QUESTION 1: PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE: How successful was peaceful coexistence as a Soviet policy during Khrushchev’s rule from 1955-1964?
Epigraph:
Intro+Thesis: The Soviet policy of peaceful coexistence asserted that the US and
USSR could coexist rather than fighting one another, in the hope that such a policy
would prevent nuclear warfare between the powers. Beginning with [points 1 2 3 4].
Although some aspects of peaceful coexistence prove to be successful, the
continuing distrust between the powers and acceleration of the arms race indicates
that the policy itself was not successful.
Paragraph 1: Austrian State Treaty and Soviet withdrawal from Finland
Content
Sources to mention
Link/contrast to sources
- Only cold war era
withdrawal of soviets
from region it occupied
- Created buffer zone from
east to west, rather than
constant question of
which side Finland was
- Finnish naval base had
been leased to Soviet
Union since 1944
- Improved Soviet-Finnish
relations and reflected
shift in Soviet policy
-
Paragraph 2: Berlin Wall
Content
- Built between the soviet
and American sectors of
Berlin
- Saved East German
regime and eased
economic pressure on
Soviets
- US didn’t interfere as this
was on the side of Berlin
which Soviets had control
over – didn’t want to
cause more military
instability
- Soviets also wanted to
maintain a disconnected,
unarmed Germany so
that they could be more
powerful
- Soviets also wanted to
be able to trade with
Germans
- Believed communism
would spread to weaker
countries, so hoped to
- John Lewis Gladdis The
Cold War
- Historian Wolfgang
Müller
- John Lewis Gladdis’ The
Cold War shows valuable
insight into the reasons
for the granted
independence of Finland
-
-
-
Sources to mention
Link/contrast to sources
- Kennedy believed in
united Germany by
calling those in divided
Berlin “Berliners”
- President Reagan “Mr
Gorbachev, tear down
this wall”
- In November, 1958,
Khrushchev demanded
an end to West Berlin
being used as
‘springboard for intensive
espionage, sabotage and
subversive activities’
- Kennedy “The source of
world trouble and tension
is Moscow, not Berlin”
- John Smith The Cold
War
- While Kennedy believed
in uniting Germany and
Reagan asked
Gorbachev to tear down
the wall in order to
facilitate [],
- Khrushchev had different
ideas, as intellectually
stated in John Smith’s
The Cold War, where he
details the reasons for
Soviet support of the wall
- Khrushchev eventually
shifts his opinion, and
demands for an end to
West Berlin being used
as “quote”
- Kennedy retorts, wisely
stating that “quote” and
that Khrushchev
shouldn’t be so focused
on the issue of Berlin, but
rather that of Moscow
spread communism into
Germany while they were
weak
-
-
-
Paragraph 3: Soviet Missiles in Cuba
Content
Sources to mention
- 1962 Soviet missiles
- On 22 October, Kennedy
discovered in Cuba
- Kennedy doesn’t want to
be seen as weak and so
orders naval blockade of
Cuba to prevent further
weaponry from being
sent to Cuba
- Within that month,
Khrushchev agrees to
dismantle missile sites
and order cargo ships to
return
- Does this in exchange for
the US to remove
missiles from Turkey
spoke to the nation of
Khrushchev’s
“clandestine, reckless
and provocative threat to
world peace”
- John Lewis Gaddis
(2005) The Cold War
-
- Khrushchev saved
communist regime in
Cuba from US invasion +
negotiated for US to
remove Jupiter missiles
from Turkey
- Kennedy kept election
promise and stood up to
USSR to get missiles out
of Cuba
- Soviet missile crisis
drove both leaders to
avoid a similar
confrontation
- Crisis paved way for
détente and greater
communication
- John Smith (1998) The
Cold War (2nd ed)
-
Paragraph 4: Limited test ban treaty
Content
Sources to mention
- Signed in Moscow, 1963
- Niall Ferguson - The War
- Prohibited nuclear
weapon tests everywhere
but underground
of the World Episode 5
(economic determinist
historian)
Link/contrast to sources
- On 22 October, Kennedy
openly spoke to the
nation of Khrushchev’s
“quote”
- In comparison, Oxford
historical textbooks claim
that the missiles were
placed there as a
deterrent to the US’s
missiles in Turkey
- Historian John Lewis
Gladdis, in his book The
Cold War believes that
Kennedy didn’t want to
be seen as weak which is
the reasoning behind the
naval blockade of Cuba
- Other sources also
suggest it was to prevent
further weaponry from
being sent to Cuba
- John Smith, author of
The Cold War noted that
the Cuban Missile Crisis
ended well for all sides –
[points]
-
Link/contrast to sources
- Historian Niall Ferguson
in his documentary The
War of the World
intelligently adds that one
reason for this treaty was
- Pledged signatories to
work toward complete
disarmament – end
armament race +
contamination of
environment
-
-
-
that less money could be
invested into weaponry
and more into the
economy and living
standards
-
Conclusion: despite the positives of the prevention of nuclear war due to peaceful
coexistence, the policy itself proved unsuccessful as the arms race continued to
escalate and there was an extreme lack of trust behind the scenes – which is the
reason why no power abandoned their back-up weapons and why nuclear weaponry
continued to be developed.
QUESTION 2: DÉTENTE: How successful was detente as an American strategy
from 1968-1979?
Epigraph: “Detente is a readiness to resolve differences and conflicts not by force, not by
threats and sabre-rattling, but by peaceful means, at the conference table.” -Leonid
Brezhnev, Soviet leader, 1977
Intro+Thesis: Détente was a period of improved relations and communications
between the US and USSR aiming to reduce tension and possibility of nuclear
warfare. The development of both the SALT 1 and SALT 2 treaties in the end proved
useless, as with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, [point], and détente was officially
declared a failure at Reagan’s election in 1981, where he changed the focus to
[point].
Paragraph 1: 1969: Salt 1: limiting arms race
Content
Sources to mention
Link/contrast to sources
- US found it increasingly
difficult to finance global
military presence, but
didn’t want to appear
weak
- Freeze on different
missiles and bombers, as
well as attempts to
prevent nuclear warfare
- Not only did these
agreements restrict
weaponry, but they
facilitated discussions
and relations between
the powers which led to
more accommodation of
each others political
interests and strategic
necessities
- Soviets mainly took part
in Salt 1 agreements in
order to improve
relations, allowing them
to benefit from agriculture
- Historian Allan Todd in
Cambridge The Cold
War: Superpower
tensions and rivalries
- John Lewis Gladdis –
The Cold War
-
- Historian Allan Todd in
book details the terms of
the agreement
- Also provides a valuable
perspective on the Soviet
motivation to take part in
this agreement – for own
gain
- Historian John Lewis
Gladdis also notably
argues that seeking
détente was only way of
ensuring stability of
Soviet spheres of
influence around Europe
-
and technological
advancements
-
Paragraph 2: 1979: Salt 2:
Content
Sources to mention
- More controversial as US
was less happy to
compromise than they
did in Salt 1
- More focused on nuclear
weapons in attempt to
clearly move away from
nuclear warfare
- Difficult to negotiate
terms as both sides had
different military
strategies, where the US
focused more on
accuracy of small
missiles but USSR
focused on larger arrow
heads
- Attempt to prevent the
acceleration of the arms
race
- Also limited further
experimentation of
specific weaponry, again
putting a cap on the arms
race
- Salt 1 limited military
forces of each country,
while Salt 2 allowed
growth but not increase
in speed or technological
advancement
- Historian Allan Todd in
Cambridge The Cold
War: Superpower
tensions and rivalries
- John Lewis Gladdis –
The Cold War
Paragraph 3: 1979: Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
Content
Sources to mention
- A fight of ideology
- Involved the Soviets
invading Afghanistan in
the hope of reestablishing the
communist regime there
- The US, on the other
hand, wanted
- Brzezinski "We didn't
push the Russians to
intervene, but we
knowingly increased the
probability that they
would...That secret
operation was an
excellent idea. It had the
Link/contrast to sources
- Allan Todd focuses more
on the treaty’s
agreements, while
Gladdis provides the
perspective of
motivations from certain
powers, in that both sides
were struggling
financially but wanted to
appear the dominant
power – opening the
possibility for such an
agreement
-
Link/contrast to sources
- Brzezinski offers a
valuable perspective
from just after the events,
detailing the knowing
“increased probability”
that his country was
having on the Soviets
-
-
-
-
-
Afghanistan to remain
separate and to prevent
the spread of
communism
US instituted a trade
embargo and boycotted
the Olympics in Moscow
Tried their best to
prevent the Soviet
success, especially as it
went against the treaty
Since the US blocked
trade, Soviets eventually
left
Geneva accords
eventually signed for
USSR to withdraw forces
from Afghanistan
Brzezinski also reflects
on these events
effect of drawing the
Soviets into the Afghan
trap ... The day that the
Soviets officially crossed
the border, I wrote to
President Carter "We
now have the opportunity
of giving to the Soviet
Union its Vietnam War."
- Historian Allan Todd in
The Cold War
-
- Historian allan todd also
knowledgeably highlights
the US’ response to the
Soviet invasion – their
blockade as a result of
the want to prevent
communism from
spreading
Paragraph 4: 1981: Reagan’s election, détente declared failure
Content
Sources to mention
Link/contrast to sources
- Reagan’s election in
1980 was based on an
anti-détente campaign
- His election marked the
end of détente and a
return to cold war
tensions
- Reagan was determined
to increase pressure on
the Soviets and
intimidate them into
making concessions in
the Cold War.
- By accelerating US
production of arms, he
aimed to make the
Soviets fall even further
behind – and was
successful in doing so
-
- “Détente’s been a oneway street that the Soviet
Union has used to
pursue its aims.”
- Reagan believed the Soviets
only took part in Détente
for their own benefit and
not with the correct
interests at heart – a view
also shared by historians
such as []
QUESTION 3: CONFRONTATION AND RECONCILIATION: reasons for the end of
the Cold War (1980–1991): ideological challenges and dissent; economic problems;
arms race.
Epigraph:
Intro+Thesis:
Paragraph 1: Four Summits in Geneva
Content
Sources to mention
Link/contrast to sources
Paragraph 2: Four Summits in Reyjkavik
Content
Sources to mention
Link/contrast to sources
Paragraph 3: Four Summits in Washington
Content
Sources to mention
Link/contrast to sources
Paragraph 4: Four Summits in Moscow
Content
Sources to mention
Link/contrast to sources
-