Peaceful coexistence was a theory developed and applied by the Soviet Union at various points during the Cold War in the context of its ostensibly Marxist–Leninist foreign policy and was adopted by Soviet-influenced "Communist states" that they could peacefully coexist with the capitalist bloc (USA) who had also decided they did not wish to continue in a hostile manner with the Soviet Union. Many tensions between the USA and the Soviet Union during the Cold War seemed to have been eased by ‘peaceful coexistence’. Developments such as the end of the Korean War in 1953 and factors such as the Austrian independence, improved Soviet-Yugoslavia relations in 1955 and the ‘Geneva Spirit’ based on east-west summit diplomacy and Khrushchev’s visit to the USA in 1959 showed ‘peaceful coexistence’ easing up the Cold War tensions in the years 1953 – 1961’. However, factors, which ensured Cold War tensions remained in the years 1953-61, were the US attitudes towards communism in the 1950s such as the domino theory and the Soviet concept of peaceful coexistence based on long-term victory of communism. The impact of the Berlin Crisis and the u2 spy plane incident in 1960 also displayed the tensions between the superpowers during the Cold War years.
‘Peaceful coexistence' is an ideology enunciated by Khrushchev after the Twentieth Congress which governed Soviet foreign policy during the so-called Khrushchev Thaw. This emphasised the possibility of ideological coexistence of both the Communist bloc and the capitalist bloc which marked a paradigmatic shift from the Stalinist doctrine of antagonistic contradiction and inevitable conflict between Communism and capitalism. Furthermore, it highlighted that countries should be allowed to take ‘different roads to socialism’ thus decreasing the role of the USSR for stringent bolshevisation of states as seen in the dissolution of Cominform. Due to the emergence of brinkmanship politics and development of nuclear weapons such as the H-Bomb, the ideology aims to minimise possibilities of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), alongside ‘military conflict with the West’. ‘Peaceful coexistence’ was argued by revisionist historians such as Alperovitz that it eased political tensions between the two superpowers through modus vivendi such as in the Austrian State Treaty.
Conflicting national interest caused relations between the two powers to deteriorate further, as shown in Russia’s decision to double its army along the Russian and Chinese border following the border disputes. Ideological differences however, were still a source of the conflict, as Mao was very critical of Khrushchev and his return to some capitalist ideas. This suggests that it is more likely that the Sino-Soviet split originate from a personal and mutual dislike between the two Communist leaders because of their difference in ideology. Therefore, although the Sino-Soviet split was not solely the result of ideological differences as national interests and the personalities of Mao and Khrushchev were also to blame, ideology was still a
For example Alexander II was a humanitarian but Nicholas II mainly wanted modernisation for Russia. Alexander III just wanted to retain his power and keep in control to avoid the same fate as his father. Similarly, the communist rulers were not uniform either as they had different core aims, for example Khruschev’s main aim was destalinisation whereas Stalin’s was to create his own legacy. The Provisional Government and Lenin were alike in their policies in the fact that they both completely changed the system. In the case of the Provisional Government they changed it from autocratic to democratic and Lenin changed it to a one party state; although the result was different the basis was the same.
After the end of the Second World War the two war time allies THE USA and SU became involved in a war of ideologies the cold war. The US saw communism as a threat to democracy and capitalism. Therefore the US set out a new foreign policy that was of containment of communism in the Truman doctrine. There were however other reasons for the USA’s involvement such as their military confidence, UN agreement, domestic pressure which called for the T admin to be more tough on communism and their economic interest in Japan which led to the US governments decision to use military intervention in the K war. The main reason for the USA’s military intervention in the Korean war was that of containment.
If the Soviet Union were to gain more power than the U.S., that power would allow the Soviet Union to take over. The last reason for U.S. involvement is nationalism, which was also left over from WWI and WWII. Nationalism is having pride in one’s own nation. The U.S. wanted Vietnam to be able to have the chance of having nationalism, but something stood in the way. Communism had divided the countries of Vietnam, causing them to never be able to have Vietnam pride.
Tensions between China and Russia had long existed. In fact, the period of close relations between 1949 and 1956 are better seen as an exceptional interlude in a much longer historical pattern if mutual hostility. However tensions arose between the two communists’ powers in the late 1960s not due to just ideological differences, but also to national interest and the role of personality, as all three played an important role to the deterrence of the Sino-soviet relations. The Sino-soviet split in the late 1960s was the result of ideological differences between the two communists’ powers due to the fact that both superpowers had different opinions on the best way to peruse communist revolution. Khrushchev’s post Stalin policies began to irritate Mao; disagreeing when Khrushchev denounced Stalin in his speech to the twentieth congress 1956 and when he restored relations with Tito the Yugoslavia leader who also denounced Stalin.
Roosevelt was keen to encourage closer ties with the USSR and although many Americans were skeptical, Roosevelt worked hard to keep the peace between America and the USSR. (Lowe, 2002) Roosevelt had growing concerns about Nazi Germany in 1939 this should have brought about US-Soviet co-operation but the cynical nature of Stalins dictatorship whose vicious qualities were made evident to the US during the show trials, imprisonments and widespread executions, led Stalin to sign a secret Nazi-Soviet pact that allowed Moscow to occupy eastern Poland and the Baltic shores. (Hopkins, 2011) Even though Germany and the USSR were enemies Stalin signed the pact to prevent going to war with Germany. The actions of Stalin worried
Another distinct event where their difference in ideology was clearly shown was during the Yalta Conference where the party declined strictly to have their say accepted about the liberal of the Eastern Europe. Stalin strictly insisted for Eastern Europe to be under USSR as they had given them aid as defeating Germany inwards her land but USA insist for them to have a free election and thus this results in the two superpowers to have a tension between them. Stalin’s continuation taking up action such as the Salami
Stalin helped Communist parties in them to win power, he made sure that these eastern European countries followed the same policies as the Soviet Union by becoming one-party states. * There was also a need to restore law and order. This provided a good excuse to station Soviet troops in each country. * The economies of Eastern Europe were shattered. Governments followed the economic policies of the Soviet Union.