Distinctive Features Ofcoldwar Essay, Research Paper

The Cold War was an historical phenomenon categorised by non-combative warfare due to the ever-present threat of nuclear weaponry armament. It began post World War II between what was the Soviet Union and the United States of America (US), as a mutual condemnation of each other’s social, political and economic ideals embodied in polar ideologies: communism and capitalism under a liberal democratic state. As the Cold War developed, it became used by the US to contain communism. The USSR tacitly challenged the US to a technological race, in which, for all major dimensions except space in the late 1950s, the US was in the lead. Most significatly, it resulted in the escalation of nuclear weapons which dictated their respective foreign policies until the arms race ended for Russia in a forced strategic retreat in the mid-1980s. Ironically, this was due to the state of the devasting domestice economy which could no longer withstand excessive military expenditure. The Cold War was essentially distinguished by the nuclear peace that was created, but it also had an economic and globalising effect, including on the Third World, as both Superpowers strove to limit each other’s influence. Many agree that the Cold War ended with the demolition of the Berlin Wall just over a decade ago. We have just had a enough retrospectivity to view the chronological progression and to analyse the economic consequences.

In 1945, a capitalist victory could hardly have been predetermined as capitalism had crashed badly during the 1930s in the Great Depression. This was quickly followed by World War II, just as Lenin had predicted. The Russians believed that capitalism was an unstable system, ill-suited to organising the future. The Cold War thus facilitated the speedy economic plans and infrastructure that the US quickly implemented in spite of the Russians.

The serving US Ambassador to Moscow sent his famous 8 000-word ‘long telegram’ of 22 February 1946. Summarised, he argued that the Soviet Union could not be reasoned with, only contained. Combined with Churchill’s ‘Iron Curtain’ speech, Washington came face to face with the ideological and strategic realities of the Cold War. Retaliation came in the form of economic universalism with especial exclusion of the Soviet Union.

Goal for both US and USSR states, contrasted greatly at the end of World War II. The Russians, fighting literally for survival, lacked the time or the resources to focus on anything beyond installing authoritarian leadership in the Eastern and Central European satellites. Although global communist expansion was intended, it was felt by the Russians as more of an inevitability that did not require immediate infiltration, least of all economic anarchy. The US on the other hand, had minimal loss during the was and were looking to expand its booming economy. Europe was struggling to recover from the triple effects of two world wars and a depression and needed massive financial support if it was to become the US’ new business associate. The Marshall Plan, unveiled in 1947, was American funding for Western Europe to aid reconstruction of devasted countries in order to create a new market for the US. The price of gold was pegged to the US dollar and circulation of US currency encouraged the purchasing of American products. Globalisation was encouraged in the universalistice nature of American goals and ideology. Free traders aimed to reduce barriers to the free flow of goods, services, and capital to participate and trade in an open and multilateral system. Motivated by fears that communism would take over to extend its East and Central European dominion to the West, it was, as Clark stated, an ‘attempt by the United States to consolidate a Western system that included as much of the globe that lay outside the Soviet sphere’. Ironically, it was the fragmentation of the world into two, bipolar, cold war camps that generated long-term globalisation.

The results speak for themselves. Between 1948 and 1952, some US $13 billion was transferred to Western Europe and during 1947, western Europe drew 45% of its imports from the US. Where world economic recovery was concerned, production levels were equally astounding. To take a single example, world steel production increased from 106 million metric tons in 1947, to 505 in 1965. During the late 1960s, the US found that their responsibilities were increasingly weighing them down. The fixed exchange rates of the US dollar to gold was abolished and capitalism demonstrated its capability in its resiliency in absorbing the oil shocks of 1973 and 1979. Despite the obvious exceptional growth, Europe was not initiallt pleased with the Americanisation of the old Europe. She was a little disbelieving of the US’ incredible generosity and therefore wary of how much self-interest was involved. Her pride was somewhat injured in being so dependent, but Europe quickly understood that funds would buy them invaluable time and resources. The establishment of the EEC (European Economic Community), has made Europe the most powerful economic and trading bloc in the world today.

Germany and Japan were vital tools for the US in developing technology and the markets for it. They became based on relationships of economic transactions rather than centres of political power, for the benefit of all involved. Where Japan was concerned, the US not only had to provide access to regional sources of raw material and to neighbouring markets, but had to ensure secure political arrangements in the Asia-Pacific region between indigenous pressures for self-determination and communist penetration.

As part of the dynamis of the Cold War, a distinctive development which had positive repercussion for globalisation was the emergence of the Third World. The US with its economic power, was jealous of the markets tied up by the older European colonial powers. This led to tacit support of independence movements in the Third World, while the Soviet objective of international socialism meant the USSR actively supported emerging Third World leaders in their fight against colonial regimes. A number of Third World region aligned themselves with the US or USSR and received significant military armament in return.

Despite international socialist support, Russia was unsuccessful in achieving a competent model. Whether this was attributed to the Stalinist deviation from true Marxist-Leninism or to the fact that socialism, even if well-managed, could never be achieved due to the inevitability of modern globalisation is contestable. Stalin had anticipated at least tripolarity in global powers, exemplified in the Yalta declaration with representation from the ‘Big Three’. He failed to understand the extent of British decline, or of American ascendancy and subsequently, underestimated the latter. Stalin’s aggressive behaviour in Eastern Europe succeeded only in providing Western Europe with the incentive to secure deals with Washington. The extent of US aid was also unanticipated. Washington sacrificed immediate economic gains to invest in the long-term geopolitical stabilisation, that is, the Marshall Plan. Conversly, the Soviets lacked major global economic, technological and ideological influence and gave absolute priority to military strength, draining every other domestic sector. Within the Warsaw Pact countries, economies were doomed because by nature, they sought above all else to gratify immediate economic interests. This strain of Leninism, believed that cooperation was impossoble and that wars with one another were inevitable, imperial rivalry being the primary cause. These ideas reveal how ideolgy can ‘obscure reality’ and objective judgements in authoritarian systems.

Democracy rests on the view that the aggressive instincts of authoritarian leaders and totalitarian ruling parties make for war. The respect that liberal democratic societies have for the freedom that each embodies, and the transnatinal ties of commerce, investment, and tourism, help to create mutual understandings and mutual interests. This has been proved in the aftermath of the Cold War in the spread of popular government in Eastern Europe, and in the Soviet Union, redusing international tensions on Europe. Since the end of the Cold War, however, intense ideological rivalry between two states has not been witnessed in the media. The war highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of both Superpowers, who, battled to maximise propaganda.

The introduction of freer markets and globalised industry had been the most distinct feature of the Cold War. Secondly, the paradoxical ‘long peace’ that was observed has permanently changed the nature of war. The balance of terror that nuclear weapons brought of mutually assured destrustion, has created stability for the last fifty-five years. Moreover, it has facilitated an immense increase in the standard of living in the Western world which is gradually including the rest of the world. The Cold War was a struggle that could only be ended, not in compromise, but by the victory of the one incompatible system over the other. More importantly and phenomenally, it was a war fought about the goal of implementing an entire socio-economic domination. It was not a traditionally fought war, about money, envy of resources, religion or ethnicity. The end of the Cold War has witnessed the ease of strategic tensions across the globe, arms control, and progressive nuclear disarmament. These positive steps in the name of peace should indicate the shift in human energies and passion from war to the promotion of its prevention after witnessing the destruction of so many and the potentiality of a complete destruction in the advent of nuclear warfare.