, the institution participates in dynamic activities within the country to boost socio-economic growth and development. As a result, the professionals focus on promoting truce while protecting citizens from foreign enemies.
Geo-Combatant Command Theater Strategy
The main aim of the geographic combatant command theater strategy involves the protocol and the necessary measures for the regional military during a crisis. It is important to strengthen the borderline and internal state of a nation by integrating security initiatives. America is a country that faces imminent threats from competitors due to its harboring of nuclear weapons and crucial technological equipment. As a result, the administration intensified the relations with neighboring regions leading to the development of such commands as the Pacific, Caribbean, Alaskan, European, Far East, and Northeast. The overviews foster clarity toward the attainment of the core unprejudiced spectrum.
Cold War and its Effect on the U.S
Cold War- 1985-1991
Communism significantly affected the U.S. economic growth and development because of the interplay of dynamic values. As a capitalist, the American government faced a profound problem after World War II due to the demand for labor and resources to reconstruct the socioeconomic system. However, other nations utilized bolshevism to establish the efficient rebuilding of the structures despite gender and ethnic disparity. It is contrary to America’s philosophy on private ownership of factors of production alleviating the inherent challenges of dependence and poverty. After the combat, tension intensified between the U.S. and Russia due to the distinct economic frameworks. It is an initiative that attributed the emergence of the Vietnam conflict and other South American nations to the American administration adopting Russia’s perspective. In the short run, socialism was a necessity to improve unity and cooperation among the residents. Nevertheless, in the long run, it was a threat to the enterprise profitability of a state. As a result, the American government focused on enhancing a proficient influential value across a broader scope of the global realms, elevating commercialism.
GWOT-2001-2021
After the 9/11 terrorist attack that led to a significant loss of lives and destruction of property in America’s New York City, the government implemented proficient policies. One of the initiatives involved the establishment of Homeland Security, which deals with terror attacks and the apprehension of suspects while determining potential threats. The approach rendered profound transparency and the assignment of responsibilities and accountability among the officials for effective performance. The global war on terrorism reflects the plan developed after the tragic assault that further intensified the mandates of the military commandants on daily status reports with a well-defined protocol to handle various situations.
Current U.S Strategy and LSCO/MDO
The current U.S. strategy is a structure that involves the interplay of distinct elements to boost performance in large-scale combat operations (LSCO) and multi-domain operations (MDO). The main variables attributing to the effectiveness of the National Security Outline 2021 in combating terrorism encapsulate leadership development, significant reforms, readiness, and modernization concept (U.S Army, 2021). The system nurtures the relevant stakeholders toward the sustenance of the efficient flow of operations and commandant controls from the various entities. The U.S. plan is against the near-peer threat cause of the effect of multilateral and bilateral effects from China and Russia. The phenomenon leads to the efficient intersectionality of the LSCO and MDO mainframes on battle fronts.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we have discussed the grand strategy, the documents produced, and how the strategy for the U.S. has evolved from its Cold War ideology to combating the Global War on Terrorism. We have also discussed the current progress towards securing the national and international interests of the United States in the current multi-domain environment as it prepares for the next possible conflict with a near-peer advisory.
Da Silva, Joseph, Hugh Liebert, and Isaiah Wilson III. American grand strategy and the future of U.S. landpower. Army War College Carlisle Barracks PA Strategic Studies Institute, 2014.
Yarger, H. Richard. “Toward a theory of strategy: Art Lykke and the U.S. Army War College strategy model.” U.S. Army War College guide to national security issues 1 (2008): 44-47. Web.
This paper will analyze the most significant events of the Cold War. On March 5, 1946, Winston Churchill delivered the banking Iron Curtain speech (Fink, 2017). This speech was the West’s Cold War manifesto against Russia. Churchill called for a fraternal union of the Anglophone nations and announced the rise of the Iron Curtain. The next turning point in the Cold War was the Truman Doctrine, proclaimed by US President Harry Truman on March 12, 1947.
The president requested $400 million from the government for Turkey and Greece. Eventually, the Greek and Turkish governments became under the control of the United States. In the same year, 1947, on June 5, the American politician George Marshall put forward a program to help Europe after the Second World War. The aim was to rebuild Europe’s economy and expel communists from power structures.
The confrontation between the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War resulted in international crises. One such crisis was the Berlin Airlift, which lasted from June 24, 1948, to May 12, 1949 (Fink, 2017). This was due to the Soviet Union’s blockade of the Western Allies’ road routes through East Germany. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was created on April 4, 1949, to safeguard the world against the risk of military confrontation amidst the Cold War. The main aim was to ensure the security of all NATO members. At the end of June 1950, the Korean War broke out (Fink, 2017). The preconditions for the war were set immediately after World War II, when Japan, which had controlled the Korean peninsula since 1910, withdrew its troops.
In the late 1940s and mid-1950s, the phenomenon of McCarthyism was born in the US (Fink, 2017). It is named after its creator Joseph McCarthy. McCarthyism was a policy of administrative harassment to combat the Communist Party of the United States. The USSR made a scientific breakthrough in the field of space during the Cold War. On October 4, 1957, the first artificial satellite was launched by a Sputnik launch vehicle. For the first time, rocket engines with a total power of millions of horsepower were tested. Apart from the technical confrontation, a military one was still in force. In response to the Soviet Union’s attempt to use the Suez crisis as an excuse to invade Egypt, the Eisenhower Doctrine was issued on January 5, 1957. Under this doctrine, any country could request economic or military assistance from the US.
Another Cold War episode that took place on May 1, 1960, is the U-2 Incident. During the incident, a Lockheed U-2 reconnaissance aircraft was shot down in Soviet airspace. The incident took place two weeks before the East-West meeting and was a severe blow to the reputation of the United States. On April 7, 1961, an operation organized by the Americans in the Bay of Pigs took a decisive turn in Cuba. The attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro’s government ended with the victory of pro-Communist forces. Another sharp deterioration in the international situation took place between 16 and 18 October 1962. The crisis was triggered by the threat of war between the USSR and the USA over the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba. However, the American and Soviet leaders – John Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev – agreed on a peaceful solution.
Reference
Fink, C. K. (2017). Cold War: An international history (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Historically, the space race was a stiff competition between America and the Soviet Union which lasted for a long period. The period was long because it lasted between the years 1957 to 19751. The space is believed to have occurred out of the Cold War and it was so intense because both the Soviets and America wanted to outdo each other. The competition between the Soviets and America was based on missiles arms that were to prove their superiority. It is in 1957 that the Space race started. It was triggered by the Soviets when it launched Sputnik which was their first satellite. To Americans, this was a big surprise because they did not expect it to happen. Having received such a surprise from the Soviets, Americans did not rest until they sent their first man to the moon. This was barely a month after the Soviets had launched their satellite. The American president at that time was Kennedy who had authorized an American to land on the moon. Initially, the Soviets had a very strong beginning as it launched its first satellite but this changed as America became a victor2. The space race was essentially the finale of the cold war which began after World War Two. It was distinguished by an oblique war involving the Soviets and America. As rivals, the relationship between the Soviets and America3 was based on hatred since they were fighting to overpower. The objective of this paper is to critically analyze the historic events that escalated as a result of the space race between America and the Soviets during the Cold war.
Cold War
Relationship between the Soviet and America
The relationship between America and the Soviets was based on enmity as both of them were fighting over power4. Although both of them were into war, they did not fight each other directly. Soviet and America fought each other indirectly and that is where the name cold war emanated from. The enmity between them was mainly caused by political, economic, and ideological differences. Politically the Soviets and America were sharing power since Europe had declined after the Second World War. This led to a poor relationship between America and the Soviets since each one of them wanted to dominate the other5. In terms of the financial system, America had capitalist ideologies and advocated for it across the world while the Soviets wanted to cut off itself from global trade. The Soviets feared that it would incur risk as a result of trading with Western Nations. Such differences between the Soviets and America led to more enmity6. The poor relationship between the Soviets and America was also caused by ideological differences. In this case, both of them represented two government systems that opposed each other7. According to America, the government was based on free elections and was one that allowed people to express their political opinions. In contrast, the Soviet government had strong ties with communism. Contrary to America, the Soviet government did not allow people to express themselves politically. These ideological differences contributed to conflicts between America and the Soviets. The cold war was mainly fueled by the fact that the two superpowers were possessing nuclear weapons.
Space Race
Probably one would think that the Space race existed only in the past years during the cold war. The issue of the space race did not only exist in the past years but is still mentioned by America’s government. Recently, President Obama in his speech said that he had better plans for the space race. His plans were to expand the space race to higher levels like Mars and many other horizons8. Ideally, the space race was a tough competition between the Soviets and America as both of them were fighting over superiority. It is believed that space was the climax of the cold war between the two superpowers. The Soviets were the first to initiate the space race following the successful launching of their satellite known as Sputnik in 1957. This was a big blow to America which was caught unawares although that was just for a short time9. Launching the satellite was tragic because the Soviets could use it to bomb America. Three weeks after the launch, America’s president who was known as Kennedy decided to send one person to the moon. By doing that, President Kennedy was still strategizing ways of defeating the Soviet9. In other words, he sent someone to the moon in order to show that America was still awake. Sending an American to the moon was not a very big deal and that is why the president came up with much better ways. President Kennedy wanted to come up with a tougher challenge that would go beyond the Soviet’s ability. In order to win over the Soviets, there was a need for the government to fund America’s space projects10. The space race was characterized by military superiority whereby weapons such as missiles were used. President Kennedy in his speech said that America had all the necessary resources and talent which it could use to overthrow the Soviets10. He further said that the problem was that America did not make good use of the resources. Apart from President Kennedy, other American presidents worked tirelessly to ensure that America led in the space race. Other American presidents included Richard Nixon and his counterpart Lyndon Johnson who saw the need of conquering outer space. In 1958, America established its first satellite accompanied by the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). National Aeronautics and space administration was an agency that was meant to explore space11. n reaction to this, the Soviets sent someone by the name of Yuri Gagarin to go around the Earth. Later in 1963, the Soviets sent a lady known as Tereshkova into space. America on its side was busy developing new satellites and as a result, it launched Apollo 8, which was a monitored space around the moon.
In 1969, America became the first country to send astronauts to the moon. Eventually, America won the space race mainly because it was the first one to send people to the moon.
Conclusion
Although the Soviet was the first one to launch its satellite, it was eventually defeated by America. The space race was basically an intense rivalry between the Soviets and America. This competition was characterized by enmity between the two superpowers and was an extension of the cold war. Thus, the conflicts between the Soviets and America existed even in the cold war. During the Cold war, there was a poor relationship between the two superpowers. Their conflicts were mainly because of political, economic, and ideological differences.
Reference List
Aeseng, Peter. The Space. US: Lucent Books, 2001.
Cadbury, Deborah. Space race: the epic battle between America and the Soviet Union for dominion of space. US: HarperCollins, 2006.
Harvey, David. “Between Space and Time: Reflections on the Geographical Imagination.” Annals of the Association of America Geographers 80, no. 3 (1994): 418-434.
Kennedy, John. ““Man on the Moon” Address. A special Address to Congress on the Importance of Space.” 1961. Web.
Kranz, Gene. Failure Is Not an Option: Mission Control from Mercury to Apollo 13 and beyond. NY: Simon & Schuster, 2009.
Krishna, Sutaria. “Obama Space Speech: New NASA Policy Highlights.” Quotes. 2010. Web.
Magill, Frank. Great Events from History.US: Salem Press, 2007.
Magill, Frank & Loos John. Great Events from History.US: Salem Press, 2006.
Stares, Paul. US and Soviet Military Space Programmes. A Comparative Assessment. US: American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 1985.
Wettig, Gerhard. Stalin and the Cold War in Europe. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008.
Footnotes
Peter Aeseng, The Space (US: Lucent Books, 2001), 45-76.
Deborah Cadbury, Space race: the epic battle between America and the Soviet Union for dominion of space (US: HarperCollins, 2006), 234-256.
Paul Stares, US and Soviet Military Space Programmes. A Comparative Assessment (US: American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 1985).
John Kennedy, “Man on the Moon” Address. A special Address to Congress on the Importance of space, 1961. Web.
Frank, Magill & John Loos, Great Events from History (US: Salem Press, 2006), 119-123.
David Harvey, “Between Space and Time: Reflections on the Geographical Imagination” Annals of the Association of America Geographers 80, no. 3 (1994): 418-434. Web.
Sutaria Krishna, “Obama Space Speech: New NASA Policy Highlights”, Quotes, 2010. Web.
Gene Kranz, Failure Is Not an Option: Mission Control from Mercury to Apollo 13 and Beyond, (NY: Simon & Schuster, 2009), 45-67.
Frank Magill, Great events from History (US: Salem Press, 2006), 57.
Gerhard Wetting, Sterlin and the cold war in Europe (Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, 2008), 89-110.
The end of World War II did not necessarily imply the beginning of peace but in reality, the dawn of other more complicated conflicts. The term Cold War appeared for the first time in an essay by George Orwell, a famous journalist and English author, entitled You and the Atomic Bomb, released on October 15 of 1945, immediately after World War II. The term defined the conflicts of the world as they unfolded after World War II. Despite its end, economic competitions, proxy wars, military as well as political conflicts, took the stage. These disputes involved both the Communist world, consisting of Russia and its satellite states and the Western world, consisting of the US, among others. Worth noting is that these clashes were not direct as it was for World War II. On the contrary, they entered in form of technological contentions, military coalitions, propaganda, proxy wars, and sports competitions, quoting a few. Who were the main participants?
Key Countries
The key countries participating in the war were Russia, France, Germany, the US, Hungary, and Belgium, Italy, among others, For instance, although USSR and the US were both friends and anti-axis powers, they could not agree on “…political philosophy and the configuration of the post-war world while occupying most of Europe” (Kort, 2001, p.3). During this period, there was a pronounced calmness coupled with international tensions. The two opposing sides sought possible ways out of the then tensions and conflicts. However, among the suggested ways like discouraging direct armed forces attacks aroused the possibility of giving way to nuclear weapons, a case that attracted immediate reforms, which later saw the end of the Cold War in 1991. The collapse of the Soviet Union that brought the end of the war gave way to the US as the major military power. The debate about what fuelled the war still rages. While some argue that, it began soon after World War II, others trace its roots towards the period immediately before World War I. The issue of communism serves as the root cause of the Cold War.
Causes
The plot of the Soviet Union to spread the issue of communism to all parts of the world stands out as the major cause of the Cold War. The Soviet Union, a ‘socialist island’ was planning to replace the prevailing capitalism with communism. Turker (1992) observed the efforts of the Soviet Union of ensuring that “…the present capitalist encirclement is replaced by a socialist encirclement” (p.3). If this were given the chance to happen, then the Soviet Union would have drawn many countries, and possibly the world, into communism at a time when the capitalist countries wanted capitalism to spread, rather than communism. However, following the then “temporary stabilization of capitalism” (Turker, 1992, p.45), collapsing of the world was the obvious outcome, hence the war. The possession of atomic weapons by America was yet another cause.
The fact that the Americans owned nuclear weapons posed aroused a lot of fear in the Soviets. Following the harm and power that is associated with nuclear or rather atomic bombs, the Soviets could not tolerate the situation, that the Americans, their worst enemies, had the weapons when they (Soviets) did not have. Therefore, they felt so insecure that they knew they could be outwitted, should the Americans declare war against them. In addition, both the Soviets and the Americans feared one another, as is expected of two enemies. They thought that each could decide to attack the other because they were both able and willing to do so and hence the cold war. The 1917 actions taken against Russia too explain the cause of the Cold war. Charles (2002) observes that “As a result of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia (followed by its withdrawal from World War I), Soviet Russia found itself isolated in international diplomacy” (p.6). With the Soviet Union unsatisfied with this, other countries suspected that the Soviets could decide to attack them any time when they were unaware. The issue of the partitioning of Europe was also a cause of the Cold war.
There was a disagreement concerning the shape that Europe was to assume after the proposed issue of its division. However, following the prevailing records of frequent attacks of the Russians, there was a feeling of insecurity by the affected Russians. For instance, the attack that they experienced that saw the death of millions of its people as well as the destruction it encountered during World War II, they resolved into nurturing their security by dominating most of Eastern Europe, a factor that contributed to a large extent the then US suspicions. Moreover, the attitude of the then US president towards Josef Stalin, the then Soviet Union leader contributed significantly towards the cause of the Cold war. Stalin was comfortable with the Soviet Union as a ‘Socialist country’, a stand that did not please the US president because he was a capitalist country. As a result, he (US president) developed a personal attitude against Stalin, hence the Cold war. Soviet Union’s activities in the regions dominated by the Americans were also fuel to the Cold war.
The Soviet Union had a share in most of the regions that America had taken control. The Americans wanted to establish their activities in their ways, which they thought were right, even as per the judgment of the capitalist countries. Therefore, following the entry of Soviets in the regions, they were not comfortable especially when the Soviets began their projects in the same regions. The Soviet kingdom was treated as evil and whose activities were unfit in any capitalist regions. Revealing this observation, Pillai (1998) exposits “In the ’80s President Ronald Reagan of the US dubbed the Soviet Union as an “evil empire” and predicted that it would be consigned to the ash heap of history” (p.13). In addition, there was a notable fear by the Soviets following the strong base that America had established in Western Europe. As the two were enemies, the Soviets feared that this could serve as a base for its attack by the Americans hence contributing to the Cold war. However, the Cold war not only had causes but also effects, which range from economic to political, as they unfold in both Eastern and Western Europe. The war led to the division of Germany.
Effects of the Cold War
Among the numerous outcomes of the Cold war was the division of Germany. Since the Cold war only meant the exclusion of weapons in the various conflicts, it led to other issues, which passed for conflicts though weaponless. One of the major causes was the plan of Germany to resist the divisions, proposed for it by other countries. However, since it refused the proposition, by the end of the war, it had assumed several occupational divisions, each of which was under the control of Britain, the US, France, and the Soviet Union. In addition, the Cold war brought significant technological progress in Europe. For instance, “Germany had new technologies that people these days would not be able to live without” (Charles, 2002, p.34). Only the armed forces could access internet services meant to facilitate the war. However, it is surprising to realize that most of the technological advancements evident today have their roots in the military officers, to whom the then inventions were restricted. This drives home the point that the Cold war was no more than a way of creating rooms for better things, technologically, economically, as well as politically. The war too affected society.
The war did not spare the society as well as the social attitudes of most of the European countries, which actively participated in the war. With France serving as the best illustration, its 4-trillion dollar debt traces its roots into the Cold war. “The Cold War changed how people thought” (Baker, 1998, p.45). Initially, people had learned from the war that they could kill themselves. However, this was the tip of the iceberg. From the unfolding of the war, they realized that they could, not only destroy themselves but also the entire planet. They also learned that, just as people die, so can the world. Despite the technological and industrial developments that came from the war, tensions and heightened competition came as a result. The proxy wars, evident today arose from the cold war, following the invention of nuclear gadgets. This explains the reason why many European countries have nuclear weapons, which otherwise pose a danger, not only to people but also to the world itself. The issue of communism was no more than the epicenter of the Cold war. It was the major enemy under attack by all, who were against the war. Fortunately, the enemy was defeated. In conclusion, one can ask, ‘What brought the collapse of communism?’
The collapse of Communism/Conclusion
What brought about the collapse of communism is a question, frequently asked, but rarely answered right. Worth noting is that most of the events that unfolded, communism included, because of the war were unexpected. However, there exist some insinuated and complicated reasons explaining the fall of communism. As Robinson (2003) puts it, “The fall of communism was the result of the complex interaction of all these causes on various levels, between different states, but also between states and societies” (p.32). The level of interaction, as highlighted seems to have played a major role in firing communism. However, in other countries like Russia, communism is thought to have arisen from within owing to its stand as a communist country. In addition, inadequate funds and support explain the cause as well. Eastern Europe suffered from both financial and political crises. Russia received a lot of support from the European countries during WWI, all of which is used for its defense. Unfortunately, this was the time it stood strong as a communist country. However, following the European states’ inability to fund it further, it experienced a rapid downfall not sparing its stand as a communist state and hence the fall. More reasons continue to arise including the issue of solidarity whose failure to end in Poland saw its end as a communist government, hence contributing towards the end of communism in general.
Reference List
Baker, P. (1998). Britain and the Economic Problem of the Cold War. Poland: Ashgate Publishers. p. 45. Print.
Charles, H. (2002). The Two Germanies since 1945: East and West. Connecticut: Yale University Press. Print.
Kort, M. (2001). The Columbia Guide to the Cold War. Columbia: The University Press. p. 3. Print.
Pillai, G. (1998). Reagan, Bush, and Gorbachev: Revisiting the End of the Cold War. Westport: Greenwood Press. Print.
Robinson, C. (2003). Aid to Russia, 1941–1946: Strategy, Diplomacy, the Origins of the Cold War. Columbia: The University Press. Print.
Turker, J. (1992). The Cold War 1945-1991. Oxford: Blackwell. Print.
The Cold War was remunerated from 1946 until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The United States and the Soviet Union came out as the planets’ two superpowers as a consequence of World War II. A probable universal conflict between these two authorities emerged when the war stopped, and began to emerge in captions almost instantly as the conflict infringed further and further on Europe itself.
According to research, there is no certainty that the greedy political endeavors of Stalin could have been shortened by a countervailing United States supremacy after the Second World War (Painter & Leffler 2002). While the safety of the Soviet State and its settlement Communist organizations had precedence in 1945, Stalin’s expansionist goals rose throughout the last years of the Cold War.
Discussion
Research shows that the menace of the Soviet Union expansionism after 1945 was the dynamic strength following the rising unity, and later incorporation of western European nations. Since both were in pain under the Soviet menace, it became likely for such opponents as France and Germany to join the similar coalition and lay the foundation stone for the European Union.
However, it seized less than a decade prior to safety and steadiness in the West to be understood and to be attached to a number of organizations. Research also shows that the external danger led to the worsening of relationships amid United States and Europe (Reynolds 1994). While the United States considerably amplified its military expenses, Europe struggled to reap the alleged peace bonus.
Unluckily, such an agreement was not in the United States’ concern; it sought for military “load division”. Actually, “load division” in the United States logically meant “load shifting” to the European states.
They were aloof to load this weight. When the Cold War stopped, Germany was barely the country which was capable of presenting the alleged “Gesamtkonzept”, or the future path plot outlining how European incorporation should carry on. This notion projected “intensifying” and “broadening” the European Union.
It demonstrated that the aged “German query” had been resolved, “that Europe’s supranational collaboration was no freak consequence of the Soviet menace, but a lasting denial of a two-millennium account of violence” (Lunderstand 2003).
The US foreign policy change in the Cold War period
The US observed an isolationist overseas policy before the Japanese assault on Pearl Harbor. The US had become influential before the WWII, but the US defense condition after the battle was diverse (Reynolds 1994).
The enhancement in technological growth of long-distance aircrafts, submarines, aircraft carriers, and atomic weaponry made the US rule makers to be vigorous to world rules. After WWII, the only state that would control the Soviet menace was the US, but this did not last for long as in 1947, the coalition was disbanded due to ideological disparity.
This is because of Stalin’s breach to the 1945 Yatta agreements, the aggressive pressure of the Soviet conquered governments on reluctant Eastern Europe nations, and a violent Soviet expansionism (Lunderstand 2005). During a long period of the Cold War, transatlantic relations seldom created deep separations in domestic politics.
In American politics, relationships with Europe were debatably the most consensual and least contentious constituent in the American foreign strategy. NATO quickly became a bipartisan holy cow; trade disagreement with the European Community rarely exploded with the resentment aimed at Japan.
In Europe, the US was sometimes a suitable political aim on the anti-nuclear left and the Gaullist and majestic right, but, with the significant exclusion of the communists, anti –Americanism did not become a constant line of political cleavage in politics of any main European state (Hughes & Dockrill 2006).
Even at times of strong difference between leaders on every side of the Atlantic, these interior relations were seldom demoralized for domestic political achievements.
As research indicates, Lyndon Johnson did not aim at the noticeably disliked Charles de Gaulle during the Vietnam War, despite the fact that such a policy might have prevented some of the domestic antagonism during the Vietnam War. Home politics served to steady transatlantic relations relative to intensifying elite disagreement (Lunderstand 2005).
This insulation of transatlantic relation politics began adjusting during the Reagan administration when the Cold War agreement in the US began to collapse. Until the Iraq war, Europe had not been a crucial subject to American politics, but home political style in the US now had obvious and, on equilibrium, negative insinuation for the steadiness of transatlantic relations (Kahler 2004).
The American communal view and the political results of financial interdependence served as fundamentals continued transatlantic relations. Political polarization, on the other hand, was a hazard to past accommodating relations, and could have been a potential medium for instability and probable disturbance. Foreign policy, in addition, was prone to be implicated by alteration in ethnic work.
Why the cold war dominated and hence shaped Atlantic relations
First of all, it was due to a bipolar arrangement between the US and Soviet Union, hence brought a stage of steadiness in the structure of the “long peace”. There were no developed wars among industrial societies throughout the cold war. Second, the notions of national safety and national concerns were considered during the war. The way of attaining them, however, varied from one to another (Kaiser, Leught & Rasmussen 2009).
Third, ideological dissimilarities between socialism and liberal capitalism also played an enormous role in the war. Ideology was not only a hypothetical device to assemble the masses and to give validations to what might otherwise be perceived to be unfair and illegal, but it was used to create an attitude to a better perceptive of cultures and organizations close to them.
It was considered to give a connotation to the international structure throughout the cold war and could work as a dynamic aspect in generating the dynamics of the east-west conflict.
Furthermore, alliances are said to have contributed much to the cold war (Kahler 2004). While the east-west conflict had broadened in capacity, and amplified the risk of a superpower nuclear confrontation, there appeared the need to bring together resources and intelligence, and create some kind of cooperation.
NATO is noticeably the first amongst contemporaries in terms of its permanence, elasticity that were accomplished during the cold war. Next, policy played a vital part during the cold war. The growth of nuclear weaponry called for a fundamental revision of strategic opinions.
In addition, the economic nature of the cold war, which was indicated by the Marshall plan, within the western, east-west operation, was the area where Western Europe and the USA clearly differed in the degree of limitations of trade with the socialist bloc (Hughes & Dockrill 2006). The Europeans sought for more business within the eastern bloc than their American equivalents did.
It should also be mentioned that the cold war was also concerned with cultural mediation, state-private systems, misinformation and popular ethnicities.
The escalation of information and technology and the diversification of cultures ranging from those previously independent nations in Europe to newly rising states in the third world predestined that a cold war society could simply find its means into the lives of the ample in form of books, movies, and periodicals (Painter & Leffler 2002).
Lastly, the United States and the Soviet Union both surfaced as anti-imperialist nations although the superpowers themselves became diverse hegemonic approaches to their customer’s nations or associates throughout the cold war.
Conclusion
The research above shows that Cold War occurred from the year 1945 to the year 1991 when the Soviet Union fell. With the United States and the Soviet Union having been the powerful nations, they controlled the war. However, the war seemed to support the transatlantic relations due to its strategic employment.
The US foreign policy which played a major part in the war, is covered in the research, as well as the strategies that the cold war employed in order for it to become dominant and hence shape Atlantic relations.
References
Hughes, G, & Dockrill, SR 2006, Introduction: the cold war as history. Web.
Kahler, M 2004, We are all Europeans now: U.S. Politics and Transatlantic Relations. Web.
Kaiser, W, Leught, B, & Rasmussen, M. 2009, The History of the European Union origins of a Trans- and supranational polity 1950-72, Routledge, New York.
Lunderstand, G 2003, The United States and Western Europe since 1945: from “empire” by invitation to transatlantic drift, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Lunderstand, 2005, The Atlantic Community, Germany’s role, and Western Europe’s Integration, 1950-1962, Oxford Scholarship, Oxford.
Painter, DS, & Leffler, MP 2002, Origins of the Cold War an international history, Routledge, London.
Reynolds, D 1994, The Origins of the Cold War in Europe: international perspectives, Yale University Press, New Haven.
The US in the twentieth century, as well as the whole world, was impacted by economic crises, world wars, political shifts, and civil rights movements that have shaped modern America. The aftermath of World War I induced economic instability and increased European debts to the US. A combination of interrelated economic, banking, political, and commercial factors contributed to the emergence of the Great Depression, which adversely affected the whole world, causing deflation, unemployment, bankruptcy, and panic. The government implemented its New Deal policy to solve the problem and reform the legislature on a federal level. The aftermath of World War II also had dramatic outcomes for the USA, which entered the geopolitical Cold War with the Soviet Union for global dominance. This paper will explore the causes of the Great Depression, the measures implemented within the New Deal, Cold War tensions, and the changes to the American society by the civil rights movement.
The Causes of the Great Depression
The Great Depression that started in 1929 was a global economic crisis that caused significant monetary losses, economic and political instability, and ultimately an armed conflict between the leading countries of the world. The preceding events played their role in the emergence of the Great Depression. The first cause of this global economic disaster was the crash of the stock market. At the beginning of the 1920s, the American stock prices increased rapidly; the intensified interest of the population to the stocks led to increased loans for their purchasing, which ultimately caused a decrease in share prices. People started to take away their assets, causing panic. Indeed, the panicking became the second cause of the Great Depression. In particular, it was the banking panics when people started to withdraw cash from their accounts to save their belongings out of fear of economic failure. This led to diminished bank solvency and monetary incapability.
Finally, the debt of European countries to the US in the aftermath of World War I was another trigger of the Great Depression. Indeed, as Norton et al. (2008) state, during World War I, the USA “became a creditor nation and the financial capital of the world” (p. 781). The European countries needed re-loans, which were repeatedly provided by American investors. This vicious circle led to international economic tensions and the continuously increasing debt that crashed the US economy.
New Deal’s Three Ways to Address the Great Depression
The New Deal was the program initiated in 1933 by the candidate and later President Franklin Roosevelt. The program anticipated structural reforming of the legislature, economic, and social securities to eliminate the burden of the Great Depression on a federal level. Firstly, Roosevelt’s New Deal aimed at implementing several recovery programs to boost industrial and agricultural spheres. This way of addressing the Great Depression was manifested through the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act (Norton et al., 2008, p. 754). It was anticipated that the entities would cooperate, and the lack of competition will help maintain stable prices. Secondly, work relief programs were initiated as a method of providing help and insurance to the unemployed and the elderly. Social Security Act was a legislative measure that initiated pension taxes to ensure citizens’ financial support upon retirement. Finally, in terms of new organizations, the President’s administration initiated special institutions, for example, the Civilian Conservation Corps that employed young people to do paid outdoor jobs (Norton et al., 2008). This helped create more workplaces and reduce unemployment on a federal scale.
The Cold War Tensions
Arms Race
The Cold War followed World War II and marked a highly tense relationship between two powerful nations, the USA and the Soviet Union. After the war, the USA possessed the industrial capacity for nuclear weapon production that had been anticipated a competitive advantage over the Soviet Union. However, the US’s rival also had the potential power to withstand the pressure and join the nuclear arms race (Norton et al., 2008). Both countries invested billions of dollars in the nuclear industry and weaponry production, concentrating the national economies around the need to exceed the rival’s efforts.
Differing Ideologies
Another aspect of the Cold War is the difference in the ideologies that were implemented in the two countries. The communist views of the Soviet Union were aimed at disrupting the capitalistic political ideology of the USA. And the US criticized the Soviet Union’s communistic political order and the totalitarian regime that was manifested through a dictatorship. On the contrary, the USA claimed to be a democratic nation that prioritizes human rights and freedom.
The Effect of the Cold War on American Culture and Domestic Policies
The Cold War lasted for several decades that has significantly shaped American culture and policies. As for the policies, economic growth was facilitated by government programs aimed at increasing the share of war-related industries (Norton et al., 2008). Due to the opposition in the ideologies and political views of the two rivals, Americans’ cultural life was impacted by the continuous dichotomy between democracy and dictatorship capitalism and communism.
Changes Influenced by the Civil Rights Movement
In the 1960s, the segregation of the African-American population in the US remained a legal issue. The increasing social movements were aimed at eliminating the problems related to diminished human rights. One such movement was the Civil Rights Movement, the leader of which, Martin Luther King, advanced African Americans’ rights to be lawfully treated with dignity and equality (Norton et al., 2008). The first change of this movement was the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which denied segregation based on race or religion. The second change was the cultural and social shifts in the mindsets of the white population of the USA, who started being more respectful toward racial minorities.
Reference
Norton, M. B., Kamensky, J., Sheriff, C., Blight, D. W., & Chudacoff, H. (2008). A people and a nation: A history of the United States. Cengage Learning.
The ideas suggested by Mikhail Gorbachev had a pernicious impact on the USSR and the whole communist society. The fact is that these new policies contradicted the ideological principles of the Soviet Union that had been fundamental for its existence and evolution for decades. Additionally, the majority of communist leaders were not able to accept these alterations because of their radical character and contradictory nature (Sanders, 2014). The principles of glasnost and democratization were introduced with the primary aim to reduce the power of the Communist party which was central to the state (Sell, 2016). In such a way, the principles mentioned above destroyed the basis of the USSR and preconditioned its further collapse.
The Cold War was one of the most important and complex periods in the history of human civilization. The confrontation between two superstates resulted in the appearance of numerous security concerns. Additionally, the emergence and fast evolution of nuclear weapons posed a new threat to the whole world. Incidents like the Caribbean Crisis proved the existence of critical discrepancies between the USSR and the USA (Sell, 2016). In such a way, the given period of history preconditioned the evolution of the modern world and the formation of peoples mentalities and the modern international discourse. That is why the Cold War period impresses by its fundamental role in the newest history.
Analyzing Gorbachevs actions and his incentives in the economy of the USSR, it is possible to conclude that the primary aim of these actions was the destruction of the welfare of the country, the growth of peoples dissatisfaction, gradual decline, and collapse. For instance, Gorbachevs anti-alcohol campaign resulted in colossal financial problems as about 100 billion rubles were lost during these years (Sell, 2016).
Correctly realizing the importance of this item of income for the budget he wanted to undermine the power of the USSR and trigger the growth of peoples dissatisfaction with the existing state. For this reason, using this factor and some other pieces of evidence, one can conclude that Gorbachevs primary intention was to destroy the USSR.
At the end of the Cold War, the USSR experienced significant economic problems caused by unwise Gorbachevs reforms and attempts to liberalize the Soviet society. Additionally, the focus on the rapprochement between the Eastern and Western camps accompanied by the proliferation of nuclear weapons resulted in the decrease in the level of tension between these superstates (Sanders, 2014). In such a way, the combination of these factors and the growth of peoples dissatisfaction in the state stipulated the peaceful resolution of the opposition and breakup of the Soviet Union.
Perfectly realizing the fact that the reformation initiated by Gorbachev would serve American interests, Reagan supported the First President of the USSR in his incentives. Being a vigorous anti-communist, Reagan reconsidered his attitude to soviet policy and tried to convince the USSR that cooperation remains the only choice for positive outcomes (Matlock, 2008). In such a way, both these leaders contributed to the peaceful resolution of the Cold War by engaging in close cooperation and demonstrating supportive behaviors.
Speaking about the final phase of the Cold War, we should admit the critical difference in relations between the leaders of the USSR and the USA if to compare with the previous ones. The fact is that both Reagan and Gorbachev made steps in the same direction which was unusual for these states Presidents (Matlock, 2008). At long last, it accelerated the collapse of the USSR and the peaceful resolution of the Cold War.
References
Matlock, J. (2008). Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War ended. New York, NY: Random House Trade Paperbacks.
Sanders, T. (2014). The world in the twentieth century: From empires to nations (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Sell, L. (2016). From Washington to Moscow: US-Soviet relations and the collapse of the USSR. Durham, NC: Duke University Press Books.
After a very long struggle between communists and capitalists, the Cold War ended in 1991, with the disbandment of the Soviet Union and the creation of newly independent states in Eastern Europe. At the time when strained relations between the US and the Soviet Union ended, the financial systems of several countries, particularly those in Eastern Europe, were in the process of collapsing.
Countries that embraced communism faced a number of problems, ranging from inflation to unfavorable balance of trade. In East Germany, many individuals were unhappy since they saw their Western counterparts develop and acquire financial muscles while they languished in great poverty. Food shortages characterized the Russian economy, as many people could be spotted lining up to acquire food products from major government-sponsored supermarkets.
In 1987, Gorbachev engaged the US leader, Ronald Reagan in talks aimed at resolving the nuclear energy crisis. The two leaders signed the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty in the American capital, Washington in order to end tension and anxiety, which had crippled the world. In the same year, the US agreed to remove over two thousand six hundred medium-range nuclear missiles in the European continent.
In 1989, Hungary defied the Soviet Union agreement and chose to conduct peaceful, free, and fair elections while at the same time demolishing the fence that divided it with Austria. Gorbachev surprised many people in the region when he decided not to intervene. In the same year, Poland followed suit by conducting free elections.
The Solidarity Labour Party defeated the Communist Party. A number of other countries in the region conducted peaceful and fair elections and kicked out communism. Other Communist leaders resigned due to public pressure. In December 1991, the Soviet Union was dissolved when the Russian leader, representatives of Belarus, and Ukraine disbanded the union.
The Cold War had ended, but its impacts were felt everything in the world. The challenges that faced the world shortly after the Cold War were brought by global structural developments, as well as the Cold War itself. As the Cold War went on, globalization was gaining prominence. Technology was developing at an unprecedented rate, with the acquisition of nuclear power and improvements in the transport sector being the major changes.
Technology contributed to the growth of globalization in the sense that it improved communication and transportation. People would communicate easily and at a reduced rate. Combination of the effects of Cold War and globalization resulted to serious challenges just after the end of the Cold War. These challenges include global terrorism, poverty, the widening gap between the rich and the poor countries, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These challenges will be discussed in detail in this article.
Terrorism
Technological developments have presented new opportunities to contemporary terrorists in a number of ways. This is due to the various technological innovations and its multifarious nature.
Terrorists use the modern technology in spreading propaganda and demonstrate their capabilities. One of the technological advancements that have presented an opportunity to terrorists is the internet, which is being utilized effectively to cause fear and panic among members of the public. Individuals are concerned with the information posted on the social sites. Moreover, terrorists have been able to recruit several individuals who would not have intended to join terrorism.
Terrorists justify their heinous acts through the internet, claiming that they fight for the rights of Muslims. Computer networks are often comprised in the modern society through cyber terrorism, which interferes with genuine governmental information. Through the internet, it is difficult for various governments to end terrorism since such illegal organizations receive funding through the Internet.
They request other terrorist groups with adequate resources to avail funds whenever they feel that their accounts are almost drying. It is indeed factual that terrorists in developing countries receive technical and logistical support from their foreign counterparts, particularly in Asia. This is made possible through the internet since all terrorists minimize traveling in order to safeguard their identity. Some terror groups are experts in terms of hacking, defrauding, and phishing other people’s accounts.
This would be conducted successfully without the owner noticing. In fact, a number of financial institutions, including banks have complained severally that their accounts websites have been compromised. This is a threat to many countries and private institutions since the type of crime was not common some twenty years ago.
Technological development led to the creation of deadly chemical and biological weapons, which is a real threat to human life. It would be extremely dangerous if these chemicals and biological weapons got into the hands of terrorists. These technologically driven weapons have the capacity of destroying human life and property. Through technological innovations, new telecommunication equipment, such as cell phones, emails, satellites, the television, and other sophisticated channels are in existence.
Terrorists are in a position to plan and execute a terror attack in an organized way without government officials noticing. In fact, many governments come to know when the attack has already been committed. Terrorist groups are able to use cellular and satellite communications to track down the activities of the government. Through the satellite, they acquire vital information regarding the prepared of the security agencies. Terrorists ensure that they train their members of technology in order to be ahead of the government.
Kilcullen noted further that terrorist organizations, such as the Al Qaeda, operate in over forty countries, with cells in all Arab-speaking countries, including Europe and East Africa.
A study conducted by the Jihadist organization confirmed that the 2001 attack of the organization in Afghan destabilized its operations, but the organization is active globally meaning that it poses serious challenges to both state and non-state actors. Al-Battar’s article, which is usually released by the Al Qaeda, claimed that the crusaders of the war against Islam thought they had destroyed the Jihadist organization when they destroyed Afghanistan.
Unfortunately, the organization had spread out to all parts of the world. In other words, the insurgent group was simply confirming to the world powers that the organization is international meaning that it carries out a series of attacks globally. After the 2001 attack, the organization embarked on a serious mission aimed at purifying the Muslim countries, destroying the Blasphemers’ fortress, and sending brigades to the Islamic countries worldwide (Kilcullen 598).
Studies suggest that terrorist organizations conduct their activities through regional theatres of operation meaning that they combine forces and execute heinous acts of terrorism in the neighbouring countries. The regional Islamic movements that are accused of perpetuating terrorism in various parts of the world follow a clearly laid down procedure, as per the Al Qaeda decree. The style of operation is usually similar meaning that they use suicide bombers.
Even though the groups operate in a similar, some studies suggest that there is no evidence that the Al Qaeda controls the regional terrorist groupings. Such studies suggest that Islamic extremist organizations are not monolithic groups, but instead they are complex organizations that are difficult to understand.
Based on this, Hoffman noted that it is indeed difficult to define terrorism given the fact that they operate in the same way, yet they are not under a single command. Hoffman observed that the term was first employed in France during the French Revolution, but its meaning has so far changed.
In the modern international system, terrorism is used to mean a revolutionary or an anti-government activity, which is carried out by a non-state actor or sub-national entities (Hoffman 15). The scholar observed further that the terrorism was initially associated with democracy and the ideals of virtue since its major aim was to force the government to accept competition, but its aim in the modern international system is different.
The major aim of all terrorists is to harm innocent citizens. Terrorists, both traditional and modern, share two major features, one of them being organization and systemization while the other is the aim to change the prevailing order. Terrorist organizations are difficult to define because they claim to fight for freedom and liberation, yet they have stand-by armies that inflict pain even to individuals whom they claim to fight for their rights.
Even Kilcullen claimed that western powers have always struggled to define the Jihadist organizations. Some western analysts are of the view that Jihadist groups are formal organizations while others observe that they are simply mass movements. Other scholars term it a franchised business organization whose major aim is to collect finances through abduction and infliction of unnecessary pain.
Poverty and the Widening Gap Between the Rich and Poor States
A number of theories have been developed to explain the cause of poverty in the third-world countries. Colonization and globalization could are best suited to explain the causes of poverty in the third world. It was clearly understood that poverty was brought about the nature of relationships that existed between the West and the East. Globalization was advocated in early 1990s, but it served the interests of the West. Just after colonialism, scholars developed a dependency model to explain the prevalence of poverty in the third world.
The theory challenged the modernization theory after it was noticed that the major role of international organizations, such as the United Nations, World Bank, and IMF, was to fulfill the wishes of the developed countries. The theory was formulated in Latin America to challenge the views of modernist theories. Gunder Frank, Samir Amin, and Dos Santos were among the scholars who developed and supported the theory.
Immanuel Wallerstein developed a closely related theory referred to as world systems theory to support the ideas of dependency theorists. Theoretically, dependency scholars are compared to modernization scholars since they do not agree on certain fundamental principles regarding underdevelopment in the third world. One of the major principles of the theory is that world economic problems, such as persistent poverty, cannot be understood without considering the global economic system.
According to the dependency scholars, the issue of underdevelopment in the South is not a natural condition, but instead, it is a result of the active process of economic failure related to global development (Gilpin 450). In fact, some scholars view underdevelopment in the south and development in the north as two sides of the same coin. In this regard, it is true that development in the north led to underdevelopment in the south.
Many societies in Latin America, Africa, and Asia are poor because the West made them poor. Capitalism led to a ceaseless search for profits. Since competition was intense in the West, the South was viewed as the potential solution to the increasing competition and diminishing profits. Since raw materials were transported from the South to the North, poverty in the South was inevitable. Because the South had no adequate raw materials after the process of exploitation, it had to depend on the West for economic development.
Some scholars have a contrary opinion suggesting that the West has been depending on the South for raw materials, markets, and labor, which has affected development in the South. The south is unable to produce its own goods since it lacks raw materials and adequate markets. Foreign goods have penetrated the southern market to an extent that investors in the south cannot engage in any productive investment.
Dependency theory insists that the ongoing relationship between the South and the North is not natural or accidental, but instead, it is synthetic given the fact that colonialists created it. The riches in the developed world are attributed to the imbalance of trade that takes place between developed and developing world.
Therefore, developed countries would not be boosting of the economic achievements without underdeveloped countries. Industrialization in Europe and North America could not have materialized were it not for the slave trade that took place between Africa and the Caribbean Islands. In fact, some scholars accuse multinational organizations, such as Barclays Bank and the IMF of benefiting from slavery.
The emergence of the middle class in Europe is attributed to an illegal trade that took place between Africa and the United States. Many people were forced to abandon their homes to work under unfavorable conditions in the Caribbean. The proceeds from the sale of cotton and Sugar, which was realized through forced labor, were taken to Europe. Haiti is usually given, as an example of a third-world country, which produces cotton and Sugar, yet is extremely poor to an extent of depending on aid from the US.
Dependency theory proves that Europe or the West underdeveloped Africa and the Latin America in many ways, one of them being taking away raw materials and labor. Many tools of trade, such as iron, were obtained from West Africa, including Nigeria and Ivory Coast.
Many societies were left suffering since able men were taken away to work in exploration fields while their families agonized in great poverty. This facilitated development in the west while effectively underdeveloping the South (Cohen 6). A critical review of the relationship between the South and the North shows that the developing world gave too much.
A number of countries embarked on research to establish some of the ways that would help them achieve their economic interests just after independence. Such countries were termed as underdeveloped and shared one major characteristic, which was colonization. They had just attained independence and the major problem was how to develop.
In some poor countries, it was believed that the development of industries would boost exports and subsequently reduce the overreliance on imports. At the same time, poor countries were faced with the dilemma of whether to support capitalism or communism, given the fact that the international system was characterized by bipolarity. The political and economic elite in the third world adopted capitalism since they believed that development would be achieved through the idea of private ownership of property and free market.
Based on the modernization theory, development was perceived in terms of economic growth. In this regard, it was believed that creation of industries was the sure way of catching up with the developed world, such as the United States, Britain, and France. The society was expected to adopt ideas that were closely related to those of the West, particularly in terms of designing institutions. The adoption of Western culture, such as opening up the economy for foreign investment, was considered modernization.
To be modern, a country had to construct dams and highways, embrace social changes including the abandonment of cultural beliefs, and instituting the modern system of education that relied on science and rationality.
Moreover, the state had to engage in political reforms, such as shifting from traditional sources of power to modern sources of power. This meant that the will of the majority had to be represented through parliament. States were encouraged to formulate bureaucracies, as well as other state machinery, which would preside over the affairs of society.
The theory dominated the international system in 1950s to 1990s when criticisms emerged. The theory was formulated based on the biological nature of organisms and later transferred to the study of human behavior. In this regard, each society grows according to a natural order. Development should follow a certain path, contrary to some claims that a development is a result of change, which is mainly constant in any given society.
The theory suggests that change should be dynamic implying that actors are expected to initiate them by simply following the successful model. Since Europe and North America were already developed, it was upon the developing countries to emulate the models and techniques that were applied in these developed regions. In Europe, economic development took place following radical measures that brought about industrialization. Therefore, developing countries had no better option other than adopting modernization model.
Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction
The third challenge facing actors in the international system as far as national security is concerned is the spread of weapons of mass destruction. In the current international system, even weak states, such as India and Pakistan, are in a position to produce nuclear energy. The main problem is not the production of nuclear energy, but its utilization. It is feared that nuclear energy would be a real threat to the interests of all states in the international system in case it gets into the hands of the extremist organizations and terrorists.
Therefore, a number of states, including the US, have formulated a number of policies to prevent rogue states, such as Iran and North Korea, from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. In 2005, a decision was reached globally that the intelligence community should utilize all possible means to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction because its consequences are severe.
The United States employs a proactive counter-proliferation strategy as one way of preventing the spread of WMD. The main aim of the intelligence agency is to collect adequate information that would help in the mitigation of the problem. In this regard, the inclusion of other actors, such as the supranational and other state actors, is very important. In fact, the United States has been forced to engage other states, such as India, to help in the collection of intelligence reports in Asia.
Gavin underscored the fact that nuclear proliferation is a real threat to American interests in the global system. In fact, the nuclear proliferation is the major concern of developed countries, such as the United States, France, Canada, Australia, and Britain. Based on this, Gavin suggested that the United States should reconsider its policy regarding nuclear proliferation and come up with policies that are more effective.
He went a notch higher to discuss the idea that nuclear weapons are more alarming owing to the second nuclear age. The rate at which nuclear weapons are produced in the modern international system is alarming and more dangerous to the sovereignty of the state (Gavin 9). On their part, Albright and Hinderstein observed that certain organizations are responsible for the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction, which is extremely dangerous to the existence of the state.
They pinpointed A. Q Khan Organization as the major distributor of weapons of mass destruction. The organization was formed in 1970s in Pakistan to engage in gas centrifuge program (Albright and Hinderstein 112). However, the organization overstepped its mandate when it started producing nuclear energy and weapons of mass destruction.
The National Strategy for Homeland Security report released in 2007 suggested that the US government has to develop the technology sector if it were to contain the influence of world aggressors, such as Iran and North Korea. The field of research should be developed because it supports the strategies that the government designs in keeping off the threats posed by weapons of mass destruction.
Even though some scholars are of the view that the topic on weapons of mass destruction should stop because the weapons have never existed in the international system, global powers should develop mechanisms to counter the spread of nuclear technology. Such scholars note that even though Iran and North Korea are accused of possessing nuclear power, they have not been in a position to develop weapons of mass destruction.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that the end of the Cold War presented new challenges to several actors in the international system. By the time the Cold War was ending, technological development had reached its peak, with improved transportation and information revolution being the major tenets of globalization.
Terrorists took advantage of technology and the ease of movement from one continent to the other to executive their heinous acts. On the other hand, the West took advantage of the East tom exploit it economically. The existence of nuclear power plants in various parts of East Europe allowed businesspersons to produce weapons of mass destruction for sale. The challenges facing the world after the Cold War include the nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and the widening gap between the North and the South.
Works Cited
Albright, David, and Hinderstein, Corey. “Unravelling the A.Q. Khan and Future Proliferation Networks.” The Washington Quarterly, 28.2 (2005): 111-128. Print.
Cohen, Joel. How many people can the earth support? New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1995. Print.
Gavin, Francis. “Same as it ever was, Nuclear Alarmism, proliferation, and the Cold War.” International Security, 34.3 (2009): 7-37. Print.
Gilpin, Robert. “Dependence and Economic Development.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 54.4 (1988): 591-613. Print.
Hoffman, Bruce. Inside Terrorism. New York: Columbia University Press, 2006. Print.
Kilcullen, David.“Countering global insurgency.” Journal of Strategic Studies, 28.4 (2005): 597-617. Print.