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
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." 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 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
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? (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,
How far do you agree that the Cold War broke out in Europe because the USA and the USSR disagreed fundamentally about how they should treat the shattered European economy?
How far do you agree that the Cold War broke out in Europe because the USA and the USSR disagreed fundamentally about how they should treat the shattered European economy? Subsequent to the Second World War in 1945, the European economy was in tatters as much of the infrastructure had been laid to waste and industrial centres destroyed. As such, the two main victors of the war, the United States of America (USA) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), declared their commitment to postwar unity and mutual cooperation in improving global conditions. 1 Yet, in less than two years, a fervent rivalry between the two nations led to a breaking up of accord, concerning mutual blaming, the division of Europe, as well as the difference in political ideologies. The Cold War broke out in Europe in 1947, signifying a sharp and unexpected deterioration in postwar relations between the USA and USSR. Yet all through this period, the rivalry between the two superpowers was played out in numerous areas: military coalitions; ideology, military, industrial, and technological developments. Europe was split in half, with Western Europe supporting the USA, and Eastern Europe being an ally of the USSR. So, was the disagreement on how to deal with the shattered European economy between the USA and USSR the sole reason for the Cold War? I would agree with this statement only to a small
To what extent was the alliance system responsible for the outbreak of World War One in 1914? In the Treaty of Versailles after World War One, the Triple Entente immediately placed blame on Germany's aggression and scheming tactics for the outbreak of war. However, over time, the causes behind the war began to become more obviously complex. One of the most commonly citied reasons is the alliance system. Prior to the war, the countries of Europe had formed complex alliances and, with their empirical statuses, this apparently created a chain that a single trigger (the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand) would set into inevitable motion. But how important was the pre-1914 alliance system in causing World War One? Firstly, we must come to understand exactly what the alliance system comprised of. Indeed, many of these 'alliances' were not really alliances at all, but mutual agreements in relation to trade or colonial territories. One of the most prominent and important alliances was that of Russia to Serbia. Russia had promised to protect the Serbian people and their rights. Austria-Hungary had control over areas where Balkan people were prominent, conflicting Russian policy and ultimately leading to war. Another vital alliance was that of Austria-Hungary and Germany. In July, 1914, Germany had given a Carte Blanche to Austria-Hungary, promising unconditional support in
How far do you agree that Lenins leadership was the main reason why the Bolsheviks were able to seize power?
How far do you agree that Lenin's leadership was the main reason why the Bolsheviks were able to seize power? The Bolsheviks were able to successfully seize power for many reasons. Firstly the weakness of the provisional government made it easy to take power, secondly Trotsky's careful planning made sure the take-over was executed with great efficiency and finally the return of Lenin did help to build support and encourage the Bolsheviks to seize power. The First main reason the Bolsheviks were able to seize power was the failure the Provisional Government brought on itself. It had failed miserably in solving Russia's problems. The government was unsuccessful in combating the problem of having two governments it simply undermined its own power by doing nothing to stop the Soviets, it continued to fight a war the country could not afford and that was not supported by its people and a war in which in the end Russia did badly in, plus there was a massive lack of control over the countryside and so peasants seized control of land again proving the lack of authority the provisional government held. Ultimately all of these problems and the lack of authority was a huge factor in the downfall of the Provisional Government, you could argue that the government would have been overthrown without Lenin's leadership of the Bolsheviks as it was already widely unpopular and failing