-Prof. James Cronin
To understand the Cold War, we first must recognize how a traditional geopolitical opposition escalated to “a holy war so intense and obsessive as to threaten the very existence of human life on the planet” (Schlesinger). Russia and the United States fundamentally differed on the cultivation of human civilization, in the significant aspects of constitutional and civil liberties, the governmental structure and characterization of a nation, and primary beliefs. With ideological disparities this extreme, “the real surprise would have been if there had been no Cold War” (Schlesinger). Through the historic years of the 1940s to the 1990s, the world faced the breaking of Russia and the U.S.’s alliance, the Soviets entering Europe, and America’s notorious containment strategy- all leading up to the inevitable and terrifying confrontation between the two superpowers of the age. So what exactly has the conflict left behind? Besides the multiple treaties, pacts, and alliances, this struggle has created the foundation for international relations in our world. From the ever-changing Soviet policies and America’s dubious foreign support, to the tension between the U.S. and Russia spreading throughout every continent, much of what is in place today, such as NATO and the United Nations, is due to this significant rivalry (Cold War). Today, the Cold War is instrumental to the War on Terrorism, our current foreign policy, and the prevention of international crises, all issues which greatly impact the next presidential administration and the youth of America.
Though the Cold War put the stability of entire nations at risk and endangered millions of innocent lives, the ultimate fear of the time was the outbreak of a nuclear war. As a historian once stated, “with both nations in possession of weapons of unparalleled destructive power- enough to wipe out entire cities and millions of people- it was immediately apparent that a new era of warfare had dawned” (Historical Overview). Despite the overwhelming amount of nuclear power, these perilous weapons also served as peacekeepers once the Soviets matched the West with their own atomic bomb in 1949 (Historical Overview). With both parties in ownership of the ability to cause massive destruction, warfare was the least suitable option. “The alternative was the destruction of both belligerents, rendering any conflict meaningless and imperiling the future of civilization as well” (Historical Overview). The role of nuclear weapons and the arms race remains one of the most interesting aspects of the Cold War, as a technology designed to annihilate enemies kept the peace during stressful times (Schlesinger). The fight for nuclear power led to a new millennium of scientific discoveries and peaceful conclusions to international crises.
Another major factor in the Cold War was the tension caused all over the globe. Rarely are there conflicts in history that can claim the responsibility for as many legendary international crises as the Cold War. A few examples of these events include the Berlin Airlift, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. The beginning of the major international Cold War crisis was the Berlin Blockade, beginning in 1948. The term blockade originates from post WWII when the USSR “blocked” some of the West’s access to territories of Berlin that they were occupying with the intention of gaining Soviet control in Berlin. Their tactic was to prevent the U.S. forces from entering the region and supplying Berlin with resources so Berlin would then need to depend on the Soviets. Despite their opposition, the Western countries then banded together to form the Berlin Airlift to follow through with their arranged deliveries. Though claimed impossible by the Soviet forces, the Airlift was a major success as there were few deaths in the creation of the aircraft. The USSR then lifted the blockade with the realization that their resistance had been overcome. As D.F. Fleming stated, "The incessant roar of its motors across German skies, together with the efficiency with which the whole operation developed, and the fact that it kept the Western sectors of Berlin going, grew into a striking psychological and political success for the West" (Berlin Airlift). This triumph also played a significant role in the formations of the West German Republic and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Berlin Airlift).
Additionally, the Korean War is also a note-worthy struggle as it further advanced the worldwide spread of the Cold War. When the North Korean army, siding with the Soviet Union, invaded South Korea, U.S. President Harry Truman felt a moral and political responsibility to fight against the possibility of a “Communist ‘armed invasion and war’” (Schwiekart). Fortunately, the U.S.’s proposal to obstruct North Korea gained support rapidly, as what was once a sole battle between America and Communism was amended to a “united front” from the participating United Nations countries (Schwiekart). But even though the West was assisted by the UN Security Council, the North Koreans captured Seoul and the vigorous Chinese forces entered the battle on the Yalu River in November. Nevertheless, the issue of both the USSR and the West possessing nuclear weapons once again stalled the possibility of an out-right war. The U.S. then faced multiple choices: they could bring about a dangerous, depleting battle with the involvement of atomic bombs against the entire Soviet Union, or they could “negotiate a peace” (Schwiekart). They chose peace.
Another key struggle was the U.S.’s anxiety over the suspected positioning of Soviet missiles in Cuba. The Cuban Missile Crisis was set into motion due to the abundant rumors that the Soviets were positioning missiles in Cuba. Cuba, under the rule of Fidel Castro, was instilled with the fear of an invasion from the U.S. and soon after declared their ties with the Soviet Union even though that was considered shameful to the Latin American bloc. The United States, under the Kennedy Administration, launched Operation Mongoose, and began the United States Embargo against Cuba, all with the aims of opposing Castro. On October 14th, 1962, the United States confirmed the existence of a missile base and compromised with the Soviets for the sites to be destroyed in exchange for a “no invasion agreement” along with the dismantling of U.S. missiles in Turkey (Cuban Missile Crisis). Though this did not suppress the nuclear arms race, it did loosen the tensions between the USSR and the West. There is no doubt that this crisis, along with the Berlin Blockade, was hazardously close to what the world feared most- a nuclear war (Cuban Missile Crisis).
An additional Cold War conflict was the Vietnam War- one of the longest and bloodiest wars of the time. Similar to the Korean War, North Vietnam was backed by the Communists and South Vietnam’s support lay in the Western Allies. Once again, these two great forces moved across the Asian continent to battle. Continuing the Western containment strategy, the United States was again trying to prevent a “communist takeover” in South Vietnam, which resulted in a brutal war with millions of casualties and massacres. “In a world seemingly divided into two hostile power blocs, with a fragile balance of power, Americans also concluded that the "loss" of Vietnam would threaten their vital interests” (The Vietnam Era). In this state of war, neither Peace Treaties, the Case-Church Amendment, nor the “anti-war movement” could cease the fighting or stop North Vietnam from seizing Saigon in 1975. Following the capture, North and South Vietnam were reunited, and the long, bloody war finally ceased with the Communists gaining power, an advantage, and a victory.
The West and the Soviet Union “often behave like two heavily armed blind men feeling their way around a room, each believing himself in mortal peril from the other whom he assumes to have perfect vision” (Schlesinger). What the blind men should know is that “frequently uncertainty, compromise, and incoherence are the essence of policymaking. Yet each tends to ascribe to the other a consistency, foresight, and coherence that its own experience belies” (Schlesinger). There is no doubt that the policies during the war could have undergone improvements, and the slight change of even one policy or strategy had the ability to change and direct the entire course of the war. This whole ideological battle demonstrates that it is vital to understand the intent of what is to be pursued before acting. In this war both parties overlooked one of the most basic principles; history is simple. It was the over-interpretation and lack of foresight when forming strategies that escalated the Cold War. Moving from policy and simplicity, the third lesson is to always “walk in the shoes” of the opponent. Evidence from the Cold War shows that by having such an intent focus on our own country’s needs, we in turn blinded ourselves. “Of course, over time, even two blind men can do enormous damage to each other, not to speak of the room” (Schlesinger).
Presently, the War on Terrorism is one of the most daunting issues the U.S. and the Middle East faces. However, it is often disregarded how similar the Cold War is to today’s pressing concerns. In both the War on Terrorism and the Cold War, the nature of the struggle calls for a strategy in which “ideological, political, and socioeconomic campaigns will be as important as military campaigns”, says Anatol Lieven (Lieven). Firstly, America’s war strategy should focus on the direct cause of extremist Islamism, which like Communism in the Cold War is a form of Nationalism. The next lesson of the Cold War that directly relates to the War on Terrorism is to “know thy enemy”. America needs to further their understanding of the differences between the political and religious aspects of extreme Islamists. The third lesson applicable to this war is not only the need for beneficial alliances, but for allies with capable forces. “Strengthening those forces with U.S. aid and encouragement for socioeconomic reforms is usually more important than military action” (Lieven). If U.S. policy-makers are not aware of lessons from the beginning of the Cold War then we will make the same mistakes of the past such as not recognizing the War on Terrorism as a conflict generated by the want for national advancement.
These crucial lessons can also be applied to the current situation between Russia’s relationship with Georgia and the U.S.’s policy with regards to the conflict. The Georgia-Russia war again leaves the United States with the predicament of whether to intervene, who to trust, and how to help. It is much easier than normally presumed for the two superpowers to return to Cold War mode again, especially when America is suspicious of Russia’s attempts to reform the Soviet Union and pursue expansion. The world stood shocked as the two countries that were once allies and took down Hitler in WWII, quickly turned into enemies and started a four-decade long international war. With the current Russia and U.S. relations, there is the possibility of this occurring again. Obviously, the future president needs to be especially aware of the lessons from the Cold War when deciding how to proceed with regards to this conflict. It is not feasible to retreat back to our former policies that fueled the Cold War and avoid creating another struggle of an even higher degree. In these upcoming decisions our country will face, it is vital to heed the warning signs of the Cold War to never make predictions in a time of war and let our policies exceed our actions.
Within the calamities mentioned in the Cold War, underlying morals can also be learned. Though most are taught to “learn from their mistakes” as children, the political war strategists in Washington ignored this concept. America could have easily benefitted from the devastation created in Korea by reworking their mistakes into a survival guide in Vietnam, as the conflicts were astoundingly similar. However, Washington failed to recognize this and left what we have learned about the Communist Army and their extraordinary abilities underestimated. Granted, the difficulties of facing the bond of the Soviet and Asian forces are extreme, after encountering an analogous circumstance in the past, the U.S. had the grand opportunity of learning from history once again. Another insight to be aware of in the future is the potential a single being has to create change. General MacArthur remains infamous for his self-centered, narcissistic, tenacious, yet brilliant approaches during the Korean War (Schwiekart). “An insurgency thrives only if it can maintain a permanent presence among the population, which in Vietnam was called the Viet Cong infrastructure, or VCI” (Andrade), states Dale Andrade. A counterinsurgency that does not firmly address the enemy’s core infrastructure will surely prove to be ineffective (Andrade).
In this year’s election, it has become increasingly clear that the next generation plays a substantial role in who will win the presidency, and ultimately control how the lessons from the Cold War can be put to use. If the two possible future presidents of such an influential country are not aware of how the Cold War has shaped our world and what it has left behind, our foreign tactics and principles will never progress and the people of America could possibly relive some of the most disastrous moments in history. But this is an issue that goes beyond the presidency. As we have seen so far in this election, the American people have a greater voice than any politician. The next generation should care about the Cold War because it has created the basis of today’s political strategies, which affects our countries foreign relationships, our economy, educational system, and armed forces- all of which affect your future. It is insignificant whether or not people comprehend the “emerging post-revisionist synthesis” or the “underlying structural dilemmas” of the age- however it is absolutely crucial that the relevant meanings of the Cold War are instilled in the citizens of today’s society. A policy isn’t enough to justify a war, always negotiate first, and never doubt the abilities and benefits of technology and human nature. McCain, Obama, and youth of the century- pay attention. The world can’t wait any longer for someone to rise to the challenge of changing the future.
Works Cited
1. Andrade, Dale. “Three Lessons From Vietnam.” The Washington Post Company. 29 December 2005. 13 October 2008
2. "The Berlin Airlift, June 24, 1948-May 12, 1949." DISCovering U.S. History. Online ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. Student Resource Center - Gold. Gale. HIGH TECH CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL. 11 Oct. 2008
3. "Cold War." Gale Encyclopedia of U.S. Economic History. Ed. Thomas Carson and Mary Bonk. Detroit: Gale Group, 1999. Student Resource Center - Gold. Gale. HIGH TECH CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL. 1 Oct. 2008
4. "Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962." DISCovering U.S. History. Online ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. Student Resource Center - Gold. Gale. HIGH TECH CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL. 11 Oct. 2008
5. "Historical Overview." The Cold War. American Journey Online. Woodbridge, CT.: Primary Source Microfilm, 2000. Student Resource Center - Gold. Gale. HIGH TECH CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL. 1 Oct. 2008
6. Lieven, Anatol. “Fighting Terrorism: Lessons from the Cold War.” 7 October 2001. 11 October 2008.
7. Schlesinger, Arthur M., Jr. "Some Lessons from the Cold War." The Cold War. American Journey Online. Woodbridge, CT.: Primary Source Microfilm, 2000. Student Resource Center - Gold. Gale. HIGH TECH CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL. 1 Oct. 2008
8. Schwiekart, Larry, and Dennis Lynch. "Cold War: The Korean Conflict (1950s)." American Decades. Ed. McConnell, Tandy. Online ed. Detroit: Gale, 2003. Student Resource Center - Gold. Gale. HIGH TECH CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL. 1 Oct. 2008
9. "The Vietnam Era." The Vietnam Era. American Journey Online. Woodbridge, CT.: Primary Source Microfilm, 1999. Student Resource Center - Gold. Gale. HIGH TECH CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL. 11 Oct. 2008
