• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

In the years 1953-60, President Eisenhowers cold war diplomacy was based on confrontation rather than coexistence; How far do you agree with this view?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

In the years 1953-60, President Eisenhower?s cold war diplomacy was based on confrontation rather than coexistence; How far do you agree with this view? In the years of his presidency Dwight D. Eisenhower had to make a whole lot of complicated decisions some of which were headed towards peaceful coexistence with USSR, while others were clearly targeted against the Soviet Union. With the death of Stalin in 1953 it became possible to think of peaceful coexistence for the first time, as the new leader of the Soviet Party would emerge. Almost straight after his death signing Korean armistice in July 1953 did the first step towards peaceful coexistence. Even though new leader Nikita Khrushchev pledged to ?bury Western capitalism?, he rejected inevitability of war and pursued peaceful coexistence. As a result of that Geneva summit in October 1955 was the first time Superpowers spoke of peaceful coexistence, which was certainly a breakthrough. Spirit of Geneva eased the relations and by the end of the 50?s several Western leaders had visited Moscow and Khrushchev had toured the U.S., further talks on peaceful coexistence and even possible mutual disarmament were made at Camp David. This new understanding was supposed to be cemented in 1960 with the Paris summit conference, however the U2 incident preceded it at the root. Eisenhower would not apologize and relations deteriorated thereafter. All effort put into peaceful coexistence over almost a decade suddenly became invalid. ...read more.

Middle

The ?Spirit of Geneva? eased tensions between the Soviets and the United States even though the conference failed to produce any significant agreements. Khrushchev refused to accept Eisenhower?s ?open sky?s? initiative, but regardless to that Eisenhower would start U2 flights, which will lead to an incident in 1960. Eisenhower is acting only in the interests of his own country, not willing to compromise with the Soviets, ready to break his word. ?Peaceful coexistence? did not extend to Eastern Europe. In November 1956, Soviet tanks ruthlessly suppressed Hungarian uprising. American propaganda agencies such as Radio Free Europe and the Voice of America had encouraged Eastern Europeans to resist. Yet Eisenhower decided not to take action to aid the Hungarian freedom fighters since any intervention carried the risk of a U.S.-Soviet war that could lead to a nuclear exchange. Eisenhower hoped to achieve a detente with the Soviet Union and hopes rose after Khrushchev visited the United States in September 1959 and met with Eisenhower at the presidential retreat in the Maryland Mountains where they spoke of ?peaceful coexistence? and possible mutual disarmament. This summit produced no arms control agreement, but it did lead to good will and optimism known as ?the spirit of Camp David?. Khrushchev invited Eisenhower to Russia and they agreed to meet again in Paris in May 1960 to cement their understanding. The summit collapsed, however, due to the dispute over the U-2 incident. As the meeting with Khrushchev approached Eisenhower authorized another U-2 flight over Soviet territory. ...read more.

Conclusion

England, France and Israel decided to send troops there. Eisenhower was outraged. He thought the attacks would only strengthen Nasser, allowing him to become the champion of the Arab world as he opposed the aggressors. Eisenhower quickly condemned the attacks and used U.S. diplomatic and economic power to force all three nations to withdraw their troops. United States prestige in the Middle East rose. But Eisenhower hardly made good use of this advantage, as he announced a new program, known as the Eisenhower Doctrine, to provide economic and military aid to Middle Eastern nations facing Communist aggression. This Doctrine was welcomed by Lebanon and Saudi Arabia but denounced by Egypt and Syria as American plot to dominate the world. Used once in '58 when American troops went into Lebanon and protected government against Egyptian rebels. In conclusion I would like to say that despite all little steps made towards peaceful coexistence it all was really confrontational and both Eisenhower and Khrushchev understood this, playing their little coexistence game just to show that they are good (they are trying to coexist) and others are bad (this propaganda was massively used in both countries: Americans were saying that Soviets are the aggressors and vise versa). There were no real agreements made on coexistence while Eisenhower was constantly acting confrontationally towards communism throughout his office. He was not ready or willing to step into real conflict as it could lead to world destruction, but pinching the Soviets when he had a chance to do so. In my judgment, yes, Eisenhower?s cold war diplomacy was based on confrontation. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. Who was responsible for the start of the Cold war?

    Further more the Berlin Wall marked the end of Soviet incursion into Europe 'freezing the geographical status quo.' It was now most certainly East versus West. Tensions between the two superpowers were now at an all time height; yet it is true to say that at this stage the Americans

  2. To what extent was the Korean conflict of 1950 to 1953 a 'turning point' ...

    American response to the establishment of the People's Republic of China was another typical instance of the trends of the Cold War before 1953. On a basis of reasoning that was largely gratuitous by nature, Truman surmised that the Chinese communists were agents of Moscow sent by Stalin to communise

  1. Evaluate the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower.

    He asserts that Eisenhower saw little, if any, distinction between nuclear weapons and conventional weapons, and condems President Eisenhower's campaign to legitimate nuclear war (Schlesinger, 400). The British perspective that President Eisenhower's desire for the legitimacy of nuclear weapons may have been a greater threat to world peace than the Soviet Union is clearly illustrated (Schlesinger, 401-2).

  2. This graduation paper is about U.S. - Soviet relations in Cold War period. Our ...

    But if he had, the way might have been opened to quite a different-albeit politically risky- series of policies. None of this, of course, would have guaranteed the absence of conflict in Eastern Europe, Iran, or Turkey. Nor could any action of an American president-however much rooted in self-interest-have obviated

  1. How far did peaceful coexistence ease Cold War tensions between the Soviet Union and ...

    An agreement was made in the Geneva Summit on cultural exchanges of scientists, musicians and artists between the USA and the USSR which shows signs of ease in Cold War tensions, even though not an extent of significance. However, tensions were not actually eased as the West had opposed proposals

  2. How far did peaceful coexistence ease Cold War tensions between the Soviet Union and ...

    Khrushchev saw that confrontation with the West was no longer necessary, and that continued aggression would be costly for the Soviet Union. But in reality, the Soviets saw that because the downfall of capitalism was imminent, they did not have to make this downfall happen rapidly, as it would come

  1. How advantageous was the policy of detente to the management of the USA's Cold ...

    However there is a more critical approach to détente. If détente was a genuine success, détente wouldn’t have collapsed in the first place. Firstly nuclear weapons were only attempted to be “controlled” and never fully destroyed. Confusion occurred between the two nations on the number of weapons to reduce and

  2. In the context of the period 1905-2005, how far do you agree that Khrushchev ...

    state; by initially focusing of on the weaknesses of the current system, than providing an alternative structure, which was in direct comparison to the sole failures of the previous one, obviously superior - though whether or not these advantages where correctly comprehended by such individuals, is a different matter all

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work