Introduction (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes

Introduction

The period from 1945 to 1991, known as the Cold War, represented an era of sustained international tension between the United States and the Soviet Union. This conflict differed from conventional wars in that the two superpowers never engaged in direct military combat. Instead, the struggle unfolded through diplomatic manoeuvring, a relentless arms race, and proxy wars (conflicts instigated by a major power which does not itself become involved). Both sides continuously sought advantages over one another, hoping to achieve victory that would result in the collapse of the opponent's ideological system. Despite this competition, both the USSR and the USA recognised that direct confrontation could trigger catastrophic destruction. Consequently, they attempted to coexist in a world where each maintained its own sphere of influence (an area or region where one power, or a group of powers, has substantial control over apparently independent states) whilst seeking to prevent outright war.

The changing system after the Second World War

On 25 April 1945, Soviet and American soldiers met at the River Elbe in Germany, a meeting that symbolised the imminent Allied victory in Europe. The encounter was staged for photographers and film crews to demonstrate the solidarity of the Second World War allies to audiences at home. In both the USSR and the USA, populations anticipated that this meeting heralded an end to global conflicts and the beginning of a new order characterised by peace and cooperation. However, this expectation proved misplaced. Rather than ushering in an era of collaboration, the meeting at the Elbe signalled the end of Soviet-American partnership and the emergence of a new global conflict in which the two remaining superpowers would compete for dominance.

The post-war international order was founded on the domination of two conflicting power bases, creating a bi-polar system driven by ideological divisions and the possession of nuclear weapons. Two power blocs (groups of states that generally have common military, economic, or political interests) emerged, one centred on the USA and the other on the USSR. Each superpower aimed to guarantee its own security by strengthening its power whilst simultaneously diminishing that of its opponent. This bi-polar system of fluctuating degrees of confrontation became known as the Cold War.

The origins of the Cold War

Historical explanations for the period 1945 to 1949, which witnessed the initial development of the Cold War, vary considerably. One interpretation emphasises Soviet communist ideological and territorial expansionism in Europe, which allegedly forced the USA to adopt a defensive stance. Communism is an economic and political system in which the means of production (land, labour, and capital) are communally owned. In communist governments that have existed, the state creates a command economy, managing the economy through central planning. The communist political system operates as a dictatorship that makes all decisions for its citizens. According to this view, US policy represented a reasonable response to Soviet provocation. An alternative interpretation regards Soviet actions up to 1949 as a legitimate response to US economic and strategic imperialism (the policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonisation, military force, or other means) in Europe and historical fears of Western intrusion. This perspective suggests the USSR strengthened its own defences in reaction to perceived US threats. Both interpretations rest on the assumption that unilateral (performed by one person or country without the agreement of others) actions by one side determined the primary causal factors in the early development of the Cold War.

The ideological divisions between communism and capitalism (an economic system based on private property, in which prices and economic decisions are determined by supply and demand) served as the foundation for conflict. However, this ideological confrontation is sometimes viewed as secondary to the real confrontation, which involved the formation of alliances to build international power. Pro-Soviet or pro-American alliances, depending on which perspective is adopted, deepened the Cold War relationship.

The USA proved particularly committed to developing allies through a system of protection. For the Americans, democracy needed protection from the threat of the expansive communist ideology (a collection of ideas about how society, economics, and politics should be organised; ideologies may have long-term aims and may drive foreign policy decisions, and are normally fixed and uncompromising to alternatives) managed by the USSR. Protection was based on US economic power and nuclear capability. This strategy served to enhance American power and reinforce its security, but it also served to globalise the Cold War. The USSR developed its own group of allies among Eastern European Bloc communist states. The process of consolidating communist regimes among these states is often cited as evidence that the USSR was ideologically and territorially expansionist, requiring the USA to control or contain this process.

The intensification of the Cold War

The East-West confrontation began in Europe, with divided Germany becoming a focal point for confrontation and a symbol of Cold War antagonism. By 1950, the confrontation had globalised. US strategy from 1949, following the USSR's development of nuclear capability, was designed to establish regional alliance systems on a global scale. This approach operated not only in Western Europe but also in the Far East. The possibility of communist expansionism in Korea reinforced the USA's perceived need for such alliances to stem the flow of communism.

The 1950s witnessed substantial shifts in the confrontational nature of the Cold War. Neither side appeared committed to ending the confrontational relationship or redefining international relations on the basis of consensus and mutual cooperation. Dwight D. Eisenhower, who became US president in 1952, wanted to maximise US security through more than merely containing the spread of communism. His strategies appeared aggressive and threatening, but they were developed as a means of managing the Cold War conflict in the context of growing nuclear powers. Eisenhower intended to use nuclear weapons as a major tool in constraining the perceived threat from the USSR. US nuclear dominance during the 1950s was seen as a direct and efficient means of containing Soviet ideological expansionism and the threat it posed to US security.

The Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev preferred to manage the tension through a policy he termed peaceful coexistence. He wanted to build international relations on a mutual recognition that neither the USA nor the USSR would adopt policies that were threatening towards each other. Peaceful coexistence was not about ending the Cold War. This policy was both optimistic and unrealistic in the context of the escalating nuclear arms race that characterised the decade up to 1962. The USSR, although making substantial strides in nuclear technology development during the 1950s, faced mounting problems with its control of satellite states in Eastern Europe. Khrushchev's frustrations with keeping the Soviet Bloc intact were apparent through his determination to rationalise the situation in Berlin. He wanted Western powers to recognise the logic of consolidating the whole of Berlin as an East German city. Stalin had attempted to achieve the same objective during his blockade of Berlin in 1948 to 1949, and had failed. The crisis over Berlin reached a head in August 1961 with the construction of the Berlin Wall, a tangible sign that East-West relations were irreconcilable.

The threat of nuclear confrontation

The prospect of nuclear war intensified, and in October 1962 the world came perilously close to nuclear conflict with the Cuban Missile Crisis. Nuclear forces of the United States and the Soviet Union were placed on full alert, ready to launch devastating attacks against each other's major cities. Civilians on both sides of the East-West divide read the news in genuine fear. Political leaders scrambled to stop the situation spiralling out of control. Despite the multiple negative impacts of the crisis, it opened the way for a new approach to international relations, particularly regarding nuclear weapons.

Conventional military conflicts

The new post-Cuban Missile Crisis optimism did not lead immediately to the end of the central issues in the Cold War. These continued, and they were no more apparent than in the USA's commitment to halt the spread of communism in Asia, particularly in Vietnam. The conflict in Vietnam, which began in 1955, not only illustrated the globalisation of the Cold War, it also underlined the continuity of US Cold War priorities through containment. President Lyndon B. Johnson continued and extended what President John F. Kennedy had begun. The preservation of South Vietnam as a non-communist state was central to US Cold War thinking during the 1960s. The conflict in Vietnam escalated after the Cuban Missile Crisis, but it took the USA years to realise the futility of conventional military actions against guerrilla groups (members of small independent groups taking part in irregular fighting, often in unplanned ways) who were willing to commit to a lengthy war of attrition (a military strategy in which at least one side tries to wear down the resolve of the other through battles, with the objective not just to win but to sap resources and inflict maximum damage) to outlast a foreign enemy.

Diplomacy and détente

Both the Americans and the Soviets had to re-examine their attitudes towards one another after the events of the 1950s and 1960s. The start of a period of apparent calming in Cold War confrontation was known as détente (the easing of hostility or strained relations, especially between countries). Despite the relaxation though, the fundamental nature of the Cold War did not change in the 1970s. Both the USA and the USSR saw the new era of cooperation as a form of management. For its part, the USSR saw détente as a new version of peaceful coexistence.

Many historians have viewed détente as a period of failed opportunities to bring the Cold War to an end. However, ending the Cold War was never on the agenda for either side during this period. The underlying focus for each side remained that of enhancing its own power. For the USA, détente was also a device to solve other problems such as finding a way out of Vietnam.

Crises in the communist bloc and an end to the Cold War

The 1980s brought new pressures on the Cold War relationship between the USSR and the USA. Eastern Europe was once again moving towards growing instability. This was apparent in the emergence of the Solidarity movement in Poland. Notably, the USSR took no direct action and left the task of dealing with Solidarity to the Poles themselves.

Ronald Reagan, the new US president in 1981, was determined to end the Cold War with a US victory. He sensed the decline facing the Soviet Union, not only regarding Eastern Europe but also in terms of their apparent economic crisis. One of his approaches was to place the USSR under severe economic pressure through an enhanced arms race. However, his policies changed course in 1985 with the arrival of Mikhail Gorbachev as the new leader of the USSR. Gorbachev's priority of preserving the control of communist ideology in Eastern Europe and beyond demanded an end to the confrontational requirements implicit in the Cold War. He took the view that the Cold War could not be won: it was an unnecessary conflict and it was profoundly damaging to communist ideology. After a series of high-level meetings, Gorbachev and Reagan laid the foundations for a new post-Cold War relationship. Ultimately, the end of the Cold War in 1991 was driven by the fairly rapid, but very conclusive, collapse of communist regimes across Europe.

Issues and interpretations

The Cold War was the most substantial conflict never fought; although it is now over, the issues that arose from the conflict have not disappeared. Although diminished, the nuclear threat remains present. Power politics continue to be driven by the same superpowers – even the United Nations is still dominated by the same five powers that have held permanent seats on the Security Council (the decision-making executive element of the United Nations Organisation; a small number of member states responsible for making decisions concerning UN intervention into international disputes) since 1971. Communism may no longer be a dominant ideological force, but there are many in former communist countries who have nostalgia for that era due to the instabilities of today.

Historians have made numerous attempts to explain reasons for the development, spread, and ultimate ending of the Cold War. However, the Cold War was a time of ambiguities, not absolutes. Understanding the narrative of events in the Cold War allows you to comprehend what hastened confrontation and what forces promoted peace in the modern world. When studying this period, you should consider why leaders behaved in the way they did; why their citizens agreed or disagreed with their actions; and whether alternative responses to the events of the Cold War were possible. You will also need to determine whether your opinions are well supported by evidence.

Remember!