| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "COLD WAR SUPERPOWER RELATIONS": |
|
|
End of Cold War & Superpower Relations, 1996.
Historical context, causes & effects, reformist policies of Soviet ruler Gorbachev, military issues, failure of communist economy.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 6 sources, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"This research paper explains what is meant by the end of the Cold War and how and why it ended. The end of the Cold War encompasses a combination of events, the most important of which was the cessation of the confrontation and competition of the two nuclear superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, and their allies, including nuclear disarmament, the withdrawal of Soviet military powerfrom Central Europe, the toppling of communist regimes in Eastern Europe, the breakup of the Soviet empire and the collapse of the Soviet communist government and economic system. Many internal and external factors contributed to this result, but the most important were the internal centrifugal forces unleashed by the policies of the last Soviet ruler, Mikhail Gorbachev."
| |
|
End of Cold War & Superpower Relations, 1996.
Research design to determine change in U.S.-Soviet attitudes & relations.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 7 sources, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"This research develops a design to test an hypothesis related to the effects on relations between the great powers of the conclusion of the ?Cold War.? The findings of this research are presented within the contexts of (1) hypothesis formulation, (2) independent variables and justifications for their use, (3) research design, and (4) predictions of the outcomes of testing the hypothesis.
Research Hypothesis
The end of the ?Cold War? also marked an end to the bipolar character of international relations that existed for 50 years (Hyland, 1990, p. 5). During this 50 year period, international relations was..."
| |
|
Rhetoric of the War on Terror vs. the Cold War, 2008.
An analysis of the power of the definition of terms such as "Cold War" and "War on Terror."
1,288 words (approx. 5.2 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares the rhetoric and arguments that surround the Cold War and the War on Terror. It discusses how the definition of terms such as "Cold War" or "War on Terror" has a large impact upon how these wars are viewed. The paper argues that those who define and utilize the terms, primarily governments, often do so with ulterior motives, with the understanding that the one who controls the definition also controls the methodology of approach and influences public attitudes.
From the Paper
"The orthodox interpretation of the Cold War, for instance, stated that the beginning of the Cold War can be traced to the Soviet attempt to expand its sphere of control into Eastern Europe. This theory notes that the Soviets violated treaties made during the war to limit its reach. Thus, the U.S. is portrayed as acting in a purely defensive way to protect itself and stem the expansion of communism worldwide, through such strategies as the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan. This standard view of the Cold War, which certainly had much evidence in its favor, began to be questioned in the 1960s, as the failure of the Vietnam War, then a major theater of operations in which the U.S. faced off the communist expansion, became impossible to ignore. Some writers around that time began to argue that the U.S. itself was an "empire" with global reach, not unlike many other empires throughout history, and thus was not solely in a defensive position against its opponent. More recent writers, notably Noam Chomsky, make a similar argument. Related to this critique of U.S. actions is the argument that the U.S. economic motivation, to force all nations in the world to open themselves to U.S. trade and economic influence, is also a source of worldwide conflict and opposition, both during the Cold War and during the current War on Terror (Richelson and Evans)."
| |
|
The Cold War, 2001.
A look at the years of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. A discussion of the history and the effects of the Cold War.
20,660 words (approx. 82.6 pages), 10 sources, $ 249.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper is about United States and Soviet Union relations in the Cold War period. The author investigates the causes of this war, positions of the countries which took part in it, the main events of the war and the effects that the Cold War had on the diplomacy of the United States.
Table of Contents.
Introduction.
Chapter 1: Historical Background of the Cold War.
1.1 The Historical Context.
1.2 Causes and Interpretations. Chapter 2: The Cold War Chronology.
2.1 The War Years
2.2 The Truman Doctrine.
2.3 The Marshall Plan.
Chapter 3: The Role of Cold War in American History and Diplomacy.
3.1 Declaration of the Cold War.
3.2 ?old War Issues
Conclusion
Glossary
References
From the Paper
"The Cold War was characterized by mutual distrust, suspicion and misunderstanding by both the United States and Soviet Union, and their allies. At times, these conditions increased the likelihood of the third world war. The United States accused the USSR of seeking to expand Communism throughout the world. The Soviets, meanwhile, charged the United States with practicing imperialism and with attempting to stop revolutionary activity in other countries. Each block's vision of the world contributed to East-West tension. The United States wanted a world of independent nations based on democratic principles. The Soviet Union, however, tried control areas it considered vital to its national interest, including much of Eastern Europe."
| |
|
Post Cold War, 2005.
A look at the way that the United States developed post the Cold War into the world's superpower.
2,487 words (approx. 9.9 pages), 8 sources, APA, $ 75.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines various theories into how and why the United States developed so quickly into being the world's only real superpower following the Cold War. It looks at the country's unsurpassed military capabilities and its political agenda. The writer concludes that the real geo-political organization of the post-Cold War world is a single pole of world power that constitutes the United States at the peak of the industrial west.
From the Paper
"Presently, American military expenditure enhances that of the next twenty countries altogether. Its navy, air force and space power are still considered unsurpassed. While the military expenditure by US associates is eliminated, the United States has the military expenditure to the tune of about twice as much on defense as the rest of the world altogether. The American troops have been deployed in 75 nations; each organ of the armed services has its own air force, and in the coming year we are capable of becoming aware whether the US can pull off what it has been preparing to do since the end of the cold war: struggle for two regional wars at the same moment. During the post 9/11 period most of the Americans are quite anxious to spend more on military activity than the next 15 nations collectively. They have enough faith in the pledge of our leaders that we are secured only when we could overcome our enemies and eliminate them adequately. Moreover, the American technology is quite alluring. It is prominent by every measure: military economic, technological, diplomatic, and cultural even linguistic with numerous countries trying to fend off the unalterable transition of Internet fueled MTV English."
| |
|
The Cold War Winner, 2007.
This paper discusses whether Ronald Reagan should be credited with winning the Cold War.
6,341 words (approx. 25.4 pages), 20 sources, MLA, $ 147.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper explores the Cold War, the circumstances that led to the resolution of the Cold War and the social and political factors that influenced Ronald Reagan's ability to put an end to this period of fear and terror. The paper discusses the history of the Cold War and explains the war from the American and Soviet perspectives. The paper defends the position that Ronald Reagan was largely responsible for putting an end to the Cold War and the fear it generated. The paper relates how even Mr. Gorbachev admitted years later that he was outmatched by Reagan's strategy. The paper concludes that everyone was a winner by the end of the Cold War. The threat to both American and Soviet lives and future was greatly reduced.
History of the Cold War
Two Different Viewpoints
Changing Leaders in the Global Arena
The End of an Era
The Importance of the Collapse of the Soviet Economy
Technology and the US Rise to Power
Strategic Changes and Paradigm Shifts
Reagan's Contribution in Retrospect
Conclusion: Who Won the War?
From the Paper
"The Cold War began in 1947 and ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union on December 25, 1991. The two forces at the heart of the conflict was the United States and their allies against the Soviet Union and their set of allies. This struggle is called the Cold War because open hostility never occurred. However, the situations never escalated into full scale war or battle. The war was fought using posturing and information swapping regarding who had the worst weapons and who would likely to be able to inflict the most damage on the other should a full scale war occur."
| |
|
McCarthy and the Cold War, 2005.
Discusses the events leading up to the Cold War and the impact the Cold War had on the society and politics of the United States.
2,863 words (approx. 11.5 pages), 5 sources, APA, $ 85.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at how the Cold War with the Soviet Union fed fears of Communism and feelings of paranoia and, ultimately, allowed Joseph McCarthy to wield tremendous political and social power in the United States. The paper describes the history of McCarthy's anti-communist campaign, his obsession with the communists-in-government issue, the conditions at the time that allowed him to feed on the American fear of Communism, why he was so popular, and how he was finally defeated.
From the Paper
"One aspect of history is that a country?s so-called ?friend? one day, can be an enemy the next and visa versa. The United States and Soviet Union during World War II joined ranks against the real threat of Nazi Germany. However, it did not take long after the end of the war for Russia and the United States to once again bully each other. Even before the final surrender of Germany in 1945, the two super powers rapidly found themselves in a new military and diplomatic rivalry. Meanwhile, in the United States, the economy was taking time to build and unemployment was growing. Thoughts of the Depression loomed in people?s minds. The friction with the Russians, which would receive the name of Cold War, did not help. Yet it did create a scapegoat for fears and feelings of paranoia. As the tensions between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. mounted, the Communist threat reached American shores. Surely, Russia was infiltrating the government. The Rosenberg?s trial in 1951 put all the props on the stage for the director Joseph McCarthy."
| |
|
The Cold War, 2002.
Describes the roles China and Nicaragua played in the superpower rivalry of the Cold War years.
2,400 words (approx. 9.6 pages), 10 sources, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Almost every nation in the world was affected by superpower rivalry in the Cold War. Asian and Latin American countries were especially affected, since they were caught in strategically vital areas of the superpower conflict. This paper will examine how China and Nicaragua were affected by the Cold War. This paper will focus on the fall of Chiang Kai-Shek in China in 1949 and America's imperialistic oppression of Nicaragua in the 1980s. Overall, the thesis of this paper will argue that communism triumphed in China because of the military superiority of the communist forces, and that the Sandinista experiment in Nicaragua failed because of U.S. determinism to continue exploiting Latin America in the Cold War.
| |
|
The Cold War, 2005.
This paper discusses the effect of the Cold War on countries other than the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
2,215 words (approx. 8.9 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 68.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the Cold War was a globalized conflict, which dragged every nation into the geopolitical game being played by U.S.S.R. and the U.S. It shows how the third world nations of Africa, Middle East, Asia and Latin America had severe economic repercussions under the shadow of the superpowers. The author points out that the 'Guatemalan Affair' is an instance of how the U.S. used its economic might to create instability in this Latin nation and use the opportunity to install a favorable puppet government. The paper relates that the Cold War had a positive effect of the economic recovery of Japan and Germany, spurred scientific research and served as a proxy war.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Cold War (Effect on Japan and West Germany)
Effect on Third World Countries
Guatemala Affair
Cold War and Africa
Iran-Contra Affair
Cuban Missile Crisis
Gorbachev and the End of Cold War
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Gorbachev's presidency marked a new dawn in the relationships between U.S. and the Soviet Union. It was during his tenure that the INF treaty (Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces) was signed that eliminated all nuclear arms in the range of 500 and 5500 Kilometers. The early nineties however meant an economic downturn for the soviets and many European countries and the soaring unemployment under the socialist policies created poverty and social unrest. The Soviet Union was forced to enter the open market in exchange for aid. The ensuing coup saw the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the declaration of independence by the republics. Thus the death of the soviet empire marked the end of the Cold War."
| |
|
Cold War Culture, 2001.
How the creation of images of the Cold War shaped the culture of its time. Cold War rhetoric in politics & culture. Geopolitical stakes. Propaganda "war." Shifting U.S. priorities.
3,150 words (approx. 12.6 pages), 23 sources, $ 111.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"This research examines Cold War culture, in which the issue of public image, or perception, of geopolitical rivals and allies and their adherents surfaced as a recurring theme throughout the last half of the 20th century. The research will consider ways in which commentators and artists, via public statements, the public discourse, and such media as television and film, treated the question of image in that period, with a view toward identifying reasons that perception was so important to so many as well as evaluating the weight that Cold War-context presentation carried in shaping the culture of the time.
The generation that witnessed and participated in World War II was shocked to learn afterward that some 12 million people--6 million of them Jews--had been murdered, not collaterally but before and in parallel with the shooting war in Europe, as a ..."
| |
|
The Cold War, 2002.
A brief paper on the cold war, including its main causes and effects.
1,969 words (approx. 7.9 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents a background and history of the Cold War. The paper explains the origins of the war including the main characters and countries involved in it. The writer then offers an interpretation of the main causes behind the conflict and how it developed into the long-term conflict it became. Finally, the paper examines its effect on Europe, the United States and the rest of the world.
Contents:
Introduction
The Origins
The Main Causes
Start of the Cold War
The Cold War Intensifies in Europe
Division of Germany
Other Tit-for-Tat Cold War Events in Europe
How the Cold War Affected the Rest of the World?
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Although the Cold War occurred after the Second World War, it had its roots in the events that took place towards the fag end of World War I. At the time of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the First World War was nearing its end; Russia?s new Communist leader Vladimir Lenin decided to withdraw his country from the war. Military intervention in Russia by the United States, Britain, France, and Japan, soon followed? purportedly to restore the collapsed Eastern Front in their war effort against Germany. (Legvold, para on ?Background.?) The Communist Russia saw the intervention as an attempt to undermine the fledgling revolution. This sowed the seeds of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States that came to fore several decades later in the post World War II period."
| |
|
"Dismantling The Cold War Economy" ( Ann Markusen and Joel Yudken ), 1995.
A critical review of this work on Cold War economic problems, the impact of the arms race on the U.S. industry and opportunities for post-Cold War conversion.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 1 source, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"This study will examine Dismantling the Cold War Economy, by Ann Markusen and Joel Yudken, considering the chief problems associated with the Cold War economy, the impact of the Cold War on U.S. industry, and the possibility and opportunities of economic conversion from Cold War imperatives, as well as the obstacles to that conversion. The argument herein will be that despite the fact that the military domination of the Cold War economy created serious obstacles to post-Cold War conversion, and despite the fact that those obstacles are deeply entrenched despite the end of the Cold War, such conversion is possible. Perhaps the authors are overly optimistic in this regard, but it would still be going too far to argue that conversion is impossible. After all, the conversion to a military-industrial-dominated economy (which had its origins not in the Cold War but ..."
| |
|
The Cold War, 2004.
This paper is about the historiography examining the origins of the Cold War.
2,535 words (approx. 10.1 pages), 21 sources, MLA, $ 76.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the historiography of the origins of the Cold War passes through three chronologically defined and ideologically distinct phases, which can be called ?traditionalist?, ?revisionist?, and ?post-revisionist?. Each reflects the cultural and political attitudes prevailing in the wider Cold War context of the particular era in which it flourished. The author points out that some historians believe that power politics and strategic considerations were more important than ideology in determining Soviet policy and behavior; therefore, the Cold War resulted from a contest of great powers, not a conflict of ideologies, and both the United States and the Soviet Union bear responsibility for the origins of the Cold War. The paper relates that a new element, which reflects important trends in modern Cold War scholarship, concerns the personality of Stalin, the nature of authoritarian government, and the character and content of Communist ideology.
From the Paper
"From the end of the Second World War until the mid-1960s, the ?traditionalists? held the field with a standpoint that can be summarized as essentially pro-American/pro-Western and anti-Soviet. Essentially, such scholars held the Soviet Union responsible for the onset of the Cold War by undermining the Second World War alliance between East and West, increasing the level of military confrontation between Russia and America, and acting aggressively to promote the imposition and spread of Communism in Europe and elsewhere. It was thus argued that the United States was correct in its policy of containment towards the USSR and the Eastern Bloc, and that the American position was essentially a defensive one forced upon it by the hostility and aggression of the Communist East."
| |
|
The End of the Cold War, 2002.
An historical look at the end of the cold war and its implications for Europe and the rest of the world.
5,275 words (approx. 21.1 pages), 12 sources, MLA, $ 130.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores the history of conflict in Europe, focusing on modern day times, after World War II and specifically the end of the Cold War. The essay considers some implications of the end of the Cold War for future conflict in Europe and elsewhere. The Cold War itself is discussed first, as an extension of the familiar system of state, followed by a discussion of the Cold War experience, with consideration given to the means of making war, by whom war can be made, and implications for the future development of global power relationships.
Contents:
Introduction
Multipolar to Bipolar and Beyond: The End of Classical Theory
Who Makes War?
Conflict Beyond States
References
From the Paper
"Prior to 1914, Europe was spared a full general coalition war during the 99 years between Waterloo and Sarajevo, but the Crimean War arguably fell just short of qualifying, while the years between 1815 and 1871 saw several wars between individual Great Powers as well as the nearly continent-wide abortive revolution of 1848. The nearly half-century between 1871 and 1914 (a period comparable in length to the Cold War era) saw no wars between major powers, but repeated wars in the Balkans, out of which a general great-power war finally arose. Going back further still, war was endemic in Europe through the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries."
| |
|
The Cold War, 2002.
A study addressing the question: "Was the Cold War a statement of power?".
3,380 words (approx. 13.5 pages), 9 sources, MLA, $ 96.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper deals with how the Cold War affected the power of the United States. A synopsis of the Cold War is given, which includes the background of World War II. Kennedy?s role in the Cold War is examined as is Winston Churchill?s speech of 1946 at Fulton, Missouri. The purpose of the war is explored, and the development of NATO is looked at. William Odom?s reasons for the war are cited. The paper concludes with the after-effects of the Cold War noticeable today.
From the Paper
"One of the many reasons for war has evolved around the need for power and control. This can be seen in most countries and the reasons they have war. Was the political reason that the United States was involved in the Cold War a statement of power over the Soviet Union? Did the United States want to make a bold statement to other countries that the United States believed in democracy and would fight if needed to help other countries maintain their democracy? Was the real reason for the war a bold statement to others that United States had power and would use it if need be? Why or Why not? Is the Cold War really over? Will there be another Cold War? What affect has the terrorists had on the nation and the Cold War? Will Russia side with the United States?"
|
|
|
