0
Cold War
The nuclear arms race divided the world in a struggle as costly as any another war. East vs. West, Communism vs. Democracy, the Bear vs. the Eagle; all these were major factors in the lives of millions for 4 decades.
6,177 Questions
How was sputnik related to the cold war?
In 1957, Sputnik was the first rocket-launched space equipment to enter " outer space. " Unfortunately for the United States, it was the U.S.S.R. that took this huge landmark first step into the stratosphere, causing Americans to re-consider their assumed status as the world leader in all technology. A frightening question loomed: If the Russians are this far ahead of us in the " Space Race, " are we also behind in the nuclear arms race? After all, this was a large communist country whose leader had said only months before publicly to the U.S. -- " We will bury you !! "
No specific dates, the USSR had a policy that began in the 1950's that favored the Arab nations vs. Israel. The goal was to create a wedge between the Arab countries and the democratic nations of the west. The Soviet Union supplied most of the military equipment to those nations (& terrorists) most hostile towards Israel in the 1960-1990 era, such as to: Egypt, Syria, Iraq, & Libya.
Where was the Vietnam war with Thailand located?
More than half the B52 bomber force was based in Thailand.
Since the end of WW2 the Soviet Union was seen as a threat to the security of the United States and freedom in the world. In the 1950's there were the McCarthy hearings looking for communist in the media and government and the Berlin Wall was built in Germany. Tanks had all ready stormed into Eastern block nations, so it wasn't hard to understand what Kennedy stated in his approach to the Soviet Union. The images were all ready there and the feelings about the cold war were felt by all. As children we did "duck and cover" drills in case there was an atomic attack by Russia, and in the Cuban missile crisis everyone in the United States felt sure that there would be an atomic war. The Kennedy message wasn't as simple as you seem to think it was and we all understood what was happening.
What are 2 major trials of the 1950s that targeted Americans accused of being soviet spies?
The Rosenberg trial and the Alger Hiss trial
What were some examples of things spray-painted on the Berlin wall?
From the fifteen or twenty miles of the Wall that I got a chance to see, if you could dream it up someone had painted it on there somewhere. But my very favorite thing: someone painted a picture of an open door on it.
What were the Soviets fighting for in World War 2?
The soviets were fighting for there homeland and freedom from German control. I hope that answers your question.
How did the cold war effect Indonesia?
1965
Indonesia— The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Sukarno with a military coup. The CIA has been trying to eliminate Sukarno since 1957, using everything from attempted assassination to sexual intrigue, for nothing more than his declaring neutrality in the Cold War. His successor, General Suharto, will massacre between 500,000 to 1 million civilians accused of being "communist." The CIA supplies the names of countless suspects.
How did the Iroquois replace people who had been lost the battle?
They took captives from other tribes in a so-called "mourning war."
How were the Cuban missals in the cold war discovered?
Satellite pictures where not at the highest quality, so when the pictures were looked at, they believed they saw the evidence. The then flew reconnaissance aircraft to take pictures of Cuba. They were the U2 aircraft that found them.
How is wealth divided in a communist country?
Wealth in a communist country is divided among its people according to their needs. In the 1875 work titled "A Critique of the Gotha Programme," Karl Marx described this as "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."
Most people erroneously believe that wealth in a communist society is distributed evenly to everyone. This is not so.
NOTE: WILL SOMEONE PLEASE RE-CATEGORIZE THIS PROPERLY. IT SHOULD GO INTO "COMMUNISM", "KARL MARX" , AND MAYBE EVEN "LENIN" SINCE HE ADVOCATED THE COROLLARY "HE WHO DOES NOT WORK, SHALL NOT EAT." IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT BELONG IN "COLD WAR", OR "JOSEPH STALIN."
ISN"T THERE A COMPETENT SUPERVISOR WATCHING THE "JOSEPH STALIN" CATEGORY."
One issue in monetary theory is to determine endogenously which objects play the role of medium of exchange (e.g. Kiyotaki and Wright 1989). In order to focus on other questions, however, other papers avoid this by assuming there is a unique storable asset that qualifies as a candidate for this role. As we obviously cannot assume a unique storable asset in a paper called "Money and Capital" we need to be more careful to guarantee our setup is internally consistent. To this end, we build on two venerable ideas about the origins of monetary exchange (see e.g. Menger 1892) by assuming that money has advantages over capital in terms of portability and recognizability. First, in terms of portability, we adopt an extreme version of this notion by assuming that in the DM agents have their capital physically fixed in place at production sites. Thus, when you want to buy output from some other agent, you must visit his location, and since you cannot bring your capital with you, it cannot beused for payment. Then, to address the question of why claims to (as opposed to physical units of) capital do not circulate in the DM, we adopt an extreme version of the recognizability notion by assuming agents can costlessly counterfeit such claims but not currency.4 For instance, the monetary authority may have a monopoly on a technology for producing hard-to-counterfeit notes. Given this, sellers never accept claims to capital from anonymous buyers in the DM, any more than they accept personal IOU's, and money is the only object that can serve as medium of exchange even though capital is a storable factor of production. We emphasize that we do not regard this as the last word on the coexistence of money and other (higher-return) assets - it is rather a rudimentary but logically coherent setup that allows one to analyze capital-theoretic issues in models that incorporate ingredients from search-based monetary economics, including double coincidence problems, stochastic trading opportunities, bargaining, etc. In the CM there is a general good that can be used for consumption or investment, produced using labor H and capital K hired by firms in competitive markets. Profit maximization implies r = FK(K, H) and w = FH(K, H), where F is the technology, r the rental rate, and w the real wage; constant returns implies equilibrium profits are 0. In the DM these firms do not operate, but an agent's own effort e and capital k can be used with technology f (e, k) to produce a different good. Note that k appears as an input the DM, even if it cannot be used as a means of payment, because when an agent goes to someone else's
Which countries where on the Soviet side of the Berlin Wall?
Western countries
e.g. China, Russia, Mongolia, Western Germany Alot of these had communist governments introduced by the USSR.
Berlin itself was split-The western side of the wall was mainly inhabited by western Germans and was communist, the eastern side was inhabited by eastern Germans and was not communist. There had to be a divide as it was the capital and Western and Eastern Germans must both be allowed to live there.
Basically, Soviets were west and NATO (north Atlantic treaty organisation- USA, England etc) and was East
What policy did george f kennan's ideas about soviet expansion lead to?
His policy about Soviet Expansion lead to "Containment"
Containment- the policy or process of preventing the expantion of a hostile power
What is the significance of acronym MAD to the Cold war?
The significance of MAD, or mutually assured destruction in the Cold War, boils down to the reason behind the term Cold War itself. The Cold War, where conflict was between go-betweens on each side: for example, South Korea vs. North Korea or South Vietnam vs. North Vietnam, were pitched battles between logistics of the Americans and logistics of the Soviets. The Soviets and Americans never engaged in prolonged pitched conflict with each other. It was "cold" because neither side fired weapons at the other, in anger. Otherwise, it would be "hot". Think "hot-headed" and a gun, and "cooled off" and a gun, and you get the gist of it.
Sure, they have a gun, but no one's shooting in the latter.
The reason the conflagration, or an open war never occurred was due to the policy of mutually assured destruction. Mutually assured destruction boiled down to this: with enough nuclear weapons and enough ways of getting them to their destination, anyone who got a first strike would still not be feeling very swell in the morning. No one would get out of the pit without paying dearly for it.
This was the basis of the oft-repeated and cliche line of the physicist Albert Einstein, "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
The specter of the nuclear and thermonuclear weapon provided such a tool of utter, wanton devastation, that both sides pursued peaceful dealings with one another, despite the military-industrial complexes of both the Soviet Union and the United States revving up, quite openly to obliterate one another.
The promise of mutually assured destruction, where the mass of nuclear weapons and delivery systems were so great, that both sides knew for certain, if one of the nations fell, so would the other; they avoided the what was once considered "inevitable" conflict that would have happened if mutually assured destruction was not a policy shared between the two.
What was the Hungarian Crisis?
Hungarian Crisis- relations between the Soviet Union and Western Europe soured. The Hungarian Revolution caused Hungarians dissidents to launch a popular uprising in November 1956 to demand democratic reforms. For several days they had control of the government but Soviet troops soon took over again.
It didn't really help anybody.
The issue was that after World War II, the Allies divided Germany into administrative zones, with different members of the Allies having responsibility for different zones.
This was done for the country as a whole, and more pertinently, for Berlin specifically.
Berlin happened to be within the Soviet (USSR) administrative zone, but because unlike other cities it was portioned out separately, parts of Berlin ("West Berlin") were administered by countries other than the USSR.
When the Soviet-controlled zone became a separate (communist) country from the rest of Germany, that meant there was a tiny region of democracy within soviet East Germany. (The other zones merged into West Germany. Technically, West Berlin was not actually a part of West Germany but a separate administrative area; however, they behaved in essentially every practical way as if they were part of West Germany, even to the extent of having their legislature vote to approve all laws passed by West Germany without debate.)
Many people decided they'd rather live in a democratic country than a socialist one (that's little-d democratic as in "democracy", not big-d Democratic as in "the Democratic party." Thought I should mention that to make it clear there was an actual difference between the two.).
And, since Berlin was kind of right there, people started streaming in.
The USSR didn't like this, so they built a wall to keep it from happening. (Also, they were somewhat offronted by the very concept of "West Berlin," and hoped they'd be able to basically starve the people into agreeing to become part of East Germany... this didn't work because of the Berlin Airlift, where other countries sent food to West Berlin by plane; the USSR didn't want actual war with other countries, particularly not the US, so while they could and did stop trucks from traveling through East Germany to get to Berlin, they couldn't really just shoot the planes down.)
In the general collapse of the Iron Curtain countries under the weight of Soviet mismanagement in the late 20th century, the wall was mostly torn down and the two Germanies reunited into a single country.
So, temporarily, it helped the Soviets keep control of East Germany and not continually lose people to West Germany, by providing a physical barrier making it harder for them to simply stroll across the border. But in the long run, it was ultimately futile.
How many military actions does the US take since the end of the Cold War?
The ones I can think of are: Invasion of Panama (1989) -- to remove dictator Manuel Noriega
Operation Desert Shield/Storm (1990-91) -- to remove Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait
Somalia (1993) -- peacekeeping & humanitarian relief
Haiti (1994) -- peacekeeping
Bosnia (1996-present?) -- peacekeeping
Yugoslavia (1999) -- related to the war in Bosnia
Afghanistan (2001-present) -- because of 9/11
Iraq (2003-present) -- to remove Saddam Hussein
The glasnost was the political reform that affect freedom of speech. This led President Reagan resuming relations with the Soviet Union.
