Russia and America had competition over power which started the Cold War, both affecting the world socially, politically, and the economy. Both Russia’s and America’s society were affected from their competition of power and advancement in technology. Both nations tried to assert dominance over one another through political means, they showed it through bombs and new technology that was astounding. Most of their economy was now focused on them proving who was more powerful, Russia and America focused their resources and money to make powerful weapons and other useful technology. The Cold War was a race of power with Russia and America, fighting over who was stronger than the other with very dangerous weapons that could end the whole world.
Mother Russia’s and America’s fight for power affected both of their societies in negative ways, the people were forced to adapt to these harsh days of living. According to History.com, “the first H-bomb test, in the Eniwetok atoll in the Marshall Islands, showed just how fearsome the nuclear age could be”, when they were finished they would test it in the ocean and islands and the outcome was not pretty, “It created a 25-square-mile fireball that vaporized an island, blew a huge hole in the ocean floor and had the power to destroy half of Manhattan.” The explosion and impact of these bombs were so fearsome when being used, the bombs obliterated everything in their path and the aftermath was even worse, leaving residue of radiation. These bombings forced many people to build bomb shelters to protect their families, schools had drills just in case there was a bombing near or on them. The race for space forced american kids to do a ton of homework due to Russia reaching the moon, America’s thinking was that Russia had better schools, so they implemented tons of homework to the kids which didn’t help at all, “How could it be that the Soviets had gotten there faster? They must have better schools that are training their kids to become scientists on a higher level. America now had to integrate schools into our thinking about national defense policy.”
After the U.S had bombed Hiroshima the USSR took it upon themselves to develop a stronger weapon to gain more political power. Russia wanted to create better weapons because in the Article from BBC News “Both sides feared falling behind in research and production,” so they kept competing against one another to develop more powerful weapons. They both went on to create the most destructive atomic bomb ever made, the Tsar bomb or mostly known as the Hydrogen bomb, the impact of this bomb was so great and research from the Army Technology says “equivalent to the explosive power from the simultaneous detonation of 3,800 Hiroshima bombs.” Another show to prove technological power was the Race to Space, it was a movement to be the first nation to reach the moon. According to Adam Mann, he stated that the Soviet Union reached the moon first saying “Soviet Union, which had been devastated during World War II, was able to achieve this milestone first.”
During the Cold War both the Russians and Americans spent most of their fundings into making new and better technology to be more advanced than any other nation. Projects to develop these nuclear weapons cost both nations a ton of funding around the billions, Adam Weinstein says that “During the Cold War, the United States spent, on average, $35 billion a year on its nuclear weapons complex.” Then during the space to war Mike Wall states that “By the end of Apollo in 1972, the U.S. had spent about $25 billion on the program,” even though the spent this much money to get to the moon the Russians still reached it first, “Yuri Gagarin became the first person in space, giving the Soviet Union a huge victory in its Cold War space race against the United States.” Even with all this spending on new developments of technology, in the end the benefits helped them gain knowledge and power and new economic resources. The Cold War helped bring the best of the 2 nations to become more technologically more advanced than other nations.
The Cold War all started with the demonstration of Nuclear power done by the US, convincing the USSR to catch up in technological skills in many ways. When the USSR had surpassed the US, the US forced more work onto children, thinking it would boost the intelligence of their country. Both of them developed one of the most powerful weapon ever known to mankind, the Tsar Bomb which could evaporate a nation in seconds. The funding to the Cold War was worth it in the end, boosting power in both nations. The Cold War changed the world drastically, bringing newer and better technology in the world that we could never even imagine was possible, like how pixels create our $1,000 phone.
A product of justifications stemming from the Cold War and anti-communism sentiments, the Vietnam War became the benchmark by which American military limitations can be measured. All military conflicts are costly. Most importantly, lives are lost and of those who survive, many are forever altered physically, mentally and emotionally. Great amounts of money are spent on military actions which accrue a debt that must be paid over time, sometimes over many generations.
The National Debt rises which acts a as drain on the economy and takes away monies that could have been spent on domestic endeavors. The U.S., because of its involvement in ‘nation building’ that began in Korea and continued during the Vietnam era and is in full effect today, has lost political credibility throughout the international community. The most evident and memorable political fallout during the Vietnam War was student protestors who, through great sacrifice and courage, were instrumental in ending U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia.
The hard lesson learned, seemingly, from America’s involvement in Vietnam was that possessing an overwhelming military force does not guarantee victory. Though three million enemies were killed compared to 58,000 on the American side, the ‘big dog’ in the fight eventually had to run home with its tail between its legs, beaten and humiliated. Thanks to the unprecedented media covering the truth of the war, the U.S. rapidly lost credibility worldwide including within the borders of its own country.
Support for Nixon’s Vietnam policy dropped sharply in 1970 when he authorized the bombing of enemy strongholds in neighboring Laos and Cambodia. This did disrupt communist supply lines but was seen as a broadening of a war that was growing increasingly unpopular (Robinson, 2007). The extensive bombing campaigns and numerous offensives caused massive amounts of destruction on the Vietnamese and their property which only served to alienate the indigenous community. It galvanized the enemy and opponents of the war in both Vietnam and America and led many to question the ethics of the campaigns (Olney, 1990: 80-85).
The limitations of American power have been clearly evidenced by the misuse of its military superiority. The U.S. has gained many enemies and lost respect and prestige worldwide. In addition, if Vietnam had never happened, the limitations of the military would not be as apparent to the world at-large and the U.S. would today be perceived as stronger and more effectual than it actually is thus would have more political clout than it presently does.
However, this regrettable reality is likely soon to be a moot point anyway because the U.S. position as the world’s only superpower is a short-lived scenario. It takes money to build and maintain a military force, a lot of it to fund a nation’s superpower status, money which the U.S. no longer has. The most eminent threat to U.S. security is not the ‘red menace’ or the terrorist ‘evil doers.’ The National Debt, currently at more than $11 Trillion, is spiraling out of control and threatens to not only diminish the military but plunge the nation into the ‘third world’ category.
The United States is regarded as a good investment and has an unlimited ability to secure loans without a problem, but loans must be paid back, with interest. Germany, Japan, China and other countries own a large piece of America, a potentially disastrous prospect. One or a combination of creditor countries could cause a sudden and shocking reduction of the economy which would further increase the debt (Ignatieff, 2003: 3).
The Vietnam War divided the nation along ideological battle lines. The older generation, the ‘establishment’, was of the WWII period and operated under a nationalistic perspective. They believed that to be a true patriot was to blindly follow the authority of the governmental powers that be, to support your ‘country’ even when you thought it was wrong. The young college protesters, the ‘new generation’, the counter-culture redefined this notion of patriotism.
They believed that to be truly patriotic was to question the decisions of government and openly dissent when it was judged to be wrong. The philosophical chasm was wide and emotions ran deep on both sides. Those that protested sacrificed much. They suffered the scorn of their parents who couldn’t understand why their children were rebelling against the very foundation of their parents’ beliefs thus causing what was referred to as the ‘generation gap.’
Some war protesters were killed by soldiers of the National Guard as was the case at Kent State and South Carolina State. The protesters and draft-dodgers were thought of as anti-American by the mainstream citizenry who regarded their actions as nothing short of treasonous. This attitude makes one wonder what the ‘greatest generation’ thought they were fighting for during WWII. They fought to defend freedom on foreign soil but were very much opposed to the constitutionally guaranteed right to peacefully assemble in their own country (Bexte, 2002).
The war protesters of the 1960’s had the courage to act upon their political and philosophical convictions unlike those who are opposed to the Iraq War today. The two conflicts are eerily similar on many fronts yet the public reaction has been very dissimilar. Then as now, those opposed to the war are characterized as unpatriotic or as not supporting the troops, both of which, of course, are patently ridiculous concepts.
The major difference is that the draft personalized the conflict for many more Americans. More families had a personal stake in the Vietnam War as opposed to the war in Iraq which only affects a small segment of the population. Today, the incentives to protest are less while the consequences are the same. Being scorned and spit at on campus is easier to confront than are bullets and bombs in a snake infested marshy jungle thousands of miles from home. Acts of disobedience were commonplace during the 1960’s and all too uncommon in past and future decades (Viorst, 1979: 374).
The U.S. military has also been involved in worldwide humanitarian ventures too numerous to mention. If a major war was to break out somewhere on earth, the U.S. would undoubtedly be called to quell the situation. No other country has near the capability to intervene in a major outbreak. America is indeed by default the policeman of the world regardless of whether it wants this title or not. Because of its military, political and economic prowess, the U.S. occupies the position of world leader.
However, when the U.S. intervenes in foreign conflicts, such as in Vietnam, it ultimately loses economic and political capital both at home and abroad. War is brutal which translates to U.S. brutality depending on an individual’s perspective. No matter where the conflict or the reasons for deploying military forces, much of the world will likely be against the action. This underscores the reason for demonstrating extreme caution when making the decision to use force.
The war in Vietnam could not have produced a more poignant or pronounced message but has been ignored to the peril of American prestige and respect throughout the world and to its military, economy, security and young soldiers’ lives. ‘Never again’ was the national mantra following the Vietnam War. It’s shamefully ironic that the generation that should have understood this sentiment the most is the one that repeated the same economic, political and military mistakes that cost so many so much.
Works Cited
Bexte, Martina. “The Vietnam War Protests.” Essortment. (2002). Web.
Ignatieff, Michael. “The Burden” The New York Times. (2003).
Olney, Richard. “Growth of Our Foreign Policy.” The Atlantic Monthly. Vol. 85, N. 509, 1990 cited in Niall Ferguson Colossus: The Price of America’s Empire. New York: The Penguin Press. (2004).
Robinson, James A. “Nixon, Richard Milhous.” Encyclopedia Americana. Grolier Online. (2007). Web.
Viorst, Milton. Fire in the Streets: America in the 1960s. New York: Simon and Schuster. (1979).
The Cold War was a battle that had been lasting between the Capitalism and the Communism worlds during the 1950s and the 1960s. The countries involved in it included the Soviet Union and the United States. The causes of the Cold War were political conflicts, military tensions, and competition in economic wellbeing. The Cold War was a way of expressing the misunderstanding that emanated among nations. The war was held though through the creation of military coalitions, broad aiding of the disadvantaged, and deployment of strategic conventional forces, propaganda, and engagement in the arms race.
The success achieved after the Cold War
The United States was one of the countries that took part in the Cold War; it also involved itself in Space Race. This involvement in the expansion of outer space contributed immensely to the technological advancement of the United States. For instance, in order for the USA to explore outer space, its scientists and researchers came up with artificial satellites that enhanced immensely the provision of eminent security in the country. The United States also focused much on the development of eminent security to counter any attack that might have threatened the national security of the state.
In order for the United States to achieve its goals in some regions, it assisted the overwhelmed nations in Europe economically. Due to involving itself in fighting against hunger, fears, poverty, and disarrays, the United States managed to improve greatly the working economy of the world through the provision of good political and social conditions allowing the existence of free institutions. America’s Cold War policy assisted in the economic expansion of Japan and later expounded its support to other industrializing countries in Asia.
The formation of alliances among the nations involved in the Cold War contributed to the economic development of many regions. This was because it brought nations that shared common interests together leading to the creation of a free market among them. In addition, states that were economic oriented succeeded immensely in uplifting the developing countries.
The Soviet Union was one of the superpowers that were greatly dreaded by many nations, its defeat by the United States was a sign of US success. This was because, at the end of the war, the United States had the power of involving itself freely in a trade that economically geared its growth.
Losses incurred due to the Cold War
In its provision of economic support, the United States ended up becoming more concerned with safeguarding its interest leading to the development of gaps between it and its allies, including Japan. This is because the United States found itself focusing much on assisting its allies at the cost of its economy. Some of the countries, such as Japan, relied immensely on security support from the United States. The absence of US support to its allies led to its decline in the rate of expansion.
Despite the preached success of the United States in the Cold War, many lives were lost. For instance, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Korea lost millions of lives of their citizens due to involvement in proxy wars. This was because the Cold War triggered war among the nations involved in disagreements.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Cold War played a big role in catalyzing the Korean War, during which many lives were lost. On the other hand, it influenced the economical growth of many nations; many allies involved in the Cold War shared greatly in terms of economic infrastructures, resulting in the advancement of their economic status.
German question of 1945-90 is a set of territorial, political, and military problems arising from Hitler’s defeat in World War II and the formation of two German states, the FRG and the GDR (River 2018). The question of Germany’s destiny, its state structure, and postwar borders were on the agenda of the meetings of representatives of the leading countries – members of the anti-Hitler coalition (the USSR, Great Britain, and the USA) in the years of the World War II, including at the Teheran Conference in 1943 and the Crimea (Yalta) Conference in 1945.
Discussion
After Germany’s capitulation, their position was finally agreed upon at the Berlin (Potsdam) Conference in 1945 and laid down in the documents adopted at it. The victorious powers agreed to consider Germany as a single economic and political unit to carry out its demilitarization, denazification, and democratization. The eastern border of Germany was set along the Oder and Western Neisse rivers.
In the conditions of the Cold War, the increasing contradictions between the USSR and its Western allies, the withdrawal of the latter from the implementation of previous decisions on Germany, and the refusal to pursue a joint course in German affairs with the USSR led to the formation in May 1949 on the basis of American, British and French occupation zones of the Federal Republic of Germany and, as a counter step, to creation on the Soviet zone of occupation of Germany in October. 11949, the German Democratic Republic. The split of Germany led to a serious aggravation of the situation in Europe and in Germany itself.
Speaking of foreign policy, it is worth considering the factor of Germany’s division according to political spheres of influence and federalism of districts. As far as we know, the division of Germany into two republics had a negative impact on global trends and the development of international relations among other states. Many countries did not want to deal with a single country which is divided into two political blocs, unable to manage domestic problems. This greatly diminishes the possibility of interaction and of obtaining trade relations. 2It is also important to consider the political aspect, which affects the development of two countries within one territory. They belonged to countries that fought among themselves in different arenas, without open confrontation but with ostentatious activity.
Obviously, the Soviet Union could not afford to trade with a country with which it was in confrontation and which owned the other half of Germany. This hit the FRG economy hard and did not allow it to develop at the projected pace. However, it had a much greater impact on the GDR because it was a planned economy. It depended heavily on domestic resources, which the country was limited to at the time, as well as aid from other countries, which the Soviet republics were forbidden to do due to maintaining the closed nature of the country and the absence of foreign propaganda. It is also worth remembering that the USSR at the time was one of the strongest countries in the world market, but within the state itself, there was a movement for democracy and rejection of the authoritarian method of government. 3The same could be said for East Germany, which was lagging behind the other countries of its commonwealth and needed financial influence.
Conclusion
Thus, it can be said that the Cold War influenced the development of Germany as it exists today, slowing its growth and preventing it from reaching its full potential.
Bibliography
Krause, Scott H. 2018. Bringing Cold War Democracy to West Berlin. Routledge.
The Korean War was fought in Korean Peninsula between armies from North and those from South Korea. The war began in the wake of June 25, 1950 at 4:30 AM and fighting proceeded until July 27, 1953. It is estimated that two million Koreans perished, majority of who were northerners. There was blame from both sides as to who might have started the war. The north, having been led by communist Kim Il-Sung, got help mostly from People’s Republic of China, and the USSR.
The south, led by nationalist Syngman Rhee, got support from many countries in the United Nations, and especially the United States. The war ended with a truce and with devastating consequences. Even now in the 21st Century, South Korea and North Korea are still officially and technically at war and United States still keeps troops in South Korea in case North Korea ever invades again. North and South Korea are separated by the 38th parallel.
Causes of the Korean War
As for any war, its root causes can always be classified as tangible and intangible. The Korean War had both of these elements. The only and main cause of the Korean War was the invasion of South Korea by North Korea in 1950. The annexation of the Korean peninsula in the early 1910 by Japan was also a possible cause because they might have developed some sections of Korea leaving other sections marginalized.
After World War II ended, American and British forces set up a pro-Western country in the southern part of the peninsula while the Soviet Union set up a Communist government in the north (Hunt 35). The war, then, as can be construed was an attempt to use force to unify the entire peninsula under Communist rule.
The Cold War was an important cause in the Korean War to be ignored when intangible causes are discussed. Relationship between the United States and the USSR had badly been damaged after the war. China joined Communism in October 1949. The President of the United States of America, Harry Truman, was very worried that other countries around China might also become Communist, such as Japan (Hunt 55).
Thus in trying to maintain reputation, Truman spent a lot of money to make the American Army much bigger and Americans wanted to see this new powerful Army in action. Joseph Stalin’s people also wanted to see Stalin get better results in his conquests for popularization of communism. Stalin had just lost the fight for the Berlin Wall and wanted another chance to prove that he could beat United States; the Korean War was his chance and opportunity.
How it epitomized Cold War
The Korean War can be judged to have epitomized the cold war in very many aspects. The cold war was characterized by war of words and propaganda, economic sanctions and supremacy, the arms race and nuclear proliferation, space race and exploration. Even though the United States rejected MacArthur’s suggestion for use of nuclear weapons against Chinese troops, the North has been struggling to adopt the technology to possibly use it to disturb neighbors (Hunt 75).
The emergence of South Korea as an economic power perhaps indicates that capitalism is far more superior to communism which has left the North in a mismanaged economic wasteland. The solidification of the political policy of containment which made United States to invade Vietnam is also testimony.
Works Cited
Hunt, Michael. The World Transformed: 1945 to the Present. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2004. Print.
Known as one of the world’s greatest bloodbath, the World War II is also notorious for the first use of an atomic bomb as a weapon of mass destruction. As a matter of fact, restricting the amount of choices concerning the reasons that made the United States government attack Japan would be an insult to the history of the world in general and the history of the relationships between Japan and the United States in particular.
Therefore, to evaluate the reasons that guided the American government in their successful attempt at mass genocide of the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, one must consider not only the political implications behind the actions of the U.S. government, but also the specifics of the relationships between the two states, the influence of the U.S. and Japan in the WWII, the peculiarities of the American and especially the Japanese culture, as well as the numerous details concerning the outbreak of the Cold War.1
Despite the ace that every single piece of the existing evidence points at the fact that the United States were either intending to stress their participation I the WWII or to display their military power to the USSR, it can be assumed that the reasons behind the notorious Hiroshima and Nagasaki attack was an attempt to eliminate the slightest possibility of having the WWII going any longer, which would have necessarily appeared in Japan due to the peculiarities of the Japanese culture unless a sudden attack would have distracted them.
The Use of the Atomic Bomb as the Sign of the Cold War
Considering the arguments “pro”: the plausibility
There is no secret that there always was an element of competition in the relationships between the USSR and the USA2. According to what Crockatt says, the fact that the U.S. dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to prove their economic and political world dominance is clear-cut. As Crockatt explains, the means that the U.S. chose to prove their point were predetermined by the differences in which the two states fought for their dominance.
According to Crockatt, the differences in the way that the two states envisioned their concept of power defined the specifics of the approaches that the two states undertook in order to seize the power over the economic space. While the USSR preferred to adopt a more localized approach, the USA tended to encompass the opportunities provided by the entire world, and the situation with Japan was one of these opportunities.
Because of the differences in the attitudes towards Japan, the bellicose one of the United States and the peaceful one of the Soviet Union, the attack of Hiroshima and Nagasaki triggered the start of the Cold War between the USA and the USSR, as Crockatt explains: “The Soviet Union remained neutral towards Japan and declared war only after the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima on 6 August 1945.”3
Indeed, there are a number of facts that indicate the willingness of the USA to demonstrate its power to the USSR. There could not be a better moment for showing the military strength of the United States, since the Soviet union was clearly in the process of healing its wounds after taking part in one of the greatest bloodsheds in the world history; America, meanwhile, was not harmed in the twists and turns of war, since, first, the USA only entered the war in 1945, as the war ended, and, second, was separated from Europe by the Atlantic Ocean and, therefore, could not become another battlefield.
With that being said, the USA clearly had an opportunity to defeat the Soviet Union in their chase for the world economic dominance. The fact that the USA possessed the weapon of such power of destruction meant that the U.S. became the superior state whom the USSR would not be able to compete with: “The Soviets did not have the atom bomb, but the Americans did, and that caused insecurity.”4
According to the given point of view, the mere fact that the USA showed its martial potential was enough to start the Cold War5.
The above-mentioned viewpoint has all rights to exist; moreover, seeing how the tension in the relationships between the United States and the Soviet Union escalated after the given incident,6 the version of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the pretext for starting the Cold war becomes especially plausible.7
It can be assumed that the USA failed to show their entire military strength in the course of the WWII, as they managed to enter the process only as the WWII was getting to an end – in contrast to the Soviet Union, which displayed its military potential to the full, and, needless to say, made a great impression on the rest of the world.
Therefore, by dropping the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities, the United States technically showed that their military power was just as huge and threatening as the one of the USSR: “Sherwin demonstrates how the US decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan frew out of the Anglo-American thinking about its use as a diplomatic tool in peacetime as well as a winning weapon in wartime.”8
Concerning the arguments “counter”: the doubt
To address the hypothesis concerning the assassination of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki dwellers as an attempt to introduce the dominance of the USA into the USA–USSR relationships., it is necessary to consider the latter in detail. According to Boyle, the fight for the title of the superior nation has been lasting since both empires became powerful enough9.
With all due respect to Boyle’s research, however, it must be admitted that his account of the specifics of the USSR policies leaves much to be desired in terms of accuracy. It seem that Boyle makes a typical mistake by considering each action of the U.S. government as the response towards the ones of the USSR.
Therefore, Boyle’s interpretation can be easily questioned, which picks the question whether the Little Boy and the Fat Man were a response to the USSR policies. Nogee’s work, on the contrary, offers much more introspective into the way in which the Soviet Union operated. Even though Nogee’s focus is on the USSR instead of its relationships with the USA, and, moreover, on the USSR of the post-WWII period, Nogee manages to capture the specifics of the state’s policy quite well.
According to Nogee, the USSR leader of the WWII era, Stalin never actually considered the United States’ demonstration of what an atomic explosion was capable of as an actual threat to the safety of Russia and the allied states.10 Moreover. Nogee makes it clear that starting a direct confrontation was more than undesirable for both states, since both the UA and the USSR were devastated after the WWII.
When considering the numerous signals that showed the start of the Cold War, one has to mention that the attack of the Japanese cities as another attempt to re-state the obvious would have been rather useless.11 According to what the existing sources say, by the end of the WWII, it was clear that the Cold War was brewing and that the U.S. and the USSR were going to divide the world into their spheres of influence.12
The Use of the Atomic Bomb as the Signal of the End of the WWII
The idea that the USA used atomic bomb as the means to bring the WWII to an end is another common interpretation of the incident.
What speaks in favor of the hypothesis: Truman’s policy
Despite the fact that at present, the interpretations of the USA assassination of the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki gears towards the idea that the given action can be interpreted as the attempt of the United States to declare the end of the World War II.
When talking about the reasons for the United States to attack Japan, one must specify that on the given time slot, the reins of power were quickly passed over from Franklin Delano Roosevelt to Harry S. Truman, who had no other choice but to follow the track blazed by his predecessor. Meanwhile, in accordance with to the score of the Yalta Conference, the U.S. was waiting for the USSR to enter the Pacific War.
In addition, a number of German cities were incinerated prior to the attacks of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a vengeful attempt to make Germany feel the power of the Allies.
To make the matters worse, the testing of the A-bombs in the USA has just ended by that point, which must have brought Truman to the conclusion that threatening Japan by wiping Hiroshima and Nagasaki off the face of the earth would be a logical ending to the WWII. Dukes states in a very straightforward manner that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki helped bring the victory day closer:
The dropping of A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August brought VJ Day more quickly than had been previously hoped and feared. There was just time for the Soviet Union to fulfil its promise of declaring war against Japan three months after VE Day.13
What speaks against it: the end of the War
However, there is also enough evidence that shows the opposite to the aforementioned ideas. Indeed, the link between the fact of genocide in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the end of the WWII can seem somewhat farfetched.
Another interpretation of the hypothesis
The traditional idea of seeing the USA assassination of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki dwellers as an attempt to draw the line in the WWII can also be viewed in a different light. While it can be considered that the act of dropping atomic bombs on the cities can be interpreted as the way of showing the power and influence of the USA as the state that ended the World War II, there is also a different way of interpreting the given step.
The latter, however, requires an introspective into the peculiarities of the Japanese culture. According to the existing sources, even as the outcome of a battle becomes clearly unfavorable for the Japanese, the bushido code of conduct does not allow the Japanese warriors to cease the fire and give up; on the contrary, according to the bushido principles, fighting until the last soldier falls dead is the most appropriate tactics.
Therefore, it is logical to suppose that even after Hitler’s suicide, the war would have been going on as the code of bushido dictates. While the rest of the states that the Tripartite Alliance consisted of surrendered with the leader of the Alliance having been killed, the Japanese soldiers would have been fighting until the very last of them would have fallen breathless. Therefore, the World War would have been even longer and bloodier than it was, which the rest of the world, including the USSR and the Allies, would have hardly take14n.
As history shows, culture plays great role in developing and solving international conflicts. For instance, as Kegley and Wittkopf show, cultural specifics predetermine largely the economic relationships between such states as, say, USA and China.15 The same can be applied to the conflicts between the states.
In the given case, the fact that the Japanese government would have not ceased their attempts at fighting the enemy so easily is brought to people’s attention. Indeed, according to bushido, the Japanese code of a warrior’s conduct, a soldier is supposed to fight till the end even when the opponent seems to be superior.
Therefore, it can be assumed that, unless the USA had demoralized the Japanese, the WWII would have been continuing for quite long after the surrender of Germany. As a result, the consequences of the WWII would have been even more deplorable for the Allies, as well as for Germany, Japan and Italy. While Japan would have suffered most, the rest of the states would have also driven their economical and financial resources to an absolute zero.
The U.S. and the Soviet Union: Sworn Friends or Sworn Enemies?
While the two states have been maintaining moderately friendly relationship, there has always been some kind of tension between them, as if the two were constantly trying to win over the other one. Indeed, if considering the way in which the specifics of one culture is portrayed in the other state, it becomes obvious that each of the two countries have always been trying to take over the opponent. For instance, according to English, even in mass media of each of the states, the portrayal of the other one was rather negative.16
For instance, in Russian media, the portrayal of the Capitalist USA world was far from being positive.17 The given attitude, however, had not grown into anything spectacular until the Cold War; it seemed that the two states realized that, once they clash, they might get harmed greatly; in the process.
Therefore, it can hardly be considered that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a deliberate attempt at starting the Cold War; the U.S. should have known that, even after the WWII, the USSR would have still be able to rebuff the attack efficiently enough18.
In fact, at certain point, the development of the notorious atomic bomb was planned as a joint attempt of the USA and the USSR to enhance their influence in the world, as McCauley explains.19 The given supposition can be supported by the fact that, according to some sources, the Soviet Union was the first to come up with an idea of a hydrogen bomb.20
Conclusion: In Search for the Truth
Truly, it would be wrong to believe that nowadays, more than sixty years after the WWII was ended, it is possible to reconstruct the implications behind the actions of each of the states that took part in the WWII.
However, by analyzing the factors that influenced these actions, as well as learning about the position that the U.S. took in the World War, one can possibly figure out if the action of dropping atomic bombs on Japan was the sign of the triumph of the Allies or the beginning of the Cold War. While some of the sources contradict each other, it is possible to learn the truth about the notorious Hiroshima and Nagasaki attack.
Even though the connection between Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Cold War might seem rather loose, it is necessary to admit that by dropping the bomb on these Japanese cities, the United States have shown their military strength, which was very timely in the light of the beginning of the Cold War.
Even though there is little to no evidence showing the effect that the given action had on the U.S. reputation in the Eastern Europe, one has to admit that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki incident was rather well-timed. Indeed, considering the consequences, one has to acknowledge the fact that the U.S. has shown its military potential, therefore, making it clear to the Soviet Union that the United States were able to fend for themselves.
Meanwhile, the act of brushing millions of the Japanese off the face of the Earth could be viewed as the attempt of the American government to draw the line in the WWII and make it clear that the Allies won.21 Indeed, the given action can be translated as a manifestation of the end of the WWII and the fact that fascism was finally defeated.
The reasons for the American government to undertake the given measure, on the other hand, are rather obscure; since it was not Japan, but Germany who was at the helm of the Tripartite Alliance, it would have been much more logical to use Germany as the venue of their vengeful act.
The role of Japan in the WWII could not be described as the definitive one; Italy had practically similar share of influence in the Axis Pact. The choice of the location for the Little Boy and the Fat Man was sporadic, which meant that the United States was going to draw the final line in the WWII.
With that being said, it is reasonable to suggest that, even though the attack of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with an atomic bomb triggered an increase in the U.S. authority, the given effect was sporadic rather than planned; by attacking Japan, the U.S. clearly intended to show that it also had its share of the triumph that the victory triggered.
Considering the policy of the American government at the time, one must admit that the idea of bombing Japan as the means to threaten the government of the Soviet Union seems much like a last-minute choice, which would have been rather untypical of the U.S. government.
As the existing evidence says, making Japan surrender was crucial to the outcome of the WWII mostly because of the specifics of the Japanese culture; with its specific code of honor, the residents of the latter would have not seized their actions until they had lost each of their soldier. Demoralization seemed a viable strategy to adopt, which the USA did by using an atomic bomb.
Bibliography
Bell, PMH, The world since 1945, London, Hodder Arnold, 2001.
The Cold War involved the United States and the Soviet Union due to their different ideologies on ways of managing the economy of a country. Lenin created communism ideology after the Russian revolution, which brought tension to the U.S. due to ideological differences.
The Cold War began before World War II ended since each country saw the military power that the U.S. had in the war. Russia resolved to increase its military power by building nuclear power, which created tension between the U.S. and Russia. The two sides had different foreign policies and world political leaders who they supported.
For instance, in 1950, Russia supported the military invasion of South Korea by North Korea. However, America supported South Korea by providing military aid to suppress the North Korean military threat. The beginning of the Cold War was marked by the formation of NATO and the Soviet Union. Each side wanted to be the world superpower by controlling the economy and world politics.
The tension between the two blocs was due to the type of military technology used, specifically nuclear weapons. After the U.S. had bombed Japan to suppress its resistance in World War II, Russia realized that it did not have the military strength to be the superpower.
The Soviet Union resolved to increase its military technology by investing more in its nuclear weaponry. This action created tension between policymakers in Moscow and those in Washington. The U.S. reacted by increasing its military strength by building more weapons hence creating tension.
The other issues that created tension between the two blocs were Berlin, Proxy Wars, and the Cuban Missile crisis. The two blocs did not fight directly. However, they fought through proxy wars. For instance, America attacked Vietnam in 1960 to stop communism spread by the Soviet Union. Each side was determined to increase the number of countries supporting their ideology.
The communist ideology was aimed at enhancing social welfare by restricting ownership of the limited resource. The capitalist ideology proposed for individual ownership of factors of labor and control of the economy. Both the Soviet and U.S. used funding and military support to encourage countries to support them. In Vietnam, the Russian used the North Vietnamese to contain the U.S. attack by providing military support such as weapons.
America tried to restrict the spread of communism outside the country through military intervention and financial support to attract countries to support capitalism. America also resolved to contain the export of communist ideology to other countries by developing foreign policies aimed at fighting its spread.
They ensured that few countries in Europe and Asia followed this ideology by making it clear through the foreign policies that they would stop any bilateral trade if a country supported the Soviet Union. President Truman started the Marshall Plan with the aim of enhancing the economic stability of European countries to encourage the European countries to adopt capitalism.
The media also played a key role in containing the spread of communism in and outside America. During the Cold War, the media consisted of radio, film, TV, and print media. In the U.S., the media provided details of the state’s foreign policies and the need to support the policies to end communism.
They also presented communism as a weak system by showing how the countries that supported the ideology failed to make any economic progress. The aim of the mass media was to shape the public perception of communism and encourage support for capitalism.
The Issue of McCarthyism in the Context of Cold War
In his essay, But It’s Not Just Joe McCarthy, the journalist I. Stone estimates the principles of McCarthyism, which identifies the era of the Cold War regime and stems from the conspiracy games of the American senator Joe McCarthy.
The primary claim, which is made by the author of this work, is the identification of the anti-communist hysteria as a common tendency that was launched not only by the political leader but by his critics as well. Specifically, the journalist centers his attention on the certain senate manipulations and rebellion against McCarthy, who was developing the spying system of anti-communism tracking throughout the American space.
According to Stone, the author of the conspiracy game was severely attacked by Flanders. The latter is known for condemning McCarthy’s strategy, for he argued that the senator spread terror and dread in the U.S. society (“Joseph McCarthy: Cold War” par. 3).
The rebuttal of McCarthy’s political strategy led to his downfall, which was provoked by Dwight Eisenhower (Oh and Latham par. 7). The issue seems absurd to the journalist, for it was acknowledged that Flanders dwelled on warfare and state encroachments in his speeches.
Therefore, there is an incongruity between his suggestions as to McCarthy blowing up the fire of the Cold War and his own attachment and approval of the fights.
In conclusion, one can deduce that the very notion of McCarthyism is based on a logical foundation of warfare activities, for every political or national fight relies on interests haunting. Therefore, the arguments of anti-McCarthyism movement representatives are unjust and irrational (Zinn and Arnove 386).
The Destructive Character of War Chase
The reading The Final Letter from Ethel and Julius Rosenberg to Their Children reflects the disastrous consequences of the communist chase. The letter, which was written in 1953, addresses the children of two Americans, who were executed on the basis of spying accusations.
The issue finds much controversy among the political experts, for the couple was, in fact, indicted for the doubtful crime. Specifically, it is acknowledged that there were no material proofs of the family’s connection to the transmission of data of the U.S. atomic secrets to the Soviet authority (Silverman 14).
Moreover, the accusation must have fallen only on Julius, for his wife had no access to the issues of international data delivery (“Julius and Ethel Rosenberg Execution” par. 6). The case seems outrageous since the American Court was aware of the innocence of Ethel’s wife. Still, a decision as to her execution was made since the authorities used the woman with the aim of political manipulation.
This incident serves as a strong rebuttal of fundamental human rights. The final letter, which was passed to the young Rosenberg children, appeals to the human senses as the revelation of high feelings and social injustice.
Cold War as the Link between Past Political Fights and the Modern Silent Opposition
The current tendencies of global politics show that the Cold War does not identify a specific period in history. It is rather a stable concept, which denotes a political opposition that victimizes multiple innocent people.
Thus, the recent Maidan, which took place in Ukraine as well as the Donbas war, reveals that there is a constant hushed fight between Russia and America, which brings damage to the world wellbeing (Carden par. 6).
Space travel became a reality in the twentieth century because of the independent efforts of the Soviet Union and the United States. As the two world super powers, these nations engaged in a fierce competition for space supremacy during the cold war era. The rivalry between the two powers was fuelled by the perceived political and military benefit that space supremacy would bestow on the pioneering nation. Strickland (1965) asserted that the American and Soviet space programs were a scientific and technological competition that would possibly determine the balance of power between in the world. From the mid 1950s, the Soviet Union embarked on ambitious space programs. The political impact of success in space ventures made the space program a priority with top Soviet leaders. The ability of the Soviets to concentrate human and material resources on priority objectives led to visible outcomes from the projects and this presented a challenge to the United States. This paper will argue that the Soviet space program played a significant role in the development of the communist state during the Cold War Era.
The paper will begin by providing an overview of the Cold War in order to highlight the conditions that led to the space race between the US and the USSR. It will then give details of how the space race competition took form and outline some of the objectives the Soviet Union had for its space program. A review of the short term and long-term consequences of investing in the space program will be provided.
Over View of the Cold War
The end of World War II in 1945 led to the emergence of the United States and the Soviet Union as the two world superpowers. While the two nations had fought as allies in the war the years after saw an emergence of great political and military rivalry between the two. The rivalry between the two was mostly driven by the ideological difference that existed on the two sides (Watson 2002). Each side wanted to prove the supremacy of its ideology with the Soviet Union favouring communism while the United States supported capitalism. This Ideological conflict led to increasing antagonism between the two super powers. A military confrontation between them was not possible since they both had arsenals of nuclear weapons and direct combat could escalate to mutual nuclear destruction.
The antagonism therefore resulted in a cold war which was characterized by proxy wars, arms races and a spread of propaganda. The cold war also led to an antagonistic relationship between the USSR and the West leading to the conception of an “iron curtain” that divided the East of Europe from the West (Zinn 2002). Countries on the East side of the Iron Curtain were under Soviet influence and they had a poor relationship with the West. Both nations tried to increase their spheres of influence in the world by spreading their ideologies. To aid in the expansion of sphere of influence, the two rivals sought to prove their dominance over each other from a political, economic, and military perspective. One of the spheres where the two superpowers sought dominion was in space travel.
Formation of the Competition
The Cold War competition between the US and the USSR was the single most important factor in the development of the Soviet space program. Since missile and space capabilities were deemed integral for each superpower, space programs enjoyed the unwavering support of the Supreme Soviet leadership (Tarasenko 1994).The competition between the Soviet and the United States space program was a direct result of the major technologies developed after the end of World War II. Hans (1985) documents that within 10 years of the Second World War ending, the United States had been able to build and successfully deploy an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM).
The Soviets also endeavoured to come up with rockets that had the same intercontinental capabilities. However, the rockets designed by the Soviets had to be larger in order to accommodate the heavier and less efficient nuclear warheads that the Soviets had in their arsenal. This development of rockets capable of carrying heavy warheads halfway around the world paved the way for space exploration since the same rockets could be used to launch artificial satellites into earth orbit with little modification. The development of the ICBM was therefore the catalyst to space exploration by the Soviets and the United States (Goldman 1966).
October 4, 1957 is a significant date in world history since it is the day that the Soviets successfully launched Sputnik 1: the world’s first artificial satellite. With the launch of this satellite, the race into space was on and space operations gained great political and symbolic importance for the two super powers (Goldman 1966). Historians agree that the launch of the Sputnik 1 satellite by the USSR in 1957 officially marked the start of a space race that would continue for the subsequent three decades. Sputnik 1 succeeded in moving the US-USSR power confrontation into space.
The renowned American fiction writer Arthur Clarke asserted a few days after the launch of the Sputnik 1 that “the United States became a second-rate power” (McQuaid 2007, p.373). The Eisenhower administration’s Secretary of State John Foster Dulles declared that the Soviet satellite success had dealt a severe blow to America’s world standing and shifting global balance against the US (Killian 1977). This perception that the Soviet satellite had shifted the balance of political and diplomatic power from Washington to Moscow led to the channelling of significant financial resources to the United State’s space program to enable it to compete with the Soviet efforts.
How the Space Program was to Serve the State
The Space Program was supposed to be of use to the State in a number of significant ways. To begin with, the program was supposed to be a tangible demonstration of the competence of the government. Hans (1985) reveals that from the early 1960s, the visible achievements in space technology became a widely accepted measure of national competence. A speech to the House Committee on Science and Astronautics by the NASA Chief Glennan Keith asserted that Space had become “the primary symbol of capability in all aspects of science and technology” (McQuaid 2007, p.386). Advance in space technology were therefore demonstrations of the competence of the Soviet rulers.
In the early days, the program was to act as a potent propaganda tool by the communist regime. The Soviets and the US were in constant competition and each success was used to signify the dominance of the Soviet regime. The initial success of the program, especially in the face of failure by the Americans initial attempt to launch a satellite, was pointed to as tangible proof of the technological and political superiority of socialism (Shelton 1967). An important feature of the Soviet space program is that it did not present any instances of space failure. The state sought to erase any memory of failure and instead present a space history that was flawless. Gerovitch (2011) highlights that the Soviet narrative consisted of perfect cosmonauts engaging in flawless missions with the aid of the unfailing Soviet technology. This was in contrast to the American space program that was open to public scrutiny making failures apparent to the general public and the world. The Soviets were able to present their program as superior therefore underscoring the superiority of socialism over capitalism.
The Soviet space program was to serve as an expression of the technological utopianism that the communist leadership hoped to foster among its citizenry. The communism government claimed to be working towards the realization of a utopian society for its people. The program demonstrated the aspirations of the Soviets to both transform and dominate nature from earth up to the boundless realm of outer space. The domination undertones in the Soviet space program are evident from the fact that the soviet equivalence for the American phrase “space exploration” was “conquering and mastering of space” Gerovitch 2011). Each advance in the program was to be analogous to the creation of the communist utopian society.
Did the Space Program Serve its Purpose?
The Soviet space program was able to fulfil some of the objectives that the government had intended for it. It helped in the erasure of the memory of the oppressive Stalin era. During his leadership as Communist Party Secretary, Nikita Khrushchev embarked on elaborate steps to de-Stalinize Soviet society. A major goal of the communist leaders was to bring back the original revolutionary aspirations for a communist utopia and dismantle the cultural memory of Stalinist terror. The successful space program was used to symbolize a leap from the dreadful Stalin era and the move to a futuristic utopia where the Soviets experienced total liberation. The Soviet leap into space was presented by the leaders as a leap into an era of freedom (Gerovitch 2011).
The program succeeded in highlighting Russia’s technological might and forcing the US and the rest of the world to acknowledge this. Before the space program, there was no hard evidence that the Soviets had technology that could compete favourably with the United States (Zinn 2002). The military capability of the US exceeded that of the Soviets since they had better delivery systems for their nuclear warheads. However, advances made by the Soviet space program forced the US to reconsider this perception and the Central Intelligence Agency started to give special focus on the missile capabilities of the Soviets. The United States was forced to divert significant funds to its own space program because of the Soviet success (Gibney & George 1965). The landing of Apollo 11 on the moon was in directed response to the perceived challenge from the Soviet Union. The Soviets had already proved their technological supremacy by orbiting a man around the earth and engaging carrying out a robotic moon flight (Launius 2001).
A model of the ideal Soviet state and its citizens was projected through the program. The Communism ideals of patriotism, collectivism, and endurance were personalized in the form of the Soviet cosmonauts. Following the historic spaceflight by the Soviet cosmonaut Gagarin Yuri in 1961, the Secretary of the Communist party Nikita Khrushchev declared that “hero-cosmonauts are people who embody the wonderful traits of the member of the communist society… their deeds are driven by the love for Motherland, sense of public duty, and noble ideals of communism” (Chernenko 1963, p.92). The Communist party was therefore able to encourage conformity and obedience to authority by the citizens through the space program.
Short-Term Gains from the Program
The space program served as an overt display of soviet technological power. Even before the end of World War II, the Unite State’s intelligence community had been cautious about growing Soviet technological capabilities. The success of the Soviet space program proved to the US that Soviet technology had indeed grown to rival its own. The Soviet space program achieved its purpose of presenting the state as a worthy opponent to the US. The Soviets engaged in intelligence work to find out what the US space project was trying to achieve. They would then proceed to do it before therefore gaining great prestige in the international sphere. Siddiqi (2003) documents that the Soviets took to the habit of besting America effort in space projects. For example, the Soviets made it their mission to fly the first man on the moon and put the first woman in space. The Soviet government devoted enormous resources to the publicizing of the USSR’s space achievements both to a domestic and foreign audience (Andrews & Asif 2011).
The deterrent effects of the space program cannot be understated. By publicly displaying the dramatic space results, the Soviet Union was able to highlight its military capability. Continental US was no longer safe from the large arsenal of weapons in Soviet possession. The Soviet space program served the crucial role of demonstrating the supposed capability of the USSR to defend its people against any aggression by any external force. Prados (1982) reveals that space technologies by their nature were tied to a host of military concerns. Advances in space technology therefore signified increases in military capabilities of the country.
In addition to the increase in military capability provided by the space program, the project provided the illusion of protection. The first cosmonauts were young fighter pilots and they inherited the rhetoric of war. The Soviet leaders asserted that these young worriers were storming into space for the sake of the motherland. Gerovitch (2011) reveals that in spite of the cosmonauts being presented as peacetime heroes, they wore military uniforms thereby sending a double message. While the astronauts were never engaged in any battle, they were made to evoke the imagery of warriors in combat. The Space rush between the US and the Soviet Union occurred hardly a decade after the end of the Second World War. At this time, the memories of this devastating war were fresh in people’s minds.
The space program served the crucial purpose of legitimizing the power of soviet leaders. Soviet leaders presented the success of the space missions as a demonstration of their proficiency as political leaders. This is best elaborated by the staged events of welcoming cosmonauts who were photographed nest to the current party leader and the iconic images disseminated to the public through television, newspapers, and postcards. Soviet leaders used the space program to provide public spectacle during important occasions. For example, the launch of the Sputnik 1 satellite was scheduled to coincide with the fortieth anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution (Launius 2001). This success of the Sputnik 1 was hailed as a success of the communist system and its current leadership. The space program was therefore able to boost the morale of the regime and the Soviet public. Gerovitch (2011) reports that a segment of the Soviet public responded to news of the regime’s space triumphs with wild enthusiasm.
After the Second World War, the Soviet Union was undergoing a reconstruction to rehabilitate the country both physically and politically. The nationalistic fervour of the nation had suffered major blows because of Stalin’s suppressive regime and the devastating war that had led to the loss of up to 24 Soviet citizens. The Khrushchev regime used the aeronautical and cosmonautic feats to stir nationalistic sentiments. NASA (2009) documents that these efforts were successful and the dawn of Sputnik 1 in 1957 led to a return to the nationalistic fervour, that had all but disappeared in previous years. With a rise in nationalistic sentiments, the Communist government was able to easily get the people to abide by state policies for the sake of the motherland.
The Soviet space program gave the Soviet leadership a huge psychological advantage in the Cold War. In the years immediately following the launch of Sputnik 1, Soviet leaders were keen to point to the lack of progress in space exploration by the United States. Even the US administration acknowledged the psychological gains made by the USSR and advisors to the Eisenhower administration asserted that a successful US space program would be necessary to minimize the psychological advantages which the USSR had acquired because of its space accomplishments (NASA 2009).
The Soviet Union used its space program to underscore the policy of detente with the US. The two superpowers had already acknowledged that a military confrontation between them would be catastrophic. Starting from the 1970s, the Soviet and the US embarked on a policy aimed at easing tensions between them (Hoffmann & Fleron 1980). Because the space operations had popular appeal, the two nations used them to underscore their sincerity in easing of tensions. Hans (1985) documents that in 1975; three American astronauts and two Soviet cosmonauts met in space and shook hands. This highly symbolic project was a success and the two superpowers were able to demonstrate their commitment to better relations in the future.
The space program also served as a tool for foreign affairs. The Soviet space program was used with great effectiveness to support the conduct of foreign affairs by the Soviet leadership (Turkevich 1966). While the Soviet space program was started in great secrecy, the program gradually changed to accommodate international scientists who could use the Soviet facilities to perform research in space. The program therefore provided an atmosphere in which foreign policy could be conducted among rival nations.
An important function carried out by the satellites launched by the Soviets was monitoring arms movement within the US. By the early 1970s, the two world powers were beginning to have misgivings concerning the policies of arms proliferation that they had previously engaged in. The US and the Soviet Union therefore made a number of arms control agreements to limit the weapons on both sides (Abrams 2006) Soviet observation satellites were used to verify that the US was abiding by the terms of the agreement. Without the use of these satellites, the agreements would have been of little use since there would be no means to independently verify that the terms were being followed by the US.
Long -Term Consequences of the Space Race
The Soviet authorities invested enormous resources in their space program to maintain their lead on the Americans. These huge investments had a number of noteworthy long-term implications on the Soviet nation.
State Context
A major outcome of the space race is that the Soviet Union as able to establish itself as a leader in space exploration. The Communist state was able to achieve supremacy in space operations due to its investment in the space program. The Cold War era witnessed the greatest advancement in space technology as the two superpowers raced to outdo each other in space-based technology. The Soviet Union gained a wealth of experience in space travel because of its early expose to rocket technology. The nation became the authority in space operations and even though the US achieved greater success in running manned space crafts, the Soviets held the leadership in operation of space stations and were able to establish a near-permanent presence in space (Kay 1995).
The space program aided in the development of versatile research and development facilitates in the Soviet States. Before the space race, the USSR suffered from a lack of modernized facilities for technological research. The drive for space supremacy necessitated the establishment of modern facilities to aid in the development of space technology. Tarasenko (1994) notes that because of the support from the Soviet leadership, financial resources were dedicated for the building of infrastructure to support missile testing and space operations. The infrastructure established during the space race continues to be used for space exploration by the Russian government.
The Soviet space program helped guarantee the safety of the state from an American attack all through the Cold War era. Soviet security was guaranteed by the success of its space program. From the onset, the military had a stake in the development of the space program (Hardesty & Gene 2007). As the program progressed, the Soviet missiles capabilities also grew with it. The US was no longer protected from a Soviet nuclear attack due to its geographical isolation since the Soviets had proved that they had the capability to launch missiles for distances exceeding halfway around the world.
In the long term, the Soviet space program did not act as a unifying factor for the Soviet people. From the 1970s, the space program received a lot of criticism from the general public and the media. Kay (1995) records that ordinary citizens expressed deep resentment over the cost and secrecy of the space program. The state imposed great restrictions on the information that made its way to the public domain. The people of the Soviet Union felt that the secrecy surrounding the program was characteristic of communist rule. The citizens also objected to the glorification of spaceflight in the Soviet Union.
Military Context
While the early development of space programs by the US and the USSR were seen as a matter of national prestige, space-based systems started playing crucial roles in the security implementations of the two competing superpowers. The military significance of the Soviet space program can be deduced from the lack of separation of military and civilian space activity. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was created by the United States to focus on the national civilian space effort and accentuate the division between the military and the civilian scope of the Unite State’s space program (Clowse 1981). While the US space program had a clear civilian mandate and a distinctive military component, the USSR placed all its space activities under the Ministry of General Machine-Building, which was a military industrial ministry (Tarasenko 1994).
The Soviets often used innovative space technology for military purposes. For example, the Soviet Vostok spacecraft that was designed and used to carry the first cosmonaut into space was modified and used as a reconnaissance spacecraft by the Soviet government (Levine 1994). The Soviet Air Defence Forces (VPVO) made use of the space technology to enhance the security of the Soviet States. Specifically, this branch of the military made use of the early warning satellite systems to monitor any imminent missile threat against the USSR. The military also developed an intricate anti-satellite system that was meant to destroy enemy satellites in the event of a full-scale war between the two super powers.
The Soviet space program greatly enhanced the ability of the nation to spy on other nations. The huge advances in space based imaging technologies are a direct result of the space rate. In the first decade of the Cold War, the two superpowers engaged in spying missions against each other. Airborne sensing was the most popular means of reconnaissance and the US used high altitude planes for reconnaissance on Soviet territory. McDougall (1985) reveals that during the 1950s, the Soviet Union and the US used high altitude reconnaissance aircraft to collect images of intelligence value helping them to formulate missile-targeting options and monitor the development of each other’s military.
However, use of planes for reconnaissance was limiting since it required a violation of the airspace of the other nation. The aircrafts were also vulnerable to missile attacks as was demonstration by the shooting down of the US spy plane, the U-S, over Soviet air in 1960 (Steinberge 1998). The Space program provided an opportunity to develop technologies that could greatly increase the spying capabilities of the Soviets. Soviet scientists developed satellites equipped with high resolution cameras capable of collecting intelligence data over foreign territories. Over the duration of the cold way, Soviet satellites took thousands of images of strategic importance especially on US territory (Steinberg 1998).
Economic Context
Soviet investment in the competition in the space race contributed to the technological advancement in the country. By the late 1960s, the Soviet space program had expanded into an entire spectrum of space research geared towards the development of applications for commercial, scientific, and military use (Tarasenko 1994). The Soviet Space program stimulated technological development that led to the attainment of scientific knowledge that improved the efficiency of machines. NASA (2009) declares that space programs were able to act as catalysts for the development of new technology. Space engineering required components to have great precision and reliability in order to avoid catastrophic failures. Developments in the Soviet space program therefore stimulated the development of reliable technologies that had both high precision and extreme reliability. The scientific knowledge obtain from this was transferred to the mainstream industries. Improved manufacturing procedures were therefore developed because of the technical knowledge obtained from the space program.
The Soviet investment in space led to the formation of new companies that sought to provide specialized services to the sector or exploit the technical know-how developed by the space program. Tarasenko (1994) states that some of the equipment used by the space program was procured from local companies. The growth and development of the space industry therefore fuelled the development of these complementary companies. These companies enhanced the economy of the nation by providing goods and services for the local and international markets.
One direct economic benefit of the Soviet space program is that it created employment opportunities for the professionals who worked in the sector. As the space program expanded, more skilled workers and scientists were employed by the Soviet state. Considering the scale of the Soviet space programs, the annual payroll was over 4 billion dollars by the mid 1960s Kay (1995). This money went back into the national economy as employees spent their income on goods and services in the USSR.
The Soviets had little economic motivation for embarking on their space programs. Even so, the space program had some economic impacts on the nation. The first impact what that these project led to the diversion of enormous resources to fund space technology and missions. Strickland (1965) states that the Soviets did not spare resources in developing their space programs and money for the program was provided directly from the top Soviet leadership. Significant financial costs were incurred by the Soviet space program. While the public showed little concern for these huge costs in light of the success of the program during the late 1950s, the public perception begun to change from the 1960s. As the USSR suffered from an economic downturn that resulted in food shortages and inflation, the public became dissatisfied with the exorbitant cost of the space program.
Discussion
The importance of the Soviet space program for the development of the communist state can be deduced from the huge investment that the top Soviet leaders made to the program. This program was able to run with the full support of the government up to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The space engineers and scientists were highly regarded members of the society and their work was a matter of national pride. The nationalistic sentiments continued to be a major component of Soviet space innovation. The end of the Cold War and dissolution of the Soviet Union marked the end of the Soviet space program. While the program continued to exist in some form as the Russian space program, the lack of funding and severe budget cuts reduced the program to a shadow of its previous status.
Conclusion
The paper set out to show that the Soviet space program played a major role in the Soviet Union’s development in the Cold War Era. It began by highlighting how the Cold War came into existence and analysing how the competition between the two superpowers took form. The paper has revealed that the space race was caused by initial success by the Soviet government in space exploration. Soviet leaders used the space program as a potent tool of propaganda. Individual leaders exploited the success of the space program for their own political ends with most of the Communist Leaders manipulating the symbolic significance of the program to achieve their own goals.
The paper has demonstrated how the Soviet military benefited from military technology and acted as a major end user of operation space systems. The State was able to use the technical knowledge acquired from the space program for earthbound technology thereby fostering technological advancement in the USSR. The paper has outlined the various short term and long term consequences of the space race between the US and the USSR. From the discussions presented in this paper, it is evident that while the space race resulted in military and scientific benefits for the Soviets, the communist Leaders reaped the greatest benefits through their use of the program for propaganda purposes.
References
Abrams, R 2006, America Transformed: Sixty Years of Revolutionary Change, 1941-2001, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Andrews, J & Asif, S 2011, Into the Cosmos: Space Exploration and Soviet Culture, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh.
Chernenko, BN 1963, V kosmose Nikolaev i Popovich, Pravda, Moscow
Clowse, B 1981, Brainpower for the Cold War: The Sputnik Crisis and the National Defense Education Act of 1958, Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut.
Gerovitch, S 2011, ‘“Why Are We Telling Lies?” The Creation of Soviet Space History Myths’, The Russian Review, vol.70, no.1, pp.460- 484.
Gibney, F & George, J 1965, The Reluctant Space-Farers: A Study in the Politics of Discovery, New American Library, New York.
Goldman, E 1966, The Crucial Decade-and After: America; 1945-1960, Knopf, New York.
Hardesty, V & Gene, E 2007, Epic Rivalry: The Inside Story of the Soviet and American Space Race, Sage Publishers, Washington.
Hoffmann, E & Fleron, F 1980, The Conduct of Soviet Foreign Policy. Transaction Publishers, Boston.
Kay, WD 1995, Can Democracy Fly in Space?: The Challenge of Revitalizing the U.S. Space Program, Greenwood Publishing Group, NY.
Killian, J 1977, Sputnik, Scientists, and Eisenhower: A Memoir of the First Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Launius, R 2001, ‘NASA looks to the east: American intelligence estimates of soviet capabilities and project Apollo’, Air Power History, vol. 48, no.3, pp. 23-39.
Launius, R 1994, NASA: A History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida.
Levine, A 1994, The Missile and Space Race, Praeger Publishers, Westport, Connecticut.
McDougall, W 1985, The Heavens and the Earth: A Political History of the Space Age, Basic Books, New York.
McQuaid, K 2007, ‘Sputnik Reconsidered: Image and Reality in the Early Space Age’, Canadian Review of American Studies, vol. 37, no. 3, pp.371-401.
NASA 2009, Societal Impact of Spaceflight, Government Printing Office, Washington.
Prados, J 1982, The Soviet Estimate: U.S. Intelligence Analysis and Russian Military Strength, Dial Press, New York.
Shelton, W 1967, American Space Exploration: The First Decade, Little, Brown and Company, Boston.
Steinberg, G 1998, ‘Dual Use Aspects of Commercial High Resolution Imaging Satellites’, Mideast Security and Policy Studies, vol.37, no.2, pp. 34-48.
Strickland, D 1965, ‘Physicists’ views of space politics’, Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 223-35.
Tarasenko, M 1994, ‘Transformation of the Soviet Space Program after the Cold War’, Science & Global Security, vol.4, no.1, pp.339-361.
The impact of the Cold War on the social and economic conditions of inhabitants in the USSR and the USA has been a hot topic of debate among critics. It is often argued that, because the Cold War referred more to political tensions between these two entities as opposed to a hot war, it had a minor impact on the livelihood of people in both countries. However, I disagree. In this essay, I will argue that social discord and fear projected through propaganda, draconian laws imposed by Stalin, as well as the economic sanctions on businesses in the USSR at the height of the Cold War, all contributed to making a severe impact on the lives of those caught up in the conflict.
One of the consequences of the Cold War for the lives of USSR civilians was the discord in the Soviet society. It resulted from the Soviet propaganda, according to which, the West was a concentration of reactionary bourgeois forces; the U.S. was stated to aim for world domination, and the Great Britain was stated to be the junior partner of America. On the other hand, the USSR was supposedly the bastion of progress. Interestingly, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was pictured as the center of both patriotism and internationalism, and these two traits were widely propagated simultaneously; furthermore, the cosmopolitism, the ideology of world citizenship, was branded as a “bourgeois” phenomenon and battled. It was proclaimed that the patriots of the Soviet Union should watch out for “retarded elements,” individuals who favored the other political camp and were supposedly the remnants of the pre-Soviet Tsarist autocracy. In particular, the members of the intelligentsia were proclaimed as especially susceptible to the Western propaganda, and simple Soviet citizens were supposed to watch out for any signs of corruption. Thus, on the one hand, people were taught to blindly obey the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and to practically worship its leaders (Joseph Stalin, then, after his death in 1953, Nikita Khrushchev). On the other hand, intimidated by the “image of the enemy,” people were supposed to battle “anti-Soviet elements” among their own, and especially among the more educated members of the population. Therefore, considerable social discord was sown by this propaganda.
Another problem was related to the strict legal policies of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union; many of the oppressive legal acts which emerged during that period were imposed by J. Stalin. It should be noted, however, that some of the repressions that were carried out were not publically announced; there were numerous decrees of Stalin, but the repressions might not always have been done strictly according to particular laws. In particular, Stalin carried out significant repressions against the representatives of science and art; such representatives of the Soviet culture as Mikhail Zoshchenko and Anna Akhmatova were repressed due to their activity as writers. The science also was purged: for instance, the Soviet genetics was proclaimed to be the result of the Western propaganda and destroyed. There were considerable legal limitations pertaining to individual freedoms and liberties of the Soviet citizens; for instance, the dwellers of villages were not permitted to leave the village on their own; one of the very few ways to do so legally was to enlist for one of the numerous construction sites. Another problem was related to people who achieved disabilities during the Second World War. These people often criticized the circumstances that existed in the country. They were considered a threat to the official Soviet propaganda. As a result of repressions, many of them quickly disappeared from the streets of the Soviet Union. Therefore, both the laws of the USSR and numerous decrees of Stalin were aimed at repressing the population of the country.
Finally, the economic sanctions on both individuals and organizations in the USSR were also significant, and led to the further impoverishment of the population. In particular, due to the Cold War, the country engaged in the arms race; for this purpose, it was necessary to rapidly develop the heavy industry and the weapon industry of the Soviet Union. As a result, organizations related to the light industry, in particular, those engaged in food production, were deemed secondary and suffered from severe economic sanctions and disadvantages. It should be noted that there were no private businesses in the USSR; all the organizations either belonged to the state, or were collectively owned. People were forced to work in kolkhozes (collective farms); they were not paid for this work, and all the harvests were, in fact, given to the state. The workers of kolkhozes were practically slaves, for they did not receive their passports, and, consequently, could not leave the place they lived in, as was mentioned earlier. These workers only tried to complete the minimum numbers of workdays in kolkhozes, for if they did not that, they would be deprived of their own land, which, in fact, allowed them to exist. However, they also had to pay considerable taxes in kind for their own land and cattle; in fact, sometimes they were forced to destroy their gardens and kill their animals because the amount of products received from these were lower than what was demanded to be paid as taxes. Under Khrushchev, many kolkhozes were forced to grow corn (maize); his reforms also had a negative impact on the farms. For instance, Khrushchev intended to abolish machine-tractor stations (MTS), which served both kolkhozes and sovkhozes (state farms) by supplying them with large machines; he significantly reduced their number, and, consequently, the farms were forced to purchase their own machinery at high prices.
Therefore, in spite of what is often claimed by critics, the Cold War did have an effect on the people of the Soviet Union. In the social sphere, it resulted in considerable social discords among the people of the USSR; they were taught to blindly obey the Communist party of the Soviet Union and seek out its enemies. In the legal sphere, many laws and decrees of the party’s leaders were repressive; the representatives of science and culture were purged, and simple citizens also suffered, which was done to prevent the expansion of the Western culture. In the industry, members of organizations such as kolkhozes were forced to work and did not receive any wages. The policy of the party, in part, resulted from the considerations dictated by the Cold War.