Category: Cold War

Research Question: How has the United States strategy-making process evolved from its Cold War ideology to combating the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) in preparation for the next possible conflict with a near-peer advisory?

Purpose Statement

Before the collapse of the United Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) in 1991, the United States strategy during the Cold War era had been one of deterrence to the potential threats of the USSR and its allies within the Warsaw Pact. September 11, 2001, marked a drastic change in the scheme for the United States as it began to address its vulnerability in facing the GWOT. As the United States ends its 20-year war in Afghanistan, we will examine the United States National Security Plan framework and its approach to imposing that policy within an emerging peer-to-peer multi-domain environment. We will view the different elements and variables that constitute a Grand blueprint and explore other documents that articulate the ends, ways, and means produced from this Grand Strategy. Then study how these documents shape the military-methodology campaign plan based upon the geographic theater of operations.

Hypothesis

The elements and variables that make up a nations grand strategy, the documents produced from the initiative, demonstrate how the scheme for the U.S. has evolved from its Cold War ideology to combating the Global War on Terrorism. We see through the framework of the National Security Plan that the United States has addressed its current progress toward the future of securing national and international interests in a multi-domain environment in preparation for the next possible conflict with a near-peer advisory.

Literature Review

Introduction

In the past 20 years, the United States has formulated a system for combating the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). Over the decade, the American government focused on Cold War and the imminent threats posed by Russia with the allies from the Warsaw Pact. In this case, the literature review focuses on the dynamic definitions of Grand Strategy and explores the program concept and the Geo-combatant commands area of operations. The literature further establishes the comparative frameworks on alleviating security issues while determining the apparent U.S. approach.

Grand Strategy

Definitions

Understanding the definition of Grand Strategy is an essential factor that fosters prominent insight into the security intention of the U.S. government. The establishment of a scheme means the presence of enemies and the interest of a particular power approach. According to Platias and Koliopoulos (2010), Thucydides focused on interpreting the mainframe under distinctive elements. In this case, the primary role of the blueprint encapsulated the diplomatic, demographic, economic, military, and psychological overview of the ideology. The researchers postulate that Thucydides in-depth focuses on the perspective as a broad spectrum without relying on the military and the acquisition of power.

War is a necessary concept under different scenarios cause of the attainment of power and balance. Clausewitz stipulates that a grand strategy is a map of a battle to overwhelm and subdue the counterpart. In this case, the philosopher focuses on a particular state of the framework under the military mainframe. It is crucial to establish a firm decision regarding the adoptive initiative to win and protect the territories. During the Cold War, the U.S. focused on alleviating the influential aspect of communism among its affiliate nations. The clarity of wrangles amplifies the soldiers understanding of the main priority during the encounters. After 9/11 terrorism, the American government implemented dynamic policies, including Homeland Security, to augment the attainment of the main objective. In a different spectrum, Yager (2008) depicts that the tactic involves directional power control that enhances the achievement of certain objectives. Primarily, the author focuses on the paradigm shift of dominance between the different parties. Contest emerges once there is a variance of the intentions among the participants, and the core baseline encompasses indicating the aptitude.

Composition

The Framework of a Grand Strategy

Different researchers establish distinct overviews regarding the framework of a grand strategy. In a study by Yager, the author establishes four components: ends, ways, means, and risk. Ends refer to the key objectives in a war as the reflection of national interests. Winning the battle means accomplishing the core initiatives from the spectral view of the involved leaders and the political influence. Ways is another component that fosters the aspect of resource utilization to achieve the initiative during the encounters. In this case, the researcher argues that the phenomenon renders the insight based on the next step of the process, such as a consequence for overwhelming a particular realm. Means is the definition of the dynamic utilities used during the exercise, mainly weaponry and the number of soldiers in combat. The reserves, either intangible or tangible, facilitate the operations effectiveness and include certain variables such as intellect, equipment, and money. The last component of grand strategy enshrines the articulation of risk indicating the gap between the set goals and the available assortments. It is the key ideology that drives the development of a plan for the practice.

Elements of a Grand Strategy

A grand strategy is a multidimensional phenomenon that enshrines the interplay of distinct variables. The different elements of the conceptual framework involve movement and surprise. The two components significantly contribute to the tactical handling of the major challenge. On the one hand, motion renders amazement to the enemies during combat hence emerging as a proactive initiative. On the other hand, the calculated psychological approach nurtures the overwhelming influence on the opponents. The main purpose of war involves demonstrating the authoritarian and dominant state of a certain philosophy. Therefore, Hart establishes the dynamic essentials as contributory insights to the foundation of an effective system.

Different Levels of Strategy

National Strategy

Grand strategy is an essential factor for the American government in combating terrorism that evolved along the gradient of power dynamics and is distinct from Cold War intentions. There are variate levels of the initiative based on the vertical dimension. The first phase of conflict entails the national spectrum that the administration and incorporates a map outlining the main entities to facilitate the acquisition of a component that spans the interests of the citizens.

Military Strategy

The second recline of the battle entails a military scale that encapsulates a plan for the movement and surprise by the soldiers during the tactical approach. It is crucial to establish the integral aspect of tackling the opponents intentions to attain power forcefully. In this advance, the blueprint indicates a profound insight into compellence and deterrence. Researchers establish that the mechanism supports a broader and more intense effect on the national program.

Campaign Plan Strategy

The campaign plan scheme fosters the prominent, influential value of the operations among the commandants and the institutional leaders to establish the inherent accrual outcome. There is an interdependent relationship amidst the definite stages of the methodology.

Documents produced during the Grand Strategy

U.S National Security Strategy

The grand strategy demands the national security plan policy presentation that fulfills the legal framework established in 1986 by the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act. In this case, the plan indicates the objectives of the government in promoting the safety of the citizens. Therefore, different administrations present a dynamic mainframe articulating the key goals of intensifying and investing in ideological resources. It is crucial to indicate the impartial ambition among the leaders on nationalism and independence.

Joint Strategic Campaign Plan

The campaign plan focuses on the initiatives posed by the military commandants regarding the advisory perspective offered to the Secretary of Defense. The framework plays a proficient role in the indication by the chairman about the major outcomes and opportunities of the grand strategy. Primarily, the mainframe enshrines an indication of the core element of interpreting and establishing the roadmap in the implementation of the objectives by the administration. It is the responsibility of the representatives of the armed forces to provide practical and timely details that attribute the decision-making amidst the executive team of the American government.

National Defense Strategy

The national defense strategy of the American territories engulfs the restoration of Americas glory in socio-economic and security frameworks locally and globally. The initiative fosters the alleviation of China and Russias influential aspect into the countrys adeptness and the alteration in the balance of propensity. America, China, and Russia emerge as major political dynasties internationally. However, the individual parties indicate that the prominent goal encapsulates leveraging proficient opportunities from other republicans. Therefore, the key outline engulfs protecting the sovereignty of the current order through such initiatives as United Nations.

National Military Strategy

The main goal of the national military strategy involves articulating the main approaches to incorporate towards accomplishing the interests of the citizens and the U.S. government. The main outlier is attaining the three composite elements within the mainframe, including war fighting, deterrence, and peaceful engagements. Ideally, the institution participates in dynamic activities within the country to boost socio-economic growth and development. As a result, the professionals focus on promoting truce while protecting citizens from foreign enemies.

Geo-Combatant Command Theater Strategy

The main aim of the geographic combatant command theater strategy involves the protocol and the necessary measures for the regional military during a crisis. It is important to strengthen the borderline and internal state of a nation by integrating security initiatives. America is a country that faces imminent threats from competitors due to its harboring of nuclear weapons and crucial technological equipment. As a result, the administration intensified the relations with neighboring regions leading to the development of such commands as the Pacific, Caribbean, Alaskan, European, Far East, and Northeast. The overviews foster clarity toward the attainment of the core unprejudiced spectrum.

Cold War and its Effect on the U.S

Cold War- 1985-1991

Communism significantly affected the U.S. economic growth and development because of the interplay of dynamic values. As a capitalist, the American government faced a profound problem after World War II due to the demand for labor and resources to reconstruct the socioeconomic system. However, other nations utilized bolshevism to establish the efficient rebuilding of the structures despite gender and ethnic disparity. It is contrary to Americas philosophy on private ownership of factors of production alleviating the inherent challenges of dependence and poverty. After the combat, tension intensified between the U.S. and Russia due to the distinct economic frameworks. It is an initiative that attributed the emergence of the Vietnam conflict and other South American nations to the American administration adopting Russias perspective. In the short run, socialism was a necessity to improve unity and cooperation among the residents. Nevertheless, in the long run, it was a threat to the enterprise profitability of a state. As a result, the American government focused on enhancing a proficient influential value across a broader scope of the global realms, elevating commercialism.

GWOT-2001-2021

After the 9/11 terrorist attack that led to a significant loss of lives and destruction of property in Americas New York City, the government implemented proficient policies. One of the initiatives involved the establishment of Homeland Security, which deals with terror attacks and the apprehension of suspects while determining potential threats. The approach rendered profound transparency and the assignment of responsibilities and accountability among the officials for effective performance. The global war on terrorism reflects the plan developed after the tragic assault that further intensified the mandates of the military commandants on daily status reports with a well-defined protocol to handle various situations.

Current U.S Strategy and LSCO/MDO

The current U.S. strategy is a structure that involves the interplay of distinct elements to boost performance in large-scale combat operations (LSCO) and multi-domain operations (MDO). The main variables attributing to the effectiveness of the National Security Outline 2021 in combating terrorism encapsulate leadership development, significant reforms, readiness, and modernization concept (U.S Army, 2021). The system nurtures the relevant stakeholders toward the sustenance of the efficient flow of operations and commandant controls from the various entities. The U.S. plan is against the near-peer threat cause of the effect of multilateral and bilateral effects from China and Russia. The phenomenon leads to the efficient intersectionality of the LSCO and MDO mainframes on battle fronts.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we have discussed the grand strategy, the documents produced, and how the strategy for the U.S. has evolved from its Cold War ideology to combating the Global War on Terrorism. We have also discussed the current progress towards securing the national and international interests of the United States in the current multi-domain environment as it prepares for the next possible conflict with a near-peer advisory.

Bibliography:

Bartholomees, J. Boone, ed. U.S. Army War College Guide to national security issues: National security policy and strategy. Vol. 2. Defense Department, 2012.

Brands, Hal, Peter Feaver, and Dana H. Allin. U.S. strategy after ISIS. (2017).

Colucci, Lamont. American doctrine: the foundation of grand strategy.World Affairs 181, no. 2 (2018): 133-160.

Da Silva, Joseph, Hugh Liebert, and Isaiah Wilson III. American grand strategy and the future of U.S. landpower. Army War College Carlisle Barracks PA Strategic Studies Institute, 2014.

Hart, Liddell. The theory of strategy. (n.d).

Hooker Jr, R. D. The grand strategy of the United States. NATIONAL defense univ fort mcnair dc inst for national strategic studies, 2014.

Platias, Athanassios G., and Constantinos Koliopoulos. Grand strategy: A framework for analysis in Thucydides on strategy. (2010).

U.S Army. Sustainment modernization: Posture for Multi-Domain Operations capable force in 2028. (2021).

Yarger, H. Richard. Toward a theory of strategy: Art Lykke and the U.S. Army War College strategy model. U.S. Army War College guide to national security issues 1 (2008): 44-47. Web.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Allendes ChileFideliomo and the radicalization of Latin American politics, 41-59.

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

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

Latin America

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

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

European Jews

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

Arab-Israeli

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

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

References

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

Week 9. The Suez Crisis. BBC. Web.

Week 9. Holocaust Encyclopedia. Web.

Week 9. Web.

The Berlin Airlift is a film that provokes feelings of sympathy for the victims of competing for colonial powers during the Cold War. For example, the movie taught me about the needfulness for peace in any given country. In this case, the movie made me realize that peace is essential because it allows people to move around and at least get something to eat. I also thought about the importance of social interactions between people as being one of the essential requisitions for a happy life. Such a feeling resulted from the fact that the movie showed the problems that the Berliners faced as a result of isolation and limitation of their freedom. The Berliners in the movie did not have anything to eat at all because the Soviets had cut off all the gas, food, and electricity supplies to the city, and the situation worsened when they could interact freely.

The pathetic living conditions of the people provoked feelings of hatred towards the four forces that were contesting for the ownership of the city. For instance, I could not understand why Britain, the US, France, and the Soviet Union fought consistently at the expense of the people. The colonialists were ruthless to the Berliners and hoped to attract their attention using crude methods. There was no need for the airlift, which entailed ferrying food aid to Berlin if the colonialists had kept from the city and left the Berliners to manage their affairs.

My concern for the people in the movie went to the women and the children. These groups of people proved more vulnerable than the males and depended entirely on them for provision. One such instance is when the pilots dedicate their lives to the service of Berliners.

More precisely, many men lost their lives in trying to save the situation, especially the pilots. The plane crashes that resulted from the careless flights to and from Berlin proved too dangerous for inexperienced pilots, which made my moods even more sympathetic. However, I did not understand why Britain and the US undertook to feed the Berliners when they could only have withdrawn from the German capital. The style of feeding the people also pointed out that the fact that the US and Britain were only exploring their selfish interests and keeping Russia out of their jurisdiction. Therefore, I thought that the two nations were trying to paint an image of Russia as being the evil party and them as the better.

I also learned that the use of propaganda works to a good extent in shaping the perceptions of people towards others. The competing powers caused the people to hate each other just because of the use of propaganda in trying to counter the actions of their competitors. The use of the radio stations to campaign one another was one such instance that the US used against the USSR. The people were too desperate to refuse such propaganda because they hoped that the US and Britain would protect them from the attacks of the Soviets.

In conclusion, the movie provoked sympathetic feelings in me, especially for the vulnerable members of society. In the actual thought, there was nothing that the fighting powers could have lost had they chose peace and withdrawn from Berlin. Therefore, their selfish actions caused the people of Belin to live as though they were slaves in their country. There could not have been a better way of learning about the events of the cold war expect from the film.

The German philosopher and economist Karl Marx created a Marxist theory in the middle of the nineteenth century. It impacted the economy, social order, and politics of different countries around the world. Even though the theory is outdated for the modern world, many countries still have communist parties operating within Marxisms framework. Therefore, this paper will analyze the foundations of Marxist theory and its application in the modern world on the example of the countries of the Middle East.

Basis of Marxism Theory

The basis of Marxist theory is economic change, which, in turn, requires the transformation of politics and social order. Marxism divides society into two antagonistic social classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (Jackson & Sørensen, 2013, p. 167). The bourgeoisie owns the means of production, while the proletariat owns its labor. Although created in opposition to feudalism, Marxist theory is still exploitative (Jackson & Sørensen, 2013). In contrast to feudalism, Marxism claims that workers can independently manage their labor and receive payment. However, the bourgeoisie remains the ruling class, which has more social privileges and significance.

In addition, Marxism is characterized by a specific attitude toward progress since industrial and economic development must be halted or even reversed (Sayers, 2020, p. 27). That justifies the class division of society since the bourgeoisie must restrain the development of capitalism by controlling the work of the proletariat. At the same time, this theory is based on materialism, and productivity should be the basis of any human activity (Jackson & Sørensen, 2013). Thus, although the uncontrolled development of capitalism, according to Marxists, leads to a crisis due to overproduction, the control of capitalism is still the basis of the progress and economic development of the country.

Marxist theory has been slightly transformed in the modern world while retaining its main features. Modern Political Marxism is characterized by the division of the followers of this theory into two groups. One group concentrates on capitalism as the basis of progress, while the other adheres to radical historicism (Knafo & Teschke, 2020). At the same time, both of these traditions support the need to structure society and divide them into classes, which inevitably leads to internal and external conflicts.

Marxism in the Middle East Countries

Although the Marxist theory has been transformed in the modern world, it is still used as the basis of the policy of some countries. Communist parties are quite common in countries of the Middle East, like Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Syria, and Palestine. For example, in Iraq, the Communist Party has the most seats in parliament (Feliu & Izquierdo-Brichs, 2019). However, the theory of class and hierarchy that Marxism adheres to often causes both internal and external conflicts between countries. The exploitation of workers for capitalist purposes and the persecution of the indigenous population of the Middle East by the authorities leads to civil wars (Ullah, 2022). It, in turn, slows down the countrys development and makes it cut off from the outside world.

Moreover, Marxism leads to large-scale conflicts between countries. One of the longest-running conflicts is the Cold War, a confrontation between communism and liberal democracy. Even though the main conflict occurred between the Soviet Union and the United States, the countries of the Middle East also took part. In the aftermath of the Cold War, the Arab-Israeli conflict arose in Israel and Palestine (Citino, 2019). This conflict is based on the class division of society along religious lines.

Conclusion

Thus, Marxist theory is quite controversial, in particular regarding capitalism. In addition, the division of society into classes, which is the basis of Marxism, inevitably leads to class conflicts, which cause civil wars and armed clashes between countries. Countries in the Middle East, where communist parties are still popular, often become the center of conflicts based on class confrontation. Moreover, internal and external conflicts slow down the economic development of countries and lead to their separation from the outside world.

References

Citino, N. J. (2019). The Middle East and the Cold War. Cold War History, 19(3), 441-456. Web.

Feliu, L., & Izquierdo-Brichs, F. (2019). Communist parties in the Middle East: 100 years of history. Routledge.

Jackson, R., & Sørensen, G. (2013). Introduction to International Relations: Theories and approaches. Oxford University Press.

Knafo, S., & Teschke, B. (2020). Political Marxism and the Rules of Reproduction of Capitalism: A Historicist Critique. Historical Materialism, 29(3), 54-83. Web.

Sayers, S. (2020). Marx and Progress. International Critical Thought, 10­(1), 18-33. Web.

Ullah, A. (2022). An analysis of Marxism in industrial relations theory in light of capitalism, neoliberalism and globalisation: A petite critical review from Bangladeshs RMG perspectives. Middle East Journal of Business, 17(2), 5-18. Web.

Allied Military Strategy in both Europe and Asia

The Allied coalition was mainly formed to counter the threat posed by the Axis powers. The Allies were led by the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union, forming the Big Three (Robinson, 2020). The three leaders, including Winston Churchill of Britain, Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union, and the United States Franklin Roosevelt, developed a strategy that divided the Allied forces into strategic points in Europe and Asia. Initially, the United States remained neutral but actively supplied war materials to the Allied forces. After joining the war in 1941, the United States became a key leader of the Allied forces that provided manpower, weapons, and tactics.

The Allied strategy involved partitioning Europe into two fronts, including the Western Front and the Eastern Front, while Asia and the Pacific were treated as one. The British and American forces focused on the Western Front, the Soviet Union focused on the East, while a combination of the British, American and Chinese forces concentrated on the Asian and Pacific region (Robinson, 2020). The United States was the major supplier of weapons, shipping at least $50 billion worth of equipment to the Allied forces to strengthen the fronts. The Allies relied heavily on the American Air Force to conduct strategic bombings. They targeted the German industrial structures, residential houses, and key cities. The aim was to reduce the German power to finance its war and cause destruction to the Axis forces.

Diplomatic Efforts in Ending the War

Diplomatic relations among nations played a significant role that shaped the Second World War. The Allied nations conducted a series of conferences where key strategic issues about the war were discussed. Foreign ministers, ambassadors, and other top officials among the Big Three nations organized frequent summits to formulate policies that determined their relations with the Axis powers (Johnstone, 2020). These conferences improved diplomatic relations among the Allies, thus enhancing their cooperation and making them speak in one voice on the international stage. The close relations, especially between the United States and Britain, saw the two nations form a combined Chiefs of Staff, which consisted of top officials between the United States and Britain, to form policies approved by the US President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill.

The major conferences conducted by the Allied nations during the war included the Arcadia Conferences, the Tehran Conference, the Yalta conference, and Potsdam Conference. Other conferences were conducted after the declaration of the United Nations, where several other Allied nations signed to declare war against the Axis powers (Johnstone, 2020). At the Arcadia conference, President Franklin Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill agreed on key strategies for the war in Europe. The main aim was on liberating Europe from the Nazi German, which was considered a significant threat to Britain.

The Tehran Conference was the first conference attended by the Big Three leaders. The leaders agreed on the post-war settlements, including the Soviet Union border issue with Poland and the reincorporation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania into the Soviet Union. At the Yalta Conference, the leaders mainly focused on the postwar Europe borders, including settling the Poland conflict with the Soviet Union. The leaders conference at Potsdam demanded Japans unconditional surrender and agreed to establish the Allied Control commission that would govern Germany after the collapse of the Nazi regime (Johnstone, 2020). Therefore, diplomacy played an essential role in forming policies that focused on ending the war and the post-war policies to prevent another war.

Origins of the Cold War

The Cold War began immediately after the end of the Second World War. Several reasons, including ideological differences, caused the Cold War. The United States and the Soviet Union emerged as superpower countries after the defeat of Nazi Germany (Nyuon, n.d). However, despite being in the same alliance, the two nations shared different ideologies. The United States supported democracy and respect for human rights. The Soviet Union, under the leadership of Joseph Stalin, was a communist state that believed in expanding territories and forcing the Soviet culture on the minority countries. The Poland issue indicated The United States and Britain supported the Polish government in exile. In contrast, the Soviet Union Supported the Lublin government, which controlled Polands affairs under the influence of the Soviet Union.

The post-war economic reconstruction policies by the United States were considered unfavorable by the Soviet Union. The United States terminated the Land-Lese policy that enabled the US to supply with the Allies the needed materials for the war (Nyuon, n.d). The Soviet Union saw this termination as premature and aimed to reduce its ability to reconstruct. The Soviet Union tried to negotiate with the United States to provide aid for the reconstruction, but the negotiations were unsuccessful. US President Harry Truman did not portray a positive attitude toward the Soviet Union. He signed a foreign policy that vowed to protect any country that was under the threat of the Soviet Union. In retaliation, the Soviet Union signed the Brezhnev Doctrine, which required the Soviet Union to respond to any threat with force (Nyuon, n.d). The United States Atomic bomb was viewed as a threat by the Soviet Union. As a result, the Soviet Union began developing their military and nuclear warheads to counter the growing military might of the United States.

The Effects of Cold War on American Culture

The Cold War had a significant impact on American Culture. Some of the main ideologies of the Cold War were the threat of nuclear war, communism, and espionage. Americans developed hysteria and fear toward communism, leading to a widespread anticommunist movement (Richmond, 2021). The government, civil rights groups, and the general public became suspicious of people who portrayed communist values. For instance, teachers who failed to take an oath and other civil servants were fired and closely investigated. Communists were highly considered Soviet Union spies who were monitoring the atomic secrets of the United States and leaking them to the USSR government (Richmond, 2021). The new culture was reflected in music, TV series, and other cultural activities, which majorly citizen communist ideology and encouraged capitalist values.

The Presidencies of FDR and Harry Truman

President Franklin D. Roosevelt and President Truman had different policies that defined their administrations. The two leaders played a significant role in ending the Second World War. However, President Truman had a stronger foreign policy than that President Roosevelt (Warren & Siracusa, 2021). For instance, Roosevelt tolerated Joseph Stalin and his policy of invading neighboring states to establish communism. Truman saw this as a threat to the West and vowed to fight the spread of communism by supporting any country that felt threatened by the Soviet Unions power.

Roosevelt enacted the Land-Lease Act that supplied the Allies with financial and military aid. Truman terminated this policy because he did not want the Soviet Union to benefit from American aid. He wanted to reconstruct Europe as a mechanism to deal with the Soviet Unions influence (Warren & Siracusa, 2021). President Roosevelt attended many conferences where he signed several treaties about the world war and American commercial deals. This was not the case with Truman, who did not prefer conferences and treaties but majorly signed policies that addressed key issues that were a threat to the American people. In other words, Truman was more aggressive than President Roosevelt.

References

Johnstone, A. (2020). Us foreign relations during World War II. A Companion to US Foreign Relations: Colonial Era to the Present, 418-445.

Nyuon, A. K. (n.d). Cold and World War II: Understanding the Causes, Views and Conceptual Analysis.

Richmond, Y. (2021). Cultural exchange and the Cold War. Penn State University Press.

Robinson, P. (2020). Legacies of the Big Three: A grand alliance of the United States, the British empire, and the Soviet Union defeated Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. Three big historians, David Kennedy, Andrew Roberts, and Stephen Kotkin, on Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin. Hoover Digest, (1), 165-188.

Warren, A., & Siracusa, J. M. (2021). The Transition from Roosevelt to Truman. In US Presidents and Cold War Nuclear Diplomacy (pp. 19-34). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Introduction

International relations refer to an academic field that focuses on the nature of the relationships that exist between states (Sutch & Elias 2007 pp. 33-34). One of the major historical events that shaped international relations between 1945 and 1989 was the Cold War. The Cold War was a war of ideologies and propaganda. The United States of America advanced the capitalist ideology, whereas the Soviet Union (USSR) was for communism. This war was fought between two blocs namely, the Western bloc which was led by the USA and the Eastern bloc which was led by the USSR (Sutch &Elias 2007, pp. 123-124). The Cold War resulted from a long period of conflicts between the Soviet Union and the United States of America. This war later spread to other parts of the world. This paper examines how the Cold War enhances our understanding of international relations.

How the Cold War Affected International Relations between 1945 and 1989

The Cold War greatly influenced the relationship between countries in the international arena. These influences can be explained as follows. First, the Cold War led to the division of the international system into three major camps. The United States of America led the Western camp which consisted of countries with democratic systems of governance. The Eastern camp which was made up of countries with communist governments was led by the Soviet Union (USSR). The non-aligned camp comprised of countries which were neutral to the Cold War. Initially, most African countries belonged to the non-aligned camp. However, the Cold War ideologies and rivalry eventually spread to the third world countries.

Most third world countries at that time were under colonial control. These countries yearned for freedom from their colonial masters. Consequently, their desperation made them to side with either the USA or the USSR in order to get financial, as well as, military help from the two superpowers. As a result, new states emerged during the Cold War. These new states had to adopt either a communist approach to development or a capitalist model. However, some of the newly formed states embraced a blend of the two ideologies, that is, capitalism and communism. Therefore, the international system to a large extent was bipolar.

Second, international relations were influenced by the capitalist and communist ideologies during the Cold War period. Capitalism was advanced by the United States of America. Capitalism allows individuals to own property, and to accumulate private wealth. It also allows owners of businesses to make profits for their own benefit. Therefore, in a capitalist state the government plays an insignificant role in the economy. On the other hand, communism was advanced by the Soviet Union. Communism advocates for communal ownership of wealth and property.

In a communist state, the government directly controls the economy by ensuring that wealth is equally distributed. Hence, countries related as either capitalist or communist states during the Cold War. This division was the genesis of the rivalry between the two superpowers and the international community at large. On one hand, the USA considered communism as an ideology that denied people their freedom, whereas the Soviet Union saw capitalism as a form of individualism and an ideology that only aimed at promoting class division in the society.

Third, international relations during the cod war period were characterized by alliance systems. The USA formed the NATO alliance, while the Soviet Union formed the Warsaw Pact. The United States of America also influenced other nations in different parts of the world to form their own regional alliances (Baylis, Smith, & Owens 2008, pp. 233-235). For example, the CENTO alliance was formed in the Middle East, while the SEATO alliance was formed in South East Asia. The United States of America and the Soviet Union used the alliances to spread their ideologies (Baylis, Smith & Owens 2008, pp. 223-224). The military alliances and the nuclear weapons which were owned by the USA and the Soviet Union led to a high tension in the international system. As the Cold War became a global event, international stability was jeopardized. Therefore, between 1945 and 1989 international relations were characterized by tension and rivalry between the two superpowers and their foes.

The Cold War also led to the protection of spheres of interest by the United States and the Soviet Union across the globe. For instance, in 1956 the Soviet Union intervened in the Hungarian uprising because they were opposed to the idea of Hungary pulling out of the Warsaw Pact. The United States of America also showed similar interests in Latin America. The USA was opposed to the communist ideology which was being advanced by the Soviet Union. Therefore, the USA got involved in Latin America as a way of hindering the spread of communism in the region. For instance, the USA government provided military assistance to anti-communist groups in Latin America.

It also used force in order to prevent the spread of communism in Latin America. The rivalry between the superpowers was also witnessed in Africa (Griffiths, OCallaghan & Roach 2008, pp.167-176). For instance, the Soviet Union and Cuba supported the Angolan government. On the other hand, the USA in collaboration with South Africa supported the Angolan rebels who were opposed to the government. The civil wars led to massive loss of lives in Africa, Latin America and Asia. Thus, the Cold War had severe impacts in the third world countries. Thus, international relations were characterized by the desire to safeguard self interests by the superpowers.

The Cold War period was also characterized by nuclear arms race. The arms race was a nuclear war competition between the USA and the Soviet Union. The two superpowers sought to gain supremacy in terms of nuclear warfare. Later, the arms race led to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the most dangerous moment the world has ever had since the end of World War II (Wenger & Zimmermann 2003, pp. 46-48). The Cuban Missile Crisis almost culminated into a major nuclear conflict. This event increased the tension between the Soviet Union and the USA.

The tension was also increased by Operation Able Archer. This operation was a move which facilitated a coordinated nuclear attack against the Soviet Union (Wenger & Zimmermann 2003, pp. 51-52). Consequently, the Soviet Union began to re-arm its military with nuclear weapons. The re-armament of the Soviet Unions army increased the chances of a nuclear war. It is against this backdrop that the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction was formulated (Wenger & Zimmermann, pp. 69-70). This policy was meant to restrain the two rival superpowers from attacking each other. Any attack by the superpowers could have resulted into a total destruction of the entire world since the two countries owned deadly nuclear weapons.

Finally, the Cold War led to the formulation of the realist theory. This theory provides important insights that can help us to understand the evolution of international relations during the Cold War. The theory remained dominant during the Cold War period. Realism dominated in the Cold War years because it provided simple but powerful explanations for war, alliances, imperialism, obstacles to cooperation and other international phenomena (Brown & McWilliams 2001, pp.106-108). According to the orthodox realists such as Hans Morgenthau, states behave like human beings because they always seek to dominate each other. As a result, the inherent desire for supremacy is what makes states to wage wars against each other.

Morgenthau also noted that the bipolarity of the international system was more dangerous as compared to the balance of power which existed before the Cold War. However, other scholars have put more emphasis on the anarchic nature of the international system (Griffiths, OCallaghan & Roach 2008, pp. 57-59). The lack of a central authority in the international system has made states to seek ways through which they can survive. The opponents of the orthodox realism believed that a bipolar international system was more stable (Brown & McWilliams 2001, p.111). Therefore, the realist theory helps us to understand the relationships that existed between states during the cold war.

Conclusion

The Cold War significantly influenced the nature and the evolution of international relations between 1945 and 1989. During the Cold War period, international relations were characterized by rivalry, tension, self interest and the competition for nuclear supremacy. Therefore, the major elements of the Cold War are very important in the study of international relations. This is because they highlight the fundamental details of the relations that existed in the international system. The collapse of the Soviet Union eventually led to the end of the Cold War. As a result, the United States of America emerged as the world superpower. Most international organizations and states have been shaped by the Cold War. The lessons learnt from the Cold War continue to play a significant role in modern day politics, especially, in the process of making or formulating foreign policies.

References

Baylis, J, Smith, S & Owens, P 2008, International History, Oxford University Press, London.

Brown, C & McWilliams, J 2001, Understanding International Relations, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Griffiths, M, OCallaghan, T & Roach, C 2008, International Relations: The Key Concepts, Taylor & Francis, New York.

Sutch, P & Elias, J 2007, International Relations: The Basics, Rutledge, New York.

Wenger, A & Zimmermann, D 2003, International Relations: From the Cold War to Globalized World, Lynne Rienner, Sanfransisco.

Assumptions that Guided the Escalation of Conflicts

The Vietnam War and the Cold War were escalated by the assumption that the communist movement would spread out to other Asian states in the south east region. It is apparent that the United States, as a champion of capitalism, had partisan interests that were inclined toward ensuring that the Soviet Union and its allies did not achieve a high influence on the Asian states in the south eastern region. Essentially, the Vietnam War was supposed to ensure that the region did not fall into the communist zone (Hollitz 282). If Vietnam upheld the communist policies, the United States assumed that other states in the region would have been influenced to develop the same policies, and it would have been more difficult to deal with the entire block. Similarly, the Cold War was fueled by the suspicion that the Soviet Union was looking to enhance its influence in the world by recruiting more nations to its communist political and economic paradigm (Day 12).

Cold War

The Cold War was characterized by tension between the Eastern Bloc, which comprised of the Soviet Union and its allies, and the Western Bloc, which comprised of the members of NATO and other allies of the United States (Herzog 23). The geopolitical pressure between the nations emanated from the breakdown of the relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States in 1947.The main cause of the breakdown was that the interests of the two states diverged during the Second World War. The Soviets were interested in enhancing its influence in Europe, with respect to the political and economic policies. The United States was looking to enhance its quest for imperialism, but the Soviet Union wanted to gain more allies by proposing for various European nations to adopt communist policies (Betts 6). The tension that ensued between the two Blocs led to the Cold War, which was characterized by suspicion between the two nations. The Eastern Bloc was supporting communism and the Western Bloc had adopted capitalism, and both parties were hoping to gain more support from other strategic partners across the world. The tension was also escalated by the fact that both Blocs expressed their preparedness to going to an armed conflict to ensure that their partisan interests were attained.

Impact of the Cold War

The tension between the Western Bloc and the Eastern Bloc led to the developing nations being the perfect sites for the enhancement of the interests of the two sides. Nations in Latin America and Africa were still struggling economically, and they posed a chance for both sides of the war to enhance their influence. The United States took the chance to enhance its influence by supporting the developing nations economically, with the aim of influencing them to align their policies with capitalism. The Soviet Union also used this approach, but it had a lower influence because it was economically inferior to the United States (Davis 21). However, the ultimate effect of the Cold War on the developing nations is that they experienced tighter relationships with the superpowers. Their economic growth was boosted by the partnerships, but they had to pay the price of ensuring that they picked a side between the West and the East (Shaws and Youngblood 14). The political tension that ensued across the world was enhanced through the activities that took place in developing economies such as Chile.

Works Cited

Betts, Richard K., ed. Conflict after the Cold War: Arguments on Causes of War and Peace. Taylor & Francis, 2017.

Davis, Lynn Etheridge. The Cold War Begins: Soviet-American Conflict Over East Europe. Princeton University Press, 2015.

Day, Meredith, ed. The cold war. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2016.

Herzog, Dagmar. Cold War Freud. Cambridge University Press, 2016.

Hollitz, John. Thinking Through the Past, volume 2. Cengage Learning, 2014.

Shaw, Tony, and Denise J. Youngblood. Cinematic Cold War: The American and Soviet Struggle For Hearts and Minds. University Press of Kansas, 2014.

Introduction

After World War II, the United States and other European countries had economic booms, and everything was going seemingly well. However, the U.S. and the USSR were ideological foes but had collaborated against Hitler. In 1945, the tension between the two superpowers exploded. A fight started due to Trumans hatred of Stalin, and the USSR president had reservations about capitalism and the need to spread communism. Five years later, war ensued between the two Korean nations after North Korea invaded South Korea. Practically, this was another instance of the cold war; it was a way for America to fight communism without engaging directly with USSR. There are many similarities and differences between the Korean War and the Cold War in terms of Trumans response, how they ended, and their lasting impact.

Main body

Since the Korean War was part of the Cold War, one cannot discuss one without the other. Those wars started because Truman and the U.S. intended to extinguish communism from spreading to other areas worldwide. Initially, Truman never wanted to cause a cold war, considering how great things were going, but the pressure became too much to handle. On the other hand, as soon as North Korea invaded South Korea, Truman intervened almost immediately to help South Korea. In the beginning, the U.S. secretary of state had declared that America lacked interest in Korea considering its geopolitical location. The USSR interpreted these moments as allowing North Korea to attack South Korea. Apart from them being allies, North Korea was a communist country, and by helping South Korea beat them, the U.S. inadvertently was fighting with the USSR. To perform the plan, Truman sent General Douglas MacArthur.

When the war started, later in 1947, Truman was not pleased with how containment was working. Therefore, he created the Truman Doctrine by drawing inspiration from George F. Kennan. Before this, the USSR refused to stop trying to spread communism, and the U.S. realized that Germany would continue to stay separated. Truman realized that the United States military needed to expand. The NSC-68 outlined that the United States will not continue to depend on other nations efforts to end communism. By the time the Korean War began, the United States had realized that the United States needed not to worry because things had gone beyond the NSC-68 concerning the use of containment as a form of liberation. Additionally, he established the Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA) on April 3, 1948, by legalizing the Marshall Plan to manage it. Along with the United States, at least eighteen other countries assisted in these efforts.

From the outset, the Soviet Union was invited to participate, but it failed to attend negotiations, resulting in them receiving unfavorable terms. The USSR rejected them, and in a show of mighty, they instructed all other Eastern Bloc countries not to join. Stalin saw this effort as a way the United States was using to stop the spread of communism; he was correct in this assumption.

Moreover, the USSRs nonappearance in the U.N.s Security Council benefited Truman because he persuaded other nations that North Korea was the one that attacked the South. The Security Council invited all countries to help establish peace after the vote of consistent endorsement. Consequently, both the U.S. and USSR shared the Korean Peninsulas control, which was previously ruled by the Japanese since the beginning of the century. At the 38th Parallel, they divided Korea, with the U.S. controlling the South and the USSR the North. Additionally, they equipped and formed new legislatures that fitted each superpower.

As a result of the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, the European world ended well. Not only did the U.S. and its allies recover, but the markets that were established favored American businesses. This was good for America, even while the European countries and their citizens had the most significant gains. Improvements to infrastructure and finances relaxed the region to some extent, allowing self-serving states to start working together. Negotiations began about integration, whereas the individual European countries would seek to become more unified. While this started well, it never became much more than economic friendliness. Later, the efforts of the European Coal and Steel Community grew into the European Union. Communism also began to be seen as less appealing, and the communist parties no longer played a major role in politics. The effects of the Marshall plan were much more extensive than anyone initially expected.

After Trumans realization that China, which he had tried avoiding battling with got involved, Truman negotiated for a lasting solution. The only problem was that MacArthur did not think the Military should have restrictions. He publicly criticized Trumans idea leading to the famous Truman MacArthur Controversy; the president later fired MacArthur. Nevertheless, the U.S.s and the USSRs powerful politics, Military, financial, and ideological challenges forced two enemies to mediate the Korean War. The USSR and its ally, China, helped the north while the U.S., with its newly formed coalition under the U.N., assisted the South.

Truman changed the containment policy after discovering they had failed in the propaganda war. He did this by creating new military plans and realized that he needed a better army. Korean Warfare was always referred to as the forgotten battle because it gets overshadowed by WWII, but it was a massive deal in context with the Cold War because it brought new doctrines and policies. When the conflict was ending, the Truman era was over, and Eisenhower had taken over the leadership, he left the army to work on its own. The United States was attempting to take the world into another war, which they succeeded through Trumans leadership and foreign policies.

Conclusion

Conclusively, under the Truman regime and the USSR led by Stalin, the U.S. battled against each other in Korea. However, Truman changed the war aims by firing the U.S. troops commander, General MacArthur, and pushing for an armistice to end Koreas confrontation. Truman took this political risk to avert World War IIIs inception because if China were bombed as MacArthur had planned. This would force the Soviet Union to join the combat with its allies. It was escalating the conflict further with the use of nuclear weapons. This would also undermine the U.S.s foreign containment policy for going into war with another nation. As a result, Truman helped avert another combat and stop the current one.

Bibliography

Boose, Donald. MacArthurs Korean War Generals. Parameters 47, no. 2 (2017): 135-137. 

Brazinsky, Gregg. Winning the Third World: Sino-American Rivalry during the Cold War. UNC Press Books, 2017.

Choi, Deokhyo. Fighting the Korean War in pacifist Japan: Korean and Japanese leftist solidarity and American Cold War containment. Critical Asian Studies 49, no. 4 (2017): 546-568. Web.

Foot, Rosemary. The Wrong War: American Policy and the Dimensions of the Korean Conflict, 1950-1953. Cornell University Press, 2019.

The six fallacies advocated by Schlesinger are: the fallacy of over-interpreting the enemy, fallacy of over-institutionalizing the policy, fallacy of arrogant prediction, fallacy of national self-righteousness, reduction of the Cold War to a bilateral game between the US and the Soviet Union, and the fallacy of a zero-sum game (p.364-367). Both the US and the Soviet Union fell into these fallacies because both emerged as the superpowers after the end of the Second World War. They were therefore wary of each other and eyed each other in suspicion. In addition, the political and economic structures in the two nations were contradictory and each nation posed a big threat to the other nation. Schlesinger argues that the lesson that nations should learn from the Cold War is that superpowers do not have any capability to control their allies and their dependents as is often thought. Rather than the allies and client countries being captives of superpowers it is the superpowers which are captives of their allies and clients. Second, the ideology of nationalism has the capacity to challenge any superpower.

We do not know for sure what the future holds for the former Soviet Union and for eastern Europe because events tend to change every time. However, based on the outcome of the Cold War, it is likely that communist nations will ultimately adopt the capitalistic system. The Cold War had a profound effect on the US. The US emerged as the dominant superpower. Since then, the US has been able to maintain its political and economic hegemony.

The Cold War historiography is usually composed of two phases, namely the heroic phase and the academic phase (Schlesinger, p.363). In the first one, historians often begin to view the event as good men trying to fight off the evil existing in the world. This view is however later replaced by the view that the event was caused by an inevitable conflict between the two parties. This view always removes blame imposed on either party as a result of the event. Historians are affected by their traditions and the times in which they live. They first tend to view any historical event from their cultural eyes. With time and with further assessment, they begin to see the events from the eyes of all the parties involved. This way, historians can easily influence their times as they are able to accurately discern the causes of past events which can in turn affect future events.

Social and political structures have a great potential in the course of history especially when different regions have different social, economic and political structures. Conflict can easily arise from these regions as each region views the other as a threat to its system. In addition, the perceptions that people hold can affect the course of history. If people perceive the actions and motives of their supposed enemy to be real, they may be forced to take drastic actions to fight off the enemy. Such actions would then lead to consequent events.

Schlesinger argues that history exhibits predictable and unpredictable uniformities and recurrences (Schlesinger, p.366). One recurring event in the American history has been the struggle of the African Americans for freedom since the slavery era. This struggle has continued over the past decades and has culminated in the change of policies in favor of African Americans. However, other events, such as the suicide bombings of 2001, have been unpredictable. This indicates that the US, like any other society, portrays both predictable and unpredictable historical events.