How the Cold War ended
In order to understand the vulnerability of a particular country’s political portfolio, crises are one key factor that is being analyzed. Once a crisis develops, the government’s job is to contain and resolve it. For successful resolution of a crisis, it is important for the government to understand the nature of the crisis and to have a clear vision about the new system it wishes to build from the collapsed system. Militarism is defined as the practice of glorification of the military. The United States and the USSR were in great competition for military might. Each of these two countries was increasing its military spending. This is sometimes referred to as the arms race. These improvements of armies and navies had caused a lot of fear and suspicion among nations. This was not helped by the outbursts of leaders challenging rival countries to flex their military muscles. Of important notice, here is when the U.S and the Soviet decided to spread their sphere of influence. This resulted to a hostile relationship between the two countries. Due to their inclination to indulge in military action, these two countries were on the brink of starting another world war. One communist and the other democratic, hence the cold war, also known as the war of ideologies. The cold war was a war between two super powers that had whole world in disarray.
Policy of Containment
The policy of "containment" has suffered a complete defeat. Pretentious title of the policy was meant for something to distract the attention of world public opinion from the real objectives of U.S. ruling circles. This technique is not new. In 1914, Lenin, denouncing the imperialist desire to cover up the euphonious phrase aggressive creature of its policy, wrote that the way the bourgeoisie is trying to "assure that it tends to defeat the enemy, not for plunder and land-grabbing, but for the" freedom "of all other peoples, but their own.”
More "dynamic" U.S. policy was the so-called policy of "freedom." (Acheson, 1969, 67) in this regard, said: "There is a difference of opinion as to whether, on what we need to focus their hopes for a significant decrease in the power of the Soviets and their effects: the action is internal forces in the Soviet Union, or by applying external pressure. This is - the question of "freedom." Secondly, the question arises of how to stop the further spread of Soviet expansion. This is - the question of "containment". Further, Kennan stressed that "these concepts are not an alternative." "I do not know who of us would not want to reduce the area of Soviet power and Soviet influence - Kennan wrote. - So we're all for the "freedom". I do not know as a person who would consider it desirable to further the spread of Soviet expansion. Therefore, we are for "deterrence." Our differences are only a means to achieve each of these goals.
Year by year, socialism was gaining strength. Authors failed bid policy of "containment" to "physical and mental exhaustion" of the Soviet people as a result of hard years of war. The Soviet people with great enthusiasm took over peace-building. Having concluded as soon as possible the tasks of the restoration period, the Soviet Union was firmly on the path of rapid development of its economy. However, even in those years for many U.S. politicians was obvious futility of the calculations for "exhaustion" of the Soviet people. Visited in 1959, the Soviet Union a major financier and politician (Ambrose, 1984, 68) recalls the first post-war years: "When I was in the Soviet Union, the American ambassador in 1946 - he writes in his book" Peace with Russia? "- A large part of the Soviet Union from western borders to Stalingrad lay in ruins. But the Russian people with their remarkable energy again seeded with wheat steppe. They re-built village and reconstructed the industry. After my departure from the USSR, I watched the reports that the Soviet economic power surpassed...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document