To what extent was the development of the post-Stalin thaw in superpower relations between 1953 and 1962 the result of Khrushchev’s policy of ‘Peaceful Coexistence’?

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

As tensions continued to augment profoundly throughout the latter half of the Cold War period, they brought forth a movement from a previous bipolar conflicting course, to one of a more multipolar nature. These tensions were now not only restricted to the Soviet Union and United states, but amongst multiple other nations of the globe. It became a general consensus that a notion of ‘peace’ was sought globally, hence, the emergence of détente. The nature of this idea in the short term conveyed itself to be an act of change for the conflicting nations, however, in the long term it proved to be a blatant continuity, ultimately acting as a ‘mechanism for domestic fortification’ which prompted a more divisive tone. It became apparent that by the prime 1970’s Cold War countries were now seeking a state of relaxation in political and international tension, détente, through measures of diplomacy and negotiation. Actions, influences and treaties such as the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the establishment of SALT 1, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 and the Shanghai Communique of 1972 evidently help reinforce that the concept of détente brought a period focused on lessening the tensions of international relations and ultimately achieve political relation for the future of the Cold War, although the success and impact of this era is abhorred by many historians who have concluded that détente didn’t activate any positive changes to the cold war, and was conclusively a failure.

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.

The orthodox view regarding the cause of the Cold War, formed the standard interpretation between the 1940s and early-1960s. The breakdown of the wartime alliance and the expansion of Soviet

Brands' purpose for writing this book was to inform the reader of actions taken before, during, and after the Cold War. After World War II, the United States and Russia were the only two remaining world powers. Each had a conflicting method of government, which ultimately led to the Cold War. The two superpowers were at the center of attention for the better part of

Eisenhower’s administration took many actions to strengthen anti-communist states and prevent the spread of communism. One example would be the use of former President Truman’s containment policy to prevent ware between the U.S. and the USSR. Another example would be, to prevent the Soviet Union from attacking the U.S., the Eisenhower administration began massive retaliation or the mass building of nuclear weapons. This would help the United States save money and cause our enemies to think twice before starting an attack. The USSR building nuclear bombs themselves put the U.S. at risk (Doc E), this should be taken with a grain of salt though because the potential of a war and destruction was too much of a risk for both countries to attack. This potential put both countries back at a stalemate position. Ultimately, massive retaliation acted as a protective barrier for the U.S. and American citizens, calming the fear of

Truman and Stalin expanded strains in Europe and East Asia in the years quickly taking after World War II, the Cold War itself was unavoidable. The relationship during the war amongst the United States and the USSR during World War II was still conserve to defeat the previous many years of intuition and unease amongst the two countries. In addition, as both astonishing groups looked to accomplish their after war security targets, They're intentions were to retaliate against Germany in 1945.

Peaceful  co­existence  is the  idea  that  the two  superpowers in the world, the USSR and the USA  can  accept

After more than forty years, the Cold War era ended in 1991 largely due to Ronald Reagan’s presidency. Despite being allies during WWII, the United States and the Soviet Union had an acrimonious relationship from 1947 to 1991. This period of time was known for the military build-up of each country, ultimately resulting in a nuclear missile stand-off. President Reagan’s goal of “peace through strength” was the basis for negotiations with the Soviet Union that ended the threat of nuclear war by eliminating the use of intermediate-range nuclear missiles.

Stalin’ actions were responsible for initiating the Cold War, through his machination to expand communism throughout Eastern Europe. In 1945, Stalin violated the Yalta agreement and inflicted Soviet expansion in Eastern Europe provoking tension. Stalin’s expansion of communism was enacted with invigorating force , as diplomatic historian Richard H. Ullman states, ‘communist regimes had been thrust upon them

The Cold War, which started sometime in the 1940’s, was a large quarrel between the United States and the Soviet Union. This dispute involved a lot of propaganda and threats of nuclear warfare. Despite all of the trouble though, after over forty years of fighting, the two leaders of these countries (Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev) would finally work out a solution. However, although they did reach an agreement, there were many differences between these two men.

After world war one peace looked inevitable. Everyone was wrong about this because a few years later world war two erupted. This great war was supposed to be the war to end all wars. In this war it was crystal clear who was the good side and who was the bad side. Almost everyone figured that if the bad side was defeated then peace couldn’t possibly escape us again. We defeated the evil Axis powers, but of course another serpent would rear its ugly head from behind the curtains. This period of a “cold war” after world war two has become one of the most complex and studied eras since America’s birth. This state of paradoxes, paranoia, and public disorientation has only ended a few years ago, but its

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.).

The traditional, orthodox interpretation places the responsibility of the Cold War on Stalin’s personality and on communist ideology. It claims that as long as Stalin and the authoritarian government were in power, a cold war was unavoidable. It argues that Stalin violated agreements that he had made at Yalta, imposed Soviet policy on Eastern European countries aiming at political domination and conspired to advocate communism throughout the world. As a result, United States officials were forced to respond to Soviet aggression with foreign policies such as the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. Yet revisionists argue that there was “no proof of Stalin promoting communism outside Russia” and that Stalin’s decisions were first and foremost, pro-Soviet and not of communist intentions. Up until 1947, it is evident through Marshall Plan as well as statements and interviews made by Stalin that he was still thinking of cooperation with the United States, Britain and France. Despite post-war conflicts and instability of Soviet-American relations, the USSR’s initial embrace of the Marshall Plan at its announcement expressed

The post-WW2 period brought to the fore an intellectual divide that drove a wedge between the victorious United States (US) and Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR); the West disliked Communism; that dislike was reciprocated by the USSR. As a result of this wedge, both countries found it difficult to trust each other. This mistrust alarmed members of both governments, who saw a need to prevent war by keeping tensions low between the two super-powers. During this period, the social psychiatrist Charles E. Osgood developed and practiced a theory wherein tensions could be reduced “more by deeds than words” led to a clearing of the air for negotiations: it was coined “Gradual Reciprocation In Tension-reduction,” (GRIT). This paper will examine the application of GRIT in two Cold War situations; specifically John F. Kennedy’s speech at American University, and Mikhail Gorbachev’s unilateral moves at the end of the Cold War, and determine if the application was successful, and what may have contributed to the success.