The End Of History

DBQ Outline Intro Paragraph · Background/Context: The Cold War was a state of political tension after World War II between the Eastern bloc countries and Western bloc countries. Cold War took a significant place in between 1947 to 1991 which the two most powerful countries, United States of America and Soviet Union, were competing with each other over spreading the rule and showing off their arms without killing people. After the World War II, people in different countries started to think about who bears more responsibility for starting the Cold War, United States or USSR. · Three-point thesis: The United States of America bears more responsibility for starting the Cold War because it built up military powers and prepared for

After World War II, only two world superpowers remained: the United States of America and the Soviet Union. The contradictory political regimes of the democratic United States and the communist Soviet Union were believed to be mutually exclusive which increased bitterness between them. Inevitably, the apparent tension between the two superpowers led to the Cold War which lasted about 45 years. It was war without bloodshed or battle, instead it was a metaphorical war where the U.S and the Soviet Union increased their weapons and fought for political influence, one always wanting to excel or maintain within the range of the other. The United States’ desperate need to contain the communist political ideology from spreading any further and meet the Soviet Union’s increased development of nuclear weapons led to the their involvement in the Cold War. The impact the Cold War had on life during the 1950’s and 1960’s can be measured through the creation of the House Un-American

After the end of World War II on September 2, 1945, a new era called the Cold War began. The Cold War was a non-violent state of political and military tension between the democratic and capitalist United States and the communist Soviet Union: two of the biggest powers of the world at the time. However, they were drastically different in both economy and politics, allowing rivalry to build up. They both wanted to become the most powerful nation of the world, and both feared that the other nation would rise up to become the most powerful nation of the world.

At the end of the Second World War two major issues were brought to attention. The first was dealing with the destruction of the global catastrophe. The second issue involved the shape of the new world and what political alliances were to be made. And although the U.S. and Russia were “allies” during the war the second issue was the foremost cause of the contention between the world’s two political/economic systems, Capitalism and Communism. The Cold War was basically an ideological catch-22

Consisting of 44 years of violence and civil unrest from 1947 to 1991, the Cold War was a huge turning-point in history. The Cold War however was a war of avoidance, not combat. Defence systems were heavily funded as deterrence to actual war, the belief being a risk of mutual annihilation would be too great to be the side to make the first move. However, the Cold War caused a large variety of conflict and civil unrest around the world, such as the Korean War, Vietnam War and the Cuban Missile Crisis. The War split the world into supporting either the United States, or the USSR (Soviet Union). Both superpowers were associated with two very different political systems; Capitalism and Communism. The Soviets were very concerned about the spread

During the Cold War the powers of the Eastern and Western Bloc were states of tension after World War II. The war between the United States and the Soviet Union had lasted about half of the second century where there were many stages to finish this war. There are several documents and speeches that help explain and support what had occurred during the Cold War. It had brought heightened tensions and a series of international incidents that brought the world’s superpowers to the brink of disaster. The Cold War brought many effect around the world such as economic depression, divisions, and fear.

The forty-five years from the dropping of the atom bombs to the end of the Soviet Union, can be seen as the era of the new conflict between two major states: United States of America (USA) and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). According to Hobsbawm, ‘cold war’ was the constant confrontation of the two super powers which emerged from the Second World War. At that time the entire generation was under constant fear of global nuclear battles. It was widely believed that it could break out at any moment. (Hobsbawm, 1994) The consequences of the ‘power vacuum’ in central Europe, created by the defeat of Germany, gave rise to these two super powers (Dunbabin, 1994). The world was divided into

In this paper I will discuss what actions and thoughts added up to cause the cold war. The cold war lasted from September 1, 1945 to about December 25, 1991. That is about forty-five years, which is an extremely long time. The cold war was a global competition basically between two sides, the Free World, which was led by the United States of America, and the Communist World led by the Soviet Union. The struggle took place through indirect military conflict, and direct competition in the areas of economics, diplomacy, culture, space exploration, and political theory. It also involved nuclear stand offs, espionage, and global competition for other nations. The cold war has established the framework for most

In “The end s of the world as we know them” article Jared Diamond looks at the collapse of several historical societies and the factors that caused their collapse. The factors are:

The time period between 1945 and 1991 is considered to be the era of the Cold War. The Cold War, known as the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, each known during this time as the "super powers". This conflict consisted of the differing attitudes on the ideological, political, and military interests of these two states and their allies, exte nded around the globe. A common political debate covers the issue of who, if anyone won the Cold War. Many believe the United States won the Cold War since (it) had resulted in the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union. While others are to believe the United States had not won it as much as the Soviet Union had lost it since they feel Reagan did not end the Cold War, but that

Francis Fukuyama; political scientist, economist, and author, in his article “The End of History?” discusses he rise and fall of major ideologies such as absolutism, fascism and communism, and suggests that human history should be viewed in terms of a battle of ideologies which has reached its end in the universalization of Western liberal democracy. Fukuyama concludes that the idea of Western liberal democracy has triumphed in the world through a variety of different ways and is a thriving piece of world order today. However, there are certain flaws to his argument including a US- centric view on the events of the twentieth century.

The “Cold War” was a unique time period were paranoia ran high and the world was at a stalemate as it watch the competition between the two world superpowers,(U.S. and the U.S.S.R.).

Snow (1991, p.44) states that "[i]n 'simpler' days during Cold War, possession of nuclear weapons was thought to provide the possessors with the special power, that could be translated into usable influence in the international system". This means that some conflicts were kept under control because the world was ruled by bipolar system (USA and Soviet Union). However, conflicts were not absent during this period, but the parties in a conflict would often seek assistance from one of the superpowers and hence strengthen the conception of a bipolar world (e.g. the Vietnam War). With the end of the Cold War this system transformed into a multipolar system where new conflicts emerged. As Mearsheimer states, key elements in the Long Peace was bipolarity, an equal balance of military power and nuclear weapons.

To begin with Francis Fukuyama's, provocative thesis, that after the fall of communism in Europe and the withering of the grand ideological contests, history too has ended. In his "end of history" theory, he maintained that the western liberal democracy had become the `final form of human government'. The fact is that though not all theorists have this kind of a faith in liberal democracy, and believe that it's not the only feasible form of democracy, they are in a minority. The theoretical circles and the popular discourse have been dominated by "liberal democracy."

In conclusion, however, I find that it is not a meaningful argument to examine if ‘the end of history’ has indeed taken place, simply because Francis Fukuyama has set the basis of his theory too wide. People will naturally gravitate towards having more options in their lives, be it socially, economically or in this case, politically. This tendency would thus make Fukuyama’s ‘end of history’ irrefutable. The more pertinent question to explore would be how the end goal of liberal democracy can be properly managed, with it being based on the twin principles of liberty and equality. At this end point of history as we know it, trade-offs have to be made between the two- equality cannot be achieved without the actions of a state controlling liberty, while liberty cannot be attained fully without social inequality. The end of history has dawned, where there would be no further meaningful challenge to liberal democracy, but a new battle awaits with the conundrum of balance between liberty and equality in liberal