How far do you agree with the view that the development of the Cold War in the years 1945-8 owed more to Soviet expansionism than to USA’s economic interests? The Cold War, dated from 1947 to 1991, was a sustained state of political and military tension between powers in the Western Bloc, dominated by the United States with NATO among its allies, and powers in the Eastern Bloc, dominated by the Soviet Union along with the Warsaw Pact. This began after the success of their temporary wartime alliance against Nazi Germany, leaving the USSR and the US as two superpowers with profound economic and political differences. Some of the major reasons for the development include Superpower Misjudgement, the difference in ideologies, the development of nuclear weapons and the traditional great power rivalry. In this essay I will be looking at 3 sources, Many historians agree with the view that the development of the Cold War owed more to soviet expansionism than USA’s economic interests in the years 1945-48.
An outstanding individual involved in Russia’s development was Sergei Witte. As minister of finance from 1892 to 1903 he set himself the huge task of modernising the Russian economy to compete with the advanced nations of the West. It was Witte’s belief that modernisation could be achieved only through state capitalism. He was impressed by the results of the industrial revolutions in the West, and argued that the same ideas could successfully modernise Russia. However, given the backwardness of the Russian economy particular difficulties were presented.
they began to BE shaped. The result was a bipolar equilibrium, that is, two superpowers: the United States and the Soviet Union. During WWII the USSR invades Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Eastern Poland. Finland resists, but others fall under Soviet control. The USSR loses most of these territories to the Nazis in 1941, as Nazis decide to take advantage of what they perceive to be a weakened USSR.
Until the Americans joined the War, Germany had managed to move forces into Belgium and Western France, increasing the pressure on Britain because for the first time it became apparent that the War was even closer to home than had at first been perceived. The nature of the war took a turn in 1917 when the USA joined to the aid of Britain, France and Russia, taking part in their first battle on the 28th May 1918, which proved as a success and a great boost to allied morale. Now, that the USA, the world’s strongest economic power had joined the war, Germany was forced to fight the war on two fronts; both on the East and on the West. It was because of this alliance, and fact that the Allies faced Germany and its allies on both sides that, once America had joined, the war was able to be won decisively. Linking to this fact, the alliance and geographical positions of both America and Russia were not the only two determining factors, as both nations were able to supply vast numbers of troops to the war effort, and the USA in particular was able to supply copious amounts of money to the allies, bringing new technologies to warfare.
Even when he grew into his self-appointed role of Supreme Commander and learned from his earlier mistakes, it can be argued that his greatest victories, such as the battles at Kursk and Stalingrad, were less down to him, but rather down to the expertise of his generals, such as Zhukov. This, in addition to external factors that helped the Soviet win the war, such as British and American aid and Hitler's poor judgement, puts doubt into the overall significance of Stalin's role in winning the war. Although he was largely responsible for the successful propaganda and mobilisation drive on the domestic front, which helped to mobilise national support for the war, in context of the entire war period, his personal significance was overshadowed by his own initial ineptitude as well as the importance of these other factors. If we are to look at the importance of Stalin's role in winning the war, then his role in almost initially losing it must also be examined. It was clear from the outset that both Stalin and his appointed generals had a distinct lack of expertise in war.
However there are other reason which just as or more important than Trotsky’s leadership such as the ideas and sacrifices made by Lenin during the year’s 1917-1924 such as signing the harsh treaty of Brest-Litovsk and enforcing the New Economic Policy or NEP, to create economic sacrifices rather than political ones which allowed the Bolsheviks to remain in power. One way and the main way that Trotsky’s leadership of the red army was responsible for the survival of the Bolshevik government was the victory of the Civil war. In 1918 Russia was plunged into civil war when the White army, a group of pro tsarist and pro provisional government supporters attacked the Bolsheviks. However the reds won the war due the work of Leon Trotsky and his leadership of the red army. For example Trotsky organised and disciplined the army very well, he recruited ex tsarist army officers who were experienced in combat also due to his recruitment strategy membership rose from 7000 in March 1918 to 5 million in September 1920 and he also organised key victories such as the last battle between white and red forces between the 7th and 15th of November 1920.
‘The First World War had a more significant impact on the development of the Russian government than any other war in the period 1855-1964’. How far do you agree? Undoubtedly across the period from 1855 to 1964 Russian government developed significantly in a number of key aspects as a direct consequence of its wars. However, the issue over which war should be considered most pivotal in its impact on the Russian government’s development is less clear-cut. Examining the impact of wars on the issue of who ruled Russia, its ideological basis, its level of democracy and the level of repression that accompanied it, it seems fair to say that the First World War indeed had the most significant impact, though rivaled closely by the Russian Civil War in particular.
Setbacks suffered by Americans in World War II The Second World War had a great impact on political, social and economical status of the United States. At the outset of the war, the United States was dormant and with the proceeding of the war, its involvement rose despite the unpreparedness of the military. During this time of war, the corporate government solved most of the production and labor problems. The United States joined the war in 1942 and had many recruits in the military with better war equipments. The war changed the United States in various ways; there were return wages and jobs were available leading to the growth of labor unions.
Explain why the Nazi Regime proclaimed “Total War” in February 1943. (12 Marks) One factor behind why the Nazi regime went ahead with total war was because it offered a chance to revive public morale following the defeat at Stalingrad. The public morale down at this point however going to war with allies seemed the perfect opportunity in regaining the trust of people in the regime. Josef Goebbels speech proved to be a great example in uplifting the people’s moods in regards to total war. His powerful speech was influential and enabled the German public to feel more optimistic within the war as well as regime.
In addition, World War II introduced change through industrialisation, which was key to Russia’s success in the war. These key reforming leaders and other factors of change saw Russia grow from a very deprived country in 1856 to an industrial superpower in 1964. Alexander II became known as ‘Alexander the Great Reformer’ and ‘the Tsar Liberator’ which suggests that his work and reforms changed the nature of Russian government and society to a large extent. The emancipation of the Serfs in 1861 initially appeared to have major benefits for the serfs. As Alexander II said: “We vowed in our hearts to fulfil the mission which is entrusted to Us and to surround with Our affection and Our Imperial solicitude all Our faithful subjects of every rank and condition”2.