Interestingly, it took three decades for the Soviet Union to become a superpower, becoming the main challenger of American supremacy. Though, it only took three years for Soviet power to collapse. But why, many historians argue that Mikhail Gorbachev underestimated President Ronald Reagan. Historian, Vladislav Zubok’s, A Failed Empire, brings to life an analysis of the Cold War from the perspective of the Soviet Union. Zubok explores the Soviet’s experiences from a wide array: international calculations, interplay of foreign politics, and lasting consequences of de-Stalinization. It is from these experiences that we can gain an understanding to Gorbachev and the fall of the Soviet Union. Additionally, we will see how Gorbachev’s actions altered …show more content…
Zubok states that it was the struggle between the East and the West that shaped the relations of the people from 1945 to 1991. “The conflict was a geo-political and ideological struggle, which not only involved armies and resources, but ideas and values.” Zukok claims that Stalin used his people for conflict using ideological rhetoric, but his ultimate goal was to control various regions surrounding the USSR. Stalin’s plan was to build a security buffer as he gained control of Eastern Europe. “For Stalin, security and regime-building were two sides of the same coin.” Stalin’s wanted to expand his empire into Europe without provoking the United States – thus was impossible. Zukok writes, “Soviet policy was the main factor which contributed to the origins of the Cold War.” Continuing, Zubok states that it was because of Stalin’s interference in the Middle East the, claiming that Soviet actions, outside of the agreed upon regions at Yalta and Potsdam put the superpowers on a path to …show more content…
Gorbachev wanted a de-Stalinized Russia, did he go about it in a correct manner, well that is another question. What he did do, as previously stated is he ended the Cold War. He brought the Soviet Union to a stop as President Reagan credits him. But, ultimately, the collapse of the USSR came from within. Economic problems had eroded the once strong revolutionary-imperial paradigm and the power of the Soviet Union. In terms of today, Gorbachev (as stressed by Zubok) “did not have nor did he even seek to obtain any written agreement with the West to preserve Soviet interests in the region; such as preventing NATO expansion to the
I would not blame Vladek for destroying Anja's diaries. The effect of their absence on the narrative of Maus is negative which is influenced that the significance of Vladek's actions cannot be ignored.
The major factor that led to the true end of the Cold War was the ongoing personal and diplomatic relationship between Presidents George H. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev. This resulted in the reduction of the Russian military and favorable arms agreements. Key indicators of the substance behind this relationship were the Soviet troop withdrawals from Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, and Hungary (lifting the Hungarian/Austrian “Iron Curtain” along the border). Subsequently the opening of the Berl...
“Was Truman Responsible for the Cold War”, well, according to author Arnold A. Offner, his simplistic answer is an obvious “yes.” “Taking Sides” is a controversial aspect of the author’s interpretation for justifying his position and perception of “Truman’s” actions. This political approach is situated around the “Cold War” era in which the author scrutinizes, delineates, and ridicules his opponents by claiming “I have an ace in the hole and one showing” (SoRelle 313). Both authors provide the readers with intuitive perceptions for their argumentative approaches in justifying whether or not “Truman” contributed to the onset of the “Cold War.” Thus far, it would be hard-pressed to blame one single individual, President or not, for the “Cold War” initiation/s. Information presented show the implications centered on the issues leading up to the Cold War”, presents different ideologies of two Presidents involving policy making, and a national relationship strained by uncooperative governments. However, evidence that is presented may indicate otherwise as Joseph Stalin provides adequate counter claims for discrediting the “simplicity” of “yes”.
He wanted to cut taxes and increase defense spending. He felt that the United States of America should take a confrontational approach towards Russia.3 Mikhail Gorbachev was the leader of Russia in 1985. He wanted to improve. the Russian economy. He also wanted to improve relations with the United States.
Discussions of the causes of the Cold War are often divisive, creating disparate ideological camps that focus the blame in different directions depending on the academic’s political disposition. One popular argument places the blame largely on the American people, whose emphasis on “strength over compromise” and their deployment of the atomic bomb in the Second World War’s Pacific theatre apparently functioned as two key catalysts to the conflict between US and Soviet powers. This revisionist approach minimizes Stalin’s forceful approach and history of violent leadership throughout World War 2, and focuses instead on President Harry Truman’s apparent insensitivity to “reasonable Soviet security anxieties” in his quest to impose “American interests on the world.” Revisionist historians depict President Truman as a “Cold War monger,” whose unjustified political use of the atomic bomb and ornery diplomatic style forced Russia into the Cold War to oppose the spread of a looming capitalist democratic monopoly. In reality, Truman’s responsibility for the Cold War and the atomic bomb drop should be minimized.
During the late 1940's and the 1950's, the Cold War became increasingly tense. Each side accused the other of wanting to rule the world (Walker 388). Each side believed its political and economic systems were better than the other's. Each strengthened its armed forces. Both sides viewed the Cold War as a dispute between right and wron...
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.
The Soviet Union began to view the United States as a threat to communism, and the United States began to view the Soviet Union as a threat to democracy. On March 12, 1947, Truman gave a speech in which he argued that the United States should support nations trying to resist Soviet imperialism. Truman and his advisors created a foreign policy that consisted of giving reconstruction aid to Europe, and preventing Russian expansionism. These foreign policy decisions, as well as his involvement in the usage of the atomic bomb, raise the question of whether or not the Cold War can be blamed on Truman. Supporting the view that Truman was responsible for the Cold War, Arnold Offner argues that Truman’s parochialism and nationalism caused him to make contrary foreign policy decisions without regard to other nations, which caused the intense standoff between the Soviet Union and America that became the Cold War (Offner 291)....
The overall collapse of the Communist regime came rather quickly, but there were underlying causes of the collapse that were apparent during the preceding decades. On the surface, the 1970s looked good for the Soviet Union. A lot of certain aspects were still going the Soviet Unions way. However, in 1975, the Soviet Union’s power peaked. In 1975, the Soviet Union’s power began to dwindle and there were six underlying causes of the collapse that can be dated back to that year. In this essay I will discuss these six causes and how they helped bring about the actual collapse of the Soviet regime.
Outline of Essay About the Origins of the Cold War OUTLINE: Introduction- 1. Definition of ‘Cold War’ and the Powers involved 2. Perceived definition of ‘start of Cold War’ 3. Iron Curtain Speech, Truman Doctrine and Berlin Blockade as significant events that caused strife between both powers, but which triggering off the start of the Cold War Body- 1. Iron Curtain Speech (1946) - A warning of Soviet influence beyond the acknowledged Eastern Europe - Churchill’s belief that the idea of a balance in power does not appeal to the Soviets - Wants Western democracies to stand together in prevention of further
A comparison of these two are Both leaders saw that changes were essential, they knew that without reforms, the Soviet Union would grow weaker and weaker. Khrushchev’s and Gorbachev’s reforms were wide and touched almost all important aspects of the government. One important aspect is how Khrushchev and Gorbachev saw the past and future. When Khrushchev came to power he had a big problem how to replace Stalin and how to rule the country after him. Stalin ruled through a cult of personality and many people thought that he was irreplaceable. At “the Twentieth Congress of the Khrushchev attacks Stalinism and the Cult of Personality in the secret speech, he denounced Stalin and the terror of his regime, everything Stalin did or said was incorrect,
Lafeber, W. (2002), America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945-2000. 9th edn. New-York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
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.
Despite this disagreement, Gorbachev and Reagan reached many agreements on issues regarding disarmament and sent a message to the world that the two biggest conflicting powers had ended their near-40 year dispute. Although at the outset of his presidency, Reagan sought to resolve the Cold War primarily through the use of money, it was his mouth that got the job done. The policy of containment had successfully stifled the Soviet empire and provided an opportune time for Reagan to end the war, and Gorbachev's willingness to comply provided him with the means to do so. Ultimately it was their special relationship, the inevitable implosion of the Russian economy, and President Reagan's fearlessness in demanding progress that brought an end to the Cold War.