Category: World War 2

Introduction

The nuclear weapon is the most powerful and destructive weapon ever invented by mankind. This weapon played a role in ending the Second World War since the Japanese forces surrendered when atomic bombs were dropped on their cities. The impact of these bombs was devastating and mass casualties were experienced at the sites of the attacks.

For the first time in history, the world was introduced to the nuclear bomb and its destructive capabilities. Following this spectacular display of the annihilating capability of the nuclear weapon, the major world powers saw nuclear armament as being integral to their military strength.

Due to the immense military power that ownership of nuclear weapons gave to a particular country, the post WWII years were followed by a global nuclear arms race. The two main countries in competition for nuclear superiority were the US and the Soviet Union. This paper will set out to discuss the nuclear arms race with a focus on what caused this phenomenon and the impacts that it had.

The Nuclear Bomb

Research into nuclear weapons was conducted by scientists from the US during the 1930s. In 1939, the US government commissioned a project that was aimed at producing the world’s first atomic bomb. This project, known as the Manhattan Project took place with the support of Canada and the US and it was able to produce two types of atomic bombs utilizing uranium and plutonium.

The first successful detonation of a nuclear device was the Trinity Test conducted on 16 July 1945 in New Mexico (Carnesale et al., 52). This test demonstrated that the nuclear bomb could be deployed in battle and the US President Harry S. Truman authorized the weapon’s use against Japan.

In the years immediately following WWII, the US was the sole world nuclear superpower. This country had a monopoly on the knowledge of nuclear weapon production and it had already successfully tested its nuclear weapons and perfected its delivery system as could be witnessed from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. The US hoped to maintain its exclusivity as the only nuclear capable nation in the world.

While the US and the Soviet Union had been allies during the war, they had great differences and the two countries did not trust each other. The adversity between the US and the Soviet Union began in the late 1940s and the US took steps to protect itself from any Soviet aggression.

Carnesale et al. explain that by 1949, the US had a number of strategic bombers carrying targeting critical Soviet installations located in the UK (78).

These bombers were equipped with nuclear warheads capable of causing significant damage to the Soviet Union. To counter US nuclear superiority, the Soviet Union maintained a strong military presence in Europe and its conventional army was capable of overwhelming the whole of Europe.

Well aware of the superiority that nuclear weapons gave the US, the Soviets engaged in intensive efforts to develop their own nuclear weapons. These efforts were aided by reports from Soviet spies who had been following the progress of US scientists during the Manhattan Project.

The Soviets achieved nuclear capability in 1949 and they demonstrated their capability by detonating a test bomb on August of the same year. This bomb, named “First Lightning” closely resembled the American bomb dropped on Nagasaki. These similarities were because the bomb was built using details obtained from the infamous nuclear spies Theodore Hall and Klaus Fuchs.

This demonstration of Soviet nuclear capacity effectively started the nuclear arms race. Buzan and Herring explain that while the US was previously confident in its position as the global nuclear power, the advances by the Soviets proved that other nations were taking steps to develop nuclear weaponry (81).

The Nuclear Arms Race

Buzan and Herring define an arms race as “the most extreme manifestation of an arms dynamic between the militaries of different states” (81). For an arms race to occur there must be at least two parties engaged in a conscious rivalry with each other. In the post WWII years, the US and the Soviet Union were the main antagonists. The two powers were aware of each other’s nuclear ambitions and sought to outdo each other.

The nuclear arms race began in full force following the detonation of the atomic bomb “First Lightning” by the Soviet Union (Carnesale et al. 77). This development brought the Soviets closer to matching the nuclear strength of the US. However, the Truman administration wanted to ensure that it was the major nuclear power in the world.

Therefore, in response to the development of an Atomic bomb by the Soviet Union, the US administration approved research into the development of a hydrogen bomb in 1949 and increased funding for nuclear research and development.

In 1952, the US had successfully created the powerful hydrogen bomb and this weapon was tested on November 1952. Another hydrogen bomb of a 14.8 megaton yield was made and tested by the US in 1954 firmly reinforcing the nuclear superiority of the US in the world.

Up until the mid 1950s, the US nuclear superiority was unchallenged as the US demonstrated qualitative and quantitative superiority to its nearest rival, the Soviet Union.

This unchallenged nuclear superiority status was offset in 1955 when the Soviet Union detonated a 1.6 megaton hydrogen bomb (Holloway 131). Before this detonation, the US had been the only nuclear weapon state in possession of the immensely powerful hydrogen bombs.

Nuclear weapons started to take priority over conventional weapons from 1955. Before this period, the Soviet Union has relied on its conventional forces in Europe to counterbalance US military strength. However, the two sides started to increase their reliance on tactical nuclear weapons between 1955 and 1965.

Tactical nuclear weapons were low-yield nuclear weapons that could be employed on the battlefield in relatively close proximity to friendly forces (French 199). The US administration hoped to reduce its military spending in Europe by using nuclear weapons in the European theatre as a deterrent to Soviet aggression.

Tactical nuclear weapons presented the best means through which NATO could counter the Soviet’s superiority in conventional forces (Holloway 54). For the Soviets, tactical nuclear weapons would deter attacks from the US since deployment of these weapons would cause the destruction of Europe.

In addition to this, the Soviet Union did not have the capability to successfully attack the US due to the geographical distance between the two countries and the strong air defenses implemented by the US.

By 1965, Europe had thousands of tactical nuclear weapons, the majority of which were owned by NATO. Buzan and Herring state that NATO forces engaged in widespread use of nuclear artillery to strengthen its position in Europe (34).

A variety of delivery systems including cannons and tanks were to be used to deliver the nuclear payloads. The smallest tactical nuclear weapons could be carried and delivered through recoilless rifles placed on light armored vehicles.

By the end of the 1950s, there were a number of nuclear-capable tactical aircraft in operation all over Europe. In addition to the aircrafts, both sides introduced surface-to-surface missiles that could be used for tactical offence or defense purposes.

Arms races are characterized by a competition in terms of weapon quantity with each party trying to outnumber other others. During the nuclear arms race, the nations involved were engaged in intense competition to increase their nuclear stockpiles and produce nuclear warheads.

This was the case in the nuclear arms race with both super powers increasing their nuclear stockpiles with the aim of superseding the rival. At the peak of weapons proliferation, the USSR had 45,000 nuclear warheads while the US had about 30,000 nuclear warheads (Buzan and Herring 54). The countries also looked for the most effective ways of delivering their nuclear payloads to an enemy.

The two major rivals in the nuclear arms race tried to obtain the same or higher technological capabilities to their rival. Holloway reveals that the Soviet Union looked for means to equal US qualitative advancement in nuclear weapon development (148). Each technological advancement demonstrated by the US was shortly followed by similar achievements by the Soviets ensuring that the two states were at equal power.

For example, by 1965, the US had succeeded in successfully building and deploying an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) that was capable of delivering nuclear payloads to distant targets (Oelrich 81).

This was a threat to the Soviet Union since it meant that the US could launch a nuclear warhead into Soviet States from the US. To counter this, the Soviets also set out to develop the same capabilities. The Soviet Union built rockets that could carry the heavier and less effective nuclear warheads in the Soviet stockpiles halfway around the world.

An important note concerning the US-Soviet rivalry was that in addition to reacting to each other’s advancement, each superpower was also reacting to what it estimated that the other would do in the future (Buzan and Herring 95). This mutual suspicion led each nation to assume that its opponent was carrying out additional research and development in its nuclear weaponry.

Impacts of the Arms Race

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

In two and a half decades after the end of the Second World War, the nuclear arms race had become so prevalent that the international community acknowledged that action needed to be taken to prevent future spread of nuclear weapons.

To legally limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons and technology, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was established in 1968 and ratified in 1970 (Bluth 84). This treaty named the five nuclear capable countries of the time, which were the US, the Soviet Union, China, Britain, and France, as the primary owners of nuclear weapons and technology.

The nuclear capable signatories of the NPT agreed not to sell weapons to the non-nuclear capable states. In addition to this, the treaty required the nuclear weapons states to avoid providing technical aid that could help the non-nuclear capable states to manufacture nuclear weapons. This would ensure that the nuclear weapons were restricted to only a few states.

The other binding commitment of the NPT was to encourage nuclear disarmament (Bluth 88). The nuclear-weapon States were required to make positive steps towards reducing their nuclear weapons stockpiles and eventually achieve complete disarmament.

The NPT recognized that nuclear technology could be used for peaceful means. This treaty therefore allowed for the transfer of nuclear technology and material among nations for use in peaceful purposes such as power generation.

Deterrence

The nuclear arms race was used for deterrence purposes by the two United States and the Soviet Union. After the Second World War, these two former allies emerged as the great global powers. However, the two had sharp political and ideological differences that made them bitter rivals. In the years following the Second World War, the US and its allies were pitted against the Soviet Union and its allies.

The ideological conflict between the two led to threats of war and great antagonism between the Soviets and the Americans. The arsenal of nuclear weapons maintained by both the US and the Soviet Union ensured that the two superpowers were never engaged in a direct military confrontation since both powers were aware that such an action could lead to devastating losses (Oelrich 80).

The arms race introduced the concept of “Mutual Assured Destruction”. Both the US and the Soviet Union had amassed nuclear weapons that were capable of completely destroying each other (French 56). An important strategy employed by both sides was the second strike capability.

This capability meant that either side could strike back even after it had been hit by a devastating attack from the opposite side. As such, neither side could attack the other since each was assured that it would suffer catastrophic destruction even if it carried out a preemptive attack.

Costs

The nuclear arms race led to a monumental increase in the military expenditure of the US and the Soviet Union. The US increased its military spending to finance research and development into nuclear weapons and efficient delivery systems. By the year 1986, the US had a defense budget of $367 billion, a 200% increase from the previous decade (French 163).

However, the military expenditure was low compared to the country’s GDP and Americans did not feel the negative economic impact of the nuclear weapons program. The Soviet Union was more affected by the financial strain caused by the arms race since the country had a lower GDP.

In addition to this, the arms race strained the country’s economy since significant resources were dedicated to the Soviet military research at the expense of the civilian sector. Some scholars argue that the financial burden imposed by the nuclear arms race contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent end of the arms race (Kort 1973).

This argument holds some merit considering the fact that the Soviets dedicated between 30 and 40% of their GDP to military efforts while the US only used 8 to 10%. This difference in economic costs made it hard for the Soviet Union to keep up with the US in the arms race.

Decline in the Arms Race

Haslam reveals that by the beginning of the 1960s, it was clear that the US and the Soviet had equal nuclear power (43). While the US has begun as the global nuclear leader, the Soviet has increased its weapons number and sophistication to match that of the US.

Both sides realized that it would be important to stop or reduce the race of the arms race. In 1972, the first treaty aimed at limiting nuclear weapons was implemented. This treaty, known as the strategic arms limitations talks (SALT) put temporary limits on intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched missiles. It also imposed strict limits on defensive antiballistic missile systems.

However, this treaty did not limit efforts at modernizing the available missile systems of both nations. As such, both countries continued to modernize their offensive missiles and developed missiles capable of carrying more than one nuclear warhead.

Kort documents that these missiles known as MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles) rendered the SALT agreements ineffective since each country could still deliver missiles to numerous targets in spite of the limitation on delivery vehicles (1971). A second agreement, SALT II was proposed to address the inadequacies of the first treaty.

The end of the arms race started with the appointment of Mikhail Gorbachev as the first secretary of the powerful Communist Part of the Soviet Union. This Soviet leader advocated for a reduction in the nuclear and conventional forces of the Soviet Union.

Bluth reports that the Soviets made a series of concessions that led to the ratification of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) treaty, which required a large reduction in the nuclear stockpiles of the US and the Soviet Union (215). The treaty also called for an elimination of short and medium range nuclear missiles and this requirement was fulfilled in 1991 when both the US and the Soviet Union destroyed their arsenals.

The end of the cold in 1991 war marked the end of the nuclear arms race that had been in play for almost four decades. With the dissolution of the USSR, the US was the dominant military power in the world.

During the early 1990s, the US and the Soviet Union reduced their tactical nuclear weapons in Europe following the withdrawal of Russian troops from Eastern Europe (French 74). From then on, the US and Russia have engaged in a policy of continuous nuclear disarmament.

Discussion

In spite of the end of the Soviet Union and the Cold War, the US and Russia still retain a considerable number of nuclear weapons. Oelrich states that the two countries are capable of launching devastating nuclear attacks against each other (79). The primary reason for maintaining a nuclear arsenal in the post-Cold War era is deterrence.

Oelrich agrees that the nuclear weapons are able to support broad deterrence objectives therefore ensuring that neither country takes aggressive military action against its rival (81). It can be assumed that nuclear weapons will continue to fulfill this role since as opposed to leading to a war, the nuclear arms race served as a substitute for war since none of the nuclear weapon states have every used their weapons against an adversary.

Conclusion

This paper set out to discuss the nuclear arms race that took place between the US and the Soviet Union after the Second World War. It began by highlighting the introduction of nuclear weapons into modern warfare by the US. The paper then showed how the Soviet Union made efforts to obtain nuclear capabilities during the first 5 years following the end of WWII.

Following the acquisition of nuclear weapons by the Soviet Union, the US took measures to increase its nuclear superiority and this created the arms race. The paper has revealed that the nuclear arms race was aimed at increasing the global power of the nuclear weapons states and serve a deterrence purpose to the other arms race participants.

The arms race came to an end following the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even so, nuclear weapons continue to play a major role in the defense strategy of the US and Russia.

Works Cited

Bluth, Christopher. The Collapse of Soviet Military Power. London: Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited, 1995. Print.

Buzan, Barry, and Herring Eric. The Arms Dynamic in World Politics. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998. Print.

Carnesale, Albert, Paul Doty, Stanley Hoffman, Samuel Huntington and Scott Sagan. Living with Nuclear Weapons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983. Print.

French, David. Army, Empire, and Cold War: The British Army and Military Policy, 1945-1971. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012. Print.

Haslam, Jonathan. The Soviet Union and the Politics of Nuclear Weapons in Europe, 1969-1987. London: MacMillan Press, 1989.

Holloway, David. The Soviet Union and the Arms Race. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984.

Kort, Michael. The Columbia Guide to the Cold War. NY: Columbia University Press, 2013. Print.

Oelrich, Ivan. “The next step in arms control: Eliminate the counterforce mission.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 68.1 (2012): 79–85. Print.

Asia has a long and rich history and it has seen its share of wars for territory and dominance in the region. China, Japan, Korea and Taiwan have signed several treaties after World War II, which specifically outline the circumstances between the countries. The unique relationship that each nation has with the other can be seen by the conditions that are set out in each individual and unique agreement.

When the Second World War finished, Japan and Allied Powers signed “A Treaty of San Francisco”. This took place in 1951 when the war was officially over but there were two more treaties that were signed in the later years. Because the end of Second World War was made official, the nations felt that they must acknowledge the unified goal towards better relations and as such have included points that were same for all nations.

Even though these were peace treaties, the content was affected by the historical relationship among nations. The reason for treaties was in answer to Japan’s damaging treatment of China and its people. The treaty that was signed by Japan and Taiwan and the one between Japan and Korea had the same specificity.

Article II of “Treaty on Basic Relations between Japan and the Republic of Korea” states that “it is confirmed that all treaties or agreements concluded between the Empire of Japan and the Empire of Korea on or before August 22, 1910 are already null and void” (Radtke, 1990). A unique fact is that the third treaty did not have the same point of nullification which makes a distinct statement about the relationship of the two nations.

The date is of importance as this was the time when Japan overtook Korea and did it in a forceful way. It was necessary for the peace treaty to contain this acknowledgement of Japanese aggression in the past, so that such matter would not repeat itself in the future. There was much animosity between the two nations because a number of trade agreements were unfair and damaging to the whole country (Wang, 2000).

After the first Sino-Japanese War, Taiwan, Penghu and some territory of the islands went under Japan’s rule, ending in 1895 (Radtke, 1990). In relation to the matter, Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty between Japan and the Republic of China was signed in 1952 which put an end to the Second Sino-Japanese War. It has been known that Japan has treated Korea and Taiwan in an abusive way, using residents harshly and aggressively.

The peace treaty emphasized the fact to prevent any future occurrences. One of the most important differences in the treaties was the territorial ownership and domination (Oros, 2010). Those agreements signed between Japan and Korea, and Japan and Taiwan did not have any mention of regional dominance, whereas the treaty between Japan and the People’s Republic of China stated that neither had plans or goals to become dominant in the region.

This happened because in the late 19^th century Japanese military had more advancement over China and has taken possession of parts of Chinese land and some islands in the area. The two Sino-Japanese wars were proof that Japan was actively seeking domination and so, this was an important factor to include in the peace treaty (Hook, 2013).

The way Japanese behaved towards Korean and Taiwanese people was extremely detrimental and was qualified as many years of oppression and abuse. Historically, the relationship Japan had with the surrounding nations has been very violent and torn by wars, so the treaty between Japan and People’s Republic of China had to definitely mention the past treatment.

At the same time, a later treaty was signed on August 12^th, 1978 and had a linkage to the “San Francisco Peace Treaty” in relation to the Senkaku Islands. The problem was that there was no mention thereof and so, it was unclear how the matter will be resolved. Taiwan has made a claim regarding the islands with the reference to the previous peace treaty but Japanese response was that Taiwan was not in possession of the islands prior to the signage of any treaties and so, no references could be made to any previous agreements.

A common principle that was binding towards all nations was that “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered” (Lee, 2002). Because many conflicts between Asian nations were enrooted in the past, the evidence that was brought forth had such unique character.

Even though the treaties were signed in good nature and reassurance of peace, some territory has stayed under questionable possession, leaving out details that were crucial in making a fair decision. Treaties signed between Japan, Korea, Taiwan and People’s Republic of China each have unique characteristics that are specific to the historical relationship amongst nations. The agreements have ended a part of the conflict but further actions were needed to completely resolve all problems.

References

Hook, G. (2013). Japan’s International Relations: Politics, Economics and Security. New York, United States: Routledge.

Lee, S. (2002). Territorial Disputes among Japan, China and Taiwan concerning the Senkaku Islands. Durham, United Kingdom: IBRU.

Oros, A. (2010). Global Security Watch—Japan. Santa Barbara, United States: ABC-CLIO.

Radtke, K. (1990). China’s Relations With Japan 1945-83. New York, United States: Manchester University Press.

Wang, Q. (2000). Hegemonic Cooperation and Conflict. Westport, United States: Greenwood Publishing Group.

A Stay-at-Home Mother and Labor Activism

As a stay-at-home young mother in the post-World War II United States, I would be conflicted. Having experienced the hard, repetitive, and uninteresting labor at a factory, I would be happy to start a peaceful life as a housewife. Still, with time, I would begin to understand gender inequality and get connected to labor activists.

My husband, a very talented man, would manage to secure a good job soon after returning from the war, and sometime later, I would give birth to our child. I would be used to the things that, according to Dubois and Dumenil (2016), the society demanded of women at the time, and I would readily stay at home and take care of my children, husband, and household. However, with time, I would start to compare my house and babysitting chores with the factory’s work and discover that the primary difference between the two would be that the former can be regarded as round-the-clock, unpaid, and unnoticed labor.

Naturally, I would not come to this conclusion on my own. My husband would like to discuss (that is, give speeches) on recent events, including those about labor union women demanding equal payments and even trying to bring some proposals of related legislation to the Congress (Lamphier & Welch, 2017, p. 74). Initially, I would agree with him that such a demand can only be viewed as ridiculous, but I would feel more conflicted with time.

In the end, I would get acquainted with a labor activist and learn more about feminism and its perspective on labor. I would bring up the question of getting paid work eventually; upon hearing about it, my husband would dismiss it and then start to explain why it is a foolish idea. His words would sway me at first, but by the end of the early 1950s, I would grow certain that I have to change something in my life.

Post-War and Modern Women

In my view, post-war women’s experiences must have included the outrage at the hypocrisy of their society, which pushed them back into traditionally unacknowledged housewife roles to make a place for their husbands in the market. Moreover, even though much has changed to the best since the post-war years, I would say that there are some unpleasant similarities between the two periods. One of these similarities is the problem of gender roles and related economic disparities.

Even today, women are often considered unfit for certain “male” roles. For example, Cheryan, Plaut, Handron, and Hudson (2013) demonstrate in their studies that college students tend to describe a computer scientist’s role as incompatible with women. The authors also carried out an experiment that proves that gender stereotypes in media can prevent women from becoming interested in such roles. In contrast, stereotype-free news articles can have the opposite effect. Thus, stereotypical ideas about labor remain harmful and restrictive and make the modern period similar to that of the post-war society.

The stereotypes do not only deceive women into thinking that they cannot perform certain activities; these ideas can also affect employers, which leads to glass ceilings and income inequalities. For example, the earnings information of 2008-2012 suggests that gender disparities have not been eliminated yet, although the severity of the issue varies for different regions of the US (Newman, 2015, p. 7). The same data shows changes to the best, but it is apparent that the problem is still present.

To sum up, despite the positive changes that have taken place and those that seem to be in motion, the issue of sexist hypocrisy appears to be rooted very deeply in human society, which makes the modern period similar to the post-war one.

References

Cheryan, S., Plaut, V., Handron, C., & Hudson, L. (2013). The stereotypical computer scientist: Gendered media representations as a barrier to inclusion for women.Sex Roles, 69(1-2), 58-71. Web.

Dubois, E.C., & Dumenil, L. (2016). Through women’s eyes (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.

Lamphier, P., & Welch, R. (2017). Women in American history (1st ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Newman, B. (2015). Breaking the glass ceiling: Local gender-based earnings inequality and women’s belief in the American dream.American Journal of Political Science, 60(4), 1006-1025. Web.

Introduction

Formed in 1950s after the Second World War, the European Union has remained a global and key player in an array of issues. Backed with the spirit of its member states and the United States, the Union has continuously executed its mandate and enlarged in order to advance and augment its efficacy in its operations.

Throughout its history, the European Union has undergone countless transformations in terms of policies, structures and execution of its powers. Different paths have also been adopted to meet changing needs of its member states and partners.

Part of its main agenda has been the European integration which promotes political, legal, industrial and economic amalgamation of member states (Sweet & Sandholtz 1997). Among the drivers of the Union’s integration process is security. This analysis explores how security has been the main driver behind European integration since World War II.

European Union

Denoted as EU, this is a political and economic international organization which symbolizes an exceptional corporation among its twenty-seven member states from Europe (Ocaña 2003). In general, the European Union is considered as the most recent stage of integration that was formerly proposed and launched immediately after the Second World War.

Though its mandate could be interpreted differently by analysts, it initially dedicated its efforts towards augmenting economic prosperity, peace and stability in Europe (Archick & Mix 2010). What about its external support? It is believed that the United States has been a major supporter of the Union since its inception as a way of fostering global democracy and developing global economy and trading partnerships.

According to Archick and Mix 2010, the foundation of the European has been strengthened through treaties and commitment of its member states to having harmonized laws and policies for effective integration and handling of several issues.

Credit has strongly been given to the way the union continuously handles its social and economic issues with member states pulling their sovereignty together to realize a common goal in decision-making (Ocaña 2003). For its effective operation and participation in international and foreign policies, the Union usually seeks audience, consent and consensus from member states, as a legal procedure recognized by its constitution.

To achieve this common agenda among the 27 member states, the Union endeavors to collectively work through three major institutions, which are the Council of the European Union, the European Commission and the European Parliament. With regard to these structures, the Lisbon Treaty is the latest step towards amending the way the EU operates at the institutional level in order to improve its functionality (Archer 2008).

This has created new leadership posts like the European Council President and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. However, of importance since its inception has been its integration drivers who set its performance pace and policy-making basis. As demonstrated in the preceding segments of the analysis, security has significantly driven the integration process.

European integration

As mentioned above, European integration is simply a process of legal, economic, political and industrial assimilation, which brings together twenty-seven sovereign states from Europe. The integration part of the Union came into existence as a result of collaboration between the Council of Europe and the EU.

In the understanding of the European integration, it is worth noting that the climate after the Second World War favored the unification of Western Europe as many countries in the region ran away from nationalistic ideologies, which had previously disadvantaged the region (Sweet & Sandholtz 1997).

The formation of the EU, which propagates its integration, has been viewed as reality postulated by various influential leaders in history. For instance, Winton Churchill prophesied the coming of the United States of Europe in 1946, although he did not see Britain being part of the Union.

This was argued on the basis that Britain steered the Commonwealth union, which brought together several countries around the world. As an influential body in Europe, the European Union’s operations have been driven by a wide range of issues (Michelmann & Soldatos 1994).

Nevertheless, security is considered as one of the key drivers which have ensured that the body remains focused towards promoting the security of its member states as it relates with other countries around the world. How then has security been a core driver of this integration process?

This is illustrated in drafting and ratification of treaties in which the security of the Union is sealed for the sole purpose of execution. Among these policies are Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) and the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) as analyzed below (Jones 2007).

European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP)

In analyzing the integration process of the European Union with regard to security as a key driver, experts arguably view ESDP as the most vibrant and effective sector in the operation and development of the European Union.

It is indeed a fascinating phenomenon in the history of the European Union integration process since the security was a sensitive and prominent issue that almost threatened the unity of European countries (Elors 1991).

Many security efforts were frustrated by other state leaders who had been varying stances concerning the European security Union’s system. An example of such efforts was the Treaty of Dunkirk 1947.

Signed on the fourth day of March by the United Kingdom and France, its driving agenda was the establishment of barriers and security strategies that would eliminate possibilities of being attacked by Germany after the end of the Second World War.

Importantly, it was a mutual treaty that formed the basis of the relationships between the two countries. For effectiveness, the treaty was expanded after the signing of the Brussels Treaty 1948.

The Brussels Treaty 1948

As a strategy to promote the security of the region, the treaty was signed in March 1948 comprising of an enlarged membership of five countries. Like the previous agreement, the Brussels Treaty 1948 contained a mutual defense section upon which the Paris Conference was established in the year 1954 that led to the formation of the Western European Union (Merlingen & Ostrauskaite 2008).

The signing of the treaty was essential as it generated a European barricade against any form of a communist threat that was looming. It also promoted security, a realization which the United Nations had failed to attain, especially during the Cold War.

Coupled with several social and cultural issues, the mind behind the treaty believed that cooperation among Western nations was necessary in fighting and overcoming communism. This is the treaty believed to have been NATO’s precursor even though the two differed as the former mainly focused on unification of Western Europe against communism.

It was closely followed by the European Defense Community 1950/54 which ensured that European agenda and its unification remained its operational backbone. Later, the European Defense Community adopted other policies, which were aimed at advancing its impact across Europe and wooing countries to becoming member states (Möttölä 2007).

Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP)

The formation of CSDP is also considered one of the ways the need for security and established defense institutions have driven European integration from the time when the Second World War ended. Importantly, immense efforts had been witnessed before the ratification of the clause in order to promote defense capabilities and to fully support EU’s military as it discharged its duties (Merlingen & Ostrauskaite 2008).

Consequently, the EU has established three major decision-making with a rapid response force to cater for multinational security needs. EU forces do not have standing EU troops but depends on involving military agencies from sovereign member states during external operations.

As a way of maintaining its primary objective OSDP, largely concentrates on humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping and crisis management in Europe and beyond the region’s borders. Although it’s commonly known for its involvement in security matters, OSDP also engages in civilian missions like police training.

Together with judicial training, OSDP promotes the rule of law among member states and other countries guided by their foreign policy (Archer, 2008). The European Union has completed several missions in numerous countries around the globe and is currently involved in thirteen OSDP missions in the world.

Although security remains a core driver of European integration, efforts to improve capabilities of the European military have been futile due to declining budget allocations for defense departments among member states. Several defense capability gaps have been witnessed in various force multipliers like control systems, command and intelligence, among others.

A number of suggestions have been tabled, which include pooling of resources as a joined effort among member states. To achieve this, the European Defense Agency was established in 2004 to oversee stretching of Europe defense expenditure to facilitate funding (Merlingen & Ostrauskaite 2008).

However, in addressing practical challenges, which continue haunting the integration process under the European Union, it is important to note that the European Security and Defense Policy is mainly driven by power, cultural identity and institutional capabilities. With the introduction of military affairs, EU has become influential and an international player, especially in crisis management.

From an analytical point of view, it is possible to note that European integration has been driven by security throughout its history. Although the initial mandate of security policies was known to protect Europe from external attack and the influence of communists, its mandate has extremely expanded to touch on other matters like economic, industrial and legal integration.

Importantly, security policies like The Brussels Treaty 1948 led to the unification of European countries, sharing ideas on politics, economic development and legal reforms (Ecker, n.d.). These are considered as pillars of the integration process as it aimed at bringing together several sovereign states.

Even though the integration process would still take place without security issues driving it, it has been affirmed that the success and achievement realized would not have been a reality in Europe’s history. From this approach, assimilation of more.

European countries were relatively easy as European nations understood Germany’s threat and the uncontrollable looming impact of communists. As such, many leaders got convinced in order to have a unified Europe with policies and forces that would barricade it from any form of intrusion from other forces outside the region.

References

Archer, C 2008, The European Union, Taylor & Francis, United Kingdom.

Archick, K & Mix, D 2010, The European Union: Questions and Answers. Web.

Ecker, B n.d., European Integration and its Security Dimension: ESDP, NATO and Slovakias position. Web.

Elors, J 1991, “European integration and security”, Survival, vol. 33 no. 2, pp. 99-109.

Jones, S 2007, The rise of European security cooperation, Cambridge University Press, London.

Merlingen, M & Ostrauskaite, R 2008, European security and defense policy: an implementation perspective, Routledge, London.

Michelmann, H & Soldatos, P 1994, European integration: theories and approaches, University Press of America, New York City.

Möttölä, K 2007, Drivers of defense integration within the European Union. Web.

Ocaña, C 2003, The History of the European Union. Web.

Sweet, A & Sandholtz, W 1997, “European integration and supranational governance”, Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 4 no. 3, pp. 297-317.

The convoy was a naval unit consisting of several dozen transport vessels (from 10 to 40 units) and three types of protection from warships. At first, the convoy tactics practiced by the Allies (the U.K., the U.S.A., and the Soviet Union) in the waters of the Atlantic did not give any failures (Weinberg 1994). The transports were built in short columns and dispersed in a wide front to hinder the actions of submarines and enemy aircraft. The Japanese did not quite understand the importance of using the sea, while the Italians rapidly recognized this need and launched sea communications (Weinberg 1994). The last year of the war accounted for 60% of the total volume of military supplies that passed along the path of the polar convoys (Weinberg 1994). These four years were tense, especially when fighting at sea.

Meanwhile, the Allies imposed concomitant blockades against the Axis to prevent goods from being sent to Germany. The implementation of the blocking was supposed to halt trade with Germany, even though traders smuggled items via neutral territories (Weinberg, 1994). The neutrals were constantly checked and attacked because the Allies did not want any countries to trade with Germany. Nonetheless, the blockade-breaker programs were launched regardless of the allies’ thorough planning and construction.

During the Second World War, the home fronts were located in several countries, and life in each was different. New Jersey refocused on the production of military products, including numerous warships. Training camps and airfields were located on the state’s territory, as well as an internment camp for Japanese Americans. Meanwhile, Birmingham was constantly bombed because of its military potential. Finally, in the U.S.S.R.’s Magnitogorsk shells, grenades and mines were manufactured at the metallurgical plant, and tank turrets were cast. These cities were of primary importance because they produced arms and warships.

Reference

Weinberg, Gerhard. 1994. The War at Sea, 1942-1944, and the Blockade. In A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II, 364-408. New York: Cambridge University Press.

There are many discussions on what were the turning points in World War II, and they usually regard two of them. One of the turning points is suggested to take place in battles between the United States and Japan, and the second one between the Soviet Union and Germany. The most discussed battles that possibly created or marked the momentum of the remaining part of the war are the battle of Midway, where the United States were able to gain advance, and the battles of Kursk and Stalingrad, after which the Soviet troops were able to start moving towards Germany.

The Battles in Kursk and Stalingrad were truly devastating for both Germany and the Soviet Union. Many call the battle of Stalingrad a turning point in the war, yet a crucial victory was obtained in the battle for Kursk. The soviets had major advantages regarding the number of tanks, yet German tanks were much more powerful. Eventually, the Germans were not able to advance in breaking the defense of the Soviet Union in the battle of Kursk, and the Soviet Union and Allies started moving West. In the first months of the attack on pearl harbor, Japan was very successful in battles (Weinberg 2013). Yet, the Battle of Midway changed this, as the US gained advance and finally started counter-offensive actions. The Japanese navy suffered serious losses and was forced to return home. American forces assaulted the Japanese in the Solomon Islands in August 1942, forcing a costly retreat of Japanese forces from Guadalcanal in February 1943. In the Pacific, Allied troops gradually achieved naval and air superiority, and they proceeded systematically from island to island, capturing them while suffering heavy losses.

Considering these factors, the battles of Kursk and Midway can be called turning points. The battle of Midway initiated the counter-offensive actions of the Allies in the Pacific, whereas the battle of Kursk is more arguable in terms of creating momentum. The opportunity for the movement of Soviet troops to Germany was determined not only by the battle of Kursk, yet it can be considered a marker of when the turning point happened, even if it was not its only cause.

Reference

Weinberg, Gerhard L. 2013. A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The decision by the United States to stay out of war until 1941 was wise since it helped save war resources and lives. America restrained itself from getting tangled in European affairs, having the perspective that it would limit its ability to act independently. The United States had also signed treaties with other nations intending to maintain international peace. Congress had passed a Neutrality Act, which limited America from selling arms to fighting countries. The United States could not support any of the parties fighting during World War II until an attack was made on Pearl Harbor.

American citizens and politicians wanted the United States to restrain from being entangled in European issues since it would end up establishing barriers to its ability to act independently. America wanted to ensure that it was free from European issues and other commitments likely to negatively impact the nation. The United States maintained an isolationist tradition even to reduce the likelihood of a global conflict even though it engaged in international affairs.

America’s decision was greatly influenced by a noninterventionist foreign policy aimed at reducing the likelihood of war and defense expenditure. The United States was not involved in the war until 1941 since it had a Neutrality Act which established limits to the sale of weapons to fighting parties (Corbett et al. 1). The nation also had to refrain from lending money or moving individuals and weapons for countries who were active during the course of the war.

The United States made the decision to become active in the war after the Japanese launched an attack on a Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbor. The attack made America lose fighting equipment and recorded the deaths of several soldiers with other nursing injuries. The attack happened as Japanese diplomats were negotiating a possible agreement with the United States in Washington. This caused President Roosevelt to ask Congress to issue a declaration of war.

In conclusion, the United States could not be active during World War II until an attack was made by the Japanese fleet. The lack of involvement was aimed at ensuring that the nation maintained its capacity to act independently. The United States was also restrained from being mixed up in the war by the Neutrality Act, which limited the government from helping fighting countries. However, the attack on the American Pearl Harbor fleet made the Americans change their mind, hence issuing a declaration of war.

Work Cited

Corbett, P. Scott, et al. US History. OpenStax, 2017.

The war produced a profound impact on America’s attitude to Asians in terms of racial perceptions and actual treatment of all Asian minority groups. However, it did not affect all Asians equally. In general, most Asian Americans benefited from war as the Filipino, the Chinese, and Indians were wartime allies of the United States. Since the government was afraid of strategic losses to their enemies, they decided to combat racial ideologies at home and abroad. A new, positive attitude to representatives of these nations was mainly explained by their heroic participation in battles and their willingness to be enlisted to fight against the Japanese (although they were actually promised the citizenship). Nevertheless, even this improvement in perception did not give any considerable advantages.

On the contrary, the Japanese suffered greatly in the aftermath of war. Japan was an enemy and therefore Japanese Americans were perceived as “enemy aliens” and singled out for “group punishment” by Executive Order 9066. This was majorly due to the attack at Pearl Harbor, after which all Japanese American communities started to be viewed as sources of potential threats. The fear of “Yellow Peril” achieved its peak, which led to an unprecedented violation of constitutional rights as Japanese immigrants were forced to live in detention camps. Furthermore, the government never made any efforts to help them restore their position in the society.

Another great impact was produced by the Cold War with Russians as the nation realized the hazard of the so-called “domino effect”, which implied that the neighboring countries could turn to communism following Russia’s example. This was exactly what happened to the Korean peninsula and China. Chinese immigrants were prosecuted for the fear of communism spreading in the country. Yet, the United States was still forced to change its racially-biased immigration policy since it evidently exerted negative influence on its relations with Asian countries.

The Asian American Movement, which emerged in the late 1960s and lasted until the middle of 1970s, had a lot of underlying historical, ideological, and political reasons. Among the most influential ones were: neo-imperialism of the country, racism towards minority groups, lack of social services to immigrants, and militarism. Asian Americans together with the African, Latino, and Native Americans fought for rights of the poor and protested unceasingly against the Vietnam War.

However, from the political point of view, none of the radical movements that appeared initially–including Free Speech Movement, Civil Rights movement, the Black Power movement, and Anti-Vietnam War movement–specifically addressed Asian problems, which also created a need in such kind of activism that would struggle against Asian-related issues (Asian ghettoes, unemployment, access to social services, etc.). Ideologically, this movement borrowed a lot from the Black Power and Anti-Vietnam War movements in its racial positioning and anti-militarism.

The post-war expansion of civil rights was another factor that contributed to the movement. Several acts were passes to improve the position of Asians (War Brides Act, McCarran Act), they usually benefited only one specific group of Asians while neglecting or harming others. Furthermore, although Chinese engineers helped the United States to catch up with the USSR’s space program, witch hunt for “suspects” of treason never ceased.

One more important factor was the “model minority” stereotype, which the movement was aimed to destroy. Since the United States needed Japan as an ally against Communist China, the Japanese started to be promoted as those having inherent cultural advantages in contrast to other minorities. They were believed to be peaceful, self-reliant, intelligent, and successful even against the background of other Asians (leaving along African and Latin Americans). This created a gap that the movement was indented to bridge.

The Immigration Act introduced in 1965 was not supposed to produce such a great effect on the Asian American community. It gave an immigration advantage to spouses and children of American citizen as it was believed that Asians did not have many relatives in the United States and not many of them would use the benefit. Yet, these expectations proved to be wrong: On the contrary, the number of Asian immigrants increased exponentially and exceeded 2.5 millions in two decades.

The Act produced a diversifying effect: Alongside with the Japanese, a lot of Koreans and Asian Indians came to the country. This influx was of paramount economic importance to the community as it maintained the preference system, which implied that immigrants were mostly educated people and could contribute a lot to both social and economic development. The phenomenon became known as a “brain drain”.

In the 1970s, Asians affected by the Vietnam War were also encouraged to migrate to the United States, which had significant political consequences as most of these refugees were strongly connected to the government and could not stay in Vietnam for the fear of retribution. They could not find refuge in Asian countries and the United States felt its political responsibility for the crisis. As a result, the Refugee Act was passed in 1980 that helped more than one-half million Asians get permanent residence and considerably improved the image of the country after the unpopular war.

In 1987, the Homecoming Act allowed children born in Asia from American soldiers to immigrate. Consequently, the Asian community that was practically non-existent before gradually turned into a flourishing one. However, the attitude to these newcomers was far from positive since soldiers were not happy to discover them as their neighbors. This created social tensions.

The end of World War II (WWII) marked an important moment for the United States (US), given that it saw the nation establish its status as the world’s hegemon. The government understood that it had to do whatever it took to maintain this status, including developing fundamental foreign policy. Consequently, the US became an indispensable nation in global affairs, promoting democracy and prosperity among different regions (Oren & Oren, 2007). For instance, the US government was at the forefront of fighting human rights abuses and dictatorship, which hinders individual nations from enjoying their freedom and democracy. The American government worked tirelessly toward developing diplomatic, military, and economic engagement to strengthen individual nations (Cox & Stokes, 2018). Based on these efforts, many people considered the US a pillar of international security that halted the spread of aggression of rogue regimes.

As part of its diplomatic agenda, the US government offered extensive support to different countries within the Middle East region after WWII to prevent the Soviet Union from gaining influence over the area. The American government focused more on the Israeli state that appeared hard-pressed by the Arab nations at the peak of the Israeli-Arab conflicts (Oren & Oren, 2007). The US also protected Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to guarantee a stable flow of oil produced. In other words, the American government’s main agenda in the post-WWII era was to strengthen diplomatic, economic, and military engagement in the Middle-East region.

Based on these factors, it is clear that the US involvement in the Middle East during the post-WWII season was pure and focused on the region’s interests. However, secularization created significant changes in the foreign policy in this area, given that the government bases its focus on personal interests rather than regional ones. For instance, the 9/11 attack against the US perpetrated by the terrorists who had sought refuge in the Middle-East region saw the American government deploy military personnel to guarantee that the terrorists fled from this region (Cox & Strokes, 2018). In other words, rather than concentrating on maintaining peace in the region, the government deployed military troops to alleviate the domination of any power hostile to the US and its citizens. Nevertheless, the US military presence in the region still focuses on ensuring a stable flow of the global energy market.

Consequently, these aspects indicate a change in foreign policy through the post-WWII era and the secularization period. The American government showed pure interest in the region during the post-WWII era. Its main agenda was to ensure that the Middle East remained peaceful while protecting the interests of the Israeli nation that seemed hard-pressed by the Arabs nations surrounding it (Knutsen, 2020). Its main interest was to ensure that individual countries enjoyed democratic freedom without any form of oppression. Additionally, the US government focused more on avoiding the influence of the Soviet Union in the region.

However, this changed with time, an aspect one can attribute to secularization. During this era, individuals seemed to focus more on their personal benefits rather than those of their neighbors. This aspect is made evident by the American government sending military troops to the Middle East to ensure that the US and its citizens were free from any harm that might emerge from the region (Knutsen, 2020). The government did not withdraw its troops from the region regardless of the immense loss of lives from both sides. Based on this argument, it is appropriate to conclude that the changes occurred due to secularization.

References

Cox, M., & Stokes, D. (2018). US foreign policy. Oxford university press. ISBN: 9780198707578

Knutsen, T. L. (2020). A history of international relations theory. In A history of international relations theory (third edition). Manchester university press. ISBN: 9781784997274

Oren, M. B., & Oren, S. F. M. B. (2007). Power, faith, and fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the present. WW Norton & Company.

As the United States emerged victorious from World War II, some Americans expected that positive change achieved during Franklin Roosevelt’s presidential terms would create an opportunity for further progress. However, their hopes and dreams were promptly shattered in the following years. Harry Truman’s administration failed to live up to its early promises and declarations. A significant part of Truman’s failures happened due to the inconsistency of his actions and his unwillingness to commit to social change. For instance, in 1945, Truman proposed a program of social reforms that included a full employment bill, a higher minimum wage, and national housing legislation. However, Truman also appointed a number of conservatives and moderates to his cabinet (Chafe 75).

In this regard, Truman cared more about his political position than the continuation of Roosevelt’s social policies. Overall, the U.S. government of the early postwar years demonstrated complacency in the social sphere. As Arthur F. Burns, President Eisenhower’s economic advisor, said, “The transformation in the distribution of our national income… may already be counted as one of the great social revolutions in history” (Wittner 78). As such, the U.S. authorities considered the social change a low-priority policy dimension. Their attention was focused on international affairs and the fight for global supremacy.

The postwar prosperity created a distorted outlook of American society, hiding several major social issues. In reality, the so-called “affluent society” was plagued by inequality, injustice, and tensions. For example, the postwar popular writing suggested American women return to their place at home, denying them the right to pursue a career. Women who wished to continue working were portrayed as thoughtless and greedy (Chafe 77). Racial discrimination and prejudice against Black Americans persisted as Truman attempted to retain the loyalty of conservative Democrats in the South by backing away from the action on civil rights (Chafe 84). The workers and labor union leaders’ demand for fair wages was frequently depicted as an outcome of communist influence and Soviet propaganda (Chafe 91).

By the 1960s, the social issues were acknowledged but still put behind the communist threat. In a special section dedicated to John Kennedy’s inauguration, Newsweek admitted the existence of problems with “racial violence, schools and housing” (Hodgson 99). However, communism was still called “the greatest single problem that faces John Kennedy — and the key to most of his other problems” (Hodgson 99). In this regard, the U.S. government and the public largely neglected the presence of social issues, associating them with harmful communist influence.

Anti-communism was an integral part of the U.S. postwar foreign policy. Many notable U.S. political and military figures, such as FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and General Douglas MacArthur, shared a strong anti-communist sentiment (Chafe 104). However, the Truman Doctrine played an ultimate role in the transformation of mistrust toward Soviet Russia into a domestic strategy of political mobilization. According to Chafe, the Truman administration used anti-communism to ensure support for the Cold War (104). As a consequence, Truman’s crusade against communism resulted in an assault on pluralism and honest political discussions inside the United States.

Advocacy for social change had become dangerously close to being declared a Soviet agent. The devastating impact of the anti-communist campaign on freedom of thought can be seen in the words of Albert Einstein. In particular, Einstein claimed that he “would rather choose to be a plumber or a peddler in the hope to find that modest degree of independence still available under present circumstances” (Wittner 88). As such, the government-sanctioned extreme anti-communism crippled American society, denying it a chance to acknowledge and resolve the brewing social tensions.

Works Cited

Chafe, William H. The Unfinished Journey: America Since World War II. 9th ed., Oxford University Press, 2021.

Hodgson, G. “America in Our Time.” A History of Our Time: Readings on Postwar America, edited by William H. Chafe, Harvard Sitkoff and Beth L. Bailey, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 93–107.

Wittner, Lawrence S. “The Rulers and the Ruled: American Society, 1945-1960.” A History of Our Time: Readings on Postwar America, edited by William H. Chafe, Harvard Sitkoff and Beth L. Bailey, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 77–92.