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.
'By 1938, Hitler had created full employment in Germany. This is proof that Nazi economic policy was a success.' How far do you agree with this statement? The Nazi's economic policy certainly benefited Germany with unemployment rates drastically reduced, big businesses significantly boosted by rearmament, propaganda further exposed through the KPD and DAF, the currency stable and a steady increase in investments, and infrastructure in place to enable economic expansion along with many other improvements. However, there were also aspects of failure in which the German people took the toll. The people's wages were no higher in 1939 in comparison with 1928 and the number of working hours increased while the worker's rights were diminished. Hitler placed more emphasis on what he believed the nation needed in the future, rather than the demands from other party members, and the present needs of the people (guns and butter debate). As Hitler chose to rearm Germany faster, the level of lifestyle for the German people decreased with luxury items and consumer goods slowly became a rarity. Goerring, the new control over trade instinctively sped up rearmament so that the import value that would have been spent on food for the people, were spent on raw materials for the army. The aim of employing the nation was a definite success, with only 0.2 million unemployed by 1938, and an
To what extent was America's policy of containment successful? Use Korea, Cuba and Vietnam in your investigation.
To what extent was America's policy of containment successful? Use Korea, Cuba and Vietnam in your investigation. American policy of containment refers to the foreign policy strategy of the US in the early years of the Cold war. The policy was to defeat the Soviet Union by preventing it from expanding the territories under its Communist control or otherwise extending its influence. This, naturally, resulted in strained relations and rivalry between the two superpowers. Despite the many difficulties, American policy of containment during the Korean War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the Vietnam War did manage to contain the expansion of Communism to a certain extent. The containment of communism in Korea was successful. The Korean War, which started on June 25, 1950 and ended with a cease fire on July 27, 1953, was a civil war between North Korea and South Korea. This Cold War era fighting is considered to have been a proxy war between the United States and its Western democratic allies, and the Communist powers (Soviet Union and People's Republic of China). North Korea was supported by Communist China and the Soviet Union, and South Korea was supported by the United States and its Western allies. Communist North Korea sought to spread its influence and control to the South. In October 1950, hostility spilled over into open warfare. North Korean troops overwhelmed the South
How far do you agree that the actions of the USSR were primarily responsible for the division of Germany in 1949?
How far do you agree that the actions of the USSR were primarily responsible for the division of Germany in 1949? After the end of World War Two there were many meetings, including the Potsdam Conference, between the leaders of England, America and the USSR. It could be argued that the actions of the USSR were primarily responsible for the division of Germany in 1949, however this could be debated. Personally I think the actions of the USSR were primarily responsible. One of the reasons why the actions of the USSR were primarily responsible is due to Stalin's determination and need for a buffer zone for the USSR. The Battle of Berlin alone had resulted in over 300,000 casualties for the USSR and they had suffered more deaths in the war than England and America and so felt they needed the security more. Taking harsh reparations from Germany would render it weak and unable to attack again, providing the security that Stalin needed. The allies disagreed as it seemed similar to the approach tried after the First World War in the Treaty of Versailles (1919) and realised Stalin's plan would not work. As well as this there was a breakdown in cooperation due to Soviet intrusions in Eastern Europe. If the allies were to agree at all, Germany must be split and so the actions of the USSR were primarily responsible. Secondly, Stalin's introduction of communist-style government in the
Account for Mao's rise to power. Mao Zedong and the communist party came to power in 1949, we can account for the rise by applying Stephen Lee's criteria to it. The four main factors that led to this rise were conditions of China and failure of previous governments, failure of GMD, CCP tactics and strong leadership. It is important to note that not all these factors were created solely or even at all by Mao. Mao Zedong was one of the founding members of the CCP in 1921. His appointment as leader of the most successful communist base in Kiangsi gained him respect and in return for his services to the communist party he was elected Chairman of the central soviet government in 1931. It is difficult to unscramble Mao's individual contribution to the CCP's rise but many historians believe his background and personality helped him become chairman. Jung Chang1 disagrees, instead suggesting that he became leader through manipulation. It is generally undebated that Mao was a strong unifying leader this increased the CCP's popularity amongst the general population as problems that were affecting China such as disunification were a direct consequence of weak leadership. At the start of the 1900's China was industrially underdeveloped, traditional and weak. The failure of the traditional political system in china led to the formation of the CCP (not until 1921) and GMD as an
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
The Soviet Union developed its influence in Eastern Europe in the years 1945 1949 because it simply wanted to guarantee its security in the future. How valid is this assessment?
'The Soviet Union was aggressively expansionist and showed little enthusiasm for détente.' How valid is this statement? The Soviet Union had been known for being aggressively expansionist in the past, but in détente the Soviet Union acted more out of security reasons rather than expansionist such as in Afghanistan which was on the USSR's border and could of possibly handed the USA a geostrategic position over them, also during détente they showed real enthusiasm for détente and more so than the USA, this spawns from the USSR having a much more serious view of the meaning of détente. The statement isn't valid because firstly in the Arab-Israeli and Angola conflicts although they did get involved with aiding one side, the acted second, after the USA which shows that they were acting less out of their 'aggressive expansionist' nature and more out of a response to their rival, the USA. Within the Arab-Israeli and Angola conflicts the USSR never deployed troops and only aided one side within these conflicts compared to when they wanted to expand their sphere of influence into Eastern Europe, they installed the Red Army into the Eastern European states to occupy them. In Angola the USSR wasn't acting aggressively due to Cuba having sent troops and aid to the FNLA party within Angola as they supported communism, the Soviets felt that because they were the arbiter of
HOW IMPORTANT WAS FOREIGN INTERVENTION IN THE UNIFICATION OF ITALY BY 1870? BY ABUBAKAR A ABUBAKAR By 1870, after years of struggle, the Italian state was finally united. Unlike German unification Italians were not to be responsible for the entire process of national unity. Other powers were to play their parts in helping Italy unite. Some nations played a greater part than others, and therefore it will be necessary to address contributions of countries like France, Britain and Prussia. French intervention and of course that of Napoleon III played enormous roles during the various stages of the Italian unification. In 1849, France dispatched its forces to topple the new republican government of Mazzini and restore the Pope. This of course destabilised nationalists' aspiration of a united Italy. In 1858, Cavour and Napoleon arrived at what is known as a gentleman's agreement held at Plombieres in which France will support Piedmont with two hundred thousand troops in the event of war between Austria and Piedmont. Both men also agreed that after this war with Austria which hopefully will oust the Austrians from Italian territories, Italy will become a federal state made up of the kingdom of north Italy, the central duchies, Rome and the south Italian kingdom with the Pope as its president. In 1859, the war was fought and Napoleon III honoured his words and supplied Piedmont