...its existence, the Cold War appeared to be something that was constantly present and unchanging. However, revolutions in Europe and Asia after 1953 continued to shape the Cold War until revolution inevitably destroyed in 1989. In 1954, after failing to contain communism in Korea, America involved itself in the Vietnam Conflict. At this time, France had just lost control of its colonial holdings in Vietnam. After the French were defeated by a communist contingent lead by Vo Nguyen Giap at Dien Bien Phu, the French decided that they could no longer retain their Indochinese colonies. In the summer of 1954, France and Vietnam signed the Geneva Peace Accords. It was agreed that Vietnam would be temporarily divided along the 17th parallel such that the north would be communist and the south would not be. As a result of this, the United States decided to intervene in the South Vietnamese affairs in an attempt to contain communism as they had in Korea. It was at this time that the American National Security Council (NSC) published its 68th paper (NSC-68) in which they introduced the policy of rollback. NSC-68 guaranteed the liberation of nations under communist dictatorship for the purpose of gradually eliminating communism until it was no longer a national issue to be concerned over....
Words: 2495 - Pages: 10
...To what extent do you accept the view that the USA and the USSR were already divided by irreconcilable differences by the end of the fighting in Europe in May 1945? I agree to some extent that the USA and USSR were already divided by irreconcilable differences by 1945 due to their ideological differences which contradicted the beliefs of the other nation. The USA believed in a democratic world which would benefit the economic interests of the USA with free open markets. However the USSR with its new position in the world aimed to improve its security by spreading its communist influence in neighboring countries. Security was an important issue due to its past experiences of being attacked by the west through Eastern Europe such as the west's intervention in the Russian civil war of 1917-18. This experience therefore led the Soviet Union to have a mutual suspicion of the motives of the USA and the west during the war. Therefore the USA and USSR were already divided by 1945. However they were not completely divided as they managed to become allies in their fight against Nazi Germany. The fact that they were able to unite to fight a common cause which was to defeat Nazi Germany illustrates that they were not divided by irreconcilable differences by 1945. The two nations were already divided due to their ideological differences as highlighted in source 1 which is from the orthodox perspective. According to the USA, 'The USSR was a revolutionary state' inherently driven by Marxist-Leninist...
Words: 841 - Pages: 4
...No Escape: The Polish Genocide of World War II Still, the Polish people were willing to fight for their freedom. Within the ghetto at Warsaw, the Jewish Fighter Organization (in Polish, the Z.P.B.) was created as a means for the young displaced people to fight back against the exterminations which were going on in Poland. Many younger Jews held in Warsaw dressed in disguise as SS, many tried to hide and/or escape. The entirety of Warsaw was burned down in the subsequent battle against actual Nazi soldiers, and all offenders were either killed on the spot, or shipped off to death camps for their crimes. It is possible that this attempted uprising made even larger targets (if such a thing were possible) of the Polish people in the...
Words: 1258 - Pages: 6
...The Cold War marked a period of hostility between superpowers: that of the USA (and by extension, the West) and the USSR and the East. This hostility began after the Second World War, despite the supposed camaraderie between the two superpowers during the war as allies against Hitler and Fascism. Whether the schism between the superpowers was caused by their differing ideologies (the capitalist West and the communist East) or a clash between national interests and strong personalities is a matter for debate. Winston Churchill could be said to have helped cause the Cold War because of his ideological differences with Stalin. His 1946 ‘Iron Curtain’ speech certainly caused tension: it unveiled to the world Stalin’s increasing “Soviet sphere” and “increasing measure of control from Moscow”, strongly showing his disapproval of Stalin’s swooping over Eastern Europe and inferring his strongly anti-communist stance. However, this speech was given in 1946, and Churchill was no longer the Prime Minister; that role had passed to Clement Attlee, inferring that he felt he was only able to make such a blunt statement of his views once he was out of power. Conversely, when he was in high office, Churchill was able to work well with Stalin – he called him “Uncle Joe”, inferring they were more than just cordial allies working purely against Stalin. In fact, the Iron Curtain speech could be seen as hypocritical as Churchill made an agreement with Stalin which allowed him to have 75% of influence...
Words: 1833 - Pages: 8
...1989-1991 saw the end of the Cold War. George Bush took office that year. He and Gorbachev's organizations were exceptionally careful about one another, and did not predict the Cold War finishing at any point in the near future. Then again, the occasions of the 1980's had so debilitated Communism that it would just take moment changes from apparently insignificant pioneers and people to bring the whole Soviet framework down. Hungary had constantly sought after freedom from the USSR. By 1989, its economy was somewhat changed and was the most progressive in Eastern Europe. Hungarian Prime Minister Nemeth went to Moscow and talked about the 1956 uprising with Gorbachev, who straightforwardly conceded that pioneers ought to be responsible to their kin and that the uprising had been a mainstream one. The Hungarians then started an open investigation into the 1956 uprising and reasoned that it had been a mainstream rebel against unjustifiable tenet, and its pioneers were absolved of violations. Gorbachev did not mediate. The Hungarians were elated and went above and beyond by destroying their fringe wall with Austria in light of the fact that it was out of date and a wellbeing peril. Despite the fact that East Germany dissented,...
Words: 439 - Pages: 2
...How far do you agree that the origins of the Cold War in 1945-6 owed much to ideological differences and little to personalities and conflicting national interests? There is a significant and complex argument into which aspects were the most important in the origins and sowing the seeds that led to the Cold War in the years 1945 and 1946. It is widely perceived that the variances in philosophy was the focal reason, because America and the Soviet Union had virtually polar opposite understandings on how their country should be run and consequently capitalist and communist countries could not co-exist lacking any strain. Nonetheless, it is similarly claimed that the traits of the leaders of the three countries are a substantial influence to the Cold war conflict; Roosevelt and Truman of the United States, Stalin of the USSR and Churchill of the United Kingdom. This is because the attitudes of the three regularly clashed. It is furthermore disputed that national interests of the separate nations throughout and post-World War II formed strains among the countries of the USA and the USSR, since they both saw the others objectives as a danger to their individual national security. To assist the Cold War from occurring, it is said Winston Churchill is the crucial individual due to his ideological differences with Stalin. Churchill’s 1946 ‘Iron Curtain’ speech certainly caused tension: it unveiled to the world Stalin’s increasing “Soviet sphere” and “increasing measure of control...
Words: 1953 - Pages: 8
...therefore unimportant. The kronstadt revolt occurred because sailors at the Kronstadt naval base had long been a source of radical dissent and by 1921 they were angry about the lack of democracy and the policy of War Communism. On 28th February 1921, the crew of the battleship Petropavlovsk, passed a resolution calling for a return of full political freedoms. Lenin denounced the Kronstadt Uprising as a plot instigated by the White Army and their European supporters making him unimportant to this relevant event. On 6th March, Trotsky announced that he was going to order the Red Army to attack the Kronstadt sailors, making Trotsky the key figure in the Kronstadt revolt not Lenin. 60,000 red army troops stormed the base under the command of Mikhail Tukhachevskii on March 5th, by March 16th they numbered 45,000. Trotsky managed all the conflict and therefore was shown the most important figure, this can be argued that Lenin did not contribute to such a key revolt and therefore had no influence in enabling the communist government to survive. A much stronger argument would be that Lenin was important in enabling the communist government to survive war and conflict, the 1920-21 Russo=Polish war is clear example of this. Russia faced a challenge from Poland. The Polish had been...
Words: 977 - Pages: 4
...CIVIL WAR EVENTS - the Brest Litovsk Treaty (March 1918) was negotiated by Trotsky….he and he Bolsheivks wanted the int’l rev to spread and so from their vantage point the treaty were “stalling tactics”…the treaty gave up Poland, Baltics, and all territory in the North that Russia had gained since 1618…all told 1.3 mill km2, 26% of her people and 75% of her iron and capacity…needless to say Lenin had hard time “selling” the Treaty - the October coup d’état = “beginning of the Revolution” not end….Bolsheviks in the provinces + the centre had to be decide how to handle local Soviets which asserted authority but happened to be dominated by Mensheviks. - long difficult struggles against anarchy, decentralization + separatist tendencies lay ahead – the future form of gov’t = an “open question” - for Lenin, “Dictatorship of proletariat” was what the revolution needed…now this was a slogan and principle that fit into the circumstances of the winter 1917–1918…but, what did it mean?...it meant: a) crushing counter revolution of the old ruling class – the dictatorship would have to have coercive organs like Tsarist police (i.e. the Bolsheviks would assemble the Cheka) b) that the dictatorship of Bolshevik Party and other political parties was incompatible…and would pose problems c) that giving broad powers to unions + factory committees could in itself be problematic… what if worker ideas differed from Bolsheviks? Problems for the Bolsheviks 1) one underlying problem came...
Words: 3349 - Pages: 14
...end of the 2nd World War? The end of the 2nd world war brought a huge change in the relationship between the two superpowers, the USA and the USSR, however early underlying ideological factors may have led to an alliance and strong friendship after the war always being unlikely. The complete contrast of a Communism system, adopted by the USSR, and a Capitalism system, adopted by the USA, was a huge underlying ideological factor that hindered the relationship between the two superpowers not only at the end of the 2nd world war, but also very early on in their relationship. The Russian Revolution could be seen as the starting point of this contrast in societies between the superpowers, as it highlighted the first communism vs. capitalism divide. Communism was viewed by many governments in the west of Europe as a highly destabilising force, and they began to build a pre-conception of communism and the countries that adopt communism. The Economies and Political systems differed hugely between the communist and capitalist societies, for example in capitalist economies the incentive of individual gain was a direct contrast to the community responsibility encouraged by communism, and therefore any possible solutions to help re-build countries such as Germany after the end of the 2nd world war that suit both superpowers societies successfully would have been near enough impossible. It was not only the Communist/Capitalist divide that became an underlying ideological factor to why the...
Words: 1310 - Pages: 6
...Chicago’s Polania Polish American Immigrants In Chicago I will be writing my final paper on Polish American Immigrants who settle in Chicago Illinois. I will be referring to Polish American Immigrants in this essay as (Poles) periodically. The majority of Polish immigrants emigrating to the United States of America was in the 1800’s. This period was considered the first out of three waves of Polish immigrants to settle in America. The first major wave was between 1800 and 1860, many of the emigrating Poles were fleeing for America because of political revolution in their homeland. Many Poles liked the idea of a self governing political system that The United States of America had to offer. The Polish people had to endure many hardships in their homeland of Poland. From civil wars, political uprisings, and occupations from enemy countries (Germany, Russia, Prussia) invading their homeland. Along with these invasions and occupations came persecution of the Polish people. “This group fled their country mainly because of political insurrections. The U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service have estimated that fewer than 2,000 Poles immigrated during this wave.” (Into America) They sought refuge and a new life in America. During this wave it is estimated that 0nly 2,000 Poles had immigrated to America. The next two waves of Polish American immigrants to arrive in the United States were after World War II (WWII). The Polish people lost 12% of its population during WWII...
Words: 3508 - Pages: 15
...Hitler’s Aggressive Foreign policy One of Hitler’s aim aims was to reverse the treaty of Versailles and regain the territory loss in 1919. He also wanted to create a Germany in which all German people lived. These aims found support from the German people who disliked the treaty of Versailles and did not necessarily accept the terms of the Locarno Pact. In 1933 Germany was in a weak position By the treaty of 1919 her armed forces had been severally limited. Germany also faced “little Entente” of France Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia. Also France and Poland were allies. Hitler withdrew from the disarmament conferences at the Hague in 1933/1934. When France refused to accept a British proposal for a general reduction in armaments. In 1934 Hitler withdrew Germany from the League of Nations. In January 1934 Germany signed a 10-year non-aggression pact with Poland. This was designed to upset the relationship between France and Poland, to counter this France signed a non-aggression pact with Russia. In 1934 Hitler Began to increase the size of Germany’s armed Forces, by the beginning of 1935 the German army totalled 234,000 and it had an air force of 2000 planes. The First Austrian Crisis In 1932 Engelbert Dollfuss became chancellor of Austria. In march 1933 he suspended government and banned rival political party’s. He developed a close relationship with Mussolini. In July 1934 Austrian Nazis killed Dollfuss. Any possibility of German interventention...
Words: 1514 - Pages: 7
...r Contents This revision guide is intended to guide you to the key essentials necessary for answering questions on Unit 3. You shouldn’t use at it a replacement for your class notes or your own revision notes, but as a way of supplementing them and ensuring you have a firm awareness of major events, individuals and ideas. 1. The seeds of conflict 2. Emergence of Cold War, 1944-53 3. The ‘Thaw’ & ‘Peaceful Co-existence’ 4. The arms impact of the arms race 5. Sin-Soviet relations 6. Détente 7. End of Cold War Reminder of the structure of Unit 3 • Unit 3 = 25% of total marks • Written exam: 2 hours • Answer ONE question from Section A (30 marks), and ONE from Section B (40 marks) - choice of 2 questions in both sections • Section A – discuss an historical issue • Section B – use source material & knowledge to discuss an historical event Section A – themes to explore in your revision: 1. The post-Stalin thaw and the bid for peaceful coexistence in 1950s: a) USSR: Khrushchev b) USA: the responses of Dulles, Eisenhower and Kennedy. • the continuation of the Cold War in the 1950s following the retirement of Truman & death of Stalin, despite the bid for improved relations on the part of the USSR in the form of unilateral cuts in the size of the Red Army and withdrawal from Austria and Finland. • the...
Words: 13995 - Pages: 56
...Unit 1: The Seeds of Conflict, 1917-1944 The differences between capitalism and communism Capitalism advocated private enterprise, land owned by individuals with minimum government interference. Liberal democracy was a political system where each person has freedom to vote, to elect, of speech and of worship. Communism advocated state-owned property, an economy where all industries and agriculture were owned by the government on behalf of the people. A one-party state was a political system with one political party to represent the people. In the USSR, all political parties other than the Communist Party were banned and elections were contested between individuals of this party. The tensions that existed between the USSR and the USA in the 1920s and 30s Communism was viewed as an unstable force that threatened social and political order and Lenin, leader of the Bolshevik Revolution, was to represent this. Allied countries Britain, France, USA and Japan had sent help to Bolshevik enemies during the Civil War therefore there were some hostile feelings towards them even after the war. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (March 1918) was a result of Russia withdrawing from the war, leading to a feeling of betrayal amongst the allies who were left to fight Germany alone. Communist groups in Spain and France grew in strength in the 1930s in response to the hardships of the Great Depression which placed strains on the USA. Britain’s appeasement policy towards Germany under Hitler’s...
Words: 7667 - Pages: 31
...Trustees of Princeton University Now Out of Never: The Element of Surprise in the East European Revolution of 1989 Author(s): Timur Kuran Source: World Politics, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Oct., 1991), pp. 7-48 Published by: Cambridge University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2010422 . Accessed: 26/02/2011 05:24 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Cambridge University Press and Trustees of Princeton University...
Words: 15671 - Pages: 63
...ZKD Veröffentlichungsreihe der Forschungsgruppe „Zivilgesellschaft, Citizenship und politische Mobilisierung in Europa“ Schwerpunkt Zivilgesellschaft, Konflikte und Demokratie Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung ZCM Agnes Arndt / Dariusz Gawin Discourses on Civil Society in Poland Agnes Arndt: Premises and Paradoxes in the Development of the Civil Society Concept in Poland Dariusz Gawin: Civil Society Discourse in Poland in the 1970s and 1980s Discussion Paper Nr. SP IV 2008-402 ISSN 1860-4315 Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung gGmbH Social Science Research Center Berlin Reichpietschufer 50, 10785 Berlin Federal Republic of Germany Telefon: +49/30/25491-0 Telefax: +49/30/25491-684 E-Mail: wzb@wz-berlin.de Internet: http://www.wz-berlin.de Agnes Arndt ist Historikerin. Sie ist Promotionsstipendiatin der Gerda Henkel Stiftung am Berliner Kolleg für Vergleichende Geschichte Europas“ an der Freien Universität Berlin sowie Gastwissenschaftlerin der Forschungsgruppe „Zivilgesellschaft, Citizenship und politische Mobilisierung in Europa“. Agnes Arndt is Historian. She is PhD fellow at the “Berlin School for Comparative European History” at the Free University Berlin and associated research fellow of the research group “Civil Society, Citizenship and Political Mobilization in Europe". Dariusz Gawin ist Direktor am Museum des Warschauer Aufstands in Warschau. Dariusz Gawin is director at the Warsaw Rising Museum, Warsaw. Zitierweise: Agnes...
Words: 22970 - Pages: 92
