1 Misheva Vessella, The cold war within a sociological systems perspective, , date accessed 17/03/11
Furthermore, from Bown and Mooney’s book Cold War to Détente 1945-85 reiterates this idea of the Cold War possessing little leanings towards a ‘hot war’ as it was fought through the interests of internal beliefs. “The super-powers themselves have not engaged in ‘hot war’, for with the development and deployment of nuclear weapons, both the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. became increasingly aware of the ‘unacceptable losses’ to themselves and to mankind that a Third World War would entail.”2 This suggests that the Cold War did little to promote conflict as they engaged in combat within other places, such as Vietnam and the Middle East, by and with proxy states. On the other hand, these covert operations, such as the one in 1979, when Soviet troops infiltrated the capital of Afghanistan, highlights the fact that warfare was instructed through third parties which still promotes a sense of conflict, even though it did not lead to a worldwide catastrophe.
This idea of promoting conflict is highlighted within Hunters book Re-Thinking the Cold War; “In the process it inserted itself into the economies of the two protagonists, shaped people’s political choices, and led to the death of millions/for the better part of forty years it threatened to destroy us all.”3 This stresses the fact that the Cold War indirectly caused the death of many others due to the use of intervention in the control of other countries. We can see this running rife within the 1940s and 1950s, yet it is generally perceived that the 1960s and 1970s focused on debating and discussing subject matters such as Mutually Assured Destruction; “Despite the tensions and fear of nuclear war, the Cold War division between East and West proved surprisingly stable after 1961, despite France anti-Americanism and Russia crushing the Prague Spring. There was instead conflict on the global stage.”4 This then brought about the period known as the Détente which is synonymous with easing tensions and assuring the stability and welfare of the people and state. Therefore, we can see that the Cold War experienced relaxation periods and progression; yet this simply detracts away from this notion of global conflict, which simply has a knock on effect so to speak.
2 Colin Bown and Peter J. Mooney, Cold War to Détente 1945-85 second edition, Heinemann Educational 1981, p.5
3 Allen Hunter, Re-Thinking the Cold War, Temple University Press 1998, p.157
4 Robert Wilde, Introduction to the Cold War in Europe, , date accessed 17/3/11
The Warsaw Pact (1955) and NATO were two external bodies which were set up to enforce cooperation and mutual defence of its members. On one hand this can be regarded as constitutions who sought to protect themselves and its allies through political and military command. “military doctrines, which determine how each alliance builds and organizes its military forces are quite different…the Pact prefers large numbers of major weapons and formations over training , logistics and the command and control functions.”5 Clearly, this excerpt taken Dunbabin’s The Cold War brings to light the underlying processes taken when creating a body whose sole purpose is to use conflict towards outsiders. The fact that ‘Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance’ revolves around a largely military based emphasis may highlight both the USA and the USSR as promoters of conflict, within 1983, the Warsaw Pact claimed to have more defence arms than NATO, giving them a significant advantage. Yet, this may be debateable; the fact that both organizations had these weapons may suggest that it was in place to prevent others from attacking, but initially a country with such nuclear weaponry may suggest that open warfare may have occurred whilst the weapons were simply a preventative.
Additionally, the idea of promoting war can relate to the use of an effective and impressionable tool, this of course being propaganda. “While Truman acknowledged the importance of propaganda as a peacetime instrument of foreign policy, it was primarily the Cold War that institutionalized propaganda as a permanent instrument of U.S. foreign policy.”6 This suggests that Truman, the US President at the time in question, states that the use of propaganda as a peacetime instrument. On the contrary, the Campaign of Truth was introduced into American society via propaganda, “The Campaign of Truth also brought a change in the style and content of U.S. propaganda output, which shifted from objective-sounding news and information to hard-hitting propaganda in its most obvious form—cartoons depicting bloodthirsty communists, vituperative anticommunist polemics, and sensational commentary.”7 From this, we can see a shift from ‘objective-sounding news’ to creating a vivid and reviled image of the Communists (in particular the Soviets.)
5 J.P.D Dunbabin, The Cold War, The Great Powers and their Allies, Longman Group Limited 1994, p.151
6 & 7 Propaganda – Cold War, , date accessed 17/3/11
Graebner, author of The Cold War: Ideological Conflict or Power Struggle? put forward this aspect, “The Communist Party of the Soviet Union at its Twentieth Congress made it clear that the allegations that the Soviet Union intends to overthrow Capitalism are absolutely unfounded/ The principal of peaceful competition does not at all demand that one or another state abandon the system and ideology adopted by it.”8
Firstly, the latter quote highlights the role of a functioning state that practice their beliefs through their political and ideological leanings. It is worthy to note that the ideology in itself is not a just or feasible reason to engage in confrontation; surely there are other factors which bring about this.
“From where we are now, it is possible to look back with a certain nostalgia to the cold war, a period of immobility in world affairs that brought with it "a strange sort of peace". In a new Afterword, Jeremy Isaacs and Taylor Downing argue that we now live in a more uncertain world of "fraught and perilous disorder", as cold war stability gives way to movement and flux, resurgent nationalism, nuclear proliferation and terrorism. For 45 years, the US and the USSR kept the "balance of terror".”9 This piece from a Guardian article stresses that the Cold War did indeed promote peace in its aftermath, yet during the inter-war years, conflict obviously resided.
Throughout, it is apparent that nonexistent threats are made in order to threaten the enemy into believing they have the power to eradicate the opposition; “The nuclear alert was based on a diplomacy-supporting stratagem Nixon called the Madman Theory, or "the principle of the threat of excessive force. Nixon was convinced that his power would be enhanced if his opponents thought he might use excessive force, even nuclear force.
8 Norman A. Gaebner, The Cold War: Ideological Conflict or Power Struggle?, D.C. Heath and Company 1963, p.81
9 Ian Pindar, The Guardian, , date accessed 17/3/11
That, coupled with his reputation for ruthlessness, he believed, would suggest that he was dangerously unpredictable.”10 This leads one to believe that the Cold War represented a war which was based on threats and the possibilities of what might happen. This offers a dichotomy; on one hand we have Nixon displaying forceful tactics and an overt willingness to engage in open warfare, yet covertly this indirectly highlights the need to prevent conflict through the use of tactics and theoretical ideas.
Overall, the years 1945-1991 signified a somewhat futile period within history; it would be a travesty to forget that the Cold War plunged other countries into war as a result of largely political and ideological concepts. Both the USSR and USA created the initiative to promote peace and to prevent conflict through the creation of state organizations as previously discussed. Undeniably, propaganda becomes the epitome of promoting conflict; this is the only image the masses see of their ‘enemy’, hence this retains importance in shaping the views and preconceptions of those individuals. In relation to the question, it is extremely difficult to outright state whether the Cold War prevented or promoted conflict as both notions intertwine so naturally; both link together as it is almost impossible for one to exist as a single function. We have seen this from a propaganda point of view, the fact that an image has the power to both bring about peace yet at the same time promote it.
10 Nixon ‘Madam Theory,’ http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/cold-war/strategy/strategy-nixon-madman-theory.htm, date accessed 17/3/11
