• 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. The Thirty Years War was a war over religion rather than politics. Do you ...

    Thus it could be said that the Dutch maintained war partially for religious reasons, namely to avoid possible religious unrest. France intervened in the conflict in 1635 for more clear-cut reasons. For France war was fought not over the religious divisions of Catholicism and Protestantism but politics.

  2. How far was the USSR responsible for the outbreak of the Cold War?

    The ideological antagonism also proved to be essential in the "cold" battle between the two superpowers, a conflict of ideologies that went back all the way to the contrasts between Wilson's and Lenin's views. Although allies in the Second World War, the fundamental ideological disparity still only made the alliance

  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. Superpower Relations 1945-90

    What happened in Hungary? * In October 1956 fighting broke out in Budapest between Hungarians and Soviet troops. The people wanted to get rid of Rakosi, the 'mini-Stalin' Prime Minister. On 24th October Khrushchev ordered the replacement of Rakosi for Imre Nagy, a more moderate communist.

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

    the personal and political threat posed by Stalinist tyranny and ruthlessness, particularly if Stalin himself had chosen, for whatever reason, to act out his most aggressive and paranoid instincts. But if a sphere-of-influence agreement had been possible, there is some reason to think-in light of initial Soviet acceptance of Western-style

  2. The Cold War was a big rivalry that developed after World War II.

    6 - Truman orders battleship USS Missouri to return the body of the late Turkish ambassador Mehmet Ertegun to Turkey (had died in the U.S. Nov. 11, 1944) � left NYC Mar. 22 - arrived in Istanbul Apr. 5 � this was a demonstration of U.S.

  1. 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

  2. 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

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