جنگ سرد

از ویکی‌پدیا، دانشنامهٔ آزاد
پرش به ناوبری پرش به جستجو
فارسیEnglish
جنگ سرد
زمان ۱۹۴۶ تا ۱۹۹۱
مکان اروپا، آسیا، آمریکا، آفریقا
نتیجه علت شروع جنگ سرد اختلاف نظر دو ابرقدرت جهانی یعنی ایالات متحده آمریکا و اتحاد جماهیر شوروی بر سر چگونگی اداره دنیا بعد از جنگ جهانی دوم و تلاش‌های ایالات متحده آمریکا برای محدود کردن نفوذ کومونیسم و اتحاد جماهیر شوروی در کشورهای جهان و نتیجه جنگ سرد فروپاشی اتحاد جماهیر شوروی و تبدیل ایالات تحده آمریکا به ابرقدرت مطلق جهان و تحمیل نظم نوین جهانی توسط ایالات متحده بر تمام کشورهای دنیا
ائتلاف‌های نظامی اروپا در دوران جنگ سرد.

جنگ سرد اصطلاحی است که به دوره‌ای از رقابت، تنش، و کشمکش‌های سیاسی و ژئوپلیتیکی بین بلوک شرق (اتحاد جماهیر شوروی و دولت‌های اقماری‌اش) و بلوک غرب (ایالات متحده و متحدان ناتو) بعد از جنگ جهانی دوم گفته می‌شود. مورخان در تاریخ شروع و پایان جنگ سرد کاملاً موافق یکدیگر نیستند، اما در دورهٔ زمانی بین سال‌های ۱۹۴۷ دکترین ترومن (یک سیاست خارجی ایالات متحده که متعهد می‌شد به کشورهایی که در خطر سلطهٔ شوروی بودند کمک کند) تا سال ۱۹۹۱ فروپاشی شوروی نظر مشترک دارند. در طول این دوره رقابت میان این دو ابرقدرت در عرصه‌های گوناگون مانند اتحاد نظامی، ایدئولوژی، روانشناسی، جاسوسی، ورزش، تجهیزات نظامی، صنعت و توسعه فناوری ادامه داشت. این رقابت‌ها پیامدهایی مانند مسابقات فضایی، پرداخت هزینه‌های گزاف دفاعی، مسابقات جنگ‌افزار هسته‌ای و تعدادی جنگ‌های غیرمستقیم به دنبال داشت.

گرچه در طول جنگ سرد هرگز درگیری نظامی مستقیمی میان نیروهای ایالات متحده و شوروی به وجود نیامد، اما گسترش قدرت نظامی، کشمکش‌های سیاسی منجربه جنگ‌های نیابتی و درگیری‌های مهم بین کشورهای پیرو و هم‌پیمانان این ابرقدرت‌ها شد. هر چند ایالات متحده و شوروی در طول جنگ جهانی دوم و در مقابل آلمان نازی متحد بودند، اما حتی پیش از پایان جنگ نیز بر سر چگونگی دوباره‌سازی جهان پس از جنگ با هم اختلاف داشتند.

پس از جنگ در حالی که آمریکا در تلاش بود تا کمونیسم را در جهان محدود کند گستره جنگ سرد به بسیاری از نقاط جهان به ویژه اروپای غربی، خاورمیانه و جنوب شرقی آسیا کشیده شد. در این دوره جهان با بحران‌های مکرر مانند ساخت دیوار برلین (۱۹۸۹–۱۹۶۱)، جنگ کره (۱۹۵۰–۱۹۵۳)، جنگ ویتنام (۱۹۵۹–۱۹۷۵)، بحران موشکی کوبا (۱۹۶۲) و جنگ شوروی در افغانستان (۱۹۷۹–۱۹۸۸) روبه‌رو شد که هر لحظه امکان یک جنگ جهانی را ایجاد می‌کرد اما در نهایت این اتفاق رخ نداد. یکی از دلایل مهم دوری هر دو طرف از ایجاد یک جنگ مستقیم دسترسی آن‌ها به جنگ‌افزار هسته‌ای و ترس از استفاده طرف مقابل از این سلاح‌ها بود.

سرانجام در پایان دهه ۱۹۸۰ و با دیدارهای مقام‌های بلندپایه که به وسیله آخرین رهبر شوروی میخائیل گورباچف ترتیب داده شد و برنامه‌های اصلاحی گورباچف جنگ سرد پایان یافت.

جنگ سرد با سقوط کمونیسم و فروپاشی و تجزیه اتحاد جماهیر شوروی در سال ۱۹۹۱ به پایان رسید.[۱]

خلاصه[ویرایش]

در ۱۹۴۳، آثار جنگ جهانی دوم اجتناب‌ناپذیر بود. نیروهای محور، به رهبری آلمان در شرایط سخت و محدودی به‌سر می‌بردند. تهاجم مصیبت‌بار آلمان به شوروی، پایان حمایت ایتالیا از نیروهای محور، و مداخله آمریکا علیه آنها، متفقین – عمدتاً آمریکا، بریتانیا، شوروی و فرانسه – را نیرومندتر کرد. آلمان و ژاپن در رقابت دیوانه‌وار خود در خرید جنگ‌افزار و فتح سرزمین‌هایی از اروپا و آسیا به سر می‌بردند. سرانجام خودکشی آدولف هیتلر در ۱۹۴۵ به جنگ در اروپا پایان داد.

به آلمان از غرب و شرق به‌ترتیب توسط نیروهای آمریکایی و روس حمله شد. دو لشکر در برلین به یکدیگر رسیدند و وقتی صلح برقرار شد، مناطق تحت پوشش خود را در میانه شهر برلین از هم جدا نمودند. دشمنی خفته آن‌ها در کشورهای دیگر و نیز در رقابت هوایی پدیدار شد. تنها هراسی که وجود داشت و پنهان می‌شد، احتمال رخ دادن جنگ اتمی میان دو کشور بود. اگرچه تنش هر لحظه بالاتر می‌رفت، این هراس از پیامدهای جنگ هسته‌ای بود که جنگ را به جنگ سرد تبدیل کرد.

آمریکا و شوروی به‌ترتیب نظام‌های اقتصادی سرمایه‌داری و کمونیسم را ترجیح می‌دادند. بیشتر اروپا و آسیا به کشورهایی تقسیم شد که ترجیح می‌دادند متحد آمریکا باشند یا شوروی. پایان جنگ جهانی دوم، دوره‌ای را آغاز کرد که در آن ملت‌های گوناگون از مستعمره بودن به استقلال رسیدند و بیشتر این کشورهای تازه مستقل شده با اقتصاد ورشکسته و چندپاره شدن سرزمینشان دست و پنجه نرم می‌کردند. در نتیجه، آمریکا و شوروی با پشتیبانی مالی و نظامی از تعدادی از این کشورها، سعی در افزایش نفوذ خود نمودند.

کمک‌های مالی و متحد شدن‌ها باعث گسترش رقابت میان دو ابرقدرت شد. حالا دیگر تعداد کشورهای متحد، تبلیغات، مسابقه تسلیحاتی، جاسوسی و توسعه فنی آن هم از نوع ویرانگر، به معیاری برای ارزیابی کشورها بدل شده بود. رقابت هسته‌ای و فضایی، موجب جنگ میان کشورهایی شد که هریک نماینده آمریکا یا شوروی بودند. بیشتر کشورهای استقلال یافته حالا بخشی از یک جهان دوقطبی بودند و اکثر آن‌ها ناگزیر به قرارگرفتن در صف یکی از دو ابرقدرت شده بودند. این نشان‌دهنده «شجاعت» برخی کشورها نظیر یوگسلاوی و هند و ایران بعد از انقلاب بود که متحد هیچ‌یک از دو ابرقدرت نشدند.

با آنکه آمریکا و شوروی به مرز یکدیگر تجاوز نکرده بودند، تنش برآمده از جنگ سرد در نقاط مختلف دنیا به‌طور جدی خود را نمایان ساخت: دیوار برلین ساخته شد، در کره و ویتنام جنگ درگرفت، بحران موشکی کوبا رخ داد و ارتش شوروی وارد افغانستان شد. اما سرانجام به‌دلیل برخورداری دو کشور از جنگ‌افزار هسته‌ای بسیار نیرومند، از جنگ مستقیم اجتناب شد.

دشمنی و جاه‌طلبی دو ابرقدرت که موجب تلفات جانی و مالی بسیاری شده بود، رفته‌رفته با انتقادهای جدی در سراسر جهان روبه‌رو می‌شد. اکنون جهان وارد دوره‌ای شده بود که در آن، کوشش‌ها برای مقابله با سیاست‌های ویرانگر دو کشور رو به افزایش داشت. در سال‌های ۱۹۸۰ رونالد ریگان – رئیس‌جمهور آمریکا – و میخائیل گورباچف – سردمدار شوروی، در اوج دوران دوستی دو کشور، پیمان منع موشک‌های هسته‌ای میان‌برد را در ۱۹۸۷ امضا کردند. دوره نامطلوب جنگ سرد به پایان رسیده بود. دوره‌ای که شاهد افزایش هزینه‌های نظامی و مرگ عده زیادی در ویتنام و کره بود.

زمینه[ویرایش]

پس از پایان جنگ جهانی دوم در سال، ۱۹۴۵ تنش بین ایالات متحده و اتحاد جماهیر شوروی از سرگرفته شد. این تنش در سال ۱۹۴۵ تا ۱۹۴۷ افزایش یافت. در این باره تاریخ‌نگاران دیدگاه‌های متفاوتی دارند، اما به باور همه آن‌ها سال آغاز جنگ سرد ۱۹۴۷ بوده‌است. در مورد تاریخ پایان آن، عده‌ای آن را هم‌زمان با سقوط دیوار برلین در ۱۱ نوامبر ۱۹۸۹ و گروهی آن را هم‌زمان با تاریخ تجزیه اتحاد جماهیر شوروی در ۲۵ دسامبر ۱۹۹۱ می‌دانند.

تاریخ‌نگارانی که به تاریخ شوروی می‌پردازند، دو رویکرد دارند: یک رویکرد به اهمیت ایدئولوژی کمونیستی و دیگری بر اهداف تاریخی روسیه به ویژه سلطه بر اروپای شرقی، دسترسی به بنادر متصل به آب‌های گرم و دفاع از مسیحیان ارتدکس و مردم اروپای شرقی و مرکزی تأکید دارد. ریشه‌های برخوردهای ایدئولوژیکی را می‌توان در به قدرت رسیدن لنین در روسیه (انقلاب روسیه در اکتبر ۱۹۱۷) مشاهده کرد.

والترلافبر بر علایق تاریخی روسیه تأکید می‌کند که به سال‌های حکومت تزارها و رقابت ایالات متحده و روسیه بازمی‌گردد. از سال ۱۹۳۳ تا ۱۹۳۹ ایالات متحده و شوروی با هم اختلاف نداشتند، اما رابطه آن‌ها دوستانه هم نبود. پس از آغاز دشمنی شوروی و آلمان در سال ۱۹۴۱، روزولت شخصاً متعهد شد که به شوروی کمک کند (کنگره هرگز به هیچ گونه اتحادی رأی نداد). همکاری این دو کشور در زمان جنگ هرگز دوستانه نبود. برای نمونه استالین از اینکه پایگاه‌های شوروی سابق را در اختیار نیروهای ایالات متحده قرار دهد، خودداری می‌کرد. در فوریه ۱۹۴۵ در کنفرانس یالتا این همکاری به شدت با تنش مواجه شد، چرا که معلوم شد که استالین می‌خواهد کمونیسم را در اروپای شرقی (در گسترش آن موفق بود) و سپس شاید در فرانسه و ایتالیا گسترش دهد.

در سال ۱۹۴۵ ایگور گوزنکو که به عنوان یک کارمند رده پایین در سفارت شوروی در کانادا واقع در شهر اتاوا کار می‌کرد، با ارائه ۱۰۹ سند که نشان‌دهنده فعالیت جاسوسی شوروی در کانادا، بریتانیا و ایالات متحده بود، تقاضای پناهندگی نمود. ماجرای گوزنکو چهره شوروی را در نظر غرب تغییر داده و از دوست به دشمن تبدیل کرد. افراد زیادی این رویداد را به عنوان آغاز جنگ سرد می‌دانند.

تحلیل‌گران اقتصادی مانند ویلیام اپلمن ویلیامز بر توسعه‌طلبی اقتصادی ایالات متحده به عنوان ریشه جنگ سرد تأکید می‌کنند.

یک عامل سوم که در جنگ جهانی دوم به عنوان مسئله جدید در امور جهان مطرح شد، مسئله کنترل مؤثر انرژی هسته‌ای در سطح دنیا بود؛ در سال ۱۹۴۶ شوروی پیشنهاد ایالات متحده برای چنین کنترلی را رد کرد؛ این پیشنهاد توسط برنارد باروش و بر اساس نسخه اولیه گزارش که توسط دین آنکسون و دیوید لیلینتال نوشته شده بود، تنظیم شد؛ دلیل رد آن این بود که این گزارش اصل حاکمیت ملی را تضعیف می‌کند.

نظم جدید جهانی[ویرایش]

در این دوره جنگ سرد با ظهور نظام جهانی دوقطبی در ۱۹۴۷ آغاز شد و تا زمان تغییر رهبران هر دو ابرقدرت از ترومن به آیزنهاور در ایالات متحده و از استالین به خروشچف در شوروی ادامه یافت.

رویدادهای این دوره عبارت‌اند از: دکترین ترومن، طرح مارشال، محاصره برلین، آزمایش انفجار اولین بمب اتمی شوروی سابق، تشکیل ناتو و در پاسخ به آن پیمان ورشو، تشکیل آلمان غربی و آلمان شرقی، نامه استالین برای اتحاد مجدد آلمان‌ها و عدم مداخله ابرقدرت‌ها در اروپای مرکزی، جنگ داخلی چین و جنگ کره.

بر پایه دکترین ترومن آمریکا به همهٔ کسانی که علیه کمونیسم می‌جنگیدند کمک مالی و نظامی می‌کرد. هدف از طرح مارشال آمریکا این بود که اقتصاد اروپا را پس از ویرانی‌های جنگ جهانی دوم بازسازی کند تا از محبوبیت سیاسی چپ‌های تندرو جلوگیری نماید. در اروپای غربی، کمک اقتصادی به کمبود دلار پایان داد، به سرمایه‌گذاری خصوصی برای بازسازی بعد از جنگ شتاب بخشید و از همه مهم‌تر روش‌های مدیریت جدیدی را به‌وجود آورد. این طرح در ایالات متحده باعث حذف انزواطلبی دهه ۱۹۲۰ و اتحاد اقتصادی آمریکای شمالی و اروپای غربی شد.

سنای آمریکا در پاسخ به دخالت شوروی در کودتای چکسلواکی با تصویب قطعنامه واندنبرگ-کنالی در ۱۱ ژوئن ۱۹۴۸ به دولت آمریکا اجازه پذیرفتن تعهداتی در خارج از مرزهای آمریکا را داده بود. پیمان نظامی واشینگتن که بعدها به پیمان آتلانتیک شمالی (ناتو) شناخته شد در ۴ آوریل ۱۹۴۹ میان آمریکا، اعضای پیمان بروکسل و دیگر کشورهای بلوک سرمایه‌داری که به این پیمان دعوت شده بودند به امضا رسید. شوروی در پاسخ به آن پیمان ورشو را تشکیل داد.

در سال‌های ۱۹۴۸–۱۹۴۹ اتحاد جماهیر شوروی به منظور اجبار بلوک غرب فاتح به واگذار کردن اختیارات و قلمرو خود در برلین غربی به وقوع این شهر را محاصره و از ورود آذوقه و کالاهای مورد نیاز مردم جلوگیری کرد. آمریکا و متحدان غربی به ویژه بریتانیا با وجود خطر بروز یک جنگ جهانی تازه محاصره را شکستند و مستقیماً از پایگاه‌های هوایی آمریکا در نزدیکی فرانکفورت، شروع به حمل آذوقه و سایر کالای مورد نیاز مردم نمودند و این وضعیت یازده ماه ادامه یافت. با شکست حصر برلین و تشکیل دو کشور آلمان غربی و آلمان شرقی تقسیم اروپا به اتمام رسید و صحنه زورآزمایی جنگ سرد به مناطق دیگر جهان انتقال یافت.[۲]

جنگ کره در ۲۵ ژوئن ۱۹۵۰ با گذشتن نیروهای تحت فرمان کیم ایل سونگ رهبر کره شمالی با چراغ سبز شوروی و جمهوری خلق چین از مدار ۳۸ درجه آغاز شد. دو روز بعد شورای امنیت ملل متحد به پیشنهاد آمریکا قطعنامه‌ای را برای کمک نظامی به کره جنوبی به تصویب رساند. پس از ورود آمریکا به کره، جمهوری خلق چین که این اقدام را در راستای محاصره این کشور می‌دانست نیز وارد جنگ شد. وضعیت بغرنج جنگ کره تا آتش‌بس ژوئیه ۱۹۵۳ ادامه یافت.

دوره کوتاه تشنج‌زدایی[ویرایش]

در سال‌های ۱۹۵۵ و ۱۹۵۶ با جانشینی آیزنهاور به جای ترومن در ایالات متحده و فرونشستن جو مک‌کارتیسم و کاهش حساسیت‌ها نسبت به کمونیسم و همچنین مرگ استالین در شوروی تشنج‌های بین شرق و غرب کاهش یافت. رهبران جدید شوروی، خروشچف و بولگانین سیاست ملایمتری در پیش گرفتند. بر ادعای ارضی به ترکیه پایان دادند، اسرائیل را به رسمیت شناختند، با نامزدی داک هامرشولد سوئدی برای دبیرکل سازمان ملل متحد موافقت کردند. مهم‌تر از همه پایان جنگ کره بود. نقطه اوج تغییر بینش سران شوروی اما در جریان کنگره بیستم حزب کمونیست شوروی بود که علاوه بر انتقاد از شیوه حکومتی وکیش شخصیت استالین، بر همزیستی مسالمت‌آمیز با دیگر کشورها تأکید شد و کمینفرم هم منحل گردید.

با این حال رقابت بین دو ابرقدرت ادامه یافت. شاهد آن انعقاد پیمان بغداد با شرکت ایران، عراق، ترکیه و پاکستان در ۱۹۵۵ و سرکوب شورش‌های لهستان و مجارستان در ۱۹۵۶ بود.[۳] از سال ۱۹۵۶ به بعد دو ابرقدرت متوجه اهمیت کشورهای جهان سوم شدند و تلاش خود در جذب حمایت مستعمرات سابق و تازه به استقلال رسیده را آغاز کردند.

گسترش دوباره بحران[ویرایش]

درسال ۱۹۵۹ در نتیجه جنگ سرد، دو بلوک ژئوپولیتیکی متخاصم بوجود آمدند. برای جزئیات بیشتر به راهنمای نقشه مراجعه کنید.

این دوره از تغییر رهبران هر دو کشور در سال ۱۹۵۹ آغاز شد و تا بحران موشکی کوبا در سال ۱۹۶۲ ادامه یافت. حوادث اصلی این دوره عبارت‌اند از: انقلاب ۱۹۵۶ مجارستان، ساختن دیوار برلین در سال ۱۹۶۱ و بحران موشکی کوبا در سال ۱۹۶۲.

از سال ۱۹۵۷ رقابت تسلیحاتی دو کشور به ضرر آمریکا تحول یافت و همین موجب آغاز موج جدیدی از تنش‌ها شد. شوروی درین سال به فناوری موشک‌های قاره‌پیما دست یافت که شهرهای آمریکا را در تیررس بمب‌های هسته‌ای قرار می‌داد.[۴] در اکتبر همین سال نخستین ماهواره جهان با نام اسپوتنیک را در مدار زمین قرار داد.

واکنش آمریکا استقرار موشک‌های میان‌برد از نوع ثور و ژوپیتر در خاک ایتالیا و ترکیه بود که ناتو را به چهارمین قدرت بزرگ هسته‌ای (پس از آمریکا، شوروی و بریتانیا) تبدیل می‌کرد. از طرف دیگر موفقیت اسپوتنیک دکترین هسته‌ای آمریکا (یعنی تلافی همه‌جانبه) که از سوی جان فاستر دالس در ۱۹۵۴ تهیه شده بود زیر سؤال می‌برد.[۵] آمریکا در نهایت در ۳۱ ژانویه ۱۹۵۸ نخستین ماهواره خود (کاوشگر ۱) را به فضا پرتاب کرد و تلاش خود را متوجه وارد کردن ضربه دوم و ساخت موشک‌های مینوتمن و زیردریایی‌های مجهز به موشک پلاریس نمود. در همین بین خروشچف دوباره پرونده برلین را گشود و خواستار تبدیل برلین (شرقی و غربی) به شهری آزاد و بی‌طرف شد ولی آمریکا حاضر نبود برلین غربی را از دست بدهد.[۵] کنفرانس ژنو دربارهٔ این موضوع بی‌نتیجه بود و کنفرانس پاریس هم که قرار بود در ژوئن ۱۹۶۰ تشکیل شود با طرح موضوع پرواز هواپیماهای جاسوسی یو-۲ آمریکا که در اول مه از سوی شوروی ساقط شده بود با شکست روبرو شد.

در نشست کندی و خروشچف، رهبران آمریکا و شوروی در وین در ژوئن ۱۹۶۱، خروشچف اعلام کرد که اگر در مورد برلین به توافق نرسند وی به صورت جدا با آلمان شرقی وارد مذاکره خواهد شد. با شکست مذاکرات وین آلمان شرقی دستور ساخت دیوار برلین را صادر کرد و شوروی آزمایش‌های موشکی‌اش را از سرگرفت.

به دنبال بحران برلین و در جوی متشنج، بحران موشکی کوبا اتفاق افتاد که در آن شوروی در پی شکست عملیات خلیج خوکها سعی کرد موشک‌های میان‌بردش را در کوبا نصب کند و آمریکا با محاصره کوبا خواهان خروج بی‌قید و شرط آن‌ها شد. جهان در آستانه یک جنگ جهانی دیگر قرار گرفت و خطر جنگ هسته‌ای به وجود آمد. در نتیجه خطری بحران موشکی کوبا پیش آورد دو ابرقدرت به تشنج‌زدایی، محدود کردن کشورهای دارنده سلاح اتمی و ایجاد ارتباط مستقیم برای حل بحران روی آوردند و دکترین دالس (تلافی همه‌جانبه) جای خود را به دکترین مک‌نامارا (پاسخ منعطف) داد که پذیرش این دکترین در سازمان ناتو موجب شد ژنرال دوگل کشور فرانسه را ازین سازمان خارج نماید.[۶]

تحولات دهه شصت و هفتاد میلادی[ویرایش]

در بین سال‌های ۱۹۶۷ تا ۱۹۸۶ میلادی در آلبانی، بیش از ۷۰۰٬۰۰۰[۷] سنگر بتونی-فولادی با توجیه مواجهه با «دشمن امپریالیستی» ساخته شدند.
سنگرهای آلبانی را ببینید.

پس از بحران موشکی کوبا ایالات متحده و شوروی سابق برای کاهش دشمنی‌ها چند گام مقدماتی برداشتند؛ از جمله نصب خط ارتباطی هات‌لاین[۸] بین واشینگتن و مسکو در سال ۱۹۶۳. در همین سال لیندون بنیز جانسون که معاون جان اف. کندی بود که با مرگ وی جانشین او شد. از ۱۹۶۴ نیز لئونید برژنف رهبر شوروی شد. در اوت این سال با امضای پیمان منع جزئی آزمایش هسته‌ای تنش‌ها کمی کاهش یافت. اما حادثه خلیج تانکین در سال ۱۹۶۴ که منجر به یورش گسترده نیروی زمینی آمریکا به ویتنام شمالی و آغاز جنگ ویتنام شد گویای این واقعیت بود که کاهش تنش بین دو ابرقدرت دوام زیادی نخواهد داشت.

پس از دوره‌ای از گسترش آزادی‌های سیاسی در چکسلواکی در سال ۱۹۶۸ که به بهار پراگ مشهور است نیروهای پیمان ورشو به این کشور حمله کردند. این اقدام حاصل سیاستی جدید به نام دکترین برژنف بود و در آن شوروی به خود حق می‌داد که ثبات رژیم‌های متحد یا تحت سلطه خود را حفظ کند و در صورت لزوم از زور استفاده نماید.

گرچه پیمان منع جزئی آزمایش هسته‌ای کشورهای دیگر را از آزمایش سلاح‌های اتمی منع می‌کرد ولی از ۱۹۶۶ و به پیشنهاد جانسون دو ابرقدرت خود به سوی کاهش توپخانه اتمی‌شان قدم برداشتند که نتیجه آن معاهده سالت یک در ۱۹۷۱ بود. میشل ژوبر، وزیر خارجه فرانسه در این برهه اصطلاح کاندومینیوم یا حاکمیت مشترک را دربارهٔ رابطه دو ابرقدرت به کار برد. زیرا رهبران آمریکا و شوروی به این نتیجه رسیده بودند که باید برای جلوگیری از پاگرفتن قدرت‌های میانه (جنبش عدم تعهد، اتحادیه اروپای غربی و چین و ژاپن) به توافق‌های اساسی دست پیدا کنند.[۹] کنفرانس امنیت و همکاری اروپا که با شرکت همه کشورهای اروپایی، شوروی، آمریکا و کانادا در ۱۹۷۵ در هلسینکی برگزار شد نشان می‌داد امور اروپای غربی مختص این منطقه نیست و باید به صورت بین‌المللی حل و فصل شود.

جنبش عدم تعهد[ویرایش]

کشورهای تازه به استقلال رسیده و مستعمرات سابق در نخستین تلاش خود برای اثرگذاری در عرصه بین‌الملل سعی داشتند با یکدیگر متحد شدند. ازین رو نهرو، تیتو، ناصر و سوکارنو رهبران هند، یوگسلاوی، مصر و اندونزی در کنفرانس باندونگ جنبش عدم تعهد را بنیان گذاشتند. در کنفرانس مقدماتی قاهره در ۱۹۶۱ پنج اصل راهبردی کشورهای این جنبش تعیین شد که شامل همزیستی مسالمت‌آمیز و عدم امضای قرارداد نظامی با ابرقدرت‌ها می‌شد.

کنفرانس‌های بلگراد در ۱۹۶۱، قاهره در ۱۹۶۴ و لوزاکا در ۱۹۷۰ برای رسیدن به راه‌حلی مشترک بین کشورهای جنبش عدم تعهد برگزار شد. کشور ایران نیز پس از انقلاب و استقرار رژیم جمهوری اسلامی در سال ۱۹۷۹ با خروج از پیمان بغداد به جنبش عدم تعهد پیوست. بسیاری از کشورهای جهان سوم نیز که در اوپک عضو بودند در بحران‌های دهه ۱۹۷۰ نقش مهمی بازی کردند و موضعی خلاف موضع ابرقدرت‌ها اتخاذ کردند.[۱۰]

اتحاد اروپا[ویرایش]

اعلام تشکیل جامعه زغال و فولاد از روبر شومان وزیر خارجه فرانسه نخستین گام در زمینه وحدت اروپا بود. پس از شکست طرح جامعه دفاع اروپایی در ۱۹۵۴ نظرها متوجه اقتصاد شد و در نهایت در ۱۹۶۷ امضای قرارداد رم به تشکیل اوراتم (جامعه انرژی اروپا) و بازار مشترک (جامعه اقتصادی اروپا) انجامید. اوراتم بی‌تحرک ماند ولی بازار مشترک رونق بسزایی به اروپای غربی بخشید و آن را به صورت یک قدرت متوسط درآورد.[۶] بازار مشترک در یک دوره دوازده ساله دست به حذف تدریجی تعرفه‌های گمرکی و جابجایی آزاد کالا، سرمایه، و انسان زد، یک سیستم گمرکی مشترک برای واردات از کشورهای ثالث ایجاد کرد و سیستم‌های سیاسی هماهنگ و پولی واحدی در این کشورها به وجود آورد.

بلوک شرق ایجاد بازار مشترک را تلاش سرمایه‌داری برای نابودی سوسیالیسم توصیف کرد. واکنش آمریکا، به عنوان متحد اروپای غربی اما حکایت از تضادهای درونی بلوک غرب داشت. از سال ۱۹۶۱ به بعد موضوع مبارزه‌طلبی آمریکا در مقابل بازار مشترک صراحت یافت. پس از مذاکرات طولانی بین آمریکا و بازار مشترک که به دور کندی معروف است به موافقت‌هایی در مورد تعرفه‌های گمرکی دست یافت. هدف آمریکا درین مذاکرات حفظ برتری اقتصادی خود در دنیای سرمایه‌داری بود.[۱۰]

مشکل آتلانتیک[ویرایش]

تضاد اروپای غربی با آمریکا اما بیش از آنکه اقتصادی باشد سیاسی بود. پس از اینکه شارل دو گل جمهوری پنجم فرانسه را تأسیس کرد و به ریاست جمهوری برگزیده شد به آمریکا پیشنهاد کرد کمیته‌ای سه جانبه با شرکت فرانسه و بریتانیا در ناتو تشکیل شود و به تصمیم‌گیری در مورد سیاست استفاده از بمب اتم بپردازد که با جواب منفی آمریکا مواجه شد. پس ازین مخالفت دوگل با آمریکا در سازمان ناتو صراحت بیشتری به خود گرفت و در سال ۱۹۶۶ در مخالفت به دکترین مک‌نامارا (دکترین پاسخ منعطف) فرانسه از پیمان نظامی ناتو خارج شد، چرا که این دکترین در تنش‌های بین شرق و غرب امنیت آمریکا را به ضرر امنیت اروپا تقویت می‌کرد.[۱۱]

طلوع ژاپن و چین[ویرایش]

توسعه روابط دیپلماتیک چین با کشورهای چون کانادا، یوگسلاوی، ایران، ایتالیا و ترکیه که از سال ۱۹۷۰ آغاز شده بود با ورود این کشور به سازمان ملل متحد و احراز کرسی شورای امنیت در اکتبر ۱۹۷۱ چین را در ردیف کشورهای بزرگ جهان قرار داد. سخنرانی دنگ شیائوپینگ در آوریل ۱۹۷۴ در سازمان ملل متحد نشان داد که چین دیگر تقسیم‌بندی جهان دوقطبی را قبول ندارد. نزدیکی چین کمونیست به آمریکا در دوران ریاست جمهوری نیکسون نیز ضربه سختی به وجهه بین‌المللی شوروی وارد ساخت.[۱۲]

ژاپن از سوی دیگر توانست تا پایان دهه شصت میلادی از لحاظ اقتصادی خود را به سطح بزرگترین کشورهای جهان برساند و به الگوی اقتصادی دیگر کشورها تبدیل شود. دیپلماسی ژاپن به شدت از مسائل اقتصادی سرچشمه می‌گرفت و در نتیجه تلاش کرد تا با دور شدن از آمریکا، بازاری برای خود در بین کشورهای بلوک شرق بیابد.

بهبود روابط و آشتی[ویرایش]

مشخصه اصلی دوره آشتی در جنگ سرد میانجیگری و آرامش نسبی بود. در یکی از صلح‌آمیزترین تلاش‌ها ویلی برانت صدراعظم جمهوری فدرال آلمان سیاست خارجی موسوم به سیاست شرقی (Ostpolitic) را گسترش داد. اگون بهر معمار این طرح و مشاور برانت این سیاست را با عنوان «تغییر و ایجاد روابط حسنه» سازماندهی کرد؛ ولی برکناری والتر اولبریخت توسط اریک هانکر رهبر آلمان شرقی در ۳ مه ۱۹۷۱ نشان داد که محدودیت‌هایی برای آشتی وجود دارد.

رقابت فضایی[ویرایش]

با آغاز جنگ سرد تسخیر فضا به‌عنوان نمادی از پیشرفت یکی از دو بلوک مطرح شد و رقابت فضایی شکل گرفت. اتحاد شوروی در ۱۲ آوریل ۱۹۶۱ با فرستادن یوری گاگارین به فضا گام نخست را برداشت و آمریکا ۸ سال بعد در ۱۷ ژوئیه ۱۹۶۹ با قدم گذاشتن نیل آرمسترانگ بر ماه به این رقابت پایان داد.

مسئله حقوق بشر[ویرایش]

حقوق بشر دست‌آویزی بود که آمریکا می‌توانست در شرایط وخامت در آنسوی پرده آهنین به ویژه پس از کنفرانس هلسینکی از آن استفاده کند و نتایج مطلوبی برای این کشور به بار آورد.[۹]

جنگ سرد دوم[ویرایش]

وضعیت روابط متنوع جنگ سرد در سال ۱۹۸۰. برای جزئیات بیشتر به راهنمای نقشه مراجعه کنید.

در پشت این جو آرام، هر یک از ابرقدرت‌ها به دنبال تضعیف دیگری و افزایش حوزه نفوذ خود بودند. در فاصله زمانی میان تجاوز شوروی سابق به افغانستان در دسامبر ۱۹۷۹ و به قدرت رسیدن میخائیل گورباچف در شوروی در مارس ۱۹۸۵، روابط بین ابرقدرت‌ها پس از آشتی دهه ۱۹۷۰ به «سردی» گرائید. به دلیل افزایش تنش بین بلوک شرق و غرب گاهی به این دوره «جنگ سرد دوم» می‌گویند. حمله سال ۱۹۷۹ شوروی سابق به افغانستان برای پشتیبانی از رژیم کمونیستی نوپای این کشور موجب واکنش بسیاری از کشورها و تحریم گسترده بازیهای المپیک ۱۹۸۰ مسکو توسط بسیاری از کشورهای غربی گردید. تجاوز شوروی منجر به درگیری طولانی مجاهدین مسلمان (تحت حمایت ایالات متحده و کشورهای دیگر) با ارتش شوروی شد که تا پایان دهه ۱۹۸۰ ادامه داشت.

در سال ۱۹۷۹ متحدین ناتو که از استقرار موشک‌های هسته‌ای میان‌برد اس‌اس-۲۰ نگران بودند توافق کردند که به مذاکرات محدودسازی جنگ‌افزار راهبردی (سالت دو) ادامه دهند تا تعداد موشک‌های هسته‌ای مورد استفاده را محدود کنند؛ در عین حال آن‌ها تهدید کردند که اگر مذاکرات شکست بخورد، ۵۰۰ دستگاه موشک کروز و «پرشینگ دو» را در آلمان غربی و هلند مستقر می‌کنند. در همین حال جیمی کارتر برای این که سنای آمریکا را متقاعد به تصویب سالت دو کند و نشان دهد آمریکا چندان هم مقابل شوروی کوتاه نیامده دستور ساخت موشک‌های بسیار مدرن «ام ایکس» را صادر کرد. این اقدام نه تنها منجر به شکست سالت دو شد که واکنش شوروی در توسعه هواپیماهای شلیک از پشت شد. در مقال ناو نیز در نشست زمستان ۱۹۷۹ خود مسئله استقرار موشک‌های «پرشینگ دو» در اروپا را تصویب کرد. استقرار برنامه‌ریزی شده «پرشینگ دو» با مخالفت شدید و گسترده افکار عمومی اروپا مواجه شد و در چند کشور اروپایی تظاهرات بی‌سابقه‌ای رخ داد.[۱۳] موشک‌های «پرشینگ دو» از ژانویه ۱۹۸۴ در اروپا مورد استفاده قرار گرفتند اما استفاده از آن‌ها در آغاز اکتبر ۱۹۸۸ متوقف شد.

نومحافظه‌کاران علیه سیاست‌های زمان نیکسون و کارتر در قبال شوروی سابق موضع گرفتند. بسیاری از آن‌ها که با سناتور جنگ‌طلب دمکرات به نام هنری ام. جکسون همراه شده بودند، به رئیس‌جمهور (کارتر) فشار آوردند که از موضع مقابله با شوروی برخورد کند. آن‌ها در نهایت از رونالد ریگان و جناح محافظه‌کار جمهوری‌خواهان که به جلوگیری از گسترش شوروی متعهد شده بودند حمایت کردند.

انتخاب مارگارت تاچر به عنوان نخست‌وزیر بریتانیا در سال ۱۹۷۹ و به دنبال آن انتخاب رونالد ریگان به عنوان رئیس‌جمهور آمریکا در سال ۱۹۸۰، باعث به قدرت رسیدن دو جنگجوی سرسخت در رأس رهبری دنیای غرب شد.

دیگر رخدادهای مهم این دوره که بر جنگ سرد تأثیر گذاشتند شامل ابتکار دفاع راهبردی (مشهور به جنگ ستارگان) و اتحادیه تجاری سولیداریتی بودند.

جنگ اعراب و اسرائیل[ویرایش]

نفوذ شوروی در جهان عرب در لیبی با روی کار آمدن قذافی، در عراق با کودتای البکر، در سوریه با روی کار آمدن حافظ اسد و حتی در مصر تا پیش از ۱۹۷۲ که سادات کارشناسان روسی را اخراج کرد رو به افزایش بود. این کشورها که با سلاح روسی مجهز شده بودند در ۱۹۷۳ حمله‌ای علیه اسرائیل تدارک دیدند که به جنگ کیپور مشهور است. ابتدا پیروزی با اعراب بود، اما اسرائیل به زودی خود را بازیافت و توانست ارتش سوم مصر و بندر سوئز را به محاصره خود درآورد. شوروی قصد خود را برای مداخله درین جنگ اعلام داشت ولی با واکنش سخت آمریکا مواجه شد. روز ۲۵ اکتبر در حالی که اختلاف شوروی و آمریکا به اوج خود رسیده بود، سازمان ملل برای دومین بار درخواست آتش‌بس کرد که با موافقت دو طرف به پایان جنگ منجر شد.

تقویت نظامی آمریکا[ویرایش]

ریگان در ۲۳ مارس ۱۹۸۳ خطاب به دانشمندان آمریکا پیشنهاد کرد برای مقابله با موشک‌های بالستیک شوروی که به جانب ما نشانه‌گیری شده‌اند باید مطالعات وسیعی صورت گیرد که نتیجه آن انقلابی در صنعت موشک‌های ضدموشک بود. پیشنهاد ریگان که به ابتکار دفاع استراتژیک یا جنگ ستارگان معروف شد عبارت بود از انهدام موشک‌ها با اشعه لیزر و ۲۶ میلیون دلار اعتبار نیز برای مرحله اول این تحقیقات منظور شد. متحدان اروپایی و دموکرات‌ها با این طرح مخالفت کردند و شوروی نیز خود را باخت و پیشنهاد مذاکره داد. آمریکا برای قانع کردن متحدان اروپایی خود طرح جایگزینی به نام ابتکار دفاع متعارف را مطرح کرد.

آمریکا که در ۱۹۸۰ از نظر نظامی ضعیف تر از شوروی بود در ۱۹۸۶ کاملاً بر شوروی برتری داشت. ضعف نظامی شوروی به همراه ضعف شدید اقتصادی این کشور را مجبور مماشات با آمریکا و درانداختن طرح جدیدی برای نظام اقتصادی و سیاسی خود شد که این آغازگر دوره جدید تشنج‌زدایی است.

دوره تشنج‌زدایی جدید[ویرایش]

وحدت اروپای غربی در قالب بازار مشترک، ظهور چین و ژاپن و تحولات جهان سوم مانند جنبش عدم تعهد و جنگ ایران و عراق انحصار دو ابرقدرت در امور جهان را از بین برده و شاخص محور واشینگتن-مسکو را برای تحلیل رویدادهای بین‌المللی ناکافی جلوه دادند.[۱۴] در نیکاراگویه ساندنیستها با وجود گرایش سوسیالیستی سیاست مستقلی را دنبال می‌کردند. در شمال آفریقا کنش‌های لیبی از نظر سیاست جهانی خودسرانه جلوه می‌کرد. در خاورمیانه صدام حسین و حافظ اسد برای استفاده از تضادهای نظام بین‌الملل تلاش می‌کردند و سیاست‌های اسرائیل نیز همواره با سیاست عرب‌گرایی آمریکا هم‌خوانی نداشت.

در صورت فقدان یک تفاهم اساسی میان دو ابرقدرت، اروپای متحد می‌توانست با استفاده از ضعف‌های اقتصادی آمریکا و شوروی به سرعت بر توان خود افزوده و به فتح بسیاری از بازارهای بین‌المللی بپردازد؛ لذا یکی از انگیزه‌های اولیه گفتگوی بین دو متحد جلوگیری از ایجاد چنین اتحادی بود که نه مقبول آمریکا بود و نه خوشایند شوروی؛ بنابراین توافق‌های دهه ۸۰ نه به دلیل حسن نیت و نه به دلیل صلح‌طلبی، که به لحاظ منافع مشترک در مقابل تهدیدهای مشترکی که متوجه آن‌ها بود شکل گرفت.[۱۴] خیزش جهان سوم نیز اقتضا می‌کرد آمریکا هر روز بودجه بیشتری برای مبارزه با جنبش‌های استقلال‌طلبانه و حرکت‌های انقلابی در کشورهای که جزء حوزه نفوذ این کشور به‌شمار می‌رفتند اختصاص دهد و این در حالی بود که کسری بودجه آمریکا ارقام نگران‌کننده‌ای نشان می‌داد. سهم آمریکا از تولید جهانی که در دهه ۱۹۵۰ حدود ۴۰ درصد بود در دهه ۱۹۸۰ به ۲۲ درصد کاهش یافته بود و این نشانگر افول جدی قدرت اقتصادی آمریکا بود.

مشکلات داخلی شوروی به مراتب پیش از مشکلات داخلی آمریکا در آغاز دوران جدید تنش زدایی تأثیر گذاشت. سوء عملکرد سیستم اقتصادی شوروی که پس از ۱۸ سال برژوینیسم جامعه شوروی را با بحران سیستماتیک بسیار وخیمی مواجه کرده بود رهبران شوروی را به ایجاد تغییرات اساسی مجبور کرد.[۱۵]

دراین میان رونالد ریگان در دوره دوم ریاست جمهوری خود چهار بار با گورباچف دیدار کرد و نومحافظه‌کاران را شگفت زده نمود. این دیدارها عبارت بود از:

  • در ۱۹۸۵ در ژنو دربارهٔ ممنوعیت ساخت و به‌کارگیری سلاح‌های شیمیایی و دربارهٔ نقش دو کشور در حفظ صلح جهانی
  • در ۱۹۸۶ در ویکیاویک دربارهٔ تخلیه اروپا از سلاح‌های اتمی در مقابل توقف برنامه جنگ ستارگان به توافق‌های اولیه دست یافتند.
  • در ۱۹۸۷ در واشینگتن قراردادی دربارهٔ حذف موشک‌های میان‌برد اتمی امضا شد.
  • در ۱۹۸۹ در مسکو، قرارداد مربوط به موشک‌های میان‌برد امضای نهایی شد و مذاکرات مربوط به حذف نیمی از موشک‌های استراتژیک دوربرد (استارت) نیز آغاز شد.

درین دوره تحریم‌های اقتصادی مربوط به ورود شوروی به افغانستان ملغی شد و به روابط دو کشور ابعاد تازه بخشید. مذاکرات خلع سلاح ادامه یافت و به سلاح‌های متعارف نیز تسری پیدا کرد، روابط شوروی و چین تا حد زیادی بهبود پیدا کرد، نیروهای ویتنام خاک کامبوج را ترک کردند و ایران مجبور به پذیرش قطعنامه ۵۹۸ شد.

پایان جنگ سرد[ویرایش]

پایان جنگ سرد به قدرت رسیدن میخائیل گورباچف به عنوان رهبر شوروی سابق در سال ۱۹۸۵ آغاز شد. رویدادهای این دوره عبارت‌اند از: حادثه چرنوبیل در سال ۱۹۸۶، پاییز ملت‌ها که شامل سقوط دیوار برلین در سال ۱۹۸۹ بود، عملیات کودتای ۱۹۹۱ شوروی سابق و سقوط شوروی در سال ۱۹۹۱. دیگر حوادث این دوره شامل پیاده‌سازی سیاست‌های گلاسنوست و پرسترویکا (بازسازی)، نارضایتی عمومی از جنگ شوروی در افغانستان و آثار اقتصادی سیاسی حادثه چرنوبیل در سال ۱۹۸۶ است.

پس از درگذشت پیاپی سه رهبر پیر شوروی از سال ۱۹۸۲، پولیتبورو (مهم‌ترین کمیته تصمیم‌گیری حزب کمونیست) گورباچف جوان را به عنوان رئیس حزب کمونیست برگزید و نسل جدیدی از رهبری به وجود آمد. در دوره گورباچف فن‌سالاران نسبتاً جوان به سرعت قدرتمند شدند، به آزادسازی اقتصادی و سیاسی شتاب بخشیدند و به ترویج روابط صمیمانه و بازرگانی با غرب پرداختند. با به قدرت رسیدن گورباچف تنش‌های شرق و غرب به سرعت کاهش یافت.

گورباچف رویکردی دوگانه برای همکاری با غرب و بازسازی اقتصادی (پرسترویکا) و آزادی انتقاد (گلاسنوست) در داخل شوروی اتخاذ کرد. سیاست خارجی گورباچف که طرح خانه مشترک اروپایی نامیده می‌شد تلاش داشت با همکاری و دوستی با کشورهای اروپای غربی اولاً فلسفه وجودی ناتو را از بین ببرد و سپس پای آمریکا را از اروپا قطع کند. وی قصد داشت جامعه مشترک اروپا را در مقیاسی عظیم تر که شامل همه کشورهای اروپایی از جمله شوروی می‌شد و همکاری همه‌جانبه را بر محور مسکو-برلین جریان دهد، یعنی مسکو پایتخت نظامی و برلین پایتخت اقتصادی اروپای واحد باشد. این اندیشه یادآور قرارداد راپالو در سال ۱۹۲۲ بین آلمان و شوروی بود که در آن شوروی از تکنولوژی آلمان بهره می‌گرفت و آلمان از خاک شوروی برای آزمایش‌های نظامی استفاده می‌کرد. برگ برنده گورباچف وحدت دو آلمان بود. او چنین محاسبه کرده بود که با وحدت دو آلمان، این کشور از ناتو خارج شده و از همسایگانش، فرانسه و بریتانیا که از قدرت این کشور به هراس افتاده‌اند فاصله خواهد گرفت.[۱۶]

به این ترتیب گورباچف قصد داشت با یک تیر دو نشان بزند؛ از یک سو بازار مشترک را متلاشی خواهد کرد و با اعضای آن وارد قراردادهای تجاری خواهد شد و از سوی دیگر با دادن تضمین و اعتماد لازم به این کشورها، ناتو را از کار خواهد انداخت. ایالات متحده آمریکا هم با این برنامه مخالفتی نداشت، چرا که هم در اردوگاه شرق شکافی ایجاد می‌کرد و هم رقیب اقتصادی این کشور، یعنی بازار مشترک با چالش جدیدی روبرو می‌شد.[۱۶] دیوار برلین در ۹ نوامبر ۱۹۸۹ برچیده شد و با مذاکرات دو آلمان و شوروی که بعدها با حضور آمریکا، فرانسه و بریتانیا با نام مذاکرات ۲+۴ مشهور شد وحدت دو آلمان را تحقق بخشید.

ولی این رویدادها در انتها باعث شد که گورباچف نتواند کنترل مرکزی بر ایالت‌های عضو پیمان ورشو را تقویت کند و در سال ۱۹۸۹ دولت‌های کمونیست اروپای شرقی یک به یک سرنگون شدند. در لهستان، مجارستان و بلغارستان اصلاحات دولت باعث پایان صلح‌آمیز حاکمیت کمونیست‌ها و استقرار دمکراسی شد. تظاهرات گسترده در چکسلواکی باعث سرنگونی کمونیست‌ها در این کشور گردید. در رومانی یک قیام عمومی باعث سرنگونی رژیم نیکلای چائوشسکو و اعدام او در ۲۵ دسامبر ۱۹۸۹ شد. کشورهای بلاروس، لتونی، لیتوانی، اوکراین و استونی و در نهایت کشورهای قفقاز (گرجستان، ارمنستان و جمهوری آذربایجان) و آسیای مرکزی یکی پس از دیگری استقلال خود را اعلام کردند. شوروی (روسیه) نیز خود با ایدئولوژی مارکسیسم وداع کرد و پذیرای رژیمی دموکراتیک و لیبرال شد.

تاریخ‌دانان بیشتر بر این باورند که از علل عمده فروپاشی اتحاد جماهیر شوروی صرف هزینه‌های سنگین در فناوری نظامی بود که شوروی در پاسخ به افزایش توان نظامی ناتو در دهه ۱۹۸۰ آن را ضروری می‌دانست. خود گورباچف تصریح می‌کند که هزینه‌های دفاعی یک دلیل عمده اعمال اصلاحات در شوروی بود و می‌گوید: «من فکر می‌کنم همه ما و به خصوص شوروی جنگ سرد را باختیم. هر یک از ما ۱۰ تریلیون دلار هزینه کردیم».

فناوری[ویرایش]

یک ویژگی اصلی جنگ سرد، رقابت جنگ‌افزاری میان کشورهای عضو پیمان ورشو و کشورهای عضو ناتو بود این رقابت منجر به کشف‌های علمی عمده در زمینه‌های فناوری و نظامی شد.

برخی از پیشرفت‌های انقلابی خاص، در حوزه سلاح‌های هسته‌ای و راکت انجام شد که منجر به رقابت فضایی گردید (بسیاری از راکت‌هایی که برای فرستادن انسان‌ها و ماهواره‌ها به کار می‌رفتند در اصل برمبنای طراحی‌های نظامی این دوره ساخته شده بودند)

حوزه‌های دیگری که در آن مسابقه جنگ‌افزاری رخ داد عبارت‌اند از: جنگنده‌های جت، بمب‌افکنها، سلاح‌های شیمیایی، سلاح‌های بیولوژیک، جنگ‌افزار ضدهوایی، موشک‌های زمین به زمین (شامل موشک‌های بالستیک)، موشک‌های ضد بالیستیک، سلاح‌های ضد تانک، زیردریاییها، جنگ‌افزارهای ضد زیردریایی، موشک‌های بالستیک پرتاب شونده از زیردریایی، هوش الکترونیکی، هوش سیگنال‌ها، هواپیمای شناسایی، ماهواره‌های جاسوسی.

تضمین نابودی دو طرف[ویرایش]

یکی از ویژگی‌های اصلی مسابقه جنگ‌افزاری هسته‌ای (به خصوص پس از استفاده گسترده از آی سی بی امهای هسته‌ای با این فرض غلط که بمب افکن دارای خدمه به‌طور مرگباری در مقابل موشک‌های زمین به هوا/اس ای ام آسیب‌پذیر هستند) مفهوم ترس از «نابودی تضمین شده» و بعداً نابودی تضمین شده هر دوطرف یا MAD بود.

مفهوم این ایده این بود که بلوک غرب به بلوک شرق حمله نمی‌کند و برعکس؛ چرا که هر دو طرف برای نابودی کامل طرف دیگر و غیرقابل سکونت کردن سیاره زمین به اندازه کافی جنگ‌افزار هسته‌ای دارند؛ بنابراین آغاز حمله از سوی هر دو طرف به معنای خودکشی بود و در نتیجه هیچ‌کس این کار را انجام نمی‌داد. با افزایش تعداد و دقت سامانه‌های آفندی به ویژه در مراحل نهایی جنگ سرد، امکان‌پذیری نظریه اولین حمله، نظریه خودداری را ضعیف کرد. هدف اولین حمله این است که نیروهای هسته‌ای دشمن را به اندازه‌ای تضعیف کند که پاسخ تلافی‌جویانه زیان‌های «قابل قبولی» داشته باشد.

اطلاعات جاسوسی[ویرایش]

نیروهای نظامی کشورهای درگیر، به ندرت به‌طور مستقیم در جنگ سرد شرکت می‌کردند؛ این نبرد بیشتر توسط آژانس‌های اطلاعاتی مانند سیا (آمریکا)، سازمان اطلاعات مخفی بریتانیا (انگلستان)، سرویس اطلاعات فدرال (آلمان غربی)، استاسی (آلمان شرقی) و کاگ‌ب (شوروی) انجام می‌شد.

از توانایی‌های اشلون (سازمان اطلاعاتی مشترک ایالات متحده و انگلستان که در جنگ جهانی دوم ایجاد شد) ضد شوروی، چین، و هم‌پیمانان آن‌ها استفاده می‌شد.

بر پایه گفته‌های سیا بیشتر فناوری‌های کشورهای کمونیست شامل تقلیدهایی از فراورده‌های غربی بود که آن‌ها را به‌طور قانونی خریداری یا از طریق یک برنامه جاسوسی گسترده تهیه کرده بودند.[۱۷] کنترل شدیدتر صادرات فناوری غربی از طریق COCOM و عرضه فناوری معیوب به دلال‌های کمونیست پس از کشف پرونده فیرول در سرنگونی بلوک کمونیسم نقش داشت.

روزهای حساس و مهم[۱۸][ویرایش]

رزمایش کمانگیر کاردان[ویرایش]

در تاریخ ۲ نوامبر ۱۹۸۳ ناتو در سطح فرماندهی مانوری ده روز آغاز کرد که نام رمز آن «کمانگیر کاردان» (Able Archer 83) بود. در طرح این مانور مسئله آمادگی برای شرایط وخیم در صورت بروز جنگی اتمی با اتحاد شوروی نیز گنجانده شده بود. قرار بود حتی رهبران دولت‌ها مانند هلموت کهل، صدراعظم آلمان و مارگرت تاچر، نخست‌وزیر بریتانیا نیز در جریان آن قرار گیرند؛ ولی این ماجرا به سوءتفاهمی سنگین منجر گردید.

آژیر خطر در پیمان ورشو[ویرایش]

از طریق اطلاعات سرویس‌های مخفی برای بلوک شرق این سوءتفاهم پیش آمد که ناتو واقعاً قصد یک حمله اتمی دارد. به‌ویژه شرکت رهبران دولت‌ها، نظامیان را به اشتباه انداخته بود. پیمان ورشو نیروهای خود را در اروپای شرقی و جمهوری دمکراتیک آلمان به حال آماده‌باش درآورد. در پی آن ناتو متوجه شد که با صلح جهانی بازی کرده‌است و از انجام برخی مراحل مانور خود چشم‌پوشی کرد.

هدف قرار دادن هواپیمای مسافربری کره جنوبی[ویرایش]

در تاریخ ۱ سپتامبر ۱۹۸۳ اتحاد شوروی سهواً یک هواپیمای مسافربری کره جنوبی را هدف قرار داد و سرنگون ساخت. ۲۶۹ سرنشین این هواپیما کشته شدند. این پیشامد به یخبندان تازه‌ای در مناسبات میان ایالات متحده آمریکا و اتحاد شوروی انجامید. سپس ماجرای نقص فنی در کامپیوتر پیش آمد.

هوشیاری سرهنگ استانیسلاو پتروف[ویرایش]

سرهنگ استانیسلاو پتروف در تاریخ ۲۶ سپتامبر ۱۹۸۳ مشغول خدمت در پناهگاهی زیرزمینی در نزدیکی مسکو بود. ناگهان آژیر خطر به صدا درآمد و کامپیوتر موشکی اتمی را نشان داد که ظاهراً در همان لحظه از پایگاهی در آمریکا شلیک شده بود. دستورهایی که برای این شرایط به زبده‌نظامیان داده شده کاملاً روشن بود. در شرایط جدی فقط نیم‌ساعت فرصت تا وارد شدن ضربه‌ای مصیبت‌بار باقی می‌ماند. باید حمله متقابل آغاز می‌شد.

این سرهنگ اما معتقد بود که اشتباهی رخ داده و به هیچ اقدامی دست نزد. لحظاتی بعد که برای او مانند عمری سپری شد، سیستم‌های کنترل نشان دادند که حق با او بوده و آژیر خطر اشتباهی به صدا درآمده‌است. ماهواره‌های جاسوسی اشتباهاً بازتاب نور خورشید را به منزله یک حمله موشکی ارزیابی کرده بودند. تنها در سال ۱۹۹۸ جهان از دلیری سرهنگ پتروف آگاه شد و در سال ۲۰۱۱ جایزه رسانه‌ای آلمان به نشانه ستایش به او اعطا شد.

۲۰۰۰ موشک در پرواز[ویرایش]

خطای مشابهی در تاریخ ۹ نوامبر ۱۹۷۹ در طرف مقابل صورت گرفت. یک سیستم هشداردهنده آمریکایی اعلام کرد که ۲۲۰ موشک اتمی به سوی آمریکا در پروازند. بعداً تعداد این موشک‌ها حتی ۲۰۰۰ فروند اعلام شد. جیمی کارتر، رئیس‌جمهور وقت آمریکا در جریان این رویداد قرار گرفت؛ ولی بعد معلوم شد که یکی از تکنیسین‌ها سهواً داده‌های مربوط به شبیه‌سازی (سیمولاسیون) یک حمله اتمی را وارد سیستم کرده‌است.

هراس از جنگ جهانی سوم[ویرایش]

جهان حساس‌ترین روزهای جنگ سرد را در پاییز سال ۱۹۶۲ تجربه کرد. به‌رغم هشدار جان اف کندی رئیس‌جمهوری وقت آمریکا، اتحاد شوروی سکوهای پرتاب موشک‌های اتمی خود را در کوبا، یعنی در نزدیکی آمریکا مستقر کرد. آمریکا با یک محاصره دریایی به این اقدام واکنش نشان داد. زیردریایی‌ها و کشتی‌ها جنگی دو طرف در آب‌های کارائیب مراقب یکدیگر و مترصد حمله بودند. به نظر می‌رسید که جنگی اتمی بسیار محتمل است.

خط ارتباطی مستقیم برای لحظات حساس[ویرایش]

در تاریخ ۲۸ اکتبر ۱۹۶۲ خبر آرام‌کننده منتشر شد: خروشچف رهبر شوروی اعلام آمادگی کرد که موشک‌های خود را از کوبا خارج کند. ایالات متحده آمریکا از حمله نظامی به کوبا چشم‌پوشی کرد. نتیجه این بحران ایجاد خط ارتباطی مستقیم میان واشینگتن و مسکو برای لحظات حساس و خطرناک بود. چنین چیزی در زمان ماجرای دیوار برلین برای شهروندان این شهر یک رؤیا بود.

گذرگاه مرزی میان دو برلین: صف‌آرایی تانک‌ها در برابر هم[ویرایش]

در معروف‌ترین گذرگاه مرزی میان دو برلین به نام «چک‌پوینت چارلی» در اکتبر ۱۹۶۱ زورآزمایی دیگری میان دو ابرقدرت درگرفت. چندی پس از ساختن دیوار برلین وضعیت پیش آمده می‌توانست خاک آلمان را به یک صحنه کارزار اتمی تبدیل کند. این بحران به دلیل کنترل گذرنامه یک دیپلمات آمریکایی توسط یک مرزبان جمهوری دمکراتیک آلمان بروز کرد. دیپلمات آمریکایی چنان خشمگین شده بود که ژاندارمری آمریکا را به محل فراخواند.

در پی آن شوروی تانک‌های خود را به خیابان «فریدریش» در بخش شرقی برلین فرستاد. لوسیوس کلی، فرستاده ویژه آمریکا در برلین نیز متقابلاً تانک‌های آمریکایی را به «چک‌پوینت چارلی» گسیل داشت. بدین‌سان دو ابرقدرت عملاً رویاروی یکدیگر قرار گرفتند. آن‌ها با جنگ فقط چند متر فاصله داشتند؛ ولی در تاریخ ۲۸ اکتبر هر دو طرف کوتاه آمدند و تانک‌های خود را عقب کشیدند. البته هر دو بعداً خود را برنده این ماجرا معرفی کردند.

جنبش صلح در آلمان[ویرایش]

وخیم شدن اوضاع در ماجرای «چک‌پوینت چارلی» و بحران کوبا هراس بسیاری از آلمانی‌ها را برانگیخت، ولی افکار عمومی از رویدادهای پاییز ۱۹۸۳ خیلی دیرتر آگاه شد. بسیاری به موازنه هسته‌ای اعتماد نداشتند. سال ۱۹۸۳ یعنی سالی که جهان از نزدیک یک جنگ اتمی عبور کرد، به عنوان سالی تعیین‌کننده برای جنبش صلح در آلمان وارد تاریخ شد.

جستارهای وابسته[ویرایش]

پانویس[ویرایش]

  1. اطلس تاریخ جهان برای دانش‌آموز، سیمون آدامز، مرجان نگهی، جمشید نوروزی؛ انتشارات افق صفحه 169
  2. نقیب‌زاده، احمد، تاریخ دیپلماسی و روابط بین‌الملل، نشر قومس، ۱۳۸۸: تهران، ص 258.
  3. نقیب‌زاده، احمد، تاریخ دیپلماسی و روابط بین‌الملل، نشر قومس، ۱۳۸۸: تهران. ص 261
  4. نقیب‌زاده، احمد، تاریخ دیپلماسی و روابط بین‌الملل، نشر قومس، ۱۳۸۸: تهران. ص.261
  5. ۵٫۰ ۵٫۱ نقیب‌زاده، احمد، تاریخ دیپلماسی و روابط بین‌الملل، نشر قومس، ۱۳۸۸: تهران. ص 262.
  6. ۶٫۰ ۶٫۱ نقیب‌زاده، احمد، تاریخ دیپلماسی و روابط بین‌الملل، نشر قومس، ۱۳۸۸: تهران. ص 264.
  7. Albania opens huge Cold War bunker، بی‌بی‌سی فارسی
  8. هات‌لاین در مخابرات به خط تلفنی مستقیم بین دو نقطه گفته می‌شود که با برداشتن گوشی در هر کدام از طرفین، بدون شماره‌گیری، بلافاصله طرف مقابل زنگ می‌خورد.
  9. ۹٫۰ ۹٫۱ نقیب‌زاده، احمد، تاریخ دیپلماسی و روابط بین‌الملل، نشر قومس، ۱۳۸۸: تهران. ص 275.
  10. ۱۰٫۰ ۱۰٫۱ نقیب‌زاده، احمد، تاریخ دیپلماسی و روابط بین‌الملل، نشر قومس، ۱۳۸۸: تهران. ص 266.
  11. نقیب‌زاده، احمد، تاریخ دیپلماسی و روابط بین‌الملل، نشر قومس، ۱۳۸۸: تهران. ص 270.
  12. Kissinger، Henry (۲۰۱۲). On China. Random House. صص. ۲۸۷.
  13. «نسخه آرشیو شده». بایگانی‌شده از اصلی در ۲۵ مه ۲۰۰۵. دریافت‌شده در ۲۱ آوریل ۲۰۰۸.
  14. ۱۴٫۰ ۱۴٫۱ نقیب‌زاده، احمد، تاریخ دیپلماسی و روابط بین‌الملل، نشر قومس، ۱۳۸۸: تهران. ص 283.
  15. نقیب‌زاده، احمد، تاریخ دیپلماسی و روابط بین‌الملل، نشر قومس، ۱۳۸۸: تهران. ص 285.
  16. ۱۶٫۰ ۱۶٫۱ نقیب‌زاده، احمد، تاریخ دیپلماسی و روابط بین‌الملل، نشر قومس، ۱۳۸۸: تهران. ص 290.
  17. «نسخه آرشیو شده». بایگانی‌شده از اصلی در ۱ نوامبر ۲۰۰۶. دریافت‌شده در ۲۱ آوریل ۲۰۰۸.
  18. زمانی که جنگ سرد داغ شد دویچه‌وله فارسی

منابع[ویرایش]

Borders of NATO (blue) and Warsaw Pact (red) states during the Cold war era.
Cold War
(1947–1991)
Germans watching Western supply planes at Berlin Tempelhof Airport during the Berlin Airlift, 1948
East German construction workers building the Berlin Wall, 1961
A U.S. Navy aircraft shadowing a Soviet freighter during the Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962
American astronaut Thomas P. Stafford and Soviet cosmonaut Alexei Leonov shake hands in outer space, 1975
Soviet frigate Bezzavetny bumping USS Yorktown, 1988
Mushroom cloud of the Ivy Mike nuclear test, 1952; one of more than a thousand such tests conducted by the US between 1945 and 1992
Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian leaders signing the Belavezha Accords, officially dissolving the Soviet Union, 1991
West and East Germans at the Brandenburg Gate in 1989.jpg

Part of a series on the
History of the Cold War

Origins of the Cold War
World War II
(Hiroshima and Nagasaki)
War conferences
Eastern Bloc
Western Bloc
Iron Curtain
Cold War (1947–1953)
Cold War (1953–1962)
Cold War (1962–1979)
Cold War (1979–1985)
Cold War (1985–1991)
Frozen conflicts
Timeline · Conflicts
Historiography
Cold War II

The Cold War was a period of geopolitical tension between the Soviet Union with its satellite states (the Eastern Bloc), and the United States with its allies (the Western Bloc) after World War II. The historiography of the conflict began between 1946 (the year U.S. diplomat George F. Kennan's "Long Telegram" from Moscow cemented a U.S. foreign policy of containment of Soviet expansionism) and 1947 (the introduction of the Truman Doctrine). The Cold War began to de-escalate after the Revolutions of 1989. The collapse of the USSR in 1991 (when the proto-state Republics of the Soviet Union declared independence) was the end of the Cold War. The term "cold" is used because there was no large-scale fighting directly between the two sides, but they each supported major regional conflicts known as proxy wars. The conflict split the temporary wartime alliance against Nazi Germany and its allies, leaving the USSR and the US as two superpowers with profound economic and political differences.

The capitalist West was led by the United States, a federal republic with a two-party presidential system, as well as the other First World nations of the Western Bloc that were generally liberal democratic with a free press and independent organizations, but were economically and politically entwined with a network of banana republics and other authoritarian regimes, most of which were the Western Bloc's former colonies.[1][A] Some major Cold War frontlines such as Indochina, Indonesia, and the Congo were still Western colonies in 1947. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, was a self-proclaimed Marxist–Leninist state that imposed a totalitarian regime that was led by a small committee, the Politburo. The Party had full control of the state, the press, the military, the economy, and local organizations throughout the Second World, including the Warsaw Pact and other satellites. The Kremlin funded communist parties around the world but was challenged for control by Mao's People's Republic of China following the Sino-Soviet split of the 1960s. As nearly all the colonial states achieved independence in the period 1945–1960, they became Third World battlefields in the Cold War.

India, Indonesia, and Yugoslavia took the lead in promoting neutrality with the Non-Aligned Movement, but it never had much power in its own right. The Soviet Union and the United States never engaged directly in full-scale armed combat. However, both were heavily armed in preparation for a possible all-out nuclear world war. China and the United States fought an undeclared high-casualty war in Korea (1950–53) that resulted in a stalemate. Each side had a nuclear strategy that discouraged an attack by the other side, on the basis that such an attack would lead to the total destruction of the attacker—the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD). Aside from the development of the two sides' nuclear arsenals, and their deployment of conventional military forces, the struggle for dominance was expressed via proxy wars around the globe, psychological warfare, massive propaganda campaigns and espionage, far-reaching embargoes, rivalry at sports events, and technological competitions such as the Space Race.

The first phase of the Cold War began in the first two years after the end of the Second World War in 1945. The Soviet Union consolidated its control over the states of the Eastern Bloc, while the United States began a strategy of global containment to challenge Soviet power, extending military and financial aid to the countries of Western Europe (for example, supporting the anti-communist side in the Greek Civil War) and creating the NATO alliance. The Berlin Blockade (1948–49) was the first major crisis of the Cold War. With the victory of the Communist side in the Chinese Civil War and the outbreak of the Korean War (1950–1953), the conflict expanded. The USSR and the US competed for influence in Latin America and the decolonizing states of Africa and Asia. The Soviets suppressed the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. The expansion and escalation sparked more crises, such as the Suez Crisis (1956), the Berlin Crisis of 1961, and the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, which was perhaps the closest the two sides came to nuclear war. Meanwhile, an international peace movement took root and grew among citizens around the world, first in Japan from 1954, when people became concerned about nuclear weapons testing, but soon also in Europe and the US. The peace movement, and in particular the anti-nuclear movement, gained pace and popularity from the late 1950s and early 1960s, and continued to grow through the '70s and '80s with large protest marches, demonstrations, and various non-parliamentary activism opposing war and calling for global nuclear disarmament. Following the Cuban Missile Crisis, a new phase began that saw the Sino-Soviet split complicate relations within the Communist sphere, while US allies, particularly France, demonstrated greater independence of action. The USSR crushed the 1968 Prague Spring liberalization program in Czechoslovakia, while the US experienced internal turmoil from the civil rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam War (1955–75), which ended with the defeat of the US-backed South Vietnam, prompting further adjustments.

By the 1970s, both sides had become interested in making allowances in order to create a more stable and predictable international system, ushering in a period of détente that saw the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks and the US opening relations with the PRC as a strategic counterweight to the USSR. Détente collapsed at the end of the decade with the beginning of the Soviet–Afghan War in 1979. The early 1980s were another period of elevated tension, with the Soviet downing of KAL Flight 007 and the "Able Archer" NATO military exercises, both in 1983. The United States increased diplomatic, military, and economic pressures on the Soviet Union, at a time when the communist state was already suffering from economic stagnation. On 12 June 1982, a million protesters gathered in Central Park, New York to call for an end to the Cold War arms race and nuclear weapons in particular. In the mid-1980s, the new Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev introduced the liberalizing reforms of perestroika ("reorganization", 1987) and glasnost ("openness", c. 1985) and ended Soviet involvement in Afghanistan. Pressures for national sovereignty grew stronger in Eastern Europe, especially Poland. Gorbachev meanwhile refused to use Soviet troops to bolster the faltering Warsaw Pact regimes as had occurred in the past. The result in 1989 was a wave of revolutions that peacefully (with the exception of the Romanian Revolution) overthrew all of the communist regimes of Central and Eastern Europe. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union itself lost control and was banned following an abortive coup attempt in August 1991. This in turn led to the formal dissolution of the USSR in December 1991 and the collapse of communist regimes in other countries such as Mongolia, Cambodia, and South Yemen. The United States remained as the world's only superpower.

The Cold War and its events have left a significant legacy. It is often referred to in popular culture, especially in media featuring themes of espionage (notably the internationally successful James Bond book and film franchise) and the threat of nuclear warfare. Meanwhile, a renewed state of tension between the Soviet Union's successor state, Russia, and the United States in the 2010s (including its Western allies) and growing tension between an increasingly powerful China and the U.S. and its Western Allies have each been referred to as the Second Cold War.[2]

Contents

Origins of the term

At the end of World War II, English writer George Orwell used cold war, as a general term, in his essay "You and the Atomic Bomb", published 19 October 1945 in the British newspaper Tribune. Contemplating a world living in the shadow of the threat of nuclear warfare, Orwell looked at James Burnham's predictions of a polarized world, writing:

Looking at the world as a whole, the drift for many decades has been not towards anarchy but towards the reimposition of slavery... James Burnham's theory has been much discussed, but few people have yet considered its ideological implications—that is, the kind of world-view, the kind of beliefs, and the social structure that would probably prevail in a state which was at once unconquerable and in a permanent state of "cold war" with its neighbours.[3]

In The Observer of 10 March 1946, Orwell wrote, "after the Moscow conference last December, Russia began to make a 'cold war' on Britain and the British Empire."[4]

The first use of the term to describe the specific post-war geopolitical confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States came in a speech by Bernard Baruch, an influential advisor to Democratic presidents,[5] on 16 April 1947. The speech, written by journalist Herbert Bayard Swope,[6] proclaimed, "Let us not be deceived: we are today in the midst of a cold war."[7] Newspaper columnist Walter Lippmann gave the term wide currency with his book The Cold War. When asked in 1947 about the source of the term, Lippmann traced it to a French term from the 1930s, la guerre froide.[B]

Background

Russian Revolution

Allied troops in Vladivostok, August 1918, during the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War

While most historians trace the origins of the Cold War to the period immediately following World War II, others argue that it began with the October Revolution in Russia in 1917 when the Bolsheviks took power. In World War I, the British, French and Russian Empires had comprised the Allied Powers from the start, and the US joined them in March 1917. The Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in November 1917 but German armies advanced rapidly across the borderlands. The Allies responded with an economic blockade against all of Russia.[8] In early March 1918, the Soviets followed through on the wave of popular disgust against the war and accepted harsh German peace terms with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. In the eyes of some Allies, Russia now was helping Germany win the war by freeing up a million German soldiers for the Western Front[9] and by "relinquishing much of Russia's food supply, industrial base, fuel supplies, and communications with Western Europe."[10][11] According to historian Spencer Tucker, the Allies felt, "The treaty was the ultimate betrayal of the Allied cause and sowed the seeds for the Cold War. With Brest-Litovsk the spectre of German domination in Eastern Europe threatened to become reality, and the Allies now began to think seriously about military intervention," and proceeded to step up their "economic warfare" against the Bolsheviks.[8] Some Bolsheviks saw Russia as only the first step, planning to incite revolutions against capitalism in every western country, but the need for peace with Germany led Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin away from this position.[C]

In 1918 Britain sent in money and some troops to support the anti-Bolshevik "White" counter-revolutionaries. This policy was spearheaded by Minister of War Winston Churchill, a committed anti-communist.[12] France, Japan and the United States also sent forces to help decide the Russian Civil War in the Whites favor. Lenin made peace overtures to Wilson, and the American leader responded by sending diplomat William Bullitt to Moscow. The Allies ultimately rejected the ceasefire terms which Bullitt negotiated, believing that a White victory was imminent.[13]

Nonetheless, the Bolsheviks defeated all opposition and took full control of Russia, as well as breakaway provinces such as Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan.[citation needed] Bainbridge Colby, the American Secretary of State, in 1920 announced an American policy of refusing to deal with the new regime.[14]

Soviet Russia found itself isolated in international diplomacy.[15] Vladimir Lenin stated that the Soviet Union was surrounded by a "hostile capitalist encirclement" and he viewed diplomacy as a weapon to keep Soviet enemies divided, beginning with the establishment of the Soviet Comintern, which called for revolutionary upheavals abroad.[16] Communist revolutions failed in Germany, Bavaria, and Hungary, as the US poured billions of dollars of food relief into eastern Europe expressly to curb unrest.[17]

By 1933, old fears of Communist threats had faded, and the American business community, as well as newspaper editors, were calling for diplomatic recognition. President Franklin D. Roosevelt used presidential authority to normalize relations in November 1933.[18] There were few complaints about the move.[19] However, there was no progress on the debt issue and little additional trade. Historians Justus D. Doenecke and Mark A. Stoler note that, "Both nations were soon disillusioned by the accord."[20] Many American businessmen expected a bonus in terms of large-scale trade, but it never materialized.[21]

Roosevelt named William Bullitt as ambassador from 1933 to 1936. Bullitt arrived in Moscow with high hopes for Soviet–American relations, but his view of the Soviet leadership soured on closer inspection. By the end of his tenure, Bullitt was openly hostile to the Soviet government, and he remained an outspoken anti-communist for the rest of his life.[22]

Beginnings of World War II

In the late 1930s, Stalin had worked with Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov to promote popular fronts with capitalist parties and governments to oppose fascism. The Soviets were embittered when Western governments chose to practice appeasement with Nazi Germany instead. In March 1939 Britain and France—without consulting the USSR—granted Hitler control of much of Czechoslovakia at the Munich Agreement. Facing an aggressive Japan at Russia's borders as well, Stalin changed directions and replaced Litvinov with Vyacheslav Molotov, who negotiated closer relations with Germany.[23]

After signing the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and German–Soviet Frontier Treaty, the Soviet Union forced the Baltic countries—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—to allow it to station Soviet troops in their countries.[24] Finland rejected territorial demands, prompting a Soviet invasion in November 1939. The resulting Winter War ended in March 1940 with Finnish concessions.[25] Britain and France, treating the Soviet attack on Finland as tantamount to its entering the war on the side of the Germans, responded to the Soviet invasion by supporting the USSR's expulsion from the League of Nations.[26]

In June 1940, the Soviet Union forcibly annexed Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.[27] It also seized the disputed Romanian regions of Bessarabia, Northern Bukovina, and Hertza. But after the German Army invaded the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa in June 1941 and declared war on the United States in December 1941, the Soviet Union and the Allied powers worked together to fight Germany. Britain signed a formal alliance and the United States made an informal agreement. In wartime, the United States supplied Britain, the Soviet Union and other Allied nations through its Lend-Lease Program.[28] However, Stalin remained highly suspicious, and he believed that the British and the Americans had conspired to ensure that the Soviets bore the brunt of the fighting against Germany. According to this view, the Western Allies had deliberately delayed opening a second anti-German front in order to step in at the last minute and shape the peace settlement. Thus, Soviet perceptions of the West left a strong undercurrent of tension and hostility between the Allied powers.[29]

End of World War II (1945–1947)

Wartime conferences regarding post-war Europe

The Allies disagreed about how the European map should look, and how borders would be drawn, following the war.[30] Each side held dissimilar ideas regarding the establishment and maintenance of post-war security.[30] Some scholars contend that all the Western Allies desired a security system in which democratic governments were established as widely as possible, permitting countries to peacefully resolve differences through international organizations.[31] Others note that the Atlantic powers were divided in their vision of the new post-war world. Roosevelt's goals—military victory in both Europe and Asia, the achievement of global American economic supremacy over the British Empire, and the creation of a world peace organization—were more global than Churchill's, which were mainly centered on securing control over the Mediterranean, ensuring the survival of the British Empire, and the independence of Central and Eastern European countries as a buffer between the Soviets and the United Kingdom.[32]

The "Big Three" at the Yalta Conference: Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin, 1945

The Soviet Union sought to dominate the internal affairs of countries in its border regions.[30][33] During the war, Stalin had created special training centers for communists from different countries so that they could set up secret police forces loyal to Moscow as soon as the Red Army took control. Soviet agents took control of the media, especially radio; they quickly harassed and then banned all independent civic institutions, from youth groups to schools, churches and rival political parties.[D] Stalin also sought continued peace with Britain and the United States, hoping to focus on internal reconstruction and economic growth.[34]

In the American view, Stalin seemed a potential ally in accomplishing their goals, whereas in the British approach Stalin appeared as the greatest threat to the fulfillment of their agenda. With the Soviets already occupying most of Central and Eastern Europe, Stalin was at an advantage, and the two western leaders vied for his favors.

The differences between Roosevelt and Churchill led to several separate deals with the Soviets. In October 1944, Churchill traveled to Moscow and proposed the "percentages agreement" to divide the Balkans into respective spheres of influence, including giving Stalin predominance over Romania and Bulgaria and Churchill carte blanche over Greece. At the Yalta Conference of February 1945, Roosevelt signed a separate deal with Stalin in regard of Asia and refused to support Churchill on the issues of Poland and Reparations.[32] Roosevelt ultimately approved the percentage agreement,[35][36] but there was still apparently no firm consensus on the framework for a post-war settlement in Europe.[37]

At the Second Quebec Conference, a high-level military conference held in Quebec City, 12–16 September 1944, Churchill and Roosevelt reached agreement on a number of matters, including a plan for Germany based on Henry Morgenthau Jr.'s original proposal. The memorandum drafted by Churchill provided for "eliminating the warmaking industries in the Ruhr and the Saar ... looking forward to converting Germany into a country primarily agricultural and pastoral in its character." However, it no longer included a plan to partition the country into several independent states.[E] On 10 May 1945, President Truman signed the U.S. occupation directive JCS 1067, which was in effect for over two years, and was enthusiastically supported by Stalin. It directed the U.S. forces of occupation to "...take no steps looking toward the economic rehabilitation of Germany".[38] Some historians have argued that the Cold War began when the US negotiated a separate peace with Nazi SS General Karl Wolff in northern Italy. The Soviet Union was not allowed to participate and the dispute led to heated correspondence between Franklin Roosevelt and Stalin. General Wolff, a war criminal, appears to have been guaranteed immunity at the Nuremberg trials by Office of Strategic Services (OSS) commander (and later CIA director) Allen Dulles when they met in March 1945. Wolff and his forces were being considered to help implement Operation Unthinkable, a secret plan to invade the Soviet Union which Winston Churchill advocated during this period.[39][40][41]

In April 1945, President Roosevelt died and was succeeded by Harry S. Truman, who distrusted Stalin and turned for advice to an elite group of foreign policy intellectuals. Both Churchill and Truman opposed, among other things, the Soviets' decision to prop up the Lublin government, the Soviet-controlled rival to the Polish government-in-exile in London, whose relations with the Soviets had been severed.[42]

Following the Allies' May 1945 victory, the Soviets effectively occupied Central and Eastern Europe,[37] while strong US and Western allied forces remained in Western Europe. In Germany and Austria, France, Britain, the Soviet Union and the United States established zones of occupation and a loose framework for parceled four-power control.[43]

The 1945 Allied conference in San Francisco established the multi-national United Nations (UN) for the maintenance of world peace, but the enforcement capacity of its Security Council was effectively paralyzed by the ability of individual members to exercise veto power.[citation needed] Accordingly, the UN was essentially converted into an inactive forum for exchanging polemical rhetoric, and the Soviets regarded it almost exclusively as a propaganda tribune.[44]

Potsdam Conference and surrender of Japan

At the Potsdam Conference, which started in late July after Germany's surrender, serious differences emerged over the future development of Germany and the rest of Central and Eastern Europe. [45] The Russians pressed their demand made at Yalta, for $20 billion of reparations to be taken from Germany occupation zones. The Americans and British refused to fix a dollar amount for reparations, but they permitted the Russians to remove some industry from their zones.[46] Moreover, the participants' mounting antipathy and bellicose language served to confirm their suspicions about each other's hostile intentions, and to entrench their positions.[47] At this conference Truman informed Stalin that the United States possessed a powerful new weapon.[48]

The US had invited Britain into its atomic bomb project but kept it secret from the Soviet Union. Stalin was aware that the Americans were working on the atomic bomb, and he reacted to the news calmly.[48] One week after the end of the Potsdam Conference, the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Shortly after the attacks, Stalin protested to US officials when Truman offered the Soviets little real influence in occupied Japan.[49] Stalin was also outraged by the actual dropping of the bombs, calling them a "superbarbarity" and claiming that "the balance has been destroyed...That cannot be." The Truman administration intended to use its ongoing nuclear weapons program to pressure the Soviet Union in international relations.[48]

Beginnings of the Eastern Bloc

Post-war territorial changes in Europe and the formation of the Eastern Bloc, the so-called 'Iron Curtain'

During the opening stages of World War II, the Soviet Union laid the foundation for the Eastern Bloc by invading and then annexing several countries as Soviet Socialist Republics, by agreement with Germany in the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. These included eastern Poland (incorporated into the Byelorussian SSR and the Ukrainian SSR),[50] Latvia (which became the Latvian SSR),[51][52] Estonia (which became the Estonian SSR),[51][52] Lithuania (which became the Lithuanian SSR),[51][52] part of eastern Finland (which became the Karelo-Finnish SSR) and eastern Romania (which became the Moldavian SSR).[53]

The Central and Eastern European territories liberated from Germany and occupied by the Soviet armed forces were added to the Eastern Bloc by converting them into satellite states,[54] such as:

The Soviet-style regimes that arose in the Bloc not only reproduced Soviet command economy, but also adopted the brutal methods employed by Joseph Stalin and the Soviet secret police in order to suppress both real and potential opposition.[57] In Asia, the Red Army had overrun Manchuria in the last month of the war, and it went on to occupy the large swathe of Korean territory located north of the 38th parallel.[58]

As part of consolidating Stalin's control over the Eastern Bloc, the People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD), led by Lavrentiy Beria, supervised the establishment of Soviet-style secret police systems in the Bloc that were supposed to crush anti-communist resistance.[59] When the slightest stirrings of independence emerged in the Bloc, Stalin's strategy matched that of dealing with domestic pre-war rivals: they were removed from power, put on trial, imprisoned, and in several instances, executed.[60]

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was concerned that, given the enormous size of Soviet forces deployed in Europe at the end of the war, and the perception that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin was unreliable, there existed a Soviet threat to Western Europe.[61] After World War II, US officials guided Western European leaders in establishing their own secret security force to prevent subversion in the Western bloc, which evolved into Operation Gladio.[62]

Containment and the Truman Doctrine (1947–1953)

Iron Curtain, Iran, Turkey, and Greece

Remains of the "iron curtain" in the Czech Republic

In late February 1946, George F. Kennan's "Long Telegram" from Moscow to Washington helped to articulate the US government's increasingly hard line against the Soviets, which would become the basis for US strategy toward the Soviet Union for the duration of the Cold War. The Truman Administration was receptive to the telegram due to broken promises by Stalin concerning Europe and Iran.[citation needed] Following the WWII Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, the country was occupied by the Red Army in the far north and the British in the south.[63] Iran was used by the United States and British to supply the Soviet Union, and the Allies agreed to withdraw from Iran within six months after the cessation of hostilities.[63] However, when this deadline came, the Soviets remained in Iran under the guise of the People's Republic of Azerbaijan and Kurdish Republic of Mahabad.[64] Shortly thereafter, on 5 March, former British prime minister Winston Churchill delivered his famous "Iron Curtain" speech in Fulton, Missouri.[65] The speech called for an Anglo-American alliance against the Soviets, whom he accused of establishing an "iron curtain" dividing Europe from "Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic".[54][66]

A week later, on 13 March, Stalin responded vigorously to the speech, saying that Churchill could be compared to Hitler insofar as he advocated the racial superiority of English-speaking nations so that they could satisfy their hunger for world domination, and that such a declaration was "a call for war on the U.S.S.R." The Soviet leader also dismissed the accusation that the USSR was exerting increasing control over the countries lying in its sphere. He argued that there was nothing surprising in "the fact that the Soviet Union, anxious for its future safety, [was] trying to see to it that governments loyal in their attitude to the Soviet Union should exist in these countries".[67][68]

European military alliances
European economic alliances

In September, the Soviet side produced the Novikov telegram, sent by the Soviet ambassador to the US but commissioned and "co-authored" by Vyacheslav Molotov; it portrayed the US as being in the grip of monopoly capitalists who were building up military capability "to prepare the conditions for winning world supremacy in a new war".[69] On 6 September 1946, James F. Byrnes delivered a speech in Germany repudiating the Morgenthau Plan (a proposal to partition and de-industrialize post-war Germany) and warning the Soviets that the US intended to maintain a military presence in Europe indefinitely.[70] As Byrnes admitted a month later, "The nub of our program was to win the German people ... it was a battle between us and Russia over minds ..."[71] In December, the Soviets agreed to withdraw from Iran after persistent US pressure, an early success of containment policy.

By 1947, US president Harry S. Truman was outraged by perceived resistance of the Soviet Union to American demands in Iran, Turkey, and Greece, as well as Soviet rejection of the Baruch Plan on nuclear weapons.[72] In February 1947, the British government announced that it could no longer afford to finance the Kingdom of Greece in its civil war against Communist-led insurgents.[73] The US government responded to this announcement by adopting a policy of containment,[74] with the goal of stopping the spread of Communism. Truman delivered a speech calling for the allocation of $400 million to intervene in the war and unveiled the Truman Doctrine, which framed the conflict as a contest between free peoples and totalitarian regimes.[74] American policymakers accused the Soviet Union of conspiring against the Greek royalists in an effort to expand Soviet influence even though Stalin had told the Communist Party to cooperate with the British-backed government.[75] (The insurgents were helped by Josip Broz Tito's Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia against Stalin's wishes.)[76][77]

Enunciation of the Truman Doctrine marked the beginning of a US bipartisan defense and foreign policy consensus between Republicans and Democrats focused on containment and deterrence that weakened during and after the Vietnam War, but ultimately persisted thereafter.[78] Moderate and conservative parties in Europe, as well as social democrats, gave virtually unconditional support to the Western alliance,[79] while European and American Communists, financed by the KGB and involved in its intelligence operations,[80] adhered to Moscow's line, although dissent began to appear after 1956. Other critiques of the consensus policy came from anti-Vietnam War activists, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and the anti-nuclear movement.[81]

Marshall Plan and Czechoslovak coup d'état

The labeling used on Marshall Plan aid to Western Europe
Map of Cold War-era Europe and the Near East showing countries that received Marshall Plan aid. The red columns show the relative amount of total aid received per nation.
Construction in West Berlin under Marshall Plan aid

In early 1947, France, Britain and the United States unsuccessfully attempted to reach an agreement with the Soviet Union for a plan envisioning an economically self-sufficient Germany, including a detailed accounting of the industrial plants, goods and infrastructure already removed by the Soviets.[82] In June 1947, in accordance with the Truman Doctrine, the United States enacted the Marshall Plan, a pledge of economic assistance for all European countries willing to participate, including the Soviet Union.[82] Under the plan, which President Harry S. Truman signed on 3 April 1948, the US government gave to Western European countries over $13 billion (equivalent to $189.39 billion in 2016) to rebuild the economy of Europe. Later, the program led to the creation of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation.

The plan's aim was to rebuild the democratic and economic systems of Europe and to counter perceived threats to Europe's balance of power, such as communist parties seizing control through revolutions or elections.[83] The plan also stated that European prosperity was contingent upon German economic recovery.[84] One month later, Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947, creating a unified Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the National Security Council (NSC). These would become the main bureaucracies for US defense policy in the Cold War.[85]

Stalin believed that economic integration with the West would allow Eastern Bloc countries to escape Soviet control, and that the US was trying to buy a pro-US re-alignment of Europe.[86] Stalin therefore prevented Eastern Bloc nations from receiving Marshall Plan aid.[86] The Soviet Union's alternative to the Marshall Plan, which was purported to involve Soviet subsidies and trade with central and eastern Europe, became known as the Molotov Plan (later institutionalized in January 1949 as the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance).[76] Stalin was also fearful of a reconstituted Germany; his vision of a post-war Germany did not include the ability to rearm or pose any kind of threat to the Soviet Union.[87]

In early 1948, following reports of strengthening "reactionary elements", Soviet operatives executed a coup d'état in Czechoslovakia, the only Eastern Bloc state that the Soviets had permitted to retain democratic structures.[88] The public brutality of the coup shocked Western powers more than any event up to that point, set in a motion a brief scare that war would occur and swept away the last vestiges of opposition to the Marshall Plan in the United States Congress.[89]

The twin policies of the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan led to billions in economic and military aid for Western Europe, Greece, and Turkey. With the US assistance, the Greek military won its civil war.[85] Under the leadership of Alcide De Gasperi the Italian Christian Democrats defeated the powerful CommunistSocialist alliance in the elections of 1948.[90]

Espionage

All major powers engaged in espionage, using a great variety of spies, double agents, and new technologies such as the tapping of telephone cables.[91] The most famous and active organizations were the American CIA,[92] the Soviet KGB,[93] and the British MI6. The East German Stasi, unlike the others, was primarily concerned with internal security, but its Main Directorate for Reconnaissance operated espionage activities around the world.[94] The CIA secretly subsidized and promoted anti-communist cultural activities and organizations.[95] The CIA was also involved in European politics, especially in Italy.[96] Espionage took place all over the world, but Berlin was the most important battleground for spying activity.[97]

So much top secret archival information has been released so that historian Raymond L. Garthoff concludes there probably was parity in the quantity and quality of secret information obtained by each side. However, the Soviets probably had an advantage in terms of HUMINT (espionage) and "sometimes in its reach into high policy circles." In terms of decisive impact, however, he concludes:[98]

We also can now have high confidence in the judgment that there were no successful “moles” at the political decision-making level on either side. Similarly, there is no evidence, on either side, of any major political or military decision that was prematurely discovered through espionage and thwarted by the other side. There also is no evidence of any major political or military decision that was crucially influenced (much less generated) by an agent of the other side.

In addition to usual espionage, the Western agencies paid special attention to debriefing Eastern Bloc defectors.[99][citation not found]

Cominform and the Tito–Stalin Split

In September 1947, the Soviets created Cominform, the purpose of which was to enforce orthodoxy within the international communist movement and tighten political control over Soviet satellites through coordination of communist parties in the Eastern Bloc.[86] Cominform faced an embarrassing setback the following June, when the Tito–Stalin Split obliged its members to expel Yugoslavia, which remained communist but adopted a non-aligned position.[100]

Berlin Blockade and Airlift

C-47s unloading at Tempelhof Airport in Berlin during the Berlin Blockade

The United States and Britain merged their western German occupation zones into "Bizonia" (1 January 1947, later "Trizonia" with the addition of France's zone, April 1949).[101] As part of the economic rebuilding of Germany, in early 1948, representatives of a number of Western European governments and the United States announced an agreement for a merger of western German areas into a federal governmental system.[102] In addition, in accordance with the Marshall Plan, they began to re-industrialize and rebuild the west German economy, including the introduction of a new Deutsche Mark currency to replace the old Reichsmark currency that the Soviets had debased.[103] The US had secretly decided that a unified and neutral Germany was undesirable, with Walter Bedell Smith telling General Eisenhower "in spite of our announced position, we really do not want nor intend to accept German unification on any terms that the Russians might agree to, even though they seem to meet most of our requirements."[104]

Shortly thereafter, Stalin instituted the Berlin Blockade (24 June 1948 – 12 May 1949), one of the first major crises of the Cold War, preventing food, materials and supplies from arriving in West Berlin.[105] The United States, Britain, France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and several other countries began the massive "Berlin airlift", supplying West Berlin with food and other provisions.[106]

The Soviets mounted a public relations campaign against the policy change. Once again the East Berlin communists attempted to disrupt the Berlin municipal elections (as they had done in the 1946 elections),[101] which were held on 5 December 1948 and produced a turnout of 86.3% and an overwhelming victory for the non-communist parties.[107] The results effectively divided the city into East and West versions of its former self. 300,000 Berliners demonstrated and urged the international airlift to continue,[108] and US Air Force pilot Gail Halvorsen created "Operation Vittles", which supplied candy to German children.[109] In May 1949, Stalin backed down and lifted the blockade.[59][110]

In 1952, Stalin repeatedly proposed a plan to unify East and West Germany under a single government chosen in elections supervised by the United Nations, if the new Germany were to stay out of Western military alliances, but this proposal was turned down by the Western powers. Some sources dispute the sincerity of the proposal.[111]

Beginnings of NATO and Radio Free Europe

President Truman signs the North Atlantic Treaty with guests in the Oval Office.

Britain, France, the United States, Canada and other eight western European countries signed the North Atlantic Treaty of April 1949, establishing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).[59] That August, the first Soviet atomic device was detonated in Semipalatinsk, Kazakh SSR.[76] Following Soviet refusals to participate in a German rebuilding effort set forth by western European countries in 1948,[102][112] the US, Britain and France spearheaded the establishment of West Germany from the three Western zones of occupation in April 1949.[113] The Soviet Union proclaimed its zone of occupation in Germany the German Democratic Republic that October.[45]

Media in the Eastern Bloc was an organ of the state, completely reliant on and subservient to the communist party. Radio and television organizations were state-owned, while print media was usually owned by political organizations, mostly by the local communist party.[114] Soviet radio broadcasts used Marxist rhetoric to attack capitalism, emphasizing themes of labor exploitation, imperialism and war-mongering.[115]

Along with the broadcasts of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and the Voice of America to Central and Eastern Europe,[116] a major propaganda effort begun in 1949 was Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, dedicated to bringing about the peaceful demise of the communist system in the Eastern Bloc.[117] Radio Free Europe attempted to achieve these goals by serving as a surrogate home radio station, an alternative to the controlled and party-dominated domestic press.[117] Radio Free Europe was a product of some of the most prominent architects of America's early Cold War strategy, especially those who believed that the Cold War would eventually be fought by political rather than military means, such as George F. Kennan.[118]

American policymakers, including Kennan and John Foster Dulles, acknowledged that the Cold War was in its essence a war of ideas.[118] The United States, acting through the CIA, funded a long list of projects to counter the communist appeal among intellectuals in Europe and the developing world.[119] The CIA also covertly sponsored a domestic propaganda campaign called Crusade for Freedom.[120]

In the early 1950s, the US worked for the rearmament of West Germany and, in 1955, secured its full membership of NATO.[45] In May 1953, Beria, by then in a government post, had made an unsuccessful proposal to allow the reunification of a neutral Germany to prevent West Germany's incorporation into NATO.[121]

Chinese Civil War, SEATO, and NSC-68

Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin in Moscow, December 1949

In 1949, Mao Zedong's People's Liberation Army defeated Chiang Kai-shek's United States-backed Kuomintang (KMT) Nationalist Government in China, and the Soviet Union promptly created an alliance with the newly formed People's Republic of China.[122] According to Norwegian historian Odd Arne Westad, the communists won the Civil War because they made fewer military mistakes than Chiang Kai-Shek made, and because in his search for a powerful centralized government, Chiang antagonized too many interest groups in China. Moreover, his party was weakened during the war against Japan. Meanwhile, the communists told different groups, such as the peasants, exactly what they wanted to hear, and they cloaked themselves under the cover of Chinese nationalism.[123] Chiang and his KMT government retreated to the island of Taiwan.

Confronted with the communist revolution in China and the end of the American atomic monopoly in 1949, the Truman administration quickly moved to escalate and expand its containment doctrine.[76] In NSC 68, a secret 1950 document, the National Security Council instituted a Machiavellian policy [124] while proposing to reinforce pro-Western alliance systems and quadruple spending on defense.[76] Truman, under the influence of advisor Paul Nitze, saw containment as implying complete rollback of Soviet influence in all its forms.[125]

United States officials moved to expand this version of containment into Asia, Africa, and Latin America, in order to counter revolutionary nationalist movements, often led by communist parties financed by the USSR, fighting against the restoration of Europe's colonial empires in South-East Asia and elsewhere. [126] In this way, this US would exercise "preponderant power," oppose neutrality, and establish global hegemony.[125] In the early 1950s (a period sometimes known as the "Pactomania"), the US formalized a series of alliances with Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand and the Philippines (notably ANZUS in 1951 and SEATO in 1954), thereby guaranteeing the United States a number of long-term military bases.[45]

Korean War

General Douglas MacArthur, UN Command CiC (seated), observes the naval shelling of Incheon from USS Mt. McKinley, 15 September 1950

One of the more significant examples of the implementation of containment was US intervention in the Korean War. In June 1950, after years of mutual hostilities,[F][127][128] Kim Il-sung's North Korean People's Army invaded South Korea at the 38th parallel. Stalin had been reluctant to support the invasion[G] but ultimately sent advisers.[129] To Stalin's surprise,[76] the United Nations Security Council Resolution 82 and 83 backed the defense of South Korea, though the Soviets were then boycotting meetings in protest that Taiwan and not Communist China held a permanent seat on the Council,[130] so that just Yugoslavia voted against. A UN force of sixteen countries faced North Korea,[131] although 40 percent of troops were South Korean, and about 50 percent were from the United States.[132]

U.S. Marines engaged in street fighting during the liberation of Seoul, September 1950

The U.S. initially seemed to follow containment when it first entered the war. This directed the action of the US to only push back North Korea across the 38th Parallel and restore South Korea's sovereignty, allowing North Korea's survival as a state. However, the success of the Inchon landing inspired the U.S. and the United Nations to adopt a rollback strategy instead and to overthrow communist North Korea, thus allowing nationwide elections under U.N. auspices.[133] General Douglas MacArthur then advanced across the 38th Parallel into North Korea. The Chinese, fearful of a possible US presence on their border or even an invasion by them, then sent in a large army and defeated the U.N. forces, pushing them back below the 38th parallel. Truman publicly hinted that he might use his "ace in the hole" of the atomic bomb, but Mao was unmoved.[134] The episode was used to support the wisdom of the containment doctrine as opposed to rollback. The Communists were later pushed to roughly around the original border, with minimal changes. Among other effects, the Korean War galvanised NATO to develop a military structure.[135] Public opinion in countries involved, such as Great Britain, was divided for and against the war.[136]

After the Armistice was approved in July 1953, Korean leader Kim Il Sung created a highly centralized, totalitarian dictatorship according his family unlimited power and generating a formidable cult of personality.[137][138] In the South, the American-backed dictator Syngman Rhee ran a deeply violent anticommunist regime.[139] While Rhee was overthrown in 1960, South Korea continued to be ruled by a military government of former Japanese collaborators until the re-establishment of a multi-party system in the late 1980s.[140]


Crisis and escalation (1953–1962)

Khrushchev, Eisenhower and de-Stalinization

NATO and Warsaw Pact troop strengths in Europe in 1959

In 1953, changes in political leadership on both sides shifted the dynamic of the Cold War.[85] Dwight D. Eisenhower was inaugurated president that January. During the last 18 months of the Truman administration, the American defense budget had quadrupled, and Eisenhower moved to reduce military spending by a third while continuing to fight the Cold War effectively.[76]

After the death of Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev became the Soviet leader following the deposition and execution of Lavrentiy Beria and the pushing aside of rivals Georgy Malenkov and Vyacheslav Molotov. On 25 February 1956, Khrushchev shocked delegates to the 20th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party by cataloguing and denouncing Stalin's crimes.[141] As part of a campaign of de-Stalinization, he declared that the only way to reform and move away from Stalin's policies would be to acknowledge errors made in the past.[85]

On 18 November 1956, while addressing Western ambassadors at a reception at the Polish embassy in Moscow, Khrushchev used his famous "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you" expression, shocking everyone present.[H] He later said that he had not been talking about nuclear war, but rather about the historically determined victory of communism over capitalism.[142] In 1961, Khrushchev declared that even if the USSR was behind the West, within a decade its housing shortage would disappear, consumer goods would be abundant, and within two decades, the "construction of a communist society" in the USSR would be completed "in the main".[143]

Eisenhower's secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, initiated a "New Look" for the containment strategy, calling for a greater reliance on nuclear weapons against US enemies in wartime.[85] Dulles also enunciated the doctrine of "massive retaliation", threatening a severe US response to any Soviet aggression. Possessing nuclear superiority, for example, allowed Eisenhower to face down Soviet threats to intervene in the Middle East during the 1956 Suez Crisis.[76] US plans for nuclear war in the late 1950s included the "systematic destruction" of 1,200 major urban centers in the Eastern Bloc and China, including Moscow, East Berlin and Beijing, with their civilian populations among the primary targets.[144][I]

In spite of these threats, there were substantial hopes for detente when an upswing in diplomacy took place in 1959, including a two-week visit by Khrushchev to the US, and plans for a two-power summit for May 1960. The latter was disturbed by the U-2 spy plane scandal, however, in which Eisenhower was caught lying to the world about the intrusion of American surveillance aircraft into Soviet territory.[145][146]

Warsaw Pact and Hungarian Revolution

The Hungarian Revolution of 1956
March of protesters in Budapest, on 25 October;
A destroyed Soviet T-34-85 tank in Budapest
The maximum territorial extent the Soviet influence, after the Cuban Revolution of 1959 and before the official Sino-Soviet split of 1961

While Stalin's death in 1953 slightly relaxed tensions, the situation in Europe remained an uneasy armed truce.[147] The Soviets, who had already created a network of mutual assistance treaties in the Eastern Bloc by 1949, established a formal alliance therein, the Warsaw Pact, in 1955. It stood opposed to NATO.[45]

The Hungarian Revolution of 1956 occurred shortly after Khrushchev arranged the removal of Hungary's Stalinist leader Mátyás Rákosi.[148] In response to a popular uprising,[J] the new regime formally disbanded the secret police, declared its intention to withdraw from the Warsaw Pact and pledged to re-establish free elections. The Soviet Army invaded.[149] Thousands of Hungarians were arrested, imprisoned and deported to the Soviet Union,[150] and approximately 200,000 Hungarians fled Hungary in the chaos.[151] Hungarian leader Imre Nagy and others were executed following secret trials.[K]

From 1957 through 1961, Khrushchev openly and repeatedly threatened the West with nuclear annihilation. He claimed that Soviet missile capabilities were far superior to those of the United States, capable of wiping out any American or European city. According to John Lewis Gaddis, Khrushchev rejected Stalin's "belief in the inevitability of war," however. The new leader declared his ultimate goal was "peaceful coexistence".[152] In Krushchev's formulation, peace would allow capitalism to collapse on its own,[153] as well as giving the Soviets time to boost their military capabilities,[154] which remained for decades until Gorbachev's later "new thinking" envisioning peaceful coexistence as an end in itself rather than a form of class struggle.[155]

The events in Hungary produced ideological fractures within the communist parties of the world, particularly in Western Europe, with great decline in membership as many in both western and communist countries felt disillusioned by the brutal Soviet response.[156] The communist parties in the West would never recover from the effect the Hungarian Revolution had on their membership, a fact that was immediately recognized by some, such as the Yugoslavian politician Milovan Đilas who shortly after the revolution was crushed said that "The wound which the Hungarian Revolution inflicted on communism can never be completely healed".[156]

Berlin ultimatum

During November 1958, Khrushchev made an unsuccessful attempt to turn all of Berlin into an independent, demilitarized "free city". He gave the United States, Great Britain, and France a six-month ultimatum to withdraw their troops from the sectors they still occupied in West Berlin, or he would transfer control of Western access rights to the East Germans. Khrushchev earlier explained to Mao Zedong that "Berlin is the testicles of the West. Every time I want to make the West scream, I squeeze on Berlin."[157] NATO formally rejected the ultimatum in mid-December and Khrushchev withdrew it in return for a Geneva conference on the German question.[158]

American military buildup

Kennedy's foreign policy was dominated by American confrontations with the Soviet Union, manifested by proxy contests. Like Truman and Eisenhower, Kennedy supported containment to stop the spread of Communism. President Eisenhower's New Look policy had emphasized the use of less expensive nuclear weapons to deter Soviet aggression by threatening massive nuclear attacks all of the Soviet Union. Nuclear weapons were much cheaper than maintaining a large standing army, so Eisenhower cut conventional forces to save money. Kennedy implemented a new strategy known as flexible response. This strategy relied on conventional arms to achieve limited goals. As part of this policy, Kennedy expanded the United States special operations forces, elite military units that could fight unconventionally in various conflicts. Kennedy hoped that the flexible response strategy would allow the U.S. to counter Soviet influence without resorting to nuclear war.[159]

To support his new strategy Kennedy ordered a massive increase in defense spending. He sought, and Congress provided, a rapid build-up of the nuclear arsenal to restore the lost superiority over the Soviet Union—he claimed in 1960 that Eisenhower had lost it because of excessive concern with budget deficits. In his inaugural address Kennedy promised “to bear any burden” in the defense of liberty, and he repeatedly asked for increases in military spending and authorization of new weapon systems. From 1961 to 1964 the number of nuclear weapons increased by 50 percent, as did the number of B-52 bombers to deliver them. The new ICBM force grew from 63 intercontinental ballistic missiles to 424. He authorized 23 new Polaris submarines, each of which carried 16 nuclear missiles. He called on cities to prepare fallout shelters for nuclear war. In contrast to Eisenhower's warning about the perils of the military-industrial complex, Kennedy focused on rearmament.[160][citation not found]

Competition in the Third World

Western colonial empires in Asia and Africa all collapsed in the years after 1945.

Nationalist movements in some countries and regions, notably Guatemala, Indonesia and Indochina, were often allied with communist groups or otherwise perceived to be unfriendly to Western interests .[85] In this context, the United States and the Soviet Union increasingly competed for influence by proxy in the Third World as decolonization gained momentum in the 1950s and early 1960s.[161] Both sides were selling armaments to gain influence.[162] The Kremlin saw continuing territorial losses by imperial powers as presaging the eventual victory of their ideology.[163]

1961 Soviet postage stamp demanding freedom for African nations
1961 Soviet stamp commemorating Patrice Lumumba, assassinated prime minister of the Republic of the Congo

The United States used the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to undermine neutral or hostile Third World governments and to support allied ones.[164] In 1953, President Eisenhower implemented Operation Ajax, a covert coup operation to overthrow the Iranian prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. The popularly elected Mosaddegh had been a Middle Eastern nemesis of Britain since nationalizing the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1951. Winston Churchill told the United States that Mosaddegh was "increasingly turning towards Communist influence."[165][166][167] The pro-Western shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, assumed control as an autocratic monarch.[168] The shah's policies included banning the communist Tudeh Party of Iran, and general suppression of political dissent by SAVAK, the shah's domestic security and intelligence agency.

In Guatemala, a banana republic, the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état ousted the left-wing President Jacobo Árbenz with material CIA support.[169] The post-Arbenz government—a military junta headed by Carlos Castillo Armas—repealed a progressive land reform law, returned nationalized property belonging to the United Fruit Company, set up a National Committee of Defense Against Communism, and decreed a Preventive Penal Law Against Communism at the request of the United States.[170]

The non-aligned Indonesian government of Sukarno was faced with a major threat to its legitimacy beginning in 1956, when several regional commanders began to demand autonomy from Jakarta. After mediation failed, Sukarno took action to remove the dissident commanders. In February 1958, dissident military commanders in Central Sumatera (Colonel Ahmad Hussein) and North Sulawesi (Colonel Ventje Sumual) declared the Revolutionary Government of the Republic of Indonesia-Permesta Movement aimed at overthrowing the Sukarno regime. They were joined by many civilian politicians from the Masyumi Party, such as Sjafruddin Prawiranegara, who were opposed to the growing influence of the communist Partai Komunis Indonesia party. Due to their anti-communist rhetoric, the rebels received arms, funding, and other covert aid from the CIA until Allen Lawrence Pope, an American pilot, was shot down after a bombing raid on government-held Ambon in April 1958. The central government responded by launching airborne and seaborne military invasions of rebel strongholds Padang and Manado. By the end of 1958, the rebels were militarily defeated, and the last remaining rebel guerilla bands surrendered by August 1961.[171]

In the Republic of the Congo, newly independent from Belgium since June 1960, the CIA-cultivated President Joseph Kasa-Vubu ordered the dismissal of the democratically elected Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba and the Lumumba cabinet in September.[172] In the ensuing Congo Crisis, the CIA-backed Colonel Mobutu Sese Seko quickly mobilized his forces to seize power through a military coup d'état, [172] and worked with Western intelligence agencies to assassinate Lumumba.[173][174]

An animated map shows the order of independence of the African nations (1950–2011)

In British Guiana, the leftist People's Progressive Party (PPP) candidate Cheddi Jagan won the position of chief minister in a colonially administered election in 1953, but was quickly forced to resign from power after Britain's suspension of the still-dependent nation's constitution.[175] Embarrassed by the landslide electoral victory of Jagan's allegedly Marxist party, the British imprisoned the PPP's leadership and maneuvered the organization into a divisive rupture in 1955, engineering a split between Jagan and his PPP colleagues.[176] Jagan again won the colonial elections in 1957 and 1961; despite Britain's shift to a reconsideration of its view of the left-wing Jagan as a Soviet-style communist at this time, the United States pressured the British to withhold Guyana's independence until an alternative to Jagan could be identified, supported, and brought into office.[177]

Worn down by the communist guerrilla war for Vietnamese independence and handed a watershed defeat by communist Viet Minh rebels at the 1954 Battle of Dien Bien Phu, the French accepted a negotiated abandonment of their colonial stake in Vietnam. In the Geneva Conference, peace accords were signed, leaving Vietnam divided between a pro-Soviet administration in North Vietnam and a pro-Western administration in South Vietnam at the 17th parallel north. Between 1954 and 1961, Eisenhower's United States sent economic aid and military advisers to strengthen South Vietnam's pro-Western regime against communist efforts to destabilize it.[76]

Many emerging nations of Asia, Africa, and Latin America rejected the pressure to choose sides in the East-West competition. In 1955, at the Bandung Conference in Indonesia, dozens of Third World governments resolved to stay out of the Cold War.[178] The consensus reached at Bandung culminated with the creation of the Belgrade-headquartered Non-Aligned Movement in 1961.[85] Meanwhile, Khrushchev broadened Moscow's policy to establish ties with India and other key neutral states. Independence movements in the Third World transformed the post-war order into a more pluralistic world of decolonized African and Middle Eastern nations and of rising nationalism in Asia and Latin America.[76]

Sino-Soviet split

A map showing the relations of the communist states after the Sino-Soviet split as of 1980:
  The USSR and pro-Soviet communist states
  China and pro-Chinese communist states
  Neutral communist nations (North Korea and Yugoslavia)
  Non-communist states

The period after 1956 was marked by serious setbacks for the Soviet Union, most notably the breakdown of the Sino-Soviet alliance, beginning the Sino-Soviet split. Mao had defended Stalin when Khrushchev criticized him in 1956, and treated the new Soviet leader as a superficial upstart, accusing him of having lost his revolutionary edge.[179] For his part, Khrushchev, disturbed by Mao's glib attitude toward nuclear war, referred to the Chinese leader as a "lunatic on a throne".[180]

After this, Khrushchev made many desperate attempts to reconstitute the Sino-Soviet alliance, but Mao considered it useless and denied any proposal.[179] The Chinese-Soviet animosity spilled out in an intra-communist propaganda war.[181] Further on, the Soviets focused on a bitter rivalry with Mao's China for leadership of the global communist movement.[182] Historian Lorenz M. Lüthi argues:

The Sino-Soviet split was one of the key events of the Cold War, equal in importance to the construction of the Berlin Wall, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Second Vietnam War, and Sino-American rapprochement. The split helped to determine the framework of the Second Cold War in general, and influenced the course of the Second Vietnam War in particular.[183]

Space Race

The United States reached the Moon in 1969.

On the nuclear weapons front, the United States and the USSR pursued nuclear rearmament and developed long-range weapons with which they could strike the territory of the other.[45] In August 1957, the Soviets successfully launched the world's first intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM),[citation needed] and in October they launched the first Earth satellite, Sputnik 1.[184] The launch of Sputnik inaugurated the Space Race. This culminated in the Apollo Moon landings, which astronaut Frank Borman later described as "just a battle in the Cold War."[185]

Cuban Revolution and the Bay of Pigs Invasion

Che Guevara (left) and Fidel Castro (right) in 1961

In Cuba, the 26th of July Movement, led by young revolutionaries Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, seized power in the Cuban Revolution on 1 January 1959, toppling President Fulgencio Batista, whose unpopular regime had been denied arms by the Eisenhower administration.[186]

Diplomatic relations between Cuba and the United States continued for some time after Batista's fall, but President Eisenhower deliberately left the capital to avoid meeting Castro during the latter's trip to Washington, DC in April, leaving Vice President Richard Nixon to conduct the meeting in his place.[187] Cuba began negotiating for arms purchases from the Eastern Bloc in March 1960.[188]

In January 1961, just prior to leaving office, Eisenhower formally severed relations with the Cuban government. In April 1961, the administration of newly elected American President John F. Kennedy mounted an unsuccessful CIA-organized ship-borne invasion of the island at Playa Girón and Playa Larga in Santa Clara Province—a failure that publicly humiliated the United States.[189] Castro responded by publicly embracing Marxism–Leninism, and the Soviet Union pledged to provide further support.[189]

Berlin Crisis of 1961

Soviet and American tanks face each other at Checkpoint Charlie during the Berlin Crisis of 1961.

The Berlin Crisis of 1961 was the last major incident in the Cold War regarding the status of Berlin and post–World War II Germany. By the early 1950s, the Soviet approach to restricting emigration movement was emulated by most of the rest of the Eastern Bloc.[190] However, hundreds of thousands of East Germans annually emigrated to West Germany through a "loophole" in the system that existed between East Berlin and West Berlin, where the four occupying World War II powers governed movement.[191]

The emigration resulted in a massive "brain drain" from East Germany to West Germany of younger educated professionals, such that nearly 20% of East Germany's population had migrated to West Germany by 1961.[192] That June, the Soviet Union issued a new ultimatum demanding the withdrawal of Allied forces from West Berlin.[193] The request was rebuffed, and on 13 August, East Germany erected a barbed-wire barrier that would eventually be expanded through construction into the Berlin Wall, effectively closing the loophole.[194]

Cuban Missile Crisis and Khrushchev's ouster

Aerial photograph of a Soviet missile site in Cuba, taken by a US spy aircraft, 1 November 1962

The Kennedy administration continued seeking ways to oust Castro following the Bay of Pigs Invasion, experimenting with various ways of covertly facilitating the overthrow of the Cuban government. Significant hopes were pinned on a covert program named the Cuban Project, devised under the Kennedy administration in 1961. Khrushchev learned of the project in February 1962,[195] and preparations to install Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba were undertaken in response.[195]

Alarmed, Kennedy considered various reactions. He ultimately responded to the installation of nuclear missiles in Cuba with a naval blockade, and he presented an ultimatum to the Soviets. Khrushchev backed down from a confrontation, and the Soviet Union removed the missiles in return for an American pledge not to invade Cuba again.[196] Castro later admitted that "I would have agreed to the use of nuclear weapons. ... we took it for granted that it would become a nuclear war anyway, and that we were going to disappear."[197]

The Cuban Missile Crisis (October–November 1962) brought the world closer to nuclear war than ever before.[198] The aftermath of the crisis led to the first efforts in the nuclear arms race at nuclear disarmament and improving relations,[citation needed] although the Cold War's first arms control agreement, the Antarctic Treaty, had come into force in 1961.[L]

In 1964, Khrushchev's Kremlin colleagues managed to oust him, but allowed him a peaceful retirement.[199] Accused of rudeness and incompetence, he was also credited with ruining Soviet agriculture and bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war.[200] Khrushchev had become an international embarrassment when he authorized construction of the Berlin Wall, a public humiliation for Marxism–Leninism.[200]

From confrontation to détente (1962–1979)

NATO and Warsaw Pact troop strengths in Europe in 1973
United States Navy F-4 Phantom II intercepts a Soviet Tupolev Tu-95 D aircraft in the early 1970s.

In the course of the 1960s and 1970s, Cold War participants struggled to adjust to a new, more complicated pattern of international relations in which the world was no longer divided into two clearly opposed blocs.[85] From the beginning of the post-war period, Western Europe and Japan rapidly recovered from the destruction of World War II and sustained strong economic growth through the 1950s and 1960s, with per capita GDPs approaching those of the United States, while Eastern Bloc economies stagnated.[85][201]

The Vietnam War descended into a quagmire for the United States, leading to a decline in international prestige and economic stability, derailing arms agreements, and provoking domestic unrest. America's withdrawal from the war led it to embrace a policy of detente with both China and the Soviet Union.[202]

In the 1973 oil crisis, Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) cut their petroleum output. This raised oil prices and hurt Western economies, but helped Russia by generating a huge flow of money from its oil sales.[203]

As a result of the oil crisis, combined with the growing influence of Third World alignments such as OPEC and the Non-Aligned Movement, less powerful countries had more room to assert their independence and often showed themselves resistant to pressure from either superpower.[126] Meanwhile, Moscow was forced to turn its attention inward to deal with the Soviet Union's deep-seated domestic economic problems.[85] During this period, Soviet leaders such as Leonid Brezhnev and Alexei Kosygin embraced the notion of détente.[85]

Vietnam War

U.S. combat operations during the Battle of Ia Drang, South Vietnam, November 1965

Under President John F. Kennedy, US troop levels in Vietnam grew under the Military Assistance Advisory Group program from just under a thousand in 1959 to 16,000 in 1963.[M][N] South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem's heavy-handed crackdown on Buddhist monks in 1963 led the US to endorse a deadly military coup against Diem.[204] The war escalated further in 1964 following the controversial Gulf of Tonkin incident, in which a U.S. destroyer was alleged to have clashed with North Vietnamese fast attack craft. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution gave President Lyndon B. Johnson broad authorization to increase U.S. military presence, deploying ground combat units for the first time and increasing troop levels to 184,000.[205] Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev responded by reversing Khrushchev's policy of disengagement and increasing aid to the North Vietnamese, hoping to entice the North from its pro-Chinese position. The USSR discouraged further escalation of the war, however, providing just enough military assistance to tie up American forces.[206] From this point, the People's Army of Vietnam (PAVN), also known as the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) engaged in more conventional warfare with US and South Vietnamese forces.[207]

The Tet Offensive of 1968 proved to be the turning point of the war. Despite years of American tutelage and aid the South Vietnamese forces were unable to withstand the communist offensive and the task fell to US forces instead. Tet showed that the end of US involvement was not in sight, increasing domestic skepticism of the war and giving rise to what was referred to as the Vietnam Syndrome, a public aversion to American overseas military involvements. Nonetheless operations continued to cross international boundaries: bordering areas of Laos and Cambodia were used by North Vietnam as supply routes, and were heavily bombed by U.S. forces.[208]

French withdrawal from NATO military structures

The unity of NATO was breached early in its history, with a crisis occurring during Charles de Gaulle's presidency of France. De Gaulle protested at the strong role of the United States in the organization and what he perceived as a special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. In a memorandum sent to President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Prime Minister Harold Macmillan on 17 September 1958, he argued for the creation of a tripartite directorate that would put France on an equal footing with the United States and the United Kingdom, and also for the expansion of NATO's coverage to include geographical areas of interest to France, most notably French Algeria, where France was waging a counter-insurgency and sought NATO assistance.[209] De Gaulle considered the response he received to be unsatisfactory, and began the development of an independent French nuclear deterrent. In 1966 he withdrew France from NATO's military structures and expelled NATO troops from French soil.[210]

Invasion of Czechoslovakia

The invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet Union in 1968 was one of the biggest military operations on European soil since World War II.

In 1968, a period of political liberalization took place in Czechoslovakia called the Prague Spring. An "Action Program" of reforms included increasing freedom of the press, freedom of speech and freedom of movement, along with an economic emphasis on consumer goods, the possibility of a multiparty government, limitations on the power of the secret police,[O][211] and potential withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact.[212]

In answer to the Prague Spring, on 20 August 1968, the Soviet Army, together with most of their Warsaw Pact allies, invaded Czechoslovakia.[213] The invasion was followed by a wave of emigration, including an estimated 70,000 Czechs and Slovaks initially fleeing, with the total eventually reaching 300,000.[214] The invasion sparked intense protests from Yugoslavia, Romania, China, and from Western European communist parties.[215]

Brezhnev Doctrine

Leonid Brezhnev and Richard Nixon at the Washington Summit, 1973; this was a high-water mark in détente between the USSR and the US.

In September 1968, during a speech at the Fifth Congress of the Polish United Workers' Party one month after the invasion of Czechoslovakia, Brezhnev outlined the Brezhnev Doctrine, in which he claimed the right to violate the sovereignty of any country attempting to replace Marxism–Leninism with capitalism. During the speech, Brezhnev stated:[212]

When forces that are hostile to socialism try to turn the development of some socialist country towards capitalism, it becomes not only a problem of the country concerned, but a common problem and concern of all socialist countries.

The doctrine found its origins in the failures of Marxism–Leninism in states like Poland, Hungary and East Germany, which were facing a declining standard of living contrasting with the prosperity of West Germany and the rest of Western Europe.[216]

Third World escalations

Speech on the Vietnam War given by President Lyndon B. Johnson on 29 September 1967

Under the Lyndon B. Johnson Administration, which gained power after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the U.S. took a more hardline stance on Latin America—sometimes called the "Mann Doctrine".[217] In 1964, the Brazilian military overthrew the government of president João Goulart with U.S. backing.[217] In late April 1965, the U.S. sent some 22,000 troops to the Dominican Republic for a one-year occupation in an invasion codenamed Operation Power Pack, citing the threat of the emergence of a Cuban-style revolution in Latin America.[76] Héctor García-Godoy acted as provisional president, until conservative former president Joaquín Balaguer won the 1966 presidential election against non-campaigning former President Juan Bosch.[218] Activists for Bosch's Dominican Revolutionary Party were violently harassed by the Dominican police and armed forces.[218]

General Suharto of Indonesia attending funeral of five generals slain in 30 September movement, October 2, 1965

In Indonesia, the hardline anti-communist General Suharto wrested control of the state from his predecessor Sukarno in an attempt to establish a "New Order". From 1965 to 1966, with the aid of the United States and other Western governments,[219][220][221][222][223] the military led the mass killing of more than 500,000 members and sympathizers of the Indonesian Communist Party and other leftist organizations, and detained hundreds of thousands more in prison camps around the country under extremely inhumane conditions.[224][225] A top-secret CIA report stated that the massacres "rank as one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century, along with the Soviet purges of the 1930s, the Nazi mass murders during the Second World War, and the Maoist bloodbath of the early 1950s."[225] These killings served U.S. strategic interests and constitute a major turning point in the Cold War as the balance of power shifted in Southeast Asia.[223][226]

Escalating the scale of American intervention in the ongoing conflict between Ngô Đình Diệm's South Vietnamese government and the communist National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam (NLF) insurgents opposing it, Johnson deployed some 575,000 troops in Southeast Asia to defeat the NLF and their North Vietnamese allies in the Vietnam War, but his costly policy weakened the US economy and, by 1975, it ultimately culminated in what most of the world saw as a humiliating defeat of the world's most powerful superpower at the hands of one of the world's poorest nations.[76]

Chilean leader Augusto Pinochet shaking hands with Henry Kissinger in 1976

In Chile, the Socialist Party candidate Salvador Allende won the presidential election of 1970, becoming the first democratically elected Marxist to become president of a country in the Americas.[227] The CIA targeted Allende for removal and operated to undermine his support domestically, which contributed to a period of unrest culminating in General Augusto Pinochet's coup d'état on 11 September 1973. Pinochet consolidated power as a military dictator, Allende's reforms of the economy were rolled back, and leftist opponents were killed or detained in internment camps under the Dirección de Inteligencia Nacional (DINA). The Pinochet regime would go on to be one of the leading participants in Operation Condor, an international campaign of political assassination and state terrorism organized by right-wing military dictatorships in the Southern Cone of South America that was covertly supported by the US government.[228][229][230]

Henry Kissinger, who was US National Security Advisor and Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford, was a central figure in the Cold War while in office (1969–1977).

The Middle East remained a source of contention. Egypt, which received the bulk of its arms and economic assistance from the USSR, was a troublesome client, with a reluctant Soviet Union feeling obliged to assist in both the 1967 Six-Day War (with advisers and technicians) and the War of Attrition (with pilots and aircraft) against pro-Western Israel.[231] Despite the beginning of an Egyptian shift from a pro-Soviet to a pro-American orientation in 1972 (under Egypt's new leader Anwar Sadat),[232] rumors of imminent Soviet intervention on the Egyptians' behalf during the 1973 Yom Kippur War brought about a massive American mobilization that threatened to wreck détente.[citation needed] Although pre-Sadat Egypt had been the largest recipient of Soviet aid in the Middle East, the Soviets were also successful in establishing close relations with communist South Yemen, as well as the nationalist governments of Algeria and Iraq.[232] Iraq signed a 15-year Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with the Soviet Union in 1972. According to historian Charles R.H. Tripp, the treaty upset "the U.S.-sponsored security system established as part of the Cold War in the Middle East. It appeared that any enemy of the Baghdad regime was a potential ally of the United States."[233] In response, the U.S. covertly financed Kurdish rebels led by Mustafa Barzani during the Second Iraqi–Kurdish War; the Kurds were defeated in 1975, leading to the forcible relocation of hundreds of thousands of Kurdish civilians.[233] Indirect Soviet assistance to the Palestinian side of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict included support for Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).[234]

Suharto with Gerald Ford and Kissinger in Jakarta on 6 December 1975, one day before the Indonesian invasion of East Timor.

In East Africa, a territorial dispute between Somalia and Ethiopia over the Ogaden region resulted in the Ogaden War. Around June 1977, Somali troops occupied the Ogaden and began advancing inland towards Ethiopian positions in the Ahmar Mountains. Both countries were client states of the Soviet Union; Somalia was led by self-proclaimed Marxist military leader Siad Barre, and Ethiopia was controlled by the Derg, a cabal of military generals loyal to the pro-Soviet Mengistu Haile Mariam, who had declared the Provisional Military Government of Socialist Ethiopia in 1975.[235] The Soviets initially attempted to exert a moderating influence on both states, but in November 1977 Barre broke off relations with Moscow and expelled his Soviet military advisers.[236] He then turned to the Safari Club—a group of pro-American intelligence agencies including those of Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia—for support and weapons.[237][P] While declining to take a direct part in hostilities, the Soviet Union did provide the impetus for a successful Ethiopian counteroffensive to expel Somalia from the Ogaden. The counteroffensive was planned at the command level by Soviet advisers attached to the Ethiopian general staff, and bolstered by the delivery of millions of dollars' of sophisticated Soviet arms.[236] About 11,000 Cuban troops spearheaded the primary effort, after receiving a hasty training on some of the newly delivered Soviet weapons systems by East German instructors.[236]

Cuban tank in the streets of Luanda, Angola, 1976

On 24 April 1974, the Carnation Revolution ousted Marcelo Caetano and Portugal's right-wing Estado Novo government, sounding the death knell for the Portuguese Empire.[238] Independence was hastily granted to a number of Portuguese colonies, including Angola, where the disintegration of colonial rule was followed by a violent civil war.[239] There were three rival militant factions competing for power in Angola, the People's Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA), and the National Liberation Front of Angola (FNLA).[240] While all three possessed vaguely socialist leanings, the MPLA was the only party which enjoyed close ties to the Soviet Union and was openly committed to Marxist policies.[240] Its adherence to the concept of a one-party state alienated it from the FNLA and UNITA, which began portraying themselves as anti-communist and pro-Western in orientation.[240] When the Soviets began supplying the MPLA with arms, the CIA offered substantial covert aid to the FNLA and UNITA.[241]

The MPLA eventually requested direct military support from Moscow in the form of ground troops, but the Soviets declined, offering to send advisers but no combat personnel.[241] Cuba was more forthcoming and began amassing troops in Angola to assist the MPLA.[241] By November 1975 there were over a thousand Cuban soldiers in the country.[241] The persistent buildup of Cuban troops and Soviet weapons allowed the MPLA to secure victory and blunt an abortive intervention by Zairean and South African troops, which had deployed in a belated attempt to assist the FNLA and UNITA.[242]


During the Khmer Rouge regime led by Pol Pot, 1.5 to 2 million people died due to the policies of his four-year premiership.

During the Vietnam War, North Vietnam used border areas of Cambodia as military bases, which Cambodian head of state Norodom Sihanouk tolerated in an attempt to preserve Cambodia's neutrality. Following Sihanouk's March 1970 deposition by pro-American general Lon Nol, who ordered the North Vietnamese to leave Cambodia, North Vietnam attempted to overrun all of Cambodia following negotiations with Nuon Chea, the second-in-command of the Cambodian communists (dubbed the Khmer Rouge) fighting to overthrow the Cambodian government.[243] American and South Vietnamese forces responded to these actions with a bombing campaign and a brief ground incursion, which contributed to the violence of the civil war that soon enveloped all of Cambodia.[244] US carpet bombing lasted until 1973, and while it prevented the Khmer Rouge from seizing the capital, it also accelerated the collapse of rural society, increased social polarization,[245] and killed tens of thousands of civilians.[246]

After taking power and distancing himself from the Vietnamese,[247] Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot killed 1.5 to 2 million Cambodians in the killing fields, roughly a quarter of the Cambodian population (an event commonly labelled the Cambodian genocide).[248][249][250][251] Martin Shaw described these atrocities as "the purest genocide of the Cold War era."[252] Backed by the Kampuchean United Front for National Salvation, an organization of Khmer pro-Soviet Communists and Khmer Rouge defectors led by Heng Samrin, Vietnam invaded Cambodia on 22 December 1978. The invasion succeeded in deposing Pol Pot, but the new state would struggle to gain international recognition beyond the Soviet Bloc sphere, despite the previous international outcry at the Pol Pot regime's gross human rights violations, and it would become bogged down in a guerrilla war led from refugee camps located on the border with Thailand. Following the destruction of Khmer Rouge, the national reconstruction of Cambodia would be severely hampered, and Vietnam would suffer a punitive Chinese attack.[253]

Sino-American rapprochement

Mao Zedong and US President Richard Nixon, during his visit in China

As a result of the Sino-Soviet split, tensions along the Chinese–Soviet border reached their peak in 1969, and United States President Richard Nixon decided to use the conflict to shift the balance of power towards the West in the Cold War.[254] The Chinese had sought improved relations with the Americans in order to gain advantage over the Soviets as well.

In February 1972, Nixon achieved a stunning rapprochement with China,[255] traveling to Beijing and meeting with Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai. At this time, the USSR achieved rough nuclear parity with the United States; meanwhile, the Vietnam War both weakened America's influence in the Third World and cooled relations with Western Europe.[citation needed]

Although indirect conflict between Cold War powers continued through the late 1960s and early 1970s, tensions were beginning to ease.[citation needed]

Nixon, Brezhnev, and détente

Leonid Brezhnev and Jimmy Carter sign the SALT II treaty, 18 June 1979, in Vienna

Following his visit to China, Nixon met with Soviet leaders, including Brezhnev in Moscow.[256] These Strategic Arms Limitation Talks resulted in two landmark arms control treaties: SALT I, the first comprehensive limitation pact signed by the two superpowers, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which banned the development of systems designed to intercept incoming missiles. These aimed to limit the development of costly anti-ballistic missiles and nuclear missiles.[85]

Nixon and Brezhnev proclaimed a new era of "peaceful coexistence" and established the groundbreaking new policy of détente (or cooperation) between the two superpowers. Meanwhile, Brezhnev attempted to revive the Soviet economy, which was declining in part because of heavy military expenditures. Between 1972 and 1974, the two sides also agreed to strengthen their economic ties,[76] including agreements for increased trade. As a result of their meetings, détente would replace the hostility of the Cold War and the two countries would live mutually.[257]

These developments coincided with the "Ostpolitik" policy of West German Chancellor Willy Brandt,[215] an effort to normalize relations between West Germany and Eastern Europe. Other agreements were concluded to stabilize the situation in Europe, culminating in the Helsinki Accords signed at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in 1975.[258]

Iranian people protesting against the Pahlavi dynasty, during the Iranian Revolution

Kissinger and Nixon were "realists" who deemphasized idealistic goals like anti-communism or promotion of democracy worldwide, because those goals were too expensive in terms of America's economic capabilities.[259][citation not found] Instead of a Cold War they wanted peace, trade and cultural exchanges. They realized that Americans were no longer willing to tax themselves for idealistic foreign policy goals, especially for containment policies that never seemed to produce positive results. Instead Nixon and Kissinger sought to downsize America's global commitments in proportion to its reduced economic, moral and political power. They rejected "idealism" as impractical and too expensive, and neither man showed much sensitivity to the plight of people living under Communism. Kissinger's realism fell out of fashion as idealism returned to American foreign policy with Carter's moralism emphasizing human rights, and Reagan's rollback strategy aimed at destroying Communism.[260][citation not found]

Late 1970s deterioration of relations

In the 1970s, the KGB, led by Yuri Andropov, continued to persecute distinguished Soviet personalities such as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Andrei Sakharov, who were criticising the Soviet leadership in harsh terms.[261] Indirect conflict between the superpowers continued through this period of détente in the Third World, particularly during political crises in the Middle East, Chile, Ethiopia, and Angola.[262]

Although President Jimmy Carter tried to place another limit on the arms race with a SALT II agreement in 1979,[263] his efforts were undermined by the other events that year, including the Iranian Revolution and the Nicaraguan Revolution, which both ousted pro-US regimes, and his retaliation against Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in December.[76]

"Second Cold War" (1979–1985)

Protest in Amsterdam against the deployment of Pershing II missiles in Europe, 1981

The term second Cold War refers to the period of intensive reawakening of Cold War tensions and conflicts in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Tensions greatly increased between the major powers with both sides becoming more militaristic.[264] Diggins says, "Reagan went all out to fight the second cold war, by supporting counterinsurgencies in the third world."[265] Cox says, "The intensity of this 'second' Cold War was as great as its duration was short."[266]

Soviet War in Afghanistan

President Reagan publicizes his support by meeting with Afghan Mujahideen leaders in the White House, 1983.

In April 1978, the communist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) seized power in Afghanistan in the Saur Revolution. Within months, opponents of the communist government launched an uprising in eastern Afghanistan that quickly expanded into a civil war waged by guerrilla mujahideen against government forces countrywide.[267] The Islamic Unity of Afghanistan Mujahideen insurgents received military training and weapons in neighboring Pakistan and China,[268][269] while the Soviet Union sent thousands of military advisers to support the PDPA government.[267] Meanwhile, increasing friction between the competing factions of the PDPA—the dominant Khalq and the more moderate Parcham—resulted in the dismissal of Parchami cabinet members and the arrest of Parchami military officers under the pretext of a Parchami coup. By mid-1979, the United States had started a covert program to assist the mujahideen.[270]

In September 1979, Khalqist President Nur Muhammad Taraki was assassinated in a coup within the PDPA orchestrated by fellow Khalq member Hafizullah Amin, who assumed the presidency. Distrusted by the Soviets, Amin was assassinated by Soviet special forces in December 1979. A Soviet-organized government, led by Parcham's Babrak Karmal but inclusive of both factions, filled the vacuum. Soviet troops were deployed to stabilize Afghanistan under Karmal in more substantial numbers, although the Soviet government did not expect to do most of the fighting in Afghanistan. As a result, however, the Soviets were now directly involved in what had been a domestic war in Afghanistan.[271]

Carter responded to the Soviet intervention by withdrawing the SALT II treaty from the Senate, imposing embargoes on grain and technology shipments to the USSR, and demanding a significant increase in military spending, and further announced that the United States would boycott the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow. He described the Soviet incursion as "the most serious threat to the peace since the Second World War".[272]

Reagan and Thatcher

Thatcher is the only woman in a room, where a dozen men in suits sit around an oval table. Regan and Thatcher sit opposite each other in the middle of the long axis of the table. The room is which is decorated in white, with drapes, a gold chandelier and a portrait of Lincoln.
Thatcher's Ministry meets with Reagan's Cabinet at the White House, 1981.
The world map of military alliances in 1980

In January 1977, four years prior to becoming president, Ronald Reagan bluntly stated, in a conversation with Richard V. Allen, his basic expectation in relation to the Cold War. "My idea of American policy toward the Soviet Union is simple, and some would say simplistic," he said. "It is this: We win and they lose. What do you think of that?"[273] In 1980, Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter in the 1980 presidential election, vowing to increase military spending and confront the Soviets everywhere.[274] Both Reagan and new British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher denounced the Soviet Union and its ideology. Reagan labeled the Soviet Union an "evil empire" and predicted that Communism would be left on the "ash heap of history," while Thatcher inculpated the Soviets as "bent on world dominance."[275][276] In 1982, Reagan tried to cut off Moscow's access to hard currency by impeding its proposed gas line to Western Europe. It hurt the Soviet economy, but it also caused ill will among American allies in Europe who counted on that revenue. Reagan retreated on this issue.[277][278]

By early 1985, Reagan's anti-communist position had developed into a stance known as the new Reagan Doctrine—which, in addition to containment, formulated an additional right to subvert existing communist governments.[279] Besides continuing Carter's policy of supporting the Islamic opponents of the Soviet Union and the Soviet-backed PDPA government in Afghanistan, the CIA also sought to weaken the Soviet Union itself by promoting Islamism in the majority-Muslim Central Asian Soviet Union.[280][citation not found] Additionally, the CIA encouraged anti-communist Pakistan's ISI to train Muslims from around the world to participate in the jihad against the Soviet Union.[280][citation not found]

Polish Solidarity movement and martial law

Pope John Paul II provided a moral focus for anti-communism; a visit to his native Poland in 1979 stimulated a religious and nationalist resurgence centered on the Solidarity movement that galvanized opposition and may have led to his attempted assassination two years later.[citation needed] In December 1981, Poland's Wojciech Jaruzelski reacted to the crisis by imposing a period of martial law. Reagan imposed economic sanctions on Poland in response.[281] Mikhail Suslov, the Kremlin's top ideologist, advised Soviet leaders not to intervene if Poland fell under the control of Solidarity, for fear it might lead to heavy economic sanctions, resulting in a catastrophe for the Soviet economy.[281]

Soviet and US military and economic issues

US and USSR/Russian nuclear weapons stockpiles, 1945–2006

Moscow had built up a military that consumed as much as 25 percent of the Soviet Union's gross national product at the expense of consumer goods and investment in civilian sectors.[282] Soviet spending on the arms race and other Cold War commitments both caused and exacerbated deep-seated structural problems in the Soviet system,[283] which experienced at least a decade of economic stagnation during the late Brezhnev years.

Soviet investment in the defense sector was not driven by military necessity, but in large part by the interests of massive party and state bureaucracies dependent on the sector for their own power and privileges.[284] The Soviet Armed Forces became the largest in the world in terms of the numbers and types of weapons they possessed, in the number of troops in their ranks, and in the sheer size of their military–industrial base.[285] However, the quantitative advantages held by the Soviet military often concealed areas where the Eastern Bloc dramatically lagged behind the West.[286] For example, the Persian Gulf War demonstrated how the armor, fire control systems and firing range of the Soviet Union's most common main battle tank, the T-72, were drastically inferior to the American M1 Abrams, yet the USSR fielded almost three times as many T-72s as the US deployed M1s.[287]

Delta 183 launch vehicle lifts off, carrying the Strategic Defense Initiative sensor experiment "Delta Star".

By the early 1980s, the USSR had built up a military arsenal and army surpassing that of the United States. Soon after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, president Carter began massively building up the United States military. This buildup was accelerated by the Reagan administration, which increased the military spending from 5.3 percent of GNP in 1981 to 6.5 percent in 1986,[288] the largest peacetime defense buildup in United States history.[289]

Tensions continued to intensify as Reagan revived the B-1 Lancer program, which had been canceled by the Carter administration, produced LGM-118 Peacekeeper missiles,[290] installed US cruise missiles in Europe, and announced the experimental Strategic Defense Initiative, dubbed "Star Wars" by the media, a defense program to shoot down missiles in mid-flight.[citation needed] The Soviets deployed RSD-10 Pioneer ballistic missiles targeting Western Europe, and NATO decided, under the impetus of the Carter presidency, to deploy MGM-31 Pershing and cruise missiles in Europe, primarily West Germany.[291] This deployment placed missiles just 10 minutes' striking distance from Moscow.[citation needed]

After Reagan's military buildup, the Soviet Union did not respond by further building its military,[292] because the enormous military expenses, along with inefficient planned manufacturing and collectivized agriculture, were already a heavy burden for the Soviet economy.[citation needed] At the same time, Saudi Arabia increased oil production,[293] even as other non-OPEC nations were increasing production.[Q] These developments contributed to the 1980s oil glut, which affected the Soviet Union as oil was the main source of Soviet export revenues.[282] Issues with command economics,[294] oil price decreases and large military expenditures gradually brought the Soviet economy to stagnation.[citation needed]

After ten-year-old American Samantha Smith wrote a letter to Yuri Andropov expressing her fear of nuclear war, Andropov invited Smith to the Soviet Union.

On 1 September 1983, the Soviet Union shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007, a Boeing 747 with 269 people aboard, including sitting Congressman Larry McDonald, an action which Reagan characterized as a "massacre". The airliner had violated Soviet airspace just past the west coast of Sakhalin Island near Moneron Island, and the Soviets treated the unidentified aircraft as an intruding U.S. spy plane. The incident increased support for military deployment, overseen by Reagan, which stood in place until the later accords between Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev.[295] The Able Archer 83 exercise in November 1983, a realistic simulation of a coordinated NATO nuclear release, was perhaps the most dangerous moment since the Cuban Missile Crisis, as the Soviet leadership feared that a nuclear attack might be imminent.[296]

American domestic public concerns about intervening in foreign conflicts persisted from the end of the Vietnam War.[297] The Reagan administration emphasized the use of quick, low-cost counter-insurgency tactics to intervene in foreign conflicts.[297] In 1983, the Reagan administration intervened in the multisided Lebanese Civil War, invaded Grenada, bombed Libya and backed the Central American Contras, anti-communist paramilitaries seeking to overthrow the Soviet-aligned Sandinista government in Nicaragua.[126] While Reagan's interventions against Grenada and Libya were popular in the United States, his backing of the Contra rebels was mired in controversy.[298] The Reagan administration's backing of the military government of Guatemala during the Guatemalan Civil War, in particular the regime of Efraín Ríos Montt, was also controversial.[299]

Meanwhile, the Soviets incurred high costs for their own foreign interventions. Although Brezhnev was convinced in 1979 that the Soviet war in Afghanistan would be brief, Muslim guerrillas, aided by the U.S., China, Britain, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan,[269] waged a fierce resistance against the invasion.[300] The Kremlin sent nearly 100,000 troops to support its puppet regime in Afghanistan, leading many outside observers to dub the war "the Soviets' Vietnam".[300] However, Moscow's quagmire in Afghanistan was far more disastrous for the Soviets than Vietnam had been for the Americans because the conflict coincided with a period of internal decay and domestic crisis in the Soviet system.

A senior U.S. State Department official predicted such an outcome as early as 1980, positing that the invasion resulted in part from a "domestic crisis within the Soviet system. ... It may be that the thermodynamic law of entropy has ... caught up with the Soviet system, which now seems to expend more energy on simply maintaining its equilibrium than on improving itself. We could be seeing a period of foreign movement at a time of internal decay".[301]

Final years (1985–1991)

Gorbachev's reforms

Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan sign the INF Treaty at the White House, 1987.

By the time the comparatively youthful Mikhail Gorbachev became General Secretary in 1985,[275] the Soviet economy was stagnant and faced a sharp fall in foreign currency earnings as a result of the downward slide in oil prices in the 1980s.[302] These issues prompted Gorbachev to investigate measures to revive the ailing state.[302]

An ineffectual start led to the conclusion that deeper structural changes were necessary, and in June 1987 Gorbachev announced an agenda of economic reform called perestroika, or restructuring.[303] Perestroika relaxed the production quota system, allowed private ownership of businesses and paved the way for foreign investment. These measures were intended to redirect the country's resources from costly Cold War military commitments to more productive areas in the civilian sector.[303]

Despite initial skepticism in the West, the new Soviet leader proved to be committed to reversing the Soviet Union's deteriorating economic condition instead of continuing the arms race with the West.[citation needed][304] Partly as a way to fight off internal opposition from party cliques to his reforms, Gorbachev simultaneously introduced glasnost, or openness, which increased freedom of the press and the transparency of state institutions.[305] Glasnost was intended to reduce the corruption at the top of the Communist Party and moderate the abuse of power in the Central Committee.[306] Glasnost also enabled increased contact between Soviet citizens and the western world, particularly with the United States, contributing to the accelerating détente between the two nations.[307]

Thaw in relations

The beginning of the 1990s brought a thaw in relations between the superpowers.

In response to the Kremlin's military and political concessions, Reagan agreed to renew talks on economic issues and the scaling-back of the arms race.[308] The first summit was held in November 1985 in Geneva, Switzerland.[308] At one stage the two men, accompanied only by an interpreter, agreed in principle to reduce each country's nuclear arsenal by 50 percent.[309][citation not found] A second summit was held in October 1986 in Reykjavík, Iceland. Talks went well until the focus shifted to Reagan's proposed Strategic Defense Initiative, which Gorbachev wanted eliminated. Reagan refused.[310] The negotiations failed, but the third summit in 1987 led to a breakthrough with the signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). The INF treaty eliminated all nuclear-armed, ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers (300 to 3,400 miles) and their infrastructure.[311]

"Tear down this wall!" speech: Reagan speaking in front of the Brandenburg Gate, 12 June 1987

East–West tensions rapidly subsided through the mid-to-late 1980s, culminating with the final summit in Moscow in 1989, when Gorbachev and George H. W. Bush signed the START I arms control treaty.[312] During the following year it became apparent to the Soviets that oil and gas subsidies, along with the cost of maintaining massive troops levels, represented a substantial economic drain.[313] In addition, the security advantage of a buffer zone was recognised as irrelevant and the Soviets officially declared that they would no longer intervene in the affairs of allied states in Central and Eastern Europe.[314]

In 1989, Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan,[315] and by 1990 Gorbachev consented to German reunification,[313] as the only alternative was a Tiananmen Square scenario.[316] When the Berlin Wall came down, Gorbachev's "Common European Home" concept began to take shape.[317]

On 3 December 1989, Gorbachev and George H.W. Bush declared the Cold War over at the Malta Summit.[318] A year later, the two former rivals were partners in the Gulf War against Iraq (August 1990 – February 1991).[citation needed]

Eastern Europe breaks away

By 1989, the Soviet alliance system was on the brink of collapse, and, deprived of Soviet military support, the communist leaders of the Warsaw Pact states were losing power.[319] Grassroots organizations, such as Poland's Solidarity movement, rapidly gained ground with strong popular bases. In 1989, the communist governments in Poland and Hungary became the first to negotiate the organization of competitive elections. In Czechoslovakia and East Germany, mass protests unseated entrenched communist leaders. The communist regimes in Bulgaria and Romania also crumbled, in the latter case as the result of a violent uprising. Attitudes had changed enough that U.S. Secretary of State James Baker suggested that the American government would not be opposed to Soviet intervention in Romania, on behalf of the opposition, to prevent bloodshed.[320] The tidal wave of change culminated with the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989, which symbolized the collapse of European communist governments and graphically ended the Iron Curtain divide of Europe. The 1989 revolutionary wave swept across Central and Eastern Europe and peacefully overthrew all of the Soviet-style communist states: East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria;[321] Romania was the only Eastern-bloc country to topple its communist regime violently and execute its head of state.[322]

Soviet dissolution

The human chain in Lithuania during the Baltic Way, 23 August 1989

In the USSR itself, glasnost weakened the bonds that held the Soviet Union together,[314] and by February 1990, with the dissolution of the USSR looming, the Communist Party was forced to surrender its 73-year-old monopoly on state power.[323] At the same time freedom of press and dissent allowed by glasnost and the festering "nationalities question" increasingly led the union's component republics to declare their autonomy from Moscow, with the Baltic states withdrawing from the union entirely.[324]

Gorbachev's permissive attitude toward Central and Eastern Europe did not initially extend to Soviet territory; even Bush, who strove to maintain friendly relations, condemned the January 1991 killings in Latvia and Lithuania, privately warning that economic ties would be frozen if the violence continued.[citation needed] The USSR was fatally weakened by a failed coup in August 1991, and a growing number of Soviet republics, particularly Russia, threatened to secede from the USSR. The Commonwealth of Independent States, created on 21 December 1991, is viewed as a successor entity to the Soviet Union, but, according to Russia's leaders, its purpose was to "allow a civilized divorce" between the Soviet Republics and is comparable to a loose confederation.[R] The USSR was declared officially dissolved on 26 December 1991.[325]

U.S. President George H.W. Bush expressed his emotions: "The biggest thing that has happened in the world in my life, in our lives, is this: By the grace of God, America won the Cold War."[326]

Aftermath

Changes in national boundaries after the end of the Cold War

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia drastically cut military spending, and restructuring the economy left millions unemployed.[327] The capitalist reforms culminated in a recession in the early 1990s more severe than the Great Depression as experienced by the United States and Germany.[328] In the 25 years following the end of the Cold War, only five or six of the post-communist states are on a path to joining the rich and capitalist world while most are falling behind, some to such an extent that it will take several decades to catch up to where they were before the collapse of communism.[329][330]

The Cold War continues to influence world affairs. The post-Cold War world is considered to be unipolar, with the United States the sole remaining superpower.[S][citation needed][331] The Cold War defined the political role of the United States after World War II—by 1989 the United States had military alliances with 50 countries, with 526,000 troops stationed abroad,[332] with 326,000 in Europe (two-thirds of which were in west Germany)[333] and 130,000 in Asia (mainly Japan and South Korea).[332] The Cold War also marked the zenith of peacetime military–industrial complexes, especially in the United States, and large-scale military funding of science.[334] These complexes, though their origins may be found as early as the 19th century, snowballed considerably during the Cold War.[335] Experts believe that up to 50 nuclear weapons were lost during the Cold War.[336]

Since the end of the Cold War, the EU has expanded eastwards into the former Warsaw Pact and parts of the former Soviet Union.

Cumulative U.S. military expenditures throughout the entire Cold War amounted to an estimated $8 trillion. Further nearly 100,000 Americans lost their lives in the Korean and Vietnam Wars.[337] Although Soviet casualties are difficult to estimate, as a share of their gross national product the financial cost for the Soviet Union was much higher than that incurred by the United States.[338]

In addition to the loss of life by uniformed soldiers, millions died in the superpowers' proxy wars around the globe, most notably in Southeast Asia.[339] Most of the proxy wars and subsidies for local conflicts ended along with the Cold War; interstate wars, ethnic wars, revolutionary wars, as well as refugee and displaced persons crises have declined sharply in the post-Cold War years.[T]

However, the aftermath of the Cold War is not considered to be concluded. Many of the economic and social tensions that were exploited to fuel Cold War competition in parts of the Third World remain acute. The breakdown of state control in a number of areas formerly ruled by communist governments produced new civil and ethnic conflicts, particularly in the former Yugoslavia. In Central and Eastern Europe, the end of the Cold War has ushered in an era of economic growth and an increase in the number of liberal democracies, while in other parts of the world, such as Afghanistan, independence was accompanied by state failure.[264]

In popular culture

During the Cold War itself, with the United States and the Soviet Union invested heavily in propaganda designed to influence the hearts and minds of people around the world, especially using motion pictures.[340][page needed]

The Cold War endures as a popular topic reflected extensively in entertainment media, and continuing to the present with numerous post-1991 Cold War-themed feature films, novels, television, and other media.[citation needed] In 2013, a KGB-sleeper-agents-living-next-door action drama series, The Americans, set in the early 1980s, was ranked #6 on the Metacritic annual Best New TV Shows list; its six-season run concluded in May 2018.[341][342] Movies like Crimson Tide (1995) are shown in their entirety to educate college students about the Cold War.[343]

Historiography

As soon as the term "Cold War" was popularized to refer to post-war tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union, interpreting the course and origins of the conflict has been a source of heated controversy among historians, political scientists, and journalists.[344] In particular, historians have sharply disagreed as to who was responsible for the breakdown of Soviet–US relations after the Second World War; and whether the conflict between the two superpowers was inevitable, or could have been avoided.[345] Historians have also disagreed on what exactly the Cold War was, what the sources of the conflict were, and how to disentangle patterns of action and reaction between the two sides.[264]

Although explanations of the origins of the conflict in academic discussions are complex and diverse, several general schools of thought on the subject can be identified. Historians commonly speak of three differing approaches to the study of the Cold War: "orthodox" accounts, "revisionism", and "post-revisionism".[334]

"Orthodox" accounts place responsibility for the Cold War on the Soviet Union and its expansion further into Europe.[334] "Revisionist" writers place more responsibility for the breakdown of post-war peace on the United States, citing a range of US efforts to isolate and confront the Soviet Union well before the end of World War II.[334] "Post-revisionists" see the events of the Cold War as more nuanced, and attempt to be more balanced in determining what occurred during the Cold War.[334] Much of the historiography on the Cold War weaves together two or even all three of these broad categories.[45]

See also

Footnotes

  1. ^ "Where did banana republics get their name?" The Economist, 21 November 2013
  2. ^ Strobe Talbott, The Great Experiment: The Story of Ancient Empires, Modern States, and the Quest for a Global Nation (2009) p. 441 n. 3; Lippmann's own book is Lippmann, Walter (1947). The Cold War. Harper.
  3. ^ "Left Communist | Russian political faction". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 30 September 2018.
  4. ^ Max Frankel, "Stalin's Shadow", New York Times 21 Nov 2012 reviewing Anne Applebaum, Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe, 1944–1956 (2012), See Introduction, text after note 26, and ch. 3, 7–9
  5. ^ United States Government Printing Office, Report on the Morgenthau Diaries prepared by the Subcommittee of the United States Committee of the Judiciary appointed to investigate the Administration of the McCarran Internal Security Act and other Internal Security Laws, (Washington, 1967) volume 1, pp. 620–21
  6. ^ "South Korea's President Rhee was obsessed with accomplishing early reunification through military means. The Truman administration's fear that Rhee would launch an invasion prompted it to limit South Korea's military capabilities, refusing to provide tanks, heavy artillery, and combat planes. This did not stop the South Koreans from initiating most of the border clashes with North Korean forces at the thirty-eighth parallel beginning in the summer of 1948 and reaching a high level of intensity and violence a year later. Historians now acknowledge that the two Koreas already were waging a civil conflict when North Korea's attack opened the conventional phase of the war.""Revisiting Korea". National Archives. 15 August 2016. Retrieved 21 June 2019.
  7. ^ "Contradicting traditional assumptions, however, available declassified Soviet documents demonstrate that throughout 1949 Stalin consistently refused to approve Kim Il Sung's persistent requests to approve an invasion of South Korea. The Soviet leader believed that North Korea had not achieved either military superiority north of the parallel or political strength south of that line. His main concern was the threat South Korea posed to North Korea's survival, for example fearing an invasion northward following U.S. military withdrawal in June 1949.""Revisiting Korea". National Archives. 15 August 2016. Retrieved 21 June 2019.
  8. ^ "We Will Bury You!", Time magazine, 26 November 1956. Retrieved 26 June 2008.
  9. ^ See also: U.S. Cold War Nuclear Target Lists Declassified for First Time. National Security Archive. 22 December 2015.
  10. ^ "Revolt in Hungary". Archived from the original on 17 November 2007. Narrator: Walter Cronkite, producer: CBS (1956) – Fonds 306, Audiovisual Materials Relating to the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, OSA Archivum, Budapest, Hungary ID number: HU OSA 306-0-1:40
  11. ^ "On This Day June 16, 1989: Hungary reburies fallen hero Imre Nagy" British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) reports on Nagy reburial with full honors. Retrieved 13 October 2006.
  12. ^ National Research Council Committee on Antarctic Policy and Science, p. 33
  13. ^ "Military Advisors in Vietnam: 1963 | JFK Library". www.jfklibrary.org. Retrieved 21 June 2019.
  14. ^ Vietnam War Statistics and Facts 1, 25th Aviation Battalion website.
  15. ^ Ello (ed.), Paul (April 1968). Control Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, "Action Plan of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (Prague, April 1968)" in Dubcek's Blueprint for Freedom: His original documents leading to the invasion of Czechoslovakia. William Kimber & Co. 1968, pp. 32, 54
  16. ^ Miglietta, American Alliance Policy (2002), p. 78. "American military goods were provided by Egypt and Iran, which transferred excess arms from their inventories. It was said that American M-48 tanks sold to Iran were shipped to Somalia via Oman."
  17. ^ "Official Energy Statistics of the US Government", EIA – International Energy Data and Analysis. Retrieved on 4 July 2008.
  18. ^ Soviet Leaders Recall 'Inevitable' Breakup Of Soviet Union, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 8 December 2006. Retrieved 20 May 2008.
  19. ^ "Country profile: United States of America". BBC News. Retrieved 11 March 2007
  20. ^ Monty G. Marshall and Ted Gurr, "Peace and Conflict" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 June 2008. Retrieved 1 June 2016., Center for Systemic Peace (2006). Retrieved 14 June 2008. "Peace and Conflict" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 June 2008. Retrieved 1 June 2016.

References

  1. ^ G. Jones 2014, pp. 176–79.
  2. ^ Syria crisis 2018.
  3. ^ Orwell 1945.
  4. ^ Orwell 1946.
  5. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 54.
  6. ^ Safire 2006.
  7. ^ History.com 2009.
  8. ^ a b Tucker 2016, p. 608.
  9. ^ Combs 2015, p. 97–101.
  10. ^ Chretien 2017, p. 129.
  11. ^ Senior 2016, p. 176.
  12. ^ Kinvig 2007, pp. 91–95.
  13. ^ McDougall.
  14. ^ McFadden 1995.
  15. ^ Lee 1999, p. 57.
  16. ^ Tucker 1992, p. 34.
  17. ^ Weinreb 2017, p. 38.
  18. ^ Smith 2007, p. 341–343.
  19. ^ Boller 1996, pp. 110–14.
  20. ^ Doenecke & Stoler 2005, pp. 18. 121.
  21. ^ Wilson 1971.
  22. ^ Brownell & Billings 1987.
  23. ^ Leffler 2008, pp. 18–19.
  24. ^ Kalnins 2015, pp. 126–27.
  25. ^ Tucker 2016, pp. 612–13.
  26. ^ De Gruyter 2010, pp. 171–72.
  27. ^ Otfinoski 2014, p. 14.
  28. ^ Herring 1973.
  29. ^ Gaddis 1990, pp. 151–53.
  30. ^ a b c Gaddis 2005, pp. 13–23.
  31. ^ Gaddis 1990, p. 156.
  32. ^ a b Plokhy 2010.
  33. ^ Gaddis 1990, p. 176.
  34. ^ Heller 2006, p. 27.
  35. ^ Carlton 2000.
  36. ^ Todd 2016, pp. 105-111.
  37. ^ a b Gaddis 2005, p. 21.
  38. ^ Jonas 1985, p. 270.
  39. ^ von Lingen 2013, pp. 6, 81–90.
  40. ^ Rev 2010.
  41. ^ Peck 2017, p. 2.
  42. ^ Zubok & Pleshakov 1996, p. 94.
  43. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 22.
  44. ^ Garthoff 1994, p. 401.
  45. ^ a b c d e f g Byrd 2003.
  46. ^ Moss 1993, p. 256.
  47. ^ Wood 2005, p. 62.
  48. ^ a b c Gaddis 2005, pp. 24–26.
  49. ^ LaFeber 2002, p. 28.
  50. ^ Roberts 2006, p. 43.
  51. ^ a b c Wettig 2008, p. 21.
  52. ^ a b c Senn 2007.
  53. ^ Roberts 2006, p. 55.
  54. ^ a b Schmitz 1999.
  55. ^ van Dijk 2008, p. 200.
  56. ^ Wettig 2008, pp. 96–100.
  57. ^ Roht-Arriaza 1995, p. 83.
  58. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 40.
  59. ^ a b c Gaddis 2005, p. 34.
  60. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 100.
  61. ^ Fenton 1998.
  62. ^ Editors.
  63. ^ a b Sebestyen 2014.
  64. ^ Kinzer 2003, pp. 65–6.
  65. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 94.
  66. ^ Harriman 1987–1988.
  67. ^ Marxists Internet Archive.
  68. ^ McCauley 2008, p. 143.
  69. ^ Kydd 2018, p. 107.
  70. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 30.
  71. ^ Morgan.
  72. ^ Milestones: 1945–1952.
  73. ^ Iatrides 1996, pp. 373–76.
  74. ^ a b Gaddis 2005, pp. 28–29.
  75. ^ Gerolymatos 2017, pp. 195–204.
  76. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n LaFeber 1993, pp. 194–97.
  77. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 38.
  78. ^ Paterson 1989, pp. 35, 142 & 212.
  79. ^ Moschonas 2002, p. 21.
  80. ^ Andrew & Mitrokhin 2000, p. 276.
  81. ^ Crocker, Hampson & Aall 2007, p. 55.
  82. ^ a b Miller 2000, p. 16.
  83. ^ Gaddis 1990, p. 186.
  84. ^ Dinan 2017, p. 40.
  85. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Karabell 1999, p. 916.
  86. ^ a b c Gaddis 2005, p. 32.
  87. ^ Gaddis 2005, pp. 105–06.
  88. ^ Wettig 2008, p. 86.
  89. ^ Miller 2000, p. 19.
  90. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 162.
  91. ^ Garthoff 2004.
  92. ^ Immerman 2014.
  93. ^ Andrew & Gordievsky 1991.
  94. ^ Trahair & Miller 2012.
  95. ^ Saunders 2013.
  96. ^ Barnes 1981.
  97. ^ Murphy, Kondrashev & Bailey 1997.
  98. ^ Garthoff 2004, pp. 29-30.
  99. ^ Cowley 1996 p.157
  100. ^ Papathanasiou 2017, p. 66.
  101. ^ a b Miller 2000, p. 13.
  102. ^ a b Miller 2000, p. 18.
  103. ^ Miller 2000, p. 31.
  104. ^ Layne 2007, p. 67.
  105. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 33.
  106. ^ Miller 2000, pp. 65–70.
  107. ^ Turner 1987, p. 29.
  108. ^ Fritsch-Bournazel 1990, p. 143.
  109. ^ Miller 2000, p. 26.
  110. ^ Miller 2000, pp. 180–81.
  111. ^ van Dijk 1996.
  112. ^ Turner 1987, p. 23.
  113. ^ Bungert 1994.
  114. ^ O'Neil 1997, pp. 15–25.
  115. ^ Wood 1992, p. 105.
  116. ^ Puddington 2003, p. 131.
  117. ^ a b Puddington 2003, p. 9.
  118. ^ a b Puddington 2003, p. 7.
  119. ^ Puddington 2003, p. 10.
  120. ^ Cummings 2010.
  121. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 105.
  122. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 39.
  123. ^ Westad 2012, p. 291.
  124. ^ Gaddis 2005, pp. 164–67].
  125. ^ a b Layne 2007, pp. 63–66.
  126. ^ a b c Gaddis 2005, p. 212.
  127. ^ Haruki 2018, pp. 7–12.
  128. ^ Stueck 2013, pp. 252–256.
  129. ^ Weathersby 1993, pp. 28, 30.
  130. ^ Malkasian 2001, p. 16.
  131. ^ Fehrenbach 2001, p. 305.
  132. ^ Craig & Logevall 2012, pp. 118.
  133. ^ Matray 1979.
  134. ^ Paterson et al. 2014, pp. 286–289.
  135. ^ Isby & Kamps 1985, pp. 13–14.
  136. ^ Cotton 1989, p. 100.
  137. ^ Oberdorfer 2001, pp. 10–11.
  138. ^ No & Osterholm 1996.
  139. ^ Hwang 2016, pp. 61–70.
  140. ^ Suh 2013, pp. 25–35.
  141. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 107.
  142. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 84.
  143. ^ Tompson 1997, pp. 237–39.
  144. ^ Bradner 2015.
  145. ^ Paterson et al. 2014, pp. 306–308.
  146. ^ Schudson 2015.
  147. ^ Khanna 2013, p. 372.
  148. ^ BBC 1956.
  149. ^ UN General Assembly 1957.
  150. ^ Holodkov 1956.
  151. ^ Cseresnyés 1999, pp. 86–101.
  152. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 70.
  153. ^ Perlmutter 1997, p. 145.
  154. ^ Njølstad 2004, p. 136.
  155. ^ Breslauer 2002, p. 72.
  156. ^ a b Lendvai 2008, p. 196.
  157. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 71.
  158. ^ Taubman 2004, pp. 488–502.
  159. ^ Herring 2008, pp. 704–05.
  160. ^ Rabe 2013
  161. ^ Gaddis 2005, pp. 121–24.
  162. ^ Towle 2000, p. 160.
  163. ^ Tucker 2010, p. 1566.
  164. ^ Karabell 1999, pp. 64, 916.
  165. ^ Gasiorowski & Byrne 2004, p. 125.
  166. ^ Smith 1953.
  167. ^ George Washington University 1953.
  168. ^ Watson 2002, p. 118.
  169. ^ Stone 2010, pp. 199, 256.
  170. ^ Bulmer-Thomas 1987, p. 142.
  171. ^ Roadnight 2002.
  172. ^ a b Schraeder 1994, p. 57.
  173. ^ Nzongola-Ntalaja 2011.
  174. ^ Gerard 2015, pp. 216–218.
  175. ^ Rose 2002, p. 57.
  176. ^ Mars & Young 2004, p. xviii.
  177. ^ Palmer 2010, pp. 247–48.
  178. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 126.
  179. ^ a b Gaddis 2005, p. 142.
  180. ^ Kempe 2011, p. 42.
  181. ^ Lüthi 2010, pp. 273–76.
  182. ^ Gaddis 2005, pp. 140–42.
  183. ^ Lüthi 2010, p. 1.
  184. ^ BBC 1957.
  185. ^ Klesius 2008.
  186. ^ Blumberg 1995, pp. 23–24.
  187. ^ Lechuga Hevia 2001, p. 142.
  188. ^ Dominguez 1989, p. 22.
  189. ^ a b Smith 1998, p. 95.
  190. ^ Dowty 1989, p. 114.
  191. ^ Harrison 2003, p. 99.
  192. ^ Dowty 1989, p. 122.
  193. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 114.
  194. ^ Pearson 1998, p. 75.
  195. ^ a b Zubok 1994.
  196. ^ H. Jones 2009, p. 122.
  197. ^ Blight, Allyn & Welch 2002, p. 252.
  198. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 82.
  199. ^ Gaddis 2005, pp. 119–20.
  200. ^ a b Gaddis 2005, p. 119.
  201. ^ Hardt & Kaufman 1995, p. 16.
  202. ^ Milestones: 1969–1976.
  203. ^ Painter 2014.
  204. ^ Miller & Wainstock 2013, pp. 315–325.
  205. ^ Koven 2015, p. 93.
  206. ^ Tucker 2011, p. 131.
  207. ^ Glass 2017.
  208. ^ Kalb 2013.
  209. ^ Menon 2000, p. 11.
  210. ^ Nuenlist, Locher & Martin 2010, pp. 99–102.
  211. ^ Von Geldern & Siegelbaum.
  212. ^ a b Gaddis 2005, p. 150.
  213. ^ BBC 2008.
  214. ^ Čulík.
  215. ^ a b Gaddis 2005, p. 154.
  216. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 153.
  217. ^ a b LaFeber 1993.
  218. ^ a b Itzigsohn 2000, pp. 41–42.
  219. ^ Robinson 2018, p. 203.
  220. ^ Simpson 2010, p. 193.
  221. ^ Thaler 2015.
  222. ^ Perry 2016.
  223. ^ a b Bevins 2017.
  224. ^ Farid 2005, pp. 3–16.
  225. ^ a b Aarons 2007.
  226. ^ Scott 2017.
  227. ^ BBC 2003.
  228. ^ McSherry 2011, p. 107.
  229. ^ Hixson 2009, p. 223.
  230. ^ Grandin 2011, p. 75.
  231. ^ Stone 2010, p. 230.
  232. ^ a b Grenville & Wasserstein 1987.
  233. ^ a b Tripp 2002.
  234. ^ Friedman 2007, p. 330.
  235. ^ Erlich 2008, pp. 84–86.
  236. ^ a b c Perrett 2016, pp. 216–17.
  237. ^ Bronson 2006, p. 134.
  238. ^ Hamann 2007, pp. 15–32, 44.
  239. ^ Stockwell 1979, pp. 161–65, 185–94.
  240. ^ a b c Rothschild 1997, pp. 115–21.
  241. ^ a b c d Vanneman 1990, pp. 48–49.
  242. ^ Weigert 2011, pp. 56–65.
  243. ^ Mosyakov 2004, p. 54.
  244. ^ BBC 2018.
  245. ^ Chandler 2000, pp. 96–98.
  246. ^ Power 2013.
  247. ^ Mosyakov 2004, p. 66.
  248. ^ Locard 2005.
  249. ^ Kiernan 2003.
  250. ^ Heuveline 2001, pp. 102–105.
  251. ^ World Peace Foundation 2015.
  252. ^ Shaw 2000, p. 141.
  253. ^ Slocomb 2001.
  254. ^ Dallek 2007, p. 144.
  255. ^ Gaddis 2005, pp. 149–52.
  256. ^ BBC 1972.
  257. ^ Litwak 1986.
  258. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 188.
  259. ^ Caldwell 2009
  260. ^ Schwartz 2011
  261. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 186.
  262. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 178.
  263. ^ BBC 1979.
  264. ^ a b c Halliday 2001, p. 2e.
  265. ^ Diggins 2007, p. 267.
  266. ^ Cox 1990, p. 18.
  267. ^ a b Hussain 2005, pp. 108–09.
  268. ^ Starr 2004, pp. 157–58.
  269. ^ a b Kinsella 1992.
  270. ^ Meher 2004, pp. 68–69, 94.
  271. ^ Kalinovsky 2011, pp. 25–28.
  272. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 211.
  273. ^ Allen.
  274. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 189.
  275. ^ a b Gaddis 2005, p. 197.
  276. ^ Ogorodnev 2013.
  277. ^ Esno 2018, pp. 281–304.
  278. ^ Graebner, Burns & Siracusa 2008, pp. 29–31.
  279. ^ Graebner, Burns & Siracusa 2008, p. 76.
  280. ^ a b Singh 1995 p.130
  281. ^ a b Gaddis 2005, pp. 219–22.
  282. ^ a b LaFeber 2002, p. 332.
  283. ^ Towle, p. 159.
  284. ^ LaFeber 2002, p. 335.
  285. ^ Odom 2000, p. 1.
  286. ^ LaFeber 2002, p. 340.
  287. ^ Evans 1992.
  288. ^ Carliner & Alesina 1991, p. 6.
  289. ^ Feeney 2006.
  290. ^ Federation of American Scientists 2000.
  291. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 202.
  292. ^ Lebow & Stein 1994.
  293. ^ Gaidar.
  294. ^ Hardt & Kaufman 1995, p. 1.
  295. ^ Talbott et al. 1983.
  296. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 228.
  297. ^ a b LaFeber 2002, p. 323.
  298. ^ Reagan 1991.
  299. ^ New York Times 2013.
  300. ^ a b LaFeber 2002, p. 314.
  301. ^ Dobrynin 2001, pp. 438–39.
  302. ^ a b LaFeber 2002, pp. 331–33.
  303. ^ a b Gaddis 2005, pp. 231–33.
  304. ^ LaFeber 2002, pp. 300–40.
  305. ^ Gibbs 1999, p. 7.
  306. ^ Gibbs 1999, p. 33.
  307. ^ Gibbs 1999, p. 61.
  308. ^ a b Gaddis 2005, pp. 229–30.
  309. ^ BBC News 1985
  310. ^ New York Times 1988.
  311. ^ Federation of American Scientists.
  312. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 255.
  313. ^ a b Shearman 1995, p. 76.
  314. ^ a b Gaddis 2005, p. 248.
  315. ^ Gaddis 2005, pp. 235–36.
  316. ^ Shearman 1995, p. 74.
  317. ^ European NAvigator 1989.
  318. ^ BBC 1989.
  319. ^ Gaddis 2005, pp. 235–236.
  320. ^ Garthoff 1994.
  321. ^ Lefeber, Fitzmaurice & Vierdag 1991, p. 221.
  322. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 247.
  323. ^ Sakwa 1999, p. 460.
  324. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 253.
  325. ^ Gaddis 2005, pp. 256–57.
  326. ^ Ambrose & Brinkley 2011, p. XVI.
  327. ^ PBS 2014.
  328. ^ Nolan 1995, pp. 17–18.
  329. ^ Ghodsee 2017, p. 63.
  330. ^ Milanović 2015, pp. 135–38.
  331. ^ Blum 2006, p. 87.
  332. ^ a b PBS 2004.
  333. ^ Duke 1989, p. 175.
  334. ^ a b c d e Calhoun 2002.
  335. ^ Pavelec 2009, pp. xv–xvi.
  336. ^ Maack 2008.
  337. ^ LaFeber 2002, p. 1.
  338. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 213.
  339. ^ Gaddis 2005, p. 266.
  340. ^ Shaw & Youngblood 2010, p. ch. 1.
  341. ^ Dietz 2013.
  342. ^ Lowry 2018.
  343. ^ Gokcek & Howard 2013, p. 436.
  344. ^ Nashel 1999.
  345. ^ Ambrose & Brinkley 2011, pp. 789–99.

Sources

Books