constantine demetriades, amanda malatesta, markelli dodou · constantine demetriades, amanda...

Constantine Demetriades, Amanda Malatesta, Markelli Dodou

Berlin Blockade-1949:

Causes of the break down between US soviet relations in Berlin and the Berlin Blockade(1949):

Occupation of Germany:

On May 2nd 1945, the fighting in Berlin is ended. The Soviets occupy Berlin and begin to set up a local government

structure Both the Western countries and the Soviet Union authorised the

creation of the following four political parties:

1. Communists (KPD) 2. Socialists (SPD) 3. Liberal Democrats (LDP) 4. Christian Democrats (CDU)

Problems began to arise when the patrols of the allies started to stray over the borders and into the Soviet areas of Berlin.

Refugees began to flood into the Western zones of Berlin, as the Soviets had conscripted the Germans to forced labour and took began to take reparations in the form of property, industrial plant, livestock and art treasure following the agreement that had been reached in the conference of Potsdam (1945).

In the conference of Potsdam it was also agreed that reparations be taken from the western zones of Germany for the USSR, thus leading to a lack of infrastructure in these zones.

In order to help the Americans gave aid to the German territories occupied by them, hence indirectly subsidising the soviets. In the Spring of 1946, however, this was stopped by US General Cassius Clay, leading to a rise of tension between the Soviets and the US.

Sovietisation of East Germany:

In the elections of winter 1945-1946, the KPD gathered a very small amount of votes, while the SPD was harassed. Its leaders were arrested, while rank and file members lost their jobs and ration cards.

Otto Grotewohl in an attempt to save the party through a cooperation with the Communists. Hence, the Socialist Unity Party (SED) was formed out of the union of the two. Its leaders were Otto Grotewohl(SPD) and Willhelm Pieck (KPD), but it was mainly under communist control. Any leaders who were unwilling to follow the SED were forced to resign.

1947 Ernst Reuter, an anti-Russian ex-communist socialist was elected mayor in Berlin.

The effect of the attempt to gain power through a united socialist party through a united socialist party was used as pretext the Western allies


to coordinate their policies behind the policies of the Soviets, some thing which came into breach of the Potsdam agreement.

The Creation of Two Germanies:

Two conferences of foreign ministers in March and November 1947 failed to produce a peace treaty to deal with the German question.

The same year the US decided to introduce a new currency in the Western zones, something which came in breach of the Potsdam agreement and thus required the agreement of all the countries in the Allied Control Council (ACC). The Soviet Commander Marshall Sokolovsky walked out of the ACC, in this way temporarily setting aside the decision and marking the end of the official allied cooperation in Germany.

In June 1948, a new currency was introduced in West Germany as ten old Reichmarks were replaced by the new Deutschmark. Furthermore, price controls and rationing were ended.

This lead to an initial rise in prices and unemployment which later on stabilised and gave way to full employment and a rise in production by 50% within the next six months.

The Sovietisation of East Germany by Russia had initially created a rise in tensions between West and East Germany. However, the economic actions of the US and its allies, which happened behind the Soviets’ backs lead to the official separation of West and East Germany in terms of their development in 1947.

Reasons for the Berlin Blockade:

Stalin had attempted to take control over the whole of Germany by stealth through his influence on the KPD and the SED, however this failed due to German hostility towards the Russians from the following events:

1. Fear of reprisals because of: Nazi racist propaganda which portrayed the Russians as sub-humans and awareness of the behaviour of German forces in the USSR during the war.

2. The behaviour of the Red Army during the first year of the occupation (numerous rapes of women)

3. The insistence of Soviets to obtain war reparations from Germany had been halted by the Americans.

The decision of the West to breach the Potsdam agreement, and introduce a new currency in Western Germany by ignoring the USSR angered Stalin.

West Berlin had become an embarrassment to Stalin and the Communist regime because:


1. West Berlin was a reason for Western Ally soldiers to travel across Soviet territory.

2. Due to Western assistance, the life style in West Germany had improved dramatically in comparison to East Germany.

Stalin wanted the Western allies out of Berlin, since they had violated the Potsdam agreement and the Western forces had never reached an agreement with the USSR guaranteeing rights of access to Berlin.

The First Berlin Crisis:

Stalin did not want to risk war by a direct attack on the allies, however he believed that by blockading the access to the city he would be able to force the allies into an ultimatum.

The choices the Western Allies had were: a. To force their way into Berlin, hence appearing as the

aggressors and risk war b. Allow the Berliners to fall into Soviet hands as an alternative of

starvation which would be the likely outcome, since: The Western leaders would be unwilling to initiate a war

and especially for the well being of the Berliners, who were until then considered the enemy.

In 1948 the Soviets began to harass Allied communication between their zones in Germany and their sectors in Berlin. The USSR demanded to inspect passes, even on trains. An example of this is a train full of US soldiers which refused inspection, resulting in it being kept in the sidelines until the soldiers got hungry and withdrew.

On June 24th, all links with the Western zones of Germany and the Western zones of Berlin were shut off, while at the same time the Western sectors of Berlin were cut off from the power grid and the inhabitants were thus deprived of electricity.

The Berlin Airlift:

The Allies believed that the submission to Stalin’s demands would result in a Russian attack on West Germany, however:

1. The French refused to agree to the use of force 2. The 6000 Western troops in Berlin, surrounded by Soviets were

basically hostages, who would be killed in case of any act of aggression.

Finally, it was decided to supply West Berlin air, through the use of the air corridors. This would place the “war guilt” on Stalin and the USSR were they to shoot down Western planes.

Over the next 10 months, over 2 million tons of supplies were flown into West Berlin, keeping the West Berliners fed through the winter.


However, this came at a cost as 79 pilots and groundsmen were killed from accidents.

In the summer of 1948 the Allies imposed a counter-blockade of goods going from the Western zone to the Eastern zone. Hence causing a large problem in the economy of the East. The US also moved a long range bomber force to England.

In May 1949 the Soviets admitted defeat and withdrew the blockade, which resulted in a lift of the Allies’ counter-blockade.

Consequences of the Berlin Blockade and Airlift:

The Berlin blockade and airlift of 1949 was a psychological blow for the USSR as it had pressured the Allies, who in turn called Stalin’s bluff.

The Soviets had lost their image as champions of the workers as they had tried to starve nearly 2,5 million workers in West Berlin.

A strong hatred was formed toward the USSR in West Germany and West Berlin

The Berlin blockade and airlift of 1949 was also used by the US in order to explain the reversal of the post-war decline in the US defence systems, hence triggering a new arms race between the USSR and the US.

Allowed the Americans to form stronger bonds with their Western allies through the Brussels Defence Treaty (March 1948) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) (May 1949).

Furthermore, it provided a pretext for the Western Germany to be appropriated by the Allies:

1. September 1948: The German Parliamentary Council was created in Bonn, representing the Western Allies.

2. May 1949: A constitution is created 3. August 1949: The Allies created the Federal Republic of Germany

(FDR), which was to remain under their influence. This government, claimed to be the official government of the entire country.

October 1949: Soviets respond through the creation of the People’s Republic of Germany (DDR) . Thus, Germany was officially divided and the authorities of East Germany began to erect barriers along the 800 miles of frontier.


Berlin Wall:

A wall dividing the Soviet-controlled sector of Berlin from the three Western-controlled zones, built in an attempt to stem the tide of refugees seeking asylum in the West.

August 15, 1961 -Under orders from Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, the Berlin Wall is constructed stopping the flight of refugees from East Germany to West Berlin.

Factors which brought about the creation of the wall:

From January through July 1961, approximately two hundred thousand East Germans abandoned most of their belongings and headed to the western sectors of Berlin.

On August 12, 1961 alone, 40,000 refugees fled to the West. The East German economy could not afford the continued loss in

population. Nikita Khrushchev decided to institute a plan he had devised many

years earlier; that was to construct a wall between East and West Berlin, and therefore seal off the western sectors of the city from the eastern sector.

The Wall:

It was originally a fence made of barbed wire, twisting through the heart of Berlin, but the fence was immediately replaced by a concrete block wall which kept growing and growing.

Because many individuals still managed to escape over the wall, the barrier grew more complex, and the area around the concrete structure became a sinister no-man’s-land.

The completed wall complex consisted of the following elements, which except for the memorials, are all on the east side:

Two steel-reinforced concrete walls: These walls were 12 to 15 feet (3.7 to 4.6 meters) high, topped with large round concrete piping that could not be gripped in an effort to hoist oneself over.

Tank traps: Large objects resembling in appearance giant jacks from a child’s game of ball and jacks were lined up in a row on the East Berlin side of the concrete wall. They could disable any vehicle attempting to drive through them.


“Death strip”: The strip was a noman’s- land between the tank traps and the barbed wire fence. Within the strip were ditches, land mines, and a concrete pathway for East German soldiers on patrol, both on foot and in vehicles. Vicious dogs also patrolled. A strip of sand and gravel ran by the concrete pathway. Routinely raked smooth, it exposed footprints of would-be escapees.

A barbed wire barrier ran the entire length of the “death strip” (no-man’s-land).

Watchtowers and pillboxes: Several hundred watchtowers were placed along and high above the wall. Guards with orders to shoot to kill were always present. Pillboxes were concrete-reinforced boxlike guardhouses with slit openings from which guards could fire.

Automatic guns: These unmanned guns were activated by wires an escapee could stumble into. The guns not only fired bullets but triggered shrapnel explosions within the “death strip.”

Memorials: Standing in tribute to those who died trying to escape to the West, over two hundred memorials lined the walls on their west sides. The west sides of the walls gradually were filled by graffiti artists. In contrast, the east sides were painted white to expose anyone trying to flee East Germany.

What did the building of the Wall mean...

It was an ugly physical reminder that the communist system would not work

unless people were denied any other options.

Could also serve as a symbol of the ‘Iron Curtain’ as mentioned by Winston

Churchill

In West Berlin: the wall was called “The Wall of Shame”

Stood as a testimony to the divisions brought about during the Cold War.

Many saw the Checkpoint Charlie as the place where the communist East

came face-to-face with the democratic West.

As Kennedy said: “If anyone in the world does not understand the issues

between a free world and a communist one, “Let them come to Berlin.”

...for Krushchev:

For Khrushchev the Berlin Wall was a defeat in the sense that it was visible admission that the Communist propaganda message had failed and in order to change that they had to create a barrier to keep the people in the East.


It also meant that it was unable to regain control over the situation. Believed that as long as West Berlin was left unharmed and its access

routes were open to West Germany, the United States would not risk war.

...for Ulbricht:

The creation of the Wall in Berlin helped Ulbricht consolidate Communist control in the GDR.

He urged that a separate peace treaty be made between the Soviet Union and East Germany, one that would give the East Germans total control of access routes to West Berlin.

Believed this option would allow him to eventually take over West Berlin.

…for the citizens of Berlin:

Horrifying experience. The wall cut into the flesh of a living city. It seperated families, friends and lovers Before the border was closed, hundreds of thousands of Berliners

crossed the sector boudnaries every day to visit friends and relatives. About 12,000 West Berliners worked in the East and the 53,000 East

Berliners set off every morning to their jobs in the West. There were no telephone connections Communication with family was only possible by exchanging glances

or calls over barbed wire and a Wall which kept growing. Soon it was not even possible to wave or even briefly glance over the

Wall.

…for the Cold War:

It had the effect of settling the question of Germany and removing it as a key issue in Cold War negotiations.

The Americans complained vigorously about the Wall- U.S. tanks confronted Soviet tanks at Checkpoint Charlie (official border between the two Berlins)

The focus of the Cold War moved from Europe.

Escape attempts termed “border-break throughs” became increasingly more

difficult and dangerous.


Men and refugees were shot dead and killed when spotted.

Each escape attempt was carefully registered by the GDR Border Troops.

According to the Politburo: “All breakthroughts must be made impossible. All

escape attempts should be stopped, even by taking direct aim if there is no

alternative method of making an arrest”

Many tunnel escapes were happening.

Five months after the building of the Wall, Hasso, Ulli, Gigi and Mommo four

students in West Berlin made plans to conquer it.

o In an ideal spot the students dug down seven metres deep In the cellar

of a half demolished factory site, digging 24 hours a day in three shifts.

o 41 men were involved in the operation.

o On the 14th

of September 1962, 29 people emerged into daylight in the

Bernauer Strabe.

Reinforcing and improving the border installations:

In August 1964 three years after the building of the Wall:

o The actual Wall had increased in length to 15 kilometers and across a

stretch of 130 kilometers were wire fences and barriers

o There were a total of 165 observation towers mainly constructed of

wood.

o 232 bunkers or gun emplacements.

o The costs of the border installations at this point were running at 56.5

million GDR marks.

o The Politburo demanded “engineering and military solutions” to deal

with the escape operations.

o The most important methods used by escapees to break through border

barriers:

Creeping under, cutting and climbing over the barbed wire.

Climbing over the Wall with help from both sides

Using vehicles to get near to the State border.

o This resulted to a total of 161.39 kilometers of installations on the

border with West Berlin which were meant to be improved:

The continuation and refurbishment of the Wall

The reinforcement of the border fence

Traffic humps

Vehicle chicanes

Construction of a 121 kilometre long service road

Border lighting along 151 kilometres

Erection of 150 new observation towers

Sentry huts

Two man bunkers

Surface barriers

130 kilometres of fencing fitted with sensors

100 kilometres of wire lattice fencing

52.5 kilometres of stretched metal fencing

The Berlin Wall lasted until November 10, 1989 when it began being

dismantled by the Soviets.


Sources:

- Flemming, Thomas, and Hagen Koch. The Berlin Wall : Division of a City

/ Hagen Koch. Berlin: Be. Bra, 2000. Print.

- Hanes, Sharon M., Richard Clay Hanes, and Lawrence W. Baker. Cold

War: Almanac. Detroit: UXL, 2003. Print.

- Rogers, Keely, and Jo Thomas. History: the Cold War. Pearson Education,

2008. Print.

Perspectives

The Berlin Blockade

Orthodox: The blockade was an act of aggression in order for the Communists to spread their influence on the West side as well and gain full control of Germany. The main goal of Communists were to force all Germans into Communists and later on take control of whole Europe.

Revisionist: The blockade was a Soviet response to the new currency of West Berlin that was seen as a violation of the Potsdam Agreement. It was viewed that West Berlin was trying to reinforce their control and the violation of the agreement was seen as an aggressive action.

Post-Revisionist: Both sides misunderstood the actions as aggressive when actually the actions were done in order to increase protection. The Soviets felt intimidated by the unites West and the new currency and the blockade was done to protect their territory as the West protected its people by the air lift which was not done aggressively but to help the West Germans.

The Berlin Wall

Orthodox: The wall was built in order to reinforce the Eastern borders and unable the Eastern Germans to escape. This was an act of aggression and shows the aims of Communists of controlling the their spheres of influence.

Revisionist: The wall was built in order to prevent all the Eastern Germans escaping to the West side. Already over 3 million Germans had left the East side and many of them were important workers. Also,


the West side was using this opportunity of people feeling on their side to spread their influence more in order to gain more control.

Post-revisionist: The wall was built because too many Eastern Germans were escaping to the other side of Germany and the Communists were concerned of losing too many skilled workers during the hard economic situation of East Germany.

“Berlin is a smouldering fuse that has been connected to a powder keg.

Incidents arising here...may, in an atmosphere of heating passions,

suspicions and mutual apprehensions, cause a conflagration which will be

difficult to extinguish.”(Soviet Note on Berlin, 27th November 1958)

Natalia Kyriakopoulou Konstantinos Rokanas Aris Minaretzis

Arms Race: through to…→1977 USA deployment of cruise missiles, USSR deployment of SS-20S

Timeline 1945: July 16

th: The Americans successfully explode the first A-bomb

1949: August: The Soviets successfully explode their first A-bomb

1952: November: The Americans successfully explode the first H-bomb and starts

building long-range bomber aircraft

1953: The Soviet Union successfully explodes its first H-bomb and starts building

long-range missiles

1955: Bomber gap

1957: Sputnik launched

ICBM built by the Soviet Union

1960: Kennedy becomes President by promising to rectify the “missile gap”

June: USA fires first ballistic missile from a submerged submarine

July: American RB-47 reconnaissance plane shot down near USSR

August: USA launches Corona, the first successful military recon satellite.

1961: February: Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS) operational.

September: USSR resumes atmospheric nuclear weapons testing

USA resumes underground nuclear weapons testing

October: USSR drops largest bomb in the world (=60million tons of TNT)

1962: January: East-West conference on banning nuclear weapons tests (which

began in October 1958) collapses in deadlock in Geneva.

April: USA resumes atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons.

October: Cuban Missile Crisis

1963: October: USA, USSR, Britain sign Limited Test Ban Treaty

1967: January: Outer Space Treaty signed by US, USSR and 60 other nations.

June: Arab-Israeli Six-Day War begins

1968: July: Nuclear Arms Nonproliferation Treaty signed by US, USSR +58 others

1969: November: Strategic Arms Limitation Talks begin between US and USSR.

1970: The United States and Soviet Union reach nuclear parity

March: Nuclear Arms Nonproliferation Treaty goes into effect, preventing

transfer of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear nations or production of nuclear weapons

in those nations.

1972: May: SALT I agreement signed, restricting development of ABMs and

freezing numbers of intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic missile

launchers for 5 years.

1973: Helsinki Agreement, final agreement reached on 1st August 1975

Agreement for the Prevention of Nuclear War

1974-79: SALT II


Notes: Cold War tensions heightening after 1960s.

Two superpowers felt threatened and awaited a nuclear holocaust.

World safety depended on Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD)

MAD—foundation of deterrence.

July 1st 1960: American RB-47 reconnaissance plane took off to probe radar

defenses of the Soviet border.

It flew parallel to the Soviet coastline. A soviet fighter pilot signaled the plane

to follow him, but it disobeyed and was shot down.

Pilot and co-pilot of the American plane are imprisoned in Moscow. The other

four Americans in the plane died.

American Titan Missiles were ready to be launched, each warhead capable of

destroying Moscow.

In Alaska, Greenland and England, Ballistic Missile Early Warning radars

were in operation so that American would not be surprised again.

In 1961, John Kennedy took office and inherited from Eisenhower the

doctrine of massive retaliation.

This was a policy of responding to major Soviet conventional attacks with

massive nuclear response.

This policy was conceived “at a time of clear American superiority”.

In an effort to remind the West of the power of the Soviets, Khrushchev

broke a moratorium on nuclear testing.

This would lead to the testing of the largest bomb in the world on October

30th

, 1961.

The explosion was the equivalent of over 50 million tons of TNT

Khrushchev said he wanted the bomb to “hang like the sword of Damocles

over the imperialists heads”.

“In the view of Soviet action, it will be the policy of the United States to

proceed in developing nuclear weapons, to maintain this superior capability

for the defense of the free world”. –Kennedy

In the West, public opinion was turning against the arms buildup and testing of

the bomb.

In Britain, there were annual rallies (which started out as a march to the

weapons center at Aldermaston) of thousands of campaigners for nuclear

disarmament.

Kennedy and secretary of defense McNamara were increasingly aware of the

dangers of MAD:

“Nuclear weapons have no military use whatsoever, excepting only to deter

one’s opponent from their use. Which means you should never, never, never

initiate their use against a nuclear-equipped opponent. If you do, it’s suicide.”

–McNamara

McNamara appealed to the Joint Chiefs of Staff with an alternative:

“Soviet cities were no longer to be targeted. They were to strike only at Soviet

military forces (No Cities/Counterforce).

October 1962, Khrushchev sent Soviet missiles to Cuba in attempt to reduce

American nuclear superiority.

Kennedy ordered a blockade of Cuba to avoid the transport of missiles into

Cuba.


Khrushchev turned his ships back.

Moscow and Washington felt a need for direct communication after this and

installed a “hot line” between them.

In the summer, the USSR, US and Britain agreed to a Limited Test Ban

Treaty, not allowing for any more “atmospheric” tests. This was a result of

the two superpowers realizing how close they had come to nuclear war with

the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The USSR then began building up their nuclear forces, adding hundreds of

missiles to their arsenal and matching the USA (which had to accept that they

could no longer destroy all Soviet forces)

As a result, “the superpowers discovered they had one thing in common: an

interest in avoiding nuclear war”.

Nuclear disarmament was not achievable, but nuclear war was unthinkable.

By 1964, McNamara admitted that the ‘no cities’ plan was only an illusion,

and war could only be avoided by the threat of mutual suicide.

“Mutual assured destruction is the foundation of deterrence (…) it requires

that each side be confident that it can deter each other, and that, that requires

that there be a balance and the balance is the understanding that if either side

initiates the use of nuclear weapons, the other side will respond with sufficient

power to inflict unacceptable damage” –McNamara

In 1966 over the coast of Spain, a B-52 was due to attempt a routine refueling,

mid-air from a tanker, and they crashed into each other.

Four hydrogen bombs fell and scattered over the coast, three on the ground

and one lost at sea.

The whole 6th

fleet came, with 5000 soldiers living on land in tents, from

generals, colonels and others.

When the bombs hit the ground, safety devices prevented the thermonuclear

explosion, but the conventional high explosives went off, scattering

radioactive plutonium.

The military had to do medical checkups and ask people to throw away their

contaminated clothes—they could not eat or touch anything, not go out on the

streets.

Over four and a half thousand barrels of contaminated soil were shipped back

to the US for burial.

Eight days after the accident, an American mini-submarine found the missing

bomb (called a “Broken Arrow”) in the sea, intact.

The Russians were not convinced by McNamara’s notion of MAD, and

believed that protecting their homeland was their first duty.

They worked to develop anti-ballistics missiles—ABMs, which could destroy

American missiles in flight.

By building a ‘defensive system’, the Russians had put the delicate nuclear

balance at risk.

It was described as an ‘umbrella’—only when it rains will they open it up.

This was destabilizing the balance of mutual assured destruction, the balance

of terror.

If one side could counter the other’s ability to respond, then they had an

advantage.

It was economically impractical to develop ABMs—for every dollar spent on

offense, 5 dollars would be spent on defense.


For this reason, McNamara convinced President Johnson to abandon ABMs,

but only if the Soviets agreed to do the same.

Kosygin said: “I am against this…why do you object to a system that protects

people? Defense is something moral, and aggression is immoral. Missiles

mean aggression. If you agreed to reduce the number of aggressive missiles,

then I could speak about reducing our defense system.”

American scientists were preparing a countermeasure: multiple

independently targeted re-entry vehicles (MIRVs).

A single missile could now carry 10 separate warheads.

This made defense infinitely more complicated and expensive.

In order to shoot down one of these missiles, you would need at least 10 anti-

ballistic missiles.

The US had 1054 ballistic missiles on their land-based launching sites alone,

and to counter that the Russians needed over 10,000 ballistic missiles.

Russians realized that unless they stopped the Arms Race, the Americans (who

were better off financially) could out-do the Soviet Union.

“The leadership began to understand that now we had to choose between

building socialism and communism, or making missiles”.—Nikolai Detinov,

Soviet Defense Ministry

By 1969, the superpowers were spending over $50 million a day on nuclear

armaments, an intolerable burden.

At last they agreed to meet in Helsinki to try to end the arms race. The

negotiations became known as SALT—Strategic Arms Limitation Talks.

Negotiations dragged on throughout 1970 and 1971 as each side tried to come

to terms with other side’s philosophy.

“The Soviets really had it in their…gut, in the marrow of their bone, this…this

right, this inherent right of a nation to defend itself, and there wasn’t really

any argument in those days, er, early days of a technical nature, of a…of a

strategic analytical nature. It was just God-given—they wouldn’t have said

God—right of a nation to defend itself”—Helmut Sonnenfeldt, U.S. SALT

adviser.

In May 1972, Nixon arrived in Moscow to sign the SALT agreements with

Brezhnev. ABMs were now discredited and the two sides agreed to limit them.

There was however, failure to control MIRVs, so that Russia and America

would add 12,000 nuclear warheads to their arsenals in the next decade.

ORTHODOX PERSPECTIVE For the United States the arms build-up that was initiated with the development of the

A-bomb in 1945 was a series of security measures against the superior conventional

military force of the USSR. Thanks to their extensive spy network within the US, the

Soviet Union was able to jumpstart its own nuclear program and produce its first

atomic bomb by 1949, years earlier than the Americans had predicted. This, combined

with the rapid developments in both nuclear and space research, caused a feeling of

unease in the United States as well as fear for its security.

Because of the head that the Soviet Union achieved in the arms race during the 1950s

with the introduction of the ICBM, as well as the launch of Sputnik, made the


American government fear that a “missile gap” was created. Thus a massive build-up

of the American nuclear arsenal was ordered by the Eisenhower and Kennedy

administrations, aiming to secure the balance of power. The institution of the MIRV

by the US in 1970 brought new fuel to the race. The aim was to create a “balance of

terror” that would prevent either side from daring to threaten the security of its rival.

Eisenhower’s policy of “massive retaliation”, McNamara’s “counterforce strategy”

and the “Mutually Assured Destruction” policy that followed the Cuban Missile Crisis

all illustrate the US willingness to appear unmoving on their convictions while at the

same time producing the right amount of fear in order to avoid actually implementing

such methods.

REVISIONIST PERSPECTIVE Arms Race began with the USA using the atomic bomb to end WWII.

“They were banging it into our heads and we couldn’t have imagined

otherwise: the Americans were aggressors who wanted to conquer the whole

world, and we had to protect the world” –Gen. Mikhail Mokriniski, Soviet

bomber pilot.

The USA was the provoker:

RB-47 Reconnaissance plane, 1960: Flying on the Soviet border to locate

Soviet radar stations and know the location of air defense systems.

The USA was constantly expanding nuclear arms arsenal, and the Soviet

Union only reacted to this buildup to balance the power-struggle. Americans

were the aggressors.

“In the view of Soviet action, it will be the policy of the United States to

proceed in developing nuclear weapons, to maintain this superior capability

for the defense of the free world”. –Kennedy

Cuban Missile Crisis: Soviet involvement was only fueled by pre-existing

American missiles in Turkey.

In response to American mass production and buildup of nuclear weapons,

ABMs were developed as a defensive measure to protect the Soviets.

They acted as an “umbrella”—they were not aggressive, the umbrella merely

opened when it rained—they were a countermeasure in the event that the US

showed aggression.

Kosygin said: “I am against this…why do you object to a system that protects

people? Defense is something moral, and aggression is immoral. Missiles

mean aggression. If you agreed to reduce the number of aggressive missiles,

then I could speak about reducing our defense system.”

The United States, hungry for power, developed MIRVs in an act of

aggression towards the Soviet Union to shift the balance of destructive power

their way.

This exerted both financial and security pressure on the Soviets, forcing them

to somehow agree to end the arms race.


POST-REVISIONIST PERSPECTIVE: The nuclear arms race developed due to a mutual threat to security. If the

utilization of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is taken to be the first act

of the Cold War, then one can see that the driving force that escalated the arms race

was fear for national security and mutual understanding.

In 1945, the atomic bomb was perceived by the US as a balancing force

against the USSR’s superior conventional forces. Yet the Soviet Union saw the

American A-bomb as a threat to homeland security, and thus developed its own

atomic bomb in 1949. The speed with which the Soviets developed their own atomic

bomb alarmed the Americans, creating the feeling that they had underestimated Soviet

technology. This insecurity pushed the US to nuclear proliferation and the

development of the hydrogen bomb – 1000 times more powerful than the atomic

bomb – in 1952. The USSR, once again trying to balance the tables reacted by

developing its own hydrogen bomb in 1953. The theory that the arms race was created

by a feeling of mutual misunderstanding and insecurity is supported by the fact that

the Cold War took n action-reaction progression, much like the examples of the

origins of the arms race given above.

Another example of mutual feat and misunderstanding is seen in the missile

gap idea. To effectively preserve the peace through mutual deterrence, nuclear parity

had to be maintained. Therefore, closing the missile gap became an obsession with the

US administrations such as the Eisenhower and Kennedy cabinets. This approach

towards preserving parity and thus homeland security shows that the arms race was in

fact caused by mutual insecurities.

Finally, mutual deterrence is proof that the Arms Race was in fact an effect of

mutual misunderstanding. In the end of it all, it was Mutually Assured Destruction

that prevented the deterioration of peace. Had aggression and development of arms

been one sided, mutual deterrence would have never worked. Neither side was solely

aggressor or defender, but both sides desperately wanted to avoid conflict. This fear

for a nuclear holocaust kept the arms race going so that mutual deterrence would

always preserve the peace.

Bibliography: Brooman, Josh. The Cold War, Superpower Relations, 1945-1989. Longman. Print.

20th Century Ser.

Nelson, David, comp. The Cold War 1960-1991. CNN Cold War Series -on Line-.

Web. 21 Nov. 2011. <http://www.wilsoncenter.org/coldwarfiles>.

Rogers, Keely, and Jo Thomas. "10. What Was the Impact Pf the Arms Race on the

Cold War?" History: the Cold War. Harlow, Essex: Heinemann International, 2008.

104-11. Print.

Thisvee, Dimitri, Soo History Y2

Hungarian Uprising

Background Information: Stalin died in 1953, and since then, there have been riots, for

example, in East Berlin. Khrushchev, however, continued to denounce harsh leadership of

Stalin, initiating de-Stalinization speech in February 1956, trusting in infallibility of Soviet

Union.

This uprising happened at the same time as the Suez Crisis, which divided UN’s

attention. UN was focused on Suez Crisis, and so was USA. Soviet Union vetoed Hungary’s

request to withdraw USSR armies from Hungary, and so did the General Assembly.

Soviet Aim: Khrushchev wanted to have complete control over the satellite countries like

Stalin did.

USA’s Perspective: Distracted by Suez Crisis. USA had no intention of saving Nagy, and

made it clear to the Soviet leaders. Eisenhower could have thought that Soviet would choose

to either go into all in nuclear war or to keep the satellite nation.

Chronological Summary of the Event

1. Poland succeeded in riots, therefore getting courage to revolt as well.

USA Radio Free Europe encouraged Hungarians to revolt, expecting US to help their

riots.

2. Hungarian people wanted to get out of repressive regime under Matyas Rakoski. They

wanted more moderate leader, the reformed-minded Communist leader Imre Nagy.

Young Hungarians even took down Stalin’s statue in the streets.

The revolution/uprising was leaded by no one but Communist leaders themselves.

“On October 23rd 1956, students and workers took to the streets of Budapest (the

capital of Hungary) and issued their Sixteen Points which included personal freedom,

more food, the removal of the secret police, the removal of Russian control etc.” [2]

3. Khrushchev agreed to change the leader, but the riots continued.

“Russia claimed to have "crushed the forces of reactionary conspiracy against the

Hungarian people".” [3]

4. Khrushchev ordered Red Army to control the riots, but failed.

5. Nagy succeeded to negotiate Soviet retreat in October 28th

of 1956.

6. Shortly afterwards Nagy announced that Hungary will leave the Warsaw Pact and become

a neutral state. Also planned to share powers with non-Communist state.

Nagy released the political prisoners. Democratization, Parliamentary government

Ties to Moscow on balance.

7. Soviet Reaction: “On October 31, the tide seemed to turn overwhelmingly in the

revolution's favor when Pravda published a declaration promising greater equality in

relations between the USSR and its East European satellites. One sentence was of

particular interest. It read: "[T]he Soviet Government is prepared to enter into the

appropriate negotiations with the government of the Hungarian People's Republic and

other members of the Warsaw Treaty on the question of the presence of Soviet troops on

the territory of Hungary." To outside observers, the Kremlin statement came as a total

surprise. CIA Director Allen Dulles called it a ‘miracle.’ ” [1]

8. Khrushchev sent army troops to against Hungarians. “counterrevolution,” “The Soviet

invasion is a response to the national uprising led by Prime Minister Imre Nagy, who has

promised the Hungarian people independence and political freedom.” [3]


9. “Forty-six years ago, at 4:15 a.m. on November 4, 1956, Soviet forces launched a major

attack on Hungary aimed at crushing, once and for all, the spontaneous national uprising

that had begun 12 days earlier. At 5:20 a.m., Hungarian Prime Minister Imre Nagy

announced the invasion to the nation in a grim, 35-second broadcast, declaring: "Our

troops are fighting. The Government is in its place.’ ” [1]

10. America was occupied with Suez Crisis: “President Eisenhower of USA said "I feel with

the Hungarian people." J F Dulles, American Secretary of State, said "To all those

suffering under communist slavery, let us say you can count on us." But America did

nothing more.” [2]

11. 20,000 Hungarians and 3,000 Soviets died

12. 200,000 Hungarians fled to exile, mainly to USA

13. Soviets were successful in brining Hungary back to one of the satellite nations of USSR

14. Janos Kadar became the leader of Hungary and Imre Nagy was executed by the Soviets.

15. Kadar brought no reform to the country, which made Hungary to rely on Capitalists help

later on.

16. This showed that the successor of Stalin is no less benevolent than Stalin was.

Reasoning for Soviet’s Action: Hungary, and losing it, meant weakening of the Soviet

security. Also, it is the declaration that the de-Stalinization did not weaken the Communist

pact in the least. As the result, Khrushchev’s position was strengthened by the events in

Hungary and Suez.

Three Perspectives

Revisionist: USSR took part in Hungarian Revolution in the right time. Continuous

revolution after another in Europe posed a great threat to Soviet security. Those

revolutions were invoked by no one but the West. Because the West, specifically USA

continued to interfere with the events in Europe and USSR, European countries were

tricked to believe that USA would help them abandon Motherland and fall to the

Imperialists. USA feigned kindness to hide their dark ambition for strength and control

over Europe. Poland was a victim of the ambition, and Hungary must have been another

if it weren’t for the Soviets. Because USSR was successful in eliminating the West

influence within Communist nations, Communism once again prevailed.

Orthodox: The Hungarian Revolution was another threat to the capitalistic world. Even

though Khrushchev was delivering speeches about how cruel and anti-hero Stalin was

towards the nation and its people, destalinization, he also tried to expand the influence of

the Soviet nation to its satellites. Though his mistake of placing Imre Nagy as a prime

minster, he revealed his true face which did not differ a lot from Stalin’s. Khrushchev

wanted to keep ad expand the Soviet territory in Europe and thus when he became aware

of Nagy’s plans he invaded Hungary and killed thousands of innocent people. This is a

threat to all the European nations but also a reminder to nations all over the world to see

that the expansionist politics of the USSR did not come to an end.

Post-Revisionist: The Hungarian revolution posed a serious threat to the tipping of the

balance of power which had been created through the Western and Eastern spheres of

influence. Losing Hungary would show the world that the Soviets were weak could lead

the more revolutions in the Soviet sphere of influence. In their best interest to protect the

Soviet Union, the USSR used military force to suppress the uprisings and replace the

government with one which would benefit them. The US did not pursue military action as

the tensions were high enough that the possibility of nuclear war would be very high,

even though CIA encouraged the Hungarians to revolt against Soviet rule.


Czechoslovakia Uprising

Chronological Timeline of the Event

- 1953 June: Czechoslovakia Riots

- 1964: Brezhnev came to power

- 1968: Alexander Dubcek came to power

- 1968: April Dubcek revealed plans for modernization of Czechoslovakia, Prague Spring –

“Socialism with a human face” Dubcek wanted trade unions, expansion of trade with

West, and freedom to travel abroad. Abolished censorship, encouraged criticism of the

government, wanted to stay in the Warsaw pact as an ally

- 1968: 21st August: Warsaw Pact forces invade Czechoslovakia, crushing Prague Spring

ruthlessly

250,000 troops were sent to Czechoslovakia, including Hungarian, Polish, and East

Germans

“Soviet tanks rolled into Prague to crush the Czechoslovak experiment in "socialism with

a human face".” [1]

“More than 100 people were killed, and the Communist leaders, including Alexander

Dubcek, were arrested and taken to Moscow.” [1]

- Czechoslovak communist party announced the following to the people:

Do not interfere with the rebellion

The forces are not there to defend the country.

This is result of our going against Soviet socialist principles and international law

- New government under Gustav Husak, which was under control of Moscow

- Brezhnev justified his actions with the Brezhnev Doctrine, which states that “every

communist party is responsible for all socialist countries and entire communist movement”

- Because of the war with North Vietnam, USA did not interfere with the event in

Czechoslovakia

- Reform plans throughout the region were abandoned, and with disastrous economic

consequences for the Soviet bloc.

- Soviet reputation was damaged

In Western Europe communists stopped looking for Moscow for guidance. Did not

impact East-West relations; it slowed down the Détente.

This incident damaged Moscow enough to prevent it from making a united front in

China.

Three Perspectives:

Revisionist: This uprising was like Hungarian Uprising. Czechoslovakia first attempted

to revolt in 1953, right after the death of Stalin. Only three years after Khrushchev came

to power Czechoslovakia revolted again. This was a serious threat to Soviets’ security,

especially after Poland and Hungary Uprising. Again, this was an attempt because of

USA gave false hope to Czech people. Because the West spread Imperialism through the

radio station and other means, Czech people lost their faith momentarily and tried to

revolt. To secure the Soviet borders from Imperialists, USSR had to put order and control

back to Czechoslovakia.

Orthodox: As in Hungary, Czechoslovakia was a Communist satellite country which was

suppressed under its strict rule. USSR confirmed for another time the fact that its only


objective was to expand its borders while keeping its already existing allies under their

influence. As Nagy in Hungary, Alexander Dubcek was removed from power and tanks

invaded once again a communist country in order to suppress the will of people and their

need to express themselves. This event as well as the “Brezhnev Doctrine” that was

passed after the Prague Spring did not only show that the USSR does not have any trust

to its own people and satellite countries that it had allied with yet the want of the Soviet

government to expand their borders and force the communist ideology as this can be

evident from the tactic that the USSR used both in Hungary and in Czechoslovakia.

Post-Revisionist: Like the Hungarian Revolution, the Soviet Union feared that losing

territory, and its satellite states. Losing Czechoslovakia to the western powers would

mean that the US would be expanding influence even closer to the Soviet mainland, to

prevent such an occurrence the Soviets used military force to suppress the Prague Springs

so as to remain safe within their borders. The US did not interfere in Czechoslovakia as

the pressing matter of the war in Vietnam, with the possibility of North Vietnam taking

over the South, was more important than to leave Czechoslovakia under Soviet influence.

[1]"BBC News | Europe | Remembering the Prague Spring." BBC News - Home. Web. 15 Dec. 2011.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/155500.stm>.

[1]"The 1956 Hungarian Revolution." The George Washington University. Ed. Malcom Byrne. 4 Nov.

2002. Web. 15 Dec. 2011. <http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB76/>.

[3] "BBC ON THIS DAY | 4 | 1956: Soviet Troops Overrun Hungary." BBC News - Home. Web. 15

Dec. 2011.

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/4/newsid_2739000/2739039.stm>.

14th, November.

[2] "The Hungarian Uprising of 1956." History Learning Site. Web. 15 Dec. 2011.

<http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/hungarian_uprising_1956.htm>.

Palmer, R. R., Joel Colton, and Lloyd S. Kramer. A History of the Modern World: to 1815. Boston:

McGraw-Hill, 2007. Print.

IB History Topic 3: The rise and rule of single-party states

RISE TO POWER

Compare and contrast the rise to power of two rulers of single-party states, each chosen from a different region.

May 2008

To what extent was ideology an important factor in the rise to power of one of the following: Lenin, Mussolini;

Nyerere? Nov. 2007

Analyse the methods used and the conditions which helped in the rise to power of one ruler of a single party state.

May 2007

To what extent was the rise to power of either Hitler or Mao due to personal appeal and ability? May 2006

“It was personality and not circumstances that brought rulers of single-party states to power.” To what extent do

you agree with this statement? Nov. 2006

Analyse the methods used and the conditions which helped in the rise to power of one ruler of a single party state.

May 2005

With reference to two examples each chosen from a different region, to what extent do you agree with the claim

that “ideology was the most important factor in the rise to power of single-party leaders”? Nov. 2005

Analyse the methods used by one single-party state ruler in his successful bid for power. May 2004

“Fascism’s rise to power in Italy and Germany in the inter-war years largely resulted from the consequences of the

First World War.” To what extent do you agree with this verdict? Nov. 2004

To what extent was the rise to power of one left wing and one right wing single party ruler, the result of previous

political problems? Nov. 2004

Account for the rise to power of one of the following: Castro; Mussolini; Nasser. May 2003

Compare and contrast the rise to power of two rulers of single party states. Nov. 2003

Assess the main difficulties faced by two would-be rulers of single-party states in their bid for power. Nov. 2002

MAINTAINING POWER

“A vigorous foreign policy played a vital part in the maintenance of power of single-party regimes.”

With reference to two examples, explain to what extent you agree with this statement. Nov. 2007

Assess the methods used by EITHER Lenin OR Peron to maintain his regime. May 2007

Compare and contrast the influence in their own countries of Hitler and Mao. May 2007

Analyse the methods used to maintain power in two single-party states, each chosen from a different region. Nov.

2006

Assess the methods used by EITHER Lenin OR Peron to maintain his regime. May 2005

Compare and contrast the influence in their own countries of Hitler and Mao. May 2005

Assess the role of economic and social policies as factors explaining the consolidation and maintenance of power of

two of the following: Castro, Mussolini, Peron, Nasser. Nov. 2004

Assess the role of terror and force in maintaining the ruler in power in two totalitarian states each chosen from a

different region. Nov. 2004

"In order to achieve and retain power a leader of a single-party state needed to be ruthless, blind to human

suffering and yet charismatic." To what extent do you agree with this assertion? May 2003

Assess the methods used by EITHER Peron OR Lenin to maintain his position as ruler of a single-party state.

Nov. 2003

SUCCESSES/FAILURES

Analyze the successes and failures of the political career of either Lenin or Nyerere. May 2008

To what extent was either Mussolini, between 1922 and 1945, or Nasser, between 1954 and 1970, successful in

achieving his aims? May 2008

Evaluate the successes and failures one ruler of a single-party state. May 2007

By what methods, and with what success, did single-party rulers in power establish totalitarian

regimes? Reference should be made to two examples, each chosen from a different region. Nov. 2007

Evaluate the successes and failures one ruler of a single-party state. May 2005

How successful was either Lenin (1917-1924) or Mussolini (1922-1943) in solving the problems he faced? Nov.

2005

Examine critically the successes and failures of EITHER Castro OR Mussolini, as a leader of a single-party state.

Nov. 2003

Explain the successes and failures of either Mao in China or Perón in Argentina. Nov. 2002

FOREIGN/DOMESTIC POLICIES

Assess the importance of foreign policy for rulers of single-party states. May 2008

Compare and contrast the domestic policies of two rulers of single party states, each chosen from a different

region. May 2006

Examine the economic and social policies of two of the following: Lenin; Mussolini; Peron. Nov. 2006

Examine the status of women in two single-party states, each chosen from a different region. May 2005

Compare and contrast the foreign policies of two rulers of single-party states, each chosen from a different region.

May 2004

Evaluate the importance of ideology in the policies of two of the following rulers of single-party states: Castro;

Hitler; Lenin; Nyerere. May 2004

Compare and contrast the economic and social policies of Mao and Stalin. May 2003

In what ways, and for what reasons, did the aims and policies of two or more right wing rulers of single-party

states differ? May 2003

Analyse the foreign policy of two rulers of single-party states, each chosen from a different region. Nov. 2002

Evaluate the impact of the policies of two rulers of single-party states on the role and status of women. Nov. 2002

EDUCATION/ARTS/PROPAGANDA

In what ways did one ruler of a single-party state try to use education to support his regime? May 2008

In what ways, and with what results, was propaganda used by one ruler of a single party state? May 2006

In what ways, and for what reasons, were culture and education controlled by rulers of single-arty states? Nov.

2006

Identify the aims of educational and youth policies in two single-party states, and evaluate the extent to which they

were achieved. Nov. 2005

For what reasons, and with what success, have single party states attempted to control either education or the arts?

Nov. 2004

Examine the role of education and/or the arts in two single party states, each chosen from a different region. May

2003

How and why was propaganda used in two single party states, each chosen from a different region? Nov. 2003

MISCELLANEOUS

Compare and contrast the economic and social policies of one left wing and one right wing

single-party ruler. Nov. 2007

Analyse the conditions which led to the establishment of either Perón’s regime in Argentina or

Nasser’s regime in Egypt. Nov. 2007

Compare and contrast the global impact of two of the following: Castro; Hitler; Nasser. May 2007

Assess the importance of ideology for rulers of twentieth century single-party states. May 2006

Compare and contrast the global impact of two of the following: Castro; Hitler; Nasser. May 2005

Account for the ineffectiveness of internal opposition to two rulers of single-party states. Nov. 2005

Examine the global impact of one ruler of a single-party state. May 2004

For what reasons, and with what results, were there so many single-party states in the 20th Century? Nov. 2003

QUESTIONS NOT COVERED

Assess the methods used by either Nasser or Peron to remain in power. May 2006

Assess the successes and failures of the domestic policies of one of the following: Nasser; Nyerere; Perón. Nov.

2005

In what ways, and to what extent, did either Nasser or Perón improve social and economic conditions? May 2004

To what extent was the USSR an orthodox Communist state under either Lenin or Stalin? Nov. 2002

IB History Topic 5: The Cold War

ORIGINS OF THE COLD WAR

For what reasons, and with what results, did the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan affect Cold War

development? May 2008

Explain the meaning of two of the following and show how each affected the development of the Cold War:

containment; brinkmanship; non-alignment; détente. May 2008

Analyze the origin of East-West rivalry and explain why it developed into the Cold War. May 2008

“The breakdown of East-West relations was due to the failure of both sides to appreciate the fears of

the other.” With reference to the period 1945–53, to what extent do you agree? Nov. 2007

Assess the part played by differing ideologies in the origin of the Cold War. May 2007

Analyse the responsibility of the USA and the USSR for the outbreak and development of the Cold War, up to

1949. Nov. 2006

Compare and contrast the economic policies and military alliances of the USSR and USA after 1947. Nov. 2006

“An unnatural alliance that was bound to fall apart after the defeat of the common enemy.” To what extent does

this statement explain the origin of the Cold War? May 2006

Examine the part played by economic issues in the development of the Cold War. May 2006

Identify and explain the significance of two of the following in the development of the Cold War: COMECON;

Marshall Plan; NATO; Warsaw Pact. Nov. 2005

Assess the part played by differing ideologies in the origin of the Cold War. May 2005

To what extent were Soviet policies responsible for the outbreak and development of the Cold War between 1945

and 1949? Nov. 2005

Assess the impact of the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan on the development of the Cold War between 1947

and 1961. May 2004

To what extent did events in the final year of the Second World War turn wartime allies into Cold War enemies?

May 2004

In what ways, and for what reasons, did the relationship between the wartime Allies deteriorate between 1945 and

1949? Nov. 2004

How, and to what extent, did the conferences at Yalta and Potsdam (1945) contribute to the origin of the Cold

War? May 2003

In what ways, and to what extent, did mutual distrust and suspicion cause the Cold War? Nov. 2003

GERMANY

In what ways, and with what results, was Germany the key focus of the early stages of the Cold War? May 2007

Compare and contrast the roles of China and Germany in the Cold War. May 2006

In what ways, and with what results, was Germany the key focus of the early stages of the Cold War? May 2005

For what reasons, and with what results, was Germany a centre of Cold War tension between 1945-61? Nov. 2003

CUBA

Analyse the part played by Cuba in the development of the Cold War. May 2007

In what ways, and with what results, did the U.S.’s Cold War policy of containment affect Cuba after 1959? May

2006

Analyse the part played by Cuba in the development of the Cold War. May 2005

Compare and contrast the part played by Korea and Cuba in the Cold War. Nov. 2003

KOREAN AND VIETNAM WAR

Compare and contrast the roles of Korea and Vietnam in the Cold War. May 2008

For what reasons, and with what results for East-West relations, did the superpowers become involved in the

affairs of one of the following: Korea; Vietnam; the Middle East? Nov. 2007

In what ways, and for what reasons, did the Vietnam War affect superpower relations? Nov. 2006

Compare and contrast the policies of the USA and the USSR towards Korea between 1945 and 1955. May 2004

DÉTENTE

Evaluate the role of one superpower in the Cold War after 1970. May 2007

Analyse the importance of détente in ending the Cold War. May 2006

Evaluate the role of one superpower in the Cold War after 1970. May 2005

In what ways, and to what extent, did relations between East and

West change in the period 1960-1970? Nov. 2004

In what ways, and to what extent, did the Cold War become less confrontational after

1970? May 2004

Assess the importance of détente and internal opposition to Communist rule in Communist countries, in ending the

Cold War. May 2003

END OF THE COLD WAR

When and why did the Cold War end? May 2008

To what extent was the collapse of communist regimes the result of domestic problems rather than

external pressures? Nov. 2007

To what extent did economic problems in the Communist bloc bring about the end of the Cold War? May 2007

Assess the importance of economic issues in ending the Cold War. Nov. 2006

Analyse the factors which led to the ending of the Cold War. Nov. 2005

Compare and contrast the social and economic effects of the Cold War on two countries each chosen from a

different region. Nov. 2005

To what extent did economic problems in the Communist bloc bring about the end of the Cold War? May 2005

Why was Soviet control over East European satellite states successful in the period 1945-1968, and why did it

collapse between 1988 and 1991? Nov. 2004

Assess the importance of social and economic issues in causing opposition to communist regimes. May 2004

Assess the impact of the Cold War on the economic developments of two states each chosen from a different region.

Nov. 2004

“The Cold War played little part in changing social and economic conditions for either side between 1945-65”. To

what extent do you agree? Nov. 2003

MISCELLANEOUS

How effective was the United States policy of containment up to 1962? Nov. 2007

Compare and contrast the role of education and the arts in one communist and one

non-communist state. Nov. 2007

In what ways, and for what reasons, was the Middle East important in the Cold War? Nov. 2005

Why, and with what success, did the USA adopt a policy of containment in the period 1947-1962? Nov. 2004

"Although it began in Europe the spread of the Cold War to other regions was a much more dangerous

development." To what extent do you agree with this judgment? May 2003

How and why did the policies of either the USA or the USSR affect superpower rivalry between 1950 and 1970?

May 2003

Analyse the nature of the Cold War and explain why, in spite of serious crises, it did not turn into a Third World

War. Nov. 2003

QUESTIONS NOT COVERED

To what extent was the movement for non-alignment a development of the Cold War? Nov. 2006

In what ways were gender and social issues affected by the Cold War. May 2003

IB History HL/ Paper 3- The Americas

GREAT DEPRESSION

1.) To what extent was the Wall Street Crash a cause of the Great Depression of 1929?

Support your argument with specific examples from one country of the region. May

2007

2.) Analyse the causes of the great depression in one country in the Americas. May 2006

3.) Explain how one country of the region changed its policy on the role the government

should play in the economy as a result of the Great Depression. Nov. 2006

4.) With reference to one country of the region, analyse the causes of the Great

Depression and assess the political impact of the Great Depression on that country.

May 2005

5.) “The Great Depression changed governments’ views of their role and responsibility.”

Assess the validity of this statement with examples taken from two countries of the

region. Nov. 2005

6.) How, and with what success, did the government of any one country in the Americas

try to solve the problems caused by the Great Depression? May 2004

7.) Analyse the political and economic changes caused by the Depression to one country

of the region. Nov. 2004

8.) How successful were government programmes in solving problems caused by the

Great Depression, in two countries of the region? May 2003

9.) Assess the impact of the Great Depression on the society of any one country of the

region. Provide specific example to support your answer. May 2002

WWII

1.) For what reasons, and with what results, were Japanese citizens of Canada and the

United States interned during the Second World War? May 2007

2.) Why did the U.S. become involved in the Second World War? May 2006

3.) Assess the effectiveness of U.S. policy in relation to European Jews before and during

the Second World War. Nov. 2006

4.) With reference to one country of the region, evaluate the impact of the Second World

War on the economy and on minority groups. May 2005

5.) Analyse the impact of the Second World War on the society of one country in the

Americas. Nov. 2005

6.) Assess the effects of the Second World War on minorities in any two countries in the

Americas in the 1940s.

7.) Assess the impact of the Second World War on the economy of one country of the

region. Nov. 2004

8.) Assess the effects of the Second World War on women and minorities in two countries in

the region. May 2003

COLD WAR

1.) How did the Cold War change relations between the United States and either Latin

America or Canada between 1953-1979? May 2007

2.) Assess the successes and failures of the foreign policies of either Eisenhower (1953-61)

or Kennedy (1961-63). May 2006

3.) In what ways, and to what extent, did the foreign policy of Ronald reason (1981-89)

affect the Cold War? May 2006

4.) How did the Cold War change relations between the U.S. and either Latin America or

Canada between 1945-53? Nov. 2006

5.) In what ways, and with what results, did the Cold War influence relations between either

Latin America or Canada with the United States in the period 1945-1957? May 2005

6.) Compare and contrast the Cold War policies of two of the following U.S. president:

Harry S. Truman (1945-53); Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-61); Ronald Reagan (1981-

89). May 2005

7.) Assess the successes and failures of the foreign policies of either Harry S. Truman

(1945-52) or Richard Nixon (1969-1974). May 2004

8.) Analyse the short-term and longer-term consequences for Cuba between 1959 and 1995

of Castro’s rule? May 2004

9.) How did the Cold War change relations between the United States and either Latin

America or Canada between 1945-53? Nov. 2004

10.) Compare and contrast the Cold War policies of Truman and Eisenhower. May

2002

VIETNAM WAR

1.) Analyze the effects of the Vietnam War on the United States. May 2007

2.)Compare/contrast the Vietnam War policies of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. Nov.

2006

3.)“The Vietnam War had a disastrous effect on the presidencies of both Lyndon B. Johnson

and Richard Nixon.” To what extent do you agree with this statement? May 2005

4.)Compare and contrast the foreign policy toward Vietnam of two United States presidents

between 1945-1969. Nov. 2005

5.)For what reasons, and with what results, did the United States become involved in

Vietnam? Nov. 2004

6.)“The outcome of the Vietnam War was determined not on the battlefield, but on the

television screen.” How far do you agree with this judgement? May 2003

7.)“Vietnam and Watergate destroyed the reputations of various United States’ Presidents in

the 1960s and 1970s.” To what extent do you agree with this judgment? May 2002

1

Alexander Apostolides, Andriana Bantra, Alex Tziolis

Sunday December 18, 2011

I.B. History

NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY

Context of the NPT:

Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) stated that weapons of mass destruction

would effectively result in the complete, utter and irrevocable annihilation of both

the attacker and the defender. It would become a “war that has neither victory nor

any armistice but only effective reciprocal destruction”.1

Build up of nuclear weapons raised the concern of managing them (after Cuban

Missile Crisis) → USSR had reached nuclear parity with the United States

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was signed in 1968 by both nuclear and

non-nuclear powers →preventing the spread of nuclear technology (arms control)

Nations possessing nuclear weapons could not pass on relevant information or

technology to non-nuclear countries2.

Under NPT, China, Soviet Union, France, United States, and United Kingdom

were recognized as nuclear weapon states.

Even though the NPT did not achieve its main objective of preventing nuclear

proliferation, the treaty successfully set a “precedent for international cooperation

between nuclear and non-nuclear states to prevent proliferation”

Significance of NPT:

NPT was a crucial step in reducing/preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

Marks the beginning of détente (1968-1980) since it led to the relaxation of

tension and to the promotion of stable and co-operative relationships →

Kennedy administration predicted that by the late 1970s, there would be 25 to 30

declared Nuclear Weapon states3 →every conflict would carry with the risk of

waging nuclear war

1 Rogers, Keely, and Jo Thomas. History: the Cold War. Harlow, Essex: Heinemann International, 2008.

Print. 2 The Cold War Series. David Nelson. CNN. Web. 18 Dec. 2011. <www.wilsoncenter.org/coldwarfiles>.

3 Thomas Graham, Jr. "The Significance of NPT." GS Institute. Web. 18 Dec. 2011.

<http://www.gsinstitute.org/docs/06_18_03_Graham_BSG_NPT.pdf>.

2

-treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere,

in outer space and under water,

-Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT),

-Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT),

or Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (NTBT)

(3) Participation in the Partial Test Ban Treaty

Signed and ratified green

Acceding or succeeding dark green

Only signed yellow

Prohibiting all test detonations of nuclear weapons, with the exception of

underground testing

Underground nuclear testing still continued

It was developed to slow down the arms race and to stop the excessive release

of nuclear fallout into the planet's atmosphere and environment. (1)

-Signed at Moscow August 5, 1963

-Ratification advised by U.S. Senate September 24, 1963

-Ratified by U.S. President October 7, 1963

-U.S. ratification deposited at Washington, London, and Moscow October 10,

1963

-Proclaimed by U.S. President October 10, 1963

-Entered into force October 10, 1963 (2)

USA, UK and USSR referred as the "Original Parties" (2)

- Each party should undertake further action against the causing, encouraging, or

participation of nuclear weapon testing in the above environments. (see bold above)

Article II states: (4)

-Any amendment must be approved by a majority, including the votes of all the

Original Parties.

Article III states: (4)

-This treaty is open to all States, anyone can sign

Article IV states: (4)

-This Treaty has unlimited duration,

Article V states: (4)

-This Treaty shall be deposited in the archives of the Depositary

Governments.(USSR, USA, UK)

3

How this treaty affected détente.

This Treaty was signed five years before the idea of détente was even thought

of.

It was signed nearly 2 months and went into effect 4 days before the Cuban

Missile Crisis

Wasn't very effective in limiting aggression from the superpowers.

It is a starting point to peaceful co-existence, it showed both superpowers

agreeing to such a treaty

It limited the nuclear capabilities of both superpowers

It limited environmental damages because of less nuclear fallout

4

Détente – Cold War

Definition of détente: Détente (a French word meaning release from tension) is

the name given to a period of improved relations between the United States and

the Soviet Union that began tentatively in 1971.

Period of détente:

SALTI I (the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty)-> signed by President

Nixon and Brezhnev in 1972. It was a significant agreement with the

result of freezing on strategic nuclear weapons. It conciliated three parts:

1. The Interim Agreement on Offensive Arms: under which, a

limitation was placed on the numbers of ICBMs (Inter-Continental

Ballistic Missiles) and SLBMs (Submarine-Launched Ballistic

Missiles). It is considered to be a successful agreement to prevent

further escalation of the arms development.

2. The Anti Ballistic Treaty: also known as, ABM Treaty. It is a

system with weapons that are able to shoot down enemy missiles.

It was now decided that each site had the right to contain no more

than 100 missiles. The idea of limiting this protection was that if

one side had a strong protection it might encourage this state to

risk a nuclear war.

3. The Basic Principles Agreement: This laid down rules for the

conduct of nuclear war and development of weapons, and

committed the two side to work together to prevent conflict and

promote peaceful co-existence. It was followed in 1973 by the

Agreement to prevent nuclear wars.

Conclusion: Although SALT I aimed to slow down or freeze tensions between

the two superpowers, no decisions were actually taken about MIRVs and ICBMs.

This agreement led to a change in the process of détente, as Cold War relations

were improved by a great extent. Moreover, it was recognition that a nuclear war

5

would result in the destruction of both countries, thus a war must be avoided at

any cost. This was referred to as Mutual Assured Destruction. (terror balance)

SALT II-> signed in 1979. This agreement limited the number of ICBMs

and SLBMs to 2,400 each and included a ceiling on the number of MIRVs.

The two countries also promised to notify each other on tests. It is

important to note, that the treat was never ratified (approved) by the US

Congress, partly due to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. However, both

sides kept the agreement until 1986.

Conclusion: This was the most complicated arms agreement ever negotiated. By

the time it was signed, both Democrats and Republicans were criticizing the

arms control process as one that accomplished little and which gave advantages

to the Soviets.

History. Pearson Education, 2004. Print.

Harry Vallianos

ACS Athens

IB History II

U2 Spy Plane incident:

On May 5th

, 1960 a US spy plane was shot down over the Ural mountains in

the USSR

Coming almost two weeks before the scheduled opening of an East-West

summit in Paris, the incident was a great embarrassment to the US and

prompted a deterioration in its relations with the USSR1

The Eisenhower Administration, thinking the pilot had died in the crash,

authorized the release of a cover story claiming that the plane was a "weather

research aircraft" which had strayed into Soviet airspace after the pilot had

radioed "difficulties with his oxygen equipment" while flying over Turkey2

The US denied both the practice and the loss of the plane

Shortly after, the USSR released photographs of the wreckage with US

markings on it

The US finally admitted it was a US plane, but claimed that it was a

meteorological research plane

The USSR then displayed the pilot, Gary Powers. He explained that he was

performing illegal espionage for the US government and that on landing he ha

not swallowed the cyanide capsule with which the US authorities had

equipped him

The US refused to apologize or to promise to obey international law in the

future

The incident displayed the continuing intentions of the US government to act

in breach of international law wherever it could get away with it

Three perspectives:

1. Orthodox: Due to the hostile nature of the Kremlin and the USSR as a

whole, spy operations are necessary so as to monitor any military buildup

especially in the form of missiles and nuclear weapons throughout the

USSR occupied territory. All spy operations aim to maintain peace and to

avert any future threat to democracy 2. Revisionist: The US continues to breach international law claiming

that any action it takes aims towards the stabilization of democracy. The

capitalist countries continue to intervene in the internal affairs of the

1 "Presidential Lies and Deceptions - US News and World Report." US News & World Report | News &

Rankings | Best Colleges, Best Hospitals, and More. Web. 20 Dec. 2011.

<http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2008/06/06/presidential-lies-and-deceptions>. 2 Powers, Francis Gary, and Curt Gentry. Operation Overflight: the U-2 Spy Pilot Tells His Story for

the First Time. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1971. Print.

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

Soviet Union and thus strengthen our belief that they cannot be trusted.

Such actions are provocative and do not favor the easing of tensions

between the East and the West. 3. Post-Revisionist: The espionage missions were clearly a product of

mutual misunderstanding and fear for security as no real threat was posed

to democracy or communism rather than their catastrophic nature. The

incident can be seen as one more example of how the gaps in

understanding which dated back to the Stalinist years hindered the

improvement of East-West relationships.

Maria Vangelatou, Theo Saraferas & Hannah Achorn

The Vietnam War

Background:

decolonization after WWII brought greater instability September 2, 1945, Vietnam declares independence from France

Important Leaders & Groups:

Ho Chi Minh: leader of the Vietnamese nationalist (communist) forces, the Vietminh. He maintained considerable presence in Northern Vietnam, even after independence from France – the French maintained influence in the South of Vietnam

Ngo Dinh Diem: leader of the South Vietnamese forces. He was supported by the United States, but remained corrupt until his death.

National Labor Front (NLF): also known as the Vietcong. It was established in South Vietnam to oppose Diem. The Vietcong worked closely with the Vietminh and Ho Chi Minh.

Civil War in Vietnam

South Vietnam North Vietnam

Diem’s forces Vietminh (Communist)

USA support Vietcong

Indirect support from China and USSR

Policies of:

Kennedy (1961-1963): Flexible Response was Kennedy’s primary policy concerning communism. He viewed Vietnam as an extension of Eisenhower’s Domino Theory.

Sent technology and advisors to Vietnam, NO MILITARY INVOLVEMENT! Sent three times as much aid as Eisenhower Pressured Diem to eliminate corruption, via economic and political reforms

1963 – 16,000 advisors sent to Vietnam

Monks set fire to themselves in protest

Diem overthrown by South Vietnamese Generals

Kennedy is assassinated → Vietnam becomes more instable; communist power increases

Johnson (1963-1969): Graduated Response entailed slowly increasing American military presence in Vietnam – a. supply of weapons, b. defense of those supply weapons, and c. offensive military operations such as search and destroy missions. Johnson believed the North's goal was to support/assert China's power in the Asian sphere, and feared USSR/PRC involvement in Vietnam


Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, by which "Congress granted Johnson authority to "take all necessary measures to repel an armed attack against the forces of the US and to prevent further aggression."

Johnson used the attack (Gulf of Tonkin incident) to gain Congressional support The destroyers in the gulf had been assisting South Vietnamese soldiers to raid two

islands in the North Operation Rolling Thunder, 1965: widespread aerial bombing → lasted three years over

North Vietnam Use of new technology → Agent Orange and Napalm

Pacification Program: scorched earth policy → destroyed villages, burned fields, capturing villages/prisoners

Attempted Negotiations → Johnson tried repeatedly to negotiate in between bombings 1965 - US ground forces enter Vietnam to protect the airbase at Da Nang → around 180,000 US troops 1966 - 360,000 American troops 1967 - 500,000 American troops

14,000 American deaths 1968 - Tet Offensive → "turning point" of the war. Communists infiltrated Saigon, attacked US Embassy, resulting in decreased US domestic confidence and increased doubts about Johnson's policies

Nixon (1969-1974): Nixon Doctrine, which stated that the USA would no longer intervene in emerging nation's affairs with military personnel, but would continue sending weapons and air for local forces to conduct the fighting. Nixon agreed publically with Johnson's peace negotiations, but later evidence suggests that South Vietnamese leaders had been urged not to deal with Johnson, as they "would get a better deal with Nixon."

"Peace with Honor": pledged to end the war quickly (in reality, it went on for another four

years) Vietnamization: aimed to maintain a pro-Western, independent government in South

Vietnam Involved USA training Vietnamese soldiers

Secret Warfare: method Nixon used, involving the "carrot and stick" approach (sort of good cop/bad cop) → force through bombing raids, temptation via negotiations with North

1969 - Nixon withdraws 60,000 troops from Vietnam 1969-72 - Number of US troops drops from 500,000 to < 25,000 1971 - Vietnamization seen as failure → South Vietnam losing to North

Failures: 1. US underestimated Vietcong / North Vietnamese allies 2. Search and destroy missions largely ineffective → US ground troops inexperienced, unfamiliar with

terrain and enemy fighting style 3. Inability of USA to respond to Guerrilla tactics of Vietcong 4. Tet Offensive affected US confidence massively


Three Perspectives:

Orthodox

US involvement in Vietnam was in the interests of the Southern Vietnamese. They fought to defeat

the oppressive, abusive forces of the North Vietnamese, who were acting as puppets of the Soviet

Union. North Vietnamese forces were also interested in securing the position of China as a strong,

Communist power in the Asian sphere. The Domino Theory, introduced by Eisenhower, was still

generally accepted by the United States at the time, and thus, if Vietnam fell to Communism, the

fear that other surrounding nations would follow was very relevant. Americans felt that sending

troops to Vietnam to counter the Northern Communists was the only way to put a definite stop to

the spread of Communism throughout South East Asia.

Revisionist

USA involvement in Vietnam was a display of its pursuit of hegemony in world affairs. Diem was a

corrupt, abusive leader, and as usual, the USA used him to introduce its own influence into Vietnam.

During the war, the Northern Vietnamese made use of guerrilla tactics – specifically targeted attacks

that caused minimal damage to civilians. The South Vietnamese and American troops used aerial

attacks that made no attempt to distinguish between enemies and civilians. The search and destroy

tactics employed by the US/Southern forces resulted in the destruction of entire villages,

incineration of fields and precious agricultural resources, and enormous civilian casualties. The

United States had no right interfering in the conflict between the North and South of Vietnam.

American involvement quiet possibly extended the duration of the war by several whole years.

Post Revisionist

The participation of both world powers in the Vietnam War was neither country’s fault; each one of

them was following its own best interests.

The War in Afghanistan

Orthodox View

The fact that in April 1978, the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) of Afghanistan

gained power, despite it being a pro-Soviet organization and receiving economic

assistance from Moscow, it started implementing policies such as land reform,

women’s rights and secular education. These were resisted by the

fundamentalist group led by Hafizullah Amin who later came into power in 1979.

Despite gaining support from the Soviet Amin started contact with the US

government which triggered rumors that Amin had been a puppet of the CIA. As

a result of the Soviet’s orthodox view, they decided to intervene be means of

military attack. Their justification of this invasion was: USSR didn’t want the

Afghan Revolution defeated and Afghanistan turned into a Shah’s Iran, a victory

for the counter-revolution’s forces would allow for massive American military

involvement in Afghanistan, a country bordering the USS and hence a threat to

Soviet security, that if the USSR passed on this it would be viewed by foreign

country ‘that it would not take necessary decisions and ceased to be a great

power.

Revisionist View

1953- Soviet General Khan forms pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan

1956- Khrushchev forms alliance with Afghanistan

1965- Afghan Communist Party forms secretly

1973- General Khan overthrows Zahir Shah and becomes President of

Afghanistan

1978- Communist coup d’état against Khan with result in a breaking of the

alliance between Afghanistan and the USSR. Islamic principles are brought

in.

1979 – Soviet Union enters Afghanistan

The Soviet Union entered Afghanistan for reasons of security. With an alliance

with the communist government of Afghanistan, the Soviet Union acknowledged

it as an independent communist state following the ideals of Marxist- Leninism.

With the coup d’état of the communist government under the rule of General

Khan, the Soviet Union felt it necessary to invade Afghanistan in order to secure

the communist government of their neighbored and former allied country. The

Soviet Union felt that this was of complete necessity as the United States had

already made alliance with the neighboring nation of Pakistan, which imposed a

threat of insecurity in the region with the 1978 coup d’état which offered

political instability. Once in Afghanistan the Soviets imposed military, social, and

land reforms reforms with the different sectors of the indigenous population that

followed the Soviet model of communism.

Post Revisionist View

War in Afghanistan (Soviet Invasion, USA support of Mujahedeen)

TIMELINE

1955: Pakistan becomes member of SEATO

1959: Pakistan signs (as did Turkey and Iran) a bilateral Agreement of

Cooperation with the United States, which was designed further to reinforce the

defensive purposes of CENTO.

1978: April

Military coup in Afghanistan brings Communist party to power. Nur Mohammed

Taraki, Afghanistan’s new leader, looked to USSR for support.

The left-wing regime introduced reforms:

Land reforms: taking land from large owners and redistributing to the

peasants.

1979: July

Crowds joined the call of the Afghan resistance for a jihad, or holy war.

Islamic groups fighting the Communists

They received covert American aid for the first time, President Carter beginning

by sending communications equipment.

Mujahedeen “Soldiers of God”: mostly peasants, organized by village mullahs and

landowners, many weapons were captured from the Communist regime.

September

Hafizullah Amin comes to power through a coup in September 1979 leading a

faction within the PDP (People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan)

Amin began to seek better ties with the West.

December

West announces to deploy more than 500 cruise missiles

December 25: tens of thousands of men in tanks and trucks start to trundle

across the border.

USSR invades Afghanistan: To Soviets there seemed to be no alternative but to

intervene militarily and replace Amin with the pro-Soviet Babrak Kamal.

Since 1979, 5 million Afghans were wounded or forced to flee their homes;

almost 15,000 Soviet soldiers were killed.

1980: January

US react to Soviet invasion by embargoing all trades (blocked grain deliveries)

with the Soviets and boycotts Olympics in Moscow.

The ‘Carter Doctrine’ announced: pledged US intervention in the Persian Gulf if

the Soviets threatened its interests here.

125,000 Soviet troops deployed in Afghanistan.

November

Ronald Reagan elected as US President: more aggressive stance towards USSR

involving a more direct approach.

Reagan administration increased its covert military supplies to the Mujahedeen.

Money and arms were channeled through camps in Pakistan.

However, extremist Gulbuddin Hekmatyar did not distribute fairly, gave only 8

missiles and for two years cut all aid.

1982: November

Leonid Brezhnev dies after 18 years in power and Yuri Andropov succeeds.

1985:

March

Mikhail Gorbachev emerges as new leader taking power in the Kremlin.

UN representative, Diego Cordovez, was told by Gorbachev that Soviet Union

would consider withdrawing under a UN agreement.

Gorbachev chooses a new Afghan leader, Mohammed Najibullah

April 8

The villages of Kats and Mindrawar on the Kabul-Jalalabad highway were

bombed, then overrun by Soviet troops.

The toll of Soviet dead rose to as much as 2,000 a year.

Manu soviet conscripts were new recruits, sent to Afghanistan after only three

months of basic training.

1988: March

Geneva conference bans further military aid for either side.

Both superpowers ignored the ban; the supply of weapons went on, however

started pulling out under the terms of the agreement.

April

USSR agrees to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan by February 1989, after

seven years of peace talks.

A war which cost the lives of nearly 15,000 young Soviet conscripts and an

estimated 1 million Afghans perished.

US supplied billions of dollars of weapons to Islamic fundamentalists.

Post-Revisionist Perspective:

Both superpowers have their own ideal opinion to rightfully intervene due to

security reasons. The USSR responded defensively to a threat originated in the

Afghanistan government. According to the Soviets, Afghanistan was part of their

sphere of influence, observed from its geographical location therefore intruded

with the aim to retain Marxist-Leninist principles. In addition, the United States

and Pakistan alliance threatened the USSR in believing that the West are possibly

attempting to take control over the oil supplies in the Gulf region. On the other

hand, US perceived USSR’s actions as an attempt from the Soviets to pursue

Soviet expansionism threatening global and local security. In response, it was

ideal to support allies in the region, secure safety of hostages and protecting oil

supplies from the trade possibilities to the East. Threats to each side’s security

was not the only reason leading to the end of détente, mutual misperceptions

also played a role. There were gaps from the US and USSR on reality and the way

they perceived an event, for example in the war in Afghanistan, US president

Jimmy Carter believed it was Soviet intentions to spread their influence beyond

their borders, however the Soviet Union viewed their action justified to prevent

instability on its borders. The allies also didn’t approve the invasion in

Afghanistan but were not as convinced as the US because they argued it was a

regional matter for the Soviet Union to secure the borders of their influence.

Overall, the collapse of détente was due to misunderstandings from both sides,

interpreting occasions into their own perspectives.

Realist View

The war in Afghanistan is nothing more than another instance of actions

taken by the two superpowers of the cold war to guarantee the security of one’s

nation, or in other words, a product of the paranoia of the two sides at the time.

The Soviets’ invasion of Afghanistan is arguably the end of the policy of Détente.

When viewing the turn of events in the Cold War’s Middle East microcosm, it is

clear how the situation in the area would seem increasingly alarming to the

Soviets and the US. The Soviets, upon seeing the US’s ties to Pakistan and the

signing of the SEATO and CENTO treaties probably saw meddling with the fragile

Afghani politics as necessary to secure the southern frontier Republics of the

Soviet Union. Once the political scene in Afghanistan got out of hand, the Soviets

invaded Afghanistan, an act which was presumably asked for by the Afghan

communists in power at the time. The US saw this as a clear act of Soviet

expansionism in the Middle East and reacted by covertly aiding the Far-right,

Islamic, Fundamentalist Afghan guerilla resistance group, the Mujahedeen. While

it is clear that both sides had other motives for involvement in the Middle East at

the time, such as access to the rich natural resources of the area beside the

security of their nations, it is clear that the turn of events was inspired by more

base political values such as the necessity of security and economic ambitions,

rather than ideological ideals.

constantine demetriades, amanda malatesta, markelli dodou · constantine demetriades, amanda...

Documents