Brad Trublowski 2/19/13 IAH 221C 002 The Inevitable Cold War At the end of World War II, two super powers emerged: Unites States and Russia. These two countries are the main reason World War II was brought to an end. After the war, there were many disputes on solving the problems in a weak and much damaged Europe. The two superpowers were only allies during the war and they will find out after the war, they will have many conflicts. Russia and the United States had very different political policies which led to the Cold War being inevitable.
Many historians have said Alexander II was considering the formation of a parliament in Russia. Furthermore, the assassination caused Alexander III to rule in reactionary nature in which many counter-reforms were created to limit the impact of the Great Reforms done by his father. This supports the view that the People’s Will were highly unsuccessful, even in the taking out of Alexander II. It can be said that the only example in this period of effective political opposition was the October 1917 revolution, where, unquestionably, the Bolsheviks took power and let their political vision be known. They were extremely successful in both the short term and the long term.
The split opinion in terms of ideology between the two nations can be dated to 1917 during the Bolshevik regime in which the West intervened (Gann, L.H., & Duignan, P. 1996). Within his work, ‘America Faces Russia’, Bailey, (1950) like other traditionalist accounts, would suggest that the blame for the Cold War lies with the Soviet Union and its desire to spread further into Eastern Europe. Furthermore, they argue that the beginning of the Truman term in office witnessed the shift in US diplomatic policies in response to the threat of communism. The combination of these two factors is convincing when claiming the inevitability of the war from the traditionalist perspective. However, the traditionalist school of thought challenges this notion with the view that Stalin’s personality, in addition to his communist ideology would lead to the
How far was Lenin responsible for the Bolsheviks’ growing hold on power in the years 1917-1924? To a fairly large extent, Lenin was responsible for the Bolsheviks’ growing hold on power from 1917-24. Lenin had, of course, led the Bolsheviks in the October Revolution, the reason the Bolsheviks had any power in the first place, and it was Lenin who dissolved the Constituent Assembly. He also managed to hold on to power by introducing War Communism during the Civil War. On the other hand, it can be argued that Trotsky’s leadership of the Red Army during the Civil War was just as, or even more important in the Bolsheviks’ seizure of power, as was the image of the Bolsheviks as being patriotic heroes fighting against Tsarist leaders and foreign invaders.
Trotsky described war as the ‘locomotive of history’. How far can it be argued that change in Russia in the period 1855-1964 was caused only by involvement in wars? During this period the biggest change that happened was the move from Tsarist autocracy to communist dictatorship as well as the short lived provisional government, which was a form of democracy. Furthermore there were changes to economic policy, which had a great impact on society. The wars that occurred did bring change but were not the only causes of change.
Although the cold war had begun long before the Berlin Blockade it only amplified the suspicion between the USA and the USSR. By the end of the Berlin Blockade America had set up NATO with the aim of “deterring Soviet expansionism”(NATO) meanwhile USSR responded by creating their own military alliance: The Warsaw Pact. After the Berlin Blockade America and the Soviet Union were opposed military, ideologically and economically. The Berlin Blockade was the first point of tension between the two former allies, although the problem originally arose from the US introducing a new currency into Bizonia it was the Soviet’s rash reaction that almost lead to
However, the breakdown in relations between the emerging superpowers during the war and the consequences of the disbandment of the Grand Alliance can be interpreted as the start of the Cold War. Tensions during wartime conferences paved the way for post-war conflict and it can be argued that as soon as the common enemy of Hitler was destroyed, the disparity in post-war aims of the superpowers led to the Cold War. The conferences of ‘the Big Thee’ at Yalta and Potsdam produced areas of tension surrounding plans for Germany and Poland, highlighting the USA fear of USSR’s expansion. Therefore Stalin’s policies for these countries can be construed as an attempt to form an ‘Eastern Bloc’, knowing this to be in complete contradiction with Western ideals for a world without spheres of influence. However, there is not much evidence to suggest the USSR’s was pursuing expansionist aims at this point, and in fact was simply securing its borders.
Although Truman’s actions and the new ‘policies’ that he introduced were a major factor to the deterioration of America-Soviet relations, it is important to understand the pre-1945 factors that affected these relations. After World War I, European countries adopted an appeasement ideology: The world was horrified by what the war had done to Europe, and a war like that must never happen again, so peace must be protected at all costs. This led to many attempts to preserve peace in Europe, which ultimately failed as Germany invaded Poland and the world realized that another war was about to begin. However, one of the last agreements that the western countries signed with the Nazis might have been the start of the bad Soviet relations with these countries: the Munich agreement. This agreement said that Hitler was free to invade a portion of Czechoslovakia, as long as he went no further.
Importance of Lenin in the Russian Revolution During 1917 way up north in the freezing cold Russia, there was a period of time in which the Russian politics and ideology were in chaos and the governmental power was unbalanced and disorganized. These period of time was known as the Russian Revolution. However besides this, the Russian Revolution itself was a series of revolutions that destroyed the Tsarist autocracy and led to the creation of the Soviet Union. Many leaders influenced the development of this revolution, however, in this occasion, I’m going to evaluate the importance of Lenin in the Russian Revolution. The Russian Revolution was divided into two other revolutions, The February Revolution and The October Revolution.
The War also had massive social and economic impacts on Russia that resulted in a strike that ended with a revolution. The Tsar going to the front was the start of the clear path that lead to the revolution in February 1917; he had left his wife the Tsarina in charge of Russia and relied on her to tell him how things were going at home. While police reports in 1916 were saying that the country was in complete social unrest, on the brink of a revolution, while the Tsarina was sending letters to the Tsar saying that the unrest was merely some of the population acting like a bunch of teenagers and they would get over it. The Tsarist Autocratic system had managed to survive a revolution in 1905 but now that the Tsar did not really know what was happening it was doubtful that there wouldn’t be a revolution soon. The Brussolov offensive caused a major blow to Russia because the Tsarina advised the Tsar not to send any troops to the north as Rasputin had foreseen their failure in the north.