Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Three Interpretations: Orthodox Revisionist Post-Revisionist CNN: Cold War, episode 1 (intro-11:53) Iron Curtain Speech (29:20-32:15) ‘…conditions are rather gloomy here- almost mid-war conditions, overcrowding, poverty. As for Communism- my dear [friend] a short visit here is enough to make one decide that Capitalism is worth fighting for. Black as that may be, with all its bloodstains, it is less gloomy and arid and hopeless than this inert ghastly police state.” Lawrence Durrell writing a friend from Belgrade (late 1949s) “Say what you will- the Communists were more intelligent. They had grandiose program, a plan for a brand-new world in which everyone would find his place…From the start there were people who realized they lacked the proper temperament for the idyll and wished to leave the country. But since by definition an idyll is one world for all, the people who wished to emigrate were implicitly denying its validity. Instead of going abroad, they went behind bars.” Milan Kundera “Stalinism means the killing of the inner man. And no matter what the sophists say, no matter what lies the communist intellectuals tell, that’s what it all comes down to. The inner man must be killed for the communist Decalogue to be lodged in the soul.” Alexander Walt Assigns fault of Cold War to USSR Stalin refused to abide by Yalta agreement Stalin’s efforts to expand communism in Europe, Middle East and Far East Grand Alliance collapse was inevitable The ideological incompatibility made rivalry only natural Historian Arthur S. Schlesinger: “Stalin and his associates, whatever Roosevelt or Truman did or failed to do, were bound to regard the United States as the enemy…America was the leading capitalist power and thus… unappeasedly hostile…to oppose, encircle and destroy Soviet Russia. Nothing the U.S. could have done… would have abolished this hostility…” Political Scientist, Hans Morgenthau argues: Russian history of expansion was Stalin’s guiding light- not communism Communism was a means to an end- the end was Russian power- power came with expansion Morgenthau contends that an extent of the Cold War was misunderstanding between Americans and Soviets Soviet historians argue that the U.S. overreacted to Soviet actions and exaggerated Soviet strength They argue Soviets too crippled after WWII to pose real threat to U.S. Mere Ideological Conflict? Revisionists argue the U.S. was aggressor during Post-WWII years The U.S. had military and economic power/superiority after WWII Michael Parenti wrote: “The Soviets lost more than 20 million citizens in WWII, fifteen large cities were either completely or substantially ruined; 6 million buildings were obliterated, depriving 25 million people of shelter…thousands of bridges, power stations, oil wells, schools and libraries were destroyed… Parenti wrote of America: “The United States possessed 67% of the world’s industrial capacity and had 400 longe-range bomber bases, in addition to naval carrier forces around the Eurasian Perimeter…” Gabriel and Joyce Kolko stress economic factors as being the cause of the Cold War Truman created a myth of Soviet power to win support for intervention in Europe and Asia U.S. gov’t wanted open trade, multilateral cooperation and private enterprises Parenti argues that the U.S. did not fear a Soviet attack Instead they feared losing economic dominance and markets in Europe “The ‘Giant Red Menace’ was conjured up to win public support for military and economic…aid to European and Asian nations.” Most recent of the three: incorporates ideas from both orthodox and revisionist John Lewis Gaddis considers internal & external forces, domestic policies, quirks of personality and inaccurate and accurate perceptions of Soviets as important in shaping U.S. policy Robert Pollard argues that the desire for Capitalist markets in Europe & Asia was not antiCommunist Instead the U.S. feared a closed, unilateral system that led to world depression and competing countries before the war The U.S. relied on economic power to drive strategic aims- strategic aims being the most important The study of three interpretation provide insight into the complexity of the Cold War Ideological differences can not be under-emphasized WWII needed cooperation, not ideological conflict- differences were suppressed but waiting to re-appear The two countries came out of WWII as superpowers- this intensified incompatibility Truman did not believe Stalin’s desires for expansion into Eastern Europe only- Soviet interference in Iran, Turkey and Greece caused more distrust Both Soviets and U.S. would not back down to German question- Stalin underestimated Truman’s resolve to sustain Berlin during Blockade A continued effort to ‘work with’ Stalin came be seen as ‘appeasement’ to American critics of Truman administration European status quo was frozen- West and East Europe were solidifiednext arena for conflict was naturally elsewhere- Asia next Economic concerns are valid, but U.S. did not limit offer of aid to its ‘allies.’ Soviets saw this as ploy manipulation History of Cold War has been world history between 1945-1991 Martin Walker argues that it still continues today Global conflict reaching Korea, Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba, Turkey, Afghanistan and Greece to name a few places War fought by proxynever ‘hot’ between Soviets and Americans Good and evil according to U.S. and U.S.S.R. Cold War was a war of perceptions Perceptions became reality No matter the viewpoint, a definitive evil existed Propaganda used to influence and dictate domestic & foreign policy Fax machines, cell phones, satellite TV made that definition all too cloudy East Berlin and Fall of Berlin Wall Glasnost Poland’s ‘Solidarity’ Tiananmen Square in Beijing U.S. strategy adopted to deter war Massive weapons build-up; ready military forces; political will to use them Nukes would be ultimate deterrent Is this a balanced deterrent? Amt of nukes would be disproportional to threat Deterrence and collective security- UN introduced- championed by U.S. This foreign policy/military strategy known as MAD Mutually Assured Destruction Both parties (Soviets & American) would have to mind one another’s military weaponry when determining foreign policy History of Nuclear Warhead Stockpiles: 1945-1995 * Notes: totals are estimates. Lists include strategic and non-strategic warheads, as well as warheads awaiting dismantling 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 UNITED STATES 6 3,057 31,265 26,675 22,941 14,766 SOVIET UNION 0 200 6,129 19,443 39,197 27,000 BRITAIN 0 10 310 350 300 300 FRANCE 0 0 32 188 360 485 CHINA 0 0 5 185 425 425 Source: National Resources Defense Council Distrust of the ideological differences intensified the arms race between the two countries Ideological, political and economic differences created deep sense of animosity and frustration Led to battlefields, proxy wars, propaganda wars between two powers Mutual Assured Destruction (introduction, 03:48-10:45 Doomsday Device (Dr. Strangelove) Duck and Cover (1951 Civil Defense film) Time Lapse Nuclear Test Sites Rise and Fall of the Berlin Wall