• 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...


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.


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.


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. Superpower Relations 1945-90

    The missiles in Cuba would be capable of targeting almost every American city. The US would lose the strategic advantage. How and why did Kennedy respond to the problem? On hearing the news, Kennedy called together a committee of his closest advisers, ExComm.

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

    The revelation of Soviet nuclear capability also made Truman increasingly wary of the threat of Soviet spying in the U.S. To him, the ease and rapidity at which the Soviets had been able to develop nuclear weaponry indicated that spies must have infiltrated the American military.

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

    strings attached and the creation of strong economies in a stable Europe would underpin democracy and bind the helped states both politically and economically to the US. The success of the Marshall Plan, with $15 billion spent between 1948-52 and an annual GNP growth in Europe of 20%, to Stalin,

  2. "Peaceful Coexistence was a period of relative freedom from tension, rather than one of ...

    This was to weigh heavily on the minds of those leaders on whose shoulders responsibility for using nuclear weapons would fall. These concerns pushed the superpowers towards some accommodation with each other. It was a hesitant and delicate process but the trend was there.

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

    For instance, the USA had intervened in the regional conflict thinking that North Korean crossing of the 38th parallel was premeditated by Stalin. Such misrepresentations of global communist activities as being a result of the sole manipulation of the Soviet leader, and not the local leaders themselves, are a quintessence of American paranoia and oversight.

  2. In the years 1953-1960 was president Eisenhowers cold war diplomacy based on confrontation rather ...

    This shows how Eisenhower was prepated to confront the communists from the beginning of his rule. Instead of military rollback the U.S. began a program of long-term psychological warfare to delegitimize Communist and pro-Communist regimes and help insurgents. These attempts began as early as 1945 in Eastern Europe, including efforts

  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 far do you agree with the view that the development of the Cold ...

    For example Churchill?s Iron Curtain speech in Fulton Missouri, 1946 and Kennan?s Long Telegram, 1946, which in essence threatened the USSR, and caused a huge increase in tensions between the two nations which was hugely important in the development of the Cold War in the years 1945-48.

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