Quote: "The Cold War began with the division of Europe. It can only end when Europe is whole." -George H W Bush
Quote: "The Cold War isn’t thawing; it is burning with a deadly heat. Communism isn’t sleeping; it is, as always, plotting, scheming, working, fighting." -Richard Nixon
Quote: "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you." -Nikita S. Khrushchev
Quote: "If we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity." -John F. Kennedy
Quote: "Death solves all problems - no man, no problem." -Joseph Stalin
profileentriesaffliatesmessages
Sunday, March 28, 2010,10:14 PM
Analysis of the Cold War
The first question to address is:
Did North Korea and USSR have a good reason for attacking South Korea?
As mentioned earlier, Stalin had hopes of unifying Korea under a communist leadership. The reasons that motivated North Korea to make the first move was the poor government led by Syngman Rhee and the American 'disinterest' in South Korea. The Soviets had the impression that America was disinterested in South Korea when USA Secretary of State Dean Acheson said Korea would not be included in the new defense policy.
However, there was the matter of the NSC-68 document. NSC-68 outlined a theory of perimeter defence in which all American interests were considered of equal importance, no matter what. Due to this, America was forced to defend South Korea when it came under attack.
In this sense, North Korea's reason for attacking South Korea was aggressive rather than defensive, and caused a break in the stalemate of 'peace' in the area, which eventually led to the Korean War, which had great consequences for both sides (though it can be argued that a confrontation between the two sides was inevitable, given their strained relationship). In this sense, the Korean War was started by the Communists, due to the USSR's greed. The start of the USSR is thus the Communists' fault.
Following that, the next question to be asked is:
Did China overreact by intervening in the Korean War?
As mentioned earlier, the main reasons for Chinese intervention in the Korean War were defensive. Every country will feel the need to defend itself when under threat; it is a basic right.
However, one must also note that China had an offensive front too. Not content with driving the US forces back into Korea (which would have been a sign of defence as well as an understanding of the need to maintain peace), they pushed further forward and invaded Seoul. This was born out of their need to assert themselves and prove themselves as a world power. In this sense, China had been aggressive too.
Despite that, all in all, I believe that China would not have made any moves if MacArthur had not pushed the UN forces all the way to the Yalu river. China was financially poor, as Mao was trying to rebuild China after the Chinese Civil War and WWII. She thus did not have much money to commit to an all-out offensive front. Also, relations between China and USSR were poor at that point in time, and thus China would not have agreed to go on an offensive if there ever was any Soviet pressure.
Thus, in my opinion, the Chinese intervention in Korea was justified to a large extent.
-Shahid
10:06 PM
Soviet Intentions in the Korean War
Stalin had long harboured hopes of 'capturing' the whole of Korea and uniting it. A combination of Syngman Rhee's weak South Korean government and apparent (though this was to be proven otherwise) American disinterest in defending South Korea persuaded him that his goals were now attainable.
The Soviet aim was for a fully unified Korea that was friendly to the USSR. Although Stalin, in May 1945, had given his blessing to US plans for a four-power trusteeship comprising the United States, the Soviet Union, China, and, at his request, Britain, he was to continually block the progress of this plan in the years that followed. It was common knowledge that the Soviet Union had strongly supported North Korea in the Korean War, in financial and military terms.
Note:
It is popular belief that the USSR never supported China in their intervention in the Korean War. However, this
The main question to be addressed in this topic is:
Why did the Chinese intervene in the Korean War?
To defend her own interests
To protect her resources
The United Nations Forces under the command of American General Douglas MacArthur were pushing the invading North Korean Forces back into North Korea.
The Government of China warned him not to come closer than 20 miles away from the YaluRiver, the border between China and North Korea, or they would consider it to be an act of war and would enter the war on the side of North Korea.
Despite this warning, MacArthur continued past the 20 miles mark, even though being told not to by the US. President Harry S. Truman.
At that time, Manchuria, especially Liaoning — the province right across the YaluRiver — was China’s most important industrial center, and therefore, protecting the Manchurian industrial zone was of prime importance. If China did not take the first step, then MacArthur’s forces would press on China along the Yalu river, China's northeastern defense force would be pinned down, and Southern Manchuria's power supply (generated from hydroelectric plants in North Korea) would be controlled by hostile forces.
In this sense, China was protecting her economic resources by preventing the advance of MacArthur’s forces, by intervening in the Korean War.
To prevent USA’s presence in her buffer zone
China had no diplomatic ties with the United States - which refused to recognise China - and was thus reliant on the New York Times for information regarding the USA's foreign policy intentions. From this source they gained the impression that American action against North Korea was the beginning of a wider campaign against Communism, by a blockade starting from Korea and ending at Vietnam. This idea was reinforced by the fact that United States' had prior support for Chiang Kai-Shek (a proponent of the ideal of democracy). This was another reason behind why China responded the way it did following MacArthur’s advance towards the Yalu river.
Since a contest with USA would be inevitable, it was desirable to teach the Americans a lesson as early as possible. Also, it was far more advantageous to fight USA in Korea than in the Taiwan straits or Vietnam.
Note:
Taking into account the actual situation of poor Sino-Soviet relations, it is perhaps more realistic to think that China was acting solely in its own interests, and not in any defence of Communist principles. Mao would probably not have allowed himself to be persuaded by Stalin into protecting North Korea on the Soviet Union's behalf, given both the strained Sino-Soviet relationship, and the urgent need to rebuild a country shattered by more than a quarter of a century of civil war.
As a show of power
Sino-Soviet relations were strained, and Mao was keen to put itself above USSR in the ‘hierarchy’ of Communism. Also, the ruling Communist party of China had strong anti-USA sentiments, given the US support of the Nationalists against the Communists in the Civil War of China. All these made Mao feel the need to have a strong show of strength.
And indeed, the fact that Chinese forces held their own against United Nation forces in this war heralded that China was once again becoming a major world power. The war is generally seen by many Chinese as an honorable part of China’s history, as it was the first time in a century that a Chinese army was able to stand up to a Western army in a major conflict.
-Shahid
7:22 PM
The Berlin Blockade
The purpose of this post is to look into the reasons behind the Berlin Blockade and Airlift.
After Germany was split in the four different regions, Britain and the US wanted Germany to recover so that it can rely on its own economy while the USSR on the other hand, did not wish to rebuild Germany and was suspicious of what Britain and the US wanted to achieve. But why was the USSR so unforgiving towards Germany? Their inability to accept that the recovery of Germany was the best option for everyone was what indirectly caused the Berlin Blockade.
Since they had a common goal, the British and the US merged their respective parts of Germany, together with the French, to form West Germany. With the help of the Marshall Plan, a major difference in the economy and the quality of living between the East and West can be seen clearly. This resulted in many East Berliners moving over to the West as the quality of life there is much more desirable.
As the German marks were practically valueless, the Allies introduced the Deutschmark in order to rebuild West Germany's economy further. However, after so many East Berliners had moved to the West, Stalin could not take it anymore and declared a blockade on Berlin by shutting down road and rail connections. But why impose a blockade when he can try to improve the economy to win back the East Berliners?
Did Stalin overreact by closing down all forms of communication between West Berlin and West Germany?
Instead of withdrawing, the Allies instead decided to risk their planes and airlift supplies into West Berlin. The airplanes were filled with food and fuel when they left for West Berlin and managed to successfully land there, delivering 5000 tons of the food and fuel a day. Why did Stalin let the planes land in West Berlin and not shoot them down?
In the end, the USSR lifted the blockade and the roads and communication lines to West Berlin were opened. However, tensions between the USSR and the US increased and the Berlin Blockade now serves as a reminder of the strained relationship between the two superpowers. West and East Germany remained divided and the Allies went on to set up NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) which served as an alliance between non-communist states to defend themselves against communism. The USSR went on to set up the Warsaw Pact, which was the communist equivalent of NATO.
So, did Stalin overreact to the Allies' decisions to rebuild Germany which strained their relationship further?
I feel that the USSR had overreacted to the Allies' actions. Even though the USSR had suffered major losses caused by Germany in the past, they did not have to destroy them and make them suffer. The actions the Allies took was to rebuild Germany, but Stalin had viewed it as an attempt to build up a force to attack East Germany, which led to the blockade of Berlin. The Berlin Blockade was Stalin's attempt to try and force the Allies out of West Berlin, leaving Berlin under his control. However, the Allies retaliated by sending in supplies via airlift and Stalin did not shoot the planes down, lest he was blamed for the start of the next world war. In the end, the Allies was seen as heroes who saved the West Berliners while the USSR was humiliated by their efforts. Had Stalin reconsidered his decision and instead tried to accept a few of the reforms, the tension between the US and the USSR would not have rose to such a high level.
4:48 PM
Before the Berlin Blockade
Before the Berlin Blockade occurred, the relationship between the superpowers, the US and the USSR, was already very strained. This purpose of this post is to look into events that caused tensions between their relationship and eventually led to Stalin's decision to impose the Berlin Blockade.
After Word War Two ended, there was a conflict of interests between the superpowers on how to divide the liberated nations. The Yalta and Potsdam conferences proves this point as after the agreements were made, the actions taken were little or even opposed the original agreements. This can be seen from the actions Stalin took after the Yalta Agreement which stated that he was to expand the Lublin government to include members of the London Poles. Stalin also did not carry out the free elections in Poland as agreed. The relationship between the USSR and the US is further aggravated after the Potsdam conference when the US did not send over all the equipment and supplies they were supposed to. Was this the US's reaction towards Stalin's refusal to hold free elections in Poland?
In addition, the US President, Harry Truman, even told Stalin about the atomic bomb that they have at hand. What is his purpose for doing this? Is it to make it clear who has more power between the two?
When the Marshall Plan was introduced in Europe to help improve the economy there, only the Eastern European countries accepted the aid. Stalin had refused to accept the Marshall Plan as to him, it seemed as though the US was "buying" Western Europe with their money. This led to him refusing to allow the Eastern European countries to accept the Marshall Plan as well even though the economy there was not doing so well. Was Stalin too proud to accept the aid or was he just opposing everything that the US does to show that he can do better?
So who was the one at fault for the deterioration of the relationship between the two superpowers?
Personally, i feel that the USSR was more at fault as they had gained many benefits from the Yalta Conference, but did not hold the free elections in Poland as agreed. This can be further shown by the fact that even though the US was kind enough to offer the USSR and its communist states financial help in the form of the Marshall Plan, Stalin did not accept the aid and even banned other communist countries from accepting it.
-Edwin
Saturday, March 27, 2010,8:05 PM
Overview of Korean War
Overview of Korean War
Here is a brief summary of the main events of the Korean War, adapted from http://www.learnkoreanlanguage.com/summary-of-korean-war.html
The Korean War began in 1950, between North Korea, which had a communist government, and South Korea, which had a democratic government. Each wanted to unify Korea under its own form of government.
North Korea invaded South Korea on June 25th, 1950 in order to unify Korea by force. South Korea was caught off guard and North Korean troops took over the capital, Seoul, and almost the whole country. The only area left from communist rule was a little area around Pusan. The UN forces in Korea (supporting South Korea) attacked Inchon, a city near Seoul, in September of 1950, catching North Korea off guard. The UN was able to take back Seoul and push North Koreans back into North Korea.
The UN decided to continue to fight, and invaded North Korea in October of 1950. North Korea was almost lost entirely to South Korean and UN forces, but the Chinese came into the picture. China had hundreds of thousands of troops, and helped North Korea to force South Korean and UN Forces back into South Korea. They crossed the border once again.
Seoul was lost for a second time to the communists in January of 1951. After much planning, UN forces regained Seoul in March.
UN Forces pushed North Koreans back about 20 miles above the border. The United States (a democratic state supporting South Korea) wished for peace talks to begin.
Peace talks went on without anything happening for the next two years. Battles were still fought in the same areas around the border. Finally, on July 27th, 1953, the papers were signed and an agreement was made.
A map summarizing the events of the Korean War, taken from http://www.learnkoreanlanguage.com/images/KoreanWarMap.jpg
-Shahid
Saturday, March 20, 2010,7:16 PM
Minor change in topic
After some deliberation, we have decided to change our topic to
Did the Communists overreact to the Allied Powers' actions?
This change will not cause any major change in our Berlin Blockade and topics, as most involvement in those events was from USSR. The only change will be in my topic, Korean War, as the Chinese played a highly significant role in that event.
This video provides a brief outline of the events which constituted the Korean War.
-Shahid
Friday, March 5, 2010,9:30 PM
Overview of the Berlin Blockade
The Berlin Blockade was initiated by Stalin to block supplies from West Germany to West Berlin. But why would Stalin want to do so?
1. The Containment Policies introduced by the US made Stalin feel threatened that the US was launching an anti-communist campaign against the USSR. Stalin had seen the Marshall Plan as an attempt by the USA to dominate Western Europe with their money and this made him determined to control Eastern Europe with his military might.
2. After World War 2, Germany and Berlin were split into 4 zones of occupation, one of each controlled by the USA, Britain, France and the USSR. In 1948, the USA, Britain and French zones merged to form West Germany and the same occurred in Berlin. With the aid of the Marshall Plan, West Germany began to recover, unlike East Germany, which is still suffering the effects of poverty and starvation. This led to many East Germans moving over to West Germany as West Germany seemed much more attractive. Stalin felt even more threatened as to him, it seemed as though the Allies are building up a force in West Germany to attack him.
3. In the process of reviving the German economy, the Allies introduced a new currency in West Germany as the previous German marks had become valueless. However, to Stalin, the currency reform would mean that West Germany would become a strong power, threatening the Soviet foothold on East Germany. Thus, by introducing the new currency, Stalin retaliated by cutting all land communication lines between West Berlin and West Germany. All road and rail connections from Berlin to West Germany was closed as well and thus, the Berlin Blockade begun.
-Edwin
5:20 PM
Video of the Berlin Airlift:
Pictures and cartoons on the Berlin Blockade:
-Edwin
Thursday, March 4, 2010,10:23 PM
Conclusion of the Cuban Missile Crisis
The crisis ended when both superpowers agreed to dismantle their missiles at Turkey and Cuba. However, it was Khrushchev who sent the first message to the United States initiating a peace treaty. However, both countries were on the theory of ‘brinksmanship’, as they pushed the limit of each superpower to show superiority. However, because of pride, the situation escalated to nearly a full-scale nuclear war. However, is it the fault of one nation? In the point of the Soviets, it was “solely the purpose of contributing to the defense capabilities of Cuba”, however, from the US, they were “trying to safeguard their interest”. In retrospect, everyone was acting for their self-defense it the fault doesn’t entirely lie on any one Nation.
Thus, I conclude that the Communist were not overacting to the allied powers, but on the contrary, it was the misunderstanding and mistrust between nations which eventually led to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
8:48 PM
the US perspective
As seen in the video in the intro, where Kennedy gives a speech regarding the Missile Crisis, it is evident that he saw the Soviets as the main adversary. From the point of the US, the soviets were moving too close towards US soil, and they were threaten by the Soviets.
When Batista was overthrown and the Castro regime took over, the US already felt a little uncomfortable. Though secretly, the US provided support for the cuban exiles who were against Castro. However, the Bay of Pigs invasion failed and the tension between US and USSR increased. Cuba was taking on a communist hue, and the US were just following their ideology of containing communism.
Was the American’s involvement in the Cuba Invasion justifiable?
Furthermore, America has missile bases in Turkey, which is close to USSR grounds.
Were they just overacting when the USSR did the same?
However, form the US perspective, they were just pursuing “freedom”. They already deemed herself a global power, and that is was “acceptable to do whatever they wanted as it’s for the good of the world”. On top of that, the missiles in Turkey were obsolete and was no real threat towards the Soviets.
The US were not used to have threats against them. Whenever the USSR took action, US was always worried that something bad was going happen. The US were not used to having enemies at such close proximity, yet to say soviet missiles just off the coast of US.
[I'm sorry, but embedding was disabled by the poster.]
The above video is a speech by Sergei Khrushchev, son of former Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, recounting the Cuban Missile Crisis from the Soviets perspective.
From the soviet’s standpoint, everything they have done is purely for the purpose of self-defense, and possibly to deter America from “starting a war”, which contradicts the America’s mentality that USSR was trying to “start a war”.
From the perspective of the super powers, both of them had the mentality that the other wants to wage a war. So was no one to be blamed for the whole crisis which terrorized billions of people worldwide?
The soviets found US superiority at that time way too big. The Americans possessed a huge arsenal of nuclear warheads, and the Soviets arsenal is not even comparable to the Americans. And that begs the topic,
The US long had the military capability to attack anyone who may turn hostile to them. If the Americans had the right to safeguard their own interest, why can’t the USSR safeguard theirs?
Whatever the Soviets try to do, it was to protect their allies against the US, which includes Cuba. When Cuba joined the Soviet bloc, they were obliged to protect them, to safeguard their interest. Whatever the Soviets did, it was also to appeal to their own allies, that they will not be intimidated by hostility, and that they would not back down when their allies need their assistance.
The views of the Americans by the Soviets varied widely from what many think, that American’s are noble, self-sacrificing, and world-accountable. US was changing the balance of superpowers as it began more and more powerful. USSR simply wanted to match up to the US “to make the playing field equal”.
Furthermore, the soviets are used to “having enemies at their gate”. With US ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles) at Turkey, which borders the USSR, the Soviets didn’t react much and it did not threaten the Kremlins.
To the USSR, the already accepted the US doings and actions without much resistance, such as having IRBM (Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missiles). But when the USSR transported just 50 missiles to Cuba, Kennedy raised their Defense Readiness Condition (DEFCON) to a level 2. So on the contrary to the Soviets overacting to the Americans, was it the other way around?
-Nicky
Wednesday, March 3, 2010,10:35 PM
Beginnings of the Cuban Missile Crisis
The roots of the Cuban Missile Crisis can be traced back to the 1950s, where both superpowers were neck-to-neck with each other in the stockpiling of nuclear arsenal back in the 1950s, which is often termed as “The Arms Race”.
In retrospect, the arms race was really a waste of budget and it was essentially the reason the Cuban Missile Crisis even occurred.
The soviets were intimated by the amount of missiles the US had, who were capable of striking the entire Soviet compared to the their own missiles which can only go as far as Europe. More importantly, the US had missile bases in Turkey, just 150 miles from the Soviets. The Soviets felt threatened by the US and felt that by basing their missile bases in Cuba, 90 miles of the coast of the US.
Was it the US who started it by placing their bases in Turkey, at such close range to the USSR? Or was the USSR’s fault who overacted to the US and constructed so many missile sites in Cuba? Who really started the Cuban Missile Crisis?
[The video of John F. Kennedy delivering the speech can be seen in the earlier post "Cuban Missile Crisis as case study"]
In the video, Kennedy addresses the nation with regards to the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was reported that USSR missile sites have been sighted and were being prepared in Cuba. Kennedy blatantly concluded it as “to provide a nuclear strike capability against the Western Hemisphere”. Based on this, Kennedy approved the quarantine of Cuba where US naval battleships created a perimeter around cuba, rejecting any ships, of whichever nation, containing offensive cargo. This, was the beginning of the ‘thirteen day’ crisis, the peak of the cold war.
So, was it the USSR who worsen the US-USSR relations and provided basis for the continuation of the unpopular Cold War?
-Nicky
8:38 PM
Cuban Missile Crisis as case study
Video of John F. Kennedy, 35th President of the United States, addressing the nation on the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.
So, was it the USSR's fault?
my discussion of the topic would take the shape whereby the crisis is looked at from each super power's perspective and their reactions to each other.
-Nicky Lim
Monday, March 1, 2010,12:25 PM
Research topic
After doing some research on the USSR countermeasures, our group concurred that the Cuban Missile Crisis provided a better ground for research as we analyze the Soviets' actions throughout the cold war.
Thus, we would re-craft our research focus to the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Soviet Union's actions which aggravated their relationship and indirectly progressed the Cold War.
Profilé
-Introduction
bolditalicunderlinestrikout
Our group comprises of Shahid, Nicky and Edwin.
For this history blog, we will talking about the cold war and address the following question:
Did the Communists overreact to the Allied powers actions? Our research focus would be mainly on:
The Berlin Blockade - Was Stalin too obsessed with blocking out the Americans from her sphere of influence?
The Korean War - Was USSR and China overly concerned when the American's fought back to regain their territory at the 38th parallel?
The Cuban Missile Crisis and the Soviet Union's actions which aggravated their relationship and indirectly progressed the Cold War.
Please give comments about our content on the cbox. (:
Best viewed in Chrome.
Sunday, March 28, 2010,10:14 PM
Analysis of the Cold War
The first question to address is:
Did North Korea and USSR have a good reason for attacking South Korea?
As mentioned earlier, Stalin had hopes of unifying Korea under a communist leadership. The reasons that motivated North Korea to make the first move was the poor government led by Syngman Rhee and the American 'disinterest' in South Korea. The Soviets had the impression that America was disinterested in South Korea when USA Secretary of State Dean Acheson said Korea would not be included in the new defense policy.
However, there was the matter of the NSC-68 document. NSC-68 outlined a theory of perimeter defence in which all American interests were considered of equal importance, no matter what. Due to this, America was forced to defend South Korea when it came under attack.
In this sense, North Korea's reason for attacking South Korea was aggressive rather than defensive, and caused a break in the stalemate of 'peace' in the area, which eventually led to the Korean War, which had great consequences for both sides (though it can be argued that a confrontation between the two sides was inevitable, given their strained relationship). In this sense, the Korean War was started by the Communists, due to the USSR's greed. The start of the USSR is thus the Communists' fault.
Following that, the next question to be asked is:
Did China overreact by intervening in the Korean War?
As mentioned earlier, the main reasons for Chinese intervention in the Korean War were defensive. Every country will feel the need to defend itself when under threat; it is a basic right.
However, one must also note that China had an offensive front too. Not content with driving the US forces back into Korea (which would have been a sign of defence as well as an understanding of the need to maintain peace), they pushed further forward and invaded Seoul. This was born out of their need to assert themselves and prove themselves as a world power. In this sense, China had been aggressive too.
Despite that, all in all, I believe that China would not have made any moves if MacArthur had not pushed the UN forces all the way to the Yalu river. China was financially poor, as Mao was trying to rebuild China after the Chinese Civil War and WWII. She thus did not have much money to commit to an all-out offensive front. Also, relations between China and USSR were poor at that point in time, and thus China would not have agreed to go on an offensive if there ever was any Soviet pressure.
Thus, in my opinion, the Chinese intervention in Korea was justified to a large extent.
-Shahid
10:06 PM
Soviet Intentions in the Korean War
Stalin had long harboured hopes of 'capturing' the whole of Korea and uniting it. A combination of Syngman Rhee's weak South Korean government and apparent (though this was to be proven otherwise) American disinterest in defending South Korea persuaded him that his goals were now attainable.
The Soviet aim was for a fully unified Korea that was friendly to the USSR. Although Stalin, in May 1945, had given his blessing to US plans for a four-power trusteeship comprising the United States, the Soviet Union, China, and, at his request, Britain, he was to continually block the progress of this plan in the years that followed. It was common knowledge that the Soviet Union had strongly supported North Korea in the Korean War, in financial and military terms.
Note:
It is popular belief that the USSR never supported China in their intervention in the Korean War. However, this
The main question to be addressed in this topic is:
Why did the Chinese intervene in the Korean War?
To defend her own interests
To protect her resources
The United Nations Forces under the command of American General Douglas MacArthur were pushing the invading North Korean Forces back into North Korea.
The Government of China warned him not to come closer than 20 miles away from the YaluRiver, the border between China and North Korea, or they would consider it to be an act of war and would enter the war on the side of North Korea.
Despite this warning, MacArthur continued past the 20 miles mark, even though being told not to by the US. President Harry S. Truman.
At that time, Manchuria, especially Liaoning — the province right across the YaluRiver — was China’s most important industrial center, and therefore, protecting the Manchurian industrial zone was of prime importance. If China did not take the first step, then MacArthur’s forces would press on China along the Yalu river, China's northeastern defense force would be pinned down, and Southern Manchuria's power supply (generated from hydroelectric plants in North Korea) would be controlled by hostile forces.
In this sense, China was protecting her economic resources by preventing the advance of MacArthur’s forces, by intervening in the Korean War.
To prevent USA’s presence in her buffer zone
China had no diplomatic ties with the United States - which refused to recognise China - and was thus reliant on the New York Times for information regarding the USA's foreign policy intentions. From this source they gained the impression that American action against North Korea was the beginning of a wider campaign against Communism, by a blockade starting from Korea and ending at Vietnam. This idea was reinforced by the fact that United States' had prior support for Chiang Kai-Shek (a proponent of the ideal of democracy). This was another reason behind why China responded the way it did following MacArthur’s advance towards the Yalu river.
Since a contest with USA would be inevitable, it was desirable to teach the Americans a lesson as early as possible. Also, it was far more advantageous to fight USA in Korea than in the Taiwan straits or Vietnam.
Note:
Taking into account the actual situation of poor Sino-Soviet relations, it is perhaps more realistic to think that China was acting solely in its own interests, and not in any defence of Communist principles. Mao would probably not have allowed himself to be persuaded by Stalin into protecting North Korea on the Soviet Union's behalf, given both the strained Sino-Soviet relationship, and the urgent need to rebuild a country shattered by more than a quarter of a century of civil war.
As a show of power
Sino-Soviet relations were strained, and Mao was keen to put itself above USSR in the ‘hierarchy’ of Communism. Also, the ruling Communist party of China had strong anti-USA sentiments, given the US support of the Nationalists against the Communists in the Civil War of China. All these made Mao feel the need to have a strong show of strength.
And indeed, the fact that Chinese forces held their own against United Nation forces in this war heralded that China was once again becoming a major world power. The war is generally seen by many Chinese as an honorable part of China’s history, as it was the first time in a century that a Chinese army was able to stand up to a Western army in a major conflict.
-Shahid
7:22 PM
The Berlin Blockade
The purpose of this post is to look into the reasons behind the Berlin Blockade and Airlift.
After Germany was split in the four different regions, Britain and the US wanted Germany to recover so that it can rely on its own economy while the USSR on the other hand, did not wish to rebuild Germany and was suspicious of what Britain and the US wanted to achieve. But why was the USSR so unforgiving towards Germany? Their inability to accept that the recovery of Germany was the best option for everyone was what indirectly caused the Berlin Blockade.
Since they had a common goal, the British and the US merged their respective parts of Germany, together with the French, to form West Germany. With the help of the Marshall Plan, a major difference in the economy and the quality of living between the East and West can be seen clearly. This resulted in many East Berliners moving over to the West as the quality of life there is much more desirable.
As the German marks were practically valueless, the Allies introduced the Deutschmark in order to rebuild West Germany's economy further. However, after so many East Berliners had moved to the West, Stalin could not take it anymore and declared a blockade on Berlin by shutting down road and rail connections. But why impose a blockade when he can try to improve the economy to win back the East Berliners?
Did Stalin overreact by closing down all forms of communication between West Berlin and West Germany?
Instead of withdrawing, the Allies instead decided to risk their planes and airlift supplies into West Berlin. The airplanes were filled with food and fuel when they left for West Berlin and managed to successfully land there, delivering 5000 tons of the food and fuel a day. Why did Stalin let the planes land in West Berlin and not shoot them down?
In the end, the USSR lifted the blockade and the roads and communication lines to West Berlin were opened. However, tensions between the USSR and the US increased and the Berlin Blockade now serves as a reminder of the strained relationship between the two superpowers. West and East Germany remained divided and the Allies went on to set up NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) which served as an alliance between non-communist states to defend themselves against communism. The USSR went on to set up the Warsaw Pact, which was the communist equivalent of NATO.
So, did Stalin overreact to the Allies' decisions to rebuild Germany which strained their relationship further?
I feel that the USSR had overreacted to the Allies' actions. Even though the USSR had suffered major losses caused by Germany in the past, they did not have to destroy them and make them suffer. The actions the Allies took was to rebuild Germany, but Stalin had viewed it as an attempt to build up a force to attack East Germany, which led to the blockade of Berlin. The Berlin Blockade was Stalin's attempt to try and force the Allies out of West Berlin, leaving Berlin under his control. However, the Allies retaliated by sending in supplies via airlift and Stalin did not shoot the planes down, lest he was blamed for the start of the next world war. In the end, the Allies was seen as heroes who saved the West Berliners while the USSR was humiliated by their efforts. Had Stalin reconsidered his decision and instead tried to accept a few of the reforms, the tension between the US and the USSR would not have rose to such a high level.
4:48 PM
Before the Berlin Blockade
Before the Berlin Blockade occurred, the relationship between the superpowers, the US and the USSR, was already very strained. This purpose of this post is to look into events that caused tensions between their relationship and eventually led to Stalin's decision to impose the Berlin Blockade.
After Word War Two ended, there was a conflict of interests between the superpowers on how to divide the liberated nations. The Yalta and Potsdam conferences proves this point as after the agreements were made, the actions taken were little or even opposed the original agreements. This can be seen from the actions Stalin took after the Yalta Agreement which stated that he was to expand the Lublin government to include members of the London Poles. Stalin also did not carry out the free elections in Poland as agreed. The relationship between the USSR and the US is further aggravated after the Potsdam conference when the US did not send over all the equipment and supplies they were supposed to. Was this the US's reaction towards Stalin's refusal to hold free elections in Poland?
In addition, the US President, Harry Truman, even told Stalin about the atomic bomb that they have at hand. What is his purpose for doing this? Is it to make it clear who has more power between the two?
When the Marshall Plan was introduced in Europe to help improve the economy there, only the Eastern European countries accepted the aid. Stalin had refused to accept the Marshall Plan as to him, it seemed as though the US was "buying" Western Europe with their money. This led to him refusing to allow the Eastern European countries to accept the Marshall Plan as well even though the economy there was not doing so well. Was Stalin too proud to accept the aid or was he just opposing everything that the US does to show that he can do better?
So who was the one at fault for the deterioration of the relationship between the two superpowers?
Personally, i feel that the USSR was more at fault as they had gained many benefits from the Yalta Conference, but did not hold the free elections in Poland as agreed. This can be further shown by the fact that even though the US was kind enough to offer the USSR and its communist states financial help in the form of the Marshall Plan, Stalin did not accept the aid and even banned other communist countries from accepting it.
-Edwin
Saturday, March 27, 2010,8:05 PM
Overview of Korean War
Overview of Korean War
Here is a brief summary of the main events of the Korean War, adapted from http://www.learnkoreanlanguage.com/summary-of-korean-war.html
The Korean War began in 1950, between North Korea, which had a communist government, and South Korea, which had a democratic government. Each wanted to unify Korea under its own form of government.
North Korea invaded South Korea on June 25th, 1950 in order to unify Korea by force. South Korea was caught off guard and North Korean troops took over the capital, Seoul, and almost the whole country. The only area left from communist rule was a little area around Pusan. The UN forces in Korea (supporting South Korea) attacked Inchon, a city near Seoul, in September of 1950, catching North Korea off guard. The UN was able to take back Seoul and push North Koreans back into North Korea.
The UN decided to continue to fight, and invaded North Korea in October of 1950. North Korea was almost lost entirely to South Korean and UN forces, but the Chinese came into the picture. China had hundreds of thousands of troops, and helped North Korea to force South Korean and UN Forces back into South Korea. They crossed the border once again.
Seoul was lost for a second time to the communists in January of 1951. After much planning, UN forces regained Seoul in March.
UN Forces pushed North Koreans back about 20 miles above the border. The United States (a democratic state supporting South Korea) wished for peace talks to begin.
Peace talks went on without anything happening for the next two years. Battles were still fought in the same areas around the border. Finally, on July 27th, 1953, the papers were signed and an agreement was made.
A map summarizing the events of the Korean War, taken from http://www.learnkoreanlanguage.com/images/KoreanWarMap.jpg
-Shahid
Saturday, March 20, 2010,7:16 PM
Minor change in topic
After some deliberation, we have decided to change our topic to
Did the Communists overreact to the Allied Powers' actions?
This change will not cause any major change in our Berlin Blockade and topics, as most involvement in those events was from USSR. The only change will be in my topic, Korean War, as the Chinese played a highly significant role in that event.
This video provides a brief outline of the events which constituted the Korean War.
-Shahid
Friday, March 5, 2010,9:30 PM
Overview of the Berlin Blockade
The Berlin Blockade was initiated by Stalin to block supplies from West Germany to West Berlin. But why would Stalin want to do so?
1. The Containment Policies introduced by the US made Stalin feel threatened that the US was launching an anti-communist campaign against the USSR. Stalin had seen the Marshall Plan as an attempt by the USA to dominate Western Europe with their money and this made him determined to control Eastern Europe with his military might.
2. After World War 2, Germany and Berlin were split into 4 zones of occupation, one of each controlled by the USA, Britain, France and the USSR. In 1948, the USA, Britain and French zones merged to form West Germany and the same occurred in Berlin. With the aid of the Marshall Plan, West Germany began to recover, unlike East Germany, which is still suffering the effects of poverty and starvation. This led to many East Germans moving over to West Germany as West Germany seemed much more attractive. Stalin felt even more threatened as to him, it seemed as though the Allies are building up a force in West Germany to attack him.
3. In the process of reviving the German economy, the Allies introduced a new currency in West Germany as the previous German marks had become valueless. However, to Stalin, the currency reform would mean that West Germany would become a strong power, threatening the Soviet foothold on East Germany. Thus, by introducing the new currency, Stalin retaliated by cutting all land communication lines between West Berlin and West Germany. All road and rail connections from Berlin to West Germany was closed as well and thus, the Berlin Blockade begun.
-Edwin
5:20 PM
Video of the Berlin Airlift:
Pictures and cartoons on the Berlin Blockade:
-Edwin
Thursday, March 4, 2010,10:23 PM
Conclusion of the Cuban Missile Crisis
The crisis ended when both superpowers agreed to dismantle their missiles at Turkey and Cuba. However, it was Khrushchev who sent the first message to the United States initiating a peace treaty. However, both countries were on the theory of ‘brinksmanship’, as they pushed the limit of each superpower to show superiority. However, because of pride, the situation escalated to nearly a full-scale nuclear war. However, is it the fault of one nation? In the point of the Soviets, it was “solely the purpose of contributing to the defense capabilities of Cuba”, however, from the US, they were “trying to safeguard their interest”. In retrospect, everyone was acting for their self-defense it the fault doesn’t entirely lie on any one Nation.
Thus, I conclude that the Communist were not overacting to the allied powers, but on the contrary, it was the misunderstanding and mistrust between nations which eventually led to the Cuban Missile Crisis.
8:48 PM
the US perspective
As seen in the video in the intro, where Kennedy gives a speech regarding the Missile Crisis, it is evident that he saw the Soviets as the main adversary. From the point of the US, the soviets were moving too close towards US soil, and they were threaten by the Soviets.
When Batista was overthrown and the Castro regime took over, the US already felt a little uncomfortable. Though secretly, the US provided support for the cuban exiles who were against Castro. However, the Bay of Pigs invasion failed and the tension between US and USSR increased. Cuba was taking on a communist hue, and the US were just following their ideology of containing communism.
Was the American’s involvement in the Cuba Invasion justifiable?
Furthermore, America has missile bases in Turkey, which is close to USSR grounds.
Were they just overacting when the USSR did the same?
However, form the US perspective, they were just pursuing “freedom”. They already deemed herself a global power, and that is was “acceptable to do whatever they wanted as it’s for the good of the world”. On top of that, the missiles in Turkey were obsolete and was no real threat towards the Soviets.
The US were not used to have threats against them. Whenever the USSR took action, US was always worried that something bad was going happen. The US were not used to having enemies at such close proximity, yet to say soviet missiles just off the coast of US.
[I'm sorry, but embedding was disabled by the poster.]
The above video is a speech by Sergei Khrushchev, son of former Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, recounting the Cuban Missile Crisis from the Soviets perspective.
From the soviet’s standpoint, everything they have done is purely for the purpose of self-defense, and possibly to deter America from “starting a war”, which contradicts the America’s mentality that USSR was trying to “start a war”.
From the perspective of the super powers, both of them had the mentality that the other wants to wage a war. So was no one to be blamed for the whole crisis which terrorized billions of people worldwide?
The soviets found US superiority at that time way too big. The Americans possessed a huge arsenal of nuclear warheads, and the Soviets arsenal is not even comparable to the Americans. And that begs the topic,
The US long had the military capability to attack anyone who may turn hostile to them. If the Americans had the right to safeguard their own interest, why can’t the USSR safeguard theirs?
Whatever the Soviets try to do, it was to protect their allies against the US, which includes Cuba. When Cuba joined the Soviet bloc, they were obliged to protect them, to safeguard their interest. Whatever the Soviets did, it was also to appeal to their own allies, that they will not be intimidated by hostility, and that they would not back down when their allies need their assistance.
The views of the Americans by the Soviets varied widely from what many think, that American’s are noble, self-sacrificing, and world-accountable. US was changing the balance of superpowers as it began more and more powerful. USSR simply wanted to match up to the US “to make the playing field equal”.
Furthermore, the soviets are used to “having enemies at their gate”. With US ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles) at Turkey, which borders the USSR, the Soviets didn’t react much and it did not threaten the Kremlins.
To the USSR, the already accepted the US doings and actions without much resistance, such as having IRBM (Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missiles). But when the USSR transported just 50 missiles to Cuba, Kennedy raised their Defense Readiness Condition (DEFCON) to a level 2. So on the contrary to the Soviets overacting to the Americans, was it the other way around?
-Nicky
Wednesday, March 3, 2010,10:35 PM
Beginnings of the Cuban Missile Crisis
The roots of the Cuban Missile Crisis can be traced back to the 1950s, where both superpowers were neck-to-neck with each other in the stockpiling of nuclear arsenal back in the 1950s, which is often termed as “The Arms Race”.
In retrospect, the arms race was really a waste of budget and it was essentially the reason the Cuban Missile Crisis even occurred.
The soviets were intimated by the amount of missiles the US had, who were capable of striking the entire Soviet compared to the their own missiles which can only go as far as Europe. More importantly, the US had missile bases in Turkey, just 150 miles from the Soviets. The Soviets felt threatened by the US and felt that by basing their missile bases in Cuba, 90 miles of the coast of the US.
Was it the US who started it by placing their bases in Turkey, at such close range to the USSR? Or was the USSR’s fault who overacted to the US and constructed so many missile sites in Cuba? Who really started the Cuban Missile Crisis?
[The video of John F. Kennedy delivering the speech can be seen in the earlier post "Cuban Missile Crisis as case study"]
In the video, Kennedy addresses the nation with regards to the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was reported that USSR missile sites have been sighted and were being prepared in Cuba. Kennedy blatantly concluded it as “to provide a nuclear strike capability against the Western Hemisphere”. Based on this, Kennedy approved the quarantine of Cuba where US naval battleships created a perimeter around cuba, rejecting any ships, of whichever nation, containing offensive cargo. This, was the beginning of the ‘thirteen day’ crisis, the peak of the cold war.
So, was it the USSR who worsen the US-USSR relations and provided basis for the continuation of the unpopular Cold War?
-Nicky
8:38 PM
Cuban Missile Crisis as case study
Video of John F. Kennedy, 35th President of the United States, addressing the nation on the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.
So, was it the USSR's fault?
my discussion of the topic would take the shape whereby the crisis is looked at from each super power's perspective and their reactions to each other.
-Nicky Lim
Monday, March 1, 2010,12:25 PM
Research topic
After doing some research on the USSR countermeasures, our group concurred that the Cuban Missile Crisis provided a better ground for research as we analyze the Soviets' actions throughout the cold war.
Thus, we would re-craft our research focus to the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Soviet Union's actions which aggravated their relationship and indirectly progressed the Cold War.
