War of Ideologies Known as the Cold War - Literature review Example

The Cold War (Name) (University Affiliation) (Date) Introduction Immediately after the Second World War, both the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R) and the United States of America were considered as the world’s strongest nations; in fact, they were referred to as the superpowers. Notably, these two superpowers had different ideologies when it came to economics and government: the U.S.A advocated for capitalism while the U.S.S.R pursued communism (Hobsbawm, 1995). In the capitalist government, people, as well as the businesses, were in charge of the production of goods hence had the right to choose where they wanted to live as well as work. Conversely, the communist government is closely associated with a situation whereby the government is in charge of the production as well as resources hence decide where people should work and live. With these two distinct conceptualizations, the two countries fought a war of ideologies known as the Cold War (Hobsbawm, 1995). Many authors have discussed the Cold War hence coming up with various school of thoughts. In effect, this paper will primarily look at Hobsbawm’s (1995) view of the Cold War as well as how it relates and contradicts with other authors’ perspectives. In his book “Age of Extremes,” more so in Chapter eight, which touches on the Cold War, Hobsbawm’s handling of the Cold War breaks ranks with customary leftist elucidations, again with estimable outcomes beyond anything that can be outlined during the Cold War era. Hobsbawm (1995, p.226) Posits that though there was no other world war after the World War II, there were significant tensions that culminated from two renowned camps: the USA and the Soviet Union. The tension, which was later named the Cold War, dominated the international scene in the second half of the 20th century. As Hobsbawm (1995, p.226) postulates, the generations that lived after the World War I and II grew up with constant fear that was geared by the potential global nuclear battles, whereby each camp often flaunted its military mightiness through sending out propaganda messages. With the constant global nuclear battles, many military and political scientists believed that the Third World War would break out any moment hence devastating humanity. Evidently, even those who never believed neither of the camps and the intentions of attacking the other found it totally difficult to be pessimistic. As years passed by, the fear of a mutual assured destruction associated with any slightest initiation of the powerful nuclear weapons is what helped the third world war from happening. Both camps knew what the technological advancement with respect to the nuclear weapons were capable of doing if they were put into use; therefore, both the U.S.A and U.S.S.R desisted from taking that direction. Any slightest provocation could have led to a permanent nuclear confrontation which could translate into what Hobsbawm (1995, p.226) calls a planned suicide of civilization. Even though the war did not take place, for approximately forty years, it seemed a daily possibility. According to Hobsbawm (1995, p.226) the uniqueness of the Cold War, was the fact that no imminent threat of world war occurred. Despite, the apocalyptic rhetoric, which was characterized by both the U.S.A and the U.S.S.R, both the governments accepted the international distribution of force after the World War II, which brought about a significantly uneven but fundamentally unopposed equilibrium of power. Specifically, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics predominantly controlled as well as influenced one part of the world, that is, the zone primarily occupied by the other typical communists armed force also known as Red Army. While controlling this part of the globe, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics U.S.S.R never attempted to extend its influence further through the use of military force. On the other hand, the United States of America exercised dominance as well as influence over the capitalist-oriented nations, oceans as well as the western hemisphere. The U.S.A did not infiltrate the universally accepted Soviet hegemony. This perspective is also shared by Herken (2014) who posits U.S.A and U.S.S.R managed to maintain the world peace by each superpower sticking to its zone. As Herken (2014) explicates, U.S.S.R’s claim to be the world power, especially after its first explosion of the atomic bomb in 1953 as well as the explosion of the first hydrogen bomb, could no longer be disputed. As such, it took control of the communist world which specifically covered Central and Eastern Europe; the Soviet Union did not extend its communist territory hence avoiding creating conflict with U.S.S.R (Herken, 2014). Just like Hobsbawm (1995) discussed in his book, “Age of Extremes,” Herken (2014) posits that the U.S.A maintained its dominance in the capitalist zone referred to as the Western block. To avoid provoking the Soviet Union, the United States did not attempt to extend its military influence in Eastern Block. To give a clear territorial mapping, Hobsbawm (1995) gives a chronology of events that happened during the Cold War. Hobsbawm (1995) posits that the demarcation lines in Europe were drawn between 1943 and 1945 based on the agreement reached after various summit meetings had been held between Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill. The demarcation events were not actualized without some uncertainties. For instance, Germany and Austria had some issues regarding the demarcation, but the issue was resolved by partitioning Germany along the lines of the Western and Eastern occupation forces as well as the removal of all ex-belligerents from Austria. Though reluctantly, the Soviet Union accepted West Berlin to be controlled by the U.S hence being its Western enclave inside Germany. U.S.S.R was not ready to launch a fight for this territory. Hobsbawm (1995) also gives an overall perspective of what transpired outside Europe with regards to demarcation and states that the process was less clear-cut. He asserts that apart from Japan, where the United States initiated a totally unilateral occupation, the other regions were somewhat unambiguous. Both the U.S.S.R and U.S.A sought to establish their dominance in post-colonial states in order to gain support and as well as influence hence continue being the world super powers. Hobsbawm (1995) point out that unlike Europe, areas to be put under capitalism and communism control could not be negotiated as well as predicted. Interestingly enough, conditions for global stability started to surface within some few years after the World War II and a considerable number of post-colonial states including those that were unsympathetic to America and its camp had embraced the idea of capitalism. Many countries found themselves embracing capitalism since it was the only way to improve the economy as well as compete in the international business. Even China, which initially was in the communist zone, found itself changing into a capitalist state and this is the reason it is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. As Hobsbawm (1995) narrates, the world situation became relatively stable after the World War II and remained like that until the mid-1990s when the international/global system, as well as its components, entered into another period of lengthy political as well as economic crisis. Until then, both the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics accepted as well as agreed on the uneven partition of the world and also put all the measures in place to ensure that all the demarcation disputes could be settled without war. Contrary to Cold War rhetoric as well as ideology, the two camps worked on the belief that long-standing peaceful coexistence between them was probable hence chose this path of tranquility. This view is buttressed by LaFeber (2008) who asserts that despite the tensions that were triggered by the Cold War, the United States, and the Soviet Union resolved to settle on the division of the partitions without necessarily involving their military forces however uneven the division would be. Even though the author seems to argue that there was agreement on the division of regions amongst the superpowers, he admits that there was some point in time when a real danger of a world war almost happened. The most tensed period during the Cold War, which almost resulted into war was between 1947, during the formal emancipation of the Truman Doctrine and when President Truman dismissed General Douglas MacArthur in 1951. General MacArthur was dismissed while on duty in the Korean War which took place between 1950 and 1953 (LaFeber, 2008); he was terminated because it was believed that he had pushed his ambition too far. During this period, Hobsbawm (1995) asserts that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics went out of their way and acquired nuclear weapons just four years after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki saga of the atomic bomb. This was also nine months after the case of Hydrogen bomb that was used in the U.S. The acquisition of the nuclear weapons indeed triggered fear and the U.S tried as much as possible to ensure that the U.S.S.R was not mischievous. Interestingly, while Hobsbawm (1995) insists that both superpowers collectively agreed to abandon war as a tool for policy against each other, other authors believe otherwise. LaFeber (2008), for instance, believes that after the Yalta Conference which happened in 1945, both the United States of America and the Soviet Union showed technically contentment with the agreements reached. However, inside the two camps, they were suspicious of each and the suspicion even grew more when the U.S.S.R acquired nuclear weapons, which was against the U.S wish. LaFeber (2008) adds that the Cold War failed to bear a third world war because each side feared the military capability of the other. Thus, it is somewhat difficult to agree with some of Hobsbawm’s (1995) arguments regarding the abandoning of the use of weapons in settling disputes during the cold war. However, LaFeber (2008) and Hobsbawm’s (1995) agree on one thing: that even though both the Soviet Union and the United States did not use their nuclear weapon even against third party such as in the case of U.S.A in Korea in 1951 and U.S.S.R in China in 1969. Besides, they both used the threat of nuclear weapons to scare each other. According to these two authors, both the United States and the U.S.S.R used the threat of nuclear weapons without the intensions to use them. For instance, the U.S.A used the nuclear power threat to speed up the negotiations in Vietnam in 1954 and in Korea in 1953. On the hand, the U.S.S.R used its nuclear threat to force France as well as Britain to pull out of Suez in 1956. In other words, neither the U.S.A nor U.S.S.R wanted to launch their nuclear weapons hence, they used the nuclear gesticulation to push for negotiations whenever necessary (LaFeber, 2008). Even though Hobsbawm (1995) maintains that neither of the superpowers wanted war, their continuous threats racked the nerves of many leaders as well as generations and such tension was unnecessary as it could have plunged the world into war if things went out of the way. He, for instance, argues that the Cuba Missile Crisis was purely unnecessary as it initiated tension and even frightened top world decision-makers. With forty years of Cold War scenario, whereby superpowers continuously engaged in nuclear power development competition and mobilized confrontation, there was a significant assumption by political scientists that a third world war was unstoppable as the globe was unstable. Economists, international relations pundits as well as world leaders believed that the world of capitalism as well liberal society was far from being a reality. Many observers forecasted a significant post-war economic crisis whereby the rate of unemployment would rapidly burgeon, and industrial dislocation would also be witnessed just like it happened in the World War I and II. Hobsbawm’s (1995) observes that post-war situation relatively undermined the condition of moderate politicians in both the liberated and occupied countries. He notes that the moderate politician did have much support except from the Western allies, and that they were beset by the communists who had emerged stronger after the World War II and as such had the largest parties as well as electoral forces of their nations. In fact, at one point France’s premier went to Washington and demanded for economic support or else he would fall into the trap of the communists. This among other warnings from susceptible nations made the European politicians as well as American leadership more nervous as they were afraid that the U.S.S.R communist ideology would be embraced by a considerable number of countries. According to Hobsbawm’s (1995, p.231) it is such circumstances that led the once allies (The United States and U.S.S.R) to completely fall out based on two distinct ideologies: capitalism and communism. One thing that authors of the Cold War have failed to understand is the reason the State Department Professionals proclaimed that the world would face an apocalyptic scenario whereby that would be brought about by the differences in ideology between the U.S.S.R and United States (Herken, 2014). According to Hobsbawm (1995, p.32) the pessimistic assumptions and statements made by the United States and Britain were outrageous and uncalled for since the U.S.S.R was not interested in extending its influence that is related to communism beyond its zone that was agreed in the summits hence there was no probable war. In fact, in 1948, the U.S.S.R significantly demobilized its troops hence decreasing the number of the Red Army from thirteen million in 1945 to approximately three million by the late 1948 (Herken, 2014). Thus, on a rational assessment, the Soviet Union did not pose any danger to anyone outsides its zone. The Soviet Union could not sustain another war especially after it had been drained as well exhausted economically in the previous world wars. The only thing that the U.S.S.R was afraid of was that capitalism would continue for a long time under the hegemony of the United State, which would in turn increase the U.S wealth and power. Hence, the quest to influence other countries to be communists as well as well as take the nuclear power threat posture was not aggressive but defensive (Becker-Schaum et al., 2016). Different from Hobsbawm’s (1995) view that the cold war came by as a result of the difference in ideologies, Herken (2014) believes that even if both the Superpowers shared the same ideology with respect to communism and capitalism, a confrontation resulting in a cold war could still have transpired. A confrontation would still be viable because the Soviet Union was conscious of the precariousness as well as insecurity of its position, and was facing the world power of United States. On the other hand, the United States was also conscious of its precariousness as well as insecurity of Central and Western Europe and besides, it was uncertain about Asia’s future. The fact that the U.S.S.R had cut itself from the outside world was also enough to make the U.S.A suspicious of U.S.S.R hence the existence of a confrontation. In short, just as Herken (2014)states, the U.S.S.R was afraid of United States hegemony of all the other parts of the world that had not been occupied by the Red Army. Conversely, the United States was concerned about the danger of possible Soviet world supremacy in the future. From the book, “Age of Extremes” it is evident that the Cold War involved the commitment of both superpowers to an insane arms race that could lead to mutual destruction. The nuclear generals from both camps were very much eager to show their nuclear prowess hence struggling to further their military science research and innovation that made them not to realize the insanity that they could be plunging the world into. President Joseph Stalin of U.S.S.R and Harry Truman encouraged their governments to employ their resources including the available tactics in order to attract as well as arm their allies and clients. Besides, they encouraged their governments to win profitable exports markets. It is during this period that the British also acquired their first atomic bombs in 1952 later on, the Chinese and French governments also acquired these bombs in the 1960s though none of these events provoked a world war. The cold war continued up to the 1970s as and 1980s when other countries also acquired the capacity to develop these nuclear weapons. Similar to Hobsbawm’s (1995) assertions, Becker-Schaum et al. (2016) asserts that the Cold War was associated with the supremacy ideology; every camp wanted to contain the other. In other words, both the superpowers struggled to maintain their relevance with respect to being the world most powerful state. Becker-Schaum et al. (2016) also posit that the Cold War involved the frenetic nuclear arms race between the Soviet Union and the United States. Even though the two powers struggled to acquire nuclear weapons, they were never used. The cold war came along with political consequences and as Becker-Schaum et al. (2016) assert, the world was polarized into two camps: those that supported capitalism and those that embraced communism. As such, the U.S.A continued to sell their agenda that was associated with democracy and a free world where trade can take place while the U.S.S.R decided to rule using communism and applied much dictatorship; other pro-Communists such as Cuba also followed suite. During the Cold War, the U.S.A realized that in order to make Europe a capitalist environment, it decided to launch a European recovery scheme. This aggressive economic recovery was done using grants instead of loans. The U.S.A did this expecting to gain from the European export market that it was initiating. Unfortunately, the plan did not yield fruits as France had entangled the West German and French affairs hence coming up with a European union known as the Coal and Steel Community in 1950 (Hobsbawm’s, 1995, p.52). Later on, the union was named the European Community and in 1993, it again changed to what is today known as the European Union. Even though both the U.S.A and U.S.S.R struggled to stamp their authority in the Europe with respect to dominance, the European Union managed to overcome all these efforts thus imposing its own international behavior. Towards the end of the Cold War, the U.S.A was already weak economically as it had invested a considerable amount of resources in the European economic recovery plan. The Japanese and the European economies, which the U.S had rescued as well as rebuilt, were now rapidly growing. The U.S had little let with respect to its hegemony over its previous zones. Hobsbawm (1995) posits that the weakness was also evident in its military such that it had to be helped willingly during the 1991 Gulf War, which was aimed at Iraq’s oppressive regime. References Becker-Schaum, C., Gassert, P., Klimke, M. and Mausbach, W. eds., 2016. The Nuclear Crisis: The Arms Race, Cold War Anxiety, and the German Peace Movement of the 1980s (Vol. 19). Berghahn Books. Herken, G., 2014. The winning weapon: The atomic bomb in the cold war, 1945-1950. Princeton University Press. Hobsbawm, E. J., 1995. The age of extremes: A history of the world, 1914-1991. Pantheon Books. LaFeber, W., 2008. America, Russia and the Cold War 1945-2006. McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages. Read More