And
Going online right now about whether or not the Cold War was amenable
given these factors of the two powers these four TV interests
Finally the ideologies that were being played out whether or not the cold war was inevitable because
the term cold war itself is
used to specifically describe this time period but it is also the
most visible and most not an example of
two competing powers that cannot that
Cannot go to war with each other conventional. They have neither any military
capability of overpowering the other nor do they have the Miraval to
effectively make this equipment decisive war the
memories of the Second World War
Certainly played their parts in how the whole war was being waged
The other understanding is that you do not go up against a power that has nuclear weapons
You do not go up against a power that may actually use nuclear weapons
given the extreme circumstances the foot of
a nuclear disaster
Was effectively a self-imposed to church they maintained that the Soviet Union and the United States were constantly threatening each other and competing
Ideologically and they were fighting the number of proxy wars in the developing world
the fact remains that
During the 45 year period not a shot was fired by an American soldiers wars or Russia and vice-versa
and the other paradoxical thing about that is that Europe which is where most of the armaments the
military
Materials and most of the politics were handled Europe just by proxy becomes the most peaceful
You're comfortable pacified. It's not a fashion actually
emphasize not so much peaceful
but statement real essence a peaceful may be stager not vice-versa and
The only time that we see a resumption of violence in europe is after the cold war with the breakup of Yugoslavia
And his little work that ensue it was
Absolutely notified in between the two socks and that may have had more to do with just something they arrived news
but the idea that the forth of two major superpowers
But they're addicts don't war with each other what my results are given World War three
which you know the kind of
every
Time you sent this
He said I'm not exactly sure how World War 3 will end or how we fought for World War 4 who is what with stick?
some stuffs
the idea that in catastrophic nuclear holocaust the dragged around for
Was laid bare in the early 1960s with the Cuban Missile Crisis. So reviewing what we were looking at
Wednesday and picking up from a lot of these points moving forward to death is worth repeating again
The Cold War was a by former system of power that was divided along strategic interest
ideological outlook and perceptions of national security so you can look at the Cold War from both the realist liberalism in a
constructivist point of view that it may even be
Worth pursuing this for either your second research evaluation or for your final research paper this tool, you know
Which which theoretical approach gives you probably the best insight into how the Cold War and other international
relations have been waged over the past 20 to 50 60 70 years the thing to note here that
Strategic interest is clearly the realism
wanna do
ideological outlook
liberalism and perceptions of national security is certainly
Constructivist now the one thing that we can certainly take away. This is more empirically
historical than
Interminably is how both the United States and the Soviet Union pursue said foreign policy the United States
Practice its hegemony
Being a commercial pacifism and democratic these things at least as far as Europe and North America was gonna strike that's pretty much
you know beyond arguments the United States pursued a type of
integrative
inclusive agenda
with its major partners in Western Europe and North America
the Soviet Union on the other hand operated its hegemonic position more through traditional forms of
political control and that is making sure that there are compliance slash puppet communist regimes throughout
Eastern Europe and Central Europe
And of course both countries having nuclear
Capabilities just seal the deal that any type of conflict between both sides would result in mutually assured destruction
the term that was used to describe an a military conflict between these two powers because neither country
Had a capability of knocking out the other country in one stress into the assured destruction
Meant that the other country which everyone was going to be receiving the nuclear weapons
First had at least one chance of striking back
So the United States is not not the Soviet Union out in one
Nuclear launch the Soviet Union could not do the same with the United States
Which meant that that would at least be one of more rounds. Where a
Country could want to own nuclear missiles and create a catastrophic situation
Not only between those two countries, but among its various Alex
So beautifully assured destruction was certainly a way of making up deserving. Peace, but definitely insurance available
now with all of that month
I think it's also worth pointing out that strategic interests can only take us so far as really do I think
This is being partially soapbox. You are free to agree disagree a little bit if you want
But looking back on the Cold War 25 years at more into the past
I think it is certainly worth investigating that it was it was a war military
Certainly horrified adoption. It was certainly a war of ideology at least in terms of getting
Second rates and even third rate powers to Ally
One side or the other the United States was pushing the idea that the u.s
Stood for freedom democracy
liberty
Independence development all that kind of stuff and they used Western Europe as the you know, mostly photos with a brochure
The Soviet learn on the other end unchanged its tactics noticeably half the solitude of Stalin was an old-school
Ministerial, you know sort of medieval world war which is simply beautiful satellizer as buffer zones
But Soviet Union from Christian on so that communism could be a very lucrative
Ideology or countries emerging from the periphery to use Wallis things model of world Systems Theory
particularly countries emerging from colonial holdings from Western Europe this becomes
apparent from the mid sixties, perhaps said
By the 1980s that ideology morphs into a competing economic cost
by the 1980s the United States
realizes that it can win the war of ideology
By money by a pop culture by what we prefer to have soft power
This is something that realists are gonna overlook
this is something that liberal lists are going to give some kind of passing reference to but this is something that
Constructed it in the gospel
They constructivism will definitely say that if anything the United States won the war not so much by out
spending Soviet eating but that by the
1980s the United States looked simply more appealing the United States
A number of things in its pop cultural arsenal that were much more appealing
To those the East will be West than those in the West looking east
So there's a lot of ways in which he can look at me second half of the Cold War
particularly in relation to either of the two superpowers and
how it is responding to another country and I'm going to be using
Wallerstein's world Systems Theory model throughout the lecture today to kind of give you this
Understanding about how these countries were linked to their course to their core allies as well as to their equivalents
First thing to understand. Okay first thing to understand here is that
the United States had different foreign policies
Depending upon where it was focused as far as Western Europe and North America is concerned
this was the heart and soul of America's transatlantic economic collaboration that
Came from the office
To the demanding world of the other again the United States still assumed this position of superiority
Which was already codified in a previous document known as the Monroe Doctrine the Monroe Doctrine already place of the United States in a position
above
Its developing neighbors particularly Latin in Central America. The Truman Doctrine was war
reasons additive to the whole scenario
Implies. The United States is going to weigh. No sodium realism to those countries that wish for us protection
The Soviet Union on the other hand is going to answer that's notable
hierarchical support and start egging on a number of these developing countries in the periphery to
Consider communism as a better alternative
To market capitalism simply because communism at least in theory allows these
Developing countries to use their own raw materials and natural resources for their own bed
Under the u.s
supported system the United States and other
Corporate country simply going to extract these raw materials for their own industrial
Benefit as well as look at these countries has little more than compliant states and this we see most notably
in the proxy areas of Africa
Southeast Asia Latin America and the Middle East so the only area that becomes somewhat off-limits
Okay, is your both Western and Eastern simply because of the military presence?
We also have to take a few moments to note that communism did have some further successes
countries opting to go the communist raps were the countries that had some
industrial capability well before the market economy kicked in
One very notable examples one of the very few times that we will speak positively about people
Without
Really was the better career up until I would say the late seventies early eighties
It was you know, if you kind of think back to people reading of sort of the united Korea
The northern tip was where the Japanese occupying powers got most of their raw materials
most of their industrial capacities most of the is mostly being intelligentsia was located in what would become
Korea South Korea was very agricultural. Very rural very backward
Very different today North Korea under Kim fields song was know it to be more of a showpiece
Than a blueberry
And we see this in a number of other emerging countries particularly in Central Africa as well
countries that had opted for the communist model
And so because it was the better option
to
Develop their own social
economic and cultural
resources there's a type of national copy
Even though he said this is more the Chinese model than the Soviets
Estonia is kind of played into this only because he gave me a list but the Chinese model under math was really the global standard
International communism National Socialism, even though it was a term
But the Chinese version of communism was certainly a marketable product for a couple of reasons number one
China's version of communism did already assumed that the vast majority of pets in the rural developing areas
Never really bothered to sit down and read Marx. Let's be honest Marx wrote a lot of stuff
Marx isn't exactly the most easy dream to make right
You've got the Communist Manifesto, which is a little thing to leaf through during your labor strikes, but Marxism
Basically implies that the workers are going to be already so much educated so much skilled and still politically active
The Chinese version of communism doesn't even further than the Soviet version Soviet version is basically involved vehicle or love
Dissipated keep calling didn't invent it works, but the people get in on the other hand I can totally get
Yeah, but in this case
Communism is a national liberation movement not a class-based movement
Not a movement that you just fly the stitch
that will prevent other powers from exploiting said statement repeat that against
This notion of national communism was not in favor of eliminating mistakes along Marxist fears
War has a way of giving hegemonic power to a core group of elites whether it's about technology
ho Chi Minh in Vietnam Fidel Castro in Cuba
Or Che Guevara wherever they would give him a place to crash for the night to whatever it was enough in this regard
Okay
communism becomes more of a national liberation struggle and takes this on very very
Visibly both in Southeast Asia as we see in Vietnam
Cambodia
Other places ain't even more salt flatten America where it becomes where communism in this case is almost synonymous
with into colonialism and
imperialism
works in South America is also very very critical of
US economics, okay. So in this regard the Soviets may have found their ace in the hole by exploiting
Elongate Marxian axiom and more, you know, the more, you know the frustration
The frustration is called the periphery the rage against the core
Okay, that's something to keep into account. This is where you're fighting college. You really eat enough and more importantly
If we accept this hypothesis
if we accept this hypothesis as to the general understanding about why the United States made a number of
Corner cut number of orders in its foreign policy
That kind of did away with supporting democracies and did more toward supporting
Compliant pro-western regimes this would be a little bit more clear as the lecture goes on
All right. So we've talked about the periphery. Let's then talk about the core here. I want to this qualifier. I'm not using
Wallerstein's
core model, exclusively, which denotes
develops industrialized States
What I'm doing here is taking the notion of the poor as the primary states within an alliance system
But also knowing which countries were key allies
Of either Washington or Moscow and made that apparent in the lecture Wednesday whose ones were you know?
Keep horrors in this map
The first thing to understand is that the United States and this goes back to where I was just talking about long ago
in this
situation the United States plays the literalist part
U.s. Foreign policy is certainly
pronounced by patterns of commercial pacifism
and by patterns
of democratic transition theory
Okay, America's transatlantic relationship specific
grigorik
Canada France, West Germany
The Low Countries Belgium Luxembourg Millers Italy Spain on Franco finally, dr
Trust me the United States isolate Spain under Franco either the United States swore that the North Atlantic
was a key strategic area not just for military capabilities also for rebuilding
maintaining a healthy trans economic cooperative
This is basically the rudimentary foundations of the global free market today
That's why I said Adam Smith tends to be more of the victor at the end of the Cold War then Thomas Jefferson
The other thing that we got to understand is and I will give complete deafness to the realists under sense
Is that this transatlantic cooperation took place amid a larger framework?
Military security specifically through danger
Now maybe there was one of the most successful international organizations in modern discipline
 
NATO is
successful simply because of its limited and
Strategic objectives and having need to provide collective military security but it also implies
Is that the United States is?
has been and as long as this theme continues pretty much will be the military edge along with getting that alliance that
Stop saying the United States is trying to exploit us what it does say is this the United States through native tells its allies
Don't worry
about military spending
traditionally states need to allocate a certain percentage of their revenues every year towards military spending towards
Security the United States effectively said in so many words
You can spend whatever money that you want on your own Defense Force
But we're going to be the primary
Military in Europe if there's a war blow a whistle and one of our staff sergeants more gears and we'll come right
Now, what does that do?
To unbelievably beneficial things number one the notion that another country
has effectively blank checked your
Security means that you can focus your time energy and resources on other business economic cultural
Institutional the second thing and this is a bit more of micro economic is that let's just take a country like Germany
the United States told the Western governments
After it was, you know reformed in 1949 1950 it again in so many words guys
Look every time we give you an army you do something stupid minutes
Every time if you get an army or attendant get a little crazy with their army a world war breaks out. So here's the
Peace agreement. We're going to rebuild your country. We're going to provide you security you're going to have the military
That's a little bit more than token defensible
150,000 that's about it. Okay, no armored brigades. No major air for rappelling. Here's another thing
You can't send your arm again to another country for?
Obvious reasons, right?
But here's the thing in return the West German government does not have to invest its
necessary funds for military spending
Which means that it's economic?
It is double the amount of money that would evolve into economic investment their their money that would traditionally go to a military. Oh
There's a double there's a total investment in the economy
This is the reason why the European economic system particularly in the West picks up so quickly
This is the reason why the German economy picks up so quickly by the mid-to by the mid-1950s
Everyone was talking about the German economic miracle. Yes. Germans are efficient. Yes during products are good. We also have to take into account
Germany is not investing in a major military. So a rigorous argument could be
once you have that all-encompassing security once you have effectively
Pacified the region with a superior military and everyone within that military alliance
Chooses to play by the rules and acknowledge the United States as the Alpha in the pack
then and only then can you spend time really developing your economy and
developing
Transnational institutional links in other worlds commercial pacifism and Democratic peace theory can work
But it can work even better if all sides know that there is no threat of invasion if there is no threat of war
hence
The reason why the French and the Germans got along so marvelously well
After the Second World War like the United States is basically playing chevre
So the thing to take away here, is that security assurances through NATO. Give us the opportunity to develop
Mutually dependent economic relations under what historians and economists develop has been Bretton Woods Agreement
the Bretton Woods agreements comes out of nineteen four is basically
the foundation
Of what would be America's transatlantic?
Economic free trade zone and out of these wonderful things in Europe the Marshall Plan is the first thing that helps to rebuild
refund and revitalize Europe
Again, economically speaking. It pays to pump money into your major allies
So their economy can be top-notch
Otherwise the United States is going to be freeing the bill for a very very long time
and the second one and what that really depends into the European Union today, is those that umpires
Creates the condition for the student leg
which effectively
Establishes the European Coal and Steel Commission because we know today is now the modern-day European Union in other words NATO
Should be given a significant degree of press
for providing for the foundations of modern
Transnational global trade security gives you the ability to think about other stuff
But you don't have security all that you're doing is thinking about getting security
This one excess not that big across
On the opposite side of the wall in the Soviet sphere
There was less this type of inclusive
cooperation and more any type of top-down control
Stalin basically sought to control everything through good ol'-fashioned agenda means people after Stalin came up with a better idea
It's a bit more cost-effective, but it doesn't do anything in the long run. It is basically ensuring compliance and
partnership through a series of
bureaucratically
Authoritarian alliances and we see that in at least one
We see that there's at least one uprising in every Soviet satellite of Eastern Europe East Germany. 1953 Hungary 1956
Czechoslovakia
1969 old
1981 and in each of these uprisings
either the Red Army comes in washes, the
Would-be revolution or it's an internal coup to avoid the Red Army coming in the results of the same and ensuing
Bureaucratic authoritarian regime that basically tries to keep the Soviets happy and keep these old
guards these more bureaucratic people can control Romanians this way until
1989
Eastern Europe, basically, it's kind of a trapeze and
Just sort of stays in this bubble
Until the ladies it's around the world on the other hand the people see the market communism. China 1949 North Korea
1953 Vietnam with the first visible
Military victory of a native population against a colonial power the Ho Chi Minh's victory at the invent
boom in 1954 effectively ended French colonial rule
And of course it began the long and very drawn out painful
Relationship that the United States had with Southeast Asian when the French do one final thing on their way now
If thought of America and they say can you bail us out? Can you take care of this little problem in Indochina?
It would come back to haunt them that twenty years later
and of course Cuba
1959 Castro comes to power New Year's Day take that and then the final three Afghanistan
1981 so the notion that communism is kind of moving around the world puts the United States into a far more
Defensive position as well. It can be both
It can be inclusive
in one part of the world
The transatlantic area because that's the one place that Soviet Union is not screwing with their developing world the United States
Loses patience faster and faster for countries democratizing and begins to option for the person
Extending its position in the developing world before soviets get to
