Was the Cold War and Ideological Conflict between USA and USSR - Essay Example

Was the Cold War and ideological conflict between USA and USSR? The cold war was actually as a result of an ideological conflict between the two superpowers, USSR and the US. The two superpowers had their own different ways of administration in their respective countries. The US on one side had adopted their governing strategies from the constitution and allowed personal freedom and responsibility (Westad, 2005: 480). The US had created a room for reforms and embraced democracy. USSR on the other hand was built on communism ideological framework which was based on the tensions of ideals (Jervis, 2001: 56). The ideology provided no room for personal freedom but rather the leaders imposed heavy penalties and threats of punishment for any citizen who would question the administration. The USSR also wanted to control what was initially Tsarist Russia. To achieve this, USSR planned to use blunt force, propaganda and terrorist activities through secret police (Kirby, 2003: 402). After world war two, the US controlled West Germany while USSR controlled East Germany (TORUNO, 2002: 22). The US advocated for unification of the country but USSR was completely against unification and instead wanted full control. The US had for long struggled to stop the spread of communists’ ideologies to Europe and other continents and was in support of democracy and capitalism. Cold war was an ideological conflict between USSR and the US in that the two superpowers never engaged in direct conflict (Kramer, 1999: 540). Both blocs adopted strategies that were seen to pose security threats to each other as they both purchased expensive dangerous weapons in preparation of another world war that would soon arise. The two worked hard to outsmart each other in terms of weapons. In 1945, the US was far much ahead of USSR since it owned an atomic bomb (Wohlforth, 2000: 330). Tension between the two superpowers drove them to the cold war. The two therefore had the idea that there would be yet another conflict that would result in another war, the third world war. Countries which engaged in actual war such as Angola and Nicaragua were either in support of the US capitalist ideas or USSR communist ideas, a clear indicator that the cold war was purely ideological. Although ideological differences offer a firsthand explanation to the cold war, it cannot completely and adequately explain the cold war. There are other factors that cannot be ignored when describing the cold war thus ideological differences cannot be said to be purely the cause of the war. Firstly, Economic factors are important in this context. US on one side wanted to introduce free system of trade all over the world (Westad, 2005: 327). USSR on the other hand, wanted to create its own sphere as far as international trade was concerned (Wohlforth, 2000: 330). Attempts by the US to create free trade across the world, did not receive a warm welcome from Russia as Russia feared the erosion of their political culture which would be facilitated by trade between the two countries. Russia had a totalitarian form of government and therefore feared that trade with the US which embraced democracy would interfere with their system of governance (Jervis, 2001: 56). Cold war was not based on ideologically differences but rather it was a political struggle with all blocs working hard to control a better portion of the globe. Immediately after the Second World War, the conflicting blocs failed to agree on how the global power would be distributed between them. The US insisted on retaining full control of Asia, Africa and Latin America while at the same time it rejected the USSR’s proposal to have control over Eastern Europe (Wohlforth, 2000: 330). Eastern Europe was a major source of military power during the Second World War and was endowed with valuable resources and thus the two superpowers were not ready to let it go (Westad, 2005: 327). The struggle for power and control was thus characterised the cold war. Propaganda and the role of individual leaders are other important factors that cannot be overlooked when describing the events of the cold war. Propaganda in this context refers to the ways in which governments of the day marketed their policies in order to earn support from their citizens and maintain peace and unity in their respective countries. All the blocs marketed their policies through this media and each side would not rest till it outsmarted the other. The hope of the two superpowers working together and speaking in one voice faded with the death of Roosevelt in 1945 (Wohlforth, 2000: 330). Roosevelt was ready to work with Stalin and his death therefore was a major blow to unity between the conflicting blocs. Reasons for collapse of the Soviet Union The first reason for the fall of the Soviet Union was withdrawal of china’s support Voss et al. 1994: 29). After the end of the Second World War, both the U.S. and Soviet Union engaged in a cold war. It is noticeable that the Cold War was a major concern to the front during international affairs. Its main reason was to hold communism so as to keep away from nuclear conflicts from the communism rivals. China at first supported the Soviet Union but later withdrew its support and instead supported the Soviet Union (Solnick, 1998: 54). This was a major blow to the Soviet Union and in an attempt to counter the US- China coalition; it sought to expand its territories and mobilise support from other countries. The country ran out of funds in the process which led to its fall. The other reason for the fall of the Soviet Union was disagreement between the superpowers (Suny, 1993: 76). The two superpowers had great educational, economical and political differences. United States started developing disciplinary weapons which could be used when need arose. These arms referred to as strategic triad included: land arms, long range bombers and sub-marines (Voss et al. 1994: 29). This led to the rise of the first nuclear arm race where the two governments stored as many nuclear weapons as possible so as to maintain the other regime in line. Nuclear war was avoided in all possible ways in large parts because of the frightening tactics that were used during the cold war. Soviet Union and U. S. took part in space competition. The two countries aimed at being first in space for numerous reasons. This was because their defence and military capabilities would benefit after a victorious space program. This space race was greatly influenced by the ever increasing competition between U.S. and Soviet Union. The Soviet unification emerged as the winner by launching satellite Sputnik in the trajectory in 1958 Voss et al. 1994: 29). On the other hand, the United States was the first nation to successfully reach on the moon. The anxiety between both United States and Soviet Union was not just illustrated by the nuclear arms and space race. A number of Cold War associated crises rose over as years past on, for instance the Vietnam and Korean wars and Cove of Pigs incursion among others. The Soviet leader; Mikhail Gorbachev and United States president Ronald Reagan also exchanged fleeting look during the meetings (Voss et al. 1994: 29). ­All the activities that Soviet Union involved in such as the arms race, continuous support to the communist government and space race required lump sum amount of money. This led to a dormant economy where no virtually development occurred. In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev was elected as the president of the Communist Party where he became a strong supporter of change (Dallin, 1992: 280). Gorbachev had clear goals like rejuvenating the long covering economy and speed up the economic development. Gorbachev thought that a better soviet economy was determined by a better relationship within the entire world as well as the United States. Gorbachev promised to pull out from the arms race even after president Reagan referred to USSR as an Evil Empire and increased an enormous military build up. He made an official announcement that he would remove the soviet troops from Afghanistan, where they had been fighting since 1978. He also reduced the soviet armed forces as per the agreement in the nations of Eastern Europe. He joined hands with United States President Ronald Reagan and his government in order to come up with solutions to the differences that had rose over the years. That resulted to a rapid increase in the relationship between the Soviet Union and the U.S. In 1988, the Soviet Union and United States president, George Bush announced the end of the cold was (Dallin, 1992: 280). During the same year, Berlin Wall in Germany came to an end indicating that communism in East Germany had ended. In December 1988, communist’s regimes in Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia fell among others. Yeltsin was later designated as the leader of Russia in 1990 (Dallin, 1992: 280). Soviet Union publicly ended in 1991 and divided into nations like Estonia and Latvia among many more where designated administration officials lead them. These nations currently govern themselves but they are not under the Soviet Union. The collapse of the Soviet Union had a great effect as it resulted to communist countries falling down. Were china and Russia ever communist? China’s position in the cold war was not peripheral but rather central. Each superpower targeted china due to its large territory and influence. China had the largest population by then and could thus provide military manpower, the reason each side wanted to control it (Solnick, 1998: 89). Between the year 1940 and 1950, china merged with USSR posing great fear in the US. However, the merger was short lasting and in the early 1960, china split with Soviet Union to merge with the US (Liu, 1975: 150). Both China and Russia however did not have a strong stand on which side they supported, whether capitalism or communism. Below are the arguments for and against Russia and china being communists: China’s communist stand is evident from its international policies. During the Mao’s china, the ruling party, the people’s republic of china adopted a "lean-to-one-side" policy that aimed at uniting the communist against the capitalists (Medeiros & Fravel, 2003: 153). The policy in the real sense meant to unite china with Soviet Union to overpower the capitalist ideas advocated by their opponents in the war. China’s communist ideas are also evident in the country’s decision to intervene in the Korean War. The CCP leader strongly condemned the capitalist ideas publicly claiming that the ideas were vague and would eventually lead to the collapse of eastern revolution if it did not intervene in time to counteract. Communist ideologies are also evident in china from the 1956 orders by the CCP leader to Moscow to end the "reactionary rebellion" that was evident in Hungary so as to protect eastern revolution that was based on communist ideas (Stone & Xiao, 2007: 97). China also supported Vietnam, a communist country between 1965 and 1970. Such support was only availed to fellow communist countries and thus china can be said to be fully communist. The communists in China rose to power in 1948 at a time when the cold war was in its peak (Suny, 1993: 197). The communists therefore took over power and implemented revolution based on the communist policies. The then communist leader cracked a deal with the Soviet Union’s leader on labour division which mandated china to promote eastern revolution. It is therefore right to say that china was communist during and after the cold war. Russia’s policies on the other hand are based on the Marxism-Leninism which is purely communist (Suny, 1993: 197). It is true therefore that Russia was also communist before and during the cold war. Russia was on the front line on the fight against the spread of capitalism. Maos China also referred to as the new china was determined to establish a revolution in china based on the communist ideologies. The strong stand taken by Chinese leaders on international relations is a clear indicator that the country was purely communist. The leaders questioned US’s administration publicly claiming that capitalist policies exercised by the US would not be applicable in china (Suny, 1993: 197). The leaders insisted that that the only way china would achieve the best in revolution was through invoking the communist policies. It is quite obvious therefore that china was communist. When explaining china’s position in the cold war, it is important to consider that china was initially dominated by the capitalist and it was only after 1949 that the communists seized power that the situation changed. China therefore was not fully communist until 1949 (Dallin, 1992: 280). During the cold war, china initially supported USSR before shifting to the US. US did not support communist ideas and the decision by china to unconditionally support the US raised question on the commitment of the country to communist ideas. Another reason to support the argument that both Russia and china were not communist is that Russia’s revolution was funded by the US which was capitalist (Solnick, 1998: 89). The funds were channelled through western brokers such as Winston Churchill and Averill Harriman who are best remembered for their support for capitalism (Medeiros & Fravel, 2003). Capitalists would not fund a revolution that is communist in nature thus it can it can be concluded that Russia was no communist but rather capitalist. Who won the Cold War? In regard to this question, none of the sides can be said to be the winner (Deudney & Ikenberry, 1992: 127). However, the Soviet Union fell afterwards because it lacked enough funds which were required to support the nuclear program as the United States had. United States President, Reagan was not supposed to get credit for the end of the cold war as it ended during the time of John F. Kennedy. Kennedy asked the Soviet Union to take out its missiles from Cuba although they had not organized for an attack. Russia obeyed and took out the missiles in Cuba. Even though they had launched an attack, it could not exceed 27 or more miles to its target which could have been targeted to the eastern side of the Soviet Union (Gates, 2007: 534). If the Soviet Union was able to set a sputnik in the earth`s atmosphere, they could also be able to set a missile targeting the United States. Negotiations rose between Gorbachev and Reagan but it was brought to an end by Kennedy. Gorbachev held a critical role which the Americans ignored. It is noticeable that the Americans were astonished by the first launch of the sputnik in the earth`s atmosphere made by the Soviet Union. The best thing is that Gorbachev was a peaceful man who could not be compared to others like Stalin and Hitler. He aimed at ending the war and giving USSR peace after a long destruction which were caused by Hitler and Stalin (Gates, 2007: 534). Gorbachev did not have intentions of launching these nuclear weapons as United States could not stand an attack like that and vengeance could have resulted as a total tragedy for the entire world. The USSR had taken missiles in Cuba in order to get it out. In return, United States had to give up various targets that it had on the USSR in regard to the weapons. Despite collapse of the Soviet Union, United States sustained and it still making weapons of mass devastation. United States of American currently exists as a country but USSR does not (Lebow & Stein1994: 130). The people of East Germany and Poland among others benefited most from the cold war. They have become rich and they are able to think and speak as they feel like without the fear of custody, anguish and dying on the hands of their regimes. Russia is now a free place than it was during the time it was controlled by the soviets. After the end of the 2nd world war, United States army would have shrunk back were it not for the cold war (Gates, 2007: 534). Hence, the U.S. military troops spread were circulated across the world so as to guard the country from the dismays of communism. Guarding the Americans called for a large recruitment of young men during the first peacetime draft in the country. Americans were exposed to high levels of taxation during the peacetime as the soldier required to be housed, fed and get paid among many other services. U.S. could have reserved this process and acquired the peace dividend but the regime continued on and increased American pressure into the previous Soviet Block taking to the new powers and responsibilities involved along the way. It can be argued that America in a way lost the cold war. This is because it could be richer than when it started as huge portions of incomes were directed to the regime. Awfully, United States currently leads the entire world into custody (Rais, 1994: 150). This is in both the rate and the complete terms. Out of a one hundred and fifty individuals in America, there is one individual behind the bars. This is as a result of war on drugs, which is great threat to the American regime waging upon the public. U.S has become considerably less free during the course of the cold war. One major fact that still exists is the freedom of religion although the current versions of Americans Christianity have little similarity to the teachings stated in the gospel (Rais, 1994: 150). In American, individuals are worshiping American Jesus who has been popularized by his killing other than providing salvation. Christianity has increased to be the state religion as similar to the Roman Monarch Constantine. It has been put so as to illustrate the same military power. They have gone to an extent of using the prince of peace for war. The president from the right party is currently viewed by the public as an avatar of God here in the earth if not considered as the God himself (Lebow & Stein1994: 130). Most of the Christians in American offer almost everything to Caesar and they have nothing to offer to God. U.S is enslaved to all the oppressions of the world. Even though it has gained the world, it has lost her soul. To sum it up, neither the Soviet Union nor the United States won the cold war. Did the end of the Cold War mark greater hope for peace? The end of the cold war marked a greater hope for peace (Hogan, 1992: 154). This is because an enormous relationship had rose between the two super powers; USSR and United States, which signified a greater hope for peace after the war. USSR pulled out from the arms race, the soviet military troops were taken out from Afghanistan where they had been fighting since 1978, the Soviet reduced its armed forces and Gorbachev came to an understanding with Reagan where they both advocated for peace (Bowie & Immerman, 2000: 150). The Soviet pulled out all the missiles that had been kept in Cuba. The end of the cold war led to the collapse of the Berlin Wall in Germany which clearly indicated that communism in East Germany and all the other communists` regimes in the different nation had come to an end. This Berlin wall had been built by the communists in 1962 (Holbrooke, 2011: 174). After the end of cold war, USSR divided into many nations which marked the end of Soviet Union. These nations currently govern themselves but they are not under the Soviet Union. The collapse of the Soviet Union had a great effect as it resulted to communist countries falling down. The current levels of peace have increased after the fall down of Berlin wall and the communist’s governments in Eastern Europe in 1988 (Waltz, 2000: 40). As the cold war came to an end, peace conferences were held by the Allied powers at Potsdam and Yalta in order to come up with adequate solutions on how they how they would divide up Germany’s regions. They came up with agreements to divide the conquered nation into four allied living regions. The eastern part of the nation was given to USSR and the western region was given to United States and the Great Britain (Holbrooke, 2011: 174). These three countries agreed to abandon a small region of the nation to France. The death of Stalin in March 1949 marked the change of cold war in almost an overnight (Fortna, 2004: 273). The USSR went back on the process of reunion and increased openness. Western nations did not trust Soviets motives and their policies despite the end of Korean War. USSR leaders were also suspicious because of the western intentions. A short period after Stalins death, Berlin Wall was selected and the Cuban Missile catastrophe brought the entire world close to nuclear total destruction (Waltz, 2000: 40). This development could not be avoided because there was an opportunity that was left out which could be applied to overcome and end the cold war. It was possible to create a stable, cheap and less threatening world in regard to both humans and materials. After the termination of the cold war, in regard to the western documents and exposures acquired from a one closed documentation in the former USSR, china and Eastern Europe, new light was shed on the environment of worldwide cold war policies after the death of Stalin (Holbrooke, 2011: 174). This documentation offered a clear historical indulgent of the critical period of the cold war. It accessed both potential for change and hindrance to the change. The documentation is set on the unification of talents of the world wide group of scholars who had a variety of chronological, linguistic and ecological experience. All the information provided in this documentation is based on an original thorough research. Most of this information was acquired from the past archival documents which were not accessible from both the eastern and western region (Waltz, 2000: 40). Everyone should go through this documentation so as to determine whether the end of cold war marked a greater hope for peace. The end of the cold war marked a greater hope for peace in the entire world. This is because all the countries that had been previously involved in the cold war greatly embarked on development of their sluggish economy (Meyer, 1999: 182). These countries had taken a lot of time in the cold war which made their economy to retaliate. When the cold war ended, they all went back to develop their nations. That signified that no country was ready to support any type of war that could emerge giving the entire world a greater hope for peace after the end of cold war. In fact, all these countries were involved in activities that could enhance peace worldwide. This can be clearly seen when the allied powers held several conferences which aimed at increasing peace and coming up with relevant strategies of dividing the conquered nation of German (Waltz, 2000: 40). This question has clearly illustrated that the end of the Cold War marked greater hope for peace internationally. Reference list Bowie, R. R., & Immerman, R. H. (2000). Waging peace: How Eisenhower shaped an enduring cold war strategy. Oxford University Press. Dallin, A. (1992). Causes of the Collapse of the USSR. Post-Soviet Affairs, 8(4), 279-302. Deudney, D., & Ikenberry, G. J. (1992). Who Won the Cold War?. Foreign policy, 123-138. Fortna, V. P. (2004). Does peacekeeping keep peace? International intervention and the duration of peace after civil war. International studies quarterly, 48(2), 269-292. Gates, R. M. (2007). From the shadows: the ultimate insiders story of five presidents and how they won the Cold War. Simon and Schuster. Hogan, M. J. (Ed.). (1992). The end of the cold war: Its meaning and implications. Cambridge University Press. Holbrooke, R. (2011). To end a war. Random House LLC. Jervis, R. (2001). Was the Cold War a Security Dilemma?. Journal of Cold War Studies, 3(1), 36-60. Kim, H., & Fording, R. C. (2000). Explaining Ideological Swings in Western Democracies. HandbookofGlobal Political Policy, 82, 403. Kirby, D. (Ed.). (2003). Religion and the Cold War (p. 507). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Kramer, M. (1999). Ideology and the Cold War. Review of International Studies, 25(4), 539-576. Lebow, R. N., & Stein, J. G. (1994). We all lost the Cold War (p. 92). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Liu, A. P. (1975). Communications and national integration in Communist China (No. 1). Univ of California Press. Medeiros, E. S., & Fravel, M. T. (2003). Chinas new diplomacy. Foreign Aff., 82, 36. Meyer, D. S. (1999). How the Cold War was really won: The effects of the antinuclear movements of the 1980s. How social movements matter, 10, 182. Rais, R. B. (1994). War without winners: Afghanistans uncertain transition after the cold war. Karachi: Oxford University Press. Solnick, S. L. (1998). Stealing the state: control and collapse in Soviet institutions (Vol. 89). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Stone, G. C., & Xiao, Z. (2007). Anointing a New Enemy The Rise of Anti-China Coverage after the USSRs Demise. International Communication Gazette, 69(1), 91-108. Suny, R. G. (1993). The revenge of the past: Nationalism, revolution, and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Stanford University Press. TORUNO, M. (2002). The Rhetoric And Economics Of Neoliberalism. İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(2), 1-22. Voss, J. F., Carretero, M., Kennet, J., & Silfies, L. (1994). The collapse of the Soviet Union: A case study in causal reasoning. Cognitive and Instructional Processes in History and the Social Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 403-29. Waltz, K. N. (2000). Structural realism after the Cold War. International security, 25(1), 5-41. Westad, O. A. (2005). The global Cold War: third world interventions and the making of our times. Cambridge University Press. Wohlforth, W. C. (2000). Ideology and the Cold War. Review of International Studies, 26(2), 327-331. Read More