Cold War

Significance of the formation of the Warsaw Pact:

1) The Pact allowed Russia to station her troops in eastern European countries. This meant that Russia could attack western Europe at any moment and could suppress any sign of rebellion in her satellite countries.

2) By 1955 when the most critical phase of the Cold War was over both Russia and the United States had organized their satellites into opposing alliances. Political tension between the East and the West will continue.

Chapter IV. Voltage drop

After 1953, the Cold War was waning. There were two reasons which could explain the easing-of the tension.

The first reason was that since 1953, both the United States and the Soviet Union possessed hydrogen bombs. Both sides realized that the use of these destructive weapons in war would destroy each other. Thus they were determined to improve their relations in order to avoid direct military clash.

The second reason was that since 1954, the bonds between the 'Super Powers' and their 'satellites' began to slacken. As their 'satellites' did not fully support their leader - the United States and the Soviet Union, it made political sense for the two Super-Powers to improve their relations.

In Europe, the Far East and Middle East, the interests of the western European nations often conflicted with those of the United States. In Europe, the United States was anxious to increase the share of the western European nations in the defense of western Europe against Soviet Russia. The western European nations objected to this American demand. They did not want to pay for the heavy military expenditure. In the Far East, President Eisenhower accepted the following domino' theory, - i.e. the American belief that if one country in Asia fell into the hands of the communists, the others would also become communist. Thus the United States intervened actively in Taiwan, Vietnam, Thailand and Laos. The European nations feared the cost of a war and did not like to support the expense of the American troops fighting against the communists in Asia. In the Middle East, the United States wanted to befriend the Arabs in order to counteract the influence of the Russians. This ran contrary to the British and French interests in the area. The Arab policy of nationalizing the remaining French and British oil investments in Egypt was particularly resentful to Britain and France.

In the Soviet bloc, the members were able to enjoy greater freedom of action as a result of a change in Russian policy after the death of Stalin in 1953. Stalin's successors were more willing to give greater freedom to the Russian satellite states. Khrushchev admitted in his speech to the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party (1956) that there were different "forms of transition of various countries to socialism." Signs of rebellion quickly appeared in the Soviet bloc. Very soon Poland and Czechoslovakia gained greater independence in their own economic affairs. The Hungarians were greatly encouraged. They demanded not only economic but political autonomy as well. They made an uprising against Russian domination in 1956. Although the uprising was unsuccessful, the Soviet Union wanted to avoid similar rebellions and relaxed her control over the eastern European countries. (On October 23, 1956 before the Polish embassy in Hungary, 50,000 people participated in an anti-Russian demonstration. The Russian-dominated government appealed to the Russians for help. On November 4, Russian troops entered Budapest to put an end to the uprising.) They were treated more as allies than as satellites. In other words, the Soviet Union could not command eastern Europe to fight against western nations as she might wish. (The eastern European countries were afraid of a costly war with the United States).

Because of these two reasons, a period of co-existence seemed to have begun after the armistice in Indo-China in 1954. In 1955 Khrushchev met with President Eisenhower at the Geneva Conference. Although they could not agree on a specific program for more peaceful East-West relations, the cordial atmosphere of their informal discussion had suggested a remarkable lessening of the world tension.

The events of October and November 1956 also showed that the relations between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were improving. In the above-mentioned Hungarian revolt, the United States did nothing to assist the Hungarian rioters. In the Suez crisis of the same year, the United States did not help the British and the French in their attack on Egypt. Instead the United States co-operated with Soviet Russia in condemning the Anglo-French attack.

Up to 1960, peaceful co-existence between the East and the West seemed to have been accepted by both the United States and the Soviet Union.

 

Conclusion

In conclusion I’d like to say: The Cold War period includes many high and low keys for the two superpowers and the world as a whole.  Perhaps the greatest threat to all was the distinct possibility of nuclear war.    The fact is that the jury is still out: some of the most well-informed scientists of our day disagree on the effects of various policies and decisions made by the Cold War presidents.  What may be still more important, however, are the lessons people should be applying to post-Cold War world.  In what ways fears, actions or lack of action in that period inform present day policies.

We all must think and make conclusions to prevent such situations like the Cold War. The Government of all countries must realize that Earth wouldn’t survive after nuclear war, and they should do everything possible to prevent any conflict and especially war between countries with nuclear weapon.  The Cold War taught the world that another conflict of its kind would be just as devastating as a third world war. As future diplomat I hope that my knowledge that I gained at this university will help me to prevent such situations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography:

Bacevich, Andrew J.  American Empire:  The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy. Cambridge:  Harvard University Press, 2002.

 

Bailey, Thomas A. America Faces Russia: Russian-American Relations from Early Times to Our Day, New York:  Cornell University Press, 1950.

 

Crapol, Edward. “Some Reflections on the Historiography of the Cold War,” from The History Teacher. Vol. 20, No. 2, Feb., 1987.

 

Gaddis, John Lewis. The United States and the Origins of the Cold War, New York:  Columbia University Press, 1972.

A. Utkin “Cold War”, Moscow,Ros.Pichat, 2006

 

 

Leffler, Melvyn P. and Painter, David S. “Introduction,”  Origins of the Cold War:  An International History,” 2^nd Ed., New York:  Routledge, 2005.

 

Williams, William Appleman.  The Tragedy of American Diplomacy.  New York:  W.W. Norton & Company, 1959.

 

A.Zinovieva “West and posters of Cold War period”, Kiev, KievStat Paint House, 1965

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War

http://www.historyteacher.net/AHAP/WebQuests/WQ-ColdWar

http://coldwar.blogspot.com/