This should allow one to reach an informed conclusion. In order to answer the first part of the question, this paper will now proceed to explain the causes and major events of the cold war according to the revisionist approach. In this, the focus must be on the revisionist approach first, and not the, to be discussed events. In the revisionist approach USA is seen as driving force of Cold War. The Soviet Union is seen defensive in its actions and its policies are argued to be a response to those of America (Lundestad, 2010:9).
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.
In examining the factors that shaped the various strategies of the struggle, a more balanced post-revisionist approach must be taken. As such, an investigation of Cold War policy - from Soviet expansion in Eastern Europe to the US containment strategy; from Khrushchev's 'peaceful coexistence' to Eisenhower's 'brinkmanship'; until the eventual relief of détente and later disarmament- reveals that both the East and the West were driven by "the combination of ideological and strategic interests.” The Soviet establishment of the Eastern Bloc, for example, is condemned by orthodox historians such as Norman Bailey - a heavily prejudiced former US government official - as "the initiation of an epic struggle between incompatible ideologies: the Cold War could not end in stalemate, because the utopian,
Bentley and Ziegler, authors of a history textbook, objectively tell us what NATO served to do—its expressed purpose and intent. “The creation of the U.S.-sponsored North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Soviet-controlled Warsaw Pact signaled the militarization of the cold war.” In addition, they state, “The intent of the alliance was to maintain peace in postwar Europe through collective defense,” (Bentley and Ziegler 1057) which indicates the belief that the creation of these two powers was not simply out of military advantage, but perhaps signaled something more, like peace. Harman, however, takes a different perspective, pointedly saying that the US “banned a massive range of ‘strategic’ exports…while…Russia insisted on ‘the unreserved subordination of politics, economics, and ideological activity’,” (Harman 546). Harman points out that military spending on both sides
Patrick Kim HIS-112 US Hist Since Reconst August 4, 2010 The United States presidential election of 2000 was the epic battle between Republican candidate George Walker Bush and Democratic candidate Al Gore. At the time George Bush was the governor of Texas and Al Gore was the Vice President to Bill Clinton. The unfortunate outcome of the election was the victory of Bush narrowly winning the November 7th election with 271 electoral votes compared to Gore’s 266(Federal Election Commission). The winner of the election was determined by the 25 electoral votes coming from Florida and this is where the major controversy stems from. Clearly, some awry events occurred that prevented the election of the true President of the United States, Al Gore.
The paper will focus on the cause and effect of the Cold War that existed between the United States and the Soviet Union that began at the end World War II. The United States and the Soviet Union were allies during World War II, and they were fighting for their survival against Germany, Italy, and Japan. Many other countries were involved as the allies had made agreements at the Teheran, Yalta, and Potsdam Conferences, which at the end of the World War led them into the Cold War. To understand what happened at these conferences and what agreements were made we need to look closer at these areas. The Teheran Conference (in Iran) took place in 1943 and the agreement made by the United States and the Great Britain was that the Soviet Union would be granted more territory, such as eastern Poland, Bessarabia, and Bukovina.
(3) most importantly, a timetable that ensured full Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan by February 15, 1989. 4. The Mujahedin a) a plural form of mujahid which literally means “struggler", someone who engages in jihad, or "struggle“. b) significantly financed, armed, and trained by the United States (the Carter and Reagan administrations), China, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. c) many modern terrorists are former members/supporters, including Osama bin
TCC-History 1493 Online-Final Exam Study Guide-Chapters 28-31 1. Causes of John F. Kennedy’s victory in 1960 JFK was basically born into politics, with a father who served as the ambassador to Great Britain. Kennedy's choice of Lyndon Johnson as his running mate carried most of the Southern vote. Also, a rise in unemployment favored the Democrats. The African American voters helped offset the 52 percent of white votes for Nixon.
Because of this believe the United States had to deal with soviets firmly and resist their attempts to spread communist influence globally. He introduce the term “containment” (Foreign affairs Kennan wrote) The long telegram and foreign affairs article essentially produced the cold war paradigm that guide U.S soviet relations until 1991 and the collapse of the soviet union not surprisingly the loss of the mainland China to communism in 1949 and the Korean war the followed
There was the need for a new approach that could give a clear comprehension of the Soviet behaviour and a range of strategic responses to it. The study of strategic culture was developed in the late 1970s in order to understand the differences in the nuclear approach between Soviets and Americans. Analysts managed to discover the distinctions among the two superpowers by focusing on the different national styles and on cultural analysis in determining these. Gradually it emerged that culture was an essential tool to understand purpose, identity and means of an enemy, overcoming the concept that strategy was universal and identical for every actor (Poore 2003 in Glenn, Howlett and Poore, 45). Studies on strategic culture remained in the academic background, after that the task assigned was