Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
effects of world war two on the economy of the united states.
the effect of the second world war
the cold war quizlet
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Towards end of the Second World War II was not just the end of long hard fought battle, but also the start of an oversensitive and vibrant stage that moved culture on all levels. The post war phase, as it became known, formed the world we live in; the era was created itself both by the war that had lead it, and dominant forces that encased it. As the energy of primarily different ideas Socialism and Equality collapsed with improvements in science as for instinct nuclear bomb, a hazardous situation resulted that produced an atmosphere of fear throughout the world and particularly, inside American walls.
The Cold War played out one by one between the United States and the Soviets, it was instantaneously playing out in the ordinary lives of the masses within their borders. Terror, however, was not a result that followed directly after the end of the War. The United States had owned a prolonged period of economic growth during the war, and developing the war within the United States economy sustained with great power for more than ten years. Living in America was perhaps better than it has ever been in recent years. The middle class had increased, we saw unemployment rates at its lowest points in history, and the “American Dream” was becoming a reality for many families. Positive economic conditions, U.S. had become the most dominant country in the world; more essentially, America was the first and only country to develop the atom bomb.
This same era that the political forces of Communism and Democracy crashed head on. The United States was obviously on one side of this issue, with the Soviet Union and the Soviet Bloc announced directly on the other side. The loss of the Germans, although a success for both parties, had left ...
... middle of paper ...
... moment infused American culture.
The relationship between the danger of Socialism and the endangerment of nuclear war. Without the bomb, Communism did not present a material hazard to America; this is emphasized by the conditions that the true height of the Cold War in 1950’s did not occur until after the Soviet Union had developed the H- Bomb and built a supply of nuclear weapons. Yet, if it weren’t for the deep rift that disconnected the “Socialists” of the East from the “Investors” of the West, the bomb itself would not have presented the same threat, and therefore would not have provoked the same level of panic. The Cold War years and as a result, the environment of terror symbolized the mixing of conflicting social beliefs with weapons so mighty that using them was similar to self-destruction; historically, it was the greatest game of Strategy ever played.
One of the biggest fears of the American people is that the concept of communism contrasts drastically from the concept of capitalism, which the United States was essentially founded upon. The United States, as the public believed, was not a land of perfect communal equality, but rather a land of equal opportunity. However, what made communism so dangerous can be succinctly described by Eisenhower who compared the spread of communism as the domino effect. As his secretary of state, Dulles, put it, the propagation of communism “would constitute a threat to the sovereignty and independence” of America (Doc B). In addition, the Cold War also planted the seeds of rational fear of a global nuclear war. As Russia caught up to the United States in terms of technological advancements, they successfully developed the atomic bomb as well as the hydrogen bomb, which caused Americans to believe that the USSR would use these weapons of mass destruction to forcefully extend their ideologies to the USA. In fact, Americans were so frantic about a potential nuclear disaster that it...
However, evidence that is presented may indicate otherwise, as Joseph Stalin provides adequate counter claims for discrediting the “simplicity” of “yes”. Within this controversial topic, two authors provide their sides of the story to whom is to blame and/or responsible for the “Cold War.” Authors Arnold A. Offner and John Lewis Gaddis duck it out in this controversial situation as each individual leads the readers to believe a certain aspect by divulging certain persuading information. However, although both sides have given historical data as substance for their claim, it is nothing more than a single sided personal perception of that particular piece of information; thus, leaving much room for interpretations by the reader/s. Finding the truth to either claim is the obligation of the reader and outside research would accommodate the authors potential inadequacies and personal fallacies.... ...
World War II opened a new chapter in the lives of Depression-weary Americans. The United States of America had an unusual importance in the war, it had been spared the physical destruction that had taken place throughout the world. Americans on the home front did not see the fighting and brutality as other countries experienced it. However, the events and changes on the home front due to the World War transformed America. One of the greatest conversions was that of the American woman. Women around the country were transformed from the average house wife into a person with a voice and most importantly a purpose.
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...
The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe became the East nations, and the United States, centered on NATO formed the West nations, dividing the world in two. Belonging to neither the East nor the West, developing countries were called Third World nations and became a stand-in for wars between the East and West (Gaddis, The Strategies of Containment 70-78). The end of WWII and the beginning of the C... ... middle of paper ... ... a, from containment to rollback in Korea; welcoming European integration because it portended the creation of an economic unit that encouraged technological innovation; building a configuration of power in the international system, nurturing free markets while safeguarding American interests, a constant in Washington for more than 35 years; and, free political economy at home were just a few of the strategic methods used to change, influence, and shape American domestic policy (Leffler, The Specter of Communism,100-129).
There have been many attempts to explain the origins of the Cold War that developed between the capitalist West and the communist East after the Second World War. Indeed, there is great disagreement in explaining the source for the Cold War; some explanations draw on events pre-1945; some draw only on issues of ideology; others look to economics; security concerns dominate some arguments; personalities are seen as the root cause for some historians. So wide is the range of the historiography of the origins of the Cold War that is has been said "the Cold War has also spawned a war among historians, a controversy over how the Cold War got started, whether or not it was inevitable, and (above all) who bears the main responsibility for starting it" (Hammond 4). There are three main schools of thought in the historiography: the traditional view, known alternatively as the orthodox or liberal view, which finds fault lying mostly with the Russians and deems security concerns to be the root cause of the Cold War; the revisionist view, which argues that it is, in fact, the United States and the West to blame for the Cold War and not the Russians, and cites economic open-door interests for spawning the Cold War; finally, the post-revisionist view which finds fault with both sides in the conflict and points to issues raised both by the traditionalists as well as the revisionists for combining to cause the Cold War. While strong arguments are made by historians writing from the traditionalist school, as well as those writing from the revisionist school, I claim that the viewpoint of the post-revisionists is the most accurate in describing the origins of the Cold War.
War. Humans have thrived from war for as long as we can remember. The United States has been fighting wars ever since we found the new country in North America that we now call the United States. We fought against our selves for the freedom of others. We fought in several world wars. We have always fought. But in the late 1940's “war” changed forever. This was well known as the Cold War. Why was this so different? “ The world had never experienced anything like it. The Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States was a half century of military build-up, political maneuvering for international support (Hanes, Sharon M., and Richard C. Hanes).” This means that the world has always seen war as either hand to hand combat or gun to gun combat. With soldiers and foot patrols, but this was basically an arms race. Who was to blame for this struggle? I believe that the Cold War was caused by both nations.
The end of the Cold War was one of the most unexpected and important events in geopolitics in the 20th century. The end of the Cold War can be defined as the end of the bipolar power struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union, which had existed since the end of the World War II. The conclusion of the Cold War can be attributed to Gorbachev’s series of liberalizations in the 1980s, which exposed the underlying economic problems in the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc states that had developed in the 1960s and 70s and prevented the USSR from being able to compete with the US as a superpower. Nevertheless, Reagan’s policies of a renewed offensive against communism, Gorbachev’s rejection of the Brezhnev doctrine and the many nationalities
The end of the cold war signified a new era of history that has changed the entire world. The face of Europe and Asia has changed dramatically. Vast changes have been felt socially, politically, and especially economically. Also the effect the cold war had on foreign policy was paramount. The effect of these changes is not only felt across the ocean but can be felt here in America. The goal of this paper is to define what the cold war specifically was, and reflect upon the various choices throughout the world as a result of the end of the cold war.
Many people argue that the USA was the pre-eminent superpower throughout the Cold War and since this time the only true global power. While it is seen that the USA was the pre-eminent superpower during this period the USSR’s power cannot be denied. The Cold War is defined as a battle of ideologies with communism and capitalism battling to become the dominating world view.
To conclude, the cold war had an enormous effect on nearly every aspect of American life. With varying results, some were good and others were bad. I sense that the Cold war was helpful to us as a nation. Russian competition pushed the U.S. toward improvements in technology, military, science, and education. In a world with 2 superpowers the U.S. was driven to be better than the competitor. But now we are alone at the top and there is nowhere to go but down. Hopefully the termination of the U.S.S.R. didn’t open up a spot for a new and better world power to emerge in the near future.
Smirnov, Yuri, Vladislav Zubok. “Nuclear Weapons after Stalin’s Death: Moscow enters the H-Bomb Age.” Cold War International History Project. March 1994.
In 1945, most of the countries around the world are devastated further to World War II which had stroke the globe for six years. Only the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, also called USSR, seem to be in a stable economic situation despite weighty losses. Both states are considered to be the great winners of the war and this is the beginning of a confrontation between two superpowers but also the confrontation between two distinct ideologies: communism and capitalism.
It was the 1960’s in America, a time of social consciousness, fear, war, distrust in government, and rebellion. It was a time in which bomb shelter ads on TV were common place. It was a time of tension and fears for communism creping though our neighborhoods and infiltrating American ideals. We were at war with a nation. After World War 2, there were two dominant nations, the United States and the Soviet Union. Political ideals and control over Germany would separate the allies into bitter rivals and enemies. The fear of the Soviet’s use of nuclear weapons was constantly in the backs of our minds. It was a global ...