The Soviet Union would continue the spread of their brand of communist government absorbing the countries of Albani... ... middle of paper ... ...nent as well as which of these factors was of most importance. At the end of the day, the Cold War was not a proud moment for the countries involved especially for European nations. The lesson that can learned today by this battle between capitalism and communism is that in the end capitalism will prevail. All of these nations that were once a part of the Soviet empire have now adopted some form of capitalism. Even the former Soviets have implemented their version of capitalism (though it seems Russia is trying to bring the old ways back into the fold).
He also specifically mentions the decision by Russia to declare sovereignty as the single most important step in dissolving the Soviet Union. Gorbachev is not highly critical of himself, and only briefly mentions what more he could have done to prevent this from happening. Gorbachev spends the first part of his book explaining the history of the Soviet Union, from the October revolutions to the present day. He discusses the noble origins of revolution which were then perverted by Stalin into a totalitarian system that slowly weakened the Union. By the 1980’s, change was needed and “perestroika was born out of the realiza... ... middle of paper ... ...tates, specifically in the Baltic region, who already had strong separatist movements.
I will also look at major similarities and differences among the several eastern European states. Finally, I will look at the rationale for the revolutions being relatively non-violent and why they came as a surprise to the academic specialists. To begin this essay we must speak upon the rescinding of the Brezhnev Doctrine. Mikhail Gorbachev’s choice to rescind the Brezhnev Doctrine can be considered the death sentence to the Soviet Empire and the eventual Eastern European Revolutions of 1989 that followed. The Brezhnev Doctrine was the Soviet Unions stance that once you become Communist, you have to stay that way.
As Latvia has stated, even if Russia doesn’t send in their military, sending in provocateurs is just as dangerous. Until the situation with Crimea is resolved, I don’t see the tension between Latvia and Russia going away. While Russia may not have officially announced any plans to annex Latvia, the likelihood of it happening is still there. As stated previously, Latvia’s location and access to the Baltic Sea make it a strategic gain for Russia. On the other hand, with so many world leaders and NATO making it known to Russia that what they have done to Crimea is not acceptable and is actually a violation of international law, they may not invade Latvia at all.
Prior to the Reagan Administration, the United States had already made several attempts to fight the spread of C... ... middle of paper ... ...idual states, effectively ending the Cold War. Reagan’s leadership and the relationship he forged with Gorbachev set the stage for a peaceful resolution of the Cold War. Through his foreign policy, Reagan sought to achieve the transformative goal of “peace through strength”. But while Reagan’s expansion of the military budget and warrior-like rhetoric were significant, his vision would not have come to pass without an atrophying Soviet economy and the rise to power of Gorbachev in 1985. Works Cited http://www.nsspress.com/braunwarth_reader/sec20.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Doctrine http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/us-aid-anticommunist-rebels-reagan-doctrine-its-pitfalls http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/joncayzer/2011/02/16/ronald-reagan-at-100-the-legacy/ http://www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/CSRI/publications/workingpaper_16_ruggie.pdf
It is not a very optimistic idea to put all of the peoples trust and concerns in the hand of only one person. If an oligarchy was the main form of government, many of the low and middle class income would suffer greatly and even those of the wealthy. In an oligarchy the few who rule makes the decision based on their own beliefs, not those which benefit the people. The sixteenth president of the United States says explains this nation’s government simply as “government of the people, by the people, for the people."
However, the other power that emerged still 'intact' after the war, the USSR had a very different way of government and dissimilar aims of the war. The USSR was a communist nation and had Stalin its dictator. "From the Soviet perspective, extending the borders of the USSR and dominating the formerly independent states of eastern Europe would provide security and would be proper compensation for the fearful losses the Soviet people had endured in the war" (p.
This is an important detail because after the war, Germany was divided into four sections that would be run by each of the Allies. All of the Allies had a form of democracy in government except, of course, the Soviet Union. The United States, Great Britain, and France would eventually decide to reunite Germany, but the Russians refused, separating the East side of Germany (and Europe) from the West. The west was democratic; the east was communist. Each was trying to spread their form of government throughout the world.
From 1918 to 1944, Eastern Europe was dominated by great empires, such as the Habsburg and Ottoman empires, but almost overnight, that structure toppled, leaving a power vacuum. During the years between World War I and World War II, Eastern Europe looked to the West for a suc... ... middle of paper ... ...ge Anglo-Soviet relations and conceded much of Eastern Europe. However, it was beneficial to the British and the Americans to sacrifice the region because they needed evidence to define the Soviet Union and communism as the enemy. Soviet-backed communist expansion was not inevitable, but it was greatly aided by international factors and Eastern European domestic factors. Bibliography Ash, Timothy.
Constructivists may look to the vast ideological differences between the US and the Soviet Union as a reason as to why the cold war began. However, as Gaddis points out, the tension between the USSR and the US was imminent with the power vacuum that was created after the fall of central Europe (Gaddis: The Long Peace). No other states could rival the US or USSR’s political or military power so it was only natural that in an anarchic system each would work to achieve hegemony, and this is exactly what they did. Constructivists like Ikenberry may see America’s postwar economic recuperation plan as a means to spur economic growth in a devastated Eastern Europe, but it was also a means to limit the domination of Russia and stop their spreading influence. A similar attempt at securing influence occurred when Russia was attempting to enter the US’s war against Japan.