Mariam Shadid – ESSAY PLAN
To what extent were the disarmament agreements of 1987-1991 responsible for
ending the Cold War?
I made this question up, so I’m not sure if the wording is exactly “HSC style”
Introduction
While the disarmament agreements of 1987-1991 were a contributing factor in ending the Cold
War (CW), there were several other factors which played a more prominent role. Essentially, the
implementation of policies under Gorbachev and Reagan as well as the subsequent collapse of
communism in Eastern Europe (EE) and the USSR made a more significant contribution to
ending the Cold War in 1991, rather than the transient outcomes of the disarmament
agreements.
Paragraph 1 – Reagan’s policies
o
Topic Sentence: Reagan’s antagonistic approach to the Soviet Union and his hard line
policies were critical in ending the Cold War
o
Hard line approach to be “militarily superior” to USSR led to subsequent increases in both
defence and military spheres. $1.6 trillion over 5 years  SDI – extensive arms buildup. He
demanded a 7-10% military budget increase per year
o
Soviet Union – demise of their economy, deteriorating social conditions. Economic malaise
primarily arose as a result of Brezhnev expending 25% of GNP towards the USSR’s
military/industrial complex. When Gorbachev assumed office he was faced with these
issues
o
Reagan’s SDI placed enormous pressure on Soviet Union. Forced Gorby to realize he could
no longer engage in arms race. The USSR’s deteriorating economy  could no longer
sustain the CW. Gaddis supports this notion and claims that the war ended by default
when the Soviets realized the sheer scale of their opposition when SDI was revealed
o
Concluding: Hence, the Soviet’s inability to withstand the economic implications of
Reagan’s military policies caused the Soviet economy to falter and consequently, Reagan’s
policies contributed significantly to end of CW
Paragraph 2 – Gorby’s policies  collapse of communism in EE + subsequent collapse of SU

Topic Sentence: The far reaching implications of Gorbachev’s policies also played a pivotal
role in ending the CW, as they inadvertently resulted in the collapse of communism in EE and
the subsequent collapse of the USSR
Mariam Shadid – ESSAY PLAN

Perestroika (restructuring) - aimed to reform the inefficient Soviet economy by exposing the
command economy to a modest degree of internal and external competition in an attempt to
create a “socialist market economy” (Christian).

However, his “halfhearted” policies weren’t taken far enough and prompted economic decline
(0.5% growth in 1989) As Christian puts, it Gorbachev replaced much of the old planning
system without putting anything in its place. Economy stuck in limbo between
command/market  deterioration of economy

Glasnost (openness) encouraged the people and the press to begin honest discussion about
the problems of the Soviet Union. However, in initiating a policy of openness, Gorbachev
“opened Pandora’s box and glasnost became a process beyond anyone’s control.” (Gibbs)

Inadvertently prompted the collapse of the Soviet bloc, as once nationalities began to express
their opinions and organize politically; the days of the Soviet Union were numbered (Kaiser)

The election of a non-communist leader in Poland in 1989 resulted in Gorbachev’s refusal to
respond militarily – confined by restraints of Soviet economy’s inability to “go hard”, as he had
previously done in the Baltic states. Gaddis states that Gorbachev’s refusal to respond
militarily acted as an indication to the satellite states that they could break away from the
Soviet Union without any military ramifications

Democratization fuelled nationalistic sentiments within Eastern Europe and by January 1990,
every pro-Soviet government had collapsed, prompting the collapse of the USSR

Concluding sentence: Thus, through Gorbachev’s policies of glasnost and perestroika and
their resulting detrimental implications on the [life] of the USSR, it can be seen that his
policies had a colossal role in ending the CW
Paragraph 3 – disarmament
While it is often considered that there were several other factors which were more influential in
ending the CW, the disarmament agreements signaled improved diplomacy between the
superpowers and thus, to an extent, contributed to the cessation of the CW. Through Gorbachev
and Reagan’s advocacy of negotiations, it can be seen that the disarmament agreements put an
end to the arms race which had characterized the highly adversarial nature of the CW. However,
the extent to which these negotiations aided in bringing the war to an end is disputed.
Historians such as Cortright argue that while other factors helped bring the war to an end, the
process of arms negotiation provided the framework within which the US+USSR could reach an
agreement as disarmament had “exerted a stabilizing influence in an otherwise terrifying
atmosphere of nuclear confrontation”, illustrating that the negotiations proved decisive in
easing political tensions between the superpowers. Conversely, historians such as Fischer aver
Mariam Shadid – ESSAY PLAN
that the outcomes of the summits were trivial as they did not prevent wars such as Vietnam and
Korea and did little to redress the underlying political mistrust between the superpowers.
Hence, the disarmament agreements and the improved diplomacy between the US and the
USSR which entailed proved to be a contributing factor in ending the CW in 1991.
Conclude
Mrs H, in my link to the Q at the end of every para, do I have to bring up the disarmament
agreements and their minimal impact as a comparison? Because the question explicitly asks me
to what extent were the disarmament agreements responsible, am I still answering the question
by not referring to them in my topic/concluding sentences?