In this book, Gaddis claims that the Cold War was both certain and vital in light of the fact that the Soviet empire and its allies couldn 't be moved back however must be contained. Toward the end of the war, no country had physically or directly pushed an attack on the other. The central thesis of the book is that the Cold War brought an end to the usage of military strength and ability as the characteristics of power as perceived five years before the start of Cold War. For example, Gaddis says, "What never happened, despite universal fears that it might, was full-scale war involving the United States, the Soviet Union, and their allies. For the first time in history no one could make sure of winning, or despite surviving, a unimaginable …show more content…
Also, the author looks at a portion of the compelling people who helped to resolve the war that had developed into stable long peace. Case in point, Gaddis concentrates on the 1962 Cuban miscalculations of Nikita Khrushchev that President Kennedy got confused and nearly went to war. Gaddis says, "Khrushchev slipped missiles into Cuba, predominantly as a push to spread revolution all through Latin America." In another dialog, Gaddis concentrates on the mid 1980s when Reagan 's rearmament extended and emphasized talk to the 'Evil Empire ' made Moscow trust that America had propelled plans for a preemptive atomic strike along these lines the need to get ready in like manner. Likewise, the author concentrates on Dwight Eisenhower 's endeavors to maintain a strategic distance from an atomic clash. For instance, Gaddis gives a description of how Ike 's single war-plan, if embraced, could have prompted the dropping of more than 3000 atomic weapons on every communist country. In this way, this formed into "shared guaranteed demolition" and an understanding that restricted every side to guarding themselves against long-run atomic warheads. In conclusion, the author concentrates on visionary people who changed the course of war and bought it to an end. As needs be, Gaddis respects the "saboteurs of the present state of affairs, for example, Ronald Reagan, Lech Walesa, Pope John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher, Mikhail Gorbachev and Deng
Among all the different lines that Rodgers follows throughout the book, I would like to deepen the “Losing the words of the cold war” chapter regarding the presidential rhetoric, the one that I found most interesting. I think that the process of fragmentation that he is describing is clearly visible in the kind of vocabulary used by the different presidents of the United States. Rodgers has been able to show, through the examples of several presidential speeches, the changing of the general frame of mind of the last quarter of the century. Firstly, the author underlines that, to make very long speeches has not always been the common practice. For instance, from Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, until Woodrow Wilson
The role that Reagan’s actions played in ending the Cold War has been a controversial topic ever since the war came to a close. This investigation will show that, to a good extent, Reagan’s actions
Instantly following the end of the Second World War, the fears of the American people rapidly began accumulating as the mistrust between, the United States and the Soviet Union intensified. During World War II, tension between the two world powers began to emerge through ideological differences such as political beliefs and contrasting views regarding the future of Poland that took place at both the Yalta conference and Potsdam. This lasting skepticism only increased as the Soviets started to become more advanced through nuclear weapons and developments in space technology. Despite Eisenhower’s acknowledgment of these widespread fears, he was not particularly successful in addressing them. The American people lived in constant fear of the spread
Engaging in the topic of the Cold War and the tactics Reagan used to win, between the United States and The Soviet Union, Thatcher states that despite the pressure Reagan was under, he not only won the war but had done so “without firing a shot…” as well as inviting his enemies “out of their fortress and turning them into friends'' (39). Thatcher’s explanation of this is clear and understandable as it is known to the audience that Reagan accomplished things that worked out for the better of the country and avoided violence at all costs. It also goes to complete Reagan's exemplary image as he is seen as someone who can avoid violence as well as bring others together who used to be against each
Hajar AlHayki Ms. Winterfeldt US History 11 January 2018 The cold war is a war that began after the end of World War two, from 1945 until 1991. In which the United States and the soviet Unions were involved in this war. They were fighting for two different ideologies: communism and democracy ‘capitalism’. The United States wanted to spread democracy in Eastern Europe: Germany, in which the soviets wanted to spread communism.
The Cold War was a time when The United States not only secured it’s place as an influencer of international affairs, but explored its new standing as a rival to other world leaders. Immediately following World War 2, The USSR and America’s relationship began to dissolve as fundamental differences in basic beliefs for government and military organization became clear, and without a common enemy to unite the two, tension and conflict would separate the superpowers for almost 45 years. The policy of containment, The Truman Doctrine, and NSC-68 would each play a pivotal role in the Unites States stretching its hand of democracy into foreign lands, and using military force against the regimes that began to stand in freedom’s way. Beginning in 1946, the Policy of Containment was proposed by George Kennan in a document now titled, The Long Telegram. He presented his hopes that the United States would attempt to keep communism and regimes within their current borders.
Reagan promised to end the “Vietnam Syndrome” by restoring America’s, as well as the military’s itself, confidence in the military (Thompson, 198-199). In his first term, Reagan held a strong militant stance against communism calling for the buildup in American armed forces and nuclear weaponry in the event that there was ever a Soviet attack. Reagan’s greatest diplomatic success came from leading the United States to a victory in the Cold War. However, it was when he took a more flexible stance, in his second term of presidency, in his relations with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev who was seeking a more civil policy (Crash Course, Reagan Revolution). Reagan achieved victory through compromise not combat, by helping Gorbachev to gradually break down communism from within, granting people greater political and economic freedoms (Mindtap, Middle East Crises,
Overall, historians and theorists have predicated the Cold War as a learning experience for future decision-making. However, one can draw similarities in current military actions, like Iraq and Afghanistan, where those can argue not much has changed in the demeanor and action of military leadership to civilian leadership. Overall, Betts provides a thoroughly researched and structured framework for the reader to analyze historical evidence from a different perspective but I found his conclusions to be inherently flawed.
Especially since Eisenhower believed in massive retaliation, which was funding the stockpiling of nuclear weapons and less funding to the army. Eisenhower’s policy had backlash from both conservatives and liberals. As stated in Document E, “...whether a policy accepting the first blow may be the best one.” People believed that massive retaliation was not the best way to avoid nuclear war. Document E serves the purpose of showing the faults of massive retaliations and how in the grand scheme it isn’t a sufficient way to keep away from a nuclear war.
Overall, the work is worth reading and is recommendable for students and scholars with interest in the Truman administration, atomic warfare and weapons, the second world war, relations between the US and the Soviet, and those curious of knowing the reasons that led to Truman’s decision to use two atomic bombs on
he first chapter of The Cold War: A New History begins by comparing the United States to the U.S.S.R. and talking about the similarities between the two. It also talks about Communism and how Marx deemed it necessary in order to build up the economy. Lenin tried to implement Communism in Russia. They were not quite ready for that kind of system, so Stalin tried to modernize the economy. The U.S.S.R. had more casualties in World War II, but things were not necessarily looking great in America either.
Some historians believe the Cold War was inevitable because of the hostilities from both America and the Soviet Union after World War II. America believed that the USSR was an expansionist country trying to spread an evil, communistic idea throughout the world. Although the countries never directly fought against each other, as they only fought in proxy wars, there was still extreme conflict. The United States responded to the Soviets actions in Germany, Europe, and their national actions. These responses were justifiable, or so many Americans at the time believed.
This article criticizes Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb, deeming it avoidable. Alperovitz utilizes evidence suggesting that America just wanted to intimidate the Soviet Union. His quote, “The timing itself has obviously raised questions among many historians.” (Alperovitz, 3) serves to question the suspicious timing of the bombs being dropped. Alperovitz expresses that other historians, in addition to himself, feel that the bombings were handily timed in order to intimidate the Soviet Union.
At the time when the Cold War ends, hope rise again for a creating a utopia of peace. However, the rise of global terrorism brought people back to reality. Over the past decades terrorism have created chaos, numerous casualties and tragedies. Therefore, terrorism problem has been a major factor in international security issues. Studies about terrorism help us to understand the origin, goals, motivations and behaviors of terrorism organizations.
The chosen book for the oral presentations and the written précis is written by Gregor Dallas and it titled “1945: The war that never ended”; it was published by the New Haven: Yale University Press in 2005. As the title suggests this book explores the aftermath oft the disastrous World War II that saved many from the cruel power of Adolf Hitler but killed many others, the book explores the reasons why the war started and the controversies that it led to. The author tries to explain why the war happened and how did the world end a war and got into another international conflict: The Cold War. Gregor Dallas is a British historian who divided his life between Great Britain, United States and France; he earned his bachelors degree in economics and history at the University of California at Berkeley and later earned his PhD in European Economic History at Rutgers University in New Jersey where he later became a professor.