KEY TERMS, NOTES AND DEFINITIONS FOR THE

COLD WAR
1945-1989

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

Quick Preface
This package covers basic concepts on the origins, globalization, end, and
legacies of the Cold War.
It was synthesized from many essays written for H2 History in 2009.
The syllabus may have changed since then.
It also does not cover all the content.
Doing so is impossible.
The points of view offered are often not the only plausible perspective.
They should not displace independent thinking.
Facts and views presented here may be inaccurate.
If they conflict with your schools version, use the latter.
It is your school which does the marking anyway.

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

The Origins of the Cold War

Basic Terms
USSR
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
COLD WAR
The cold war refers to the conflict between the two major superpowers, USA
and USSR, in the period following WWII. It derives its name as the powers
were afraid of direct conflict and the idea of MAD, thus they resorted to
indirect means of undermining each other such as propaganda, policies, and
espionage.
No actual physical, conventional conflict occurred. Powers refrained from
intervening directly in each others sphere of influence.
SUPERPOWER
A powerful entity culturally, economically, demographically, politically and
militarily
SALAMI TACTICS
The USSR method of using propaganda, threats, violence, rigging elections,
installing puppet governments, etc to gain control over Eastern European
states. Taken as expansionist by USA.
DOMINO THEORY
If one country fell to Soviet influence, then other countries would follow suit
unless definite action was taken.
DOLLAR DIPLOMACY
USAs method of using economic assistance as a way to manipulate
developments in the Post War World.
Main differences in perspective between 2US
Soviet side: Insecure world
Political/territory idea of postwar Europe (namely Germany)
Ideological Marxist-Leninism: command economy, ownership of the
proletariat over the bourgeoisiefelt that capitalism was out to destroy
communism
Expansionism actions in Greece, turkey and Iran
US side: Bipolar world
Political One world vision: felt that USA was pursuing principles
beneficial for entire world, and it was their job to propagate it

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

Ideological Democracy and economic freedom (capitalism)

contrary to command economy
Economic: Promote world open to free trade and free market principles
(Germany as a potential market and trading partner)

Timeline of events
Year
Event
Significance
1945 Feb Yalta Conference
Symbol of SOLIDARITY
(Britain, USA, USSR)
Settlement of post-war Germany into
four zones
Declaration of Liberated Europe
Promise of self-determination and
free elections after the war
1945 Jul Potsdam Conference
Postwar rivalry replaced wartime co(Britain, USA, USSR)
operation
Settlement of polish borders
German problem unresolved
1945
Dropping of atomic
Atomic issue: Incited soviet paranoia
Aug
bombs on Hiroshima and
as USA had not warned them
Nagasaki
1946 Feb Long Telegram
Advised hard-line approach of
(George Kennan)
containment against clearly
aggressive and expansionist tendency
of USSR
1946
Iron Curtain speech
Meant as a warning by West, taken as
Mar
(Winston Churchill)
declaration of conflict by East
Perceived consolidation of West into
one bloc
1946 Jun Baruch Plan
US proposed formation of
(Bernard Baruch - USA)
international watchdog organization
over nuclear responsibility and nonproliferation

1947
Mar

Truman Doctrine
(Harry Truman)

USSR denounced it as affirmation of

US nuclear monopoly
Reaction fear of USSR actions in
Turkey and Greece
Declared unconditional and unlimited
support, in the form of money,
equipment or military force, to free
peoples who are resisting attempted
subjugation by armed minorities or
outside pressure

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

1947 Jun

Marshall Plan
(George C. Marshall
secretary of state, USA)

1947
Unk

Molotov Plan
(Vyacheslav Molotov
Foreign minister, USSR)

1949 Jan

COMECON
(Council for Mutual
Economic Assistance)

1949
may

Formation of Trizonia

1948 Jun
to
1949
may

Berlin Blockade

1949 Apr NATO

(North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation)

1955
may

Warsaw Pact

Provide financial aid to European

countries (including USSR, but was
rejected) for reconstruction.
Reduce poverty in countries which
would otherwise make them easily
susceptible to USSR communist
propaganda (aiding the proletariat)
Note: Marshall plan impacted
Germany as well compounding the
German problem
Soviet version (reaction) of the
Marshall plan promise economic
support to countries politically and
economically aligned to the Soviet
Union
Evolved from Molotov Plan.
Founding members Albania, Bulgaria,
Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland,
Romania, USSR
Economic unity and common currency
(deutshemark) went against soviet
wishes of economically weak Germany
Reaction to formation of Trizonia
closed all road, rail and canal routes
to Berlin
Proof to USA of USSR intention to
take over Europe
Flash point of conflict first direct
clash in actions
Violation of REF
Military alliance between Belgium,
Netherlands, France, Luxembourg, UK,
USA, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway,
Denmark, Iceland
Signified actual preparation for direct
military conflict
Reaction to Berlin Blockade
Military alliance between Albania,
Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary,
Poland, Romania, USSR, East Germany
Response to NATO

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

How the Cold War Began

According to different schools of thought

The Traditionalist view, that prioritises Soviet aggression,

v.
The Revisionist view, which centralizes US provocation.
The Cold War was an indirect conflict between the two post-war superpowers
USA and USSR. Both sides attempted to affirm their military, political, and
economic superiority over the other through unconventional means such as
political pressure and espionage, and originated over the period 1945-1950.
The traditionalist view accords the origin of the cold war to aggressive Soviet
expansionism, which was apparent in issues such as the conquest of Eastern
Europe, Greece, as well as the Berlin blockade. On the other hand, the
revisionist view credits the origin of the cold war to provocative and
imperialistic policies undertaken by the US due to its paranoia of defensive
soviet policies, as well as its insensitivity to Soviet considerations in issues such
as the atomic issue, the formation of trizonia, and historical baggage. The
revisionist view, however, comes across as the stronger of the two as the USA
was the one which, in its hardline approach against communism, provoked the
USSR into further expansionary actions, leading to the cold war.

The Traditionalist Argument

The traditionalist view, as purported by scholars such as George Kennan, sees
a origin of the cold war as a result of the USSRs active desire for worldwide
communism. Its provocation actions in postwar Europe, hence, was the factor
which drew the necessary retaliation of the USA, culminating in the political
and economic rifts giving rise to the cold war. In Eastern Europe, for example,
the USSR displayed clear expansionary notions when they resorted to Salami
tactics the use of force, espionage and manipulation to subvert Eastern
European governments to communism. The case of Czechoslovakia was
hallmark show of Soviet brutality, when communist officials within the Czech
government used their positions to destabilize the government, resulting in
violent strikes and the full establishment of Soviet control even when
Czechoslovakia was already almost communist and had a history of good
relations with the USSR. Therefore, Soviet policies were clearly unjustified, and
were instead based on the desire to spread communism to the rest of the
world, and this was unacceptable given that it did so through illegitimate,
overly aggressive means. As a result, the USA had no choice but to interfere
with their policies so as to protect Europe from subjugation by the USSR. Thus,
the policies of containment aimed at containing the spread of and not

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

destroying communism, as well as the Marshall Plan to provide economic aid

for Eastern European countries facing pressure from USSR, were merely
defensive in nature, and were a result of Soviet provocation. The USA could
not afford to allow countries to fall to communism as it feared that the
domino effect would take hold and the entire Europe would fall to
communism in rapid succession. Consequently, Europe became divided into
two factions those which depended on Marshall Aid, and those which were
subjugated by USSR into follow the Molotov Plan (its own version of the
Marshall Plan which it enforced in reaction). In this view, therefore, Soviet
aggression was the spark of the series of retaliatory policies which the USA
took, leading to the political and economic division of Eastern Europe,
culminating in the cold war.

The Revisionist Case

On the other hand, the revisionist view sees the cold war as a result of the
USAs insensitivity to Soviet security concerns. The USA failed to recognize the
fact that the seemingly expansionary policies were actually defensive in nature,
and stemmed from a desire to prevent any further invasion of the Soviet
Union. As such, by implementing containment, it worsened Soviet fears of
invasion, and provoked the USSR into more aggressive policies, culminating in
the cold war. This was apparent as early as before the end of WWII, whereby
the USA delayed the opening of the Second Front despite the agreement at
the Yalta Conference. This raised Soviet suspicion that the USA was
deliberately allowing Germany to devastate Russia to facilitate a potential
invasion. Furthermore, whilst the USA remained as an economic and military
powerhouse after the war, USSR suffered greatly from Hitlers blitzkrieg, and
lost majority of its military and economic infrastructure. Therefore, the need
for security in the USSR was very real, and justified. This was especially
apparent in Greece, whereby the USA mistook an indigenous communist
uprising for a Soviet backed communist takeover, and retaliated with the
Marshall Plan, which was in turn criticized by the Soviets as a form of dollar
diplomacy the extension of political influence through economic means. In
this consideration the abovementioned salami tactics were not aggressive
policies, but defensive policies originating from the desire to gain buffer states
as a political and geographical barrier against the invasion of the USSR. By
implementing containment, the USA undermined their security interests, and
thusly the Soviets were forced into retaliating via the Molotov Plan, which then
resulted in the economic division of Eastern Europe, leading to the cold war.

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

Disagreeing on the Berlin Blockade

Additionally, the traditionalist view notes Soviet aggression as a key factor
culminating in the cold war, as it threatened Western interests, forcing them
to retaliate, and led to the escalating tensions between the two sides. By
cutting off all inroads to West Berlin during the Berlin Blockade, as well as
breaking the food for reparations agreement, the USSR sent a direct challenge
to the USA to prove its commitment to the Truman doctrine. This was, in the
traditionalist view, a clear attempt by the Soviets to pressure Berlin into
submission, and gain influence over the entire Germany. With its political
influence in Germany threatened by Soviet expansion, the USA was forced into
the Berlin airlift, which involved sending large amounts of food over the soviet
blockage in aid of the besieged West Berlin. What resulted was the absolute
division of Germany into East and West Germany, leading to the political
divide which gave rise to the cold war. Therefore, in this conflict, the USSR was
the clear aggressor, resorting to inhumane tactics such as the blockading of all
supplies into an area of Western control, whilst the USA was merely acting in
defense of its zone of responsibility, West Berlin.
However, the revisionist view argues that the Berlin blockade was instead a
policy enacted in self defense, and it was the USAs breaching of agreements
which warranted such a harsh policy by the Soviet Union, resulting in the cold
war. In the Potsdam conference of 1945, the four sides had come to the
agreement that postwar Germany would be partitioned into four zones, each
to be governed by France, Britain, USA, and USSR respectively. A consensus
was reached that heavy reparations were to be exacted upon Germany to
prevent it from becoming a potential threat once again. This was particularly
important to the USSR, which had been heavily invaded by Germany twice
within the last few decades. However, the Western powers eventually changed
their mind, due to the economic agenda of making Germany a potential ally
of capitalism in the postwar world. They also wanted to avoid the mistakes of
the harsh Versailles Treaty which contributed to the Second World War. To
further this motive they merged their zones to form Trizonia, and, to promote
the economic recovery of Germany, implemented a common currency of the
Deutchemark. This was clearly unacceptable to the USSR as it was in utter
refutation of the previous agreement, and an economically prosperous
Germany would pose a real threat to USSRs security. Therefore, the USSR
outlawed the Deutchemark, and implemented its own currency of the Ostmark.
It then attempted to economically pressure the newly formed Trizonia by
cutting off food supplies guaranteed by the food for reparations agreement,
which then led to the spiral of retaliation by the USA leading to the cold war.
Thus, the Berlin blockade was rather a reaction to the USAs refutation of the

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

Potsdam agreements, and was not, as the traditionalist view asserts, an

attempt at expansionism.

More Revisionism
Furthermore, the USA, as the revisionist school notes, also proved to be
extremely insensitive and provocative in various other areas, which fuelled
further Soviet insecurity, and thus contributed to increased suspicions
between the two sides, leading to the outbreak of the cold war. Such was the
case in its handling of the atomic issue. When Truman authorized the use of
the atomic bomb on Japan, he neglected informing the USSR. He believed
that there was no need to notice them of their use since they had already told
them about their possession of a powerful weapon. However, when the bomb
was dropped, the sheer destructiveness proved a terrible fright to the USSR,
who began to suspect if the USA would eventually use the atomic bomb on
them. This no doubt tied in with Soviet paranoia of their true intention in
delaying the Second Front. In blatant ignorance of such Soviet concerns, the
USA then proposed the Baruch Plan, which gave the UN control over all
atomic development for peaceful usage, as well as rights to impose severe
sanctions on violators. The USA also proposed to destroy its stockpile of
atomic bomb. However, what the USA perceived as an extremely unselfish
offer was taken by the Soviet Union, justifiably, as an attempt to consolidate
its nuclear advantage. The UN had proven to be to a large extent a proxy of
the USA, and the plan made no reference to what would be done about USAs
advantage in technical knowledge regarding nuclear energy. Therefore, USSR
could not accept the Baruch Plan, and proposed their own plan which called
for the total destruction of all nuclear weapons. This was in turn rejected by
the USA on the grounds that it left too much to suspicion, since no observers
were allowed to verify the destruction of nuclear stockpiles. Evidently, by
mishandling the atomic issue, the USA fuelled already growing Soviet fears
that the USA had intentions to invade the USSR, leading to mounting
suspicions as each side now tried to gain the competitive edge over the other
in the arms race which ensued, leading to the eruption of the cold war.
One Way of Seeing Things
It is easy to recognize the strength of the revisionist view over the
traditionalist view. Whilst it is true to some extent that Soviet actions were
sometimes overly aggressive, such as in the case of Czechoslovakia, the drastic
US response which stemmed from its own over exaggerated fear of Soviet
expansionism was often overly provocative, as was in the case of dollar
diplomacy. Instead of addressing the issue directly, the USA took actions
which escalated tensions, consolidating its economic solidarity in Western

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

Europe via the Marshall Plan. The USA themselves were thus guilty of the very
expansionism which they so accused the USSR of. Furthermore, the USA
proved to be overly arrogant regarding their economic and military superiority
over the USSR in the immediate postwar era, and thus overlooked USSRs
security concerns, stirring Soviet paranoia through provocative actions such as
the Baruch Plan and the formation of Trizonia. Therefore, the revisionist view
of USAs exaggerated fear as the main cause of the cold war is valid to a large
extent.

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

The Globalisation Of The Cold War

Taking it beyond Europe.
Background
With Cold War rivalries in Europe locked in a reluctant stalemate, the
United States of America (USA) and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)
sought to establish their military, territorial and political supremacy over the
other through extending their influence out of Europe in the period 1950 to
1980. The USs policy shifted from containment of communism to rolling back
communism. This resulted in the superpowers making use of Third World
states as pawns in their own game of superpower politics. In other words, the
superpowers exploited the Third world nations and peoples as a platform for
the promoting of their economic, political, security and strategic interest, in a
bid to outdo the rival superpower. On one hand, the Third world states
seemed to have an intricate understanding of the Cold War rivalries and
manipulated it, playing one power against the other to achieve their own
economic, and security interests. However, to an even greater extent these
states were tools controlled by the superpowers, as can be seen from how
superpower interests were enforced upon these client states, escalating local
conflicts in the process. Therefore, whilst it is true that the client states did
manage to exact some benefit from the globalization of the cold war through
careful manipulation, the superpowers remained the puppeteer of these states,
waging their own Cold War rivalries using resources and platforms belonging
to the latter, and beyond their jurisdiction. As such, the third world was indeed
exploited as a platform for the furtherment of superpower interests.
Strategic Interests
The superpowers, most notably, America, made use of countries like
Afghanistan for the promotion of their Cold war Strategic interests. These
strategic concerns were in relation to security matters as it involved
geographical proximity to locations of importance to the superpowers. The
USSR was unsettled when the Peoples Democratic Party of Afghanistan began
to show signs of weakness, for it feared that the country, which shared a
1500mile border with the central Asian Muslim republics of the Soviet Union,
could be used as a potential launch pad for the military and political invasion
of the USSR. Missiles had been placed in Turkey and the same could easily be
done in Afghanistan. Furthermore, political turmoil could spill over into the
Soviet Muslim states. The countrys proximity to Pakistan, a pro-USA state, and
China was also of increasing importance to USSR, following the Sino-soviet
split. As such, the USSR sent a total of 80000 troops into Afghanistan. In

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

reaction, the USA secretly authorized the CIA to send financial aid and training
for the latter. Evidently, third world countries were being played by the
superpowers, which intervened directly in their politics militarily, due to
strategic concerns of geographical proximity. The sending of troops and
providing of financial aid escalated Third World conflicts beyond proportions
controllable by the Third World, rendering them unable to control their
policies and resources, labeling them as but mere pawns in the game of Cold
War diplomacy.
Strategic interests, also dominates the superpowers desire to intervene
in civil conflicts so as to spread their political doctrines, as was evident in the
case of Korea. Each side wanted to make use of the Korean War to spread
their respective sphere of political influence. For USA, the concern was that
should South Korea fall to communist influence under the North, then Japan
(which was of close proximity to Korea) would become vulnerable to
communist take over. The fact that Chinas fall to communism preceded the
Korean War confirmed USs fears of a domino effect, and thus Japan seemed
likely the next domino to fall in rapid succession to communism. As a result
USA was extremely reluctant to let the ROK fall, and proved its commitment in
the signing of NSC68, which authorized the use of any means necessary to
prevent the spread of, and even roll back, communism. The USA then
manipulated the UN and sent a largely American coalition force to defend
Syngman Rhees regime (a puppet democracy installed by the USA in the first
place), even providing the general, Douglas MacArthur. The USSR also
indirectly contributed to Kim Il Sungs efforts, supplying T-34 tanks and MIGs.
What then followed was the escalation of what started as a civil war into an
international conflict involving the USA, ROK, DPRK, and, when Allied troops
threatened Chinese security by encroaching upon the Yalu river, the PRC.
Therefore, political concerns led the USA to directly intervene in the Korean
conflict, and blew the Korean War out of the control of the Koreans. Thus they
lost their autonomy and became proxies of the USA.
Client State Involvement
However, the third world were not always powerless bystanders at the
disposal of the superpowers, and were sometimes actively involved in making
use of superpower bipolarity for their own security, political and economic
interests. Following his rise to power Castro initiated provocative land reforms
and nationalization programmes targeted at freeing Cuba from economic
exploitation by the USA. Many US-owned companies were nationalized, and
land used by America for sugar cane cultivation was taken. This threatened US
interest as 80% of the Cuban economy was actually owned by the US. In
reaction, the USA attempted to pressure Cuba into submission by enforcing

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

an embargo on Cuban sugar. The CIA also attempted to assassinate Castro,

raising fears of a possible repeat of the Bay of Pigs invasion. However, Castro
was able to protect Cubas economic and military sovereignty by approaching
USSR to purchase Cuban sugar, and declaring allegiance to the USSR in 1962
so as to gain military backing, which culminated in the form of the setting up
of Mid Range Ballistic Missile sites on the country a strong deterrence
against US invasion. Castro recognized the fact that by taking shelter behind
Russian missiles, Cuba would be safeguarded from US invasion. By doing so
he was able to play USSR against the USA, ensuring Cubas economic survival
and sovereignty, thus fulfilling his own economic and strategic interests. This
was also a hallmark case of which a superpower (USA) failed to use a third
world country (Cuba) as a platform to further its own interests, but instead the
reverse happened a third world country had made use of cold war bipolarity
to enforce its own interests. This cements the alternate view that the third
world was sometimes more than mere pawns in cold war diplomacy, and
actually had the freedom to decide their own fate.
Political Interests
However, it must be noted that Cubas security interests were at the
same time the USSRs political interest. Khrushchev himself described Cuba as
a symbolic communist victory for USSR, and was a potential bridgehead for
the spread of communism into Latin America. As such, preserving Castros
regime was of tantamount importance to the USSR as it was to Castro.
Furthermore, Castro had initially disapproved of placing MRBMs on the island,
fearing that this would portray Cuba as a puppet of the USSR, and disfiguring
its image to its Latin American neighbours. He eventually relinquished on the
grounds that the missiles would tip the strategic missile balance in favour of
the USSR, owing much to Khrushchevs false rhetoric about the prowess of
Soviet missiles (despite their 17-1 disadvantage to the USA in terms of missiles
which could hit the others territories). USSR was also able to use the MRBMs
as a bargaining chip for the removal of the Jupiter missiles in Turkey an
enforcement of their security interest. Shortly after the crisis, once the Jupiters
had been disarmed, Russian priority for Cuba fell, along with its extent of
commitment. Therefore, the relationship between Cuba and USSR can be seen
as that of mutual manipulation, with each state using one another to further
their own interests. Evidently, the USSR had made more use of Cuba than the
latter did of the former. Cubas proximity to the USA led USSR to giving it high
priority initially. By placing missiles protecting Cuba against the USA, USSR
actually made use of it as a platform to fulfill its own strategic and security
interests as well.

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

Furthermore, the superpowers were able to manipulate client states

for economic interests. Such economic interests involved the preservation of
control over important resources and markets, notably oil. The USA felt its
economic interests in Iran threatened when Mossadeq rose to power, and
nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, preventing USAs prioritized
access to oil. Given also Irans location in the OPEC region, USA felt a serious
threat to their oil supply. Immediately USA organized a boycott of Iranian oil
along with Britain, and subsequently sought to depose Mossadeq through
underground means with the CIA staging fake demonstrations for and then
against Mossadeq. Evidently, Irans rich oil resource led to superpower
intervention in order to fulfill its own economic agendas. Irans politics were
manipulated by the USA, and the locals were but ignorant bystanders of the
CIAs political games. As a result they had no say in their own politics, and
came to be pawns in the game of superpower politics.

One Way of Seeing Things

In the light of the above, it is evident that the Third World was, in
fact, a proxy of the superpowers. When the superpowers desired to intervene
in the affairs of client states, they simply enforced their will upon the local
government (or through underground means), which had no power to stop
them. Actions include the direct sending of troops and the manipulation of
Iranian politics by the CIA secret. On the contrary, Castro had first to declare
allegiance to the USSR, and curry favour in order to achieve his security and
economic interests (which ironically is equivalent to opening themselves up to
manipulation by the superpowers). Therefore, the superpowers clearly
retained autonomy over the client states. Furthermore, it is evident that had
Cuba not been an area of interest to the Soviet Union (due to its close
proximity to USA), it would not have dedicated resources to aid Cuba to such
a great extent. The placement of MRBMs on Cuba may have helped deter a
possible invasion of Cuba by the USA, but it was more importantly used as a
bargaining chip by the USSR for the removal of similar US missiles in Turkey.
Thus, it can be seen that client states only had the jurisdiction to pursue their
own interests if they were in line with the interests of the superpowers, and by
that logic it was impossible for them to go against them. This is established in
consideration of the fact that the superpowers had precisely this power to
worsen local conflicts against the will of the indigenous in order to carry out
their interests (as clearly seen in the USAs defense of South Korea against the
will of the North). Hence, client states were indeed mere pawns in the game of
superpower diplomacy.

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

The Cuban Missile Crisis

Partly Why Were Alive Today.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was a conflict between the United States of America
(USA), the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), and Cuba, occurring in
1962. It originated after USA discovered that the USSR had installed ballistic
missiles on the island of Cuba, located geographically next to the USA, and led
to a series of confrontations including armed clashes. A primary motivating
force is something that plays the most integral and crucial role behind the
development of the conflict, and on one hand, strategic interests did play that
role. Strategic interests in this case refers to geographical considerations to a
country which is deemed vital to the preservation or advancement of its own
objectives the USAs was to contain communism, whilst the USSRs was
national security and perhaps spread communism to achieve that. Therefore,
differing interests of the two superpowers did provide the impetus for the
clash over Cuba. However, factors including Cuban insecurity resulting from
the over-aggressiveness of the USA did contribute by distancing Cuba from
the USA and aligning it with USSR. This was in turn fuelled by Fidel Castros
aggressive policies. Given that strategic interests were responsible for
superpower attention on Cuba in the first place, and resulted in the escalation
of conflict to flash point in the Cold War, it can indeed be said that strategic
interests formed the primary motivating force for the Cuban missile crisis.

Strategic Interests
Strategic interests, from both the USA and USSR, incited the Cuban crisis by
providing the basis for aggressive policies that both sides undertook in a bid
to maintain regional and economic stability and influence. From even before
the missile crisis, the USA was already fearful that Cuba would be lost to
communist influence. Such a loss could not be tolerated as it was feared that
the Domino effect that countries would fall then in rapid succession would
take hold and lead to various Latin American countries converting to
communism as well. Latin America was an especially sensitive region as
widespread poverty was fertile grounds for the festering of communism, and
Communist tendencies were beginning to show, notably from Guatemalan
Jacobo Arbenz. Cuba was located in close proximity to this region, thus the
USA feared that allowing Communism to take a foothold in Cuba would lead
to the uncontainable spread of communism. This culminated in aggressive
USA actions like the covert Operation Mongoose, which attempted to
assassinate Fidel Castro, to no avail. On the other hand, when Cuba declared
its allegiance to Marxist-Leninism in 1961, the USSR recognised it as a
strategic bridge for the spread of communism toward the Americas.

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

Geographical Proximity
Furthermore, Cuba, with its geographical proximity to USA, proved to be an
ideal launching site for the Soviet Unions Medium Ranged Ballistic Missiles.
The USA had had an advantage by having the longer-ranged Inter-continental
ballistic missiles or the Jupiter missiles based in Turkey, and the USSR now saw
Cuba as a strategic tool to close this advantage by putting its shorter ranged
but equally powerful missiles on an island where it was within range of key US
cities. Furthermore, the USSR intended to use this as a bargaining chip to
pressure the removal of the US missiles in Turkey a ploy which succeeded.
Therefore, strategic interests were mainly responsible for the hard-line policies
which both sides adopted in a power struggle for control over the
geographically significant Cuba. While the USSR saw Cuba as a means to
extend its influence, USA feared the spread of communism as well as security
threats right at its doorstep, culminating in neither side willing to give up
control over Cuba. This in turn led to the USAs retaliation in enforcement of a
naval blockade on Cuba, whilst the USSR continued to build and operate its
missile bases in refutation of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, (which said that
further efforts by European governments to colonize land or interfere with
states in the Americas would be viewed by the United States of America as
acts of aggression requiring US intervention) resulting in the Cuban Missile
Crisis.

Castros role
At the same time, the aggressive and seemingly anti-USA policies by Fidel
Castro established Cuba as an overt supporter of communism unwilling to coexist peacefully with the USA, adding on to the development of the economic
crisis and inciting harsh US retaliation. After rising to power in Cuba in 1959
(by means of a armed revolt, no less), Fidel Castro imposed various
revolutionary reforms which disconnected the country from USA, including the
nationalisation of American companies as well as land reforms. Castro accused
USA of making Cuba its economic lapdog, and resultantly sought to sever
economic ties between USA and Cuba. This resulted in USA enforcing an
embargo on trade with Cuba. Furthermore, Castro established state control
over various agricultural commodities under the First Agrarian reform of 1959
which effectively forbid foreign land ownership and controlled production of
plantations such as sugar cane, which was previously controlled by the US. As
a final insult to USA ideals of democracy, Castro abolished free elections in
Cuba. Although Castro had not at this point of time declared allegiance to
USSR, the USA took this anti-USA action simultaneously as a pro-USSR one.
This was a result of the zero-sum game mentality that one sides loss was
directly another sides gain, and thus anti-USA was naturally pro-Soviet. With

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

this mentality the USA pursued even harsher policies including an actual
armed invasion in the Bay of Pigs region in Cuba. However, not only did this
fail, it backfired by driving Cuba further from USA, and thus closer to the USSR,
culminating in its declaration of alignment with Marxist Leninism in 1961,
which then opened the doors for the USSR to intervene in Cuba legitimately
and without being overtly expansionist. Moreover, this was a refutation of the
age old Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which Thus, the aggressive policies by Fidel
Castro also served to create a rift between the USA and Cuba, into which Cold
War bipolarity flowed, forming fertile ground for and leading to the eruption
of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

One Way of Seeing Things

In conclusion, strategic interests which stemmed from soviet insecurity as well
as US fear of communism spread was indeed the main factor behind the
Cuban Missile crisis, as it was precisely Cubas proximity to USA which led to
both sides placing Cuba at such a high regard, when then resulted in drastic
measures almost including the eruption of a nuclear war. Both sides had
strategic considerations regarding security USAs fear of Cuban missiles and
USSRs fear of Turkeys missiles without which USSR would unlikely have had
placed missiles on Cuba in the first place, even with Fidel Castros declaration
of allegiance to USSR. This was due to the concept of Mutually Assured
Destruction, which was especially powerful in USSRs case due to its paranoia
over national security. Thus, without strategic interests, the USSR would not
have been bold as to place missiles in Cuba, thus the Cuban Missile Crisis
would not have been as inevitable. Therefore, strategic interests were in fact
the primary motivating factor for the Cuban Missile Crisis

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

Sample Essay
To what extent were the client states proxies of the superpowers? Were they
exploited to stage the Cold War, or did they exploit the Cold War to further their
own aims?

Introduction
The Cold War was an indirect conflict between the United States of America
and the Soviet Union that expanded beyond Europe from 1950-1962 in which
both superpowers sought to expand their influences beyond Europe in order
to achieve military, territorial and political supremacy over the other when the
situation in Europe had reached a stalemate. This lead to the globalization on
the Cold War, culminating in the eruption of wars such as the Korean War
(1950-1953), the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Iran conflict, and the Afghanistan
Gulf Wars. On one hand, the client states seemed to have a clear knowledge
of the Cold War rivalries and manipulated it to achieve their own economic
and political interests. However, to an even greater extent these states were
controlled by the superpowers in order to further the latters own strategic,
political, economic, and military interests, which, in many cases, were enforced
upon the client states as well. Therefore, whilst it is true that the client states
did manipulate the superpowers, playing them against each other achieve
their own benefit, the superpowers remained the puppeteer of these states,
waging their own Cold War rivalries using resources and platforms belonging
to the latter. As such, the client states were more likely than not proxies of the
superpowers.
1. Statement The client states made use of cold war rivalries to gain
economic and military support to further their own political and
economic causes by deliberately aligning themselves to either side in
return for aid.
2. Evidence
a. Motives:
i. In Korea, Kim Il Sung and Syngman Rhee both wanted to
reunify korea (political reasons)
ii. Cuba: Castro needed to secure economic growth after US
enforced sanctions following his radical nationalization
policies
iii. Cuba: Castro feared a possible US invasion and threat to
his reign especially after repeated attempts to kill him and
the Bay of Pigs invasion
b. Actions:

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

i. Kim Il Sung visited Moscow repeatedly and convinced

Stalin to give the green light for the invasion by DPRK as
well as supply MIGs and tanks.
ii. Syngman Rhee asked for USA military support to defend
themselves against the DPRK invasion
iii. Castro pledged allegiance to the Soviets and convinced
them to purchase sugar from them previously this sugar
had been sold to the US
1. USA failed to use Cuba as a platform to further
their economic interest
iv. Castro allowed USSR to place MRBMs on the island thus
preventing USA from considering any invasion
3. Evaluation
a. The leaders of these countries were prolific in playing the one
power against the other in order to reach their goals. They
recognized the fact that by aligning themselves with either side,
they could get concessions from both (the first side would
naturally help their newfound ally, and the other would attempt
to win them back over). Coupled with the extent of commitment
that both sides (especially the USA) seemed to have towards the
cold war rivalry, it was highly profitable for the leaders to do so.
b. However, it must be recognized that often these leaders were
installed by the superpowers in the first place (Rhee), and thus
their voice was also the voice of the superpowers. Therefore, the
interests of these leaders represented the interests of the
superpowers, and thus the superpowers were able to use them
to manipulate the actions of these client states.
1. Statement The superpowers deliberately equipped client states for
the furthering of their own strategic and security agendas by
manipulating their leaders and actions.
2. Evidence
a. Motive
i. USA Strategic interests. Fear of domino theory thus it
was unwilling to let any state slip to communism lest
states around it are dragged in. Japan for Korea, Latin
America for Cuba, Kuwait for Iran.
ii. Political interests. USA wanted to roll back communism
and thus used the proxy wars as a way to drive
communists out from occupied states.
iii. USSR Security interests. Put missiles in Cuba as a
bargaining chip against Jupiter missiles in Turkey
iv. Political interests similar to USA

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

v. Feared the Afghanistan, which shared a 1500 mile border

with USSR would fall into the Western camp, and then be
used as a launch pad against communism
b. Action
i. USA manipulated the UN to send troops to support ROK
ii. Contemplated using nuclear missiles against USSR in the
Cuban issue
iii. NSC68 authorized the use of armed force to roll back
communism
iv. Both sides equipped their proxies for war by providing
resources and military equipment (MIGs and Tanks)
v. Soviet Union gave the green light to Castro
vi. USSR sent 80000 troops into Afghanistan to support the
weakening PDPA, resulting in a long drawn war with the
mujahedeen.
3. Evaluation
a. None of the proxies could or would have been able to start the
wars had the superpowers not given support nor backing
b. The very fact that the soviet condoned Kim Il Sungs campaign in
against ROK showed that they saw some benefit out of it.
Stalins initial rejection for fear of US retaliation also showed that
the USSR blocked Kim Il Sung out of its own security concerns
and was able to put their own interests before those of the client
states.
c. Used the client states as bargaining chips against the other party
d. Superpower intervention ballooned the situation and escalated
the conflicts into major wars, making it beyond the control of
the locals.
1. Statement The superpower also manipulated the client states for their
own economic interests.
2. Evidence
a. Motives
i. USA had wanted to protect its oil supply from Iran, which
was threatened by Mossadeqs nationalization of the
Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.
b. Action
i. Organised a boycott of Iranian oil along with Britain
ii. CIA hired demonstrators to fake a communist protest to
raise fears of communist takeover, followed by anticommunists protests in favour of the Shah
3. Evaluation
a. This stirred up rivalries within Iran

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

b. The sheer extent of which Iranian politics was manipulated by

the USA who sought to depose Mossadeq reveals how the locals
were but ignorant bystanders of the CIAs political games.
c. Therefore, the client states were evidently victims of
manipulation by the superpowers.

4. Statement Regional countries also involved themselves in the third

world countries for their own economic and security interests.
5. Evidence
a. Motives
i. China feared that their electric plants based in north
korea would be compromised (economic)
ii. Also, china feared that the USA would use DPRK as a base
to attack and overthrow Chinese communism
b. Action
i. Intervened in the Korean war by sending military forces
across the Yalu River
6. Evaluation
a. The fact that the client states were influenced largely by regional
forces as well showed that it was not just their own interests
which they were campaigning for
b. However, the fact remains that in most cases such as for China,
intervention was only accorded when it came close to
threatening their own interests, ie when the US forced
approached the Yalu, thus it cannot be said that regional
countries were responsible for the outbreak and globalization of
the cold war.

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

The End of the Cold War

The Fall Of The Soviet Union.
Questions to ponder:
Did the USSR collapse due to internal or external pressures?
Were economic factors more important than political or social factors?
Were the policies of Gorbachev or Reagan more causal?
Stuff you should understand:
Glasnost and Perestroika
Reagans Three Pronged Approach
Dtente (day-taunt)

Background
The end of the cold war (1989-1990) was a result of external and internal
pressures exerted by both superpowers, the USA and the USSR resulting in the
collapse of the Soviet Union. It was declared as a victory of the US
containment policy. On one hand, economic factors such as long term and
short term weaknesses of the Soviet Union, and economic isolation by the
USA, did result in the implosion of the Soviet economy and the development
of resentment against the central Soviet government, fuelling its demise.
However, political factors such as the loosening of central Soviet command
and political pressure exerted by the USA through third world intervention
were also instrumental in allowing for the political disintegration of the USSR.
Given that political factors were responsible for the wave of democracy that
swept over Eastern Europe by allowing for the materializing of public
resentment against the government, it can be said that such factors dealt the
killing blow, and thus were more crucial than economic factors for the collapse
of the Soviet Union.

Economic factors
The collapse of the Soviet Union was partly the result of a long-term
accumulation of economic weaknesses within the communist inspired
command economy, which fuelled rising resentment within the populace. The
soviet economy was centred on the policy of collectivization, in which firms
outputs were collected and redistributed by the state. Such programmes
tended to focus more on the distribution of income rather than the creation of
it. Without any profit motivation, people would only work up till the point

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

whereby their quota could be fulfilled, and even then many firms deliberately
inflated profits to make it seem as if their quotas had been met. Soviet
statistics about being the worlds largest producers of steel, for example, was
grossly inflated. As such, collectivization led to the collapse of the rural
economy, and the people who experienced the most abject poverty were
ironically the ones which the communism system sought to empower the
peasantry. Evidently, this led to rising resentment against the state
government, within the proletariat, which comprised up to 70% of the soviet
population. Such resentment fuelled the desire to breakaway from the central
state, leading to the fall of the Soviet Union.

Perestroika by Gorbachev
Such resentment was exacerbated when Gorbachev implemented the
Perestroika reforms, which compounded the poverty within the lower classes.
Perestroika, or radical economic reforms, allowed for the partial privatization
of the Soviet economy, and in doing so not only allowed for the inflow of
capitalist systems, but increased the peoples disillusionment with the
government, as economic woes worsened. Notably, gorbachev enacted the
Law of Cooperatives in 1988 which permitted private ownership of businesses.
However, the old system of the centrally planned economy (GOSPLAN) was
retained. This led to large degrees of confusion as managers became unsure
as to what extent they were allowed autonomy in making decisions.
Furthermore, the soviet people who had grown accustomed to simply
following instructions from the state were unable to make sound profit
maximizing decisions by themselves, and many firms which failed as a result
had to be propped up by the government, enhancing its fiscal deficit. Most
importantly, such reforms ignored the rural economy, which had been
suffering from low growth as previously explained. Transport infrastructure
essential for the transporting of agriculture produce remained in shambles. As
a result the USSR had to import food from overseas, incurring a larger trade
debt. Thus, the same economic problems remained if not worsened, and the
government lost even more support from the people, who were more
concerned with basic livelihood issues, culminating finally in the collapse of
the Soviet Union.

Economic Isolation by USA

Shortages of consumer goods caused by the ailing rural economy were also
compounded by Reagans policy (under his three-pronged approach) of
economic isolation. Under the NSDD-32, USA sought to undermine the soviet
economy by depressing the value of Soviet commodities on the world market.
Actions it undertook include an embargo on Soviet grain exports, as well as

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

the sanctions on equipment for natural gas pipelines, crippling the soviet
economy. All these, coupled with the long drawn Marshall Plan, ensured the
financial prosperity of Western Europe at the exclusion of Eastern Europe, and
strained the Russian economy to the point where it could not catch up with
the West. Therefore, the soviet economy was severely crippled by both
external and internal pressures, which lead ultimately to anti-government
sentiments within the Russian population, and subsequently to the fall of the
Soviet Union.

Political factors
However, the importance of political factors cannot be ignored as they were
instrumental in allowing for the final dissolution of the Soviet Union as a
political entity. Firstly, Reagans second prong, the policy of third world
intervention, led to the political strain of the USSR, resulting in its collapse. In
Nicaragua, for example the US pledged sums of over US$100 million a year in
support for the rebel group known as the Contras, and promised to continue
funding until democracy was achieved in this Communist republic located in
Central America. In doing so, the USA placed a large political burden on the
USSR, which was obliged to render support for its satellite communist empires.
This partially fuelled Gorbachevs realisation that the USSR could not maintain
its empire unless its own economy was first remedied, giving rise to the
policies of glasnost and perestroika, which ultimately spelt the fall of the
Soviet Union. Simultaneously, this forced the USSR to dedicate resources to
aid such countries, which imposed further economic strain on the already
crumbling economy. Evidently, policies which stemmed from political
considerations also reinforced the impact of economic factors leading to the
collapse of the Soviet Union, thus proving that the former was more causal
than the latter.

Gorbachevs Glasnost
Other political factors included Gorbachevs glasnost, or openness policy,
which was based on political transparency, openness and freedom, and this
was applied in a domestic context It was Gorbachevs attempt to reverse the
negative long term effects of Soviet Communist rule, which saw increased
inefficiency and corruption, thus leading to greater disenchantment and
detachment from the central Soviet authority. He wanted to allow greater
openness in the discussion of issues and the relaxation of censorship laws as
well as encourage greater involvement of the people in the governing of the
country so that there would be a greater sense of belonging. In 1987,
Gorbachev introduced democratic elections. All these eventually led to the
downfall of the USSR as the opposition to the communist party, led by Boris

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

Yeltsin, who eventually became the president of Russia, became more

powerful after Glasnost was implemented due to their new-found ability to
speak out. With the iron fist of the Kremlin loosened, the traditional political
critics, as well as previous enemies of the State were now able to air their
views. Past government mistakes such as the Chernobyl incident were
exposed, siphoning away support for the central government. Eventually,
Gorbachev was pressured to remove Article 6 in the Soviet Constitution; which
had always ensured the monopoly and dominance of the Communist Party.
With this removed, other parties were able to come to power, leading to the
erosion of communist control over USSR, and with it, the weakening of the
Soviet Union, ultimately leading to its collapse.

The My Way Doctrine

Moreover, the Sinatra Doctrine, another policy initiated by Gorbachev, and
which is related to Glasnost, also ultimately caused the downfall of the USSR
by allowing for the rise of democracy within member and satellite states,
leading to their eventual breakaway. Instead of using fear and coercion to
control the Soviet satellite states, as seen through the Brezhnev Doctrine,
Gorbachev wanted to allow more freedom and expression so that the satellite
states would have a greater sense of belonging and identification with the
Soviet Union and implemented the Sinatra Doctrine which allowed free
elections and the adoption of certain democratic elements in the Soviet
satellite Eastern European states. In 1989, Hungary took the autonomy to hold
free elections, and Gorbachev did little to stop the moves. This policy of non
intervention where satellite states were allowed to express themselves without
fear of reprisals led to these states breaking away from the USSR, as they were
granted more power and autonomy in the political aspect. Waves of reform
propagated throughout the Eastern bloc and grassroots organizations, such as
Polands Solidarity movement, rapidly gained ground. In Czechoslovakia and
East Germany, mass protests unseated entrenched Communist leaders. More
prominently, the Berlin Wall, a physical symbol of the Soviet-American split
and the iron curtain, fell in 1989 to waves of refugees who overwhelmed
border guards. Evidently, the Sinatra doctrine indirectly led to the complete
dissolution of the Soviet bloc. By taking away the fear of reprisals, satellite
states were indirectly encouraged to pursue autonomy and independence,
accentuated further by their desire to break free from the iron fist of the
central Soviet government. With each member state declaring independence
and abolishing communism in rapid succession, the Soviet Union could no
longer exist as one entity, and resultantly collapsed.

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

Military factors?
Additionally, military factors (which stemmed from political considerations)
such as Reagans policy of nuclear rearmament, also contributed to the
collapse of the Soviet Union as it forced the latter to strain its economy even
further by devoting more resources to keep up in the arms race. The Strategic
Defence Initiative was proposed to deploy a space based defence system that
would render the US invulnerably to missile attacks. This largely threatened
the nuclear balance of power for the soviets, who then attempted to follow
suit with their own program. Effectively, this drained the soviet economy even
further, which thus led to further unhappiness from the Russian population
who saw the government spending large amounts on military goods which
had little or nothing to do with their basic livelihood.

One way of seeing things.

Political factors were what ultimately allowed for nationalism and democracy
to take root in Eastern Europe. Economic problems had been persistent prior
to 1989, but had thus far not led to the collapse of the Soviet Union as state
control and central power was very much retained, and prevented any
resentment from developing into full-fledged anti-government political
movements. When such control was eroded, it allowed for the materialising of
growing resentment against the state, and waves of democracy and
nationalism swept across Eastern Europe, culminating in the disintegration of
the Soviet bloc. It is hence noteworthy that the implementation of glasnost
and the Sinatra doctrine only preceded the fall of the Soviet Union by a short
time period, implying that it was the key factor in causing the failure of the
already ailing Soviet Union.
In conclusion, the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war was
largely a result of combined long-term and short term political, economic, and
military pressures exerted simultaneously by the USA and the USSR, leading to
the implosion of the Soviet bloc. To some extent is it true that economic
factors were integral in stirring widespread resentment for the government,
but without the political changes in the form of the Sinatra doctrine and
glasnost, such resentment would not have materialised in the form of political
action in deposing the central government and the declaration of
independence by many Eastern European states. This is especially true if we
consider that economic woes had existed long before the implementation of
glasnost and perestroika, but were unable to cause the demise of the Soviet
Union prior to this. Conversely, once the firm state control was relaxed, waves
of nationalistic and democratic fervour, inspired by the cumulative resentment

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

for the government over the years, swept across Eastern Europe, leading to
the fall of the Soviet Union, and, with it, the end of the Cold War.

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

Sample Essay
Ronald Reagans Three Prongs,
v.
Mikhail Gorbachevs Glasnost and Perestroika.
Statement
Gorbachevs economic reforms were instrumental in causing the dismantling
of the Soviet command economy into a market economy, accentuating
already inherent social and economic tensions within the economy. Such
tensions fuelled the development of nationalism and the fragmentation of
the Soviet Union, leading to its collapse.
Motives
Gorbachev intended to correct the problems of collectivisation, which had
led to great poverty, starvation and inefficiency in the USSR. He wanted to
create a sense of incentive for productivity and greater ownership through
the introduction of privatisation.
Actions
As such, he initiated the Perestroika reforms, or in other words the radical
reform of the Soviet economy. This was marked by a decentralisation of the
state economy, and was coupled with the Law of Cooperatives, enacted in
1988 which allowed for private ownership of businesses. However, these
reforms ignored the agricultural rural economy that had been facing long
term problems of poor facilities and equipment as well as infrastructure.
With its own agriculture in shambles, the USSR had to rely on imports for
food, and thus accumulated more debt. Furthermore, private ownership of
enterprises actually worked against the intention of increasing economic
productivity, as workers and managers who were so used to merely following
state commands were unable to take autonomous decisions to maximise
firms profits.
Evaluation
The same economic problems therefore remained, and wealth was now
accumulated in the hands of the few who were able to prosper under the
new privatised system, resulting in an increasing income disparity which then

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

stirred nationalist fervour and unhappiness against the state. This in turn led
to the disintegration of the Soviet economy as well as society, leading to its
collapse.
Statement
Gorbachevs policies caused great political change in the USSR, domestically,
by ushering in a new era of unprecedented political openness and freedom.
Also, because of his policies, elements of democracy were also injected into
both the USSRs domestic political system, and also the political system of
USSR satellite states, where the satellite states were given license to hold free
elections within their own states. All this ultimately led to the downfall of the
USSR.
Motives
Glasnost, the policy that Gorbachev implemented, was based on political
transparency, openness and freedom, and this was applied in a domestic
context. This was Gorbachevs attempt to reverse the negative long term
effects of Soviet Communist rule, which saw increased inefficiency and
corruption, thus leading to greater disenchantment and detachment from the
central Soviet authority. He wanted to allow greater openness in the
discussion of issues and the relaxation of censorship laws as well as encourage
greater involvement of the people in the governing of the country so that
there would be a greater sense of belonging.
Actions
In 1987, Gorbachev introduced democratic elections. All these eventually led
to the downfall of the USSR as the opposition to the communist party, led by
Boris Yeltsin, who eventually became the president of Russia, became more
powerful after Glasnost was implemented due to their new-found ability to
speak out.
Evaluation
With the iron fist of the Kremlin loosened, the traditional political critics, as
well as previous enemies of the State were now able to air their views. Past
government mistakes such as the Chernobyl incident were exposed, siphoning
away support for the central government.
Eventually, Gorbachev was pressured to remove Article 6 in the Soviet
Constitution; which had always ensured the monopoly and dominance of the

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

Communist Party. With this removed, other parties were able to come to
power, leading to the erosion of communist control over USSR, and with it,
the weakening of the Soviet Union, ultimately leading to its collapse.
Statement
Moreover, the Sinatra Doctrine, another policy initiated by Gorbachev, and
which is related to Glasnost, also ultimately caused the downfall of the USSR
by allowing for the rise of democracy within member and satellite states,
leading to their eventual breakaway.
Motives
Instead of using fear and coercion to control the Soviet satellite states, as seen
through the Brezhnev Doctrine, Gorbachev wanted to allow more freedom
and expression so that the satellite states would have a greater sense of
belonging and identification with the Soviet Union.
Actions
The Sinatra Doctrine allowed for free elections and the implementation of
certain democratic elements in the Soviet satellite Eastern European states. In
1989, Hungary took the autonomy to hold free elections, and Gorbachev did
little to stop the moves.
Evaluation
This policy of non intervention where satellite states were allowed to express
themselves without fear of reprisals led to these states breaking away from
the USSR, as they were granted more power and autonomy in the political
aspect. Waves of reform propagated throughout the Eastern bloc and
grassroots organizations, such as Polands Solidarity movement, rapidly
gained ground. In Czechoslovakia and East Germany, mass protests unseated
entrenched Communist leaders. More prominently, the Berlin Wall, a physical
symbol of the Soviet-American split and the iron curtain, fell in 1989 to waves
of refugees who overwhelmed border guards.
Evidently, the Sinatra doctrine indirectly led to the complete dissolution of the
Soviet bloc. By taking away the fear of reprisals, satellite states were indirectly
encouraged to pursue autonomy and independence, accentuated further by
their desire to break free from the iron fist of the central Soviet government.
With each member state declaring independence and abolishing communism
in rapid succession, the Soviet Union could no longer exist as one entity, and
resultantly collapsed.

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

Statement
However, the policies of Ronald Reagan proved to be a penultimate force in
the eventual fall of the Soviet Union, as the aggressive tactics Reagan
advocated and ushered put tremendous economic pressure on the Soviet
Union by choking off its ability to gain new resources and areas of influence,
stymieing its growth and indubitably leading to its destruction.
Motives
Reagan was completely opposed the idea of dtente, and being a hard-line
republican believed that the Soviet economy was in deep economic crises and
aimed to hasten its destruction by adopting aggressive policies that would
bankrupt its economy. This would serve the purposes of removing a
worldwide threat of communism as well as boost the United States military
strength. Reagan adopted a three-pronged approach against the Soviet
Union, signing the NSDD-32 (National Security Decisions Directive which
involved mass rearmament of its military to put pressure on the Soviet Front, a
call for greater appeal to the third world countries to gather more support and
allies, and to chain the Soviet Union under a tight economic strain, subduing
and incapacitating its retaliatory and technological abilities and capabilities.
Actions
Under military rearmament, Reagan deployed the Strategic Defense Initiative
(S.D.I) which allowed USA to attain near imperviousness to any form of missile
attack. Cruise missiles and nuclear weaponry were also planted in Eastern
Europe to counter Soviet Missiles. This instigated the USSR to exhaust its
resources in an attempt to attain missile parity. Regarding third world
involvement, the USA funded the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, the Contras in
Nicaragua, and Savimbis forces in Angola, and the Khmer Rouge in Vietnam.
Evaluation
With all the aggressive policies weighing upon the USSR, they were
pressurized to catch up with the USA and divert more resources to the military,
instead of the domestic economy. This drew them to the realization that in the
end, all options were closed and it was futile to resist any longer. This reversal
of mindsets from the aggressive policies of Reagan was the greatest catalyst
in the eventual breakdown of Soviet Union, and it paved the way for the
policies of Gorbachev, of Perestroika and Glasnost to take effect, and the

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

hardliners to contest the party leadership, creating internal schisms that

eventually culminated in the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Conclusion
External factors are often less crucial than internal factors, and the same can
be said for the collapse of the Soviet Union. Gorbachevs policies of economic
and political reform were evidently more important than Reagans threepronged approach as they were internal measures which served to weaken the
Soviet union from the inside, leaving the USSR vulnerable to Reagans
aggressive containment policies. By introducing economic reforms such as
perestroika, Gorbachev effectively weakened the USSRs economic ability to
catch up to Reagans armed race, thus leaving it susceptible to Western
aggression. Therefore, Gorbachevs policies were more integral as they
exposed various weaknesses within the Soviet Union such as the various
mistakes and cover-ups of the past which then allowed Reagans policies to
take a larger effect. Thus, Gorbachevs policies were the main architect of the
Soviet Unions collapse, and Reagans policies served only to catalyze and
hasten the fall of communism.

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

The Legacies Of The Cold War

What 45 years of conflict left behind.
The end of the cold war was largely a result of both external and internal
pressures exerted by both superpowers, the USA and the USSR. The victory of
containment was marked by the collapse of the Soviet Union, bringing the
indirect conflict to an abrupt halt which in turn had far reaching consequences
on the post-cold war world. Ethno-nationalism, an affirmation of national and
racial solidarity by countries around the world, took hold of world politics,
whilst the world shifted from a dichotomy between the USA and the once
USSR into a unipolar entity dictated by the sole surviving superpower the
USA. Military spending, research, and campaigns greatly decreased allowing
for the gradual recovery of the world economy, and were channeled more
towards collaborative purposes rather than adversarial ones - the world no
longer had to hold its breath in fear of a nuclear fallout. Given that the
newfound unipolarity of the post-cold war era was pivotal in allowing for the
spread of ethno-nationalism, disarmament and global co-operation, it is
evident that such was the main impact of the end of the cold war.

A New Wave of Nationalism

The end of the cold war came with the loosening of superpower control over
their respective spheres of influence, notably in Eastern Europe, which allowed
for former satellite and proxy states the freedom to seek national sovereignty,
thus the rise of ethno-nationalism. The Cold War era had propped up various
regimes in countries such as Afghanistan and Pakistan, as the superpowers
sought to empower these states to serve as their proxies. Greater division
along ethnic and religious lines thus occurred, leading to the agglutination of
religious and ethnic groups which began to affirm their own solidarity and
identity. This was evident in especially in Africa, whereby the Tutsi ethnicity,
favoured by the superpowers, fell victim to a racial genocide by the vengeance
seeking Hutu ethnicity in 1994. In the Middle-East as well, the Arab-Israeli
conflict was further accentuated when the USA attempted to support both
sides to secure its control over the regions oil, leading to greater mistrust
between the Jews of Israel and the Arabs. This eventually materialized in Gulf
Wars of the 1980s. Notably, however, the end of the cold war served to
alleviate the conflict, as it removed the need for the superpowers to intervene
or thus complicate the bilateral conflict. This was clearly seen in the Oslo
peace accords signed in 1993, made possible only by the cessation of cold war
rivalry. Evidently, therefore, the end of the cold war allowed for the
proliferation of the idea of ethnic nationalism, as concerns of cultural identity

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

and solidarity began to take root in the absence of Cold war bipolarity and
superpower intervention.

A Unipolar World
At the same time, the end the cold war saw the collapse of the soviet bloc,
leaving the world in the hands of the sole remaining superpower the USA,
engendering a unipolar world which diminishing the role of national
sovereignty. The balance of power in the world now shifted entirely upon the
shoulders of USA and its allies, and Western controlled international
organizations, notably the UN and NATO, came to irrefutable control over
world affairs. Without the considerations of Cold War tensions hindering their
actions, such NGOs were able to take on a greater role as a global policeman,
notably stepping into conflicts around the world as peacekeepers. This was
seen in the cases of the abovementioned Rwandan Genocide, as well as
conflicts in the Persian Gulf, Srebrenica notwithstanding. In all of these cases,
the extent of commitment by the UN was clearly seen in how it committed
large peacekeeping forces (5500 to Rwanda). However, it must be noted that
the lack of Cold War interests meant less funds allocated to such
organizations as the Third World came to be of lower priority, thus restricting
the resources of such NGOs.

Economic Divide
At the same time, the decreasing status of the Third World that came about
with the end of the cold war allowed for the widening of the North-South
divide the imaginary divide (known as the Brandt Line) which geographically
delineates the developed countries of the North against the undeveloped
countries of the South. As the Cold War drew to its abrupt end, the forces of
Capitalism became the only economic system that could be utilized and
capitalism, championed by the US, invariably was biased towards the Western
developed countries. Powerful first world countries hoarded and consumed
most of the worlds resources, and created a system of dependency from
which the poorer nations were unable to escape. Under the system of
capitalism, first world nations such as the US were able to exploit resources
such as cocoa from third world nations including Africa and Mexico. Using
their superior industries, they were able to value-add to these resources,
making cocoa into coffee powder, and other secondary or tertiary products,
which were then sold back to these third world countries as a higher price.
Evidently, the end of the Cold War facilitated the widening income disparity,
accentuated by the reduced level of funding and commitment the Third World
received from the superpowers after the cessation of cold war bipolarity.

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg

This, in fact, served to exacerbate the forces of ethno-nationalism, as the

disgruntled peoples in the Third World sought increasing to establish national
sovereignty amidst increasing poverty and exclusion from the world capitalist
market. At the same time, the proliferation of NGOs and their increased
intervention in the affairs of the third world arguably extrapolated the drive
for ethno-nationalism, as often such UN humanitarian efforts were lacklustre
and served only to further provoke the local populaces desire for selfdetermination.

Nuclear Proliferation?
At the same time, the end of the Cold War might have allowed for the
proliferation of dangerous nuclear weapons, as central control and stringent
regulations over these tools of cold war diplomacy began to be relaxed. As
the Soviet bloc disintegrated, newly independent countries Georgia, and
Turkey desired greatly to protect their newfound sovereignty, and evidently
then the best way was through the possession of nuclear arms. Demand for
dangerous weaponry skyrocketed in tandem with the relaxation of policing
factors after the fall the USSR and led to an increased number of dangerous
arms dealings and chemical weapons traded through the black market. The
USSR, also perceiving the continued heed of the hardliners of continued
military spending as a path of redundancy, sold off their weaponry to other
countries such as Libya and the Muslim Arab States at low prices in an attempt
to recoup their losses. Such a throwaway attitude towards weapons of mass
destruction and its trade indubitably allowed for extremist organisations, etc
to gain greater and easier access to arms, putting the world in a precarious
position. However, the end of the Cold War put a stop to the arms race
between the USA and USSR, as there was no longer a need to fear losing out
to one another militarily. Therefore, military arms development, especially of
traditional shock and awe weapons, could actually have been stifled rather
than accentuated. This is notably the case considering the USs gradual shift
from large bombs into precision guided weaponry such as the Patriot missile.
In conclusion, whilst the end of the cold war may have allowed powerful
weaponry to fall into dangerous hands, it did also prevent such weaponry
from getting even more dangerous, limiting the impact of the end of the cold
war on the proliferation of such precarious arms.

A H2 History Package
By owlcove.sg