Premium Essay

How Far Did Peaceful Coexistence Ease Tension Between the Usa and the Ussr

In: Historical Events

Submitted By donutkingdom
Words 828
Pages 4
How far did peaceful coexistence ease Cold War tensions between the USA and the Soviet Union in the years 1953-61?
The idea of peaceful coexistence emerged after the death of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin. His eventual successor, Nikita Khruschev wanted a complete overhaul in the policies of the Soviet Union leading to his ‘Secret Speech’ in which he denounced Stalin and brought his horrendous actions to light. This was known as destalinisation and marked the start of peaceful existence, the idea that both the Soviet Union and the United States of America could peacefully exist without waging a war. While peaceful coexistence did indeed ease tensions to some extent between the USA and the USSR in the years 1953-61, it largely had the opposite effect and actually increased tensions.
Firstly, in regards to diplomacy, it can be argued that peaceful coexistence did ease tensions between the USA and the USSR in the years 1953-61. Although nothing of crucial significance was agreed at the Geneva Summit of July 1955, the fact that both superpowers had agreed to meet, and it being the first summit between the two since Potsdam must show that peaceful coexistence had eased tensions to an extent. The summit marked a change in attitudes and almost presented the two superpowers to have matured simply by the fact that they had agreed to meet. Similarly, although the Paris summit never took place due to the U2 spy plane incident, the choice to have it in the first place, and the Vienna summit proceeding the Paris fallout does indeed mark a maturity between the two superpowers which does indicate the peaceful coexistence did ease Cold War tensions between the USA and the Soviet Union. Furthermore, Eisenhower’s assessment of the Geneva Summit; ‘It had been held in a cordial atmosphere which represented a sharp departure from the vitriolic recriminations which characterised so many…...

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Explain How the Attitudes of the Usa and the Ussr in 1945 Helped Cause the Cold War.

...creating the Cold war. As we can see the USSR and the United States, both had different ideologies and points of view which set the base for confrontation after the Second World War. The soviet attitudes were straight-forward. Stalin´s main aim was to safeguard and rebuild the Soviet Union. However, his actions created hostility over the West. His foreign policy was based on taking advantage of the military situation in Europe to strengthen the Soviet influence and prevent another invasion from the west. To the nations of the west this was seen as evidence of the expansionist nature of communism, but Soviet aims were based on attitudes that were more complicated than this. Russia had been invaded from the west 3 times in the 20th century; by Germany in WWI, by those helping the whites during the russian civil war, and by Germany again in WWII. Each time russian loses had been substantial, but the sacrifice required during the WWII was unprecedented. The need to ensure such a devastating war was was not again inflicted upon the Soviet Union was undoubtedly a weighty and pressing concern. The situation in Europe in 1945 provided Stalin with an opportunity to establish a buffer zone of Soviet-influenced states in Eastern Europe, which would act as a barrier against further invasion of the USSR from the West. The soviet obsession with security was difficult for the American government to understand. To the American government, the USSR was more interested in spreading......

Words: 675 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

How Far Did the Weimar Republic Recover?

...How far did the Weimar Republic Recover 1923-1929? In 1923, Gustav Stresemann was appointed chancellor in Germany. At the time, world war one had just finished and the Weimar republic was facing a lot of problems. I think Stresemann did bring a recovery however some may say he just papered over the crack which in some cases is very true. However, I think overall he did rescue Germany. I think this because he saved the economy from the hyperinflation; he signed the Dawes plan and sorted out the problems with the treaty of Versailles. However, some people may say he didn’t help Germany because the culture was changed completely and the country basically ran riot. Also, at the time that Stresemann was in charge, politicians were being killed and there were many revolts. In my essay I will argue both sides but finally come to my own conclusion. In 1922, the German government announced that they couldn’t pay anymore reparations to France due to the state of the economy. The country was in far too much debt. Of course the French were not happy and therefore sent 60,000 French and Belgian soldiers to the Ruhr. The government was hated already because a lot of people blamed them for signing the treaty in the first place which meant they had to pay reparations to France they couldn’t afford. The government told the workers at the Ruhr to refuse to collaborate with the French, consequently, the industrial production stopped. This caused a rise in unemployment and a rise in Poverty.......

Words: 2725 - Pages: 11

Premium Essay

To What Extent Was the Development of the Post-Stalin Thaw in Superpower Relations Between 1953-62 the Result of Khrushchev's Policy of Peaceful Coexistance?

...the development of the post-Stalin thaw in superpower relations between 1953-62 the result of Khrushchev’s policy of peaceful coexistence? 1953 saw the death of Stalin and thus a change in leadership from a one-man dictatorship to a collective leadership composed of Malenkov, Khrushchev, Molotov, Bulganin and Beria. This occurred shortly after Eisenhower won the US presidential election in 1952. As a result, there was a change in leadership on both sides, which naturally had a large effect on the progress and course of the Cold War. The period that followed the death of Stalin and the election of Eisenhower was one of general improvement of superpower relations and therefore the period is named the ‘Thaw’. Some believe that this was due to Khrushchev’s policy of peaceful coexistence, which he brought about due to various factors such as mutual nuclear destruction and the fact that each superpower’s sphere of influence had effectively been officially consolidated giving relations a new degree of stability. Others say that it was Eisenhower’s New Look policy that brought about this development, while some simply believe that it was the general change in leadership on both sides that caused the newfound stability in superpower relations. Khrushchev’s policy of peaceful coexistence can be seen to result in several developments that gave hope to the West that accommodation and agreement could be reached between the two superpowers and thus allowed for more relaxed meetings......

Words: 1398 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Between 1953-61 Us-Soviet Relations Were Based on Confrontation Rather Than Co-Existence. How Far Do You Agree with This View?

...a thaw in Cold War tensions between the two global superpowers of the USA and USSR. The death of Josef Stalin in 1953 and the election of Dwight Eisenhower – serving two terms in this period - brought a change in leadership in both nations and with that, an inevitable change in policies. Confrontation in this period did not necessarily only apply to direct military intervention, with both sides talking pugnaciously towards one another, making grand threats to the other’s safety. It could also be argued however that this was a period of co-existence with both nations respecting the other's sphere of influence, shown in both the US reaction to the Hungarian Uprising of 1956 and Khrushchev policy of 'Peaceful Co-existence'. Dwight Eisenhower's presidency played a role in the perception of confrontation. Eisenhower’s approach to foreign policy and the Soviet Union differed to that of Truman, who had been president before him. Eisenhower was believed to be more hard-line than Truman, being highly critical of Truman’s foreign policy as he did not take a strong enough stance against communism. Eisenhower’s ‘New Look’ policy suggested that the communists were pursuing expansionist policies and outlined the idea of ‘massive retaliation’, which threatened nuclear force in retaliation to any extent of attack, also outlined by his foreign secretary Dulles. To start, Eisenhower’s approach to foreign policy did not seem to provide a conciliatory approach to the USSR. It also introduced...

Words: 1636 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

To What Extent Did Peaceful Coexistence Ease Cold War Tension Between Us and Ussr 1953- 1961?

...To what extent did peaceful coexistence ease cold war tension between US and USSR 1953- 1961? Between the years 1953-1961 the Soviet Union under the control of Nikita Khrushchev adopted a rather ‘friendly’ and calm approach regarding American-Soviet relations. Following the death of Stalin, Khrushchev adopted the policy of ‘peaceful coexistence’ that sought a friendly approach to the west limiting the threat of direct confrontation. Through the use of this foreign policy Khrushchev could build up the soviet nation directing resources in order to better the Soviet Union’s national situation. This new policy eased cold war tensions as it saw an age of negotiating and the end of a fierce opposing ideological battle upon the surface, yet it is clear that beneath a rather more sinister situation was occurring that would create the most dangerous period in the cold war; ‘the threat of total annihilation’ so therefore it is not fair to say that peaceful coexistence was close to being reached during this period even though the attitude of the Soviet Union had changed. Although it may seem that peaceful coexistence eased cold war tensions as a friendly approach however, it is clear that the change of attitude to a peaceful approach only created further suspicion and the need for security. The threat of total annihilation and the development of a nuclear race created an increasingly tense and dangerous situation. After the development of the atom bomb and hydrogen bomb on both sides......

Words: 1227 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

How Far Did the Roman Empire Stabilise Between 312 and 324ad

...‘To what extent did the Emperor Constantine reunite the Roman Empire between 312AD to 324AD?’ On the 28th October 312, Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus and Marcus Aurelius Valerius Maxentius collided on a broad plain in front of the Milvian Bridge. The outcome of this fight would determine who the next Augustus of the Western Roman Empire would be. Maxentius, the current Emperor was facing down the usurper at Rome’s door, the young Constantine. The 40,000 hard-bitten legionnaires of Constantine had fought down through Italia and the 100,000 of Maxentius’s auxiliary and untested forces to the gates of Rome itself. Backed by his sudden belief in Christianity, Constantine and his Cavalry exterminated rank upon rank of Maxentius’s men, and routing the majority of those remaining in a panic, causing the Milvian Bridge to collapse beneath them, marking the unforeseen end to the final battle of the civil war for the Western Roman Empire. The general Constantine had won his greatest military victory. He was now sole ruler of the Western Roman Empire, and he had achieved this through his new found faith, support from the men who loyally followed his footsteps from Britain to Italy and his deep understanding of the political arena. But to what extent did his own success and prowess led to the unification of the Eastern and Western Empires by the time of his death? When Constantine the Liberator entered the great City of Rome, he passed through a blizzard of flowers and......

Words: 1748 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

How Far Did Peaceful Coexistence Ease Cold War Tensions Between the Soviet Union and the Usa in the Years 1953

...How far did peaceful coexistence ease cold war tensions between the Soviet Union and the USA in the years 1953-61? In the years 1953-61 some might say that the cold war tensions were eased by peaceful coexistence, with super power negotiations and key agreements paving the way for better relations. Despite this, the stronger argument suggests that ultimately, cold war tensions were not eased, the cold war continued for another 30 years. This was due to failure to negotiate anything of substance at conferences such as Geneva 1955 and the lack of change in superpower attitude with Eisenhower’s new look policy and the USSR’s approach to Hungary. One argument suggests that peaceful coexistence did ease cold war tensions due to the superpower negotiations. Between 1953-61 there was improved relations between the USSR and USA, they were more willing to meet, and despite it not being the leaders, representatives from both countries met at the Geneva conference in 1954. It was then in 1955 at Geneva again that both superpower leaders met for the first time in 10 years. Despite not agreeing anything of substance, it is worth noting that this was the first step in the right direction which lead to many key agreements and reforms over the following years. Camp David in 1959 was the largest step towards permanent peaceful coexistence, the leader of the USSR was invited over to the USA where both superpower leaders met. Despite the superpower negotiations there was nothing of substance...

Words: 1015 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

How Did Tensions Between Britain and the Colonies Rise in the Late 1760’s and Early 1770’s?

...Haleigh Denny Ms. Powers History 1483 8 February 2015 Topic 4: Revolution How did tensions between Britain and the colonies rise in the late 1760’s and early 1770’s? Life for colonists after the Seven Year’s War was prosperous for a short time period. Many had made fortunes with military contracts to the British crown during the war, even with the heavy taxes already on the colonists. The colonists who had supported England in the war against France hoped to gain access to lands further west of the colonies that were acquired from the war. England however, had gained major debt and looked to the colonies for assistance in paying off their bills with more taxes upon the colonies. In the early 1760’s, bickering and arguments between the colonists and England occurred. A large part of the problem was the Stamp Act. This policy from England imposed high taxes on the colonists without any representation in Parliament. The colonies, which once struggled to get along without bickering, began to unite themselves and push back on the Crown. Groups such as the Sons of Liberty and Daughters of Liberty were formed. The colonists imposed a boycott on English goods and refused to use the stamps on legal documents that were required under the Stamp Act. England was surprised by the colonist’s reactions and repealed it in March 1766. In 1767, Charles Townsend was named Prime Minister of England. Colonists were hopeful he would be their supporter because he had opposed both the......

Words: 704 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

How Far Was the Ussr Responsible for the Outbreak of the Cold War 1945-1949?

...How far was the USSR responsible for the outbreak of the Cold War 1945-1949? To a certain extent, the USSR’s responsibility of the Cold War cannot be underestimated as their policies following the Second World War may have been seen as aggressive by USA. The forceful take-over of Eastern Europe through the Red Army occupations, especially in distinctive cases such as Poland and Czechoslovakia, can be seen as being far from the “liberation” over which the two war-time allies had agreed, while the rigging of elections did not conform to the Yalta agreement of the organisation of free ones. Stalin responded to the Americans’ policies of containment by creating his own agencies, therefore creating even more hostility between the two superpowers, while also refusing the existence of anything but Soviet puppet states in Eastern Europe. However, the event which cemented the outbreak of the Cold War was Stalin imposing the Berlin Blockade, taking direct action towards weakening the Americans’ position. One may see that Stalin’s blockade resulted in the official creation of two separate German states, one of the most significant events of the Cold War. On the other hand, revisionists point out that the USSR was taking defensive measures to protect itself from anything that could have caused as much damage as the Second World War, while the Americans, who were superior economically, adopted provocative policies. They challenged the patience of the Russians by hiding crucial events......

Words: 4209 - Pages: 17

Premium Essay

The Nuclear Arms Did Little to Restrain the Action of the Usa and the Ussr

...The nuclear arms did little to restrain the actions of the USA and the soviet union in the cold war in the years of 1949-63? On the surface, it can be argued to a partial extent that the arms race did restrain the actions of the USA and the USSR due to the fact that both leaders had mutual understanding of the impact that nuclear weapons would have on both nations, therefore, they couldn't condemn their nations to that sort of destruction.The establishment of MAD was an attempt of both nations to restrain the use of arms race. However, the fact that nuclear weapons were been produced at a rapid pace means that there was still underlying fear that one nation would use the weapon against the other which highlights that arms race did little to restrain the arm to a partial extent. On one hand, it can seem that both leaders, Khrushchev and Eisenhower felt that the prospect of nuclear war was too terrifying, thus, we can argue that nuclear weapons played as a deterrence as both nations could not condemn their nations to nuclear annihilation. For example, the USA detonated their first hydrogen bomb on the first of November 1952 on Enwetak and this created a cloud of 100 miles and 25 miles high, killing every species near it, this highlights the destructive force of a weapon. The fact that the USA did not intervene during the Hungary crisis in 1956, even though, it would have been an beneficial for them as they would have had a democratic nation in a soviet sphere of influence...

Words: 1514 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

How Far Did Alexander Iii Strengthen Tsarism?

...How far did Alexander III strengthen Tsarism? It is possible say that Alexander III strengthened Tsarism because he reversed the policies of his father and enforced his policies of “Russification”. Alexander III believed that the policies of his father had led to the decline in authority of the regime, and that it was this that led to his father’s assassination. Through “Russification” (the attempt to consolidate Russian identity) Alexander III asserted the Russian Culture and Language throughout its region. This was mainly achieved through repression and it helped strengthen the control of the regime. On the other hand revolutionary activity became increasingly violent. The People’s Will was re-formed in 1886. The group was committed to assassinating key figures in the tsar’s regime and there was a failed attempt to assassinate Alexander in 1987. There was continuing liberal opposition to the regime and a preference for Marxist ideas. It is therefore possible say that Alexander III strengthened Tsarism through reforms. Alexander was influenced in his opinions by many people. One such great influence was Konstantine Pobedonostev, his tutor. He was a reactionary that encouraged Alexander III to reject liberal ideas and to see tsarism and the best form of governance. Others included members of the aristocracy and army. Alexander wanted to therefore reverse his father’s policies in order to avoid his father’s fate, by strengthening Tsarism. It was not possible to reverse the......

Words: 1060 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

“the Rising Tension Between East and West Between 1945-1949 Was Due to Stalin’s Hold over Eastern Europe” How Far Do You Agree with This View?

...“The rising tension between east and west between 1945-1949 was due to Stalin’s hold over eastern Europe” How far do you agree with this view? (25 marks) Following the Second World War the post war world was left fragile, disrupted and heavily damaged and it was vital that the future of the East and West were determined quickly and correctly as to avoid a rise in underlying tension. Due to the common enemy of Nazism having been removed, the differences in the political ideologies of the east and west were immediately highlighted consequently causing an initial rise in tension. Although at the time Stalin and the Soviet Union were solely thought to be to blame for the intense rise in tension during 1945-1949, there were more subtle and underlying issues which provoked more aggressive and inflammatory actions from the USSR which created this illusion that the East was the main instigator of tension. Stalin’s pragmatic political ideas of communist expansion contributed greatly to the increase in tension in the late 1940s; following the ACC granting the USSR a zone of the newly distributed Germany, the Ussr wanted to expand their communist sphere of influence outside of their controlled zones and with the annexation of Eastern Poland came the opportunity to introduce communism even though they had declared through the council that Poland should have the right to choose their own government through free elections. This policy of free elections to those nations who had lost the...

Words: 1376 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

‘Confused and Inconsistent.’ How Accurate Is This Assessment of Khrushchev’s Foreign Policy?

...‘Confused and inconsistent.’ How accurate is this assessment of Khrushchev’s foreign policy? Khrushchev's foreign policy throughout his rule is often characterised as “inconsistent” by many historians. Despite outwardly appearing as if he wanted to achieve peaceful relations with the U.S and the West in general, several of Khrushchev’s actions directly contradict this. "There are only two ways- either Peaceful Coexistence or the most destructive war in History. There is no third way." - Khrushchev After the death of Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev took over in control of the USSR. Khrushchev made multiple efforts to appear to work towards a serious “peaceful co-existence.”  Though many of the events which took place during Khrushchev’s leadership brought the world closer to another major war than ever before, Soviet domestic and foreign policy during this time is often regarded as a “thaw” in Cold War tension. From this we can gather that his foreign policy was in fact successful. Not only did he manage to avoid nuclear warfare with the U.S, but he also gave a speech in 1956 where he formally announced a new policy of “destalinisation”  - political prisoners were set free, Beria (Stalin’s Chief of Secret Police) was executed, giving up bases in Finland, abandoning vetoing admission of new countries to the UN, allowing greater freedom to satellite states and re conciliating with Tito in 1955. In 1961 Khrushchev declared that the period of 'the dictatorship of the......

Words: 1010 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

‘Sino-Soviet Relations, in the Years 1958-69, Were Undermined Primarily by Conflicting National Interests.’ How Far Do You Agree with This View?

...‘Sino-Soviet relations, in the years 1958-69, were undermined primarily by conflicting national interests.’ How far do you agree with this view? Introduction It is to a large extent that Sino-Soviet relations, in the years 1958-69, were primarily undermined by conflicting national interests. This is elucidated in factors or events such as Sino-Soviet rivalry over Mongolia, Sino-Soviet border disputes such as Damansky/Chenbao (1969), China’s reaction to the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia (1968) among many others. Nevertheless, other factors such as ideological conflict for example competing Soviet and Chinese claims for the leadership of international communism, China’s negative response to Soviet de-Stalinisation, Soviet ‘peaceful coexistence’ versus Mao’s commitment to ‘continuing revolution’ at a time when China was confronting the USA among many others undermined Sino-Soviet relations. 1. Sino-Soviet rivalry over Mongolia Sino-Soviet rivalry over Mongolia. The Chinese regarded Mongolia in their own sphere of influence, yet Stalin and Khrushchev refused to reduce their ties. Despite the Chinese signing the Treaty of Friendship with the Soviet Union in 1950, the Chinese failed to get an agreement off the Soviets, promising to limit their influence in Mongolia. Obviously, this would generate tension as the Chinese disliked how their power was limited. 2. Sino-Soviet border disputes such as Damansky/Chenbao (1969) Sino-Soviet border disputes such as......

Words: 1086 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Peaceful Coexistence

...Hungarian rising, the Soviet Union did the same when the United States sponsored and supported coups against the left-learning governments of Iran in 1953 and Guatemala in 1954. The U.S policy was under huge pressure over Indochina when the communist Vietminh were successful in besieging a French garrison at Dien Bien Phu in May 1954. The French made a request for U.S military assistance and Nathan Twining, the U.S Air force chief of staff, advised, ‘three small A-bombs placed properly… would have taught those Chinese a good lesson.’ Eisenhower managed to resist the call to ‘massive retaliation’ .conscious of the existence of the Soviet H-Bomb and France was therefore defeated. The victory for the Vietminh sustained military force, and consequently Mao Zedong criticised peaceful coexistence and dismissed the U.S nuclear threat as a ‘paper tiger.’ The Geneva Peace conference happened in July 1954, at the conference Indochina was divided into Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Vietnam was divided again at the 17th Parallel between the communist north and the democratic south in an interim arrangement pending elections. The U.S support cancelled the elections with the leader of South Vietnam when polls proved that Vietminh would win 80 percent of the vote. With democracy being defended in Asia, the United States supported the corrupt dictatorships of Diem in Vietnam, Rhee in South Korea and Jiang Jieshi in Formasa. However peaceful coexistence was boosted with the end......

Words: 360 - Pages: 2