The cold war was a war between two superpower nations, the Soviet Union which believed in communism and the United States which advocated for free governance hence supporting a democratic government. The cold war can be said to have been caused by the difference in ideologies that existed between the two nations and the hunger to control and dominate the world as the superpower.
The cold war did not use military or army weapons; it used other measures to curb the power and the influence of the other nation. Economic restrictions and spread of propaganda against each other were used as the war weapons, as each nation tried all available means to destroy and weaken the ability of the other nation in expanding and gaining popularity.
The beginning of the cold war can be traced way back even before the beginning of the second world war that is after the Bolshevik Revolution and formation of Russian union in 1917. According to Leffler in his book The Specter of Communism (1994) the cold war was a political and economical war between the United States and the Soviet Union, which started few years after the end of the First World War, as they struggled to gain popularity and control over the world.
The two nations had differences in terms of governing, whereby the United States dominated by the capitalism and the Soviet Union dominated by the communism. Each state believed that its governing policy was more superior and should be adopted by all nations, thus they tried to influence other countries to form allies against the other superpower nation in order to reduce their power.
The major threats of cold war started with the raise of the Russian revolution under the readership of Bolshevik regime which was determined to spread the communism all over the world, by influencing and cooperating with various countries in order to outfit the Americans.
The United States and the Soviet Union did not involve themselves in any war, but aided the allys nations in fighting their opponents. In 1918 to 1920 the United States and Britain joined together to fight Bolshevik regime, but they were unsuccessful. After this inversion, the relationship between the Americans and the Russian worsened, the soviet attitude regarding the Americans and the west became even worse.
Upon the Bolshevik revolution, Russia was a semi-peripheral state and was still struggling to catch up with west which was viewed as most industrialized by then, thus the Russian spent most of its time and economic in strengthening its army. It also invested a lot in the manufacturing of the atomic booms and military ammunition in preparation to defend itself in case of war outbreak. Russia was suspecting that the United States were manufacturing the atomic bombs and they may use them in attacking them.
The landing of the American troops in Russia to assist the anti- Bolshevik in the Russian civil war increased the tension and suspicion within the communism leadership over the capitalism. After the involvement of Americans in the Russian civil war, the relationship between Russians and the Americans became a major point of suspicion and mistrust. 1n 1935 the Stalin adjusted his policies; he started forming alliances with the democratic powers in the western in order to fight the Nazi of Germany.
His initiative failed and he decided to sign the Nazi-soviet pact with the leader of the Nazi the Hitler. The signing of the treaty only increased the anti-soviet tension and the hostility in the western nations. This treaty delayed the beginning of the war between the two superpower nations.
In 1941, Germany invaded the Russians breaking the treaty signed between Germany and the Russian nations. After the attack, the Stalin withdrew his cooperation with the Germans and supported Britain under the rule of the Churchill.
Churchill and Stalin signed a treaty to form a formal alliance to fight against Adolf Hitler. The United States did not join the treaty as it wanted to remain neutral and concentrated in military upgrading. After the American Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Hitler, the United States joined the union formed between Russian and Britain in aid to fight Germany.
This alliance did not last long due to the disagreement that arose between Poland which was an alley of Britain and the Soviet Union concerning the support and cooperation of Stalin with Hitler after Hitler ordered the killing of Polish officers. Despite this suspicion, the western allies and the soviet continued to cooperate in order to defeat the growing strength of Adolf Hitler.
During this war, both sides had a lot of disagreements on various military strategies especially the opening of the second fight against Germany. The Soviet Union believed that Britain and the United States delayed the invasion intentionally in order to attack at the last minute so as they can influence the settlement of the peace with a view to dominate Europe.
Stalin saw that the United States and Britain waited for him and his troops to get exhausted so that they can defeat him and take control. Soviet Union suffered a great loss as it recorded a high number of casualties. This increased tension and hostility among the allied powers.
In conclusion it can be said that cold war started in mid 19th century some years before the beginning of the world war two. The major causes can be attributed to the suspicion and high tension that existed between the Soviet Union and the United States over control of the world.
The Americans viewed communist as enemies who needed to be monitored and controlled as they threatened to take control of the world. On the other hand, Russia under the Soviet Union viewed the United States as a major threat to their ambition of expansion, as they posed the main challenge to Russia.
The war remained cold without the use of military as each nation did not want to be directly associated with the cause of the war. The two nations just supported other nations that were fighting.
Americans supported the British army while Russia supported Germany army in the Nazi war until the time when the Nazi invaded Russia forcing the Soviet Union to collaborate with Britain and America in fighting the Nazi. The real effects of the cold war were fully seen and felt after the second ward war, where each nation viewed the other nation as an enemy, and they had to keep an eye on each other.
Reference
Leffler, M., P.(1994) The Specter of Communism. New York. Hill and Wang
The end of World War II has opened a new era in human relations and particularly, how Russians and Americans viewed the new world and each other.
The book by John Lewis Gaddis titled The Cold War gives accounts, different perspectives and analysis, as to what has happened after Hitler and Germany were defeated and what exactly transpired between the two superpowers.
The book not only looks at facts but also tries to explain why things happened the way they did, taking a deeper look into human emotions and governments of countries.
The book starts on a good note by creating a uniting link between Americans and Russians. Both nations were very much ready to start rebuilding the world but it was not as easy as it seemed.
The fear that started spreading became material and filled everyone with feelings of anxiety and lack of knowledge what to expect next. Of course, these sorts of things do not happen without a reason but here, the causes were not so apparent.
From the first triumphant celebrations it was adequate to conclude that the peaceful expectancies from Russian leader Josef Stalin and American, Franklin D. Roosevelt would be quite natural. But it turned out that there was tightness in the first moments of the wars end celebration.
When looking for the beginning stages of the Cold War, John Gaddis reasonably asks of the reasons why the two nations have had separate surrender ceremonies .1 It is obvious that the feelings that overwhelmed Russians and Americans were somewhat different.
For the Soviet Union, the war was a significant devastation and the amount of people and cities lost was enormous. Russian people felt torn into pieces and at the same time, proud that their unified efforts have helped to end the war.
The Americans felt that they have achieved a great step in the relationship with the Russian people and that it could not have happened without own efforts and cooperation. The first few events proved to be critical for the beginning of the conflict between two nations.
The suspension of shipments by Americans to the Soviets was seen as a specific gesture. For U.S.S.R. people and government this was an uncertain but factual display of some uncertainty and delayed hesitance.
At first glance, these minor events have been signs of animosity that existed between Russians and Americans, despite of winning the war.2
It is obvious that the governments of the two powerful world nations had their own expectations and assumptions, as to what has and might take place after the war was over. This was a political conflict that showed each nation with its unique qualities and differences towards the new world order.
The deep ideological views of the two nations have developed separately and events in each country have shaped what people were expecting of themselves and the governments.
John Gaddis compares the Bolshevik Revolution and the American Revolution as two great turns in each nation but the outcomes have been based on own reasons and expectancies.
The Russian leaders seemed eager to rebuild the world but what really happened, was further segregation and destruction of the order, peace and peoples hopes.
At the time of the Cold war, specifically its start, little was known of the regime that was taking place in the USSR. Even though the majority of people were led to believe that new brighter and better world was being born, the reality was much different.
The authority and truly cruel pressure that took place under the surface, was felt by the Soviet people but not seen from the side. It was known that people were being ruled with an authoritarian power but the interests of the government were not openly revealed which quickly created animosity between two peoples.
John Gaddis compares how the Second World War was fought by Russians in comparison to the Americans. The Soviets have lost 27 million by official counts while Americans, just under 300,000 .3
He reiterates that Americans very much had a choice of where and when to fight the battles and the war itself left the United States a country that had all the necessary resources to prosper.
Comparing to the Soviet Union, Americans have achieved a better world while the Soviets were in ruins and had to rebuild everything. This fact alone had placed a dividing line between the two nations and moved each one further away from understanding what had to be done and how.
The tight control that Josef Stalin had over the devastated people was surprising and undeniable. He has commanded for the Soviet troops to continue their pursuits in Iran, demanded control of the Turks and refusal to participate in some matters proposed by the Americans, which have distanced the nations.
The communication and cooperation that was expected by the American government did not take place and this has set even further misunderstanding in the matter of affairs.
An extensive part of the reasons, John Gaddis explains by the way other countries behaved and the actions of the superpowers in relation to smaller nations. These were actions that were not taken directly by the Soviets or Americans but the outcomes and alliances that each nation has had at that time.
The battles that were fought on invisible fronts between the USSR and Americans were numerous. The Korean War was one such example where interests of other countries and nations were involved.4 The Cuban Crisis and the Helsinki Process are other examples of indirect action between the powers.
The American government was using its resources to set control while the Soviet one was trying to do the same. Each newly elected government official had predispositions and plans that had their own ways of reaching the desired result.
The overall impression made by John Gaddis of the governments, is that all the conflicts were only a kind of show that seemed to be cutting and ending points in the Cold War.
These were mere isolated events; whereas the causes that led up to these events, as well as what took place after the conflicts died down, were the real perturbations of the Cold War conflict.
This was the time when peoples views of the world emerged. Every nation was in pursuit of its own order for itself and the remaining world. The reputation that the Soviet Union had in Europe was evident. It was respected and people had been given a glance of communism, lured by its benefits.
The rest of the world got the idea of how the Americans were going to set order, having an enormous amount of resources and liberal views of peace and human rights. Even though these between the lines conflicts and differences in opinions and goals might seem minor, they were the majority of what took place in the world.
Peoples personal feelings, dreams and insecurities were spread over large populations of individuals and countries which were fuelling the Cold War and heating up suspicions.
John Gaddis acknowledges that it is not only the governments that partook in the warregimes, personal views of selected groups, local rebellions and the fanatical reach for a better world order have upset the balance within nations and internationally.
Nations and societies were also at war, in their political ideologies, expectancies of peace and avenues of getting or forcing this peace onto others.
It is mentioned how easily the conflict could have been ended but people are often unable to see far into the future and thus, are left to their own intentions in fighting the immediate dangers, which are often produced out of insignificant insecurities and imprecise facts.
This goes to show how much limited cooperation and understanding there was between nations and people. It is shameful that history is full of examples when people acted towards fellow human beings in such a devastating and mistrusting way.
It would be safe to say that the Cold War was not between the two great nations but amounts to all people and their interests, and understating of what the world and life is all about.
These sorts of historical events should become an example of what animosity and antagonism lead to, while they are based on personal insecurities and thought up unreasonable fears.
Reference
Gaddis, John. The Cold War. New York, United States: Penguin Group Incorporated, 2006.
Footnotes
1 J Gaddis. The Cold War, Penguin Group Incorporated, 2006, p. 6.
2 J Gaddis. The Cold War, Penguin Group Incorporated, 2006, p. 7.
3 J Gaddis. The Cold War, Penguin Group Incorporated, 2006, p. 8.
4 J Gaddis. The Cold War, Penguin Group Incorporated, 2006, p. 60.
The end of World War II has opened a new era in human relations and particularly, how Russians and Americans viewed the new world and each other.
The book by John Lewis Gaddis titled The Cold War gives accounts, different perspectives and analysis, as to what has happened after Hitler and Germany were defeated and what exactly transpired between the two superpowers.
The book not only looks at facts but also tries to explain why things happened the way they did, taking a deeper look into human emotions and governments of countries.
The book starts on a good note by creating a uniting link between Americans and Russians. Both nations were very much ready to start rebuilding the world but it was not as easy as it seemed.
The fear that started spreading became material and filled everyone with feelings of anxiety and lack of knowledge what to expect next. Of course, these sorts of things do not happen without a reason but here, the causes were not so apparent.
From the first triumphant celebrations it was adequate to conclude that the peaceful expectancies from Russian leader Josef Stalin and American, Franklin D. Roosevelt would be quite natural. But it turned out that there was tightness in the first moments of the wars end celebration.
When looking for the beginning stages of the Cold War, John Gaddis reasonably asks of the reasons why the two nations have had separate surrender ceremonies .1 It is obvious that the feelings that overwhelmed Russians and Americans were somewhat different.
For the Soviet Union, the war was a significant devastation and the amount of people and cities lost was enormous. Russian people felt torn into pieces and at the same time, proud that their unified efforts have helped to end the war.
The Americans felt that they have achieved a great step in the relationship with the Russian people and that it could not have happened without own efforts and cooperation. The first few events proved to be critical for the beginning of the conflict between two nations.
The suspension of shipments by Americans to the Soviets was seen as a specific gesture. For U.S.S.R. people and government this was an uncertain but factual display of some uncertainty and delayed hesitance.
At first glance, these minor events have been signs of animosity that existed between Russians and Americans, despite of winning the war.2
It is obvious that the governments of the two powerful world nations had their own expectations and assumptions, as to what has and might take place after the war was over. This was a political conflict that showed each nation with its unique qualities and differences towards the new world order.
The deep ideological views of the two nations have developed separately and events in each country have shaped what people were expecting of themselves and the governments.
John Gaddis compares the Bolshevik Revolution and the American Revolution as two great turns in each nation but the outcomes have been based on own reasons and expectancies.
The Russian leaders seemed eager to rebuild the world but what really happened, was further segregation and destruction of the order, peace and peoples hopes.
At the time of the Cold war, specifically its start, little was known of the regime that was taking place in the USSR. Even though the majority of people were led to believe that new brighter and better world was being born, the reality was much different.
The authority and truly cruel pressure that took place under the surface, was felt by the Soviet people but not seen from the side. It was known that people were being ruled with an authoritarian power but the interests of the government were not openly revealed which quickly created animosity between two peoples.
John Gaddis compares how the Second World War was fought by Russians in comparison to the Americans. The Soviets have lost 27 million by official counts while Americans, just under 300,000 .3
He reiterates that Americans very much had a choice of where and when to fight the battles and the war itself left the United States a country that had all the necessary resources to prosper.
Comparing to the Soviet Union, Americans have achieved a better world while the Soviets were in ruins and had to rebuild everything. This fact alone had placed a dividing line between the two nations and moved each one further away from understanding what had to be done and how.
The tight control that Josef Stalin had over the devastated people was surprising and undeniable. He has commanded for the Soviet troops to continue their pursuits in Iran, demanded control of the Turks and refusal to participate in some matters proposed by the Americans, which have distanced the nations.
The communication and cooperation that was expected by the American government did not take place and this has set even further misunderstanding in the matter of affairs.
An extensive part of the reasons, John Gaddis explains by the way other countries behaved and the actions of the superpowers in relation to smaller nations. These were actions that were not taken directly by the Soviets or Americans but the outcomes and alliances that each nation has had at that time.
The battles that were fought on invisible fronts between the USSR and Americans were numerous. The Korean War was one such example where interests of other countries and nations were involved.4 The Cuban Crisis and the Helsinki Process are other examples of indirect action between the powers.
The American government was using its resources to set control while the Soviet one was trying to do the same. Each newly elected government official had predispositions and plans that had their own ways of reaching the desired result.
The overall impression made by John Gaddis of the governments, is that all the conflicts were only a kind of show that seemed to be cutting and ending points in the Cold War.
These were mere isolated events; whereas the causes that led up to these events, as well as what took place after the conflicts died down, were the real perturbations of the Cold War conflict.
This was the time when peoples views of the world emerged. Every nation was in pursuit of its own order for itself and the remaining world. The reputation that the Soviet Union had in Europe was evident. It was respected and people had been given a glance of communism, lured by its benefits.
The rest of the world got the idea of how the Americans were going to set order, having an enormous amount of resources and liberal views of peace and human rights. Even though these between the lines conflicts and differences in opinions and goals might seem minor, they were the majority of what took place in the world.
Peoples personal feelings, dreams and insecurities were spread over large populations of individuals and countries which were fuelling the Cold War and heating up suspicions.
John Gaddis acknowledges that it is not only the governments that partook in the warregimes, personal views of selected groups, local rebellions and the fanatical reach for a better world order have upset the balance within nations and internationally.
Nations and societies were also at war, in their political ideologies, expectancies of peace and avenues of getting or forcing this peace onto others.
It is mentioned how easily the conflict could have been ended but people are often unable to see far into the future and thus, are left to their own intentions in fighting the immediate dangers, which are often produced out of insignificant insecurities and imprecise facts.
This goes to show how much limited cooperation and understanding there was between nations and people. It is shameful that history is full of examples when people acted towards fellow human beings in such a devastating and mistrusting way.
It would be safe to say that the Cold War was not between the two great nations but amounts to all people and their interests, and understating of what the world and life is all about.
These sorts of historical events should become an example of what animosity and antagonism lead to, while they are based on personal insecurities and thought up unreasonable fears.
Reference
Gaddis, John. The Cold War. New York, United States: Penguin Group Incorporated, 2006.
Footnotes
1 J Gaddis. The Cold War, Penguin Group Incorporated, 2006, p. 6.
2 J Gaddis. The Cold War, Penguin Group Incorporated, 2006, p. 7.
3 J Gaddis. The Cold War, Penguin Group Incorporated, 2006, p. 8.
4 J Gaddis. The Cold War, Penguin Group Incorporated, 2006, p. 60.
Herbert Normans suicide was as a result of witch-hunt and malice of the Cold War America. Norman was claimed to be spy for the communists and was seen as a sell out by the American intelligence forces. The causes of his death can be traced back to his days in the university through to his diplomatic work and associations. It is therefore apparent that, his suicide was prompted by stress and depression stirred by the claims of being a communist, soviet mole and being disloyal to the oath. This can be confirmed by the suicide notes that Norman left to his wife and the Swedish ambassador to Cairo1. In this essay, I will discuss the causes of Normans death. It is important to note that, Herbert Norman committed suicide because of a series of reasons which all amount to witch-hunt. Among these causes are: Normans quest to study communism, false information compiled by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), his work in the Middle East, and his position in solving the Suez crisis.
Herbert Normans quest to study communism at the university contributed to the cause of his suicide. During his life as a student in Toronto, Herbert was interested in studying political theories. He was specifically interested in studying theories of Marx, Lenin and Trusty. This he did, but was strictly confined to reading. He however became more practical when he entered Cambridge. While in Cambridge, he started attending socialist sponsored meetings though categorically asserting that his mind was open and therefore could not be influenced. Norman later returned to Toronto where he studied his post graduate degree on communism, here he was mainly concentrated on reading. During this time Norman had not known any communists nor left wingers. In 1937, Harvard was the next stop for Norman. While here he participated in study groups though very conscious. He says that he would not accept any theory without questioning it.
In 1937, the world was in the middle of the depression. Norman like everybody else was concerned about the collapse of the capitalist systems and was open to receive any theories that would offer a solution to the problem2. Herbert Norman asserted that through his studies on communism for over five years, he could not see a solution in it. He was equally skeptical of the socialist system and concluded that, the British form of democracy was far much superior to all the other forms. To sum up his life at Harvard, Norman strongly disputed the existence of groups such as the Harvard communists and the Harvard progressive groups. Herbert Normans quest to knowledge sparked interest from his follies and hence associations put to question. This is especially seen when Norman is put under investigation by the American Senate Sub-committee. This sub-committee accused him of having been part of the communist cell when he was a student at Cambridge. The sub committee further insinuated that, the Cambridge four had a conspiracy against the king and Canada as a country. The report also alleges that, Harman was a KGB Soviet recruit. Furthermore some of the people he associated with during his study time were also alleging that Norman was a communist. One of such was people was Halperin, who made Normans name appeared severally in his note book. It is important to note that, Halperin was a communist3. Normans appearance in his book only meant that, he was a communist too. Norman strongly refuted this claims and says that, he knew Halperin as a college mate and was not aware of his affiliations to communism. He further says that his discussions with Halperin were limited to student days. We see Harman as constantly defending himself. This he does not do for pleasure, but to clear himself from already souring allegations of him being a communist. As we can deduce, Herbert Norman wanted to study communism and only associated with people colored with red. His explanations are reasonable enough4.
It will be significant to say that Herbert Normans suicide was caused by the false information that was secretly compiled by Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). The inaccurate information was then handed over to the FBI in 1950. The information that was given to the FBI accused Norman of being a communist, a possible spy for the Soviet and not keeping his oath of loyalty. The release of this wrong and malicious information took place when Heeney was the Deputy Minister of external affairs in Canada. When this sensitive report was compiled and sent to the FBI, Herbert Norman remained unaware that he was being investigated. Moreover he was not given a platform or a chance to state his position about the accusations made against him. The report forwarded by the RCMP was later found out to have been short of insight about the issue5.
It is important at this point of the discussion to mention that, Canada became an ally of the United States of America in 1945. This then meant that, Canadians worked in close collaboration with the United States especially in matters pertaining to communism. In addition, Canadian affiliation to the United States meant that, their diplomats were left with no option but strike a balance of speaking for National interest and playing on the American team. Some of the Canadian diplomats walked through this road and were completely subdued to the Americans wishes. One such diplomat was Lester Pearson. He however did not earn more respect in Canada. On the other hand, those who tried to contradict the United States policies were treated unfairly and lived with frustrations. This was because they were often branded as communists. One such case was Herbert Norman. The big disadvantage that Canada faced for accepting an ally to America was that, it could not influence the events that were going on in Washington. A special case in time was when Normans case could not be addressed exclusively in Canada. It happened that, the then external affairs minister, Lester Pearson was aware of the implication of such a report when it reached Washington. He tried to stop it but it was too late. It later turned out that the inaccurate RCMP report sent to the FBI only aggravated Americans need to cub Herman because to them he was a communist6.
The third cause that can be attributed to Herbert Normans suicide is his role and work in Asia. Herbert Norman took an active role and participated in issues pertaining East Asia. It is eminent that, Norman was a specialist in Japanese history. He was one of the core officials when Japan was occupied. What prompted Norman to be pursued by the Americans was his constant contradiction of the policies issued by the United States to East Asia. Because of his stern positions, he got an uncalled for attention from Willoughby, who was McArthurs head of intelligence. McArthur simply worked with him as a colleague because he wanted to use Normans knowledge of the country to his advantage7.
Notably, Norman was not the only one who was a victim of the United States intrigues in East Asia. Among the victims is George Patterson. He was a Canadian diplomat who formerly used to work for YMCA in Toronto. While in Korea, he worked as an acting Canadian representative to the United Nations in Korea. Patterson got Americans attention by working to avoid the division of Korea to North and South. On the other hand the United States had planned to establish a regime on the South. The two had a contradiction of interest. This scenario made Patterson fall victim of the United States witch hunt because he was branded a communist by John Hedge, the head of the United States operations in Korea. Another victim of the McCarthy witch hunt of the 1950s was Chester Ronning. He too was a Canadian diplomat. Chester served in China during the world war. He openly supported the many issues concerning the communist programs in China. In 1949, he lobbied for the Chinese communist government. He was immediately not allowed to visit Washington8.
To the United States, the above mentioned only confirmed an existence of a Canadian spy ring that was active in East Asia after the war. All the accusations leveled by the United States was purely because, the United States government wanted to have a direct influence on Asia. It therefore served their interests when the United States officials viewed those who were not reading from the same script with them in terms of policies as serving the interests of their enemies. In a matter of fact the United States officials were trying to simplify facts that that were of grave concern, a pure characteristic of authoritarian and populist regimes. In other words the United States used anti-communism as a tool to deal with the challenges posed to them9. Therefore, Herbert Norman, George Patterson and Chester Ronning are only but a few who fell to this trap. The continued suspicion and accusations leveled against Norman were building up and affecting him psychologically. When it came a time he could not bear them, he turned to suicide.
To Cairo, Egypt, Herbert Normans suicide was basically caused by the Middle East stalemate. Harman gave his support to the Egyptians during the July Suez Canal crisis. Furthermore, Norman condemned the 1956 tripartite aggression of the Suez Canal by the French the British and their Israeli ally. When the Suez Canal crisis occurred, Nasser was the then president of Egypt. Having the military experience, he forcefully and successfully drove away the British forces who had invaded the Suez zone. Nassers success antagonized the colonialists in the area, that is, Britain and France and their ally Israel10. This then led the three Nations to meet secretly to plot a way forward on the matter. This meeting saw Israel ambush a surprise attack on Egypt. Britain and France then pretended to come for rescue and ordered Egypt and Israel to vacate the area. Both parties obliged and what that meant was that the Britain and France invaded the zone.
The situation in the Suez Canal made the United States feel left out because they were not involved in the British French and Israelis cunning plot. The problem in the Suez Canal called for an immediate and lasting solution. This need prompted the Canadian minister for external affairs, Lester Pearson to step in. Pearson did not however work on this alone. He worked in collaboration with John Foster, the United States secretary of state. Pearson introduced and presented an emergency resolution at the United Nations general assembly. Pearson proposed the formation of the United Nations Emergency Force which was specifically intended to replace the occupying British and French forces in the Suez zone. Pearsons resolutions were adopted.
The United Nations resolutions were well received in New York. But then the resolutions faced a major problem. President Nasser was very skeptical of the idea to allow the United Nation forces take charge of the Suez zone. To him he could not understand how replacing the British and the French forces with the United Nations contingent would bring the Suez Canal back to the Egyptians. Nassers arguments were based on the fact that, United Nations was also a western brain and will only serve the western interests. It then took the effort of one honorable man; Herbert Norman to convince President Nasser to accept the United Nations resolution. Norman had only stayed in Cairo for two months before the Suez crisis broke. Peyton, the man who was commissioned to investigate Normans case described him as a man who won President Nassers confidence and properly used it in helping in the establishment of the United Nations emergency force11. This marked the first United Nations peace keeping operation. His endeavors to work with the Egyptian Government won him more follies from Britain, France and Israel. What this translates to is that, Norman in addition to being branded a communist and a soviet spy, was now adding to his frustrations and stress new follies who worked together to destroy him.
When Norman committed suicide, the cordial relationship that existed between Canada and the United states deteriorated. In Canada the people viewed his death as having been prompted by the United States Senate Sub-committee on internal Security. Canadians were furious and described the activities by this committee as Trial by Suspicion and Murder by Slander 12.
To sum it up, spying was at the heart of all major Cold War studies. This was eminent especially between the two forces, that is, the United States and its allies against the Soviet Union. The Cold War era also led to malice and witch hunts especially from the United States as a communism crusader. Herbert Norman was one of the victims to this witch hunt. He fell prey after he constantly contradicted the United States policies while in Asia. He was branded a communist by the United States military deployed in Japan. At that time, Tokyo played an important role in the anti-communist Asians and Americans. Therefore, any attempts to scuttle United States bid to have a stake in Asia was treated with mischief and witch hunt. Herbert Normans death was therefore caused by stress and frustrations he faced from the United States military and intelligence. The contributors of his depression date back to his quest to study communism, an incorrect report compiled by the RCMP which was then forwarded to the FBI, his work in Asia and his involvement in the Suez crisis.
Footnotes
E. Herbert Norman Suicide Notes, April, 1957.
Unknown, RCMP Report on Norman, (: November 27, 1950.
Library and Archives Canada, Canadian Security Intelligence Service Access to Information Act Request, 117-89-109
Library and Archives Canada, Canadian Security Intelligence Service Access to Information Act Request, 117-89-109
John Price, Learning from Herbert Norman, Historian of Japan, Canadian Diplomat August 28, 2007.
John Price, Learning from Herbert Norman, Historian of Japan, Canadian Diplomat August 28, 2007.
Lester Pearson, MacArthurs Cold War Plan for Japan, Mike: The Memory of the Right Honorable Lester B Pearson Volume 2, 1948-1954
John Price, Learning from Herbert Norman, Historian of Japan, Canadian Diplomat August 28, 2007.
John Price, Learning from Herbert Norman, Historian of Japan, Canadian Diplomat August 28, 2007.
E. Herbert Norman on British and French in Suez Crisis, January 3, 1957.
Jack Brayley, Norman Swayed Nassers Decision, Montreal Gazette, April 29, 1957.
William Stevenson, Norma seen Victim of U.S. Witch Hunters, Toronto Daily Star, April 4, 1957
The end of World War II marked the beginning of the cold war. This war was between worlds super power nations: the United States and its allied nations against the Soviet Union and its allies on the other side. This war took place between 1946 and 1991.
According to Ted and Reim cold war was not a physical battle, but a prolonged state of competition between the United States and the Soviet Union in terms of weapon sophistication, technology advancement, economic stability and political influence (19). The aim of this article is to depict what transpired during the cold war and several factors about the Cold war.
These factors include difference in ideologies between the two nations. The United States and the Soviet Union had two opposing types of government. Klaus and Lane states that the United States government supported multiparty system, democracy, capitalism, personal freedom and free elections but the Soviet Union was opposed to this system of governance. The country practiced dictatorial and communist system (17).
Economically, the United States supported international free trade but the Soviet Union was opposed to it and barred free international trade. The United States and the Soviet Union had power rivalry. Both nations were fighting to dominate the other after decline of Europe. Also, there relationship had deteriorated during World War II after the United States supplied weapon to Russian opponents. Additionally, the United States had turned down Russias request to help in stabilizing the economy after the Second World War.
Klaus and Lane state that this war came to be known as the cold war because the two sides: the Soviet Union and the United States never engaged in a physical fight. This led to use of others nations as battle fields by these super powers to prove there supremacy (1). For instance, during Vietnam War the Soviet Union supported North Vietnam while the United States supported South Vietnam (Klaus and Lane 139).
Klaus and Lane argue that the United States is seen as the winner of cold war, because the Soviet Union finally agreed terms of the United States which led to signing of START I treaty between George H. W. Bush and Gorbachov (185). According to this treaty, the Soviet Union agreed not to interfere with affairs of Eastern Europe.
It also agreed to establish contact with other countries and invited external investors to invest in the Soviet Union, a move they had opposed before (Ted and Reim 128). The United States managed to defeat the Soviet Union through imposing economic sanctions. The United States destabilized the countrys oil market by requesting Arabia to increase the oil production to cater for worlds oil demand (Ted and Reim 124).
This led to deterioration of the Soviet Union economy forcing them to introduce restructuring reforms. These reforms allowed external investors to invest in the Soviet Union. In order to revive their devastated economy, Soviet Union agreed to sign intermediate range nuclear force treaty with the United States to regulate nuclear weapon (Klaus and Lane 192).
From the cold war we learn, that any form of war has a negative impact on the economy growth. Both the Soviet Union and the United States spent a large portion of their revenue to support the cold war through funding projects to invent new sophisticated weapons, paying a large number of soldiers fighting in the war and channeling other resources towards the war.
Unity among nations is crucial to the growth of the nations economy, because it prevents trade malpractice and sanctions from competitor nations. Democratic government is better as opposed to autocratic government. It is important to allow people freedom, multiparty system and free trade at local, national and international level. Also, it is essential to introduce and support international security, trade and political policies to prevent occurrence of another war.
Lessons emerging from cold war have contributed to consultative decision making by countries on matters concerning international security, economy, trade and politics. In addition, these lessons are one of key factors which have led to formation of international union to create and enact policies on international security, politics, and trade.
Wastage of funds on military operation in foreign country is one lesson which has not been taken in to account by modern American foreign policy. The United States up to date sends the soldiers to fight in different nations. If these military operations are not well planned, they can adversely affect its economy as witnessed in the Soviet Union.
In addition, the United States has been developing nuclear technology and expanding its military capacity. Risks associated with these mistakes include: high chances of triggering another war, economic turmoil, lose of life and jobs and global division across interest lines.
War on terror is a characteristic by product of cold war because the militia who perpetrate terror attacks are funded and supported by individuals, nations and groups with common interest against the United States.
Additionally, fight against terror attacks seems to be between the United States and its supporters against terror groups who are backed up by some nations. From the lessons of the cold war, victims of terror attacks can opt to negotiate with the terror groups to solve this problem. Also, they can use military attacks, economic and financial sanctions to destabilize these terror groups network.
In conclusion, the cold war was between the United States and the Soviet Union. Although it was not physically fought on their soil, the two nations were adversely affected especially in terms of economy. The Soviet Union was much devastated by aftermath of the war and opted to sign treaties with the United States which led to the end of the cold war in 1991.
Works Cited
Klaus, Larres and Anne Lane. The cold war: Essential reading. Massachusetts: Blackwell publishers Inc, 2001. Print.
Ted, Gottfried and Melanie Reim. The cold war. New Milford: The Millbrook Inc, 2003. Print.
The post World War II world emerged as an arena between its victors. United States, which sustained the minimal damage during the apocalyptic war, was elevated to the status of the savior of the new world in the west whilst mighty Soviet Union whose winters not only mercilessly massacred the Nazi hordes but showed no mercy to even her native inhabitants, took command of the free east. What ensued afterwards marked the dawn of new breed of warfare that was garbed in diplomatic smiles and technological race.
The Cold War is among one of the most important chapters in the history of the United States. It wasnt just a mounting conflict between two powerful and egotistic nations, but titanic collision between two ideologies and lifestyles. Many saw it as a conflict between two rival nations, utilizing all their resources to prevent another 3rd Reich. That mutual hostility between both nations was based on half a century worth of warfare and revolutions and both were unwilling to give each other a chance to step forward and lead the free world.
But the Cold War didnt only affect the rival states; it also created turmoil within the both nations. In the east, the newly painted red Soviet Union, absolutely drunk on power and freedom became the flame tongued preacher of communism. With Stalin as the impeccable leader of the Soviet regime, a form of tyranny and totalitarianism prevailed in Soviet Union where freedom was crushed and restricted in the name of Leninism. Same way, United States underwent an anti-communist frenzy that had its political and social ramifications as the frenzy started to gnaw on the pillars of the state from within. The anti-communism frenzy that came to be regarded as McCarthyism was not only used as propaganda tool, but also as an instrument for political gains.
The World War II came to an end in 1945 when an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, thus ending the pacific war. Under the leadership of President Truman, United States had ushered the world into an era of freedom, but in doing, had garnered an adversary in the form of an independent and very red Soviet Union. The immediate difference became stark right after the end of war when Stalin and Truman got off on the wrong foot regarding economic co-operation.
The socialist-capitalist schism suddenly evident and silent waves of hostility surged form both Kremlin and White House. The fear was mutual. The Soviets, in the words of Whittaker Chambers, a rouge communist spy, believed that the Western civilization was doomed to collapse or revert to barbarism (Chambers-Truman, 1). On the other hand Truman was facing conflicts at home just as well and rallying against the nuisance of communism sounded like an adequate elusive tactic.
To further deteriorate the situation, in August 1948, Whittaker Chambers, a senior editor in Time magazine and a defrocked former soviet spy made a testament before House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) in which lodged allegations against some really high State Department officials including Alger Hiss, advisor to the former President Roosevelt and on of the leading names in the establishment of United Nations, of being communists. Even though the allegations were without any concrete evidence, they planted an incipient spy scare throughout the whole Washington.
This atmosphere of anti-fascist cooperation, anti-capitalist conviction, and lax security precautions enabled a small number of Washingtonians to lead dual lives as professional bureaucrats and devoted communists. (Chambers-Truman 54).
Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy used it as a political weapon and started rallying against the Truman establishment. This not only tarnished Trumans reputation but also coined the term McCarthyism which meant hatred towards everything red. Whilst United States was vehemently opposing communism, Soviet Union was on the cusp of Stalins Great Purge and Eastern Bloc was being dominated by the sickle and hammer. President Truman on the insinuation of his advisors in 1947 issued Truman Doctrine thus parting the gulf between east and west further. The term Cold War appeared first in an American newspaper in 1946, which Truman dabbed as war of nerves (Chambers-Truman essay, 30).
Ironically a war that itself was made up of an oxymoron was tearing the Truman establishment apart. As Soviet Union tested its first nuclear weapon in 1949, panic spread throughout the corridors of White House. The Soviet nuclear testing was a harbinger of an epoch where the world was rent apart into bipolarity. Truman blew the trumpet of war using the pretext that communism would swipe away the capitalist markets. By doing so, Truman managed to scare the hell out of congress (Holsti 214). He even fired Henry Wallace, the ex vice-president and the then Secretary of Commerce because he rejected Trumans anti-Soviet policy.
The Cold War entered a new phase after President Truman when Eisenhower took the Oval office in 1953. As for the East, Nikita Khrushchev became the ultimate Soviet leader and the war took a new form. Khrushchev intended to take the war from the battlefield to the space laboratories and economic fortifications, hoisting the banner of peaceful coexistence (Gaddis 70) yet flagrantly threatening the west with nuclear resistance. The Warsaw Pact of 1955 widened the gap further. The Soviet block, imbibed by the spirit of proletariat revolution also instigated many other oppressed and agitated nations to gain freedom under the red banner.
United States, the vanguard of Democracy and the scourge of tyranny had to do a number of objectionable acts so as to save many potentially explosive states from falling into the communist lap. The toppling of Irans democratically elected government in 1953 through Operation Ajax is one of the examples. The Development of ICBMs and the race to reach the moon or own the limitless space shows how much friction both rival nations generated. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 literally left the both USA and USSR on the verge of a nuclear war.
The cold war may have ended by the disintegration on USSR in 1991, but the truth is, the war wasnt so cold for the states that were forced to pick sides in a two sided world. Korea, Vietnam, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, all was the collateral damage. Caught between the crossfire of two giants who were hell bent on sustaining superiority over the other. Both USSR and USA had never had to face each other during the war, instead, pawns were moved and sacrificed resulting in the checkmate of USSR.
Works Cited
Holsti, Ole (1996). Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. p21.
Gaddis, John Lewis (2005), The Cold War: A New History, Penguin Press p70. The Truman-Chamber Essay.
Since the end cold war politics, there has been a growth in the Muslim population not only in the United States but also in other parts of the world. In the USA, the population of Muslims has increased in an unprecedented way owing to many factors. In Europe, France has seen the number of Muslims increase largely. This paper explores various factors that have led to the increase of Muslims and the spread of Islam, especially after the cold war.
Although the increase of Muslim population has been impressive, it is imperative to mention that the growth has been modest. The rationale is that it remains a minority religion in many parts of the Western world. Also, the paper will highlight the reasons that have hampered the spread of Islam in the US and in the modern world.
Factors leading to the increase of Islam
In the United States, the increase in the Muslim population has been modest. According to various religious analysts, Islam grew by 109% from 1990 to 2000 (Curtis 117). Although this percentage may seem staggering, it is imperative to highlight that Islam is not the fastest-growing religion in the US. This is contrary to numerous notions and perspectives that attempt to project the religion as the most attractive.
For instance, the growth of Hinduism was higher than that of Islam within the same period. Many factors have led to the increase of Islam in the US as well as other parts of the world. At the outset, the culture of Islam has allowed an increase of Muslim population. Demographically, many Muslims are within the childbearing age (Ahmed 61). This implies that religion is poised to increase in all parts of the world as the global population continues to grow.
Besides, Islam allows followers to engage in polygamy. This implies that an average Muslim household has many members than any Christian household. As such, children born in Muslim households are likely to follow Islamic teachings due to the influence of the socialization process (Ahmed 63). This implies that the Muslim population enjoys higher fertility rates not only in the US but also in other parts of the world.
Further, Islam has experienced increased growth in parts of Europe. In particular, France has one of the largest Muslim populations in Europe. The rationale is that Islam has been one of the major religions in France since the end of the cold war. Besides, France has allowed numerous immigrants from the West of Africa to work and live in the country (Curtis 132). Undoubtedly, the dominant religion in Western Africa is Islam.
As such, numerous immigrants do not abandon their religion leading to a surge in the Muslim population in many parts of France. Although the increase of Islam in France has been outstanding, it has grown slowly owing to other factors (Pauly 59). Also, it is important to point out that democracy and enshrinement of fundamental human rights have allowed the religion to grow in an unsurpassed way since the end of the cold war.
The justification is that every member of the society has a right to religion and no person should suffer discrimination on the grounds of religious affiliation. In the United States, over 60% of immigrants allowed to live and work in the country come from Islamic nations (Pauly 62). Immigration is, therefore, a major cause of the rise of the Muslim population in the US.
Another factor that has allowed the increase of Islam in the Western world is the anti-western rhetoric projected by various Islamic sects. As such, many people who believe that the Western countries have marginalized Islam and demeaned its teachings tend to convert to Islam. For instance, the war on terror that President Bush started allowed the religion to thrive and grow in a manner not witnessed before.
This is because many people who believed that the war was unjustified joined Islam as a way of showing sympathy (Pauly 43). This did not only happen in the US but also many parts of the world.
This has led to an increase in the number of people who sympathize with innocent people caught in the middle of the war on terror. According to Pauly, powerless people who do not support the Western attacks on Islamic countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq opt to convert to Islam as a way of expressing their dissatisfaction and displeasure (42).
Pauly says that Islam has continued to teach strict doctrines that restrict followers from converting to other religions (57). With the secularization of Christianity and Hinduism in the modern world, Islam has promised an alternative religion that does not allow secular teachings. For instance, many Christians profess their faith in different ways than the majority of Muslims.
Hence, many people in search of spiritual fulfillment find solace in Islam. Besides, the increase of immorality within the larger Christian community has played a big role in diluting the religion to the advantage of Islam. For the last few decades, cases of pedophile and gay priests typified the media, especially in the United States.
This has left many Christians with reservations about their religion. To this end, the increase in the cases of immorality that have continued to mar many Christian denominations has played a supportive role for Muslims leading to the high number of people joining Islam.
Finally, Islam is a monotheistic religion that allows all people from across the world to practice its teaching. This has demystified the notion that Islam belongs to a particular race. It has also encouraged many people who do not come from Muslim nations to convert to Islam as opposed to other religions. In particular, many financial institutions across the world have embraced Islam banking.
This service allows the followers to enjoy banking services that are in line with the teachings of Muhammad (Ahmed 72). Also, there has been an effort to dissociate Islam from violence.
Many people in the contemporary world have understood that Islam is a peaceful religion that values humanity and human rights. To this end, the religious clash that existed has reduced substantially. This has allowed Islam to spread in many parts of the Western countries especially the USA and France.
Factors That Impede Growth of Islam since the End Cold War
Although the rise of Islam and the increase of Muslim population have been impressive, it has remained at the periphery in many countries in the West. Many factors have hampered the growth of Islam in the United States and France. At the outset, Islam as a religion has been associated with violence and terrorism. As President Bush pointed out, not all Muslims are terrorists, but the majority of terrorists happen to be Muslims (Ahmed 78).
The stereotype and prejudice have made many people hold reservations about Islam. Also, the rise of radical Muslims in the Middle East and parts of Africa (Al Shabab and Boko Haram) has played a negative role in promoting religion in many parts of the world. According to many theologians, people fear religious profiling and as such, decide to remain in other religions.
For instance, there has been a widespread outcry in the manner through which American antiterrorism agencies gather intelligence. The rationale is that Muslims, especially in the US, live under the scrutiny of intelligence officers due to their religious affiliation. To this end, the association of Islam with violence and radicalism has hindered the growth of the Muslim population.
Also, the association of Islam with violence has substantial justifications. First, the teachings of Islam allow the followers to revenge through holy war (Jihad). This does not only limit the penetration of Islam in many parts of the world, but it also scares away potential converts. Besides, many theologians agree that the strict punitive measures that the religion advocates have made people be wary of the religion (Ahmed 82).
For instance, the religion prescribes the death sentence to a woman found engaging in adulterous activities. This is a violation of human rights. Such violations have made Islam to become an unattractive religion for people who would like to join it. Stringent measures and unreasonable pressure placed on the followers have hampered the increase of Islam in the world. It is worth mentioning that many countries have gone contrary to the teachings of Islam.
For instance, France was among the first countries in Western Europe to ban women from wearing veils (hijab) as a way of professing their religion.
Second, the processes of globalization and westernization have played major roles in hampering the growth of Islam. On the one hand, the process of globalization has led to the convergence of many cultures of the world implies that the world is headed for a singular and uniform culture. This has also affected religious cultures not only in the West but also in the Muslim nations.
The rationale is that globalization leads to the secularization of religions and cultures. As such, many people who migrate to the US from Muslim nations end up abandoning the religion (Ahmed 82). This is an attempt to be integrated into American society.
To this end, scholars pinpoint that over 60% of Muslims who migrate to the United States annually, only about half of them remain Muslims (Ahmed 78). This is because of the process of globalization. On the other hand, the process of westernization has brought new principles to the entire world. For instance, democracy and enshrinement of human rights are major principles that many countries have adopted from the West through the process.
These principles have contradicted the teachings of Islam despite their noble intentions. As such, many people have failed to embrace Islam due to its apparent abuse and violation of human rights. Besides, the Sharia law has undermined the democratic principles largely. As such, Muslims who embrace democracy end up joining other religions (Ahmed 82). Westernization process has also empowered women across all nations.
This has allowed women in predominantly Muslim nations to embrace such services as family planning and birth control. The net effect is a reduced number of people in households leading to a marginal percentage of people joining Islam. It is therefore clear that globalization and westernization processes have led to the unattractiveness of Islamic doctrines.
To end with, Ahmed points out that the role of religion in supporting societal structures has declined across the world (89). In fact, modern societies emphasize strong political and economic institutions across the world.
This has left religious institutions at the periphery. With the growth of atheistic sects, such religions as Christianity and Islam have suffered from a reduced number of people who incline to them.
Undoubtedly, despite the increase in the global population, there has been a significant decline in the percentage number of Christians as well as Muslims. To this end, it is apparent that the importance of religion as a social institution has reduced remarkably over the last two decades.
Conclusion
In sum, Islam has experienced growth in France and the United States since the end of cold war politics. Although the growth has been impressive, it is important to point out that the percentage growth of the Muslim population has been modest. Various factors have enhanced the growth of Islam in France and the US. They include immigration, Islamic culture and doctrines, democracy and anti-western rhetoric.
Nonetheless, the growth of Islam has not been outstanding. The reasons include the association of the religion with terrorism, westernization, globalization and a general decline in the importance of religion across the world. These factors have made Islam an unattractive religion after the end of the cold war (Curtis 141).
Works Cited
Ahmed, Akbar. Journey into America: The Challenge of Islam, New York: McGraw Hill Publishers, 2010. Print.
Curtis, Edward. Encyclopedia of Muslim-American History, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2010. Print.
Pauly, Robert. Islam in Europe: Integration or Marginalization, California: Sage Publishers, 2013. Print.
Since the end cold war politics, there has been a growth in the Muslim population not only in the United States but also in other parts of the world. In the USA, the population of Muslims has increased in an unprecedented way owing to many factors. In Europe, France has seen the number of Muslims increase largely. This paper explores various factors that have led to the increase of Muslims and the spread of Islam, especially after the cold war.
Although the increase of Muslim population has been impressive, it is imperative to mention that the growth has been modest. The rationale is that it remains a minority religion in many parts of the Western world. Also, the paper will highlight the reasons that have hampered the spread of Islam in the US and in the modern world.
Factors leading to the increase of Islam
In the United States, the increase in the Muslim population has been modest. According to various religious analysts, Islam grew by 109% from 1990 to 2000 (Curtis 117). Although this percentage may seem staggering, it is imperative to highlight that Islam is not the fastest-growing religion in the US. This is contrary to numerous notions and perspectives that attempt to project the religion as the most attractive.
For instance, the growth of Hinduism was higher than that of Islam within the same period. Many factors have led to the increase of Islam in the US as well as other parts of the world. At the outset, the culture of Islam has allowed an increase of Muslim population. Demographically, many Muslims are within the childbearing age (Ahmed 61). This implies that religion is poised to increase in all parts of the world as the global population continues to grow.
Besides, Islam allows followers to engage in polygamy. This implies that an average Muslim household has many members than any Christian household. As such, children born in Muslim households are likely to follow Islamic teachings due to the influence of the socialization process (Ahmed 63). This implies that the Muslim population enjoys higher fertility rates not only in the US but also in other parts of the world.
Further, Islam has experienced increased growth in parts of Europe. In particular, France has one of the largest Muslim populations in Europe. The rationale is that Islam has been one of the major religions in France since the end of the cold war. Besides, France has allowed numerous immigrants from the West of Africa to work and live in the country (Curtis 132). Undoubtedly, the dominant religion in Western Africa is Islam.
As such, numerous immigrants do not abandon their religion leading to a surge in the Muslim population in many parts of France. Although the increase of Islam in France has been outstanding, it has grown slowly owing to other factors (Pauly 59). Also, it is important to point out that democracy and enshrinement of fundamental human rights have allowed the religion to grow in an unsurpassed way since the end of the cold war.
The justification is that every member of the society has a right to religion and no person should suffer discrimination on the grounds of religious affiliation. In the United States, over 60% of immigrants allowed to live and work in the country come from Islamic nations (Pauly 62). Immigration is, therefore, a major cause of the rise of the Muslim population in the US.
Another factor that has allowed the increase of Islam in the Western world is the anti-western rhetoric projected by various Islamic sects. As such, many people who believe that the Western countries have marginalized Islam and demeaned its teachings tend to convert to Islam. For instance, the war on terror that President Bush started allowed the religion to thrive and grow in a manner not witnessed before.
This is because many people who believed that the war was unjustified joined Islam as a way of showing sympathy (Pauly 43). This did not only happen in the US but also many parts of the world.
This has led to an increase in the number of people who sympathize with innocent people caught in the middle of the war on terror. According to Pauly, powerless people who do not support the Western attacks on Islamic countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq opt to convert to Islam as a way of expressing their dissatisfaction and displeasure (42).
Pauly says that Islam has continued to teach strict doctrines that restrict followers from converting to other religions (57). With the secularization of Christianity and Hinduism in the modern world, Islam has promised an alternative religion that does not allow secular teachings. For instance, many Christians profess their faith in different ways than the majority of Muslims.
Hence, many people in search of spiritual fulfillment find solace in Islam. Besides, the increase of immorality within the larger Christian community has played a big role in diluting the religion to the advantage of Islam. For the last few decades, cases of pedophile and gay priests typified the media, especially in the United States.
This has left many Christians with reservations about their religion. To this end, the increase in the cases of immorality that have continued to mar many Christian denominations has played a supportive role for Muslims leading to the high number of people joining Islam.
Finally, Islam is a monotheistic religion that allows all people from across the world to practice its teaching. This has demystified the notion that Islam belongs to a particular race. It has also encouraged many people who do not come from Muslim nations to convert to Islam as opposed to other religions. In particular, many financial institutions across the world have embraced Islam banking.
This service allows the followers to enjoy banking services that are in line with the teachings of Muhammad (Ahmed 72). Also, there has been an effort to dissociate Islam from violence.
Many people in the contemporary world have understood that Islam is a peaceful religion that values humanity and human rights. To this end, the religious clash that existed has reduced substantially. This has allowed Islam to spread in many parts of the Western countries especially the USA and France.
Factors That Impede Growth of Islam since the End Cold War
Although the rise of Islam and the increase of Muslim population have been impressive, it has remained at the periphery in many countries in the West. Many factors have hampered the growth of Islam in the United States and France. At the outset, Islam as a religion has been associated with violence and terrorism. As President Bush pointed out, not all Muslims are terrorists, but the majority of terrorists happen to be Muslims (Ahmed 78).
The stereotype and prejudice have made many people hold reservations about Islam. Also, the rise of radical Muslims in the Middle East and parts of Africa (Al Shabab and Boko Haram) has played a negative role in promoting religion in many parts of the world. According to many theologians, people fear religious profiling and as such, decide to remain in other religions.
For instance, there has been a widespread outcry in the manner through which American antiterrorism agencies gather intelligence. The rationale is that Muslims, especially in the US, live under the scrutiny of intelligence officers due to their religious affiliation. To this end, the association of Islam with violence and radicalism has hindered the growth of the Muslim population.
Also, the association of Islam with violence has substantial justifications. First, the teachings of Islam allow the followers to revenge through holy war (Jihad). This does not only limit the penetration of Islam in many parts of the world, but it also scares away potential converts. Besides, many theologians agree that the strict punitive measures that the religion advocates have made people be wary of the religion (Ahmed 82).
For instance, the religion prescribes the death sentence to a woman found engaging in adulterous activities. This is a violation of human rights. Such violations have made Islam to become an unattractive religion for people who would like to join it. Stringent measures and unreasonable pressure placed on the followers have hampered the increase of Islam in the world. It is worth mentioning that many countries have gone contrary to the teachings of Islam.
For instance, France was among the first countries in Western Europe to ban women from wearing veils (hijab) as a way of professing their religion.
Second, the processes of globalization and westernization have played major roles in hampering the growth of Islam. On the one hand, the process of globalization has led to the convergence of many cultures of the world implies that the world is headed for a singular and uniform culture. This has also affected religious cultures not only in the West but also in the Muslim nations.
The rationale is that globalization leads to the secularization of religions and cultures. As such, many people who migrate to the US from Muslim nations end up abandoning the religion (Ahmed 82). This is an attempt to be integrated into American society.
To this end, scholars pinpoint that over 60% of Muslims who migrate to the United States annually, only about half of them remain Muslims (Ahmed 78). This is because of the process of globalization. On the other hand, the process of westernization has brought new principles to the entire world. For instance, democracy and enshrinement of human rights are major principles that many countries have adopted from the West through the process.
These principles have contradicted the teachings of Islam despite their noble intentions. As such, many people have failed to embrace Islam due to its apparent abuse and violation of human rights. Besides, the Sharia law has undermined the democratic principles largely. As such, Muslims who embrace democracy end up joining other religions (Ahmed 82). Westernization process has also empowered women across all nations.
This has allowed women in predominantly Muslim nations to embrace such services as family planning and birth control. The net effect is a reduced number of people in households leading to a marginal percentage of people joining Islam. It is therefore clear that globalization and westernization processes have led to the unattractiveness of Islamic doctrines.
To end with, Ahmed points out that the role of religion in supporting societal structures has declined across the world (89). In fact, modern societies emphasize strong political and economic institutions across the world.
This has left religious institutions at the periphery. With the growth of atheistic sects, such religions as Christianity and Islam have suffered from a reduced number of people who incline to them.
Undoubtedly, despite the increase in the global population, there has been a significant decline in the percentage number of Christians as well as Muslims. To this end, it is apparent that the importance of religion as a social institution has reduced remarkably over the last two decades.
Conclusion
In sum, Islam has experienced growth in France and the United States since the end of cold war politics. Although the growth has been impressive, it is important to point out that the percentage growth of the Muslim population has been modest. Various factors have enhanced the growth of Islam in France and the US. They include immigration, Islamic culture and doctrines, democracy and anti-western rhetoric.
Nonetheless, the growth of Islam has not been outstanding. The reasons include the association of the religion with terrorism, westernization, globalization and a general decline in the importance of religion across the world. These factors have made Islam an unattractive religion after the end of the cold war (Curtis 141).
Works Cited
Ahmed, Akbar. Journey into America: The Challenge of Islam, New York: McGraw Hill Publishers, 2010. Print.
Curtis, Edward. Encyclopedia of Muslim-American History, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2010. Print.
Pauly, Robert. Islam in Europe: Integration or Marginalization, California: Sage Publishers, 2013. Print.
The Cold War was the repercussion of World War II following the emergence of two key supremacy blocs in Europe one of which was subjugated by ideologies of the democracy of the capitalist America. The other one was led by communism and the Soviet Union ideologies.
The two blocs never involved themselves in actual battlefields. In 1947, Baruch, an adviser to Harry Truman, popularised the term Cold War. Baruch used the words Cold War while addressing the legislature of South Carolina State on 16 April 1947 (Baruch and Melly 425). One can trace the origins of the Cold War back based on the relations that existed between the United States, Soviet Union, France, and Britain between 1945 and 1947 as the paper reveals.
Pre-World War II Economic Differences
The revolution that occurred in Russia in 1917 to form the Soviet Russia forms the basis of the Cold War based on the big differences of ideologies and economic positions that arose between the western powers and the capitalist nations. This was happening at a time when Russia was isolated by other major nations in matters of global diplomacy (Lee and Josey 59). There existed variations in economic and political organisation in Russia.
The western powers took advantage of this situation to predate Russia. In 1918, the United States of America sent its troops to Russia to assist the anti-Bolsheviks during the civil war in Russia. This was the first major source of suspicion of the Soviet concerning the Capitalist America (Gaddis and Lenny 570). At this point Russia had differed with the western powers due to its decision to become part of the democratic capitalist economy of the world during the 19th century.
Russia therefore became determined to break from this dependence through a radical pull out from the economic system of the world that was dominated by the capitalist (Tucker and Carlos 34). This formed the basis of the mistrust that ensued later on between the two blocs and hence the Cold War. This fuelled the gap between America and Russia further through fear and mistrust.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact
Another foundation of the Cold War is the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. This followed the signing of a trade pact by Germany and the Soviet Union (Ericson 57). This agreement was to allow the exchange of civilian and military equipments from Germany for industrial raw materials from the Soviet Union (Shirer 1990, p.668).
This was known as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. However, this agreement had a hidden side where Germany and Russia agreed to control the eastern part of Europe and Poland by themselves (Day et al 405). This was followed by the invasion of Poland by Germany just a week later (Tearsy and Kennedy 82). However, this agreement was broken by Germany in 1941 due to a series of aggressions.
The two powers continued to trade especially through the Soviet Union acquiring weapons from Germany in exchange of rubber, oil, and manganese. This was a foundation of the relationship between the two powers before the World War II. However, the Soviet Russia found itself isolated from international diplomacy (Tearsy and Kennedy 82). With the Soviet Union unsatisfied with this, other countries suspected that the Soviets could decide to attack them any time when they were unaware and hence the war.
The World War II Differences
When Germany invaded Russia, the soviet united with the western European countries and with America. This was aimed at winning against Adolf Hitler who was their seemingly common and major enemy. This war changed the balance of power in the world. Europe became weaker while the United States and Russia became super powers.
These super powers had a great strength of the military. The alliances formed at this point were war based. They did not live long since, by the beginning of 1943, every side of the alliance was looking at its own interest of the war. For example, Russia took control of many parts of the Eastern Europe where she intended to install her ideologies in the countries in a bid to shield them from the influence of the capitalist.
Regardless of complains from the other members of the alliance, Russia continued with her efforts to impose its communist ideologies on what they conquered. Russia was so powerful to the point of leaving the other members watching her impose her ideologies on large parts of Eastern Europe, Balkans, and even Poland. After the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Soviet under Stalin immediately protested since Tuman gave it minimal influence of occupying Japan (Tucker and Carlos 35).
Immediately after the Second World War ended, the United States of America embanked on shipping of materials to the United Soviet Socialist Republic from America. This indicated that the relationship between the two nations was only formed for winning the war with nothing else to bid it. The two nations differed on this and began a quick competition between them in order to determine who was superior to the other hence the Cold War.
Period of distrust between Capitalist and Communist
After the end of the Second World War, there existed a variation of perceptions between the United States and the Soviet Union. Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union assumed that he would be assisted by America in reconstructing his country after the war in a bid to make Russia a good market for her industrial goods.
The need for assistance arose because industrialisation and marketing of industrial goods had enabled the United States get out of the great depression. Therefore, Stalin envisioned the urgent Americas need for market (William 63) though this did not materialise.
When World War II ended in 1945, there were two bloc divisions in Europe. Armies from western part of America occupied one side while armies from Russian east occupied the other bloc. The two blocs, capitalist America and communist Russia, had two opposing aspirations for Europe. The capitalist America wanted Europe to be democratic with no influence from communism while Russia sought after a non-capitalist Europe where it subjugated.
At the beginning, Joseph Stalin of Russia believed that capitalism would easily collapse due to the in fighting of its leaders (Wettig and Haron 24). However, with time, the leaders became more organised and powerful. This intensified the rivalry. The west feared that Russia would invade them. On the other hand, Russia feared that the capitalists would make atomic bombs.
Russia also feared that the west would dominate the worlds economy while the capitalists feared that their economy would collapse due to this competition. The two blocs also differed in ideas of how the world order should be directed. The Soviets also feared that Germany might rearm herself and cause havoc in the world again. Winston Churchill, as Tucker and Carlos 34 confirm, referred this fear (Cold War) and division of the west and the east as the Iron Curtain in 1946 .
The Marshall plan and Economic Division in Europe
When the threat of global destabilisation by the Soviet Union became more apparent, America responded through enactment of the containment policy. To begin with, in 1947 March12, the United States congress commenced an action to bar the Soviet Union from expanding its interest further with the aim of disrupting its status as a super power.
In 1947, the communist expansion seemed to expand with an alarming rate. For example, in Hungary, the government got into the hands of a true communist party that entrenched the idea of one-party communism rather than democracy while the Czech Republic was taken over by a communist government that got into power through a coup.
The bitterest part of these dynamics was that these two nations were determined to exist as neither communist nor capitalist. Secondly, the western European nations were still struggling to come out of the economic devastation by the impact of the Second World War.
This made the United States believe that countries that sympathised with these Soviets would be influenced by their deteriorating economies (Galley 242). This made the United States initiate the Marshall Plan. This was an economic order of economic aid, which was aimed at developing markets for both agricultural and industrial goods from America. It was also aimed at furthering the impact of the containment policy.
The Marshall plan was carefully presented to countries in both west and east. However, this plan was met with utmost rejection from soviet inclined countries due to the influence of Joseph Stalin. This confirmed the earlier doubt of its acceptance by the United States and hence the Cold War.
The Marshall plan was a great counter plan by the United States. The plan bore fruits for example when the communist coalition members were driven out of the government in France due to the impact of economic aids on America. America gave out foreign economic aids worth 13 billion dollars to 16 western nations from 1947 to 1952.
This made the economies of these nations better, at the same time widening the gap between the nations and the soviets. The Marshall plan also created a clear economic partition between the soviets communist and the capitalist. This division became so as evident as the economic divide that existed earlier on. Joseph Stalin countered the Marshall plan through the formation of the Commission for Mutual Economic Aid (COMECON). This was for all the communist member countries.
This would exaggerate trade relations between communist member countries. In addition, he formed an organisation that united the communist countries from all parts of the world with the sole aim of making communism a world order (Caley 78) against the wish of the majority. On the other hand, the United States continued with its containment efforts. In 1947, it was able to impact on the election result of Italy using money to ensure that a Christian Democratic party defeated the communist party (Tucker and Carlos 34).
The Berlin Wall
Following the impact of the 1947 political and economic outwits on the communist and the capitalist nations, Europe became a victim with one side, the capitalist being supported by America while the other side, the communist, was supported by Russia. East Germany was made a soviet satellite kind of state (Wetting 96). Germany now became a political and an economic battlefield for the two powers. Four powers namely France, Britain, Russia, and even America occupied parts of Germany.
The capital of Germany fell under the Russian soviet side. However, it was divided. Joseph Stalin made a physical blocade that separated the side of Berlin City in order to compel the Allies to halt their move to divide Germany (Miller and Galley 25). To counter the effects of the Berlin wall, the Allied powers turned to physical airlifts of supplies to Berlin.
This Berlin Airlift went on for about eleven months. Worse still, the airplanes that were airlifting supplies to Berlin had to fly over the soviet air space, an act that would have provoked Stalin to order for their shooting for violating their airspace. However, due to the fear of the occurrence of another war, the communists did not provoke war, as they realised that their earlier move of constructing the Berlin Wall did not work. Stalin opened the wall in 1949. In Berlin, Germany, the Cold War foundations almost led to real battle.
The two major blocs openly provoked each other with physical insults. The communist built a blocade to physically block the capitalists from supplying aids to their regions while the capitalist flew their supply airlift planes over the communist territory with an open will that, if they shoot on their planes, the battlefield war would emerge immediately.
The formation of (North Atlantic Treaty organisation) NATO
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was a military alliance that was formed in 1949 by the signing of the NATO treaty. This treaty was signed by western powers in Washington. At this time, the Berlin wall was still in enforcement by the soviets. The NATO was formed for the purposes of offering defense to the capitalists in case the soviets assaulted them within the ensuing competitive conditions.
In retaliation, Russia intentionally detonated her first homemade atomic bomb in 1949. This was aimed at deterring the speed that America was taking by diverting her attention to the eventuality of a nuclear war if Russia tried to assault the soviets. Following this act, the NATO members decided to rearm to include western Germany into NATO. In 1955, West Germany became a member of the NATO.
To counter the impact of the formation of the NATO and the inclusion of West Germany into it, the eastern countries formed their own military alliance. The Warsaw Pact was formed just one week after West Germany became a member of the NATO. The Warsaw pact became the military wing of the soviets led by a soviet commanding officer. Their counterpart, the capitalists, put this military team in place to offer defense to members of the communist bloc in case of an assault.
Differences between the two major blocs
Following the above discussion, it is evident that, by 1949, two distinctive blocs were already formed in the world. These power blocs were opposed to any idea that came from their counterparts. The Soviet Union believed that the United States and her allies were a real threat to their existence and the existence of their ideologies. At this point, the two blocs never involved themselves in any traditional forms of warfare. Their attitude towards each other became sour every day.
It was almost evident that the third World War was on the offing especially with the Berlin blocade by the communist and the counter blocade strategies by the capitalist. The nuclear competition and standoff between the two major blocs and the widening ideological gap became a cause of worry to the whole world. There emerged the historical Red Scare especially in the United States.
On the other hand, there was a crush of dissent on the side of Russia. The Cold War did not just develop because of the happenings in Europe and America. By 1947, it had spread beyond the European boundaries to the global arena. For example, China joined the communist bloc (Harry 66) while Korea and Vietnam became capitalists after the intervention of America in their wars.
The Cold War was also perpetrated to a great effect by the show of might in nuclear weapons by the two major powers, the United States of America and Russia. The United States created its thermonuclear weapons of mass destruction in 1952. On the other hand, the United Socialist Soviet Republic (USSR) also created thermonuclear weapons of mass destruction in 1953. This changed the world order since, at the end of the Second World War, only the US had atomic bombs. The Soviet Union would not have posed any threat to it.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Cold War was a war of ideologies, economic, and military competition that existed between the two major blocs that emerged after the Second World War. This war did not involve the actual battlefield war that could have been regarded as hot war. The Soviet Union led the communist bloc while the United States led the capitalist bloc. This war also involved other states. It was even fought on foreign grounds.
Later, following the intensified fear and tension created by this war when America and Russia began making thermonuclear weapons, the war ended with the collapse of the USSR in 1990s. These weapons would result to more expansive destruction of the world than even the two bombs dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the Americans airplanes during the Second World War.
Prevalence of these weapons of mass destruction in the hands of opposed blocs almost assured the world of a total destruction in the eventuality of another world war. However, this tension and standoff in nuclear weapons made the world safe in the sense that neither the USSR nor the US could provoke the other into a battlefield war since any actual war hot war would result in total destruction of the world.
Works Cited
Baruch, Gordon, and Bernard Melly. Vital Speeches of the Day. Cold War 13.14(1947): 425. Print.
Caley, Martin. The origins of the Cold war 1941-1949. Connecticut: Yale University Press. Print.
Day, Neol et al. A Political and Economic Dictionary of Eastern Europe. London: Word Press, 2003. Print.
Gaddis, Farey, and John Lenny. Russia, the Soviet Union, and the United States An Interpretive History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Print.
Galley, John. The Columbia Guide to the Cold War. Political Science Quarterly 87.2(1972): 242-269. Print.
Harry, Truman. Memoirs. New York: Doubleday. Print.
Lee, Kelly, and Stephen Josey. Stalin and the Soviet Union. London: Routledge,1999. Print.
Miller, Noel, and Roger Galley. To Save a City: The Berlin Airlift, 19481949. Texas: A&M University Press, 2000. Print.
Tearsy, Robberts, and Geoffrey Kennedy. Stalins Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939 1953. London: Yale University Press, 2006. Print.
Tucker, Pearl, and Robert Carlos. Stalin in Power: The Revolution from Above, 1928 1941. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1992. Print.
Wettig, Pennyl, and Gerhard Haron. Stalin and the Cold War in Europe. Oxford: Blackwell, 2008. Print.
William, Onsley. Stalin Embattled, 19431948. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1978. Print.
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 worlds 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 Gods 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 Lords ultimate test for each soul (Moyn 2020). People cannot refrain from making a choice in difficult situations. Instead, Nehemiahs 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 Gods 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 Christians 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. Gods 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 Lords 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.