The Cold War Was Easy : Capitalism Vs. Communism

From 1567 to 330 B.C. humanity experienced many subsequent development as well as decline in its civilizations. Among these events emerged three colossal empires that had shaken the world and forever changed the course of human history. The Egyptian, Assyrian, and Persian Empires have been instrumental in influencing technology, religion, and ideas throughout the world. Various factors have contributed to the success and downfall of these giants. Each of the “World Powers” have similarities as well as distinctions in its government form and organization, religion, and economy that contributed to their triumph.

Right after the end of World War II with the Allied forces rejoicing over a marginal victory over Germany, a new and different kind of war was brewing over the tensions of the Western and Eastern blocs, a kind that wouldn’t be fought on the battlefield. The Cold War began in the year of 1945 and lasted all the way until 1991. A cause of the Cold War was the tension between two former allies of World War II, the United States of America and the Soviet Union (also known as the USSR, which stood for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). The United States had a democratic government and a capitalist economy, while the Soviet Union had a communist government, each trying to spread their political views and gain world power. Neither of the two

World history is an extremely important subject that all students around the world should learn about. World history is simply a branch of knowledge that welcomes all humanity. It is essential to learn because it symbolizes the question of who we are, prepares us to live in the alluring world and ensures cultural literacy. One of the most fascinating events known in history includes the Cold War. This essay will explore the fierce, overpowering, and chaotic Cold War describing its purpose, summary and analysis of events, and how it came to a complete end.

When the term “Cold War” was popularised to refer to post-war tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union, interpreting the course and origins of the conflict became a source of heated controversy among historians. In particular, who was responsible for the breakdown of Soviet-U.S. relations after the Second World War? During World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union were allied against the Axis powers. However, in the years that followed the end of World War II, the alliance became uneasy, and signs of strain began to show. Historians have disagreed as to whether the conflict between the two superpowers was inevitable or may have been avoided. Further, what exactly the Cold War was and the sources of conflict. While there remains great diversity of opinion regarding these questions, it is commonplace to refer to three broad “schools” of thought regarding the origins and end of the Cold War: “orthodox” explanations, “revisionism”, and “post-revisionism”.

For the latter part of the 21st century, The United States was entangled in a battle of ideologies that almost brought the World to its first nuclear war. The United States and Russia have had unstable relations for greater part of the twentieth century and still remains present, to a degree, today. The Cold War is commonly classified as the time period following World War II in 1947 to the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, in which the United States and the Soviet Union were involved in a battle of ideologies as to how states should be structured in the era after World War II. What many people do not realize is that the Soviet Union had the fullest of intentions to remain allies with the United States, as did the United States, in the

Huntington goes on to suggest that along with this umbrella idea of conflict between civilizations; through economic, social, and cultural separations; there will be a divide in which countries with similar beliefs or ‘civilizations’ will stick together in war and conflict against other civilizations. Another key point to highlight is that he believed that in the post-cold war world, religion would become something that separates civilizations. In connection to Krauthamer’s viewpoint, Huntington’s explores the idea that with the West viewed as an enemy due to economic, military, and political strength, many civilizations who don't want to or cant join the west will compete with it. Huntington then suggests that the west learn to co-exist with other civilizations in order for it to remain the strongest and that it needs to accept religious and philysophical differences of other

Moises Naim doesn’t agree with Huntington’s theory of the clash of civilizations. As the graph shows that the number of deaths in Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Syria and Pakistan are higher than the rest of the globe and account for the most and they are committed by their own people not between, but within; Militant jihadists have killed more fellow Muslims than any other population of civilizations; centuries old conflicts between Shiites and Sunnis in Islam; more deaths due to terrorist attacks in America since 9/11 from white supremacists and other non-muslim extremists.

An article written by Samuel Huntington introduced the idea of a new source of conflict that according to Huntington would potentially rise between civilizations. The argument that the differences of cultures will come in the way of politics involving the world and its entirety mostly surrounds Western civilization and Islam and the differences between the two different cultures rather than the possibility of a working harmony. The idea of culture allows for a difference in the way people live their lives. Culture allows for independence while also promoting cooperation and interdependency. However, this argument presented by Huntington contrasts the ideas of the West and Islam and puts the two against one another and instead allows for the

His idea that conflict, no longer stemming from economic ideological differences, would now stem from differences in tradition and culture was in part correct. In broad terms, this is where much conflict comes from. Cultural differences lead to clashes of nations. Where traditions are rubbing together in adjoining nations, this is a fault line for conflict. Much like an earthquake fault line, there is constant tension, and while there may not be an earthquake, there is a threat of it erupting. However, Huntington was also incorrect. In his effort to group people together to show where conflict would truly happen, he was much too broad. He addresses a source of conflict, but not the only source of conflict. He puts much broader groups together that also hold different opinions, such as grouping the West together and grouping the Islamic world together. According to Huntington “the West versus the Rest” (39), although there are many more worlds and many more conflicts than just the West and everyone else. The Islamic world is too large to group together as a singular group, especially when there is such great conflict of Shia’s and

Reacting to the theory of Fukuyama, Samuel P. Huntington resumed the expression "Clash of civilizations" in 1993 and speculates that it is mainly cultural and religious identities

In the article Huntington describes civilizations as a “cultural entity” comprised of many different nationalities, ethnic groups’ religious groups and regions. We could use and example as those that live on the east coast of the United States differ from those on the west coast. Here we could talk about the difference between their politics their lifestyles and maybe their economies regional and state. However, both may be different in some form most will identify as American, which will distinguish them from Mexico or Canada. This makes civilizations. “A civilization is thus the highest cultural group of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species. It’s defined

“Culture and cultural identities, which at the broadest level are civilizational identities, are shaping patterns of cohesion, disintegration, and conflict in the post-Cold War World” - Samuel Huntington

Samuel Huntington claims in his article – “The Clash of Civilizations?” – that the “great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural.” Huntington defines civilization as a “cultural identity” that can be as narrow a scope as within a village and as broad as a “Westerner”. He argues that differences between civilizations will be the main source of conflict for six reasons: these differences are deeply ingrained; these civilizations have more interactions with each other, promoting a greater awareness of their differences; religious sects of society are returning to fundamentalism; non-Western civilizations are rejecting Western values and institutions; cultural differences are not as easily resolved as ideological differences; and intraregional trade is increasing, which increases cultural bonds between similar civilizations.

Samuel Huntington, the author of the clash of the civilisations believes that the World will eventually divide in accordance with cultural lines, and not political lines. According to Huntington, “the thriving East Asian and Muslim societies will soon challenge Western dominance, and the United States being the World leader will need to reevaluate its policies on foreign invention and domestic immigration to remain a major player.” During the Cold War, the world was divided into the First, Second and Third Worlds. Huntington views these ties as insignificant now and states that the remaking of the World order will be based upon cultural similarity. The different thriving civilisations according to him today are the Western civilisation comprising of North America and Western Europe, the Muslim civilisation, the Orthodox Civilisation led by Russia, the Chinese civilisation, the Hindu civilisation, the Japanese civilisation, the Latin American civilisation and the African civilisation. Huntington’s proposition of the division of the World according to cultural lines has been backed by the use of various examples by him; examples of events that have taken place in the past.

Huntington predicted that future clashes will occur between civilizational blocks, Muslim and Christians or Muslin and Hindu for example. However, the Lebanese and Bangladeshi cases show that clashes occur between civilizations as shown above, but also within civilizational blocks - or even within religious groups -.