URL; http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/causes_suez-crisis-1956.htm
This is an outline of the Suez Canal War of 1956, which we have discussed in class. This page comes from a British site for history learning, and describes how the Suez Canal War ended the political career of Sir Anthony Eden (the British Prime Minister at the time) but advanced Gamal Abdel Nasser's reputation in the Arab world. It states here that the war began in 1956 when Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, that is, took control of it and its profits and prevented Britain from benefitting. Britain had ruled Egypt for all of the 20th century and their presence in Egypt was not welcomed by many Egyptians, and Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal was one of the acts which drove the British out of Egypt, which many Egyptians wanted. After the British (and the French, who had joint control over the Canal) agreed to a ceasefire in the war and left the canal under Egyptian control, Nasser's reputation improved even more, while the British and the French, and by default, Eden were seen as international bullies. In order to further better the Egyptian economy, Nasser wanted to build what would become the Aswan High Dam, and wishing to regain some control in the region, both Britain and the United States agreed to support the project financially. The significance of this outline to what we have studied in class is that both support the idea that the Suez Canal War made relations between Britain and Egypt worse, portrayed Nasser as a hero in the Arab world for standing up to the British and the French (who they saw as oppressors), and made the British and the French appear to be international bullies. The main limitation with this source is that it does not specifically state how this incident ended Anthony Eden's political career, although it is stated in the first part of the reading that it did, and that information would be useful, since it effectively describes how Nasser's reputation improved due to the war.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
7 "Key Questions", pages 36-44 of "Crisis in the Middle East". March 29, 2010.
1. There were several causes for the tension along Israel's borders. The first is that after the Arabs had been defeated by the Israelis, the Israelis had militarized their border with Syria. The Syrian side was also militarized and there were other sources of tension as well, including an Israeli attempt to push Arabs across the border in order to create more Jewish settlements, and there were frequent incidents of shelling from both the Israeli and the Syrian sides. There were Israeli reprisals every time Jordanians crossed the border into Israel, where the Israelis targeted Arab villages. Many more killings occurred along Israel's border with Egypt than anywhere else, with raids and reprisals accompanying the killings.
2. Many Egyptians resented the British presence in their country because they felt they could only be truly independent after the British left, and they saw the British presence as imperialism. The Egyptians didn't like that the British had so many troops stationed along the Suez Canal and that the canal was so vital to the British, especially given that so many Egyptians had died in the process of its construction in the 1880s. They also saw their government as inefficient and they blamed its weakness on British influence, where they felt that King Farouk had been manipulated by the British. They accused their government of supplying them with limited and weak weapons, leading to their defeat by the Israelis.
3. The Egyptian monarchy was overthrown by a group of young officers, known as the Free Officers, who secretly plotted to overthrow the government and eventually succeeded. They built support within the army, taking their time while simultaneously avoiding being uncovered by the security police. In July of 1952 they took over key government buildings and announced the revolution's success by way of radio, and after allowing the king to flee the country, General Neguib was appointed head of the new government. When Egypt became a republic in 1953 he became president.
4. The Israelis attacked Gaza because they wanted to teach Nasser a lesson because Egypt encouraged Palestinian raids into Israel. They hoped to remove Nasser from power and wanted to expose him as militarily weak in the process. Israeli troops attacked the Egyptian army headquarters in Gaza and killed 35 Egyptian soldiers.
5. Britain, France, and Israel decided to attack Egypt because Nasser decided that he would nationalise the Suez Canal and that Egyptians would run it themselves. He said Britain and France could 'choke on their rage'. Britain and France were determined to stop this, and they were determined not to appease Nasser as they had Hitler in the 1930s, and one person even referred to Nasser as "Hitler on the Nile". The French also wanted to topple Nasser because they believed he had given aid to the Algerians in their fight for independence against the French themselves. Israel, a country with a close relationship to Britain, of course would share a similar viewpoint.
6. In the Suez War, Israeli forces invaded Egypt in October of 1956. The next day, the British and French ordered Egypt and Israel to each withdraw 10 miles from the canal and if either side refused, the British and French would use force. The Israelis agreed, the Egyptians refused. The British and French then destroyed most of the Egyptian air force, and bombed Port Said. Egypt responded by sinking their ships. The Arab states condemned this Anglo-French action and ceased sale of oil to the West, and the UN ordered the British and French to withdraw.
7. The Egyptians and the Israelis were winners of the war each in different ways. The Egyptians now had complete control of the Suez Canal, and Nasser now had the respect and admiration of many Arab states, because he had finally stood up to Britain and France, who had controlled the region for far too long. Nasser also could claim that the Egyptian army was only defeated by the Israelis due to British and French support. The Israelis' victory over Egyptian forces in the Sinai and in Gaza proved their Israeli Defense Forces to be the strongest in the Middle East, and UN forces now prevented further raids on Israel.
The losers of the war were Britain and France. They failed to overthrow Nasser and failed to regain control of the Canal. The Anglo-French domination of the Middle East was ending.
2. Many Egyptians resented the British presence in their country because they felt they could only be truly independent after the British left, and they saw the British presence as imperialism. The Egyptians didn't like that the British had so many troops stationed along the Suez Canal and that the canal was so vital to the British, especially given that so many Egyptians had died in the process of its construction in the 1880s. They also saw their government as inefficient and they blamed its weakness on British influence, where they felt that King Farouk had been manipulated by the British. They accused their government of supplying them with limited and weak weapons, leading to their defeat by the Israelis.
3. The Egyptian monarchy was overthrown by a group of young officers, known as the Free Officers, who secretly plotted to overthrow the government and eventually succeeded. They built support within the army, taking their time while simultaneously avoiding being uncovered by the security police. In July of 1952 they took over key government buildings and announced the revolution's success by way of radio, and after allowing the king to flee the country, General Neguib was appointed head of the new government. When Egypt became a republic in 1953 he became president.
4. The Israelis attacked Gaza because they wanted to teach Nasser a lesson because Egypt encouraged Palestinian raids into Israel. They hoped to remove Nasser from power and wanted to expose him as militarily weak in the process. Israeli troops attacked the Egyptian army headquarters in Gaza and killed 35 Egyptian soldiers.
5. Britain, France, and Israel decided to attack Egypt because Nasser decided that he would nationalise the Suez Canal and that Egyptians would run it themselves. He said Britain and France could 'choke on their rage'. Britain and France were determined to stop this, and they were determined not to appease Nasser as they had Hitler in the 1930s, and one person even referred to Nasser as "Hitler on the Nile". The French also wanted to topple Nasser because they believed he had given aid to the Algerians in their fight for independence against the French themselves. Israel, a country with a close relationship to Britain, of course would share a similar viewpoint.
6. In the Suez War, Israeli forces invaded Egypt in October of 1956. The next day, the British and French ordered Egypt and Israel to each withdraw 10 miles from the canal and if either side refused, the British and French would use force. The Israelis agreed, the Egyptians refused. The British and French then destroyed most of the Egyptian air force, and bombed Port Said. Egypt responded by sinking their ships. The Arab states condemned this Anglo-French action and ceased sale of oil to the West, and the UN ordered the British and French to withdraw.
7. The Egyptians and the Israelis were winners of the war each in different ways. The Egyptians now had complete control of the Suez Canal, and Nasser now had the respect and admiration of many Arab states, because he had finally stood up to Britain and France, who had controlled the region for far too long. Nasser also could claim that the Egyptian army was only defeated by the Israelis due to British and French support. The Israelis' victory over Egyptian forces in the Sinai and in Gaza proved their Israeli Defense Forces to be the strongest in the Middle East, and UN forces now prevented further raids on Israel.
The losers of the war were Britain and France. They failed to overthrow Nasser and failed to regain control of the Canal. The Anglo-French domination of the Middle East was ending.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Who was responsible for the creation of Israel? March 25, 2010.
The West, particularly the British, were responsible for the creation of Israel. For one, the Jews in Europe and particularly in Britain had been pushing for assistance in establishing a Jewish homeland, and when the British implied in a very vague and ambiguous manner in the Balfour Declaration that they would do such, this encouraged mass immigration to Palestine. The UN and Britain were responsible for the land being divided up amongst the Jews and Arabs and pretty soon, the United States expressed their support for Israel. The Jews gained military and experience from the British that they would later use in fighting for the land that they wanted, and they ended up getting that land, and eventually Israel was established. Without the Balfour Declaration to imply that the Jews could settle in Palestine, there would never have been a mass immigration there that would have been sufficient enough to develop a Jewish community that would push for their own country there, so that was the initial spark that enabled everything else to happen as it did. Without the British and their military training, the Jews could not have successfully fought against the Arabs and been able to get the land they wanted either. I see the West as a key reason why Israel was able to become what it is today.
Monday, March 22, 2010
IRL 16, March 22, 2010
URL; http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1155171.html
This is an article from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, and much of it comes from the perspective of Joe Biden, our Vice-President, relating to the Israeli decision to approve 1,600 new homes in an ultra-Orthodox East Jerusalem neighborhood. This article is significant to what we were discussing in class today because our class is transitioning back into discussions about the Arab-Israeli crisis, and the mention of the plan to build Israeli homes in East Jerusalem, the traditionally Muslim part of the city, came up in class today. According to the article and Joe Biden, this plan to build Israeli homes in that area is "precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now", and the article also states that this action undermines Middle East peace talks. I believe that the Israelis are building homes here for a number of reasons; 1. to expand into other parts of the region and 2. to assert their authority in the area, and both of these ideas were brought up in class today. It is interesting to think that such an action like this could make problems worse in Jerusalem or the country as a whole, but it's very probable and the Israelis don't seem to care. I also found it interesting that Joe Biden says this, given that the United States traditionally supported everything the Israelis did. However I agree, I think that such an act will anger the Muslim/Arab/Palestinian population of East Jerusalem and will prevent cooperation. One limitation of this article is that it only gives one perspective, and it does not give the perspective of East Jerusalem residents to either back up Biden's claim that the Israeli homes being built will disrupt peaceful cooperation, or refute the idea.
This is an article from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, and much of it comes from the perspective of Joe Biden, our Vice-President, relating to the Israeli decision to approve 1,600 new homes in an ultra-Orthodox East Jerusalem neighborhood. This article is significant to what we were discussing in class today because our class is transitioning back into discussions about the Arab-Israeli crisis, and the mention of the plan to build Israeli homes in East Jerusalem, the traditionally Muslim part of the city, came up in class today. According to the article and Joe Biden, this plan to build Israeli homes in that area is "precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now", and the article also states that this action undermines Middle East peace talks. I believe that the Israelis are building homes here for a number of reasons; 1. to expand into other parts of the region and 2. to assert their authority in the area, and both of these ideas were brought up in class today. It is interesting to think that such an action like this could make problems worse in Jerusalem or the country as a whole, but it's very probable and the Israelis don't seem to care. I also found it interesting that Joe Biden says this, given that the United States traditionally supported everything the Israelis did. However I agree, I think that such an act will anger the Muslim/Arab/Palestinian population of East Jerusalem and will prevent cooperation. One limitation of this article is that it only gives one perspective, and it does not give the perspective of East Jerusalem residents to either back up Biden's claim that the Israeli homes being built will disrupt peaceful cooperation, or refute the idea.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
SGQ14, March 17, 2010
MWH p. 147-149 and 162-165
A. Why did Castro come to power? (p. 147)
1. Why did many Cubans resent America?
a. They believed there was too much American influence in the country that dated back to the Spanish-American War.
b. American troops were needed to maintain stability, and American financial aid and investment was behind the Cuban economy.
c. The USA controlled the Cuban economy in many ways, and the Americans held controlling interests in all Cuban industries such as sugar, textiles, iron, tobacco, cooper, rum, etc. All of this would not have resulted in resentment if it led to a successful Cuba, but it did not for the Cubans.
2. Economic problems
a. The economy was too dependent on the export of sugar, and the wealth was only concentrated in the hands of a few.
b. Unemployment was a serious problem, and at some parts of the year was as much as 30%.
c. There was no unemployment benefit and trade unions did nothing to help. Social tensions were high due to the dramatic difference in wealth from rich to poor.
3. Why was there no effective political system?
Fulgencio Batista seized power in a military coup and he introduced no reforms, and focused too much on foreign affairs and not enough on what was going on inside Cuba itself. His regime was also brutal and corrupt. 4. How did Castro rise to prominence?
In 1953 he was thrown in jail due to an unsuccessful attempt to overthrow Batista but after the two years of jail time, he began a campaign of guerrilla warfare and sabotage in the cities, and the rebels eventually controlled the east and the north of the country. His land reform policy also won support in the mountainous areas. 5. How did the revolution eventually play out?
a. Bastista's actions - He took savage reprisals against the guerrillas and tortured and murdered suspects. The middle class saw him as a brutal dictator and supported Castro in hopes that Batista would be overthrown. The Cuban army crumbled in 1958 after a poor attempt to defeat Castro's forces.
b. USA's role - The USA was embarrassed by Batista's actions and cut off arms and supplies, which was a blow to Batista's prestige. Batista fled from Cuba after a small rebel force under Che Guevara drove him out by moving in on Santa Clara, and a liberal government was set up with Castro as its head.
B. What was the revolution's effect on Cuba's foreign relations?
1. with the USA - Most Americans saw Castro as a social democrat so they were prepared to give him a chance, and at first there were no issues. However he nationalized American-owned estates and factories, enraging the US. When President Eisenhower threatened to stop importing Cuban sugar, Castro signed a trade agreement with Russia.
2. with the USSR - The USSR promised to buy Cuban sugar and signed a trade agreement with Cuba. The Russians supplied economic aid as well.
3. with other Latin American countries - They expelled Cuba from the Organization of American States (OAS), which made Cuba more dependent on the USSR.
C. Castro's domestic problems
1. economic issues
a. The economy relied too heavily on the sugar industry and was at the mercy of the fluctuations in world sugar prices.
b. There was serious unemployment and poverty.
c. The whole government and administration was riddled with corruption.
2. attempted solutions
a. Social reforms, such as to improve education, housing, health, medical facilities and communications began.
b. Agricultural land was taken by the government and collective farms were introduced.
c. Factories and businesses were nationalized.
3. successes
a. There were equalities for black people and more rights for women.
b. All children were now recei9ving some education.
c. Sanitation, hygiene, and healthcare were improved, with unemployment and corruption reduced. There were also touring cinemas, theatres, concerts, and art exhibitions.
D. Reasons for detente (p.162)
1. issues for the USSR
a. The USSR was finding the expense of keeping up with the Americans to be crippling.
b. There was unrest in Poland in the early 1970s which threatened to destabilize the Communist bloc.
c. The Russians were on bad terms with China, and did not want to be left out when relations between China and the US began to improve.
2. issues for the US
Americans realized that there must have been a better way of containing Communism than the way that was failing in Vietnam. 3. issues for China
The Chinese were anxious about their isolation and not happy about their worsening relations with the USSR. 4. issues for Western Europe
Western Europeans were worried because they would be in the front line if nuclear war broke out. Willi Brandt, chancellor of West Germany since 1969, worked for better relations with Eastern Europe, a policy known as Ostopolitik.e. What was the nature of detente between the US and the USSR?
1. arms limitations - The US and USSR signed, in 1967, an agreement to ban the use of nuclear weapons in outer space. Also they signed the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty which decided how many weapons each side would have, and although this did not reduce the number of armaments, it slowed the arms race down.
2. Helsinki Agreement - The USA, Canada, the USSR and most European states signed it and accepted the European frontiers which had been drawn up after World War II, recognizing the division of Germany. The communists agreed to allow people their 'human rights' including freedom of speech and freedom to leave the country.
3. what setbacks prevented further cooperation?
a. In 1979 NATO became nervous at the deployment of 150 new Russian SS-20 missiles, so they decided to deploy over 500 Pershing and Cruise missiles in Europe in 1983 as a deterrent to a possible Russian attack on western Europe.
b. The US Senate decided not to accept a SALT 2 treaty which would limit the number of MIRVs.
c. The Russians invaded Afghanistan on Christmas of 1979 and replaced the president with one more favorable to them.
4. summarize the arms race during the 1980s:
Both sides spent the early 1980s building up their nuclear arsenals, and President Reagan initiated the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) known as the 'Star Wars'. This was meant to destroy ballistic missiles in flight from space.f. What was the nature of detente between the US and China?
1. how did each side reach out to the other?
China invited an American table tennis team to visit China in 1971, and following that, the USA responded by calling off their veto of Chinese entry into the United Nations. 2. what was the primary reason for the lack of full cooperation?
There was still the problem of Taiwan that soured the relationship; the US had at one point supported the Nationalists and they still lived on the island. 3. what was the climax of detente?
President Carter in 1979 gave formal recognition of the People's Republic of China, and ambassadors were exchanged. Good relations were maintained through the 1980s. 4. what issues arose and created more tension?
In 1989 the Chinese government used troops to disperse a student demonstration in Tiananmen Square, Beijing. At least a thousand students were killed and/or executed and this brought worldwide condemnation.g. Sino-Soviet relations
1. why did relations between the Soviets and Chinese deteriorate?
a. The Chinese did not approve of Krushchev's policies, particularly his belief of 'peaceful co-existence', and his claim that it was possible to achieve communism without violent revolution.
b. The Chinese believed these new ideas and policies went against those of Lenin, and the Chinese accused the Russians of 'revisionism'. The Russians also reduced their economic aid to China and Krushchev was accused of being 'soft' to the USA.
2. what were Chinese grievances towards the USSR in 1984?
a. The presence of Russian troops in Afghanistan
b. Soviet backing of the Vietnamese troops in Kampuchea
c. The Soviet troop build-up along the Chinese frontiers of Mongolia and Manchuria
3. how did tensions ease after 1984?
Mikhail Gorbachev was determined to begin a new era in Sino-Russian relations and so five-year agreements on trade and economic cooperation were signed in 1985 and regular contact took place between their governments. In 1989 Vietnam removed their troops from Kampuchea so the relationship with China improved.
Mikhail Gorbachev was determined to begin a new era in Sino-Russian relations and so five-year agreements on trade and economic cooperation were signed in 1985 and regular contact took place between their governments. In 1989 Vietnam removed their troops from Kampuchea so the relationship with China improved.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Question 5, March 12, 2010
'No great realignment.' What evidence is there contained in all of the sources A-C that the changes in the relations between the USA and PRC in 1971 were less fundamental than sometimes assumed?'
In sources A through C it is clear that the US-Sino relations in the early 1970's underwent no major fundamental changes, but there was a general warming in the relations between the countries.
American policies towards Chinese ideology remained primarily the same accoring to source A. The US still did not accept communism. US still refused to accpet China's hegemany of Asia.
Source C (i) and (iii): Expresses the suspicion held by the Soviet Union that the US has realized that Communist China's power will be more beneficial to them than that of the Soviet Union, and also the secrecy that the US and China developed relations with.
In source B it states that the Us would allow the PRC to enter the UN, but they could not be deprived of any representation becuase the US feared that they would need to use force against China, which in turn would ruin the relations. The US felt it better to leave the governments as they were, both mutual respect for each other but were completely different in social systems.
Source C(i) states that the Soviet Union sees the People's Republic of China as the rightful representatives of the country on an international level, such as in the United Nations, into which the US had allowed admittance of China. The relations between the US and China have improved enough that the US had begun to accept that the situation in China was not going to change, but these are signs that the tensions were being eased and there were no real reasonss for concern like it may have been assumed. However, the relationships between China and Russia might not have been too terrible. When China joined the UN, it would bring mutual understanding and peace bwtween people.
In sources A through C it is clear that the US-Sino relations in the early 1970's underwent no major fundamental changes, but there was a general warming in the relations between the countries.
American policies towards Chinese ideology remained primarily the same accoring to source A. The US still did not accept communism. US still refused to accpet China's hegemany of Asia.
Source C (i) and (iii): Expresses the suspicion held by the Soviet Union that the US has realized that Communist China's power will be more beneficial to them than that of the Soviet Union, and also the secrecy that the US and China developed relations with.
In source B it states that the Us would allow the PRC to enter the UN, but they could not be deprived of any representation becuase the US feared that they would need to use force against China, which in turn would ruin the relations. The US felt it better to leave the governments as they were, both mutual respect for each other but were completely different in social systems.
Source C(i) states that the Soviet Union sees the People's Republic of China as the rightful representatives of the country on an international level, such as in the United Nations, into which the US had allowed admittance of China. The relations between the US and China have improved enough that the US had begun to accept that the situation in China was not going to change, but these are signs that the tensions were being eased and there were no real reasonss for concern like it may have been assumed. However, the relationships between China and Russia might not have been too terrible. When China joined the UN, it would bring mutual understanding and peace bwtween people.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
IRL 15, March 10, 2010
URL; http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/detente.htm
This is a general outline relating to detente, the period of relaxation of tension in the Cold War between the East and the West. According to this source, detente is associated with the relations between the US, the USSR, and China, and all three countries had their own way of carrying this out. One of the reasons is tied in somewhat with what we have learned in class - between East and West was a fear of nuclear holocaust, and the countries wished to prevent this and ease tensions. It says here that the horrors of Vietnam were one of the contributing factors to detente and the wish to carry it out, but this was never mentioned in class, at least not yet.
It says here China was worried about her relations with the USSR and what the US was going in Vietnam, the US found better ways of containing communism (peaceful relationship with USSR), and the USSR wished to improve her relationship with China, since the US was as well. Some ways in which these things were carried out were an establishment of a hot-line between the USSR and USA after the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1963, Strategic Arms Limitation Talks begin, and Nixon, who was later president, visited Moscow. The significance of this to what we've learned in class is that it gives me a better idea of what exactly detente was and that it was more a collection of actions taken to better world relations rather than one specific act or a state of mind, which was my original interpretation. The main limitation of this source is that it mentions nothing of the other European countries involved in the process, such as Germany and France, and only mentions the big three. The other details are important as well, as the whole picture is needed for better understanding of what exactly detente meant to Europe.
This is a general outline relating to detente, the period of relaxation of tension in the Cold War between the East and the West. According to this source, detente is associated with the relations between the US, the USSR, and China, and all three countries had their own way of carrying this out. One of the reasons is tied in somewhat with what we have learned in class - between East and West was a fear of nuclear holocaust, and the countries wished to prevent this and ease tensions. It says here that the horrors of Vietnam were one of the contributing factors to detente and the wish to carry it out, but this was never mentioned in class, at least not yet.
It says here China was worried about her relations with the USSR and what the US was going in Vietnam, the US found better ways of containing communism (peaceful relationship with USSR), and the USSR wished to improve her relationship with China, since the US was as well. Some ways in which these things were carried out were an establishment of a hot-line between the USSR and USA after the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1963, Strategic Arms Limitation Talks begin, and Nixon, who was later president, visited Moscow. The significance of this to what we've learned in class is that it gives me a better idea of what exactly detente was and that it was more a collection of actions taken to better world relations rather than one specific act or a state of mind, which was my original interpretation. The main limitation of this source is that it mentions nothing of the other European countries involved in the process, such as Germany and France, and only mentions the big three. The other details are important as well, as the whole picture is needed for better understanding of what exactly detente meant to Europe.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Cold War in Europe. Chapter 7. 3/08/10.
"Cold War in Europe" chapter 7
1. How much progress was made towards detente in Europe in 1963-69 and what problems had to be overcome?
a. describe two treaties - The Test Ban Treaty, which was signed in 1963 by the USA, USSR, and Britain, banned nuclear testing under water, in space, and in the atmosphere. The Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968 was signed to decrease the spread of nuclear weapons and was very important in the progress made toward detente. b. why had the US lost some of its moral authority? The US had lost some of its moral authority due to its failing war tactics in Vietnam, which was causing anti-Americanism in many places. European allies rejected President Johnson's idea that the war was essential in preventing the spread of Communism and instead hoped to ease tensions within Europe. The focus of America at the time was not the focus of many of its allies.
c. what were the Europeans focused on during this time? what made their task easier? Europeans were focused on easing tensions in Europe, and the fall of Khrushchev in October 1964 and his replacement with Brezhnev and Kosygin, made their task easier, since Brezhnev was less erratic and believed to be someone with whom Western Europe could negotiate.
d. how did France contribute to detente?
1. De Gaulle, in 1963, vetoed Britain's application to join the EEC, because they believed that Britain was still too pro-American.
2. He visited the USSR where he announced that European states should free themselves from this 'bloc-mentality' of the Cold War.
3. Refused to support the Americans in Vietnam.
e. how did the Hamel Report define the role of NATO in the age of detente?
NATO would need to defend Western Europe but also reach a detente with the Warsaw Pact states. f. what three factors combined to weaken Soviet control over the eastern bloc?
The Soviet retreat from Cuba, the Sino-Soviet split and the growing atmosphere of detente weakened Soviet control over the eastern bloc. g. according to the Bucharest Declaration, what were the goals of the Warsaw Pact for detente?
To recognize postwar frontiers in Eastern Europe, to create a new European security system, to veto nuclear weapons for West Germany, and the creation of a programme for economic, scientific, and technical cooperation between East and West. h. What three steps did Dubcek take in Czechoslovakia, which lead to the Prague Spring?
He attempted to create a socialist system that would require the consent of the people. In April of 1968 he unveiled his program for democratic change and modernization of the economy. In June he abolished censorship, and reluctantly agreed to put it back later but the other Warsaw Pact countries did not trust his word. i. How did the Prague Spring end? Troops provided by the USSR, Hungary, Poland, the GDR and Bulgaria invaded and terminated it.
*DBQ: Using the extracts (in bold) on pages 115, 116, and 122, do you think that detente was simply a recognition by the West of Soviet influence in Eastern Europe and not a real peace at all?
No I do not think this, I think detente was more a way of European states to focus on their own matters and affairs to achieve an overall peace in Europe. An example of this is that De Gaulle of France attempted to focus on issues concerning France and lessen American influence. I don't see this as a recognition of Soviet influence but more as a way to make themselves independent of other influences and work toward a more united Europe.
2. What were the aims of Brandt's Ostpolitik and how did he seek to achieve them?
*a. Aims
1. To leave the door ajar for a future reunification of Germany by easing tension between both sides but at the same time recognizing the East German regime.
2. To come to terms with the postwar world.
b. terms of the Moscow Treaty
1. USSR and FRG had no territorial claims over any other state
2. 'Non-violability' of Poland's western frontier and of the inner German frontier recognized by the FRG
3. FRG would abandon the Hallstein Doctrine and recognize both Germanies would eventually be members of the United nations
4. 'Letter on German unity' presented, and that the FRG would work toward a state of peace in Europe.
*c. terms of the Warsaw Treaty
1. Oder-Neisse line inviolable
2. Trade and financial assistance from the FRG would be increased
3. Ethnic Germans living in Poland were allowed to emigrate to West Germany.
d. major unique term of the Prague Treaty:
The Munich Treaty of 1938 was now void. *e. terms of the four-party treaty of Berlin
1. Unimpeded traffic between West Berlin and the FRG
2. recognition of West Berlin's ties with the FRG
3. the right for West Berliners to visit East Berlin
4. Western sectors of Berlin not legally part of the FRG even if they had been since West Berlin adopted the FRG's constitution in 1950.
*f. What were the "technical agreements" of the FRG-GDR treaty?
Transit traffic, the right of West Berliners to visit East Berlin, and postal communications to be included. g. What were the terms of the Basic Treaty?
1. FRG recognized the GDR as an equal and sovereign state
2. Both sides considered to have a common German citizenship.
3. Both sides should be represented in the United Nations
*3. What were the terms of the Helsinki Accord? Did the East or West benefit more from them?
a. Terms 1. Basket One; "Declaration on Principles Guiding Relations between Participating States." Legitimated the present borders within Europe, outlawed the use of force, prohibited intervention in the internal affairs of any state, and required respect for human rights and the self-determination of peoples.
2. Basket Two; 'Cooperation in the field of economics, of science and technology and the environment.'
3. Basket Three; 'Cooperation in humanitarian and other fields', or expanding trade and cultural contacts between the two blocs, and promoting the unifying of families split by the Iron Curtain.
4. Follow up conference planned for two years later to work out further measures for European security and cooperation.
*b. benefits? Brezhnev had achieved Western recognition of the Soviet Empire, and an end of all attempts to undermine it. Right wing politicians in the US believed it was the 'American seal of approval on the Soviet Empire.' However on the other hand, its calls for peace and cooperation were considered by others to be a ticking time bomb on the Soviet Empire, as they were not truly favoring these ideas of peace and cooperation beyond the prevention of war.
*DBQ: Using the extracts (in bold) on pages 115, 116, and 122, do you think that detente was simply a recognition by the West of Soviet influence in Eastern Europe and not a real peace at all?
No I do not think this, I think detente was more a way of European states to focus on their own matters and affairs to achieve an overall peace in Europe. An example of this is that De Gaulle of France attempted to focus on issues concerning France and lessen American influence. I don't see this as a recognition of Soviet influence but more as a way to make themselves independent of other influences and work toward a more united Europe.
Monday, March 1, 2010
IRL 14, March 1, 2010
URL; http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/25/newsid_2703000/2703581.stm
This is an article from the BBC telling about the day in 1956 when Nikita Khrushchev made a speech telling the people of the Soviet Union what an atrocious leader Joseph Stalin was, and condemning some of his ways. This was the start of what was thought of as "de-stalinization" where Stalin's methods and ways of doing things were beginning to fade, and the Soviet Union was going to have a new start. The importance of this to what we are learning in class is that this speech by Khrushchev lead up to a few events that resulted in other Soviet-controlled countries such as Hungary and Poland, where the people saw Khrushchev as less controlling than Stalin, seizing an opportunity to start to do communism their own way in their respective countries. It states in the article that Khrushchev exposed Stalin for being a brutal leader, suggesting his involvement in Kirov's murder, condemning him for his behavior during the Purges, and accusing him of anti-Semitism among other things. This is all important because it represents a period of marked change in the Soviet Union and surrounding areas, where the people were being let go from Stalin's oppressive ways and other countries felt less threatened if they decided to break away from the Soviet model of communism. The main limitation of this source is that Khrushchev was not at any point directly quoted, so his exact words are not known, and the fact that his speech was given in Russian means that unless I find a translation, I will not know what he said from this article alone. However, the information here is both consistent with what we have studied in class and also useful, since it represents two things; a period of marked change, and the start of what would be an intensified Cold War in years to come.
This is an article from the BBC telling about the day in 1956 when Nikita Khrushchev made a speech telling the people of the Soviet Union what an atrocious leader Joseph Stalin was, and condemning some of his ways. This was the start of what was thought of as "de-stalinization" where Stalin's methods and ways of doing things were beginning to fade, and the Soviet Union was going to have a new start. The importance of this to what we are learning in class is that this speech by Khrushchev lead up to a few events that resulted in other Soviet-controlled countries such as Hungary and Poland, where the people saw Khrushchev as less controlling than Stalin, seizing an opportunity to start to do communism their own way in their respective countries. It states in the article that Khrushchev exposed Stalin for being a brutal leader, suggesting his involvement in Kirov's murder, condemning him for his behavior during the Purges, and accusing him of anti-Semitism among other things. This is all important because it represents a period of marked change in the Soviet Union and surrounding areas, where the people were being let go from Stalin's oppressive ways and other countries felt less threatened if they decided to break away from the Soviet model of communism. The main limitation of this source is that Khrushchev was not at any point directly quoted, so his exact words are not known, and the fact that his speech was given in Russian means that unless I find a translation, I will not know what he said from this article alone. However, the information here is both consistent with what we have studied in class and also useful, since it represents two things; a period of marked change, and the start of what would be an intensified Cold War in years to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)