Cold War 2

1. Building on the Russian unity that World War II created, many Soviet people hoped that they would receive greater freedom and democracy. However, as early as 1944, Stalin and other leading mem-bers of the Communist party were moving the Soviet Union back to rigid dictatorship and focusing their attack to capitalists. Stalin used the United States for reestablishing a harsh dictatorship, with many returning soldiers and ordinary citizens being purged. Stalin also purged culture and art of its Western nature and attacked the Soviet Jews. He reasserted the Communist party’s complete control of the government and his mastery of the party. Five-year plans were reintroduced to reconstruct destroyed industry. Stalin’s prime postwar goal was to export the Stalinist system to the countries of eastern Europe. He had done so by 1948 thanks to the Red Army and the Russian secret police. There were constant ideological indoctrination, attacks on religion, and lack of civil liberties. Industry was nationalized, and the middle class lost its possessions. There was forced industrialization and collectivization of agriculture. Josip Broz Tito, the leader of Communist Yugoslavia, resisted Soviet domination successfully, as he broke away from Stalin in 1948 and was able to get away with it because there was no Russian army in Yugoslavia. This caused Stalin to reenact the show trials of the 1930s and to purge other rebellious leaders. When Stalin died in 1953, there was widespread fear and hatred of Stalin’s political terrorism. The power of the secret police was diminished, and many of the forced-labor camps were closed. Agriculture was poor, and shortages of consumer goods were discouraging hard work and initiative. Stalin’s foreign policy had also created a strong Western al-liance, isolating the Soviet Union. The Communist party was split on how much to change to preserve the system. Conservatives wanted as few changes as possible, while reformers, who were led by Nikita Khrushchev, argued for major innovations. He emerged as the new ruler in 1955. He launched an attack on Stalin and his crimes at the Twentieth Party Congress in 1956 to strengthen his own position and that of his fellow Communist reformers. He denounced Stalin for torturing and murdering thousands of loyal Communists, trusting Hitler, and glorifying himself. In de-Stalinization, the Communist party maintained its monopoly on political power but also brought in new members. Some resources were shifted from heavy industry and military toward consumer goods and agricul-ture, and Stalinist controls over workers were relaxed. In de-Stalinization, poet Boris Pasternak fi-nished his novel Doctor Zhivago in 1956. It was a literary masterpiece and a challenge to commun-ism, as it tells the story of a prerevolutionary intellectual who rejects the violence and brutality of the revolution of 1917 and the Stalinist years. Despite being destroyed, he triumphs because of his humanity and Christian spirit. In 1962, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s One Day in the Life of Ivan Deniso-vich portrays life in a Stalinist concentration camp and is an indictment of the Stalinist past.

2. Khrushchev’s de-Stalinization of Soviet foreign policy stressed peaceful coexistence with capitalism and great wars were not inevitable. In 1955, he agreed to Austrian independence after ten years of Allied occupation. His policies, however, stimulated rebelliousness in the eastern European satellites. As communist reformers and the masses sought much greater liberty and national independence, Poland received a new government with greater autonomy after extensive rioting broke out. Led by students and workers, the people of Budapest, Hungary installed a liberal communist reformer as their new leader in October 1956, forcing Soviet troops to leave the country. The new government then promised free elections and renounced Hungary’s military alliance with Moscow, causing Rus-sian leaders to order an invasion and crush the national and democratic revolution. After the United States did not get involved, most people in eastern Europe concluded that their only hope was to strive for small domestic gains while obeying Soviet foreign policies. With increased opposition to Khrushchev starting in late 1962, he was killed in 1964 and replaced by Leonid Brezhnev and a period of stagnation and limited re-Stalinization. De-Stalinization was not only denouncing Stalin but his fol-lowers, as well as creating a threat to the dictatorial authority of the party and producing growing criticism of the entire communist system. Khrushchev's foreign policies were also to blame. In 1958, he ordered the Western allies to evacuate West Berlin within six months, but when the allies reaf-firmed their unity in West Berlin, Khrushchev backed down. As relations with communist China be-gan to break down in 1961, Khrushchev ordered the East Germans to build a wall between East and West Berlin, sealing off West Berlin in violation of existing access agreements between all countries. Seeing a change to change the balance of military power, Khrushchev ordered missiles with nuclear warhead installed in Fidel Castro’s communist Cuba in 1962. U.S. President John F. Kennedy estab-lished a naval blockade of Cuba, and after a diplomatic crisis, Khrushchev agreed to remove the So-viet missiles in return for American pledges not to disturb Castro’s regime. When Brezhnev came to power in 1964, he talked of Stalin’s good points and ignored his crimes, signaling the end to liberali-zation. Soviet leaders launched a massive arms buildup but avoided direct confrontation with the United States.

3. With increased liberalization and more consumer goods in eastern Europe, there was greater na-tional autonomy in Poland, Romania, and Czechoslovakia. In January 1968, the reform elements in the Czechoslovak Communist party gained a majority and voted out the long-time Stalinist leader in favor of Alexander Dubček, whose new government launched many reforms. He was a dedicated Communist who believed that they could reconcile genuine socialism with personal freedom and in-ternal party democracy. Local decision making by trade unions, managers, and consumers replaced bureaucratic planning, and censorship was relaxed. The determination of the Czech reformers to build a humane socialism frightened conservative Communists. These fears were strong in Poland and East Germany, and in the Soviet Union, leaders feared that a liberalized Czechoslovakia would become neutral or ally with the west. The Soviet-controlled countries intimidated Czech leaders, and in August 1968, 500,000 Russian and allied eastern European troops occupied Czechoslovakia. The Czechs surrendered peacefully, the reform program was abandoned, and the attempt to humanize communism was ended. After the invasion, Brezhnev declared the Brezhnev Doctrine, saying that the Soviet Union and its allies had the right to intervene in any socialist country whenever they saw the need. The invasion demonstrated the determination of the ruling elite to maintain the status quo in the Soviet countries, as well as led to further repression.

4. Tito and Stalin’s breakup is similar to the start of the Cold War. Tito was like the United States by supporting autonomy for eastern European nations and by defending his homeland against invaders. Stalin became dissatisfied and suspicious of both and eventually waged war on both. Tito’s indepen-dent communism remained strictly Stalinist at first, as he imprisoned opponents and proclaimed its Marxist-Leninist orthodox. He approved the introduction of workers’ self-management in Yugoslavia, which loosened the state’s hold on the economy and was trumpeted internationally as a radical step toward genuine communism. Tito’s one-party dictatorship then allowed greater personal freedom and presented would-be communist reformers in eastern Europe with an intriguing model. His mod-el became influential in world politics. He also defended his homeland against the Soviet Union. He supported national autonomy over Cold War alliances.

1. Science and technical developments became profitable after World War II because pure theoretical science and practical technology were effectively joined together on a massive scale. Science be-came important in the war, as leading university students worked on top-secret projects to help their governments and British scientists developed radar and stimulated the development of jet aircraft and electronic computers. The atomic bomb showed the world the great power and the heavy moral responsibilities of modern science and its great technology. Directed research inspired Big Science, in which theoretical work was combined with sophisticated engineering in a large organization. It could attack very difficult problems, but cost a lot. Between 1945 and 1965, spending on scientific research and development in the United States grew five times as fast as the national income. This was because science was not demobilized after the war and remained a critical part of every major military establishment and defense. New weapons like rockets, nuclear submarines, and spy satellites were as important as the radar and the atomic bomb. After 1945, about 25% of all men and women trained in science and engineering were employed to make weapons. In 1957, the So-viets used long-range rockets developed in their nuclear weapons program to put a satellite in orbit, and in 1961, they sent the world’s first cosmonaut into space. President Kennedy responded to this by establishing a space program and land on the moon. With pure science, applied technology, and $5 billion a year, the Apollo Program landed on the moon in 1969 and had four more by 1972. The rapid expansion of government-financed research in the United States attracted many of Europe’s best scientists in the 1950s and 1960s, creating a brain drain in Europe. However, Europe did use science to create the Concorde supersonic passenger airline and the utilize atomic energy peacefully. There were about four times as many scientists in Europe and North America in 1975 than in 1945. Because of its growth, there was a high degree of specialization that increased the rates at which ba-sic knowledge was acquired and practical applications were made. Highly specialized modern scien-tists and technologists had to work as members of a team, changing their work and lifestyle. A large portion of work went on in large bureaucratic organization. Modern science also became highly competitive, as evident in the quest to discover DNA.

2. With great economic growth came a more mobile and democratic European society where old class barriers were relaxes and class distinctions became unclear. In the 1800s and early 1900s, the model for the middle class had been the independent, self-employed individual who owned a business or practiced a liberal profession, with ownership of property and strong family ties being the keys to wealth and standing. After 1945, a new breed of managers and experts replaced traditional property owners as the leaders of the middle class. The ability to serve the needs of a big organization re-placed inherited property and family connections in determining an individual’s social position. The middle class also grew greatly and became harder to define. Rapid industrial and technological ex-pansion had created in large corporations and government agencies a powerful demand for technol-ogists and managers. The old middle class lost control of many family-owned businesses and many small businesses passed out of existence as their former owners joined salaried jobs. Top managers and ranking civil servants became the model for a new middle class of salaried specialists, who were well paid and highly trained. These experts came from all social classes. They were primarily con-cerned with efficiency and practical solutions to problems. These people passed on the opportunity for advanced education to their children, but only rarely could they pass on the positions they had attained. The new middle class was more open, democratic, and insecure. The structure of the lower classes became more flexible and open, as many people left rural areas and factories and headed to white-collar and service jobs. European government reduced class tensions with a series of social se-curity reforms. Many were increased unemployment benefits and more extensive old-age pensions while other were national health systems directed by the state. Family allowances were introduced to help parents raise their children. Maternity grants were made and inexpensive public housing was constructed as well. Reform promoted greater equality because they were expensive and were paid for in part by higher taxes on the rich. The rising standard of living and the spread of standardized consumer goods blurred class lines. Cars became available to all classes and all countries, as they were democratized and cheap. Western people bought many new consumer goods, which was fi-nanced by installment purchasing. The most important leisure-time development was mass travel and tourism, as month-long paid vacations and automobile ownerships provided ample time.

3. With economic prosperity and more democratic class structure, the youth born after World War II developed a distinctive an international youth culture. This culture became increasingly oppositional in the 1960s, reviving leftist thought to create a counterculture that rebelled against parents, author-ity figures, and the status quo. In the 1950s, there was some rebellious, as with Elvis Presley, James Dean, and the beatniks with Jack Kerouac. These people centered themselves in certain urban areas, where they developed a subculture that blended radical politics, personal experimentation, and new artistic styles. Rock music tied this international subculture together. It grew out of the black music culture of rhythm and blues which country and western parts. Bill Hailey and Elvis Presley were pop-ular in the 1950s, but the Beatles and Bob Dylan came to dominate the 1960s. These people became angry at the complacency of the 1950s and the injustices of racism and imperialism. Sexual behavior changed, as more young people engaged in sexual intercourse and earlier. There was a growing ten-dency of young unmarried people to live together in a separate household on a semipermanent ba-sis, with little thought of getting married or having children. Mass communications and youth travel linked countries and continents together. The postwar baby boom meant that young people became a quite large part of the population and could exercise great influence on society. Postwar prosperity and greater equality gave young people more purchasing power than ever before, allowing them to set their own trends and mass fads. Common patterns of consumption and behavior supported ge-nerational loyalty. Prosperity meant that good jobs were available, and there was little fear of abuse in the workplace. Student protesters embraced romanticism and revolutionary idealism, so when the Vietnam War came, more and more students criticized it as trying to subjugate a heroic people. Stu-dent protests in western Europe showed more general problems of youth, education, and a society of specialists. Whereas 22% of Americans went to some form of higher education in 1950, only 3 to 4% of western European youth were doing so, but then enrollments rose greatly. By 1960, three times as many students were going to some kind of university as had attended before the war, and the number rose until the 1970s. European universities gave more scholarships and opened their doors to more students from the lower middle and lower classes. Classes were overcrowded, there was little contact with professors, competition for grades was intense, and many people though that they were not getting important education. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, European university students challenged their university administrations and their governments, with the most famous being in France in 1968. Students occupied buildings and took over the University of Paris, leading to violent clashes with police. Most students demanded changes in the curriculum and a real voice in running the university, with some linking the attack on French universities to New Left critiques of capitalism and appealing to France’s industrial workers for help. They responded enthusiastically, and a general strike spread across France in May 1968. President de Gaulle moved troops toward Paris and called for new elections. The masses of France were frightened of a student-sparked upheaval and fearful that a successful revolution could lead to an eventual communist takeover, so they voted overwhelmingly for de Gaulle’s’ party and a return to law and order. Workers went back to work, though the mini-revolution caused de Gaulle to resign within a year.