essay on the cold war

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Cold War History

By: History.com Editors

Updated: June 26, 2023 | Original: October 27, 2009

The Cold War was a period of geopolitical tension marked by competition and confrontation between communist nations led by the Soviet Union and Western democracies including the United States. During World War II , the United States and the Soviets fought together as allies against Nazi Germany . However, U.S./Soviet relations were never truly friendly: Americans had long been wary of Soviet communism and Russian leader Joseph Stalin ’s tyrannical rule. The Soviets resented Americans’ refusal to give them a leading role in the international community, as well as America’s delayed entry into World War II, in which millions of Russians died.

These grievances ripened into an overwhelming sense of mutual distrust and enmity that never developed into open warfare (thus the term “cold war”). Soviet expansionism into Eastern Europe fueled many Americans’ fears of a Russian plan to control the world. Meanwhile, the USSR came to resent what they perceived as U.S. officials’ bellicose rhetoric, arms buildup and strident approach to international relations. In such a hostile atmosphere, no single party was entirely to blame for the Cold War; in fact, some historians believe it was inevitable.

Containment

By the time World War II ended, most American officials agreed that the best defense against the Soviet threat was a strategy called “containment.” In his famous “Long Telegram,” the diplomat George Kennan (1904-2005) explained the policy: The Soviet Union, he wrote, was “a political force committed fanatically to the belief that with the U.S. there can be no permanent modus vivendi [agreement between parties that disagree].” As a result, America’s only choice was the “long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.”

“It must be the policy of the United States,” he declared before Congress in 1947, “to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation…by outside pressures.” This way of thinking would shape American foreign policy for the next four decades.

Did you know? The term 'cold war' first appeared in a 1945 essay by the English writer George Orwell called 'You and the Atomic Bomb.'

The Cold War: The Atomic Age

The containment strategy also provided the rationale for an unprecedented arms buildup in the United States. In 1950, a National Security Council Report known as NSC–68 had echoed Truman’s recommendation that the country use military force to contain communist expansionism anywhere it seemed to be occurring. To that end, the report called for a four-fold increase in defense spending.

In particular, American officials encouraged the development of atomic weapons like the ones that had ended World War II. Thus began a deadly “ arms race .” In 1949, the Soviets tested an atom bomb of their own. In response, President Truman announced that the United States would build an even more destructive atomic weapon: the hydrogen bomb, or “superbomb.” Stalin followed suit.

As a result, the stakes of the Cold War were perilously high. The first H-bomb test, in the Eniwetok atoll in the Marshall Islands, showed just how fearsome the nuclear age could be. It created a 25-square-mile fireball that vaporized an island, blew a huge hole in the ocean floor and had the power to destroy half of Manhattan. Subsequent American and Soviet tests spewed radioactive waste into the atmosphere.

The ever-present threat of nuclear annihilation had a great impact on American domestic life as well. People built bomb shelters in their backyards. They practiced attack drills in schools and other public places. The 1950s and 1960s saw an epidemic of popular films that horrified moviegoers with depictions of nuclear devastation and mutant creatures. In these and other ways, the Cold War was a constant presence in Americans’ everyday lives.

HISTORY Vault: Nuclear Terror

Now more than ever, terrorist groups are obtaining nuclear weapons. With increasing cases of theft and re-sale at dozens of Russian sites, it's becoming more and more likely for terrorists to succeed.

The Cold War and the Space Race

Space exploration served as another dramatic arena for Cold War competition. On October 4, 1957, a Soviet R-7 intercontinental ballistic missile launched Sputnik (Russian for “traveling companion”), the world’s first artificial satellite and the first man-made object to be placed into the Earth’s orbit. Sputnik’s launch came as a surprise, and not a pleasant one, to most Americans.

In the United States, space was seen as the next frontier, a logical extension of the grand American tradition of exploration, and it was crucial not to lose too much ground to the Soviets. In addition, this demonstration of the overwhelming power of the R-7 missile–seemingly capable of delivering a nuclear warhead into U.S. air space–made gathering intelligence about Soviet military activities particularly urgent.

In 1958, the U.S. launched its own satellite, Explorer I, designed by the U.S. Army under the direction of rocket scientist Wernher von Braun, and what came to be known as the Space Race was underway. That same year, President Dwight Eisenhower signed a public order creating the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), a federal agency dedicated to space exploration, as well as several programs seeking to exploit the military potential of space. Still, the Soviets were one step ahead, launching the first man into space in April 1961.

That May, after Alan Shepard become the first American man in space, President John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) made the bold public claim that the U.S. would land a man on the moon by the end of the decade. His prediction came true on July 20, 1969, when Neil Armstrong of NASA’s Apollo 11 mission , became the first man to set foot on the moon, effectively winning the Space Race for the Americans. 

U.S. astronauts came to be seen as the ultimate American heroes. Soviets, in turn, were pictured as the ultimate villains, with their massive, relentless efforts to surpass America and prove the power of the communist system.

The Cold War and the Red Scare

Meanwhile, beginning in 1947, the House Un-American Activities Committee ( HUAC ) brought the Cold War home in another way. The committee began a series of hearings designed to show that communist subversion in the United States was alive and well.

In Hollywood , HUAC forced hundreds of people who worked in the movie industry to renounce left-wing political beliefs and testify against one another. More than 500 people lost their jobs. Many of these “blacklisted” writers, directors, actors and others were unable to work again for more than a decade. HUAC also accused State Department workers of engaging in subversive activities. Soon, other anticommunist politicians, most notably Senator Joseph McCarthy (1908-1957), expanded this probe to include anyone who worked in the federal government. 

Thousands of federal employees were investigated, fired and even prosecuted. As this anticommunist hysteria spread throughout the 1950s, liberal college professors lost their jobs, people were asked to testify against colleagues and “loyalty oaths” became commonplace.

The Cold War Abroad

The fight against subversion at home mirrored a growing concern with the Soviet threat abroad. In June 1950, the first military action of the Cold War began when the Soviet-backed North Korean People’s Army invaded its pro-Western neighbor to the south. Many American officials feared this was the first step in a communist campaign to take over the world and deemed that nonintervention was not an option. Truman sent the American military into Korea, but the Korean War dragged to a stalemate and ended in 1953.

In 1955, the United States and other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) made West Germany a member of NATO and permitted it to remilitarize. The Soviets responded with the Warsaw Pact , a mutual defense organization between the Soviet Union, Albania, Poland, Romania, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria that set up a unified military command under Marshal Ivan S. Konev of the Soviet Union.

Other international disputes followed. In the early 1960s, President Kennedy faced a number of troubling situations in his own hemisphere. The Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 and the Cuban missile crisis the following year seemed to prove that the real communist threat now lay in the unstable, postcolonial “Third World.” 

Nowhere was this more apparent than in Vietnam , where the collapse of the French colonial regime had led to a struggle between the American-backed nationalist Ngo Dinh Diem in the south and the communist nationalist Ho Chi Minh in the north. Since the 1950s, the United States had been committed to the survival of an anticommunist government in the region, and by the early 1960s it seemed clear to American leaders that if they were to successfully “contain” communist expansionism there, they would have to intervene more actively on Diem’s behalf. However, what was intended to be a brief military action spiraled into a 10-year conflict .

The End of the Cold War and Effects

Almost as soon as he took office, President Richard Nixon (1913-1994) began to implement a new approach to international relations. Instead of viewing the world as a hostile, “bi-polar” place, he suggested, why not use diplomacy instead of military action to create more poles? To that end, he encouraged the United Nations to recognize the communist Chinese government and, after a trip there in 1972, began to establish diplomatic relations with Beijing.

At the same time, he adopted a policy of “détente”—”relaxation”—toward the Soviet Union. In 1972, he and Soviet premier Leonid Brezhnev (1906-1982) signed the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT I), which prohibited the manufacture of nuclear missiles by both sides and took a step toward reducing the decades-old threat of nuclear war.

Despite Nixon’s efforts, the Cold War heated up again under President Ronald Reagan (1911-2004). Like many leaders of his generation, Reagan believed that the spread of communism anywhere threatened freedom everywhere. As a result, he worked to provide financial and military aid to anticommunist governments and insurgencies around the world. This policy, particularly as it was applied in the developing world in places like Grenada and El Salvador, was known as the Reagan Doctrine .

Even as Reagan fought communism in Central America, however, the Soviet Union was disintegrating. In response to severe economic problems and growing political ferment in the USSR, Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (1931-2022) took office in 1985 and introduced two policies that redefined Russia’s relationship to the rest of the world: “glasnost,” or political openness, and “ perestroika ,” or economic reform. 

Soviet influence in Eastern Europe waned. In 1989, every other communist state in the region replaced its government with a noncommunist one. In November of that year, the Berlin Wall –the most visible symbol of the decades-long Cold War–was finally destroyed, just over two years after Reagan had challenged the Soviet premier in a speech at Brandenburg Gate in Berlin: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” By 1991, the Soviet Union itself had fallen apart. The Cold War was over.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Home — Essay Samples — War — Cold War

Essays on Cold War

Hook examples for cold war essays, the tension-building anecdote hook.

Start your essay with a gripping anecdote from the Cold War era, such as a close encounter between opposing forces, a spy's daring mission, or a pivotal diplomatic negotiation.

The Iron Curtain Metaphor Hook

Draw parallels between the Iron Curtain that divided Europe during the Cold War and modern-day geopolitical divisions. Explore how historical lessons can inform contemporary politics.

The Cuban Missile Crisis Revelation Hook

Begin with a revelation about the Cuban Missile Crisis, a pivotal event during the Cold War. Discuss the world's reaction to this crisis and its implications for global peace.

The Space Race Innovation Hook

Highlight the innovative aspects of the Space Race between the United States and the Soviet Union. Discuss the technological advancements and the impact on science and society.

The Proxy Wars Connection Hook

Start by exploring the concept of proxy wars during the Cold War. Discuss how these conflicts shaped the global political landscape and their relevance in today's world.

The Nuclear Arms Race Factoid Hook

Begin with startling facts about the nuclear arms race between superpowers. Discuss the fear of nuclear annihilation and its lasting effects on international relations.

The Espionage and Spy Games Hook

Introduce your essay by delving into the world of espionage during the Cold War. Discuss famous spies, intelligence agencies, and the intrigue of espionage operations.

The Cultural Cold War Reference Hook

Start with references to the cultural aspects of the Cold War, including the influence of literature, music, and art. Discuss how cultural diplomacy played a role in the conflict.

The End of the Cold War Paradox Hook

Begin with the paradox of the peaceful end of the Cold War. Explore the factors that contributed to its conclusion and the subsequent geopolitical shifts.

The Lessons from History Hook

Start by reflecting on the lessons that can be learned from the Cold War. Discuss how understanding this historical period can inform contemporary foreign policy and global relations.

Consequences of The Truman Doctrine

Why was the korean war justified, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Where The Domino Fell Analysis

The cold war between the united states and the soviet union, analysis of how did the cold war shaped american politics, society, and economy, the cold war: an era of fear, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Understanding The Effects of The Cold War

The policy of containment during the cold war, how the atomic bomb invention contributed to the ww2 and the cold war, the end of the cold war as a turning point in the history of global civil society, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Beginning of The Cuban Missile Crisis

The role of "cold war" in bringing international order, american policy of containment during the cold war and its consequences, fears of america and the emergence of the cold war, america's leadership position at an international stage, the impact of world war ii and the cold war on the development of science in the 20th century, ronald reagan and mikhail gorbachev: discussion on resolving the cold war, analysis of the influence behind the actions of the united states army, cuban missile crisis as a world changing event, the korean war – a conflict between the soviet union and the united states, apocalypse now - cold war perspectives, the political situation in brazil during the cold war, the development of the peace corps in america, the geography of the cold war: why the us embarked on a containment policy, religion as one of the causes of the cold war, red scare: incitement to hatred of anarchy and communism, beware the red scare: another red threat to america, american containment strategy and the end of the cold war, history of american life in the early postwar era, advantages, disadvantages, and application of aip in modern submarines.

12 March 1947 – 26 December 1991 (44 years and 9 months)

North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Soviet Union, United States, Warsaw Treaty Organization.

Winston Churchill, Joseph Stalin, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Nikita Khrushchev, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan

Cuban missile crisis, Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, Berlin crisis of 1961, collapse of the Soviet Union

The Cold War was a period of political tension and military rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, lasting roughly from the late 1940s to the early 1990s. It emerged in the aftermath of World War II when ideological differences and geopolitical interests between the two superpowers intensified. The historical context of the Cold War can be traced back to the division of Europe after World War II, with the United States championing democratic principles and capitalism, while the Soviet Union sought to spread communism and establish spheres of influence. This ideological divide led to a series of confrontations and proxy wars fought between the two powers and their respective allies. The development of nuclear weapons added a dangerous dimension to the conflict, as both sides engaged in an arms race to gain a strategic advantage. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, a standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union over the placement of nuclear missiles in Cuba, brought the world to the brink of nuclear war.

The division of the world into two ideological blocs: The capitalist bloc led by the United States and the communist bloc led by the Soviet Union. The arms race and nuclear proliferation, leading to the stockpiling of nuclear weapons by both superpowers and the development of advanced military technology. The establishment of military alliances such as NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and the Warsaw Pact, which solidified the division between the Western and Eastern blocs. Proxy wars and conflicts fought between the United States and the Soviet Union or their respective allies, such as the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and various conflicts in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The spread of communism to several countries, including Eastern European nations that became part of the Soviet-dominated Eastern Bloc. The Cuban Missile Crisis, a tense standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union in 1962, which brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, marking the end of the Cold War and the transition to a unipolar world with the United States as the dominant superpower.

One of the major effects of the Cold War was the division of the world into two competing blocs, the United States-led capitalist bloc and the Soviet Union-led communist bloc. This ideological divide created a bipolar world order and fueled numerous proxy wars and conflicts around the world, such as the Korean War and the Vietnam War. The arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union was another significant consequence of the Cold War. Both superpowers invested heavily in the development and stockpiling of nuclear weapons, leading to an unprecedented level of global military buildup. The fear of nuclear annihilation and the doctrine of mutually assured destruction shaped military strategies and had a lasting impact on international security policies. The Cold War also had economic ramifications. The United States and the Soviet Union competed for influence and sought to spread their respective economic systems, capitalism and communism, across the globe. This led to the creation of economic alliances and aid programs, such as the Marshall Plan, as well as the establishment of the Soviet-dominated Eastern Bloc and the NATO alliance. Furthermore, the Cold War influenced the course of decolonization and independence movements in many countries. The superpowers often supported or opposed regimes based on their alignment with capitalist or communist ideologies, leading to political instability and conflicts in various regions. In addition, the Cold War had cultural and social effects. It fostered a climate of suspicion and fear, which manifested in widespread political repression, surveillance, and the suppression of civil liberties. The ideological struggle between capitalism and communism influenced cultural productions, including literature, art, and film.

Studying and writing essays on the topic of the Cold War is essential for students due to its multidimensional significance. Firstly, exploring the Cold War provides students with a deeper understanding of the complexities of international relations, diplomacy, and ideological conflicts. It offers insights into the strategies, policies, and motivations of the superpowers involved, such as the United States and the Soviet Union. Secondly, writing essays on the Cold War promotes critical thinking and analytical skills. Students are encouraged to examine primary and secondary sources, analyze different perspectives, and evaluate the long-term consequences of historical events. This process enhances their ability to form well-reasoned arguments and develop a nuanced understanding of complex historical phenomena. Additionally, the Cold War has left a lasting impact on society, culture, and global dynamics. By exploring this topic, students can gain insights into the origins of the arms race, the nuclear age, the space race, and the proliferation of proxy wars. They can also examine the impact of the Cold War on civil rights, technological advancements, popular culture, and the formation of alliances.

1. The term "Cold War" was coined by the American financier and presidential adviser Bernard Baruch in a speech in 1947. It referred to the absence of direct military confrontation between the superpowers, but the ongoing ideological and political struggle between them. 2. The Cold War was characterized by a state of non-military confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union. 3. The space race played a significant role during the Cold War, prompting the establishment of NASA and fueling competition between the superpowers. 4. The proxy wars fought between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War resulted in the loss of numerous lives, with casualties reaching millions. 5. Notable "hot" conflicts of the Cold War period included the Korean War, the unsuccessful Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba, and the Vietnam War. These conflicts involved direct military engagement or support from the superpowers, leading to significant human suffering and loss.

1. Gaddis, J. L. (2005). The Cold War: A new history. Penguin Books. 2. Westad, O. A. (2012). The Cold War: A world history. Basic Books. 3. Leffler, M. P. (2008). For the soul of mankind: The United States, the Soviet Union, and the Cold War. Hill and Wang. 4. Beschloss, M. R. (1997). Mayday: Eisenhower, Khrushchev, and the U-2 affair. HarperCollins. 5. Zubok, V. M., & Pleshakov, C. (2007). Inside the Kremlin's cold war: From Stalin to Khrushchev. Harvard University Press. 6. Hogan, M. J. (Ed.). (2015). The Cold War in retrospect: The formative years. Oxford University Press. 7. LaFeber, W. (2002). America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945-2000. McGraw-Hill. 8. Lynch, T. (2010). The Cold War: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. 9. Matlock, J. F. (1995). Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War ended. Random House. 10. McMahon, R. J. (2003). The Cold War: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.

Relevant topics

• Vietnam War

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The Origins of the Cold War - A Review Essay

Following the logic of earlier scholarly debates on which side is to be blamed for the Cold War it appears that in fact both or neither: it was the inevitable consequence of the fact that two superpowers emerged after the conflagration of WWII. The ideology confrontation mattered much less vis-a-vis this immense global power shift.

Related Papers

Jonathan Morales

Bibliography of New Cold War History

Aigul Kazhenova , Tsotne Tchanturia , Marijn Mulder , Ahmet Ömer Yüce , Sergei Zakharov , Mirkamran Huseynli , Pınar Eldemir , Angela Aiello , Rastko Lompar

This bibliography attempts to present the publications on the history of the Cold War published after 1989, the beginning of the „archival revolution” in the former Soviet bloc countries. While this first edition is still far from complete, it collects a huge number of books, articles and book chapters on the topic and it is the most extensive such bibliography so far, almost 600 pages in length. An enlarged and updated edition will be completed in 2018.

Tsotne Tchanturia , Vajda Barnabás , Gökay Çınar , Barnabás Vajda , Lenka Thérová , Simon Szilvási , Irem Osmanoglu , Rastko Lompar , Aigul Kazhenova , Pınar Eldemir , Natalija Dimić Lompar , Sára Büki

This bibliography attemts to present the publications on the history of the Cold War published after 1989, the beginning of the „archival revolution” in the former Soviet bloc countries. While this first edition is still far from complete, it collects a huge number of books, articles and book chapters on the topic and it is the most extensive such bibliography so far, almost 600 pages in length. An enlarged and updated edition will be completed in 2018. So, if you are a Cold War history scholar in any country and would like us to incude all of your publications on the Cold War (published after 1989) in the second edition, we will gladly do that. Please, send us a list of your works in which books and articles/book chapters are separated and follow the format of our bibliography. The titles of non-English language entries should be translated into English in square brackets. Please, send the list to: [email protected] The Cold War History Research Center owes special thanks to the Parallel History Project on Cooperative Security (formerly: on NATO and the Warsaw Pact) in Zurich–Washington D.C. for their permission to use the Selective Bibliography on the Cold War Alliances, compiled by Anna Locher and Cristian Nünlist, available at: http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/lory1.ethz.ch/publications/bibliography/index.html

The Bibliography of New Cold War History (second enlarged edition)

Tsotne Tchanturia , Aigul Kazhenova , Khatia Kardava

This bibliography attempts to present the publications on the history of the Cold War published after 1989, the beginning of the „archival revolution” in the former Soviet bloc countries.

Soshum: Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities

Adewunmi J Falode , Moses Yakubu

The Cold War that occurred between 1945 and 1991 was both an international political and historical event. As a political event, the Cold War laid bare the fissures, animosities, mistrusts, misconceptions and the high-stake brinksmanship that has been part of the international political system since the birth of the modern nation-state in 1648. As a historical event, the Cold War and its end marked an important epoch in human social, economic and political development. The beginning of the Cold War marked the introduction of a new form of social and political experiment in human relations with the international arena as its laboratory. Its end signaled the end of a potent social and political force that is still shaping the course of political relationship among states in the 21 st century. The historiography of the Cold War has been shrouded in controversy. Different factors have been given for the origins of the conflict. This work is a historical and structural analysis of the historiography of the Cold War. The work analyzes the competing views of the historiography of the Cold War and create an all-encompassing and holistic historiography called the Structuralist School.

Jonathan Murphy

fabio capano

In Rosella Mamoli Zorzi e Simone Francescato (eds.), American Phantasmagoria. Modes of representation in US culture

Duccio Basosi

The first section shows that the presence of ghosts in the foreign policy decision making processes of both the United States and the Soviet Union has been detected mainly in relatively recent works. The second, third and fourth sections are dedicated to distinguishing between three different kinds of apparitions—ghosts of the past, specters of the future, and phantasmagorias, respectively. The concluding section attempts some reflections on the possible meanings of such interest of Cold War historiography for spectral figures, particularly in connection with the ongoing debates about the “very notion of Cold War.”

Eliza Gheorghe

Geoffrey Roberts

Review of Jonathan Haslam's Russia's Cold War, published in International Affairs

RELATED PAPERS

Saber and Scroll, 1:3 (Fall 2012), 34-39

Tsotne Tchanturia , Dionysios Dragonas

GTU academic journal “Intellectual”

Michelle Paranzino

Roham Alvandi , Eliza Gheorghe

Diplomatic History

William C. Wohlforth

Tina Machingaidze

Békés, Csaba, Melinda Kamár (Ed.): Students on the Cold War. New Findings and Interpretations. Budapest

Torben Gülstorff

Barbara D Krasner

Akindele Boladale

European History Quarterly

Benjamin Tromly

Helen Roche

Artemy Kalinovsky

Evanthis Hatzivassiliou

henry laycock

Cold War History

Vasil Paraskevov

Cold War International History Project Working Paper #89

Priscilla Roberts

Oxford Handbook in the History of Communism, ed. Stephen Anthony Smith (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

Balazs Szalontai

Martin Grossheim

Journal of Cold War Studies

Silvio Pons

Contemporary European History

Gjert L Dyndal

The Carl Beck Papers in Russian and East …

Jeffrey Burds

Stefano Bottoni

Péter Vámos

Dithekgo Mogadime

[w:] Disintegration and Integration in East-Central Europe 1919 – post-1989, red. W. Loth, N. Păun, Cluj-Napoca 2014, s. 134-146

Jerzy Lazor

Larry L Watts

Roger Voncken

The Soviet and Post-Soviet Review

Jakub Szumski

Cold War International History Project (CWIHP) Working Paper Series

Patryk Babiracki

COLD WAR. GEOPOLITICS

Patrick Kyanda

Petar Žarković

Rachel Alberstadt

gareth dale

Elidor Mehilli

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Society and Politics
• Art and Culture
• Biographies
• Publications

Grade 12 - The Cold War

How did the Cold War period shape international relations after the Second World War?

After the Second World War, there was a struggle between two world powers, the US and Russia. Why was it called the ‘Cold War’ ? The reason lay in the threat of new and even deadlier weapons of nuclear technology that prevented outright open warfare. The Cold War was characterised by conflict through proxy wars, the manipulation of more vulnerable states through extensive military and financial aid, espionage, propaganda, rivalry over technology, space and nuclear races, and sport. Besides periods of tense crisis in this bi-polar world, the Cold War deeply affected the newly independent countries in Africa and the liberation struggles in southern Africa from the 1960s until the 1990s, when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)  was dismantled.

Did you know?  The term “Cold War” was first used by George Orwell, author of the book satirizing Stalinism, “Animal Farm”.

The detente (friendship) that existed between the Allied powers (The US, France and Russia) after 1945 was no more. That military aid would be offered to each other when faced with Nazism fell away, and increased hostility was the order of the day. Some historians argue that it was the formulation and implementation of common policy documents by the USSR for its East European territories that heralded the beginning of different spheres of influence.  Quickly, two distinct blocs emerged.

Also see: National Senior Certificate Grd 12, History Paper 1, November 2014 and National Senior Certificate Grd 12, History Paper 2, November 2014 .

Most learners will understand that a ‘war’ involves conflict between warring parties; that a ‘war’ involves the use of weaponry amongst ‘warring parties’ BUT what is meant by a ‘COLD’ war as opposed to a ‘HOT’ one? Common reference to any war usually involves the type of war that involves weaponry, personnel, devastation, explosions, and most of the images of war. A “COLD” war would refer to a battle of ideologies where the protagonists do not face each other, or fight, each other DIRECTLY.

The Cold War was characteristics by different ideologies being imposed or sold to other countries.

It dissected the world into spheres of influence, with the United States of America (USA) as a champion of democracy (and incidentally, Capitalism, as well) pitted against the USSR (Russia), which stood as a beacon of Communism. These divisions played themselves out in the exporting of influence...and then arms and money....to countries sympathetic to either cause.

The Cold War, which occurred from 1945 until 1989/1990 had far-reaching consequences for the world in general. Much of the literature during this period focussed on the bi-polar nature of the globe. Nation-states across the world, whatever explicit or not, empathised with either Russia or the USA. These countries became the battlefields for the competing influences of Democracy/Capitalism against Communism/Centrally-planned economies.

So, learners might ask as to why this Cold War did not escalate into a ‘Hot’ war, where conventional means of warfare were employed. The reason lies in the proliferation (increase) of nuclear weapons so that if these weapons were ever used, the destruction that would follow would result in a global destruction. So, this Cold War was fought behind the threat of a nuclear war.  The Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) was probably the closest that the world got to a full-blown conventional war.

The Cold War was a period of increased hostility between two blocs of power, the USA and its allies on the one hand; and the USSR and China, on the other. From the end of the Cold War until the early 1990s, world politics and events were primarily viewed through this lens the battle to exert control and influence globally. The Cold War spread outside Europe to every region of the world, and drew to a close by end of the late 1980s / early 1990s. Towards the end of the 1980s, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev held conferences with USA President Ronald Reagan. The USSR introduced reform policies aimed at restructuring (perestroika) and opening the Russian economy (glasnost).

In December 1989, after more than four decades, Russian President Gorbachev and American President G. H.W Bush declared the Cold War officially over.

Timeline (Source:  “ Timeline of events in the Cold War ” [ Accesssed: 23 January 2015])

• 1945:  Cold War begins
• 1946:  Winston Churchill delivers his ‘ Iron Curtain’ speech
• 1947:  Marshall Plan is announced
• 1948 :  February, Communists take over Czechoslovakia
• 1948 :  June, The ‘Berlin Blockade’ begins
• 1949 :  July, NATO is ratified
• 1950 :  February, McCarthy begins communist witchunt
• 1954 :  KGB established.  CIA assists in overthrowing ‘unfriendly’ regimes in Iran and Guatemala
• 1961 :  Bay of Pigs invasion.  Construction of Berlin Wall begins.  US involvement in Vietnam increases ( troops were dispatched in 1965)
• 1962 :  Cuban Missile Crisis
• 1965 :  150000 troops dispatched to Vietnam
• 1970 :  US President Nixon extends the war to Cambodia.
• 1973 :  Ceasefire between the US and Vietnam.
• 1975 :  North Vietnam defeats South Vietnam.
• 1979 :  USSR invades Afghanistan
• 1983 :  Ronald Reagan proposes Star Wars
• 1989 :  Soviet troops withdraw from Afghanistan.  Communist governments collapse in Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Romania.  The Soviet Empire ( USSR ) ends.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/what%20was%20the%20cold%20war.htm

http://www.amazon.com/The-Cold-War-New-History/dp/0143038273

USSR and USA and the creation of spheres of interest :

- installation of Soviet-friendly governments in satellite states;

- USA’s policy of containment: Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan;

- Berlin Crises from 1949 to 1961 (broad understanding of the crises); and

- opposing military alliances: NATO and Warsaw Pact (broadly)

Containment and brinkmanship: the Cuban crisis (as an example of containment and brinkmanship)

Collections in the Archives

Know something about this topic.

Towards a people's history

Who Was Responsible for Starting the Cold War?

Two scholars debate this question.

Written by: (Claim A) John E. Moser, Ashland University; (Claim B) Stephen Tootle, College of the Sequoias

Suggested sequencing.

• Use this point-counterpoint with  The Berlin Airlift  Narrative and the  Winston Churchill, “Sinews of Peace,” March 1946  Primary Source to have students analyze the start of the Cold War and tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States and its allies.

Issue on the Table

Was one superpower primarily responsible for starting the Cold War, or did both the United States and the Soviet Union contribute to its rise?

Instructions

Read the two arguments in response to the question posed, paying close attention to the supporting evidence and reasoning used for each. Then, complete the comparison questions that follow. Note that the arguments in this essay are not the personal views of the scholars but are illustrative of larger historical debates.

During the Cold War, Americans were convinced the Soviet Union posed a grave threat to their country and the rest of the planet and that, as the leader of the free world, the United States had a responsibility to resist Soviet  expansionism . But might a different approach to foreign affairs by the United States in the years immediately after World War II have prevented the Cold War altogether?

Consider that the Soviet Union in 1945, although victorious in Europe, emerged from the war economically and demographically exhausted, and having lost a staggering 20 million soldiers and civilians (approximately 10 percent of its population). The Soviet Union had suffered far more than the United States or Great Britain, because German forces had occupied large sections of the country and waged a racial war of annihilation against its people. And although the United States had made critical material contributions to the war, it was the Soviets who did the bulk of the fighting against Nazi Germany. At no point after mid-1941 did British or U.S. forces face more than 25 percent of the fighting strength of the German  Wehrmacht , whereas the Red Army fought millions of Germans in the East. The British and Americans did not even attempt to open a second front in France until 1944 (despite Joseph Stalin’s constant requests for such action during the previous two years), by which time German forces had already been driven from Soviet soil.

Stalin was a brutal dictator, but his foreign policy goals were understandable. Hitler’s invasion in 1941 had sparked the second major war against Germany in 20 years, and Russian leadership had legitimate security concerns. Moreover, he believed, not unreasonably, that as a Communist nation, the Soviet Union could not trust the capitalist world in the long term. The best way to protect the Soviet Union was to ensure that the countries along its western borders were friendly. Indeed, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill had recognized this fact at the Tehran and Yalta conferences. What they did not appreciate was, given the extent of anti-Russian sentiment in eastern Europe, no freely elected, democratic government from Poland to Romania could be counted on to be friendly. Nor was there any real history of democracy in those countries. In fact, Hungary and Romania had been Nazi allies during the war. The Red Army already occupied Eastern Europe, and the Russians imposed pro-Soviet governments there to establish a buffer zone against future attacks.

The United States chose to respond to Soviet domination of Eastern Europe with outright hostility. When Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov traveled to the United States in April 1945, the new president, Harry Truman, subjected him to an undiplomatic tongue lashing. After the end of the war, U.S. policy became downright militant. Although Truman withdrew most U.S. troops from Europe after 1945, the administration made massive expenditures on naval and air forces, stepped up testing and production of atomic bombs, and established a network of air bases in the United States and abroad with long-range bombers capable of carrying nuclear bombs. “Containment” of Soviet communism—that is, preventing it from spreading beyond its current borders—became the administration’s guiding strategy. In 1947, the president put forward his famous “Truman Doctrine,” in which he asked Congress to spend $400 million on economic aid to Greece and Turkey, and committed the United States “to support free peoples” around the world who were “resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” Two years later, the United States joined Great Britain, France, Canada, and a number of other nations in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, an alliance aimed at the defense of Western Europe.

Truman’s approach to the Soviet Union was not without its critics at home. Secretary of Commerce Henry Wallace, who had served as Franklin Roosevelt’s vice president from 1941 to 1945, begged the president to consider how it would “look to us if Russia had the atomic bomb and we did not, if Russia had 10,000-mile bombers and air bases within a thousand miles of our coastlines, and we did not?” Wallace called on Truman to appreciate the Soviet Union’s fear of being invaded again and “to agree to reasonable Russian guarantees of security.” Eventually, Wallace’s outspoken criticism of Truman’s “get tough” approach cost him his job, but he continued to speak out. The Truman Doctrine, he warned, would ultimately lead to war. “There is no regime too reactionary for us provided it stands in Russia’s expansionist path,” he said in a March 1947 speech. “There is no country too remote to serve as the scene of a contest which may widen until it becomes a world war.” Similar arguments could be heard coming from Senator Robert A. Taft of Ohio, one of the most conservative men in the Senate. When asked why he voted against ratification of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Taft replied, “How would we feel if Russia undertook to arm a country on our border, Mexico, for instance?”

Such views were very much in the minority, however. Most Americans, by the late 1940s, had come to regard the Soviet Union as a serious menace to world peace, and containment became the prevailing U.S. strategy for nearly 50 years. We will never know whether a more conciliatory policy on the part of the United States would have produced a different outcome.

With the opening of American archives in the 1970s and the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, scholars now have access to all the documents describing the intentions and assumptions of decision-makers in both countries in the years after World War II. Supposed mysteries have been solved. Old questions have been answered. The documentary evidence is in. The United States and the Soviet Union both contributed to the rise of the Cold War. They were  ideological nation-states  with incompatible and mutually exclusive ideologies. The founding purpose of the Soviet Union was global domination, and it actively sought the destruction of the United States and its allies. If the United States wanted to continue as a nation-state that protected the rights enshrined in its founding documents, it needed to wage an active opposition to the Soviet Union.

As an ideological nation-state, the United States has always, by its very existence, found itself at odds with nations, states, tribes, or groups of people with conflicting ideas. Those conflicts would typically become important or violent once an entity threatened the interests of the United States. By 1945, communism had been around for a century, and violent, radical, Marxist communists had been in control of the Soviet Union for decades. But even though the United States and the free world needed the help of the Soviet Union to destroy Nazi Germany in World War II, the conclusion of that war put the Soviet Union in a position to directly threaten the United States and its allies.

The Communist Soviet Union had suffered tremendous losses in World War II, perhaps around 27 million deaths, but found itself with significant global influence at its conclusion. Its leader, Joseph Stalin, was one of the most ruthless dictators in human history and a dedicated  Marxist  communist. How many tens of millions died at his hand depends on how one categorizes his victims, but the most common estimates range between 20 million and 25 million.

At the same time, the United States, under the leadership of President Harry Truman, undertook the task of trying to guide the nations of the world toward a set of ideas that would make another such war less likely. Stalin and the Soviets wanted to expand communism into Europe and around the world; Truman, his nation, and the free world wanted to preserve freedom where it existed and spread it where it did not. World War II had merely revealed that the ideals of two former allies directly conflicted with one another. And the conflict became global as Stalin and the Soviets moved to expand their ideology, insecurity, and violence on the world stage.

Even before Stalin took power, the Soviets had recruited spies and taken over  leftist  movements in the United States. Their espionage efforts paid tremendous dividends. Within the State Department, Alger Hiss, Julian Wadleigh, Laurence Duggan, and Noel Field were all Communist spies. Within the Treasury Department alone there were at least nine spies, including Harry Dexter White, the assistant secretary of the treasury. The Soviets stole military secrets, including the suspension system for American tanks, the atomic bomb, the D-Day invasion plans, defense readiness plans, and the locations of atomic bomb stockpiles. Spies were also able to give the Soviets critical information that led (perhaps) to the Berlin blockade and the invasion of Korea.

After World War II, Stalin believed the Soviet Union was the vehicle for spreading communism throughout the world. Stalin stated his purposes plainly in 1945 that “whoever occupies a territory also imposes his own social system. . . It cannot be otherwise.” The Soviets forced Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and East Germany into replicas of the Soviet Union under the complete control of the Soviet Union. The Soviets forced constitutions, economic plans, and police states on the nations of Eastern Europe. Political freedom vanished, and Communists executed dissenters.

Stalin’s daily attitude toward the United States was unpredictable. On some days, he feared war; on others, he reaffirmed his ideological commitment to the idea that war was inevitable. The people around him were relieved after his death that his erratic and impulsive risk taking and paranoia had not led to a general war with the United States. Stalin believed security only came from the elimination of challengers. Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov described why Stalin waged the Cold War: “Stalin looked at it this way: World War I has wrested one country from capitalist slavery; World War II has created a socialist system; and the third will finish off imperialism forever.” In almost any other scenario, one could dismiss such rhetoric, but in the Soviet Union, dismissing Stalin’s rhetoric carried a probable death sentence.

If the United States, along with other countries the Soviets considered to be “imperialistic,” did not wish to be “finished off” by the Soviet Union, they would need to resist Communist aggression. The United States and its Western democratic allies came to believe that history had taught some hard lessons by the end of World War II. They forged collective security arrangements on the basis of a relatively new idea that the success of an ally was not a threat to the United States. The United States was clear and unapologetic in this worldview, which directly contradicted that of the Soviet Union.

The Cold War was not a war. It was a global military, diplomatic, intellectual, social, and cultural contest. Both sides considered success essential to survival, and in that regard, both were right.

Historical Reasoning Questions

Use  Handout A: Point-Counterpoint Graphic Organizer  to answer historical reasoning questions about this point-counterpoint.

Primary Sources (Claim A)

“Crimea (Yalta) Conference, 1945.” Pages 1005-1022 https://www.loc.gov/item/lltreaties-ustbv003/

“Potsdam Declaration: Potsdam Conference.” July 26, 1945.  https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/potsdam-declaration/

Truman, Harry. “Truman Doctrine, 1947.”  https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=81#

Primary Sources (Claim B)

Kennan, George. “The Long Telegram.” February 1946.  https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-long-telegram/

Marshall, George C. “The Marshall Plan Speech.”  https://www.marshallfoundation.org/marshall/the-marshall-plan/marshall-plan-speech/

Suggested Resources (Claim A)

Kolko, Joyce, and Gabriel Kolko.  The Limits of Power: The World and United States Foreign Policy, 1945–1954 . New York: Harper & Row, 1972.

LaFeber, Walter.  America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945–2002 . New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004.

Williams, William Appleman.  The Tragedy of American Diplomacy . New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009.

Suggested Resources (Claim B)

Andrew, Christopher.  For the President’s Eyes Only: Secret Intelligence and the American Presidency from Washington to Bush . New York: HarperCollins, 1995.

Andrew, Christopher, and Vasili Mitrokhin.  The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB . New York: Basic Books, 1999.

Andrew, Christopher, and Vasili Mitrokhin.  The World was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World . New York: Basic Books, 2005.

Conquest, Robert.  Reflections on a Ravaged Century . New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001.

Courtois, Stephanie, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panne, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartosek, Jean-Louis Margolin.  The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.

Gaddis, John Lewis.  The Cold War: A New History . New York: Penguin Press, 2005.

Gaddis, John Lewis.  Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of American National Security Policy During the Cold War . New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Gaddis, John Lewis.  We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Hamby, Alonzo L.  Liberalism and Its Challengers: From F.D.R. to Bush . New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Haynes, John Earl, and Harvey Klehr.  Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999.

Judt, Tony.  Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945.  New York: Penguin Press, 2005

McCauley, Martin.  Russia, America and the Cold War: 1949–1991.  London: Pearson Education, 1998.

McMahon, Robert J.  The Cold War: A Very Short Introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

McMeekin, Sean.  The Russian Revolution: A New History . New York: Basic Books, 2017.

McNeal, Robert H.  Stalin: Man and Ruler . New York: New York University Press, 1988.

Montefiore, Simon Sebag.  Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar.  New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004. p. 634

Weinstein, Allen, and Alexander Vassiliev.  The Haunted Wood: Soviet Espionage in America—The Stalin Era . New York: Random House, 1999.

More from this Category

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

In our resource history is presented through a series of narratives, primary sources, and point-counterpoint debates that invites students to participate in the ongoing conversation about the American experiment.

ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY

Voice for the army - support for the soldier, cold war in africa: morocco and algeria.

by LTC Jay Figurski, USA Landpower Essay 24-3, March 2024  

In Brief Morocco, a U.S. partner and ally since 1786, has had a long rivalry with its neighbor Algeria, an anti-colonial, anti-Western partner to Russia and China. Their history of mutual mistrust has spawned a “cold war” in which both countries have embarked on sweeping military modernization programs and diplomatic maneuvering. The flashpoint of the conflict is the territory known as Western Sahara, which favors autonomy and enjoys Algerian political-military support, but which Morocco sees as an integral part of its kingdom. The United States brokered a 2020 agreement in which Morocco normalized its relations with Israel in return for U.S. recognition of Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara. The United States can help ensure the conflict doesn’t escalate by striking a balance between deepening cooperation with Algeria as it emerges from its self-imposed diplomatic isolation and continuing to support the UN-led process to resolve the Western Sahara dispute while upholding its recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over the territory.

Introduction

Ask most Americans which countries are known to have deep security cooperation ties with the United States, and most will not know that there is a country in Africa that was one of the first to recognize the newly independent United States in 1786, that was a close partner during the Cold War and that has committed to spending billions of dollars on U.S. defense technology. That country is Morocco, and the partnership it enjoys with the United States is close indeed. Its military buildup and active diplomatic maneuvering are not coincidental. Morocco finds itself at ever increasing odds with its longtime neighbor and rival, Algeria. In today’s dynamic global security environment, this rivalry may not make headlines. However, these two African heavyweights are stuck in a de facto cold war that could put U.S. diplomacy to the test.  

A History of Mistrust

To understand the nature of this rivalry, a brief history lesson is in order. Morocco and Algeria share a common Berber cultural and linguistic heritage, and they were both conquered by Islamic armies in the 7th century, beginning the process of Islamization and Arabization. Both countries were also dominated by France beginning in the 19th century, but that is where their histories started to differ. The French army conquered Algeria from 1803 to 1847 and essentially annexed it, making it a province of France proper rather than just a colony. This would have serious implications for Algeria’s future; the French exercised tighter control of Algeria than they would have over a colony, and they saw it as an integral part of their nation. Morocco held on to its sovereignty much longer, only becoming a protectorate of France in 1912.

Prior to the 20th century, the border between Morocco and Algeria was never delineated. The area was remote and largely uninhabited. Then, in 1903, the French authorities in Algeria began to expand westward, laying claim to Bechar and Tindouf 1 —both areas the Moroccans saw as traditionally belonging to the Moroccan crown. France, however, did not formally annex the areas, nor did it delineate an Algerian-Moroccan border, as both regions fell under French control, making it a regional rather than an international border.  

1963 Sand War

This was the status quo until 1956, when Morocco gained independence from France. Morocco demanded that Bechar and Tindouf be returned, and the French refused. Six years later, Algeria won its independence after a bloody struggle against France. Morocco then saw an opportunity to regain its lost territories, as the Algerian military was diminished after years of guerilla warfare. Limited skirmishes escalated into war in September 1963, with initial Moroccan advances grounding to a halt in October in the face of stubborn Algerian resistance. Cuba, which had had its own socialist, anti-imperialist revolution just four years earlier, saw common cause with Algeria, and deployed hundreds of troops with T-34 tanks, 120mm mortars, a battery of 57mm recoilless rifles, antiaircraft artillery and 122mm field guns—with the crews to operate them. 2 The combined Algerian-Cuban force planned a counter-offensive for 28 October, but the Moroccans, at the urging of the international community, agreed to negotiate with the Algerians to end hostilities before the attack.  

Western Sahara

While the Sand War was brief, it set a negative tone that has colored Moroccan-Algerian relations ever since. The most significant ramification of this has been the issue of Western Sahara, a region located between southern Morocco and Mauritania, which Morocco sees as an integral part of its traditional kingdom. The Sahrawis (inhabitants of Western Sahara) reject Morocco’s claim, and they launched a campaign for independence when Spain withdrew its colonial claims in 1975. Consequently, Morocco organized the “Green March,” in which 350,000 Moroccans marched into Western Sahara as an act of mass protest against Sahrawi independence claims, 3 effectively annexing the territory into Morocco, where it remains to this day. In response, the Sahrawis established the Polisario Front as a political-military organization to advance its quest for independence. Algeria, already at odds with Morocco over the border dispute and a champion of popular independence movements worldwide, began supporting the Polisario Front both financially and militarily. Additionally, Algeria welcomed large numbers of Sahrawis in refugee camps in Tindouf. Accusations and ill will have continued to flow in both directions, resulting in Algeria’s decision to close its border with Morocco in 1994.  

Morocco: An Enduring U.S. Partner

Since it gained independence from France, Morocco has developed a special relationship with the United States. Morocco was officially non-aligned during the Cold War, but allowed U.S. forces overflight and access rights to Moroccan air bases. 4 The United States designated Morocco as a major non-NATO ally in 2004, and the two countries signed a Free Trade Agreement in 2006. Morocco has embarked on a military modernization program known as Vision 2030, with the goal of becoming interoperable with the United States and NATO. 5 It has allocated $17 billion to the program and has already acquired or committed to acquiring M1A1 Abrams tanks, High-Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS), F-16 fighters, MQ-9B Guardian drones and more. 6 By far, the United States is the main supplier of weapon systems for Morocco’s military modernization, to such an extent that the Moroccan army in 2030 will function as a small-scale reflection of the U.S. Army.

The U.S.-Moroccan partnership has also proven its strength in the diplomatic realm. In 2020, both the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain signed bilateral agreements, brokered by the Trump administration, to normalize their diplomatic relations with Israel. Later that same year, Morocco followed suit by signing an agreement with Israel, pledging to quickly begin direct flights, promote economic cooperation, reopen liaison offices and move toward “full diplomatic, peaceful and friendly relations.” 7 As part of the agreement, the United States agreed to recognize Morocco’s claim to Western Sahara while urging the parties to negotiate “using Morocco’s autonomy plan as the only framework to negotiate a mutually acceptable solution.” 8  

Algeria: An Anti-Colonial, Non-Aligned Philosophy

While Morocco escaped the worst of French colonialism and cast its lot in with the United States, Algeria suffered an extremely bloody war for independence that has influenced its perception of the outside world ever since. The National Liberation Front, which has ruled Algeria as a one-party state since it gained its independence in 1962, has remained distrustful of the West in general, and especially opposed to Western military interventions—such as the 2003 U.S.-Iraq war and the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya. Due to its leftist-socialist leanings, Algeria initially developed ties with the Soviet Union and other Eastern bloc nations—and, more recently, with China and South Africa.

Militarily, Algeria maintains the second largest standing army in Africa, second only to Egypt. 9 It has the continent’s largest defense budget: $16.7 billion in 2023. 10 It has sourced roughly 75 percent of its arsenal from the former Soviet Union and, secondarily, from China. 11 In response to Morocco’s military modernization with the United States, Algeria signed a large contract with Russia in 2022 for submarines, Su-57 (Sukhoi) stealth aircraft, Su-34 bombers and Su-30 fighters. It also hopes to acquire new air defense systems, such as the S-400, the Viking and the Antey-4000. 12

Algeria is also an important part of China’s Mediterranean strategy as part of its Belt and Road Initiative. Chinese investment will expand from traditional sectors, such as basic infrastructure and energy, and the primary contractor for building railways, ports and mosques, to emerging areas like aerospace, telecommunications and new energy. 13 Prior to his resignation in 2019, Algeria’s longtime President Abdelaziz Bouteflika started building what will be the world’s largest mosque in Algiers and awarded the contract to a Chinese firm. China is also now the largest builder of infrastructure in Algeria. 14    

Algeria Steps onto the International Stage

The military buildup is not the only reason the rivalry has escalated in recent years. Several factors have emerged that have strengthened Algeria’s diplomatic position. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has compelled Europe to look elsewhere for its energy security, especially when it comes to natural gas. This has been an unexpected windfall for Algeria, which is rich in natural gas reserves and relatively close to Europe. In 2022, the International Monetary Fund estimated that Algeria recorded its first budget surplus in nine years, swelling international reserves to $53.5 billion (up $6.8 billion from 2021). A budget surplus was expected again in 2023.

The new Algerian government of Adelmajid Tebboune has taken other steps that have brought the country out of its long diplomatic isolation. For example, in 2020, the Algerian constitution was amended to allow the deployment of the armed forces outside the country. The move was made ostensibly to allow Algeria to intervene in Libya, if necessary, but constitutional revisions also allow participation in peacekeeping operations under the Arab League, the United Nations (UN) and—perhaps most important—the African Union (AU). 15 Algeria’s increased participation in AU peacekeeping missions is significant because it can be seen as a direct snub against Morocco, which rejoined the group in 2017 after a long absence. Morocco had hoped to use AU membership to advance its own interests vis-à-vis Western Sahara and to improve its standing among African nations, but Algeria’s move to lift its self-imposed restrictions will limit Morocco’s ability to accomplish its goals. 16 Additionally, Algeria submitted its application to join the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) group of emerging economies in 2022 17 and hosted an Arab League summit, where it took a pro-Palestinian stance critical of Morocco’s rapprochement with the Jewish state. It even orchestrated a “unity meeting” between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and former Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh (this was prior to Hamas’ 7 October 2023 attack on Israel). 18  

Tensions Rise

So how might a resurgent Algeria threaten Morocco? Algeria is taking a temporary seat on the UN Security Council (UNSC) in 2024–2025, which will enable it to use new mechanisms to try to reframe the Western Sahara issue. The Algerians are also likely to attempt a reform of the UNSC to give African nations a more prominent voice. It will be difficult for Algeria to reverse the diplomatic victories Morocco has won on the Western Sahara issue in recent years (especially U.S. recognition of its claims), but it will surely increase tensions with Rabat, the capital of Morocco, simply by trying.

Neither country wants war, nor would they benefit from it. There will continue to be regular provocations, however. These will likely range from rhetoric at international fora to expensive military exercises along their shared border as shows of force. But escalation will be unavoidable if any further incidents lead to deaths on either side. As Morocco and Algeria disagree more vocally on the international stage, both sides will continue to back up their diplomatic talk by projecting strength. In 2022, the two countries accounted for 74 percent of all military spending in North Africa, with Algeria allocating $9.1 billion to its armed forces and Morocco spending $5 billion, according to figures from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). 19 While Algeria has kept mostly constant levels of spending, Morocco’s military expenditure has doubled since 2005. It has focused increasingly on armed unmanned aerial systems, acquiring the MQ-9B Guardian drone from the United States and other models from Israel and Turkey. Morocco likely intends to use the systems for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions as well as for targeting Polisario combat power in Western Sahara.  

Conclusion: Consequences to U.S. Interests

These rising tensions have the potential to put the United States in a precarious position. It needs Algeria to remain a viable and economic alternative natural gas source for Europe. Without it, already high energy costs will increase even more, and European governments will be hard pressed to ask their citizens to continue supporting the war in Ukraine. On the other hand, the United States has already promised much to Morocco, and the bilateral partnership is good for U.S. business as well as national security. 

Recent developments suggest that the Biden administration is striking the right balance by applying engagement and messaging strategically. Several senior-level U.S. delegations have visited Algeria over the past two years, including Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, National Security Council Coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa Brett McGurk, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Affairs Chidi Blyden. 20 U.S. messaging to Algeria has focused on the strong security and counterterrorism ties both countries have developed since 9/11, but it has strategically omitted pressure to increase political freedoms and to encourage democratic reforms, despite the fact that Algeria remains a one-party, autocratic state. 

Likewise, the Biden administration has continued to support the UN-led process to resolve the Western Sahara dispute while also upholding its recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over the territory to preserve the diplomatic progress made between Morocco and Israel. However, the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war has complicated that relationship. The Morocco-Israel agreement has been strained as Moroccan support for the Palestinian cause has been rekindled. The Moroccan government has joined most Arab nations in criticizing the Israeli occupation in Gaza, and it is cautious of being seen by domestic audiences as supporting Israel. 21

Although the Morocco-Algeria “cold war” poses no direct military threat to the United States, it continues to slow the economic development of two of Africa’s most important countries—while threatening to derail U.S. diplomatic initiatives elsewhere, such as the Abraham accords. Keeping a lid on the Morocco-Algeria tensions without incurring consequences to U.S. interests will take continued strategic balance and skilled diplomacy.

Lieutenant Colonel Jay Figurski is a transitioning Middle East Foreign Area Officer who most recently served as the Israel Desk Officer for the Joint Staff J5. His prior positions include North Africa Branch Chief for USAFRICOM J5 and Assistant Army Attaché in Iraq during the counter-ISIS campaign in 2016–2017. He holds an MA in Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Michigan.

• Karen Farsoun and Jim Paul, War in the Sahara 1963 (Chicago: Middle East Research and Information Project, Inc., 1976), 13–16.
• Piero Gleijeses, Conflicting Missions: Havana, Washington and Africa, 1959–1976 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2002). 
• “The Green March: A Unique Chapter in Post-Colonial Moroccan History,” Morocco World News , 6 November 2023.
• “Royal Moroccan Air Force,” GlobalSecurity.org , November 2023.
• “Morocco to receive four MQ-9B Guardian drones from USA,” Global Defense Corps , 17 March 2021.
• “Morocco to receive four MQ-9B Guardian drones from USA.”
• Department of State, Joint Declaration , 22 December 2020.
• Department of State, Joint Declaration .
• Victor Oluwole, “Top African military powers in 2023 according to Global Firepower,” Business Insider Africa , 25 August 2023.
• John Hill, “Algeria risks falling behind in its arms race with Morocco,” Army Technology , 21 March 2023.
• “Distribution of arms imports into Algeria between 2018 and 2022, by country of origin,” Statista , 30 November 2023.
• Rabi’ Al-Thani, “Algeria to sign ‘huge deal with Russia to import advanced arms,’” Asharq al-Awsat , 2 November 2022.
• “China, Algeria to deepen BRI cooperation amid Tebboune’s visit,” Global Times , 19 July 2023.
• “China, Algeria to deepen BRI cooperation amid Tebboune’s visit.”
• Thomas M. Hill, “A Newly Assertive Algeria Seizes an Opportunity,” United States Institute of Peace , 19 January 2023.
• Hill, “A Newly Assertive Algeria Seizes an Opportunity.”
• Alessandro du Besse, “Algeria applies to join BRICS: what’s next?” Impakter , 14 November 2022.
• “Trends in Military Expenditure, 2022,” Stockholm International Peace Research Institute , April 2023.
• Gregory Aftandilian, “US-Algeria Relations Remain Troubled, but Neither Side Wants a Break,” Arab Center Washington DC , 25 January 2023.
• Sabina Henneberg and Amine Ghoulidi, “Balancing U.S. Relations in North Africa Without Undermining the Abraham Accords,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy , 22 November 2023.

The views and opinions of our authors do not necessarily reflect those of the Association of the United States Army. An article selected for publication represents research by the author(s) which, in the opinion of the Association, will contribute to the discussion of a particular defense or national security issue. These articles should not be taken to represent the views of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, the United States government, the Association of the United States Army or its members.

• Arms and military expenditure
• Dual–use and arms trade control
• Emerging military and security technologies
• EU Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Consortium
• Weapons of mass destruction
• Middle East and North Africa
• Peace operations and conflict management
• Climate change and risk
• Environment of Peace
• Food, peace and security
• Governance and society
• Peacebuilding and resilience
• Publications
• Yearbook 2023
• Yearbook 2022
• Yearbook archive
• Yearbook summaries
• Yearbook translations
• Past News and Events
• Upcoming News and Events
• SIPRI Lecture
• Stockholm Forum on Peace and Development
• Stockholm Security Conference
• Press Releases
• SIPRI Experts
• SIPRI Films
• WritePeace Blog
• Expert Comments
• Backgrounders
• Governing Board
• Staff directory
• Support SIPRI

NATO: A new need for some old ideas

As NATO approaches its 75th anniversary, there is a widespread sense that the alliance has come full circle. Created to deter the Soviet adversary, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s first core task is once again to deter and defend. After years of focusing on peacekeeping and fighting terrorists elsewhere, the NATO allies are now back to thinking about deterrence postures and territorial defence in Europe. However, NATO has not yet come full circle intellectually.

NATO was founded at the dawn of the nuclear age and successfully navigated the cold war, at least if ‘success’ is defined as avoiding armed conflict between the adversaries of the time. Much of the theorizing and thinking about strategic affairs developed as the approaches and policies of the alliance and the United States evolved. There is consequently a rich tradition of thought about strategy that fuelled many debates within NATO and in its member states during the cold war, and among a broader community of scholars, analysts, opinion leaders and concerned citizens. Much of this tradition retains its value today. Returning to it is a core step towards being better prepared for NATO Europe’s difficult relationship with Russia in the coming decades.

The fundamentals of strategic thinking remain valid

Much has changed since the cold war ended. The international system is no longer bipolar. The fact that the United States considers China the ‘pacing threat’ and bases much of its thinking on the ‘Taiwan scenario’ also has implications for Europe. Other potentially antagonistic actors such as North Korea and Iran are significantly more capable than during the cold war. What is more, the technological context is fundamentally changed. During the cold war, there were no conventional weapons that directly affected strategic stability. Nor was there a cyberspace domain nor the challenges posed by artificial intelligence (AI). Incorporating these new factors into conceptual frameworks is, of course, necessary and a process that is now in its early stages.

While the writings of the past do not contain all the answers to today’s challenges, their fundamental concepts are far from obsolete—despite the changed circumstances. What does remain highly relevant is the more profound wisdom found in many of the older debates about deterrence and strategic affairs that seems much less en vogue today. The ideas that nothing is ever certain, that deterrence is not an exact science, that contingency is everywhere, and that the adversary’s perceptions are crucial—these are perhaps the most valuable and timeless lessons to be learned from that era. They add up to revealing that no government or alliance, however powerful, can control everything; deterrence, in short, cannot eliminate risk. Accordingly, a more humble approach should be the basis of all thinking about deterrence and defence.

This humility should, inter alia , frame how we think about nuclear deterrence and about whether and how it can be considered as the ultimate protection. Whether such a thing as nuclear strategy is really possible is itself highly debatable. Champion boxer Mike Tyson famously declared ‘Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.’ The same likely applies to strategizing about questions in the field of security and defence where survival is at stake. Much of the writing on nuclear strategy and ‘escalation management’ is therefore best taken with a grain of salt—for the sake of our own survival.

The security dilemma: Perceptions matter

This humility and acute awareness of uncertainty is reflected in a number of notions that were at the heart of nuclear and strategic debates during the cold war. Perhaps most importantly, it underpins the idea of the security dilemma. Coined in 1951 by John H. Herz , the security dilemma is ‘a structural notion in which the self-help attempts of states to look after their security needs tend, regardless of intention, to lead to rising insecurity for others as each interprets its own measures as defensive and measures of others as potentially threatening’. What logically follows is the centrality of perceptions and an understanding that no strategy can ever be devised without at least an attempt to understand the adversary, its values and its ambitions. This also implies an acceptance that perceptions cannot be dictated and that one side’s declared intentions will never be automatically convincing to the other.

Translated into the contemporary context, this means being aware that measures NATO intends as defensive may still be perceived as offensive in Russia and, therefore, risk triggering developments that could get out of hand. The argument was made strongly by US Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in 1967, quite near the end of his long tenure of the post when he was quite possibly more than a little worn down by the pressures of the arms race and the war in Vietnam :

Whatever be their intentions, whatever be our intentions, actions—or even realistically potential actions—on either side relating to the build-up of nuclear forces, be they either offensive or defensive weapons, necessarily trigger reactions on the other side.

It is precisely this action–reaction phenomenon that fuels an arms race.

The risk of an uncontrollable action–reaction dynamic is just as present in relation to conventional weapons and is likewise to be found in capabilities in cyberspace, outer space and the realm of AI.

Whether a comparable awareness of the security dilemma exists across NATO today is doubtful. The NATO website states , under the headline ‘Setting the record straight‘, that ‘NATO does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia.’ Understanding the security dilemma means accepting that Russia does not see things that way and may actually perceive NATO as a threat. Even more importantly, it means understanding that Russia will act according to its own perceptions, not NATO’s. This is not a normative issue or a question of who is right or wrong. It is a matter of accepting the basic dynamics in international relations as a reality.

The international system: Stability as the goal

The other key element worth bringing back into modern debates is the idea that there is an international system, which is something more than the sum of various bilateral and multilateral relationships between states. A ‘systemic‘ approach to international politics and security affairs is a logical precondition for any analysis resting on a balance of power and (strategic) stability: such stability is achieved when no side has an incentive to attack the other first. A sytemic approach is also a precondition for thinking about arms control, deploying the notion of an international system in one of its original meanings: as an instrument that helps in managing the security dilemma, among other things by creating or restoring stability.

Managing the security dilemma in Europe—that is, generating stability despite the momentum of action–reaction—is the key task ahead.

However, instead of focusing on the dynamics outlined above, today’s wider European security debate is very much about Russia ’s alleged true essence as an imperial or colonial power. There is no doubt that Russia’s actions, which include invading a sovereign country, and its regime’s rhetoric are deeply worrying and unacceptable. But solely focusing on Russian identity for explanations overlooks the dynamic nature of international relations. Russia’s perceptions of the West and its actions are rarely discussed. Nor is how the West’s actions affect strategic stability. While Russia’s intentions are clearly a crucial factor for European security, debating Russia’s nature tends to be highly speculative. It is of little help in determining how NATO can best protect itself while both avoiding the escalation of the war in Ukraine and laying the basis for stable strategic relations in the years ahead. Worse, locking oneself into the idea that Russia is simply driven by its imperialist nature neglects the importance of perceptions and, by extension, developments the West may trigger if it does not design its deterrence posture and manage its policies towards Russia with great care. Deterrence is unavoidable under the current circumstances, but escalation remains a real risk that can be reasonably well managed only by taking the other side’s perceptions into account.

When NATO reflects on surviving for 75 years, staying humble would thus be the most sincere way to show respect for the thinkers and leaders who helped it navigate through the cold war. Some will claim that deterrence ‘has worked‘—but maybe, it is also sheer luck that nuclear war has not yet broken out. Staying acutely aware of that possibility is the safest starting point for any attempt to plan NATO’s future.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)