Was the collapse of the USSR historically inevitable?
Was the collapse of the USSR historically inevitable? The twenty fifth of December 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev resigns as President of The Soviet Union and the country is dissolute in fifteen republics after an existence of nearly seventy years. Before this moment, less or none historians predicted this collapse. Nevertheless, one can ask the question whether this collapse was historically inevitable or not. The aim of this essay is not to rewrite History but explain what has lead to the end of the Soviet Union. First of all, this essay will describe shortly some important steps of the Soviet History after the Second World War and in the context of the Cold War, in order to help the understood of the final collapse. Even though the last years of the soviet regime were crucial, former events and policies influenced the Breakup of USSR. In the second part, I will analyze how some events and factors, such as economy, nationalism, internal and external pressures, personalities and the war of Afghanistan made this collapse inevitable. Even though some scholars, such as Gaddis1, argue that the end of the cold war and the collapse of Soviet Union were not historically expected, this essay will show that it seems inevitable. In order to understand the Collapse of the Soviet Union, some historical facts need to be reminded2. After the death of Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev became General
To what extent is Rambo: First Blood Part 2 typical of Hollywood main stream cinema's treatment of gender in the 1980's?
MAC 120 To what extent is Rambo: First Blood Part 2 typical of Hollywood mainstream cinema's treatment of gender in the 1980's? Action films in the 1980's reflected the changes and insecurity's within American society. There had been a rise in feminism meaning that the masculine form and dominance was being undermined and white working class males did not know where their place was in society. It was also in the immediate time after the Vietnam War and confusion and anger still lingered. The Vietnam War divided the American nation as a whole because, as it has been in recent times with the war in Iraq, people didn't fully understand why America needed to impose their presence in a country where they felt they had nothing to gain. The action film in the 1980's introduced a hero that differentiated masculinity and femininity using the form of the body as a way of ensuring power, dominance and self-respect. Rambo: First Blood Part 2 is a typical film of this era in terms of masculinity and the ways in which men and women are portrayed. In the film Rambo: First Blood Part 2 Sylvester Stallone portrays a typical action hero of the 'war film' genre in the 1980's but also an outcast of society after the Vietnam War. He is a veteran of Vietnam and came home to find that
Explain why America became increasingly involved in the affairs of Vietnam
Explain why America became increasingly involved in the affairs of Vietnam Before the Second World War Vietnam had been a French colony. Vietnam consisted of mainly thick jungle and most of the people who lived their were farmers growing rice on the flat, fertile land by the coast. The Japanese during the war occupied Vietnam. A strong resistance movement, Vietminh (anti-Japanese resistance movement) emerged with a communist leader, Ho Chi Minh. Ho Chi Minh inspired the Vietnamese people to fight for an independent Vietnam. When the war ended the Vietminh controlled the north of Vietnam and were ready to take control of the rest of the country. The French wanted to regain control of Vietnam again. The Vietnamese people had not fought the Japanese only then to hand over power to the French. In 1946 war broke out between the French and the Vietminh. Ho Chi Minh cleverly did not mention that he was communist so that countries such as the USA would not get involved. The French asked President Eisenhower of the United States to send American troops to help. There was even mention of using nuclear weapons. Eisenhower said 'No' to both of these requests. The United States had just ended the war in Korea in which over 40,000 American's had died. They were in no mood to see anymore Americans die in Vietnam. In 1949, Ho Chi Minh declared himself communist. This date was cleverly
To what extent is the oil crisis of 1973 a turning point in postwar economic development?
Chin Ying Lin Olivia (2) 6L 07/02/2010 To what extent can the oil crisis of 1973-4 be regarded as a turning point in the development of the international economy? The 1973 oil crisis was an event when the members of Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) proclaimed an oil embargo in response to the U.S. decision to re-supply the Israeli military during the Yom Kippur war and lasted until March 1974. In this essay, a "turning point" is defined to be a landmark- an event marking a unique or important historical change of course or one on which important developments depend. While acknowledging that the oil crisis certainly had dramatic and lasting impact on the development of the international economy: in terms of signifying the start of a worldwide shift in power away from the U.S for the first time, bringing about catastrophic repercussions on the international economy and also leading to the formation of the G-7 ; to regard it as a " turning point" would be an overstatement, due to the temporary nature of the crisis, as well as preceding events such as the collapse of the Bretton Woods System, and the continuity of dominance of the US in the global economy, albeit with lesser power than before the oil crisis. All these suggest otherwise: either that other events qualify more as a "turning point" than the oil crisis, or that there remained continuity of
"Asses the successes and failures of Mao's domestic policies between 1949 and 1976."
"Asses the successes and failures of Mao's domestic policies between 1949 and 1976." During the time period of 1919 to 1949, rival warlords and factions struggled to assert authority in China. The two chief contenders were the Nationalists, the Kuomintang led by Sun Yatzen, and the Communists, the CCP led by Mao Zedong. Mao's initial plan was to obtain support from the peasants as the consisted of more than 75% of the population in China. After the four year struggles that followed Japan's downfall after WWI, the CCP and Mao Zedong had won the civil war. In 1949, Mao declared the PRC, Peoples Republic of China. From this period on until 1949, Mao had numerous domestic policies, some were failures and some successes. These policies can be divided into 3 categories, "Economic, Thought reform and Political/social." His optimal goal was to turn China into a super power, a power as powerful or greater than The United States. The focus of this essay is to establish whether Mao achieved this goal with his domestic policies. The effect of the civil war on China was that there was major instability in the Country. Mao knew it and one of his major concerns in order to achieve his goals was to even out this insecurity. In 1949, Mao launched the Organic law which divided China into 6 subdivisions. Each of these were regulated by offices and bureaus, which also included officials. Force
How significant was Chinas intervention in deciding the course and outcome of the Korean War?
How Significant was China’s intervention in deciding the course and outcome of the Civil War? China’s intervention in the Korean played a significant part in deciding the course and outcome of the Civil War in a variety of ways. Among the most significant of these factors are the role played by the Chinese ‘volunteer’ army in pushing the UN forces back to the 38th Parallel and then South Korea, which prolonged a conflict which was seemingly going to be won by the UN. Without this intervention, the stalemate that led to the eventual Armistice would never have happened. Also, if China hadn’t intervened, then General MacArthur may not have been sacked by Truman, as part of the reason for his sacking was his failure to prevent the advance of the PRC; this would have been academic if the PRC hadn’t intervened in the war. If China had not intervened, MacArthur could have still been in control of the army ( as Truman would have had less reason to dismiss him), and as a result the US could have held a more aggressive stance towards attacking mainland China, as this is what MacArthur wanted in order to end the conflict quickly. Chinese intervention also meant that the damage and cost to all sides increased, as well as the significant impact China had on the eventual peace terms. One of the main factors that demonstrate the significance of the Chinese intervention was the
All of these factors helped to break stalemate: New Technology, The American entry into the war, the blockade of German ports and the German offensive in March 1918.How far do you agree with this statement?
All of these factors helped to break stalemate: New Technology, The American entry into the war, the blockade of German ports and the German offensive in March 1918. How far do you agree with this statement? Stalemate was on the western front for many years. It cost a lot of lives. It was finally broken however, in 1918. I will now examine each of the four factors that contributed to the breaking of stalemate to see if all of the above points did contribute to the breaking of stalemate, and see if I agree with the above statement. New Technology The tank was a main factor of new technology. The British invented the tank. When they were first invented they could travel at 6KM per hour and were armed with machine guns and cannons. It was first used at the Battle of the Somme (1916). The first time they were used they were not very manoeuvrable and very unreliable, they travelled at walking pace and it wasn't until November 1917 at Cambria when the tank achieved success. The tanks in Cambria had caterpillar tracks copied from the farm tractor and with armour plating; the tank was the answer to the machine gun, the trench and barbed wire. There were only a few tanks in the Battle of the Somme and the element of surprise was wasted but the Germans didn't copy the idea until it was too late. Attacks at Cambria with the 378 Mark IV tanks without a preliminary bombardment but
To what extent do you accept the view that the USA and the USSR were already divided by irreconcilable differences by the end of the fighting in Europe in May 1945?
To what extent do you accept the view that the USA and the USSR were already divided by irreconcilable differences by the end of the fighting in Europe in May 1945? I agree to some extent that the USA and USSR were already divided by irreconcilable differences by 1945 due to their ideological differences which contradicted the beliefs of the other nation. The USA believed in a democratic world which would benefit the economic interests of the USA with free open markets. However the USSR with its new position in the world aimed to improve its security by spreading its communist influence in neighbouring countries. Security was an important issue due to its past experiences of being attacked by the west through Eastern Europe such as the west's intervention in the Russian civil war of 1917-18. This experience therefore led the Soviet Union to have a mutual suspicion of the motives of the USA and the west during the war. Therefore the USA and USSR were already divided by 1945. However they were not completely divided as they managed to become allies in their fight against Nazi Germany. The fact that they were able to unite to fight a common cause which was to defeat Nazi Germany illustrates that they were not divided by irreconcilable differences by 1945. The two nations were already divided due to their ideological differences as highlighted in source 1 which is from the
How far was the Boer War, 1899-1902, a turning point in the history of the British Empire
How far was the Boer War, 1899-1902, a turning point in the history of the British Empire? (20) The Boer War symbolizes the climax of imperial tensions and excitement of the late 19th century, and can be viewed as a turning point in the history of the Empire, precipitating widespread changes. The first of these is a change in the attitudes towards the ideology of empire; the second is a change in terms of future administration of the empire; and the third is a change in the role of Britain as a dominant world power. The combination of these changes caused the beginnings of a series of transformations concerning the British Empire. The first significant turning point was in terms of attitudes to empire. At the end of the 19th century Britain was experiencing enormous prosperity, characterised by imperial expansion and dominance. Owing to her industrialisation and resulting wealth, Britain became a strong and influential world power, monopolising trade in Africa, India and Asia. Through her 'Open Door' policy in China, Britain controlled 70% of world trade, reaping enormous profits. Moreover, she controlled extremely profitable gold and diamond mining regions in Africa, and capitalised on trade in India which was a source of cheap materials and labour, as well as a huge and profitable market for British goods. Therefore, Britain's imperial position was strong and dominant,
To what extent did the nuclear arms race make the world a more dangerous place in the years 1949-63?
To what extent did the nuclear arms race make the world a more dangerous place in the years 1949-63? The arms race arguably made the world a more dangerous place, the word 'dangerous' could be defined as an unsafe threat to the world and human population. This was demonstrated through the tests of 'brinkmanship' in the Cuban missile crisis. The increased spending, in order to impress the 'third world', leading to new delivery systems, such as the ICBM's in 1957, the destructive power of the new H-bomb and Lithium bomb. However, the arms race acted as a strong deterrent through promise of 'Mutually Assured Destruction' and also creating a limited war due to the capacity of the nuclear weapons. The nuclear arms race made the world a more dangerous place; it evoked a threat coming from the two world superpowers. The destruction capacities of this developed nuclear weapon have increased thousand times more than the atomic bomb. The world greatly changed when the USA exploded the Hydrogen bomb in 1952; following by the Russians creation of the Hydrogen bomb in 1953 this led to the world becoming a much more dangerous place. This stimulated the arms race and creating a resilient competitive atmosphere between the world powers. In result obviously the damages of the consequences would be greater than of the atomic bomb more, therefore this placed the world in a dangerous position.