The shocking collapse of the Soviet empire in 1989-91 has often been an indicator in the West as a triumph of capitalism and democracy, as though this event was clearly a direct result of the policies of the Reagan and Thatcher governments. This arrogant analysis has little relation to measurable facts, circumstances, and internal political shifts that were the real historical causes of the deterioration of the Soviet empire and ultimately the Soviet state itself. Spirited political speeches and tough calculating postures make good theater, but they are ineffective at forcing political change in totalitarian nations, as is proven by the stamina of far less powerful Communist regimes in Cuba and east Asia in the face of punishing trade embargos. …show more content…
In 1988 visit to Poland, Gorbachev made clear that he had no intention of using military force to prop up the Communist regime there, in a striking departure from the Brezhnev doctrine. He followed up with a remarkable speech to the UN in December of that year, promising to withdraw tens of thousands of Soviet troops, tanks and artillery systems from Eastern Europe, in order to convince the world that the USSR no longer had large scale offensive military capability in Europe. This Soviet policy shift handicapped the negotiating position of the Polish Communist Party, which agreed to let the independent union Solidarity run candidates against them in free elections in April 1989. Solidarity had long received covert financial and advisory support from the Vatican and the United States, allowing it to survive long enough to attain this accomplishment. Ultimately, however, the outcome was in the hands of the Polish electorate, who were widely anticipated to support a Communist majority. Instead, Solidarity candidates shockingly won every contested seat, despite having been out spent considerably by their …show more content…
A variety of causes went into this decision, including the cost and benefit of direct military occupation, the weaknesses exposed in Afghanistan, and the liberalizing tendencies of Gorbachev. It is not clear how much of the bloc the Soviets would have been able to hold by force, but they certainly made an intentional strategic decision in relinquishing all of it. For their part, Communist governments were under popular pressure not to rely on foreign military support, so they asked for Soviet withdrawal as a last attempt to defend the legitimacy of their rule. If the Soviets hoped the Communist regimes would survive without military intervention, this turned out to be a great
This treaty was part of Reagan’s progress to helping end the Cold War. In 1988, President Reagan signed an agreement that got the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. This was the first time in 33 years that the Red Army left without conflict and effectively ended a war (The Achievements and Failures of the Reagan Presidency). Reagan did something
Absolutism was at its most popular in the 17th century. Monarchs Louis XIV who ruled France from 1643 to 1715, and Peter the Great who ruled Russia from 1682 to 1725 both secured absolute power in their kingdom. Peter the Great, however, managed to accomplish more during his reign than Louis XIV with politics and military. Peter was able to tax his nobles but still keep their loyalty and also change how his army was run by using Prussian organization and discipline.
During the 20th century, the rise of communism sparked rage in people throughout the world. More towards the end of the 1900's the fall of communism and dictatorships was just the beginning of what would eventually be a large democratic change for several countries. 1989: Democratic Revolutions at the Cold War's End, speaks about the change brought to several different countries from the 1980's-1990's and plans to show "the global transformations that marked the end of the cold war and shaped the era in which we live"(Pg V). During the cold war, communist had power and control over a large area and spread communism throughout several continents. This book specifically hits on six different studies of where communism and dictatorship affected these areas and what they did to stop it. Poland, Philippines, Chile, South Africa, Ukraine, and China throughout the end of the 20th century created revolutionary movements which brought them all one step closer to freeing themselves and creating democratic change.
On June 12, 1987, former President Ronald Reagan gave one of his famous speeches, “Remarks at the Brandenburg Gate.” On a superficial level, Reagan uses the speech to petition to the Soviet Union for peace, nuclear and chemical arms reduction, and the demolition of the Berlin Wall. He also highlights the progress and prosperity that have arisen in the western world since the division between communism and democracy was established. Beyond the surface, Reagan subtly disparages communism while simultaneously building up democracy. He emphasizes the importance of freedom, liberty, free trade, and other democratic ideals and the positive effects the western world has experienced because of them.
During the Age of Absolutism, views of how government should have been run were drastically different that the views of Enlightenment thinkers. The fundamental difference between these two views of government – absolutism and Enlightenment – was that, in an absolute view of government, it stated that it should be run by a monarch – such as a king or a queen – and that he or she should have complete and unquestionable authority over everything, whereas the Enlightenment resulted in the development of new ideas, many of which criticized absolute monarchies, such as the idea that the fundamental function of government was to protect it's people's rights. The Enlightenment thinkers all had different ideas, and all to varying degrees, but the main theme is that all of their ideas criticized absolutism (except for Hobbes) and resulted in the gradual rejection of it.
Looking at the United States in 1965, it would seem that the future of the liberal consensus was well entrenched. The anti-war movement was in full swing, civil rights were moving forward, and Johnson's Great Society was working to alleviate the plight of the poor in America. Yet, by 1968 the liberal consensus had fallen apart, which led to the triumph of conservatism with the election of President Reagan in 1980. The question must be posed, how in the course of 15 years did liberal consensus fall apart and conservatism rise to the forefront? What were the decisive factors that caused the fracturing of what seemed to be such a powerful political force? In looking at the period from 1968 to the triumph of Reagan in 1980, America was shaken to the core by the Watergate scandal, the stalling of economic growth, gas shortages, and the Vietnam War. In an era that included the amount of turbulence that the 1970's did, it is not difficult to imagine that conservatism come to power. In this paper I will analyze how the liberal consensus went from one of its high points in 1965 to one of its lows in 1968. From there I will show how conservatism rose to power by the 1980 elections. In doing so, I will look at how factors within the American economy, civil rights issues, and political workings of the United States contributed to the fracturing of the liberal consensus and the rise of conservatism.
Odd Arne Westad, Director of the Cold War Studies Centre at the London School of Economics and Political Science, explains how the Cold War “shaped the world we live in today — its politics, economics, and military affairs“ (Westad, The Global Cold War, 1). Furthermore, Westad continues, “ the globalization of the Cold War during the last century created foundations” for most of the historic conflicts we see today. The Cold War, asserts Westad, centers on how the Third World policies of the two twentieth-century superpowers — the United States and the Soviet Union — escalates to antipathy and conflict that in the end helped oust one world power while challenging the other. This supplies a universal understanding on the Cold War (Westad, The Global Cold War, 1). After World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union opposed each other over the expansion of their power.
Absolutism is a political theory giving rulers complete sovereignty. Louis XIV was one of the most popular successful absolute monarchs. He exercised absolute paternal rights of a father on France and his powers were unlimited by church, legislature, or elites. Calling himself the "Sun King" after the God Apollo, he worked to banish feudalism and create a unified state under his absolute power. To illustrate this power he built the Palace at Versailles and created an elaborate, theatrical royal lifestyle. His reign of 72 years, from 1638 to 1715, it is the longest documented reign of any European monarch. To establish absolutism in France Louis XIV used divers strategies including the centralization of the French state, diminishing the nobles' power and oppressing the third estate.
The significance of the Moscow summit was bolstered by the fact that it went ahead despite the Communist spring offensive (which was partly carried out to disrupt or even force the cancellat... ... middle of paper ... ... y détente left at all by 1979 stalled following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, were suspended. The ‘Carter Doctrine’ which followed showed the U.S. reverting back to a confrontational stance in the Cold War and in effect, with both sides now not showing any commitment to a relaxation in tensions, this was the confirmation of détente’s failure. Bibliography · Cohen, W.I. ed.
During the late 17th and early 18th century, many European nations such as France and Russia were absolute monarchies. Even countries such as England had kings who at least attempted to implement absolutism. Indeed the concept of absolutism, where the monarch is the unquestionably highest authority and absolute ruler of every element in the realm, is certainly appealing to any sovereign. However, this unrestricted power was abused, and by the end of the 18th century, absolutism was gone. Absolutism failed because the monarchs' mistreatment of the population caused the people to revolt against their rule and policies. There are many factors which caused this discontent. For one, there was a great loss of human lives. Louis XIV of France participated in four wars, while Peter of Russia ruthlessly executed anyone who stood against his will. Secondly, monarchs attempted to change religious beliefs. This was notable in England where rulers such as James II desired to convert the Anglican nation into Catholicism. Finally, the burden of taxation was more than the population could support. France was brought into huge foreign debt, English kings constantly attempted to raise money, and Peter of Russia increased taxes by 550 percent. These are some of the key reasons why absolutism failed in Europe.
Absolutism was a period of tyranny in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries because monarchs had complete power to do whatever they pleased. Since absolutism is a "monarchical form of government in which the monarch's powers are not limited by a constitution or by the law" essentially there are no boundaries for actions the monarch can and cannot take. The absolutists did not focus on the people under their rule, they ruled by fear and punishment, and believed they were equal to God.
Macdonald, D. J (1995), 'Communist bloc: expansion in the early cold war: Challenging realism, refuting Revisionism', International Security, Vol. 20, N°3, The MIT Press. (Online). Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539142?seq=7 (Accessed: 16th November 2013)
The Soviet Union, which was once a world superpower in the 19th century saw itself in chaos going into the 20th century. These chaoses were marked by the new ideas brought in by the new leaders who had emerged eventually into power. Almost every aspect of the Soviet Union was crumbling at this period both politically and socially, as well as the economy. There were underlying reasons for the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and eventually Eastern Europe. The economy is the most significant aspect of every government. The soviet economy was highly centralized with a “command economy” (p.1. fsmitha.com), which had been broken down due to its complexity and centrally controlled with corruption involved in it. A strong government needs a strong economy to maintain its power and influence, but in this case the economic planning of the Soviet Union was just not working, which had an influence in other communist nations in Eastern Europe as they declined to collapse.
The cold war was failed by the Soviet Union for many reasons, including the sudden collapse of communism (Baylis & Smith, 2001.) This sudden collapse of communism was brought on ultimately by internal factors. The soviet unions president Gorbachev’s reforms: glasnost (openness) and perestroika (political reconstructering) ultimately caused the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Gorbachev’s basics for glasnost were the promotion of principles of freedom to criticize; the loosening of controls on media and publishing; and the freedom of worship. His essentials of perestroika were, a new legislature; creation of an executive presidency; ending of the ‘leading role’ of the communist party; allowing state enterprises to sell part of their product on the open market; lastly, allowing foreign companies to own Soviet enterprises (Baylis & Smith, 2001.) Gorbachev believed his reforms would benefit his country, but the Soviet Union was ultimately held together by the soviet tradition he was trying to change. The Soviet Union was none the less held together by “…powerful central institutions, pressure for ideological conformity, and the threat of force.
An absolutist monarchy consists of a monarch having ultimate governing authority in which their powers are not limited by laws or a constitution. As in the reign of James I, the people of England had to submit to the king’s will. A “legitimate” form of government should involve the people and their ideas. You lose the idea of legitimacy when the country’s leader begins to abuse their power. Absolutist monarchy has shown to leave too much opportunity for corruption.