Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: First world cold war
This investigation assesses the success of the policies of Henry Kissinger during the tense period of the Cold War and the sequential years, specifically pertaining to the peace summits with Russian officials in 1972 and 1973 with regard to the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties. This investigation evaluates Kissinger’s impact during the period of the SALT treaties on the reduction of nuclear arms and the implementation of détente. Specifically, how Kissinger got what he wanted, the risks involved, and the outcome of the treaties. The sources used, Détente and the Nixon Doctrine, by Robert S. Litwak and Kissinger: 1973, The Crucial Year, by Alistair Horne, will then be evaluated for their origins, purposes, values, and limitations.
B. Summary of the Evidence
On January 20, 1969, Richard Milhouse Nixon became the 37th president of the United States and faced great challenges at home and on the world front . Richard Nixon selected Henry Kissinger to be his assistant for National Security Affairs. Under their control for the next 6 years, they oversaw the formation of détente and the creation of Triangular Diplomacy. The Nixon-Kissinger strategy in approaching the Soviet Union was full of contradictions and risks. One of the most severe and most notable risks was the potential preemptive nuclear strike that the Soviets were threatening to take against China; an attempt by the Soviets to bully the Chinese into negotiating the Sino-Soviet border. Becoming involved in the Soviet affairs was very dangerous, because as Kissinger observed, the balance of power due to missile strength was shifting from the United States holding the upper hand to that of the Soviets being in control . Kissinger, upon realization of this fact, ...
... middle of paper ...
...thin the global community by reducing the threat of nuclear war through the reduction of arms and helping each superpower to share a newfound respect and understanding of the other, both welcoming the long awaited period of stability. The détente that Kissinger so actively campaigned for created a new method of cooperation between the superpowers, effectively decreasing the intensity of the conflict felt during the Cold War Era.
Works Cited
Aitken, Jonathan. Nixon: A Life. London: Regnery Pub. 1993.
Ambrose, Stephen. Nixon: The Education of a Politician. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1987.
Horne, Alistair. Kissinger:1973, The Crucial Year. New York: Simon and Schuster. 2009.
Kissinger, Henry. The Years of Upheaval. Canada: Little, Brown and Company. 1982.
Litwak, Robert. Détente and the Nixon Doctrine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1984.
The presidencies of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton both exemplify a desire to reshape world affairs after the ending of the Cold War in 1991 and the subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union. Although the United States had unrivalled economic and power after the war, neither president sought to adopt the aggressive rhetoric of predecessor Ronald Reagan, as it was feared that this may impair relations with nations that the U.S. wanted to maintain. Both Bush and Clinton considered the fostering of positive relationships around the world hugely important on the basis that it was hoped former Soviet states in Europe and countries in East Asia would adopt a democratic political system and laissez-faire neoliberal economy much like the U.S., thereby ensuring the
The alliance formed between the US and USSR during the second world war was not strong enough to overcome the decades of uneasiness which existed between the two ideologically polar opposite countries. With their German enemy defeated, the two emerging nuclear superpowers no longer had any common ground on which to base a political, economical, or any other type of relationship. Tensions ran high as the USSR sought to expand Soviet influence throughout Europe while the US and other Western European nations made their opposition to such actions well known. The Eastern countries already under Soviet rule yearned for their independence, while the Western countries were willing to go to great lengths to limit Soviet expansion. "Containment of 'world revolution' became the watchword of American foreign policy throughout the 1950s a...
Eisenhower’s foreign policy was about containment and trying to discourage other countries from joining it by giving them financial and military aid. When he realized that containment itself was not enough to stop the Soviet expansion, he adopted a policy which he called massive retaliation whereby the U.S. was prepared to use atomic weapons if they were to be attacked. He tried diplomacy to develop relation with the Soviets even agreeing to join other leaders in Geneva Switzerland with the intention to calm the temperatures between the two nations. When diplomacy didn’t work, he signed a bill that allowed countries to request economic and military help from the U.S. if they are being attacked by a communist nation. Cold War did not end until after Ronald Reagan’s time as president when he challenged the leader of the Soviet to take down the Berlin wall which was the most recognizable symbol of the Cold War. At this time, the Soviet Union was disintegrating and its influence in Eastern Europe was waning fast bringing the war to an
The Cold War was a period of dark and melancholic times when the entire world lived in fear that the boiling pot may spill. The protectionist measures taken by Eisenhower kept the communists in check to suspend the progression of USSR’s radical ambitions and programs. From the suspenseful delirium from the Cold War, the United States often engaged in a dangerous policy of brinksmanship through the mid-1950s. Fortunately, these actions did not lead to a global nuclear disaster as both the US and USSR fully understood what the weapons of mass destruction were capable of.
During the Cold War, the United States engaged in many aggressive policies both at home and abroad, in which to fight communism and the spread of communist ideas. Faced with a new challenge and new global responsibilities, the U.S. needed to retain what it had fought so strongly for in World War II. It needed to contain the communist ideas pouring from the Soviet Union while preventing communist influence at home, without triggering World War III. With the policies of containment, McCarthyism, and brinkmanship, the United States hoped to effectively stop the spread of communism and their newest threat, the Soviet Union. After the war, the United States and the Soviet Union had very different ideas on how to rebuild.
The major factor that led to the true end of the Cold War was the ongoing personal and diplomatic relationship between Presidents George H. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev. This resulted in the reduction of the Russian military and favorable arms agreements. Key indicators of the substance behind this relationship were the Soviet troop withdrawals from Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, and Hungary (lifting the Hungarian/Austrian “Iron Curtain” along the border). Subsequently the opening of the Berl...
Reagan rose into power after years of turmoil and the American pride was dipping. About a decade before he became president, the war in Viet-Nam was winding down and the troops were returning home to negative demonstrations towards their duty. Then, during the Carter years, America transitioned into a détente policy, which meant that the United States would try to ease the tensions with the Soviet Union by not expanding the military, but not doing anything to acting ease the tension. The idea behind this became known as MAD, mutually assured destruction, (Hannaford) which meant that both the United States and Soviet Union would maintain and even number of nuclear weapons so that if one would fire, the other would be able to fire back equally. Reagan completely disagreed with this philosophy and created a whole new policy when he became president. The foreign policy he established was to create the Reagan Doctrine. According to a speech by Peter Hannaford, the Reagan Doctrine was that America would support democratic movements in any Communist country until that country could enjoy the fruits of freedom (Hannaford). This meant that the United States would help any country who wanted to leave the influence of the Soviet Union and create their own democracy. Also, to counter the Soviet Union and end the Cold War, a race between the United State and Soviet Union to create the best technology and become the world powerhouse, Reagan increased military spending. Ronald Reagan knew that the Soviet Union was unable to keep up the United States in military spending and still having enough funds to fund their own economy to keep it stable. Reagan used this knowledge to convince Congress to increase military budget to build up technology, causing the Soviets decide on what to do. The United States had the funds to continue, but the Soviet Union could not keep up. The breaking point
In the Early Years: 1961-1963, Kennedy administration and Vietnam take flight. Assumptions behind the administration's decisions to increase U.S involvement in Vietnam strains two very important aspects that would gainsay obligation; one, the fall of South Vietnam to Communist control and the U.S military role and support. Discussion of knowledgeable ties to Southeast Asia emerged. Lack of governmental experts created obstacles. When the Berlin crisis occurred in 1961and during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, President Kennedy was able to turn to senior people like Llewellyn Thompson, Charles Bohlen and George Keenan, who knew the Soviets intimately. There were no senior officials in the Pentagon or State Department with comparable knowledge of Southeast Asia. Ultimately, the administration failed to critically analyze their assumptions and the foundations of their decisions, which inevitable ended in disaster.
“Was Truman Responsible for the Cold War”, well, according to author Arnold A. Offner, his simplistic answer is an obvious “yes.” “Taking Sides” is a controversial aspect of the author’s interpretation for justifying his position and perception of “Truman’s” actions. This political approach is situated around the “Cold War” era in which the author scrutinizes, delineates, and ridicules his opponents by claiming “I have an ace in the hole and one showing” (SoRelle 313). Both authors provide the readers with intuitive perceptions for their argumentative approaches in justifying whether or not “Truman” contributed to the onset of the “Cold War.” Thus far, it would be hard-pressed to blame one single individual, President or not, for the “Cold War” initiation/s. Information presented show the implications centered on the issues leading up to the Cold War”, presents different ideologies of two Presidents involving policy making, and a national relationship strained by uncooperative governments. However, evidence that is presented may indicate otherwise as Joseph Stalin provides adequate counter claims for discrediting the “simplicity” of “yes”.
The Soviet Union began to view the United States as a threat to communism, and the United States began to view the Soviet Union as a threat to democracy. On March 12, 1947, Truman gave a speech in which he argued that the United States should support nations trying to resist Soviet imperialism. Truman and his advisors created a foreign policy that consisted of giving reconstruction aid to Europe, and preventing Russian expansionism. These foreign policy decisions, as well as his involvement in the usage of the atomic bomb, raise the question of whether or not the Cold War can be blamed on Truman. Supporting the view that Truman was responsible for the Cold War, Arnold Offner argues that Truman’s parochialism and nationalism caused him to make contrary foreign policy decisions without regard to other nations, which caused the intense standoff between the Soviet Union and America that became the Cold War (Offner 291)....
One must wonder; what was Kissinger’s motive? Being pushed by “his boss” President Nixon to prevent communism in Chile at all costs is apparent, as is his friendly relationship with Pinochet that he developed. “I want to see our relations and friendship improve,” Kissinger states in a memoir to Pinochet during his trip to Chile that was intended to speak about human rights concerns (Kornbluh 1999; page 5). But what was truly the underlining motivation that caused Kissinger to risk his job and reputation to keep Pinochet in power? Could it simply be a lack of sympathy? Or was Kissinger just overly fanatical about stopping the spread of Communism?
Glynn, Patrick. Closing Pandora's Box "Arms Races, Arms Control, and the History of the Cold War". New York: HarperCollinsPublishers, Inc. 1992.
President Nixon and Henry Kissinger both believed that the US could ensure its national security and promote its interests by establishing stronger diplomatic relations with the big powers and through that control and influence their decision-making. The US wanted to be the center of this multipolar world, but this could only be achieved by downplaying the importance of ideology towards the Soviet Union and to open up towards China, “(…) which the United States had...
Richard Nixon and his national security advisor, Henry Kissinger, were fully aware of the reality and “waged” détente vigorously to gain advantage in the global competition with the Soviet Union. They did not acknowledge the fact, however, and could not control conflicting public reaction when the Soviet leaders desired to do the same, both by intervening in the third world and by keeping up the arms race. Blame was associated not only to the Soviet leaders but also to the policy of détente, especially in the Ford and Carter
Failure of the Détente Between the Superpowers The French word ‘détente’, which the Oxford English Dictionary describes as “the easing of strained relations, especially in a political situation” (www.oed.com), first appeared in this context when a German newspaper used it to describe the visit of a British monarch at the beginning of the 20th century (Froman, 1991). In this essay, I will attempt to explain the cold war détente between the superpowers of the USA and the USSR in the 1970’s, concentrating first on its positive developments between 1971 and 1973 and then on the events that lead to its ultimate failure, symbolised by the soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. The first real steps of relaxation of tensions were taken with the Moscow summit and the signing of the SALT 1 (Strategic Arms Limitations Talks) agreement in May 1972. The SALT agreement was a staring point for attempts to control nuclear arms, to restrict the impact and spread of nuclear weapons and to secure a balance due to ‘Mutual Assured Destruction’ (the notion that a nuclear attack from one side would lead to a retaliation from the other and therefore both sides would be greatly damaged) between the two superpowers and were to be followed up by further arms limitations talks within the next five years (Kent and Young, 2004). Also, agreements were reached on lowering the risk of accidental confrontation and on cooperation in science, health and environmental issues.