Category: Cold War

Often, new wars follow closely behind old wars. This was the case with the 1947-1991 “Cold War.” This war was not characterized by thousands of deaths due to bloody battles but by long-term tension between the Soviet Union and the United States with their allies. Starting almost directly after World War II, the Cold War involved numerous countries and several smaller conflicts.

During World War II, America and the Soviet Union worked together towards a common goal: defeat Hitler. However, when their goal was accomplished, they became wary of the other again. The United States and the Soviet Union had always had their differences, mainly in their political choices. The U.S.S.R (the official name for the Soviet Union) practiced communism and socialism with a plan to spread their ideas to every nation. The United States was comfortable with their capitalist government, and they were not happy at the thought of communism spreading further than it already had.

The last time the United States, United Kingdom, and Soviet Union leaders met to discuss WWII, it became abundantly clear that the Soviet Union was already forcing communism in several of the countries under their control. They would not allow fair elections in these nations, and Joseph Stalin, the Soviet Union dictator, would stop at nothing to expand his communist rule.

In 1948, the Marshall Plan was passed. It was a program intended to help recover European countries after World War II. America spent over $13 billion focused on rebuilding European economies. One of the goals of the Marshall Plan was to prevent communism from spreading further.

During WWII, the Soviet Union, United States, Great Britain, and France had their military occupy different zones that they had agreed they would be in charge of. Berlin, Germany was under Soviet control. Upset by the attempts to recover European nations through the Marshall Plan, Stalin made a radical decision. He blockaded Berlin, leaving over 2 million people with no food, no medicine, no fuel, and more. The Allies had a quick response, and they started delivering food and other supplies by aircraft just two days after the blockade started. Since they couldn’t get to Berlin by road, rail, or canal, they made flight after flight to Berlin. The Berlin Airlift lasted 11 months. American, French, and British planes delivered about 2.3 million tons of supplies to Berlin in those months. In the end, more than 277,000 flights took place, and these flights saved millions of lives.

Soon, European countries and the United States along with some of their allies came to the conclusion that an alliance was essential to stop Soviet aggression. After much discussion, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed, which formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, also known as Nato. This treaty was signed on April 4, 1949, and included the United States, Great Britain, Canada, and a handful of European countries. Later on, even more countries entered the alliance. This treaty was signed while the Berlin Airlift was still going on. The treaty stated things such as, “an armed attack against one or more of them… shall be considered an attack against them all.” The allies also agreed to consult with one another when any of them were threatened. This treaty would make a huge difference in the outcome of the Cold War.

In May of 1955, West Germany was admitted to Nato. This addition was made to assure that Germany would not become a powerful and dangerous independent nation again and to prevent Germany from becoming Communist. Stalin had wanted to keep Germany weak, but when west Germany became part of Nato, it gained strength from its allies and their military. To counter this action, Stalin created the Warsaw Treaty Organization, which included East Germany, Russia, and many of the U.S.S.R’s satellite states. By the end of 1955, two opposing organizations existed.

One of the most prominent features of the Cold War is that it never was about military strength and fighting. Instead, both sides resorted to atomic bombs. The nuclear arms race played a major role in the tension between Nato and the Warsaw Treaty Organization.

During World War II, three countries decided to build the atomic bomb. Britain joined the Manhattan Project, which was the codename for America’s efforts to build an atomic bomb. The Soviet Union did not focus on their bombs as much as the United States and United Kingdom did. The Manhattan Project was fueled by the fear that Germany would make an atomic bomb, but they never made a significant attempt. The United States had two bombs ready by 1945, but with Germany already defeated, President Truman decided to bomb Japan instead. They dropped both bombs in Japan, resulting in 210,000 deaths. Some question if it was necessary to bomb Japan or if the goal was to intimidate the U.S.S.R.

Weeks after America bombed Japan, Stalin set up a committee to build an atomic bomb for the Union as soon as possible. By 1949, their atomic bomb was tested, and the Cold War nuclear arms race began. For the next few decades, both America, the Soviet Union, and all their allies would be focused on having the biggest supply of dangerous nuclear weapons. In 1952, America made the first super bomb-a highly destructive bomb. The Soviet Union followed in their footsteps the next year. These were 1,000 times bigger than the bomb that America had dropped on Japan. Both countries had test sites to test their bombs, and by the 1980s, over 60,000 nuclear weapons had been created in the world.

In 1956, the government of Hungary, which was part of the Warsaw Treaty Organization, revolted against the Soviet Union and fought for their freedom. In October, thousands of people demanded for a more democratic system. Hungarian Prime Minister Imre Nagy tried to calm things down and peacefully asked for Soviet military presence to be removed. When they did remove the troops, Nagy attempted to withdraw from the Warsaw Pact. New Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev responded by sending Soviet tanks and troops to end the revolution. About 2,500 Hungarians died and a quarter million more left to find refuge.

Joseph Stalin died in 1953, and when Khrushchev took over, he pledged to withdraw from using the same aggression and oppression Stalin had. However, he did not stick to his pledge, which can be seen in his actions towards Hungary.

The nuclear arms race was not the only race that took place during the Cold War. The Soviet Union and America also competed to advance their space technology. In 1957, the Soviet satellite Sputnik was launched. This was the beginning of the space race. One year later, America launched their first artificial satellite. Each country had many firsts, such as sending dogs and eventually humans to space. The Soviet Union sent their first person to space less than a month before America sent theirs. Eventually, a new goal was made: walk on the moon. In 1969, the goal was finally achieved. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin from America walked on the moon. The U.S. is considered to be the winner of the space race.

In 1955, U.S. President Eisenhower suggested an “open skies” plan with the Soviet Union at a summit meeting. This agreement would ensure that each country would know where the other one was keeping their nuclear weapons, and it would grant them permission to conduct aerial monitoring to make sure that the other was complying in any arms control agreement. Khrushchev shut down this offer immediately. The U-2 spy plane program was supposed to help the U.S. spy on the Soviet Union unnoticed. U-2 spy planes flew at altitudes of 70,000 feet, and they were thought to be undetectable by radars. It was very important that they were undetected because invading a country is normally considered an act of war. Through C.I.A operations, the first U-2 plane flew over Moscow in 1956. For the next four years, U-2 spy planes made many trips over Soviet Union territories. On May 1, 1960, C.I.A pilot Francis Gary Powers left a base in Pakistan, headed for one in Norway. This would bring Powers well into Soviet airspace. His plane was shot down by a Soviet surface-to-air missile, and he was captured to be interrogated. Soviet radar systems were more advanced than the C.I.A had thought, so they could see Powers’s spy plane. The U.S attempted a cover-up by saying that Power’s flight was a routine weather flight; however, Khrushchev saw through the lies. Powers was sentenced to prison and hard labor afterwards. Eisenhower admitted that he was fully aware of the spy plane program, and he said that it was necessary to maintain national defense. Khrushchev gave up trying to reason with Eisenhower, and he waited instead for the inauguration of a new president, who he ultimately failed at solving problems with too.

10 years after the Berlin Airlift, many people still fled from east (Soviet-controlled) Germany to west (U.S, U.K, and France controlled) Germany. Nearly 3 million people had crossed the border in the last ten years. Additionally, many people crossed the border daily for work or entertainment purposes. In 1961, Khrushchev gave the order to close Berlin’s border. In only two weeks, a temporary wall divided Berlin in half. The wall soon became permanent. Although it was not impossible, leaving east Germany was now extremely difficult. At least 170 people died in less than three decades in their attempts to cross the border.

In Cuba in 1953, Fidel Castro began his attempt to overthrow the Cuban government. Castro failed at first, but eventually he attracted many followers who sympathized with his efforts to overthrow the dictator Batista. With much luck, Castro’s volunteers won many battles against Batista’s much bigger armies using guerrilla warfare techniques and war strategies that did not require face-to-face combat. In 1959, Castro became Cuba’s Prime Minister. Quickly, the Communist Party of Cuba became a dominant political force, and Cuba’s previous capitalist system faded away.

President Kennedy aimed to get Castro out of power because he had pulled back on American influence on the island. Instead, he became allies with the Soviet Union. The C.I.A planned to send Cuban exiles to Cuba in hopes that Castro would be removed from power. When Castro took over, many Cubans fled. The C.I.A trained around 1,500 of these men, and on April 17, 1961, they landed at the Bay of Pigs to fight. This operation was extremely unsuccessful. Castro’s army greatly outnumbered the troops the U.S. had sent, and there was no air support provided. Within two days, most of the force had been killed or captured by Castro’s army. 114 Cuban exiles were killed in this battle. The C.I.A’s plan to get rid of Castro failed miserably.

After the Bay of Pigs invasion, America sent missiles into Italy and Turkey that were within range of Moscow, a Soviet ally. Khrushchev’s response sent the world to the edge of war. He made a decision in October of 1962 that became one of the scariest parts of the war. He decided to place over 40 missiles in Cuba, only 90 miles from United States land. Many of America’s biggest cities could easily be blown up. Khrushchev placed those missiles in Cuba to assert his dominance and to close the missile gap.

U-2 spy planes discovered the missile sites in Cuba on October 14, 1962. When President Kennedy found out two days later, he immediately formed a special committee known as ExComm. Initially, the president and his advisors swayed towards air strikes to obliterate the missile threats in Cuba. They settled instead for a navy blockade all around Cuba to stop Soviet ships suspected of bringing more nuclear missiles. This blockade began on October 22.

Khrushchev reached out to Kennedy with a proposal. He sent a letter that said he would remove the missiles if the U.S. lifted the blockade and promised not to invade Cuba. Then, Khrushchev sent a second letter that said America’s missiles would also have to be removed from Turkey. Kennedy chose to ignore the second message, agreeing only to the first. U.S. Attorney General Bobby Kennedy then met with the Soviet ambassador. They agreed that the missiles would be taken out of Turkey although it would not be part of the public solution to the missile crisis. The next day, Khrushchev made a public statement assuring the removal of the missiles in Cuba. The Cuban Missile Crisis came to an end. Khrushchev took the missiles out in November, and the blockade ended soon after. In 1963, the U.S quietly took their missiles out of Turkey.

Khrushchev was forced out of power in 1964 by other high-ranking Soviet officials. They were not happy with the way he had been handling things, including how he handled the Cuban Missile Crisis. They also didn’t like how he undermined their authority. Brezhnev, a close friend of Khrushchev, took his post the same day Khrushchev resigned.

In 1968, Czechoslovakia attempted to reform their government. New first secretary Dubcek supported a more democratic system, and he took a big step by adopting the Action Program. The Action Program contained a changed constitution that granted civil rights and liberties. It also said that the Communist Party would have to reestablish their rule by competing against other political organizations. Many Czechoslovakians got a taste of their old life again. Christian churches surfaced again, along with minority associations and human rights groups. A document titled “Two Thousand Words” was signed by a great number of people, and it encouraged movement to a real democratic government. The movement and temporary liberalization is known as the “Prague Spring.” Although many people supported this movement, powerful Communist leaders still lived in and around Czechoslovakia.

When Dubcek did not attend a special meeting of the Warsaw Pact powers, the other powers sent him a letter notifying him that they considered it their job to protect Czechoslovakia from a revolution. Dubcek did not take their notification seriously. On August 20, 1968, only 7 months into Dubcek’s rule, Soviet forces invaded Czechoslovakia. These forces secretly captured many of the leaders pushing for a democratic government, including Dubcek, and took them to Moscow. The people of Czechoslovakia acted against the Soviet invasion by attempting to resist them. They did things such as removing road signs to confuse the troops and refusing to serve the soldiers in restaurants and stores. Their efforts were not successful, and on August 27, the Moscow Protocol was signed. It said that Dubcek could remain in power and return to Prague, but Soviet troops would stay in Czechoslovakia temporarily. The Soviet’s made many other rules in Czechoslovakia to keep them from revolting again. Soviet presence helped the Communist leaders defeat the revolters. However, there was still evidence of resistance to communism. Demonstrators broke into a Soviet airlines office, Aeroflot, and started a fire there. Zan Zajic, a university student, committed suicide as a political protest. In 1969, Dubcek was replaced with Gustav Husak, whose reign in Czechoslovakia became known as the “Normalization.”

From the late 1960’s to about 1979, the Cold War died down. Newly elected President Nixon and Soviet Union leader Brezhnev made many agreements. They signed anti-nuclear proliferation agreements, which was meant to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and technology to make a safer world. The detente, as this peaceful time during the Cold War was called, also helped both superpowers financially. The U.S. spent billions of dollars helping fund the Vietnam War, and their economy was affected by disruptions in their oil supply. The Soviet Union faced similar problems, such as lack of agricultural growth that caused food prices to skyrocket. The two sides benefited financially from the detente because they stopped creating nuclear weapons that cost a great deal of money.

In 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. They did this to promote communism there. Previously, the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan had been gaining power. The Soviet Union wanted to keep Afghanistan as a Communist country, and they feared that America would influence their government. However, the Soviet Union’s efforts failed. For the next nine years, Soviet soldiers fought against mujahideen (Muslim) fighters in Afghanistan. After much loss, the Soviet Union signed a peace treaty with Afghanistan in 1989.

After the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, there was a new election in the U.S. Ronald Reagan became the new president in 1980. He endorsed a more aggressive policy with the Soviet Union, calling them the “evil empire.” He said that America should save the world from Soviet repression and their plan to spread communism. Obviously, many Americans agreed because he won the presidential election by a landslide. Reagan’s presidency ended the detente. The CIA executed Operation Cyclone, a program that assisted the anti-Soviet mujahideen soldiers all throughout the Soviet-Afghan War.

In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev became the new Soviet Union leader. He made many reforms in the next few years. He introduced the ideas of glasnost and perestroika. Perestroika was a movement that called for the restructuring of the Soviet Union’s economy. Gorbachev argued that the Soviet Union’s economy, which had been suffering greatly from the Soviet-Afghan War, could not recover if it was being controlled by the government. By 1987, Gorbachev was able to pass a law allowing businesses to have more freedom. The Communist Party was not happy with this step, a step towards democratization. In response, Gorbachev weakened the Communist Party’s hold on the Soviet Union’s government by creating a new parliament. The Congress of People’s Deputies, formed in 1988, allowed citizens to nominate their representatives instead of having it chosen for them.

Glasnost called for more openness in the government. Gorbachev lifted restrictions on information that had been in place since Joseph Stalin had been the leader. People became more involved in the government, and they started to talk about the failures of their previous leaders. It also gave citizens some freedoms back, such as the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. In 1989, Gorbachev called for the nearly 30-year-old Berlin Wall to be taken down. However, Gorbachev’s reforms soon led to the fall of the Soviet Union.

Gorbachev worked to improve relations with other countries, including the U.S. He bowed out of the nuclear arms race and took some Soviet troops out of Warsaw Pact nations in Europe. However, in 1989, a revolution took place in Poland, an ally of the Soviet Union. They changed the Communist government there to have free elections. Inspired, several other countries gained their independence. Gradually, the U.S.S.R lost their allies as they claimed their independence. Gorbachev signed agreements with Belarus and Ukraine to let them be independent, and all the other republics followed within weeks. The last republic, Kazakhstan, declared its independence on December 16, 1991. Gorbachev resigned as president on Christmas Day. The Cold War, a war that lasted over 4 decades, had finally come to an end.

He focuses on what Reagan endured and sacrificed in order to reach the end of the Cold War therefore conveying it is the life and soul given to the cause that matters. It is evident that Reagan invested his time and life in and out of office to this cause according to Schweizer. ‘Ronald Reagan is impossible to understand outside his forty-year battle against communism… it consumed more of his attention than any other endeavour and touch the very centre of his life.’ Reagans dedication to the cold war and the demise of communism can be evidenced through the Reagan doctrine, in which he was providing us support to anti-communist ‘freedom fighters’ this ultimately leading to the illegal transactions of weapons and money to Iran which funded Nicaraguan rebels.

While direct evidence between Reagan containing knowledge and the plot could not be found, he still came under criticism, loosing 21% of his supporters in less than a weak, as it was said funds should not have been available had he been appropriately managing his staff. While this could be interpreted to be a limiting factor in the favour of Reagan, it still anchors Schweizer’s line of argument that Reagan was dedicated and determine to fight communism and protect his ideologies. He had to do this despite the opposition he was facing from all directions including family and activists stating ‘the problem you and your friends don’t understand, Mr Wilens, is that soviets are way ahead of us’ it is evident he witnessed a threat many looked passed as Schweizer goes on to say he left understanding Reagan and considering him more reasonable therefore emphasising, the original point that Reagans intentions could be seen through taking time to understand his actions. Therefore, it seems as though those who oversaw Reagan including historian Richard Pipes who also argues in a similar fashion to Schweizer, must praise his efforts and award him in significant breakthroughs.

Schweizer gives the view that Reagans tactics exposed the soviet economy which and therefore weakened ideology domestically therefore gave Gorbachev little choice but to work towards reducing tensions. ‘The key was to play to American strengths – technology and innovation – and exploit soviet weakness in an arms race’ this can been clearly evidenced as at the end of 1981, Reagan restricted soviet access to US-developed energy exploration technology, and while some may argue he was hindering chances of improved relationship, the security of the US while weakening USSR was important in making progression toward the end of the cold, this being further evidence through Reagans 1982 soviet access restriction to oil and gas and related technology, this line of tactic clearly exposed the weaknesses in the soviet economy. It is fair to say, the critical conditions of the economy were a push factor for the USSR to work with the US as they notion of keeping up was unrealistic to obtain, especially in relation to the arms race. Reagan invested heavily in new weapons as it allowed him to negotiate from a position of strength, this being presented through SDI, it wasn’t that Reagan was opposed to discussing arms reduction treaties, this was a tactical decision which could be argued to have made talks more of a pressing matter. It could be seen that this tactic also caused the other favoured viewpoint of people power, as it undeniable the countries with in the iron curtain were unhappy and the higher standard of living of the west only fuelled opposition to the communist government, further putting pressure on characters like Gorbachev.

Historian, Michael Bernard also highlights this lack of leeway in decision that the Soviet Union had even though his viewpoint mostly favours people power ‘They could little afford to subsidize the region any longer and certainly, in their precarious economic condition, did not want to alienate western governments and bankers.’ The on-going decline in the economy could be said to be as a consequence to Reagan’s hard-line approach, therefore causing Gorbachev to work well alongside foreign leaders, even in various interpretations Schweizer’s point can be seen. Therefore, this line of argument is credible and after considerable evaluation it must be said to be a key factor that links to a range of events that led to the end of the cold war.

Have you ever wondered how we live in the world that we live in today? What made it become what it is now. Sadly war played a large effect on how America is today and the Cold War is one of them. It had many causes and also many long and short-term effects. Let’s start with what the Cold War was and then move on to the causes and effects. Well, the Cold War is the result of the end of World War II. It’s all the emergence of two superpowers that the US and the USSR had been locked in a struggle that lasted a total of 45 years. The term Cold War was first used in 1947 to explain and describe the conflict. It was a war that consisted of words of propaganda and the threats that occurred between the United States and the USSR but at the same time, it did not involve superpowers in confrontations. So the Cold War began due to a mixture of long-term and short-term causes, the long term being the differing ideologies, Stalin’s suspicion of the west which was the US and the United Kingdom, the United States changes of policies. And the short term causes were the Yalta conference, the Potsdam conference, Personality clashes, and the A-bomb.

Long term causes number one was the differing ideologies which were that in 1917 Russia became the first communist country in the world both the United States and the USSR believed that their systems were the best way of organizing a country and that other countries should follow their example. The USSR just permitted the socialist coalition, permitted no free decisions, the administration claimed all shops, plants, and ranches, and farming. The United States’ vote based system and impetus, free political decision, shops, production lines, and ranches were exclusive and run for benefit. Lots of freedoms but big gaps between the rich people and the poor people. Both of us sides feared that the other was out to destroy it.

The Soviets believed that the west was out to destroy communism. The west believed the Soviets wanted to spread communism around the globe. Long-term cause number two was Stalin’s suspicion of the west which was the United States and the United Kingdom. So the USSR had been attacked previously so Germany had invaded Russia in World War I and Hitler invaded in 1941. Stalin believed it was essential to have friendly countries on his borders to prevent this from occurring again. He did not trust the west since the west had appeased Hitler in the 1930s so Stalin’s believed they had wanted Hitler to destroy communism.The west was likewise delayed to open the second front during the subsequent universal battle to enable the Russians to battle Hitler. The final long-term calls which was the United States change of the policy which was determined not to repeat its isolationist policies of the inter-war years and believed a present meant did not work and that dictators had to be confronted and democracy had to be supported.

The richest in the most successful country in the world, which was the United States, was expected to have a say in the way that the world was going to be run. It was very confident that no other power had nuclear weapons. The United States did not want to return into a depression phase and wanted to secure markets for its goods and it did not believe that the communist countries would purchase American products as was resolved to forestall the spread of socialism.It was not in the United States’ economic interest to allow the spread of communism. The first short term causes out of three was the Yalta conference which was held in February in the year of 1945 basically the leaders present where acetylene from the USSR and Roosevelt from the United States and Churchill from Britain so they agreed that Stalin agreed to join the war against Japan once Germany was defeated and that all three agreed to join the United Nations. Germany was going to be divided into four zones of occupation and Berlin to be divided into four zones as Germany. Stellan to have a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. Free elections to be held to the side governments countries liberated from Nazi occupations. The USSR to join the war against Japan once Hitler had been defeated.

In The Origins of the Free Elections Dispute in the Cold War “ However, there was a dispute over Poland, and Stalin’s insisted on a friendly government in Poland and the west demanded free elections in Poland.” Short-term number two was the Potsdam conference which was held in July of the year 1945 so the agreement was that the USSR was to gain eastern Poland and Poland was to be compensated with some German land. The Nazi party to be banned and Nazi war criminals were to be put on trial. The disagreement that happened was that Stallon demanded a harsh report from Tatian from Germany for the USSR and they demanded $20 billion in compensation. This figure was dearly rejected by Truman and Attlee because they did not want to make the same mistake as at Versailles. The A-bomb which was a short-term cause of the Cold War took place on August 15 during the post dam conference which was where the United States successfully tested their first A-bomb. Show informed Stallon about it but was not willing to share the technology with him.

This made Stalin even more suspicious of the west and encouraged him to begin an arms race to make the USSR as weapons equal to the force to those of the United States. The arms race was pushed along by fear until 1949 the USSR could not risk a war against the US. When the USSR exploded its own nuclear weapon in 1949 the United States no longer had a monopoly and needed to rethink its strategy. So the United States started to develop the H bomb. Which took place in 1952 the USSR exploded its own H bomb in the United States began to build bomber aircraft to deliver the H bomb in the mistaken belief that the USSR had more bomber aircraft in the United States.

The long and short-term effects of the Cold War we’re not that much so the short-term effects were that 15 new countries had come into existence as a result of the Cold War and it also blew to global communism. And soon after the disintegration of Russia‘s whole political map of central Asia and Europe had changed. Also, the unification of Germany occurred. The long-term effects were that during the Cold War there was a competition going among countries in terms of the firepower, nuclear arsenal, missiles, and satellites but soon after the Cold War the defense budget of Russia had dropped dearly. Earlier whenever one country promoted democracy which was the United States others were being promoted as communism. An economic crisis occurred and it started in Russia and it was way worse than the great depression since it made millions of Soviets unemployed. The living conditions of people went really low until the 90s when the economy started to stand on its feet again and earlier there was a numerous proxy war which now had been completely quiet down.

Ronald Reagan once said,“We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth,” but that was in 1985 and there is no sign of the complete destruction of nuclear weapons (thereaganvision.org). This is exemplified in the ongoing War on Terror in Iraq and Syria. For quite some time, Americans have been debating whether or not to use nuclear force as a deterrent on ISIS and other terrorist organizations. This is all due to the large competitional aspect that was created by the spread of Communism, and those who were attempting to stop it. The competitional side of the Cold War is what pushed both sides to advance further, faster. This has resulted in a world that has the impending means to destroy itself, but not the understanding of how to stop it. The Arms Race in the Cold War left a powerful lasting effect on the world. In 1950, the first military actions of the Cold War began. The Northern, Soviet backed, half of Korea invaded the more Western backed Southern half. This is an important event because it pushed the countries involved to think more militarily.

This was the first conflict that arose from the Cold War in terms of actual fighting. This was the first of only a few, making them all rather impactful compared to wars in which battle is commonplace. This one attack spawned a whole war of its own called the Korean war, which is still going on today, however it is in a ceasefire (Millett). The same scenario ensued concerning Vietnam, causing the Vietnam War (Spector). While smaller communist states invaded their southern halves, the two giants in the Cold War, never had a direct battle. Of course these two giants are the USA and the USSR. While they had a few encounters, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1968, none of them ever caused a physical battle. This is a very important part of the puzzle, because had they fought, it would have resulted in an entirely different Earth. This would have been because of the nuclear advancements both of these countries were making on a daily basis. Scientists working hard, day in and day out, to be a part of the dominant country. The advancements were plentiful.

Of course, those who did the research earned their discoveries, but there were also those who did not, who only knew of the power that the weapons held, not how it was obtained, or how to “control” it per se. While that might seem rather dramatic, it is true. These weapons can kill millions of people if placed correctly, which is rather unnecessary. The nuclear tension puts millions of people at risk of death, who are not responsible, at the push of a button. This now happens with many conflicts throughout the world, should a country feel as if there is near to being in a war with another, they many times, threaten nuclear war, which should not be the answer. In the Cold War, there is a long list of achievements that came out of the secondary competition, The Arms Race, from improved atomic bombs, to better weapons in the field, and the world was changed drastically. First, in 1945, the United States detonated their first atomic bomb, in essence threatening nuclear superiority, and overall power. The USSR followed shortly after in 1949 detonating their first atomic bomb. In 1952, America proceeded to test their first Hydrogen Bomb, an improvement of their last nuclear bombs. But in 1957, the USSR took a step ahead of the United States.

They launched the first ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile) which was the first in the world. Shortly after in 1959, America launched their first ICBM, and this is significant because it shows the gap that grew between the U.S. and the USSR as far as technological advancements in weaponry went. About two years later in 1961, the Soviets detonated their largest bomb, the Tsar Bomba, to intimidate the United States. Soon after, in 1962, there was the first encounter with a direct threat of nuclear war, the Cuban Missile Crisis (american-historama.org). In a way, this event foreshadowed what the rest of history, up until currently, would look like when it concerned war of any kind, which is rather terrifying. There have been many rules and regulations put into place to restrict the use, and manufacturing, of nuclear weapons. However, these rules have been broken a number of times, such as when there were multiple presses to halt the production of nuclear weapons in Korea, yet they were and still are manufactured. While getting every country to put down all of their nuclear weapons would be immensely difficult, it is imperative to the furtherment of our world. Countries cannot grow, advance, or come close to flourish, if at every turn they are met with a threat of destruction in moments, which deters every possible forward movement of any society for fear of annihilation.

Whilst this might sound rather extreme, in a way there is a large amount of truth to be found in that statement. For example, the United States and North Korea have been in a nuclear struggle for quite some time. While this specific conflict is slowly coming to an end, it is one of quite a few that have halted the betterment of the world as a whole. Twenty-eight years have passed since the official end of the Cold War, which was signified by the dissolving of the Soviet Union into its separate republics (americanhistory.si.edu). However, very little has changed over the course of those many years; a few more restrictions on nuclear weapons here, some outdated weapons were destroyed there, and a couple conflicts along the way. Toward the end of the Cold War, there were talks of nuclear disarmament, which is what is still being worked on today, and these talks went by the names SALT and START, standing for Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (Britannica) and Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (Freedman) respectively. Neither of these propositions had the goal of world disarmament, where they should have.

The open nature to still allow these weapons of mass destruction in the world left room for a lot of freedom as far as creating these weapons goes. Most apparently, monitoring every countries’ advancements and arms closets is not possible either. However, by now the world knew there needed to be a change in the way things were headed, so these talks did do a good bit for the fight against nuclear arms, but many argue that they did not do enough. SALT achieved limitations on all different kinds of missiles,“The treaty set an overall limit of about 2,400 of all such weapons systems for each side” (Britannica). As well as later on in 1982, START acquired reductions on warheads and delivery vehicles. “Both the United States and Russia would be permitted a total of 7,950 warheads on a maximum of 1,900 delivery vehicles (missiles and bombers)” (Freedman). Since these talks, there has been very little occur as far as limitation changes, and next to no talk of total disarmament. While it is understandable, the reasons to be nuclearly disarmed heavily outnumber the reasons why all countries should keep their weapons of mass destruction. First, the imminent doom of the world should worry every citizen on earth, but many argue that there should be no worry of such banter. However, this is far from the truth; when one missile is launched, many more will follow in each direction.

This would leave large parts of the world rendered useless due to nuclear contamination and the obliteration of natural life in the affected areas. Secondly, all of the resources that are poured into the production of these weapons would be much better applied to other areas of science. Most apparently, due to the use of the segregating word “nuclear” in both fields, these resources would be much better used in the upgrading and expanding of the nuclear power industry. Should all of these resources be poured into that industry rather than the production of destructive weapons, scientists could entirely change the way nuclear energy is perceived by the public. Third, and finally, these weapons only signify how much the idea of destruction matters to each country on earth. This in a way shows how corrupt the world has become compared to the way it should be. While there will never be a perfect earth, violence and destruction should not be the answer to the problems.

While the idea of total disarmament sounds great, obviously it would be hard to make work. First, each country would need to follow the exact same rules and regulations concerning nuclear weapons and how the are controlled. One power would be required to police the entire world and ensure the safety of all countries. World peace is not possible, plain and simple. However, the lack of peace should not be equated to who has the most nuclear weaponry wins the war. “The United Nations has sought to eliminate such weapons ever since its establishment” (United Nations). The United Nations has been at the forefront of all disarmament talks, always attempting to make it happen, but every time, there is someone who doesn’t agree with the terms and conditions that are put into place, therefore they must be changed to accommodate one, proceeding to fail another. Some throughout the world believe that entire disarmament must be forced due to the constant desire to be the better country.

Which all comes back to the idea of the Arms “Race”, a competitional fight to get ahead of the others. This has since pushed all of the countries involved to continue advancing, regardless of the “end” of the Cold War. Advancements are still made daily, or at least attempted. Which only proceeds to show every countries’ desire to be on top.Humans, as a whole are mentally competition based, and when someone holds a high amount of power over others, the underdogs always attempt to gain back that control. It is psychological, and almost every person has this ideology. Whether it is more prominent in work, athletics, scholarly studies, etc. each person has this mentality within them (competition). The control given to leaders allows them to take their competition to the next level, making the world all the more dangerous.In North Korea, these weapons are flaunted to the public as a way to build up patriotism amongst the people, but it also is used as a means to instill fear to the surrounding countries. Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s leader, has had many increasingly sophisticated nuclear weapon tests since 2006 and is believed to have a chemical and biological weapons closet, regardless of being apart of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) and the outlaw of the use of those weapons in warfare (North Korea).

This shows what lengths different leaders will go to to get ahead and find a foothold above others, which in some cases can be good, but in this case and many others, it is not.Overall, the Arms Race has changed the world in many different ways, of course that includes the weapons being made, and the way war as a whole is handled, but the Arms Race left a lasting competition in the idea of weaponry, that has pushed all countries to advance further. While, in some ways this is a good thing, in many ways this is not a positive aspect of the Cold War’s effect. The world has changed drastically, and the rules have not. There are many outdated rules and regulations which do not do enough for the safety of the world where they should. The countries of the world need to look to provide a safer planet for the future and ensure tomorrow for the citizens of the world.

The Cold War

The Cold War was the political tension between the USSR and its states known as the Eastern bloc, and the USA and its allies known as the Western bloc in the mid to late 20th century. The reason for it being called the Cold War is due to the lack of direct military actions between the USSR and USA. However, the opposition would always to demolish the other’s economy. This passive aggressive behaviour continued for nearly five decades (1947-1991). The image painted of a communist nation at the time was one of poverty and exploitation. The Communists believed that no one superior to anyone, regardless of profession. So, the government would take everyone’s money and give it equally to everyone. They also believed against private enterprise. Contradicting to this, the average capitalistic lifestyle was one of luxury and class. The US backed states relied heavily on private enterprise.

The Cold War introduced a new way of war through espionage. Espionage was very prevalent in both states. Many Americans would disguise as Soviet powers and vice versa to gain valuable information for their side.

However, the Cold War was the resulted to many conflicts including, but not limiting to: Korean War, Vietnam War, the Berlin Crisis and the Bay of Pigs. The battle of East and West resulted in tremendous losses on both sides.

As the iron curtain rose once again in Europe, the Soviets dissolved into smaller republics then eventually be forgotten. This would mark the end of the Cold War in 1991.

Not only this, the Cold War resulted in the Arms and Space race, were the two world’s super powers, USA and USSR, raced to see who had the best weapons.

The Vietnam War and Australia

Communism remained a key political issue gripping Australia during the 60s. It was the main reason to send troops to Vietnam in the first place. Vietnam is North-west of Australia. It is the part of Asia Europeans call, French Indochina. Due to France’s 100+ year control over Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, they were ahead of the colonisation game in Asia against their enemies. France earned trading advantages for having their colonies. To the end of WWII, a communist leader named Ho Chi Minh claimed Vietnam’s independence from the colonial giant. France lost the rest of their colonies after a Vietnamese invasion at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu. A ceasefire agreement divided the nation into two at the 17th parallel. Communist Viet Minh took hold of the North, holding communism as their ideology, and the South was backed by Western forces, having capitalism as the main ideology.

Australia believed in the ‘Forward Defence Policy’ were the government believed that the best way to prevent war on Australian soil was to send troops overseas and fight there. This was the main reason why Australia decided to join the Vietnam War. Between 1962 and 1972, 60,000 Australian men and women served in Vietnam.

Social implications in Australia

Protests

The Vietnam War had its toll on Australia both physically and socially. Protests were demonstrated. The war had made Australians turn amongst themselves. Some people argued that Australia’s involvement was unnecessary and that countless lives were being lost, while others believed that Australia must stand with America to fight in Vietnam to fight communism and stop the spread of it to Australia.

Many protestors gathered in Australia to protest Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War. One notable one being the July 4th, 1968 protest in Melbourne. Wild mobs of protestors stormed the US consulate. Hundreds of anti-Vietnam demonstrators fought against police that night. The protest got so out of hand that troops were called out. 54 people were arrested and many others wounded.

At 5:45 is when the riot broke out due to one protestor taking out an American flag and burning it.

Mental health

Not only did the Vietnam War lead to protests in Australia, but it also exposed many soldiers to higher rates of PTSD. After the Great War, the world grew aware of mental health and how it is a disease that can harm people. People in Vietnam were exposed to higher rates of PTSD due to the constant gun shell sounds and bombs. As time progressed, the PTSD would severe. The disease resulted in many suicides due to the constant reminder to veterans of the tragic time they faced to protect the South.

Cultural implications in Australia

Refugees and multiculturalism

In the decade following the Vietnam War, over 80,000 Vietnamese people moved to Australia as refugees. The reason for 11,429% increase in Vietnamese people in Australia was because of the decision that the Whitlam government had to remove the ‘White Australia Policy’.

In 1982, Australia accepted near to 60,000 Vietnamese refugees.

Even though more than 2,000 Vietnamese people came by boat, many more were sadly killed at sea. Various accounts were recorded of how Thai pirates would rape Vietnamese women on these boats.

“The patrol boat began shooting at us, and the women on our boat screamed.”

Source 3- Quote from Anh Do’s autobiography, The Happiest Refugee.

Even though many Vietnamese people suffered as refugees, this decision to remove the ‘White Australia Policy’ created a gate way to make Australia one of the world’s most multicultural country. Today, Vietnamese people make about 1.4% of Australia’s populations. And Vietnamese migrants make up about 1% of all migrants entering Australia today. Also, 1 in 2 Australians have an overseas-born parent. And 1 in every 4 Australians were born out of the country.

Discrimination

In the last month of the Whitlam government, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, came into effect were racial discrimination was deemed illegal. However, this didn’t stop discrimination completely. The people who had rejected Australia’s involvement in the War sought to be on the political left with the Labour government. However, even with this, many Australians also rejected the idea that Vietnamese people should be sent to Australia as refugees. Racist comments and violent protests were common in this era as the people of Australia didn’t want any involvement in the war.

Political implications in Australia

Treaties

Australia joined 51 nations to pledge collective security by the signing of the United Nations Charter. The signing of the Charter was a way to give the smaller, less known nations of the world a voice in worldly affairs. The signing of the United Nations Charter and the support for collective security is the main reason why Australia decided to help South Vietnam in the Vietnam War.

The South-East Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) grew out of the Manila Pact. This was following the French defeat and their withdrawal from Indochina. The United States of America saw SEATO essential to its Cold War containment policy. It was designed to stop communist forces from furthering onwards in the region. Some signatories were Australia, America, New Zealand, Britain and France. South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia were offered protection under the treaty without being included. In contradiction, India, Indonesia and Malaya declined the offer.

However, most of the SEATO members were not located in Southeast Asia. Britain and France joined the treaty due to their long-maintained colonies in the treaties. To the SEATO treaty, Australia contributed to 13.5% of SEATO’s military and civil budget. As time went on, the SEATO treaty grew insignificant due to the lack of contribution from the allied countries. Countries had many disagreements so no military forces were employed even though they were give military training.

The Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty (ANZUS) is the treaty between Australia, America and New Zealand for military matter in the Pacific Ocean region. The treaty was signed on September 1st 1951. It says that if any of the three parties are to be attacked that it could pose a threat to the others. This meant that all three would have to send military utilities to aid the others. It requires each nation to ‘consult together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened in the Pacific’ and ‘act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes’. The treaty was made mainly to respond to the spread of communism in the Indochina areas which would be the main reason New Zealand sent their troops to Vietnam in the Vietnam War.

Allies

South Vietnam was allied with countries like United States of America, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and New Zealand, which helped South Vietnam when they were being invaded by communist forces from the north. North Vietnam would be supported by communist forces such as the Soviet Union, China etc.

Conclusion

America’s involvement in the Vietnam War began after WWII where they decided to commit to helping the South Vietnamese. America wanted to stop the spread of communism to the Pacific area, which would lead to up to Australia. And Australia being in western society, the thought was communism would spread through Australia. This was known as the domino theory. America sent many troops, however 58,318 would die (1/5 of combat deaths) and the war would leave 303,644 Americans wounded.

If one was to think of the Cold War, what would first come to mind? For the vast majority of Western people, notions and tales of American and Russian conflict and tension and all related events spring to mind. Yet, Vietnam and the Korean Peninsula were far from the only regions in the Far East to be affected by the Cold War. The Sino-Soviet relations post World War 2 are fascinating both in their ideological diversities as well as the political implications of their differences. The transpiring conflict deriving from this divergence in beliefs defined the two major Communist government models and highlighted the flaws that would emerge in both styles of leadership.

Any effective study of 20th Century Sino-Soviet relations, one must begin with the origins of the links of the two powers to World War 2. In order to expel the Imperial Japanese forces from China, Stalin, Mao and Chiang Kaishek (the leader of the KMT, a party which was at civil war with the Communist Party of China) became reluctant co-belligerents. Following the successful expulsion of the Japanese from China, a further dispute arose over Manchuria and a civil war erupted between the US backed KMT and Mao’s CPC which was utilizing weapons seized from the Japanese given to them by the Russians. Eventually in 1949, the KMT was defeated and fled mainland China to Taiwan leading to almost complete Communist control of mainland China.

A significant influence in Sino-Soviet relations is the incredibly polarizing view that Mao adopted towards Communism. Mao’s aim was to implement urban Orthodox Marxism theory to China in order to accelerate its modernization and overall development. He believed vehemently in Orthodox Marxism and Stalinism and accepted no major divergence from it, and it was this unwavering belief which led to the ultimate deterioration in his relationship with Nikita Khrushchev and the further resulting deterioration of Sino-Soviet relations and indeed a divisive schism in Communist theory.

Yet, in 1950, Mao and Stalin safeguarded their national interests through the signing of the “Treaty of Friendship, and Alliance, and Mutual Assistance”. This treaty involved major concessions of the Russians to the Chinese such as control of the Chinese Eastern Railway in Manchuria, several strategic ports as well as a $300 million loan. However, the CPC also submitted to the geopolitical hegemony of the USSR, yet unlike other various Eastern-European puppet states, Mao kept control of all his governmental duties and activities. It was during the 1950s that Mao aggressively implemented the USSR’s model of “planned economy”. This was disastrous for the Chinese. Mao’s infamous “Great Leap Forward” which was the planned urgent industrialization of the Chinese state proved to be a failure of the greatest proportions. Mao’s unrealistic goals went greatly unfulfilled due to insufficient agricultural production which in itself was caused by the Great Chinese Famine between 1959 and 1961 when between 15-55 million people perished.

Meanwhile, in the USSR Khrushchev, had commenced his policy of de-Stalinization and his beliefs were affirmed in the “On the Cult of Personality and its Consequences” which attacked Stalin and Stalinism, especially in respect of the Great Purge. In response to this, the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) altered their political stance dramatically. They transferred from Stalinism’s confrontation of the West, to Khrushchev’s coexistence and co-operation with the West. This ideological divergence is the root cause for the vast majority of Sino-Soviet conflict during the Cold War. This was because Mao utterly detested this ideological differentiation and rejected it as Marxist revisionism and ultimately, the division between Mao’s interpretation of Stalinism (Maoism) and Khrushchev’s communist revision with aims of coexistence with the West, becomes starkly visible in all further actions of the two leaders.

The fractures in the Western misconception and misconstrution of monolithic or universal communism in the Eastern Bloc began to come to light with the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. This event is significant as even though Hungary was a communist country, the required military suppression of the revolution reaffirmed to Mao that his desired plan to achieve socialism in China, through Stalinism concepts and practices, was the correct path. This affirmation also came with the denounciation again of Khrushchev and his “Marxism Revisionism”. Further occurrences of similar instances include the Soviet-Albanian split (1955 to 1961), Yugoslavia’s mixed economy and in regards to the US espionage on Russia.

The latter of these events, the US espionage on Russia, was of particular significance as it indicated to Khrushchev towards Mao’s apparent mental incapacity. In May 1960, the USSR shot down a U-2 spy plane which had been flying over Russian land taking photographs of classified areas. Mao expected Khrushchev to deal aggressively and with decisive action against US President Dwight Eisenhower. Yet, to do so would bring the threat of nuclear war which both the USSR and the USA desired to avoid at all costs. Therefore, at the Four Powers Summit in Paris in May 1960, Khrushchev demanded an apology from Eisenhower for the continued US espionage in Russian airspace. Eisenhower refused to apologize and Khrushchev’s refusal to take military action, caused the loss of Mao’s respect for Khrushchev.

This blatant disregard for the severity of East-West nuclear war is visible also in the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis between which occurred August and September of 1958. Earlier that year, there had been conflicting interests between the USSR and China in regards to submarine ports to deter US intervention in the South China Sea, yet Mao took this as Khrushchev’s desire to control the Chinese coastline and negotiations promptly broke down. Soon after this, Mao desired to gain PCP sovereignty over Taiwan, which had become the KMT’s Republic of China. Mao’s invasion of the Matsu and Kinmen islands triggered the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis. As Mao did not inform Khrushchev of this military action, the relations between the two leaders again became strained. This strain was particularly tensing however as the US promised nuclear action against both the USSR and China if a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would take place, thus dragging Khrushchev into Sino-American conflict over “a long lost civil war in China”. Due to Mao’s apparent nonchalance over the threat of worldwide nuclear war, Khrushchev cancelled Soviet foreign aid as well as a shipment of nuclear weapons to the PCP.

These deteriorating personal and ideological relations further burgeoned with the trading of personal attacks and insults at the Romanian Communist Party Congress. Initially, Khrushchev incited Mao as a “Chinese nationalist, a geopolitical adventurist and an ideological deviationist”. In response to this, Peng Zhen, a leading figure in the CPC named Khrushchev as a “patriarchal, arbitrary and tyrannical leader” as a well as a Marist Revisionist. Notions of Russian chauvinism and Chinese backwardness were portrayed in the Albanian-Soviet Split where the Albanians refused USSR aid as they were regarded as backwards by the USSR due to their retention of the Stalinist model of state. Yet China “immediately sent food to their brother country” with this fact being used as a justification for apparent Russian chauvinism.

In response to the attacks, Soviet-Sino joint scientific projects were cancelled by the USSR with the withdrawal of 1,400 Russian scientists from China. Mao in response attempted to justify the Great Chinese Famine and the PCP’s massive economic failures on Khrushchev. To Mao, Khrushchev’s failure to take decisive military action and his overall attitude of harmonious coexistence with the West caused him to lose significant credibility both as a puissant capable leader as well as ideologically. Yet, for Khrushchev, Mao’s unpragmatic levels of sanity and backwards, flawed ideology rendered Mao as a detriment to Khrushchev and his aims in order to achieve East-West coexistence.

Despite these indifferences, it remained pragmatic for the USSR and CPC to stay allies however with the fracturing of relations between Russia and the People’s Socialist Republic of Albania, the disputes between the USSR and CPC elevated to a national-government level. With the failure of the Russian implementation of military action in regards to both the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Bay of Pigs invasion, Mao grew increasingly discontent with Khrushchev and the CPC broke relations with the USSR in late 1962 with Mao stating that “Khrushchev has moved from adventurism to capitulationism”. Mao further expressed his anger in “Nine Letters” criticizing Khrushchev and his running of the USSR.

The solidification of the Sino-Soviet Split came with the publishing of the “Chinese Communist Party’s Proposal Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement” and the “Open Letter of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union”. These party general lines served in perpetuating the contrasting views of Orthodox Marxism held by each of the parties and with this, the countries of the Warsaw Pact officially broke all ties with the People’s Republic of China, finalizing the split between the two great nations and the split of Communism.

The concept of Monolithic Communism which is prevalent in most Westener’s views of Communism, strikes contrast with the differing interpretations and doctrinal schisms which developed between the Khrushchev’s USSR and Mao’s PCP, which to this day remain the two most significant Communist ideologies. This division led to the development of a tri-polar Cold War and on numerous occasions perpetuated deteriorating East-West relations. Despite the clear significance of these doctrinal differences, the degree of significance to which these events pose to the Western World is little and even less is the level of knowledge amongst Western people as to the sequence of events which could have forever altered the geopolitical climate of the World.

18 years ago, in 1991, it was the year that the Cold war had ended. More than four decades of the geopolitical tension between two superpower nations – the Unites States and the Soviet Union, however, there are still a lot of debates going on whether was it really ended as now there is a new economically form of Cold War between China and America emerged or whether was it really a war or not. This essay will be discussed why I disagree on the statement that The Cold War was not a war. Starting from looking at the definition of the war, origins of the incident, the proxy wars in Asia and then the conclusion.

In order to see whether the Cold War was a war or not, it has come to the definition of the word ‘war’ As Merriam-Webster (2019) defined ‘war’ as “a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations.” However, van der Dennen (1981) added that the nature of war is found not on the battleground, but in the hostile behaviour and perspective that characterised a state’s foreign policy. According to Gray (2018), war is a violent confrontation of the same interests between or among the groups characterised by the use of army force, it can be nations or non-nation state groups by the ability to cause the violence on the significant scale to have remarkable political consequences. Similar to Clausewitz (1992/1993), he asserted:

“War is nothing but a duel [Zweikampf, literally ‘two-struggle’] on a larger scale. Countless duels go to make up war, but a picture of it as a whole can be formed by imagining a pair of wrestlers. Each tries through physical force to compel the other to do his will; his immediate aim is to throw his opponent in order to make him incapable of further resistance.” (Clausewitz, 1992/1993, p.75)

It can be seen that the word ‘war’ has many different definitions depends on one’s perspective but most of them contain a sense of force and army or related to one’s interest on political attentiveness over other countries.

Even so, there are many hot wars which is the result of the Cold War. As stated by Lang and Blight (2013), Hot War is the war that people fighting and died. After World War 2 ended, people understand their destructiveness and then the foundation of the superpowers – USA and Soviet Union – emerged and they have very different view, therefore, they are enemies. Lang and Blight (2013), added more that even though they are clashing but they do not fight each other direct but via picking up the proxy to fight in somewhere far away from their homeland that were communist side and capitalist side. It turns the Cold War by superpowers to the Hot War in many countries such as Vietnam, Korea, China, and etc. Furthermore, Atwood (2010) pointed out that Hot War is the war in many proxy countries, for example, Korea, Vietnam, China, Laos, Cambodia, and so on. without any damage in Soviet Union or in America. Despite that Byman (2018), claimed that proxy war is a war that major powers support and lead a group of people or nations to the quarrel but themselves play a minuscule role in the actual battle. It can be contrasted to traditional war and also to the alliances. Furthermore, Fox (2019) indicated that proxy warfare is an action by dominant player, or the principle, through a non-dominant actor, the agent, against one’s conflict to obtain the principle’s military intentions. It can be concluded that hot war during this Cold War time was a war in the proxy nations that all the damages would fallen on those proxy countries not only on the human lives or military but also on their society, cultures and economies.

Whereas, for the Cold War itself, at war’s end, Europe was put down in ruins. Even in Asia, Japan, also left in debris by relentless US bombing or in India, people died from famine result from the war in 1943. After Second World War terminated, there is absolute opposite ideologies on world’s politics silent confrontation through geopolitics, economy and the army forces between two supranational nations which are the capitalist – United States and the communist – Soviet Union. However, this postwar brought on the fall of the old international order, needless to say, Eurocentric international system that had influenced the world over 500 years had wiped out. Leffler and Painter (1994) stated that after WW2, the new international systems were shaped by five developments: great power rivalries, improvement in warfare technological, ideological conflicts between transnational, ameliorate and reconstruction of the world capitalist systems, and independence movements as well as decolonisation in many countries. These 5 developments linked to each other and it can be seen that those areas are the causes of the increasing in tension between 2 superpowers. Furthermore, including polarising in domestic and international politics and separate the world into military and political alliance became known as the Cold War. Many historians claimed that the cold war conflict emerged from different ideologies, politics and strategy. However, Leffler and Painter (1994) argued that Second World War was not necessary bring the vast changes in the international state system. In spite of that, instead, bringing mass redistribution of power, ending centuries of Eurocentric systems, these factors became the evolution of the Cold War.

For USA, after the war ended, the US sees that military dimensions such as maintaining navy and air forces, a strong military presence in the Pacific, etc. and economic dimensions such as liberalized trade, formation of International Monetary Fund and World Bank would help stabilize world economy. Moreover, McMahon (2003) holds the view that these two dimensions are indivisible. It can be believed that the US became the most powerful capitalist state. Lundestad (1999) supported McMahon ideas that America had tried to restrict the influence of Soviet Union and the leftist around the globe by trying to stabilized those countries’ economy and the free trade system benefits the countries with strong economy. However, for the Soviet Union, after the war brought to the end, they became obsess with the protection of their roots from future intrusion. Moreover, McMahon (2003) added that the Soviets – the socialist – were looking to be treated with respected but controversy enough that they want it from the most capitalist states – America. Nonetheless, America was not so happy with the Soviet Union, according to Life magazine (1945), the Soviet Union “is the number one problem for America because it is the only country in the world with the dynamic power to challenge our own conceptions of truth, justice, and the good life.” (Life Magazine, 1945, p.20)

With the fear and worried of the Soviet Union power and communist ideology spread to other countries and maybe in USA itself, America entered the global stage as a new emerging superpower country with the rejection of pre-war debt and promise to support the working class around the world. Leffler and Painter (1994) noted that USA entered the post WW2 period with a powerful presence, unharmed and undamaged by the fight, and their economic was growing drastically by increasing almost two times of their gross national product [GNP] during the Cold War time.

The Cold War was a state of political hostility between the West and the USSR which was formed through a number of economical tensions, geographical tensions and propaganda between the two nations. Over the years, the concept of the origins of The Cold War have been heavily debated amongst historians thus resulting in different schools of thoughts gradually emerging.

The post-revisionist school of thought, although drifts slightly to one side of the argument, mostly offers a balanced view and opinion on the origin of The Cold War. This school of thought differs from that of the revisionist and orthodox school. While the revisionist school of thought completely blames the tensions between the western powers and the Soviet Union on Russia, the orthodox school of thought believes that America is accountable for the origins. The three historians represent the different opinions as Vladislav Zubok, Herbert Feis and Kolko all have various ideas and beliefs on the origins of the cold war.

The post-revisionist historians, Vladislav Zubok’s and Constantine Pleshakov’s view on the cold war is that, although Stalin and his decision-making skills was a large contributing factor to the origins of The Cold War, he had no intention of world domination. Zubok and Pleshakov state, in their book, Inside The Kremlin’s Cold War, that Stalin was not prepared to take a course of unbridled, unilateral expansionism after World War Two. He wanted to avoid confrontation with the west, and he was even ready to see cooperation with the western powers as a preferable way of building his influence and solving contentious international issues. This argument is vital in the understanding of the origins of the cold war as Zubok presents a balanced view and a rounded perspective of the origins of the cold war by considering complex factors. This reflects their post revisionist perspective as they depart from the traditional arguments that look to blame a particular side, and instead, consider the interrelationship of various factors in order to make a final judgement. They attempt to dispel that either side actively sought a cold war, but rather find that it emerged from a collection of actions and reactions. However, the historians state that Stalin’s intentions were strewn with miscalculations.This emphasises Zubok’s argument about the origins of the cold war. Zubok and Pleshakov point out that Stalin was an autocratic dictator a fact that Zubok and Pleshakov agree with but he limited his domestic and foreign priorities in an attempt to not evoke tensions within the western powers.

Furthermore, Zubok and Pleshakov argue that America and Britain also played a part in the origins of the cold war as mentioned before Stalin limited the nature of his foreign and domestic priorities yet they led to tensions with the west. Zubok believes that the Western powers overreacted due to their cynical thoughts concerning the Soviet Union as Soviet leaders could be brutal and unreasonable and so the West perceived Stalin’s authoritarian nature to be a threat to, not only surrounding countries, but to them as well and perceived it to be a sign of global domination, thus heightening the tensions between the West and the USSR. Zubok argument suggests that Stalin miscalculated the results of his plan resulting in the rising tensions between the western powers and the USSR and so although Stalin was primarily to blame for the origins of The Cold War, western powers contributed to the hostility between the two nations due to their pessimistic views concerning Russia and Stalin.

In comparison to this, the revisionist, Herbert Feis, believed that Russia and Stalin were solely to blame for the origins of the cold war. He claimed that Stalin did indeed have intentions for global domination and that he believes Stalin corrupted and manipulated the intentions and needs of the Russian people as he states that both Churchill and Roosevelt were correct in saying the Russian people needed moral law, freedom, and a balance of power. Feis states under Stalin, they were only trying to extend their boundaries and their control over neighbouring states but also beginning to revert their revolutionary effort throughout the world. For Feis, the key features of the origins of the Cold War were the nature of which Stalin presented himself and the exploitation of the Russian people, convincing them that Russia would benefit from Stalin’s expansionist ideas and beliefs.

In addition to this Feis argues that Stalin and the Russians were exploiting their chance to organise the country. The historian stated that under the Declaration of Liberated Europe, all three allies agreed to the liberation of Austria. However, this was disregarded by the Soviet Union as they recognised Renner’s group as the provisional government. Due to this, tensions began to arise between the western powers and Soviet Russia as both America and Britain refused to do the same as Russia. This argument reflects Feis’s revisionist thoughts as his argument suggests that the USSR were trying to gain power over Austria through a way that, although seemed harmless, could have been potentially devastating for Austrian residence as Stalin tried to add Austria as a country with communism, thus representing his expansionist desires and his aims to spread communism throughout the world.

Throughout history, there have been multiple causes of war and volatile relationships between countries. One of the most prevalent causes of war being communism. Starting in 1945 and coming to an “end” in 1991 the Cold War made its presence known. Threats of missiles and war were constant on not only government officials minds but rather all citizens whos homelands were involved in the conflict between the United States and its allies against Eastern European Countries The most well known being Russia. Although the Cold War came to an end in 1991 with the fall of the soviet union the repercussions are still continuous in the present, leaving America and close allies relations with past communist countries still unstable and affecting wars today.The Cold War began in the year of 1945 and officially “ended” in the year of 1991. However, before the United States and Russia began to form an unstable relationship with one another the “ Bolshevik Revolution” took place.

The Bolshevik revolution took place on October 25, 1917, due to the Tsar or ruler of Russia, Tsar Nicholas the II’s, abdication to the throne. (Trani et. al) Tsar Nicholas II was inept to govern Russia and soon became a nuisance to his citizens who rioted the streets due to lack of funds for food and against his leadership skills in general. Nicholas II was greatly hated by his citizens since his reign began. This hatred and resentment towards his reign over Russia first began because of his father, Alexander the III, who was a menace to the peoples of Russia. It heightened even more due to the Khodynka tragedy and Bloody Sunday which caused many Russian citizens to perish under the watch of Nicholas the II and his soldiers. Soon after the tragedy of Blood Sunday Nicholas the II abdicated the throne, realizing he was inept to govern the powerful country of Russia.

His resignation caused the arranged government of Russia to be in charge of the country for a period of eight months but soon due to the abnormal weakness of Russia at the time the Bolsheviks took over the country with ease. (Larkin) The Bolsheviks were as socialist/communist party led by Vladimir Lenin. Vladimir Lenin soon became the head of the Russian government from the years of 1917- 1922 but suffered an untimely death by stroke in the year of 1924 leaving the infamous tyrant Joseph Stalin as the leader of Russia. (Lauber)The Bolshevik Revolution was the true cause of the Cold War and began America and Russia’s hostility against one another. This hostility between the two superpowers was due to the United States disagreement on communism.

The United States, as well as its Allies, felt that everyone should own their own property and goods and earn the proper amount of money that their job would provide instead of the government issuing out the same amount of money to each citizen and owning all properties and goods. This form of government left many in poverty and without enough food to provide for themselves let alone their families. Although it was tense between the two countries the Cold War never truly turned into a “ hot war” which is when weapons and violence are utilized against one another, but there were many other wars caused by the Cold War. These wars were called proxy wars. (Bahmueller) However, the threat of a true war was constant between the two, the Cuban Missile Crisis being the one and only true weaponry threat during the Cold War. Missiles were pointed towards the U.S. and ready for launch at any possible moment. During this time Germany was also a threat to the United States and its Allies as eastern Germany was an Allie of Russia, controlled by the soviet union.

The Iron curtain was a term used at this time indicating the separation of the soviet union and non-communist countries. Sooner than later much more than a curtain was put up between the countries. In the article “A Challenge,” it is stated, “ A steady stream of East Berlin’s residents kept moving in the wealthier and politically freer West Berlin. That situation sparked more problems. Backed by the Soviet Union, the East German government constructed the Berlin Wall overnight in 1961” (Arnesen). The construction of the Berlin Wall separated The United States and its Allies from having any contact with communist Eastern Germany. This proved to be another country during the Cold War who had a complicated relationship with the United States and Allie countries due to communism.Communism soon began to spread from Eastern European countries and began to affect Asian countries as well, the most popular and well known of those being Vietnam as due to Communism the Vietnam War occurred.

Although, the Vietnam war is not truly apart of the Cold war as that was between the Soviet Union and the United States as well as their Allies the Vietnam war as well, as unstable relations with many countries in Asia, was a direct cause of the Cold War. Although the Vietnam War is the most well known the Korean war began first. This was due to Mao Zedong ,who was a leader of the communist regime, and gained control over China’s mainland in 1949. (Bahmueller).The entrance of communism within China soon led to the Korean war which was a war between North and South Korea. North Korea, who was communist at the time, invaded South Korea who was advitley resisting to become communist.

The United Nations soon put a stop to this war but did not succeed in ending Communism within Asia. Soon the Vietnam War occurred as communism had spread even further within Asian countries. This constant spread of Communism caused the United nations to fear, with the United States president, Dwight D. Eisenhower to create the Domino theory principle. The Domino theory is the concept of one country turning to a communist government which would then influence one after another country to follow in the former countries communistic steps. Due to the fear of communism occurring in multiple other countries similar to a trail of Dominoes, one falling after the other, American troops were sent to Vietnam. Many American soldiers perished During the Vietnam war finding it difficult to fight in the immense tangled jungles of Vietnam against the Northern Vietnamese.

During the Vietnam w]War President Richard Nixon was voted into office. Nixon’s number one priority was to defeat the Northern Vietnamese and ended communism as a whole which would put an end to the Cold War in turn. Nixon continued to send American troops into the Vietnam war with death being a destination for many soldiers in the future. Due to the immense amount of deaths within the War America was forced to surrender and sign the Paris Peace Accord which called for a cease-fire. The northern Vietnamese soon took over defeating South Vietnam which caused South Vietnam to surrender thus ending the Vietnam War. (Lewis)In today’s modern world many of the enemies that the United States and its allies had in the past still have unstable relations with the U.s today. In the present day, many of the countries that The United States have feuded with in the past have now converted to a Federal Republic government and departed with their communist pasts. However, other countries such as Vietnam and even Korea are still corrupted by the ways of communism making them an everlasting threat to the United States and Its Allies.

Present day Russia and the United States relationship is stable at best. In the year of 2008 president, Barack Obama and governmental leader of Russia Vladimir Putin signed the “Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.” In “managing the New old War,” author Robert Legvold states, “ the Obama administration enjoyed some success in lifting the U.S. – Russian relationship from its 200 nadirs, as the two sides forged the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New Start), agreed on tougher sanctions against Iran, cooperated on supply routes for Nato’s War in Afghanistan, and worked together to secure President Barack Obama’s plan to secure nuclear materials around the world” (Legvold). This seems like a promising step forward for the two countries and a start to s new and flourishing relationship for the future. However, it is still difficult for the United States as well as many other countries to accept and trust Russia as the carry and store a large nuclear arsenal that could be detonated at any moment and fired towards the United States.

Although, it is increasingly difficult to trust past tyrant countries such as Russia it seems as if currently the United States relationship with the superpower country is as stable as ever with current day President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin having a strong and understanding relationship with one another. However, Russia has recently proven to have meddled with the United States Presidential Election causing Donald Trump to win the presidential race. This news has been taken to Congress with the release of the Mueller report and may once again cause a rift between the United States and Russia.As of now relations with Asian countries such as Korea and Vietnam are still incredibly troubled with both countries still having past communist tendencies and still practicing communism as their form of Government. Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong-un, a hot-headed tyrant of the present day constantly has disagreements with many non-communist countries including the United States. With his recurring tests of nuclear weapons and his inability to keep a promise of putting a stop to nuclear warfare with the U.S, he continues to be seen as untrustworthy. As of today many countries still live in fear of Korea launching nuclear missiles and begging another World War.

This is a valid example of the old War continuously affecting relations and wars present day. However, not all past communist countries are on bad terms with the United States and allies. In 1987 United States President Ronald Reagan made a speech reaching out to the leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. Mikhail took Reagan’s words seriously and issued orders for the Berlin Wall to be bulldozed allowing family member]bers to reunite with one another and virtually tearing down a wall of communism within the country. In the article “Berlin Wall, November 9, 1889,” it is stated, “ By the end of 1991, the wall was gone. Its destruction signaled the end of the Cold War and the beginning of a new era of international relations” (Lusted). The destruction of the Berlin Wall proved to be the start of any relationship between the United States and Germany.

As of today the United States and Germany continue to have a stable relationship with one another, with little to no problems between the two countries. In conclusion, the Cold War was the begging of many unstable relationships with countries such as Russia, Germany, Vietnam, Korea, etc. Many of the countries stated previously still have a turbulent relationship with the United States due to the Cold War leaving many to think that the war may have never ended but has instead continued to be a Cold War and has yet to turn hot. However, countries such as Germany now have a stable relationship with the United States and allies proving to be a victory against communism and a new alliance formed. The Cold War may have never ended and nuclear weapons could be directed at the United States with one misstep but the United States and its allies have always been one of the largest superpowers within the world and continue to be. Leaving it as a force to be reckoned with for any country, especially a communist one.

Engerman claims that… which, to some extent, is similar to J.L Gaddis’ core argument – it was the differing ideas of security and with that the building of two very different empires that caused the Cold War- , as both are post-revisionist. However J. L Gaddis reveals a strong anti-communist rhetoric throughout due to his political affiliations…

Issues of national security rose for both the USSR and the USA during the Second World War that led to a crucial pursuit for security: the Nazi invasion of Russia in 1941 resulting in 23 million Soviet casualties and the 1941 invasion of Pearl Harbour, which Gaddis cites as “the defining even for the American Empire.” He argues that the West “sought to form a security that would reject violence or the threat of it,” and so sought to spread their influence across Europe to stabilise the war-torn countries and build enough strength for them to resist the forceful USSR; their idea of security was that is was a “collective good.” The Marshall Plan injected $13 billion into the European economy, which can be seen as an example of this. Stalin’s security, on the other hand, was “a zero-sum game, in which achieving security for one meant depriving everyone else of it.” He equated security with territory; acquiring satellite states with the identical regime and social system to Russia created a Communist buffer against any future attacks. Forcible Soviet takeovers of Eastern European countries such as Poland in 1945, Romania and Bulgaria in 1946, and Czechoslovakia in 1947 provided Stalin with this required buffer, whilst, according to Gaddis, robbing their citizens of safety. The stark contrast between the desires of the USA compared to the USSR “made conflict unavoidable.” Gaddis goes further and argues that the “American sphere of influence would arise there largely by consent, but that its Soviet counterpart could sustain itself only by coercion,” showing that, although the foundation of his argument comes from a post-revisionist viewpoint – highlighting the differences between the two countries’ beliefs –, ultimately he seems to take an orthodox approach, portraying Stalin’s views on security in a negative and unforgivable light without considering any potential flaws within U.S policy. His anti-communist undertone is not surprising as his political affiliations – as the official biographer of George F. Kennan and a close friend of George W. Bush – lean him firmly to the right.

COMPARE TO ENGERMAN “the defeat of Nazism contributed to the decline of racial nationalism and imperialist expansion” “the Soviets were more often ‘invited’ and the Americans more ‘imposing’ in the third world”

Accentuating his more orthodox stance, Gaddis claims that Stalin himself was a key contributor to Cold War tensions, writing that “it took one man in particular, responding predictably to his own authoritarian, paranoid, and narcissistic predisposition,” to lock hostilities into place. He argues that Stalin’s distrust and suspicion of Western leaders and his fusion of ideology and imperialism made a significant difference to the run of tensions, raising the question: “would there have been a Cold War without Stalin?” His paranoid action of bugging the rooms of Churchill and Roosevelt at the Tehren Conference in 1943 shows that his level of distrust was comparable to nothing of his Western counterparts, showing that he was more responsible for causing tensions than the leaders of the West. In 1945 both the U.S and British leadership changed – Truman replaced Roosevelt whilst Atlee replaced Churchill – which could be argued to have had little effect on post-war relations – supporting Gaddis’ point. However, historian Leffler maintains that Truman’s aggressive stance towards Stalin damaged cooperation and led to deteriorating relations, which is a more convincing view considering his arrogant nature at Potsdam due to his knowledge of America’s nuclear power. Gaddis fails to assess Truman’s flaws, due to his anti-Soviet views and political affiliations, which discredits his argument somewhat. Gaddis continues to examine Stalin’s characteristics, stating that “he had one demand: absolute subordination,” a mandate that would certainly decrease cooperation between him and the West. His imperialistic tendencies coupled with Marxist expansionism meant that the spread of Communism – achieved by coercive salami tactics in Eastern Europe – was in fact the spread of his own personal power. This was a concern for the West as it did not comply with their desire for democratic security, creating tension. Having said that, Gaddis does argue that Stalin was “certainly prepared to stop in the face of resistance from the west,” illustrating that although Stalin’s actions were aggressive, the West ultimately had the power to stop him. Stalin “quickly backed down” in Iran and Turkey once faced with Western opposition, as he did with the Berlin Blockade in 1949 and the Korean War in the 1950s – which slightly discredits Gaddis’ original argument. Engerman expands on this, quoting George Kennan as he described Soviet leaders as “opportunistic, ready to exploit weakness but not to overpower strong resistance.”

Honing in on Stalin’s aggressive character, Gaddis makes a point of Soviet action in Poland and how it severely damaged post-war relations with the West, contributing to Cold War tensions. “The brutality and cynicism” with which Stalin handled the matters in Poland “did more than anything else to exhaust the goodwill the Soviet war effort had accumulated in the West, to raise doubts about future cooperation in London and Washington, and to create deep and abiding fears throughout the rest of Europe.” Subsequent to the signing of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, which split Poland between the USSR and Nazi Germany, Stalin authorised the murder of 15,000 Polish officers in the Katyn Massacre.

This earned him “enduring hostility of the Poles,” which, as allies to Poland, made the West hostile towards Russia. Stalin’s refusal to help Polish resistance to the Nazis in Warsaw, 1944, despite the request from the West, also riled anger towards the USSR and marked the first indicator to the allies that the Grand Alliance was perhaps just a ‘marriage of convenience.’ Gaddis points out that “rather than admit responsibility” for his past actions in Poland, “Stalin chose to break off relations with the London Poles” and created a puppet Communist government in Lublin. This aggressive, undemocratic action went against the promises Stalin made at the Yalta conference, causing the Western leaders to lose their trust in him, rendering cooperation unlikely. Furthermore, Gaddis argues that these actions worried the Allies about how the USSR would treat countries in the future and showed them the extreme way in which Stalin was prepared to act in order to achieve his aims of security, which cast the first doubt that a post-war alliance between the two powers could occur. Throughout the late-1940s Stalin verified this worry by carrying out the Sovietisation of Eastern Europe. Figes (+E EUROPE) Gaddis does, however, note that the people of these countries may have preferred “autarchy within a Soviet bloc…to exposure once again to international capitalism,” upon recalling the Great Depression on the 1930s. He acknowledges the rise in left-wing parties taking control across Europe and presents the idea that Stalin “may have even anticipated an enthusiastic response” when taking over. This challenges the argument that Stalin’s actions in Eastern Europe were aggressive as he may have believed that the imposition of the Soviet model was widely desired.