The Cold War
In April 1950, the Secretaries of State and Defense published a document that was known by the name "NSC 68." NSC 68 was a report on the objectives and programs the US should pursue in its dealings with communism. It outlined the weaknesses and strengths of both the United States and the Soviet Union, the two nations it identified as world super powers. With warring ideologies and high tensions, these two countries were the primary combatants in the conflict known as "the Cold War." However, the conflict between these two countries spread to other nations, and created other situations. The Cold War became a world war, affecting regions and nations far removed from either the United States or the USSR. In judging NSC 68, it becomes necessary to examine incidents in which the document's objectives and programs could be applied. Such a task is relatively simple, as there are a multitude of incidents of conflict between communism and capitalism during the period of 1950 to 1975 (when NSC 68 was released to the public). In this report, evidence will be shown that, during the period of 1954-1961, government officials were sporadic in their applications of NSC 68. Using the Guatemalan Coup of 1954, the Suez Crisis of 1956, and the Bay of Pigs incident of 1961, this paper will show that the United States government of this time applied the principles expressed in NSC 68 in
Stalin's rise to power
Following the death of Lenin, there was a sense of confusion as to who would lead Russia. The idea was Russia would be led by a 'Collective Leadership', consisting of Kamenev, Stalin, Trotsky and Zinoviev, as there was no layout for the election of a new leader. Stalin used this idea as a base to gain power within the Communist Party and the government. At the time, Russia was governed through the politburo. The politburo was a small assembly of key party officials that ran the Communist Party. The death of Lenin ignited a leadership contest especially between Stalin and Trotsky. The personalities of both men were crucial to the leadership contest. Stalin was more central to the Communist party whereas Trotsky represented the Left Wing of the party. Trotsky was an easy target for his rivals as he was a former Menshevik and was brought up in a Jewish family. Whereas Stalin was less known and stayed away from awkward debates. Stalin was considered by many as a 'grey blur'1 as he was someone who was a good administrator but lacked personality. As there was no leader of the Communist Party, and as Lenin was renowned as a main figure of the party. Stalin decided to use Lenin as way of getting the Russian people on his side. Stalin, did many things to associate himself with Lenin such as embalm Lenin's body so people could worship him but this did not go down to well with
Shay's rebellion.
Shay's Rebellion Alan Brinkley, author of American History: A Survey, portrays Shay's Rebellion as an uprising of poor farmers in Massachusetts in 1786. These poor farmers were indebt and demanded relief. However, Leonard Richards, author of Shay's Rebellion The American Revolution's Final Battle, denounces this representation of the rebellion. He reveals that Shay's Rebellion was much more than it has been thought to be. The rebellion was actually more widespread within its participants and supporters and that it represented whole communities-the wealthy and the poor, the prominent and the powerless. I believe that Richards representation of Shay's Rebellion is much more accurate because he has studied many of the contemporary records and through his novel, he provides a clear picture of the true character of the rebellion in many aspects. To Richards, Shay's Rebellion has never been fully appreciated because it has always been seen as only a small group of poor farmers and debtors disputing the local civil authority. In spite of these beliefs, Richards states that Shay's Rebellion was not a small group, but encompassed thousands of citizens of Massachusetts. When the Rebellion was put down, there were "eighteen death sentences, two actual hangings, several hundred indictments, and some four thousand confessions of wrongdoing."(p.43) The numbers of rebels therefore
Russian Revolution in Dates.
Russian Revolution in Dates 905 Jan Bloody Sunday - Tsarist troops open fire on a peaceful demonstration of workers in St Petersburg. 905 October General Strike sweeps Russia which ends when the Tsar promises a constitution. 905 December In response to the suppression of the St Petersburg Soviet the Moscow Soviet organises a disastrous insurrection that the government suppresses after five days 906 The promised parliament, the Duma, is dissolved when it produces an anti government majority even though elected on a narrow franchise. 911-1914 A new wave of workers unrest ends with the outbreak of the First World War 917 Feb After several days of demonstrations in Petrograd (formally St Petersburg) the government orders troops to open fire. The next day these troops mutiny. The Tsar abdicates when he hears that Moscow too has joined the Revolution. An agreement is reached between the Petrograd Soviet and the Provisional Government headed by Lvov. 917 March 12th Abolition of the death Penalty 917 April 18th Milyukov note. Milyukov tells allies that war aims unchanged. 917 April 20 - 21 The April Days. Opposition to the Foreign Minister Milyukov boils over due to his refusal to renounce annexations. 917 May Milyukov resigns. Members of the Mensheviks and the Socialist Revolutionaries join the government. 917 June 3 First All-Russia Congress of Workers and
To what extent did Britain benefit from her Empire in the Eighteenth century?
To what extent did Britain benefit from her empire in the eighteenth century? ________________ The empire was an all-embracing force in the eighteenth century and the tributaries of its effects formed a strong river of influence on all aspects life in Britain. Empire shaped and became an essential part of the identity of Britain economically, politically and culturally. Indeed, it is impossible to split Britain from her empire and their dynamic encounter and exchange. As one nineteenth-century historian wrote in 1883, “The history of England is not in England, but in America and Asia.”[1] With hindsight and taking the century as a whole, it is easy to map the impact of empire and evaluate its effects in developing all aspects of British life. The historian can see the growth and changes commercially, militarily and culturally and the watersheds for religion and national identity from which it is easy to assess whether these were benefits accordingly. However, Britain’s climb to commercial, naval and imperial hegemony was unplanned, fortuitous, contingent and at times chaotic. For the generations who lived through it, it must have been a roller coaster experience, from the highs of victory after the Seven Years’ War in 1763 to the defeat at Yorktown in 1781, and we must share in these contrasting emotions to fully appreciate the impact, especially when assessing
The Vietnam War
The Vietnam War The 1960s manifested a period of transformation and societal revolution for scores of citizens in the United States. The Civil Rights Movement was in full force, humans took the first steps on the moon, anguish concerning the murders of both President Kennedy and Dr. King Jr... Furthermore, the rising of countercultures, which facilitated communal living, hippies, drugs, and rock and roll. The Anti-War movement began and became the focal point of several university and college campuses where they protested the Vietnam War and The Draft. Antiwar demonstrations were going on across the country and the demonstration at Kent State University on May 04, 1970, had students assembled to protest the Vietnam War and the assault on Cambodia. In The Vietnam Era 1963 -1965 (2005), it was found James Rhodes the Ohio state Governor at the time called upon the U.S. National Guard with the purpose of putting an end to the demonstration and demanding the students to disband. The student protesters would not comply and the U. S. National Guard discharged weapons into the crowd of people gathered. This caused the death of four students and injuries to nine other students, some of which were students not even involved with the demonstration. This confrontation at Kent State became the fuel of the antiwar movement of the 1970s. Furthermore, In The Vietnam Era 1963 -1965 (2005),
Why was it Important that the Gallipoli Campaign should succeed?
Why was it Important that the Gallipoli Campaign should succeed? Gallipoli is in Turkey, near the Dardanelle's. The Peninsula of Gallipoli lays in Turkey, which forms one side of the Dardanelles Straits, which is only about 45 miles long, its historic waterway links the Black Sea and the Aegean Sea. The campaign was started on March 18th 1915. It was started to try and knock Turkey out of the war, because they had just signed an agreement with Germany and were now attacking Russia. As well as those reasons there were many more which made it important for the campaign to succeed. Firstly I will look at the strategic value of turkey, at Gallipoli. First of all Britain felt that Turkey needed to be knocked out of the war. As this would encourage Balkan countries around them to support us. Their help was much needed, as it would mean another front could be opened up in Austria-Hungary and it would put Germany under a huge amount of pressure, as they would now be fighting on three fronts. Also England was worried that Turkey would threaten our colonies such as India. Not just as a threat of them taking them over but it would show them that Britain could be defeated and that they could break away from our empire. There were many ways that Britain thought of knocking Turkey out of the war, however the one they used as one of their main aims was to invade Constantinople and destroy
Why was it important that the Gallipoli campaign should succeed?
Why was it important that the Gallipoli campaign should succeed? The Gallipoli campaign was thought to be a much need breakthrough for the Allies at the time when on the western front was stuck in stalemate with many casualties and little progress being made it was thought that the allies could open up a new line of attack on the central powers and kill any threat from Turkey. The allies' thought that Turkey was the weakest link of the central powers so would be the easiest to topple. As Lloyd George said they were the 'props under Germany' but later found to be false. The Gallipoli campaign was a much needed was a much needed breakthrough for the allies as the Russians who were fighting already on the eastern front were short on supplies and suffering great loses. Without the Russians fighting in the east the allies would face a greater chance of lose in the west as all of the central powers forces could be directed in the west, which would put even more pressure on the slowly diminishing allied forces. The allies hoped that with success in Gallipoli would open up an all year round much need shipping route to Russia as the only other route was in the north and would freeze for much of the winter and cut off Russia from supplies. Therefore the route through the Dardanelles was needed to be open to the allies to send Russia much needed supplies are avoid the collapse of
Why Was There A Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962?
Why Was There A Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962? There are many factors that lead to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. I do not think that the crisis would have taken part without all of these points working together; they all resulted in the increase of tension between the United States and the Soviet Union. Some of the factors are the growing hostility towards Fidel Castro and his 'communist' ideas and actions, the Cuban Revolution, the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Arms Race, and the nuclear missiles. The Cuban Revolution played quite a large part in the build up to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Between 1934 and 1939 General Fulgencio Batisita ruled Cuba, he was sure he did not do anything that would displease the American government. Fidel Castro, however, led a successful revolution against Batista and took control over Cuba in 1939. The US government had suspicions that Castro was a communist, these suspicions grew as Castro began a thorough programme of reform of Cuba's economy and society, for example the government began to nationalise industries and to take over land and redistribute among the peasants. Castro was aware of the danger of falling out with the US government but was determined to carry out reforms. The Cuban Revolution and the take over of the 'communist' Castro built up the US hostility towards him. President Eisenhower refused to meet Castro when
