Fidel Castro led the overthrow of the Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista in 1959 to become the leader of the first communist nation in the Western Hemisphere.
Introduction: Fidel Castro led the overthrow of the Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista in 1959 to become the leader of the first communist nation in the Western Hemisphere. For several decades, Castro has defied international opposition, the fall of communism in Eastern Europe, and a collapsing economy to remain president of Cuba. Whether he is a romantic revolutionary or a ruthless dictator, Castro, at the height of his power in the 1960s, could "weave a spell over his masses." (Geyer) Section 1: Worldview and Political Ideology: After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, Castro declared Cuba a socialist state and implemented Soviet-style economic central planning. In December 1961 Castro formally adopted Marxism-Leninism, declaring, "I am a Marxist-Leninist, and shall be one until the end of my life." Political activity was restricted to the Communist party of Cuba (PCC), which emerged out of the United Party of the Socialist Revolution. Castro gave communism total power in Cuba, and Communism gave Castro an ideology of total power. Castro remained the sole source of power, and decision-making became highly centralized and hierarchical. Cuba is a unique Communist country because it is the only one that came into the movement form the outside, and did not develop from within; it was given a doctrine, social and economic pattern, and material assistance. Ideology is the main, actually,
To what extent was the United States responsible for the collapse of the Grand Alliance at the end of the Second World War?
Academic Research Task - To what extent was the United States responsible for the collapse of the Grand Alliance at the end of the Second World War? The Grand Alliance was the term given to the co-operative mutual assistance relationship between the western powers, especially the United States and Britain, and the Soviet Union, which was formed to engineer the defeat of Nazi Germany in the Second World War. For the duration of the conflict, relations between these nations were fairly good: the Americans supplied billions of dollars' worth of war material to the USSR under the Lend-Lease arrangement (though with little enthusiasm: the first shipments did not arrive until late 19421), the Allies made attempts to co-ordinate their military activity, and all were agreed on the common understanding that defeating Hitler's Germany was essential for world peace and international security. Propaganda photographs of American and Soviet troops exchanging handshakes over the ruins of a defeated Third Reich gave every impression that the era of antipathy and hatred between nations was over, and that a new order of peace and prosperity would be built on the back of a crushed swastika.2 In reality however, by the end of the war the alliance was falling apart. Even before Germany had been defeated, major chasms were opening between the allied powers, and after the war concluded these
Examine the Evolution of Soviet doctrinal thinking during the Cold War.
Examine the Evolution of Soviet doctrinal thinking during the Cold War. Soviet Military Doctrine is entirely based upon the Marxist-Leninist teachings, which include both the ideological and methodological basis for soviet military doctrine and soviet military science. In 1969 the General of the Army Semyon P. Ivanov commandant of the Academy of the General Staff gave periodization for military doctrine: * 1st period: 1917 - 1928 civil war to Industrialization * 2nd period: 1929 - 1941 industrialization to great patriotic war * 3rd period: 1941 - 1945 great patriotic war * 4th period: 1946 - 1953 end of war to death of Stalin * 5th period: 1960 - the dissolution of the USSR new military doctrine Military Doctrine, First Stage (1917-1928) A. A. Svethcin, best known for his book 'Strategiya' believed that the concept of doctrine should be limited to the tactical outlook. M. V. Frunze stating that the doctrine had two parts laid out the principals of the initial doctrine: political & technical. * 'The state must define the nature of overall, in particular, military policy beforehand, designate the possible objects of its military intentions in accordance with its policy, and develop and institute a definitive plan of action for the state as a whole, one that would take account of future confrontations and ensure their success by making prudent use of the nation's
How Successful was Soviet Foreign Policy under Khrushchev and Brezhnev
How Successful was Soviet Foreign Policy under Khrushchev and Brezhnev? Weighing up the success of Soviet foreign policy from the years 1953 to 1982 has been a matter of great dispute between historians. However, it has been recognised that after the Second World War the Soviet Union 'played a clear and decisive role in defining the shape and pattern of world politics'1. Both the Khrushchev and Brezhnev eras were characterised by highs and lows regarding diplomatic and economic relations with the United States, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, the Third World and the Communist-bloc. The ambiguous meaning of the word 'success' makes this debate all the more difficult. The problem with this is that what may have been seen internally as a success may have been viewed by the outside world as a failure. It is all dependent upon the ideological aims of the soviet leadership of the time, whether it is peaceful coexistence, as pursued by Khrushchev or détente which was implicit in the Brezhnev era. The waves of cold war which characterised the post-war period meant that the struggle to improve relations was complex, and so success can not only be explained in terms of improved foreign relations, but also by strategical gains over other powers. The Khrushchev era has been described as one of peaceful coexistence with a definitive competitive edge.2 This is displayed in the
Explain How America Came to fight a War in Vietnam.
Explain how America came to fight a war in Vietnam. US involvement in the war in Vietnam was the culmination of poorly calculated risk-taking and a politically inept despot presiding over South Vietnam leading to the utter failure of US attempts at nation-building in the region between 1954-61. Graduated involvement in Vietnam began as a desire to keep a strategic outpost in Indochina during the politically unstable and explosive years of the cold war, as much to preserve a degree of stability in Europe as to prevent the spread of communism in south East Asia. When the US entered into all-out war it was as much an attempt by President Lyndon B. Johnson to placate Southern conservatives in order to implement the programme of domestic policies he had inherited from Kennedy. So in many ways the war in Vietnam was a desperate attempt to preserve the possibility of 'the Great Society' in America. American military action in Vietnam appears, on the face of it to be extremely unlikely. Without an understanding of European politics it seems that the US engaged in an alliance with the French, after some years of bitter division to fight a war that was extremely costly, in all possible senses of the word, and occurred in a region in which the U.S had no particular interest. It is often viewed as a necessary policy of Communist containment in South East Asia but seems to be
Wars of counter-insurgency cannot be won - discuss.
Wars of counter-insurgency cannot be won - discuss. The Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan defeated after many years of fighting the Taliban. The United States is currently fighting the same Taliban after invading them for the deadly attacks of Sept 1 2001. After a tremendously successful and devastating attack on the mullahs who ran Afghanistan with bunker busting bombs, the Americans and their European allies are struck in this quagmire where total victory has become illusive. The same tale is being repeated in Iraq, where the terrorist group Al Qaeda practices its hit-and-run strategy to devastating effect. By the same token there have been counter-insurgency movements that have been text-book successes. The Malayan counter-insurgency of the 1950s mounted by the British against the Malayan communist has been hailed as a fine example of the containment and defeat of counter insurgency forces. The defeat of the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka is another example. It is my thesis that history is chock-full of lessons of counter-insurgency and it is only through studying these lessons and principles and adapting them, that wars of counter- insurgency can be won. For as long as mankind has existed, war has been a long integrated element of life. History, time and again has proven it to be inescapable by-product of human nature. It can be argued that
Persian Gulf War Analysis
An Effective Use of Power? A look at the Persian Gulf War and the War in Iraq During the United States brief history, it has rarely been in a situation where it was directly threatened by a nation. This does not mean that it has not stepped in on plenty of conflicts though. As a super-power, and more recently a hegemonic power, the role of the United States has been to ensure the safety of not only its citizens, but of all human beings. In a more recent situation, the invasion of Kuwait was no exception to the responsibilities of the United States. What this paper discusses is whether the United States role in the Persian Gulf War was justified and that they did everything they could before relying on military action. International organizations have fought long and hard to develop international law focused on the law of war. Initially, these laws focused on the issues of traditional state-versus-state warfare. With the new age of warfare, international law must also attempt to regulate revolutionary and internal warfare and terrorism. In order to exemplify these diverse concerns, we must determine when a war is necessary and how it should be fought. This is when the "just war" theory comes into play. The "just war" theory consists of two parts: The cause of war and the conduct of war. It is mainly believed that the just cause of war (jus ad bellum) exists in cases where
Why were those who believed in genuinely democratic market socialism unable to prevent the collapse of the Soviet state and the Soviet system?
Why were those who believed in genuinely democratic market socialism unable to prevent the collapse of the Soviet state and the Soviet system? The collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991 seems astonishing considering the fact that its leader had been dedicated to ensuring its survival by means of radical reform. On his return to Russia after the August coup Gorbachev even offered to relinquish the Presidency of the USSR to Yeltsin in the vain hope that he would preserve it in some form. When Gorbachev finally resigned as President of the USSR the outcomes of perestroika seemed the exact opposite of its intentions. Rather than animating the inert superpower with the revitalising currents of democracy and market socialism, he had dealt it a mortal blow. This was by no means the expected outcome; in 1988 Moshe Lewin was still confident enough to suggest that "the USSR is entering its new age - the conditions may now be ripe or ripening for the system to reclaim some of the hope of its idealistic revolutions".1 By the end of 1988 Gorbachev had revolutionised the political system to the extent that a genuine contested elections to a new democratic body were planned for the following spring. At this stage the arguments of perestroika were, in Gorbachev's own words, "fully based on the principle of more socialism and more democracy".2 This idealistic goal owed an
Assess the impact of domestic policy considerations on foreign policy decision making with special reference to the CMC.
Assess the impact of domestic policy considerations on foreign policy decision making with special reference to the CMC. The Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962 was arguably the closest the United States and the Soviet Union came to a nuclear exchange in the whole history of the Cold War. The problem of resolving the crisis fell to the youngest president in American history, President John F Kennedy. The successful resolution of the crisis afforded President Kennedy much popularity and international prestige. Ormbsy Gore British ambassador to the US wrote to Kennedy on the 30th October 1962 "I am lost in admiration for the superb manner in which you have handled the momentous events of the critical week we have just lived through.....I mean it quite sincerely when I say that America and all of the free world must feel a deep sense of gratitude that you are President of the United States"1 Kennedy's successful resolution of the crisis seems significant when noting that 1962 was also an election year. The mid-term congressional election were due in November and Kennedy's domestic polices of his first two years had been hampered by a slim majority in Congress.2 It was essential for Kennedy to gain more seats in Congress if he did not want his first term to become a failure. Taking this into consideration Kennedy's critics have charged him with deliberately engineering
How relevant was the legacy or intrusion of the British Colonial Government in the Nigerian civil war between July 1967- January 1970? The investigation focuses on the developments from three main time periods: the pre-colonial era, the colonial era and t
The Biafran War NAME: Adedayo adewa. DATE: March, 2010. COURSE: COMN. 2312. DIRECTOR: Jose C. Curto. INTRODUCTION Nigeria, one of the biggest British colonies in Africa, was granted independence in 19601, but in 1967, the eastern region withdrew and declared itself the republic of Biafra. The result was a three-year bloody civil war between the federal government and the secessionists leading to Biafra's defeat. Reasons put forward for this conflict include religious, tribal, cultural, geographical and economic factors. A school of thought however, believes the civil war resulted from the legacy of the British and this essay examines the question, HOW RELEVANT WAS THE LEGACY OR INTRUSION OF THE BRITISH COLONIAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NIGERIAN CIVIL WAR BETWEEN JULY 1967- JANUARY 1970? The investigation focuses on the developments from three main time periods: the pre-colonial era, the colonial era and the postcolonial era, and examines those structures and legacies that contributed to the conflict.The colonial era appeared to have re-enforced the religious, tribal and historical divisions that existed in the pre-colonial era, added and gave new dimensions to the religious conflict. It also established some of the structure that gave rise to the post-independence inability to trust and produce capable and non-baised leaders.
