Fiorella Suárez

International Relations
Diana García
March 8th, 2024
Chapter 3: International history of the twentieth century

Essay questions

1. What were the key problems of European security in the first half of the
twentieth century? Why did attempts to solve them fail?

The key problems of European security in the first half of the twentieth century included the
failure of the Treaty of Versailles to address central security issues, the rise of Hitler and
the inability of European political leaders to meet the threats he presented, and the
outbreak of the Second World War. The Treaty of Versailles, signed in 1919, failed to
effectively address the core problems of European security, and instead created new
sources of grievance and instability. Additionally, the rise of Hitler and the threats he
posed were not effectively addressed by European political leaders, ultimately leading to
the outbreak of the Second World War.

2. Could the Second World War have been prevented?

The question of whether the Second World War could have been prevented is a matter
of historical debate. Some argue that the Treaty of Versailles, which ended the First
World War, failed to address central problems of European security and created new
sources of grievance and instability, thus contributing to the conditions that led to the
outbreak of the Second World War. Additionally, the rise of Hitler presented threats
that European political leaders lacked the ability and will to meet, ultimately
culminating in the outbreak of the Second World War. The German attack on the
Soviet Union and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor further extended and escalated
the conflict.

3. Should the United States have developed and used the atom bomb in 1945?
The decision to develop and use the atomic bomb in 1945 is a topic of ongoing debate.
Proponents argue that the use of the atomic bomb was justified as it was decisive in
bringing about Japanese surrender and ending the Pacific war. They contend that other
military options would not have ended the war swiftly, and that the bombing of several
cities was necessary to shock Tokyo into surrender. Additionally, it is argued that the
legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has strengthened the nuclear taboo, leading to
deterrence and the avoidance of war since 1945.
4. What brought about the cold war?
The key factors that led to the start of the Cold War included the failure to implement the
principles agreed at the wartime conferences of Yalta and Potsdam, tensions over the
future of Germany and various Central and Eastern European countries, the growing
perception in the West that Soviet policy towards Eastern Europe was guided by
aggressive intent rather than historic security concerns, the victory of the communists in
the Chinese civil war, and the North Korean attack on South Korea which was seen as
 part of a general communist strategy and a test case for American resolve and the will of
the United Nations to resist aggression.

5. What were the differences between the reasons the US became involved in
Korea and the reasons for its involvement in Vietnam?
The reasons for US involvement in Korea and Vietnam were influenced by the context of the
Cold War. In the case of Korea, the US became involved to counter the spread of
communism, as the Korean War heightened perceptions of the Soviet threat to Europe.
The idea that communism was a monolithic political entity controlled from Moscow led
to the build-up of American forces in Western Europe. In Vietnam, American
involvement was driven by the domino theory, which posited that if one state fell to
communism, others would follow. The US sought to prevent the spread of communism in
Southeast Asia and saw Vietnam as a crucial battleground in the larger Cold War
struggle.
6. How close did the superpowers come to nuclear war? When and why?

The Cuban missile crisis in 1962 brought the world dangerously close to nuclear war. The
Americans discovered that the Soviets were secretly deploying nuclear missiles in Cuba,
prompting President Kennedy to respond with a naval blockade. This led to
unprecedented states of alert for U.S. nuclear forces. Experts estimate that a U.S. attack
would have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people. The crisis reached its
climax when both Kennedy and Khrushchev were determined to find a diplomatic
agreement, with concessions made on both sides. However, evidence suggests that the
risk of unintended nuclear war was even greater than initially realized, due to
misperceptions, the actions of subordinates, and failures within organizations. The
survival of mankind during this crisis may have depended heavily on luck. Ultimately, the
diplomatic deadlock was resolved six days after the blockade announcement, when
Khrushchev ordered the removal of the missiles in exchange for assurances from the
United States regarding Cuba's invasion.
7. What did détente achieve? What did it fail to achieve?

The achievements of dtente included the avoidance of nuclear crises, economic and military
incentives to avoid an unconstrained arms race, and the transformation of diplomatic and
strategic relations, such as EgyptianIsraeli rapprochement. However, the failures of dtente
included growing Soviet military superiority, Soviet support for revolutionary movements
in the Third World, and the perception that Moscow was using arms control to gain
military advantage.

8. Were nuclear weapons a stabilizing or destabilizing force in the cold war?

Nuclear weapons played a complex role in the Cold War. Some argue that without nuclear
weapons, direct conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States would have been
more likely, and that nuclear weapons acted as a deterrent. However, others contend that
the unprecedented threat of devastation posed by nuclear weapons was crucial to
understanding the mutual hostility and fear of leaders in the nuclear age. The
concentration of military and nuclear forces in Europe during the Cold War was
unprecedented, yet it was also a period characterized by stability and economic
prosperity, particularly in the West. The relationship between the Cold War and nuclear
history is close, though problematic, and the end of the Cold War marked success in
nuclear arms control rather than nuclear disarmament. The extent to which nuclear
 weapons-imposed stability in regions where previous instability had led to war and
conflict is a crucial question for historians and policymakers

9. What prompted different patterns of decolonization?

The different patterns of decolonization were influenced by various factors, including:

• Attitudes of Colonial Powers: Different European powers had varying attitudes towards
decolonization. Some sought to preserve their empires, while others were more willing to
grant independence.
• Nature of Local Nationalist or Revolutionary Movements: The nature and strength of
local nationalist or revolutionary movements played a significant role in shaping the
decolonization process. The level of organization, mobilization, and resistance of these
movements impacted the outcome of decolonization.
• Involvement of External States: The involvement of external states, including cold war
protagonists, also influenced the patterns of decolonization. Superpower involvement in
certain regions either facilitated or complicated the process of decolonization.
• Tribal Factors: Tribal divisions and the political exploitation of these divisions were
important in shaping the decolonization process in some regions. The extent to which
imperial powers created or exacerbated tribal divisions impacted the political stability of
• newly independent states.
• Political Leadership and Economic Challenges: The ability of new political leaderships to
tackle formidable political challenges and economic problems of poverty and
underdevelopment also influenced the patterns of decolonization.
• Cold War Dynamics: The dynamics of the cold war, including the influence of Marxist
ideology, superpower involvement, and the competition between different ideological and
political forces, played a role in shaping the patterns of decolonization in various regions.
These factors, among others, contributed to the diverse and complex patterns of
decolonization observed in different parts of the world.

10. How and why did the British respond to pressures for decolonization
differently than the French?

The British and the French responded differently to pressures for decolonization. The British
were relatively reluctant to rush decolonization, and their withdrawal from empire was
comparatively peaceful, except for conflicts in India and Kenya. On the other hand, the
French sought to preserve their imperial status and were involved in prolonged guerrilla
wars and military defeat, as seen in Indo-China and Algeria. While the British were
hesitant and their withdrawal relatively peaceful, the French were more resistant and
engaged in prolonged conflicts to maintain their imperial influence.

11. Did containment work?

The effectiveness of containment in preventing the spread of communism during the Cold
War is a matter of debate. The Truman Doctrine and the policy of containment expressed
the US's defensive self-image and aimed to support those threatened by Soviet subversion
or expansion. This policy was underpinned by the Marshall Plan for European economic
recovery, which was essential to the economic rebuilding of Western Europe. However,
in Eastern Europe, democratic socialist and other anti-communist forces were
undermined and eliminated as MarxistLeninist regimes loyal to Moscow were installed.
The exception was Yugoslavia, where Marshal Josip Broz Tito maintained independence
 from Moscow. The first major confrontation of the Cold War took place over Berlin in
1948, and the crisis saw the deployment of American long-range bombers in Britain,
although none were actually armed with nuclear weapons. The policy of containment and
the associated actions had varying degrees of success in different regions, and the
effectiveness of containment in preventing the spread of communism remains a topic of
historical debate.

12. What were the differences between the Brezhnev doctrine and the Sinatra
doctrine?

The Brezhnev doctrine, named after the Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, asserted the Soviet
Union's right to intervene in any socialist country that was seen to be deviating from the
communist path. It justified the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and the suppression
of the Prague Spring. In contrast, the Sinatra doctrine, associated with Mikhail
Gorbachev, signified a departure from this policy. It allowed Eastern European countries
to pursue their own paths and make their own decisions, effectively relinquishing the
Soviet Union's previous control over their internal affairs.

13. What was the 'second cold war'?

The 'second cold war' refers to a period of heightened tension and confrontation between the
United States and the Soviet Union from 1979 to 1986. This era was characterized by fear
of nuclear war, which was partly a reaction to the rhetoric and policies of the Reagan
administration. The United States pursued a more confrontational approach with Moscow
on arms control, Third World conflicts, and EastWest relations in general. The period saw
the deployment of land-based missiles capable of striking Soviet territory by NATO,
which precipitated great tension in relations between NATO and the USSR. The term
'second cold war' has been used to compare this period to the early period of
confrontation between 1946 and 1953.

14. Did the Cuban Missile Crisis make any advances towards nuclear
disarmament?

The Cuban Missile Crisis did lead to some advances towards nuclear disarmament. In the
aftermath of the crisis, there was progress towards the Partial Test Ban Treaty of 1963,
which banned testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere. Moreover, the crisis led to
both superpowers recognizing that future crises should be avoided, and Moscow made no
further attempts to coerce the West over Berlin. However, both sides continued to build
up their nuclear arsenals, indicating that while there were some steps towards
disarmament, complete nuclear disarmament was not achieved as a direct result of the
Cuban Missile Crisis.