To what extent was the Korean War a product of the cold war tensions?
To what extent was the Korean War a product of the cold war tensions? There is two answers to this question one is yes it was a product of the cold war and the other is no it wasn't a product of the cold war. In this essay we are going to discuss both arguments in much more depth and come to a conclusion to which answer is right. Firstly we will start with the answer yes it was a product of the cold war. The Korean War was a product of the cold war tensions because the cold war was a conflict between to opposing ideologies, communism and capitalism. By 1949 the cold war tensions were at boiling point because of events such as the Truman doctrine, Marshall plan and Berlin blockade, at these events things happened that caused tension and misunderstanding between the east and south. The Truman Doctrine stated that the US would aid any country under attack by armed minorities, it was made because of the situation in Greece but Stalin knew that it was aimed at preventing the spread of communism and this caused Stalin misunderstandings and anger to why this was made. The Marshall plan was aimed at recovering the war-torn Europe by giving out US financial aid but the conditions attached made it impossible for communist countries to be able to receive this aid. Lastly the Berlin Blockade was a flashpoint of the cold war because it almost mounted to actual war between the east and
How Strong was Opposition to Continental Commitments in the 1920's
How Strong was Opposition to Continental Commitments in the 1920's In the aftermath of WW1, the focal issue facing Britain was without a doubt the question of recovery and recuperation. The war had been an economic and social disaster for Britain due to the collapse of the world export trade which resulted in considerable debt and hence financial instability. This meant that Britain would have to concentrate all of its efforts and resources into achieving social and economic revitalization. It was subsequently felt that committing to any continental agreements would undermine this goal. A continental commitment can be described as a commitment to maintaining the peace of the continent by greater diplomatic , financial and if need be by military intervention that was normally the case in peacetime. This meant for Britain that it would have to negotiate the Treaty of Versailles, improve Franco-German relations and settle German grievances that ensued after the Great War. Clearly it lay in Britain's interests to continentally isolate itself from other nations, but was never absolute due to Britain's being at the heart of Europe. Britain needed to focus on economic and social recovery but its renowned status for power and world leadership simply did not allow Britain to sink back into the shadows and concentrate on itself. After the war, despite Britain's will to recover,
How and why did the Cold War Develop In Europe between 1945-1949?
Lloyd Griffiths 11E How and why did the Cold War Develop In Europe between 1945-1949? The Cold War was one of the most dangerous wars in History. It threatened to destroy life on Earth with its new threat of technologically advanced weapons that were a vast change from other forms of warfare used in the First and Second World Wars. The Cold War was fought mostly in the second half of the twentieth century and involved The United States and Russia and their allies. It was called the Cold War because despite the danger of the war, there was no direct combat between U.S.A and Russia and no official battles or fights went on between the two sides. The new weapons that were being developed made the Cold War so frightening and dangerous because they were more powerful and destructive than anything seen or used before them because they could be dropped at the press of a button and were more accurate and lethal than previous weapons. This was just one of the factors that made the Cold War so dangerous. One of the other reasons why the Cold War was so dangerous was the opponents who fought in it. These were the United States of America and the U.S.S.R or Russia, as it is now known. Both of these countries had fought in the Second World War but it was Russia that had been affected the worst of all the countries fighting, losing between 20 and 30 million men, a figure brought up to 40
How Successful Was the League in The 1920's and 1930's? The League of Nations was the brain child of Woodrow Wilson
How Successful Was the League in The 1920's and 1930's? The League of Nations was the brain child of Woodrow Wilson, US President. It was the last of his 14 points expressed to Britain and France during the Big Three's Geneva Peace Conference which said that a new international organisation devoted to preserving the future peace of the world and preventing such conflicts as World War One, which was the whole reason why the were discussing peace anyway. The League of Nations aimed to promote and carry out disarmament around the world, cease conflicts and even prevent them from happening in the first place. It was the innovation that the world needed to come together and co-operate - And so the League was formed, January 1920 in Geneva, Switzerland. The League had many different sub-sections that made up the League; each section did their own jobs to help the League maintain peace. The three sections were: * The Assembly --> Was made up of 45 countries met once a year in Geneva to discuss what the League thought of as 'small issues.' The power they wiled was relatively little in comparison to that of the Council's authority and power. * The Council --> Were the Heads of the League, and they wielded the most power. The 4 countries that made up the Council were Britain, France, Italy and Japan. This section of the League drew up such things as treaties and other laws in the
The cold war arose due to ideological conflict.
Cold War The cold war arose due to ideological conflict. The two main ideologies at the time, capitalism and communism were both complete opposites and could not exist with each other. Communism called for complete government control, and lack of civil liberties. Capitalism promoted civil rights and free trade. Thus, the two could not exist together and the Cold War was a direct result of this. Both ideologies looked to expand, and so they both had to fight each other to exist. Communism was such that it was required to expand, to fulfill its idea of a perfect world. The Soviet Union set up special camps to train communists simply to start revolutions. Capitalist also required growth, however it needed this was economic growth on which it was based. It needed to open new markets to trade and sell goods. These differences didn't allow either ideology to exist peacefully while the other existed. The Cold War was inevitable as both ideologies needed to expand their sphere of influence in the world. The Truman doctrine was issued in March 12, 1947 in an important first step to attempt to fight the growing spread of communism. The UK could no longer provide enough support to prevent the growth of communism. At this stage, Europe had undergone a recession, after involvement in World War Two, as communism was growing in the East through the Soviet Union gaining satellite states
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
Nothing short of war could have any effect on the Russian system of government.' How accurate is this
"Nothing short of war could have any effect on the Russian system of government." How accurate is this view of the Tsarist system of government from 1800 to 1917? I believe that throughout history, the Tsars felt threatened. They then reformed in order to stay in power, and to stay in for power alone. However, this mindset only had an effect when the Tsar's power was threatened. Nevertheless, I believe that to find the factors that had an effect on the Russian system of government, one must look for the reason why felt threatened. Here war was an important factor, however it was not the only factor. Otherwise reform would not have occurred without war. I believe that if these other aforementioned factors were important enough to cause political change, then they must rank alongside war in terms of importance. However it was not "the locomotive of history". i Together with discontent in the populace, and its manifestations (strikes, revolutionary activity, and assassinations), I believe War invariably changed the Russian political system. I believe war had an impact for several reasons. Throughout the period described Russia took part in three wars, in which they were crushed. Firstly, when a country fails in war, some would see it as being a sign that the country is less advanced in general. Firstly, the realisation that one's country was backward and prone to invasion
How did Stalin Change Russia? Which of his Achievements did he truly make and which were Merely Soviet Propaganda?
How did Stalin Change Russia? Which of his Achievements did he truly make and which were Merely Soviet Propaganda? When Lenin died in 1924, his communist takeover not yet complete, Russia was beginning to decline. The country's economy and production was substantially weakened from firstly World War One and secondly Russia's own Civil war between the communists (reds) and the monarchists, conservatives, and liberals (whites): millions of Russians had died, not only from being sent to fight in the Wars, but the people back home from the economic depression and famine it caused. The country was in ruins: Industry was in a terrible state, production was only 13% of what it was in 1914, before the war; Trade was almost non-existent, international relations with France, Britain, and U.S.A had been ruined by the treaty of Brest-Livosk and Bolshevik uprising; Russia's technology had not advanced in years, they were weak and backward, behind the western world by decades; They had little food supply, agricultural production was pathetic; and generally the people had a poor quality of life, and little service provided by the government. The Soviet Union had no leader and this left many politicians more concentrated on taking power than sorting out Russia's problems, and new parties began to arise again. The main political struggle was between Leon Trotsky and Stalin. Stalin used his
Comparing and contrasting the practices and strategies utilized in the Korean and Vietnam wars
Joseph Hagan 7 June 2004 HOTA Pd.1 Mr. Munro Comparing and contrasting the practices and strategies utilized in the Korean and Vietnam wars Two of the greatest battles which were fought by similar foes were those of the Korean and Vietnamese wars. Both conflicts involved a "communist" and "capitalist" participant(s) which had their own ideals and reasons for why to include themselves into such conflicts. There are also other similarities other than the opponents in these wars, such as the military tactics and strategies which were effectuated during this time. In both cases, the U.S. intervened forcefully introducing large masses of militia and using a considerable amount of armament, yet on the other hand, their enemies were supported by their allies throughout the duration of both conflicts and succeeded militarily against the democratic forces. To start off with, during the Korean War, North Korea invaded the southern sector of the country without any warning. Similarly, the Vietcong started a revolution in Vietnam by trying to take over all of the country without addressing the issue publicly. As a reaction to this, the U.S. answered by interfering in both instances. In Korea, the U.S. sent several troops along with U.N. forces in order to take back South Korea and to establish "peace" once again. In Vietnam, the U.S. sent its troops to fight the Vietcong's attempt
Was it the technological or tactical changes which had the greater influence in determining the course of the Hapsburg-Valois Wars?
Was it the technological or tactical changes which had the greater influence in determining the course of the Hapsburg-Valois Wars? Most historians believe that between 1300 and 1648, a military revolution took place, and the main part of it occurred during the course of the Hapsburg - Valois Wars. However it is a cause of fierce debate as to whether it was changes in tactics or changes in military technology which determined the course of the wars. Charles VIII of France initiated a costly and prolonged dynastic war when he invaded Italy in 1494. Until 1559, the Spanish would contest French domination of the peninsula as a shifting array of Italian city-states allied themselves with one side or the other. This conflict constituted part of the Valois-Habsburg wars-so named after the names of the ruling families of France and Spain, respectively. Large-scale battles were exceptional because of their risk, which was enhanced by the development of fortification. An enemy defeated in the field was likely to escape decisive consequences by withdrawing behind defences whose reduction involved massive expenses of time and effort. Medieval warfare therefore tended towards a process of small-scale manoeuvres, raids, and skirmishes based on regional networks of fortifications. This attritional model in turn highlighted the familiar limitations of feudal levies: short service and