3: The Many Wars of the Cold War Flashcards
metaphor of the “cold war” and what it tells us about the post-1945 international system and competition
odd metaphor since you never associate war with frigidity
Don Juan Manuel used it in the early 14th century with a religious definition - war was cold because the other side was not seen as equal or equally legitimate to you
Eduard Bernstein used it in 1893 to criticise Germany’s increased spending on military which drained from social or welfare spending
George Orwell used it in 1945 to reflect on nuclear weapons, geopolitical transformation and a simplification of the global order that transformed international politics
- a peace that is no peace
Walter Lippmann popularised it in 1947 to describe the international system and the specific Soviet-American competition - bipolar rivalry
fundamental elements of the cold war
ideology: clash of universalisms/views of modernity and of historical process
- not just 2 superpowers but they both claimed to be universal and universally reproducible model
- competition between capitalism and liberal democracy, and socialism and state-planned economies
arms race and permanent mobilisation (military-industrial complexes)
- produced a sort of permanent mobilisation in a constant race
geopolitical simplification, asymmetrical bipolarism, European balance of power, system of alliances
- bipolar system instead of a multipolar system that would allow for shifts in the power equilibrium
- US was much more powerful
unquestioned superiority of the US
US economic/military superiority
- emerged much wealthier, richer and more powerful after WWII
- US enjoyed a condition of nuclear monopoly even if the USSR had the largest standing army in the world
capacity of global ideological edge
- true universalism in many ways
capacity of leadership and consensus-building
strengths of the USSR
conventional forces
- no one could match the USSR in terms of a monumental standing army
fascination/Soviet myth
- transformation from a fairly backward, mostly agricultural country into a major industrial powerhouse
- appearance as a replicable model for less industrially developed countries and new post-colonial realities
- heroic Soviet resistance to the Nazi aggression
control of central-eastern Europe
- control over a large part of Europe
- large and broad sphere of influence
weaknesses of the USSR
lost between 24 and 27 million people - hard to understand the level of devastation
lost 1/4 of its wealth
- 20-30% of its national wealth
devastation of territory
why did a cold war erupt? - blaming the USSR
brutality of occupation in east Germany
- need to remember also reports on violence of US and Allied soldiers
opportunism and attempts to exploit weaknesses of western Europe
- unwillingness to collaborate with the US
- tried to exploit opportunities to expand influence
diffidence towards US and capitalism
why did a cold war erupt? - blaming the US
return of anti-communism and weakness of liberals/progressives
- played effectively in domestic policy
- popular to oppose cooperation on anti-socialist grounds
abandonment of punitive policies vs. Germany and keeping USSR out of Japan
- US quickly and early on decided to reintegrate Germany into the US bloc/sphere of influence which threatened the USSR
why did a cold war erupt? - structuralist interpretations
bipolarism
- more conducive to conflict/antagonism
- less possibilities of balance
combination of ideology/geopolitics
- ideological antagonism and geopolitical simplification which made the rivalry inevitable and drove the totality of the antagonism
security dilemma
- each side taking actions it perceived to be defensive and reactive in nature
impact of nuclear weapons in the post-war international system and how did they affect the nature/possibilities of war
followed the immense destruction of WWII
- considered nuclear as normal
have a unique destructive potential
- many scientists called for an abolition of nuclear or some international control/monitoring
post-Clausewitzian arms: politics unable to control them
- war as a continuation of politics by other means
- politics have to be able to control and use war
- victory and defeat loses meaning in a nuclear conflict
what should nuclear weapons be for and how were they used?
symbolic value (power)
attempts to normalise/rationalise them
effort to justify political/strategic and the relevance of nuclear superiority
- superior at the utmost level of violence and gives leverage
effort to magnify their stabilising power (paradox: non-use defined their significance)
fear of proliferation and strategic interdependence for survival
invitations to ban them and ecological concerns
why was the US superior in the nuclear realm?
monopolistic up until 1949
- USSR somehow sped up the process of development and tests
unassailable in the early 60s with the first-strike capability
- massive nuclear gap so much so that if the US decided to strike first and launch a pre-emptive attack, the US would have eliminated any capability of the Soviet Union to retaliate
US technological hedge
most visible form of bipolarism in the nuclear realm
heavy Soviet investments and parity of a sort: nuclear deterrence as main cold war paradox
- USSR developed the ability to strike against the US via ICBMs
- possibility of nuclear exchange and nuclear Holocaust became reality which transformed the international system and the cold war
- MAD as the most paradoxical element of the cold war
multiple other non-warlike cold wars
economic cold war: GDP, industrialisation and productivity indexes
- economic might tantamount to industrial might
- GDP growth still used and considered a key indicator of national wealth and how a country is doing
geopolitical cold war: alliances and balances of power, both global and regional
- race to build and set up networks of bilateral or multilateral alliances
cultural cold war: intellectuals, arts, cinema, sport, education
- ideological dimension extended to other areas
military conflicts outside of Europe
Korean War from 1950-1953
Afghanistan
although the long peace description of the cold war is elegant/systematic in a conceptual definition of the cold war, it works in a Eurocentric examination and focuses on an absence of war between the US and USSR
