cold war (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter cint
- Start date
i had cominform.. and comecon.. as wel as the american piolicies the marshal plan which were the main source of conflict that led up to berlin(mentioned it briefly) then i dicussed the warsaw pact and how each side wanted the most number of allies which led to conflict best seen in the cuban crisis which was my indepth study.. but the main causes of that crisis was the sphere of interest and ussr's "communist expansionism" policy where they increased the trade agreement with cuba bla bla bla
good question but spent 2 much time on it.
good question but spent 2 much time on it.
chin music
Member
Haha fuck that. I did the nuclear protester question. I thought thered be a question on arms limitation so decided to do a prac essay on that combined with the nuclear protest syllabus point. I reckon i wouldve been able to do the other question as well. It didnt seem too hard. They meant policies eg. social, economic etc. For example the cuban missile was a result of khruschevs aggresive foreign policy and their economic policy (as domestic policy was going well they were able to use some of the money for the nuclear missiles). But yeah the Nuclear protester one seemed easier for me since it wasnt too hard to structure and develop an argument for.
fleepbasding
HSC TUTOR
MAD was a US policy developed by Macnamara. glasnost and perestroika would be very difficult to link with any cold-war crises, especially as it only became a 'policy' under Gorbachev ie- no significant cold war crises under Gorbachev.playboy2njoy said:
so while we may know the policy's, linking them to crises can be a little difficult
besides discussing the american policy's, some of the following could be cited
Bhreznev doctrine
nuclear stockpiling/development of more advanced weapons
"war by proxy"
"rocket rhetoric" of Khruchev
and of course, the general expansionism/empire building
mind you, my essay wasn't that crash hot... well, it was but I only talked about one crisis, so that may cause me to do badly.
C
Crazy Pomo
Guest
Yeah. MAD was Americans. Peace co - existence wouldnt have led to crises, more inhibited them, which I spose you can relate in the context of the 'to what extent' question. What they were really asking, I though personally, was to what extent did soviet policies, which means you can easily talk about american policies and the reacitive policies between the two, which is actually the source of some of the crises. However, competition of geopolitical 'spheres of influence' were part of the hotspots, as was economic competition. The nature of the questions asked you to evaluate the extent of the policies (which were influential but not the ONLY reason) of USSR's policies which were basically expansionist (but in some cases expansion was defensive and others aggressive.) I mentioned heaps of American policies and linked them so I hope that doesn't fuck me around.playboy2njoy said:
C
Crazy Pomo
Guest
"A crisis of geopolitical and idealogical proportions, fueled by competing policies"
"A crisis of geopolitical and idealogical proportions, fueled by competing policies"
or some incredibly superflous irrational and down right incorrect bullshit! Hah. Modern history owns.
Definately, I forgot to mention Brezhnev Doctrin and 'rocket rhetoric' but I mentioned the rest. My essay wasn't brilliant ... well. "in depth" I had issues with, as my analysis of the CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS was 'in depth' historiographically (quotes from gaddis 'act of criminal lunacy (fuck yeah!), and quotes from kennedy and Khreshchev. "War by proxy" was an ingenius method that the Soviets followed in various areas, especially in Korea, Suez and 'Nam. In my conclusion 'to what extent' I managed to throw in the names of Suez, Hungarian, and something else. I mainly did CMC but also did a poor job of Vietnam, all the while knowing full well that it was a war and not a crisis as such. I think I said it was like ...fleepbasding said:
"A crisis of geopolitical and idealogical proportions, fueled by competing policies"
or some incredibly superflous irrational and down right incorrect bullshit! Hah. Modern history owns.
C
Crazy Pomo
Guest
Are you quite sure? Im not doubting you but I was under the impression that it went along with 'massive retaliation.' Of either McNamara or Dulles (pretty sure it was McNamara) either way i didnt mention it. So poo you. I read somewhere where Reagan referred to 'ending the madness of MAD' would he refer to it if it was a journalists creation. Probablyplayboy2njoy said:
fleepbasding
HSC TUTOR
um, yes it was. Robert Macnamara formulated it (I think) and it entailed having the nuclear capability to cause atleast 50% of casualties on USSR even if the USSR struck first. Mutually assured destruction.playboy2njoy said:
fleepbasding
HSC TUTOR
EDIT- wikipedia...
"It was only with the advent of ballistic missile submarines, starting with the George Washington class submarine in 1959, that a survivable nuclear force became possible and second strike capability credible. This was not fully understood until the 1960s when the strategy of mutually assured destruction was first fully described, largely by United States Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara.
In McNamara's formulation, MAD meant that nuclear nations either had first strike or second strike capability. A nation with first strike capability would be able to destroy the entire nuclear arsenal of another nation and thus prevent any nuclear retaliation. Second strike capability indicated that a nation could promise to respond to a nuclear attack with enough force to make such a first attack highly undesirable. According to McNamara, the arms race was in part an attempt to make sure that no nation gained first strike capability."
"It was only with the advent of ballistic missile submarines, starting with the George Washington class submarine in 1959, that a survivable nuclear force became possible and second strike capability credible. This was not fully understood until the 1960s when the strategy of mutually assured destruction was first fully described, largely by United States Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara.
In McNamara's formulation, MAD meant that nuclear nations either had first strike or second strike capability. A nation with first strike capability would be able to destroy the entire nuclear arsenal of another nation and thus prevent any nuclear retaliation. Second strike capability indicated that a nation could promise to respond to a nuclear attack with enough force to make such a first attack highly undesirable. According to McNamara, the arms race was in part an attempt to make sure that no nation gained first strike capability."
fleepbasding
HSC TUTOR
but you're right in part about it not being an official policy. though "assured destruction" is obviously an integral aspect of a wider policy of deterrance. Here's what wikipedia says about it's interpretation as an official policy...
"MAD as official policy
Whether or not MAD was ever the accepted doctrine of the United States military during the Cold War is largely a matter of interpretation. The term MAD was not coined by the military but was, however, based on the policy of "Assured Destruction" advocated by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara during the 1960s. The U.S. Air Force, for example, has retrospectively contended that it never advocated MAD and that this form of deterrence was seen as one of a number of options in U.S. nuclear policy. Former officers have emphasized that they never felt as limited by the logic of MAD (and were prepared to use nuclear weapons in smaller scale situations than "Assured Destruction" allowed), and didn't deliberately target civilian cities (though they acknowledge that the result of a "purely military" attack would certainly devastate the cities as well).
MAD was certainly implied in a number of U.S. policies, though, and certainly used in the political rhetoric of leaders in both the USA and the USSR during many periods of the Cold War. The differences between MAD and a general theory of deterrence, the latter of which was certainly embodied in both rhetoric and technological decisions made by the U.S. and USSR, varies more along the lines of strictness of interpretation than they do categorical definitions."
I think it would be more than fair to discuss MAD as a US policy as long as you mentioned that it is a "branch" of deterrance.
"MAD as official policy
Whether or not MAD was ever the accepted doctrine of the United States military during the Cold War is largely a matter of interpretation. The term MAD was not coined by the military but was, however, based on the policy of "Assured Destruction" advocated by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara during the 1960s. The U.S. Air Force, for example, has retrospectively contended that it never advocated MAD and that this form of deterrence was seen as one of a number of options in U.S. nuclear policy. Former officers have emphasized that they never felt as limited by the logic of MAD (and were prepared to use nuclear weapons in smaller scale situations than "Assured Destruction" allowed), and didn't deliberately target civilian cities (though they acknowledge that the result of a "purely military" attack would certainly devastate the cities as well).
MAD was certainly implied in a number of U.S. policies, though, and certainly used in the political rhetoric of leaders in both the USA and the USSR during many periods of the Cold War. The differences between MAD and a general theory of deterrence, the latter of which was certainly embodied in both rhetoric and technological decisions made by the U.S. and USSR, varies more along the lines of strictness of interpretation than they do categorical definitions."
I think it would be more than fair to discuss MAD as a US policy as long as you mentioned that it is a "branch" of deterrance.
C
Crazy Pomo
Guest
Anyway. I think most modern history teachers and markers would think it was a policy. Idiots. Interesting though. Long live research.
leetom
there's too many of them!
That question just cried out for reference to the Brezhnev Doctrine. Come on, a policy which gives the USSR the right to invade another country in order to 'safeguard socialism'? Of course it's going to be a major contributing factor to the development of a crisis!
chin music
Member
I disagree. It gave the USSR the right to invade communist countries. And according to the Truman Doctrine (containment), the United States wouldnt interfere in communist countries. So the 2 policies sort of make sure there wont be conflict as a result of those 2 policies. I reckon maybe u could mention COMECON, which was the USSR counter to the Marshall plan. Maybe the Soviets policy and aims for deterrence as well. Other then that i cant think of much. Thats y i didnt do the question. If it asked for US policies, that would have been way better.
fleepbasding
HSC TUTOR
yeah, Breznev would've been good. But I can only really see it in play in the Prague Spring of 1968. Even in this case, the Breznev doctrine was implemented in response to The Prague Spring and as justification for the Soviet Unions quelling of the rebellion. What other crises could you link it to?leetom said:
chin music- does a 'cold war crisis' have to be relating strictly to conflict between the superpowers? Can't it just be a crisis- when things go wrong and tension breaks out into violence?
chin music
Member
Well from memory there were 7 crises. Berlin blockade, Cuban Missile Crisis, Angola Civil War, Invasion of Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Another Berlin one and the Korean War. I guess the Brezhnev Doctrine could relate to the Angola crisis but i never really did that in depth. From what i know (i could be wrong) was that Angola wasn't a communist country thus making the Brezhnev doctrine irreleventfleepbasding said:
fleepbasding
HSC TUTOR
yeah, I don't think Breznev doctrine would be relevant to Angola. Much more sticky and complicated situation there.chin music said:
but you know, what the fuck would the markers know? You could practically rewrite history and get away with it for the HSC.
C
Crazy Pomo
Guest
Amen. (Prays to Anne McCallum)fleepbasding said:
chin music
Member
Ye thats y i love history. The best thing is making up a historian that agrees with your argument.fleepbasding said: