political (defeat of the right –Bukharin), • Ideological (NEP hated by communists; class war against the kulaks; socialism in one country), • Strategic (i.e. defence of Russia)? Conclusion– Economic reasons provided one set of motives –but there were others. Were they connected? Which motives were most decisive?
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
U.S. Involvement in Vietnam By: Courtney Comstock The Cold War was a war that had many smaller battles that took place in it. The overall two countries at war were the U.S. and the U.S.S. R. The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were at war because the U.S. had a capitalist government ran country, while the U.S.S.R. had a communist government ran country. The Vietnam War that took place in the Cold War was that the North and South were divided on the 17th Parallel because of communism. Many people ask the question, “Why did the U.S. even care about the Vietnam conflict, let alone fight a war there?” One Reason for U.S. involvement in the Vietnam conflict was that the U.S. feared the Domino Theory.
Nissa 0943B 13 May 2009 H2 History “Ideological concern was the most important factor that shaped the development of the Cold War.” Asses the validity of this view with regard to the period between 1945 to 1956. The different ideology between the superpower is the main reason for the start of Cold War. However, ideology was not the only contributing factor as the Cold War started from the molding tension that built up in a series of events. This tension, apart from ideological threat, was caused by the Superpowers’ concern of their security, economic policies, as well as the idea of power prestige. Ideological concern shaped the development of Cold War because the two Superpowers’ ideology was the total opposite sides of the coins.
During the World War II United States and the Soviet Union allied and united forces to fight against Germany. This alliance was working well, but when problems and conflicts started to appear everything started to fall apart. This alliance started to collapse because during the war the Soviet Union was more affected, talking about economically and social issues than the United States; also, since conflicts were caused because they started to pursue opposite goals, like: The U.S didn’t want and was trying to prevent that communism govern in other countries, while the Soviet Union was encouraging this social movement, the U.S wanted to reunite Germany, however the Soviet Union wanted to keep it divided, the United States had the goal to rebuild European government in order to give stability and crate new markets for American goods, while the Soviet Union wanted to control the Eastern Europe and to balance United States power on Western Europe, in order to protect their borders; because of this their relationship started to become tense and they started to have encounters.
American strategy remained torn between simply containing Communism or rolling it back by actively supporting the Soviet Union’s opponents. For historians of the Cold War, the great debate has been between traditionalists who tend to see the United States as the defensive power in the Cold War (and the Soviet Union as the aggressor) and revisionist historians who tend to see the United States and the Soviet Union as equally aggressive and equally at fault. Revisionists (those critical of American foreign policy) are usually accused of forgetting the ‘lessons of Munich’. It is argued that World War Two arose partly because too many historians thought Germany was unjustly treated after World War One by the Treaty of
Is it reasonable to blame the breakdown of East-West relations that ultimately led to the cold war, on one or two men, is this rational, but even so, what roles did Stalin and Truman play and where can the blame of this breakdown of alliance and international relations be placed on. Many can argue that in one sense the origins of this breakdown of trust can be traced back to the 1917 Bolshevik revolution which set up the Soviet system - an alternative model of political, economic and social organization which proclaimed itself an enemy of and more significantly, the successor of the capitalist system. Communism was initially viewed by capitalist governments with great suspicion and during the civil war in Russia 1918 several capitalist states aided anti-communist forces and even though they were unsuccessful Stalin was still weary of these capitalist states and believed they still hoped to destroy the USSR. (Lowe, 2008) In many ways Stalin’s paranoia had stemmed from the actions of these capitalist states and it was this paranoia that clouded his senses and led him to make decisions that made Western governments wary of Stalin and the USSR. 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.
Many Communists saw the NEP as a retreat from Communist Ideology. It was seen as a promotion of private ownership, trade and profit, as well as being responsible for the rise in new “petty bourgeoisie” classes such as NEP men and Kulaks. It was seen as a policy that promoted the interests of the peasantry, a group that were seen as generally capitalist and potentially threatening to the pace of revolution. Thus a policy of increased state control of industry and commerce would rid the state of these contradictory classes. It would push Russia further onwards in terms of a state free from private trade and ownership.
Overall, Marxism, Leninism, Totalitarianism, and Trotskyism were the basic principles of Communism during the Russian Revolution, and their personal principles created the downfall of Russian Socialism. The concept of Marxism was based on the ideas of Karl Marx, who formed his government based on two main social classes, the Bourgeois and the Proletariat. The Bourgeois was the social class the owned the means of producing wealth. The Proletariat was the means of production, in other words, the working class. Marx believed that in a Capitalist society, the Bourgeois was dominant, which he believed to not make sense.
The industry and agriculture sectors were severely damaged, governments were in disarray, there were supply shortages and a split had emerged between the Great Powers. The USA and Great Britain were on one side, the USSR on the other. These two camps followed different political ideologies. The Americans and the British believed in democracy, while the Soviets heeded the call of communism. Both sides wished to spread their ideologies around the world.