hey erm i have this essay question .' NATO, in 1949, and then the warsaw pact in 1955 were created for purely defensive reasons' - asses the validity of this view [ 45 marks]
Ive got some basic reasons like they were both set up for mutually assured defence against attack and also i k now about how the S.U were refused entry to Nato ,and how the S.U sent in tanks when Hungary tried to withdraw from the warsaw pact. But im struggling to find other reasons and these books i got from the library are pretty crap ... does anyone have any ideas or good websites ?
would really appreaciate anything , its due on monday :[
Turn on thread page Beta
History coldwar watch
- Thread Starter
- 05-01-2013 20:39
- Thread Starter
- 05-01-2013 22:37
AW guys please don't blank me all im asking really is why ELSE appart from defensive reasons was NATO and the warsaw pact created
- 06-01-2013 00:03
I honestly don't know the complete lecture in the details, but you could elaborate a bit more on the defensive part.
You could say that it is ideological, you could say that American influence wanted to spread just as much as Russia's socialism (elaborate on this context)
America needed geopolitical power, this would mean allies across the Atlantic, also the economic, as free trade provided various advantages for American producers and manufacturers.
Again, evaluation is for and against arguments, you can look at it in either ways. Of course USA wanted its' own sphere of influence, just like the Soviet Union, therefore it meant to have its' presence on where the Soviet Union can be next.
Elaborate on these contexts:
You can advocate the view, that USA being a superpower just like the Soviet Union, didn't want Russia to make them lose out on their power, by making strong allies in the region, and leaving out them isolated. You could say, as an example, but do make sure that you say "some people", no matter what your beliefs are "Some people believe, that the the current ongoing problems in Syria and beforehand Lybia, were influenced somehow by USA and their allies, to aid the opposition and have a more cooperative government to be working with them in return. This would provide good geopolitics for going into Iran, by USA and its' allies. The same example can be applied to Lybia, and it is worth to note that Lybia had large amounts of oil reserves, that soon after were taken by NATO forces, this would also influence economical reasons. This might show that bringing democracy to people could have been a mere propaganda, or a bit of both, when the western NATO forces saw their chances". The reason for why this could be a good example, is because Syria is on decently good terms with Russia and its' allies, and trading, the SCO and BRICS (China, India etc). By having control in Syria, not only will NATO have an easier way of Iran and their "nuclear weapons", which eventually will lead into more oil, but also taking a good allie (their current government) away from Russia and China (main competitors of USA for world power)
As for arguments on against and for on your paper, you should look at biased views, that show different perspectives on what they offered. If you already have books "Last of Empires" by Johnathan Keep and "Cold War" by Jeremy Isaacs & Taylor Downing, try some international relation issues, that cover the topic, perhaps maybe some even online articles.
There is a brief article with some documentary links for the Cold War http://www.history.com/topics/format...nd-warsaw-pact
I personally enjoyed Cold War (TV series) by CNN, somewhat biased view at times, usually neutral nevertheless, and has a lot of informative and legal information, so you can make choices by your own observation.
Other series you may take a look at:
- CBC - Love, Hate & Propaganda: The Cold War
- History Channel - The Cold War
- Cold War Collection -NATO - From Cold War To Hot the First 60 Years(very biased)
Anyway, hope all goes well
-That other guy who's post you answered
- Thread Starter
- 06-01-2013 00:29
thanks you ! hope my answer was as helpful as yours :]