Cold War Cooperation Essay

Nikita Khrushchev Desired A Resolution To The Conflict Of The Cold War

In 1956 the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev stated on a visit to Britain: “You do not like Communism. We do not like Capitalism. There is only one way out – peaceful co-existence.” (Clare, J. 2007) Were these words merely an empty gesture to placate the wrath of a potential enemy, or were they an accurate representation of Cold War politics at the time? Undoubtedly the Cold War was an era of tension and apprehension, yet it was also a period of global cooperation, where conflicting ideologies strove to ensure that a nuclear war never transpired. During Khrushchev’s time as leader of the Soviet Union, this cooperation reached its zenith until he was deposed by his more radical colleagues. It is therefore possible to hypothesise that had Khrushchev not been deposed, he would have ceased the conflict of the Cold War far earlier than Gorbachev. This point can be argued based on the record of Khrushchev’s policies, communication, actions and choices towards the West.

Khrushchev’s 1956 foreign policy of peaceful co-existence relieved international tensions and attested to his desire to reconcile the conflict of the Cold War. As Khrushchev challenged the West, “Let us prove to each other the advantages of one’s own system not with fists, not by war, but by peaceful economic competition in conditions of peaceful co-existence.” (Erickson, R. 2003) This statement is indicative of Khrushchev’s desire to alleviate the crisis of the Cold War and so eliminate the prospect of another world war breaking out. He took steps to ensure that these were not merely empty words, when he accepted American President John Kennedy’s invitation to cooperate in a venture to share weather satellite data between the two nations in 1962. Khrushchev stated in response to Kennedy, that precise and timely weather forecast will... open up new prospects for improving the well-being of mankind. Let us cooperate in this field, too. (Heidorn, K. 2000) Although this may seem a rather trivial endeavour, it opened the door for further cooperation in space, as Sergei Khrushchev, the son of the Soviet leader recalled: “Kennedy sent father a proposal about joining Soviet and American forces for a flight to the moon... my father... thought also of the political achievement of all these things, that then they would begin to trust each other much more.” (Hoagland, R. 2008) This statement reflects Khrushchev’s desire to relieve tensions with America, through cooperation in projects of mutual importance to both nations. Unfortunately, Kennedy’s untimely assassination dispelled the prospect of further cooperation in space, and Khrushchev himself would have his position at the head of the Soviet Union usurped within a year. Nevertheless, until his deposal in 1964, these endeavours stood testament to his desire to end the conflict of the Cold War with the West. It has been argued that Khrushchev’s decision in 1956 to use military force to suppress an uprising in Hungary was against his policy of peaceful coexistence and was bound to exacerbate Cold War tensions, yet he was actually keeping in line with the 1947 American doctrine of containment. (Freedman 2001, p24) Khrushchev was not invading new territory, which would undoubtedly have brought him into a direct confrontation with the United States, but maintaining his own Communist satellite states. By adhering to this American policy until his deposal in 1964, Khrushchev proved he was willing to work with the West through his policy of peaceful coexistence to resolve the conflict of the Cold War.

The lines of communication that Khrushchev established with the United States verify that he was attempting to negotiate an end to Cold War hostilities. Khrushchev’s era of Soviet leadership was so successful internationally that it was “hailed in the West as the beginning of a thaw in the Cold War.” (Kissinger 1994, p.518) During this period, Soviet emissaries attended numerous international summits where they negotiated global issues, as Kennedy summed up: “Our representatives have met at the summit and at the brink; they have met in Washington and in Moscow; in Geneva and at the United Nations.” (American Rhetoric. 2008) This statement offers a perspective from the American president himself, on the effect that communication had on resolving tensions between these two superpowers. The words “summit” and “brink” are conspicuously present in this proclamation, and emphasise the willingness of both leaders to hold talks in both the best and worst of circumstances. This illustrates Khrushchev’s desire to resolve potential differences with words, which was reflected by the American Secretary of State John Dulles in 1955 after the Geneva Summit. He stated that “Soviet policy is now based on tolerance which includes good relations with everyone.” (Kissinger 1994, p.517) This favourable comment by a statesman from a country ideologically opposed to the Soviet Union, adds weight to the argument that Khrushchev was resolving global tensions through communication until his deposal in 1964. Nevertheless, it has been argued that Khrushchev actually exacerbated global tensions and almost destroyed the lines of communication between the Soviet Union and America by his decision to implement missile installations in Cuba. Yet he was merely defending a vulnerable ally after America had tried to “unsuccessfully invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs.” (Briggs 2006, p.21) By cooperating with the American’s demand to remove the missiles, he demonstrated how strong his desire for peace actually was, and instead of creating greater tensions between the two nations, this international incident actually led to greater degrees of communication. A direct phone line was established between the Kremlin and the White house to “help reduce the risk of war occurring by accident or miscalculation,” (history.com. 2007) according to a statement issued from the White House at the time. This line of communication would avert many crises between future leaders of both these nations, and is indicative of how Khrushchev established lines of communication with the West to alleviate the tensions of the Cold War.

Khrushchev’s actions as leader of the Soviet Union stand testament to his aspiration for a cease in the tension and conflict of the Cold War. As he stated to the American Vice-President Richard Nixon in 1959: “We have liquidated our forces and offered to make a peace treaty and eliminate the point of friction in Berlin.” (CNN. n.d.) This statement shows how Khrushchev was trying to make concessions with the West over the Soviet bloc, and in so doing relieve global tensions. In 1963 Khrushchev took cooperation one step further when he agreed to take part in the negotiation of a treaty with the United States which placed restrictions on the use of nuclear weaponry. A global treaty concerning the utilization of nuclear weapons had been first sought after by the United Nations back in 1946, but was never accepted by Khrushchev’s predecessor Stalin. Kennedy announced this joint initiative to the United States, stating: “Negotiations were concluded in Moscow on a treaty to ban all nuclear tests in the atmosphere, in outer space, and under water.” (American Rhetoric. 2008) Khrushchev’s willingness to accept the terms of the 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty demonstrates his desire to prevent a direct confrontation between the two nuclear powers, and to alleviate international tensions and anxieties over the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Despite later Soviet leaders signing more comprehensive nuclear treaties, it is nevertheless obvious that they had a fixation with military programs that Khrushchev never had. This becomes evident in Soviet military spending throughout the Cold War, for by 1964, the year that Khrushchev was deposed; the Soviet Union was spending approximately 70 billion US dollars on military programs. (Appendix A) By the following year, with the more radical Leonid Brezhnev at its head, Soviet Union military program spending had jumped to US$190 billion a year. (Appendix B) Although these statistics are unlikely to be completely accurate, as they are based on the American CIA projections, they nevertheless emphasise the extent to which Khrushchev was attempting to downscale his military, compared to future Soviet leaders. This low expenditure stands testament to Khrushchev’s desire to cooperate with the West and resolve tensions up until his deposal in 1964. As Khrushchev explained at the 20th Communist Party Congress, peaceful coexistence is “not a tactical move, but a fundamental principle of Soviet foreign policy.” (Erickson, R. 2003) By following this doctrine, Khrushchev indicated that he was not interested in wasting resources on an arms race with the West, which would only exacerbate global tension and increase the likelihood of war.

Khrushchev’s choice to cooperate with the West and his attempts to resolve tensions and conflicts with words was his own decision and was not forced upon him by crippling economic problems, such as it was with Gorbachev. In fact it could be argued that Khrushchev “was a forerunner of Gorbachev in that he started the process of change.” (Kissinger 1994, p.520) He endured considerable opposition from powerful political enemies throughout his endeavour to improve Soviet relations with the West, as his son Sergei Khrushchev wrote: “The leaders who replaced Father hurried to “correct his mistakes” by giving new impetus to the arms race and producing tens of thousands of tactical nuclear weapons.” (Hoagland, R. 2008) This statement confirms how Khrushchev’s attempts to resolve tensions in the Cold War and cooperate with America were instrumental in his political enemy’s motives to have him removed from power. Cold War tensions were gradually being eased by the Khrushchev’s policy of peaceful coexistence, until his radical enemies had him deposed to prevent this reconciliation with the West. Nevertheless, Khrushchev remained focussed on his goal to eradicate the vestiges of war and live in peace with the world’s nations. He stated to Nixon: “We want to live in peace and friendship with Americans because we are the two most powerful countries and if we live in friendship then other countries will also live in friendship.” (CNN. n.d.) While some historians have argued that Khrushchev’s “smiles did not mean that he had given up the anti-Capitalist principles of Karl Marx and Lenin,” (Grolier, p.241) this is not to say that he was unwilling to coexist with the nations that followed Capitalist ideology, as his policies clearly showed. Until 1964, when Leonid Brezhnev had him deposed, Khrushchev was working to resolve potentially fatal tensions with the West. Had Khrushchev retained power, this policy would have seen international tensions continue to abate, and the Cold War with them.

It is evident that Nikita Khrushchev was working to reconcile the USSR’s position in regard the West during his time as leader of the Soviet Union. His policies, communication, actions and choices towards the West emphasise how strongly Khrushchev desired peace, and his removal from power is proof of how revolutionary his policies were. Had Khrushchev remained in power, is highly likely he would have continued to cooperate and improve global relations and tensions, marking an end to the trepidation felt throughout the world during the Cold War. When “Khrushchev was removed from power in 1964... the Soviet people were better off than they had been before.” (Grolier, p.241) Yet not even this was enough to save him from his power-hungry rivals, who would ensure the continuation of Cold War tensions for another 25 years.

Appendices 

Appendix A:  Noren, J. (2007). CIA’s Analysis of the Soviet Economy. Retrieved 2008, 

from Source

Appendix B: Noren, J. (2007). CIA’s Analysis of the Soviet Economy. Retrieved 2008,

from Source

Annotated Bibliography 

American Rhetoric. (2008). John F. Kennedy. Retrieved 2008,

from Source

The organisation that published this speech by the American president John Kennedy in 1963; American Rhetoric had its name clearly visible at the top of the website. This organisation’s authority is well known, as it hosts a wealth of complete speeches by famous Americans. The text of this speech on the website was accurate, as accompanying the words of this speech was its recording which was true to the websites annotation. As this speech was the only text on the webpage, no bias was evident, except in this primary source towards American ideals. The website was updated this year and I found it to be an extremely useful primary source which enabled me to understand American feelings towards the Soviet Union at the time better.

Briggs, J. (2006). Contested Spaces. North Ryde : McGraw Hill

This book was written by Justin Briggs; who name was very clearly displayed on the front page, for the NSW modern history syllabus. This text had a very comprehensive bibliography, and although at times the book seemed to portray the Americans in a more favourable light than the Soviets, on wthe whole I found this to be a very accurate source. The book is relatively recent, only being published in 2006 which attests to the currency of this source. The whole of the Cold War was covered in great detail from 1945 to 1991 and I found this information to be a useful starting point for my research process.

Clare, J. (2007). The Cold War. Retrieved 2008,

from Source

This website was created as a teacher’s guide to teaching the Cold War, and while the author of this site’s name was clearly visible I was unable to determine the veracity of this individual. Nevertheless the website was based around a series of questions relating to Cold War primary sources and I could find no bias evident in the text. The information that I gleaned from this site, I double checked against other sources and I concluded that the information in this source was genuine. I could no ulterior motive or bias within the text, and its currency marked it an accurate source. I found that the author of this site utilized a great deal of primary sources of information to create this website which I found to be extremely useful during my research process where I was searching for primary quotes on the Cold War.

CNN. (n.d.). Moscow ‘Kitchen Debate.’ Retrieved 2008,

from Source

This is the official website of the news group CNN, and this organisation is well known for its media coverage. The information presented on this site was the transcript of the debate between Nikita Khrushchev and Richard Nixon in 1959. No other information was present on this webpage, as the publishing company did not offer an opinion on this primary source. Therefore no bias was present except that of the individuals in the primary source itself. The website is very current as it is updated every year and the topic was covered in great detail as there was a full transcript of the conversation on the webpage – it had not been edited. I found this primary source to be very useful in helping me form an opinion about Khrushchev’s attitude to the West in response to one of its leaders.

Erickson, R. (2003). Development of the Strategy of Peaceful Coexisting During the Khrushchev Era. Retrieved 2008,

from Source

The author of this website had his name clearly visible and he was an expert on the topic, with a degree from the University of Virginia. The webpage is structured around a series of quotes from Khrushchev which describe his policy of peaceful coexistence with the West. A bibliography at the bottom of the page attested to the accuracy of this website. Although the author of this site was an American, which historically has detested Communism and may harbour some bias against a Soviet leader, I found this webpage to be a very factual description of Khrushchev’s policies with a wealth of primary quotes to back up its statements. The webpage is only five years old so the validity of its contents is still current. The author covered this topic in great detail and I found this source extremely useful when I was trying to attain some idea of Khrushchev’s policies during the research process.

Freedman, Lawrence. (2001). The Cold War. London : Cassell & Co

The author of this book has worked at the Department of War Studies at Kings College in London for many years, so he is an expert in his subject area. His name was clearly visible on the front page of this text. I could find no bias in the information presented, and the author listed a comprehensive bibliography at the back of the book. The purpose of this book was to describe the issues of the Cold War for educational processes, and in that regard it has been a success as I found it very useful for my assignment. The book was published in 2001 so the information presented in it is still relatively recent and it covers the entire Cold War utilizing primary sources to back up the author’s ideas. It provided me with an excellent overview of the Cold War which helped me form my hypothesis and then eventually my entire essay.

Heidorn, K. (2000). Weather Cooperation During the Cold War. Retrieved 2008,

from Source

The webpage discussed historical events concerning weather in history, and the author’s name was clearly visible on the site. The webpage presented a series of letters between Khrushchev and Kennedy and I could find no bias in the author’s analysis of their meaning. The purpose of this webpage was to provide information about meteorology and I found the primary quotes that it presented to be extremely useful for my proving point about Khrushchev’s cooperation during the Cold War. The webpage is eight years old, but the primary sources were extremely useful towards my proving points. The author covered a great deal of information about this topic which was all referenced to the primary quotes utilized in the text.

Hoagland, R. (2008). The New Frontier of Hope. Retrieved 2008,

from Source

The author of this website had his name clearly displayed and he was offering an opinion on the space race between the Soviet Union and the United States of America. Despite this I could not discern any bias in this source as the author was commenting on valid primary sources. The purpose of this website was to highlight cooperation between East and West during the Cold War and the information on this site was very current as it was updated just this year. The webpage looks at the changing relations between the two nations during the space race which I found very in-depth. This website was useful to me as I could use some of its primary sources as quotes to prove my point in my essay about Cold War Cooperation.

Noren, J. (2007). CIA’s Analysis of the Soviet Economy. Retrieved 2008,

from Source

The author of this webpage has written several books about the Soviet Union and gains his expertise from being a senior economic analyst for the American Central Intelligence Agency. I felt that I could have confidence in the information presented in this source, as it was published on the Central Intelligence Agency’s website. Although obviously this could indicate that the information is biased towards American ideals, I found the information to be presented in a factual and neutral tone without prejudice. The information on this webpage is quite current, as it was last updated only a year ago and the author covered a great deal of information on economic espionage. I found this website extremely useful because it provided me with two graphs detailing the military expenditure of the United States and Soviet Union throughout the Cold War which I used to prove my point about the actions of Khrushchev helping resolve tensions in the Cold War.

Kissinger, H. (1994). Diplomacy. New York : Simon & Schuster

This book was written by the 56th Secretary of State of the United States of America so the author’s expertise is verified by his first hand experience during the Cold War. The author of this text utilized numerous primary quotes, as well as his own first hand experiences to construct an accurate representation of the Cold War. The book was written as a factual sequence of events, and I could find no bias in the text, not even in the author’s speculations. The currency of this source is assured as it is a work based on primary sources, despite being 14 years old. A great deal of information about the Cold War was covered in this book and I found it to be a very useful source for my assignment.

The New Book of Knowledge (Vol O). (2001).New York : Groliers,

The organisation that wrote this encyclopaedia was selling it as a reference for educational purposes. This source of information had an extensive bibliography where all of its sources were referenced and I could find no bias in the text, merely a factual account of Khrushchev’s era of Soviet leadership. The encyclopaedia was published seven years ago, but the information in it was still valid according to the checks that I performed. I found this source to offer a succinct and factual view into the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, and it was useful during the research process as it enabled me to understand this character in more detail.

History.com. (2007). Hotline Established Between Moscow and Washington. Retrieved 2008,

from Source

The website was created by an organisation known as History.com which is the group that runs the history channel on television; so it is evident from this organisation’s credentials that this is a reputable source of information. By cross referencing I was able to determine that the information presented on this website was accurate and that its function was purely for educational purposes. The information is presented in a factual and unbiased manner and the source utilized primary quotes from the time to back up its conclusions. The website was only a year old and I found that its coverage of the topic of the Cold War Hotline was excellent. It was very useful for my essay, and the primary quotes were essential to my proving point about communication during the Cold War.

The Cold War Test Notes

Summary of the Cold War 1945-1991 

What Was It?

War of words with tension and rivalry between the two sides.

The Cold War was the result of tension and rivalry between the USA and the USSR to rule the world.

Superpowers fought the war with espionage and propaganda and competed with each other over arms and the space race.

Key aspects: 

Space race;

Propaganda;

Arms race;

Prestige competition; (Sport, cultural events & living)

Threats;

Espionage;

Treaties;

Military & economic aid to countries to gain influence.

Who Was Involved? 

Capitalist countries led by the USA and the Communist countries led by the USSR.

Why Did It Occur?

1. The USSR would not give up territory gained during WWII;

2. USSR was afraid of the USA’s atomic bomb;

3. USA thought the USSR wanted to spread Communism;

4. Both powers couldn’t talk calmly about the issue.

Beginnings:

In February 1945 the Allied leaders met to determine what would happen to Europe after the war. This was called the Yalta Conference. There were three countries: UK, USA and the USSR.

Churchill: 

Leader of the UK;

Anti-Communist;

Anti-Hitler/Germany; (Wants them to pay)

Facing an election.

Roosevelt:

Leader of the USA;

Sick man;

Believed in peace and cooperation;

Did not believe in revenge;

Peacemaker of the meeting

Stalin: 

Leader of the USSR;

Anti-Capitalist;

Anti-Hitler/Germany; (Has been invaded twice in 20 years)

Concerned about USSR security; (Invasions, USA’s atom bomb)

Holds complete power.

After Germany is defeated, Stalin breaks Yalta by occupying Eastern Europe.

After the war, there was a second conference called the Potsdam Conference. The USA has a new leader – Harry Truman.

Harry Truman: 

Extremely anti-Communist;

Opposite of Roosevelt;

Truman Doctorate: America must get involved to stop aggressive powers.

Before that there was the Monroe Doctorate which said the US should stay out of Europe.

USA hold the upper hand as they have demonstrated the destructive power of the atomic bomb.

This conference was held in Berlin spanning July – August 1945. Churchill was replaced by Attlee midway through.

The USA and the UK disagreed with the USSR on three important issues:

1. What to do with Germany; (USA wanted to make Germany self-sufficient while the Soviet Union wanted her to remain permanently crippled)

2. Reparations for war damages; (The USA said this was a bad idea as it had allowed Hitler to gain power after the IWW)

3. The existence of a buffer zone. (The USSR wanted all of the countries immediately on her boarders to be ‘friendly’ countries to lower the risk of attack)

The Berlin Blockade & Wall: 

During the Berlin blockade (June 1948-May1949) Stalin lay siege to the city which was in Soviet territory. He blocked all rail, road and canal traffic so the Americans were forced to airlift vital supplies of food and fuel.

Brinkmanship: 

A foreign policy in which a state is prepared to go to the brink of war in pursuit of its objectives.

The Iron Curtain: 

The boundary between the Soviet bloc countries of Eastern Europe and the West European countries.

Containment Policy & The Marshal Plan: 

In 1947 America announced its Containment Policy: its intention to prevent the spread of Communism by dealing with the economic and social conditions in which Communist appeal might prosper. This meant providing assistance to any government threatened by Communist expansion.

Treaties: 

1949 NATO: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

Anti-Communist

Automatic response

Members:

1. UK;

2. USA;

3. Canada;

4. Belgium;

5. Denmark;

6. Greece;

7. West Germany;

8. Iceland;

9. Lux;

10. Netherlands;

11. Norway;

12. Portugal;

13. Turkey.

1951 ANZUS

Anti-Communist

USA promised to help Australia and NZ if they were attacked

1954 SEATO South East Asian Treaty Organisation

1. Australia;

2. UK;

3. USA;

4. NZ;

5. France;

6. Pakistan;

7. Philippines;

8. Thailand.

CENTO Central Treaty Organisation

Anti-Communist

1. Turkey;

2. Pakistan;

3. USA;

4. UK;

5. Iran;

6. Iraq. (Left 1958)

1955 Warsaw Pact

1. USSR;

2. Bulgaria

3. Czechoslovakia;

4. East Germany;

5. Hungary;

6. Poland

7. Romania.

The Korean War: 

1950-1953 USA & UN with South Korea against North Korea and China.

Korea was divided at the 38th parallel by the USSR and the USA when they liberated the country from the Japanese. North Korea became Communist while the South became fervently anti-Communist.

The North invaded the South and pushed toward the Capital (Seoul)

The 1970 Thaw: 

From 1970-1979 there was an improvement in relations between the US and the USSR. This involved improved communication with more conferences as well as arms reduction talks. (SALT – Strategic Arms Limitations Talks) First SALT I was signed in 1972 and then 1979 SALT II was signed.

Ended when the USSR invaded Afghanistan. This was a USSR attempt to bring its power to bear on the Gulf in order to secure the Soviet Union’s own oil supplies and provide bases to attack Western oil supplies should the need arise.

When relations improved again in the ‘80s START (Strategic Arms Reduction Talks) began. It started in 1982, was suspended, and then began again in 1985. The goal was to significantly reduce the amount of strategic arms held by both sides.

Vietnam: 

The US decided to get out of Vietnam by changing its foreign policy. The Nixon Doctorate which involved the US maintaining current treaty obligations but they would allow a countries own government to sort out its own problems.

Russian Revolution Essay

The Great War Catapulted Russia into Revolution

The Russian revolution saw the downfall of the Romanov dynasty which had ruled Russia for over three hundred years. In just a few days, political discontent merged with anger at military defeat and economic and social grievances. (Gibbons 1965, p.175) The implications of this turning point in history were immense, and its impact upon the international community shaped the world for generations to come. The fall of Tsarist Russia has often been likened as the greatest event since the fall of the Bastille, (Gibbons 1965, p.175) yet what was the spark that set off a revolution? What had aroused the wrath of a nation so fiercely that they were willing to rebel against their Tsar – a man whom they had loved and respected? Only a significant event could spark such a reaction, which was destined to shake the very foundations and boundaries on which Europe was built. This event was the First World War, which generated conflict of an unprecedented scale and formed the basis for the downfall of the Tsars. It is this event in world history that was the catalyst for all of Russia’s problems, and united the people against their Emperor. It can therefore be stated, that the conflict of the Great War was the reason for the downfall of the Tsars. Although it has been argued that Tsarist Russia’s economy, regime and revolutionary leaders were responsible for its downfall, the war intensified these problems to such a degree that Russia could no longer cope.

The downfall of the Tsars can be traced directly to the Eastern Front, [where] desolation and conquest gave way to the Russian revolution. (Shermer 1973, p.134) Ironically, the war was perceived by the Tsar as a means of relieving pressure on his rule and indeed, for a brief period of time it united the Russian people. (Robottom 1972, p.57) However, as Russian defeats mounted in 1914 and 1915, the Russian novelist Bunin described the mood of the Russian people: ‘They don’t understand what they are fighting for. The war isn’t their business. They grow more furious every day.’ (White 1994, p.24) Finally the Tsar decided to take matters into his own hands, and assumed leadership of the army. Now every foot of ground that was lost, every death was directly attributed to him, for his subjects began to no longer see him as a God, but as very plainly human. With military defeat, came distrust; and the Russian people lost faith in their Tsar, for as Margot Tracey; the daughter of a Russian Industrialist remembered in 1939: ‘Everyone was fed up with the Tsar because they thought he was weak.’ (White 1994, 24) Furthermore, the Tsar’s decision to leave his wife – an Austrian princess – in charge of the country simply increased the royal couple’s unpopularity, and his decision to adopt conscription alienated him from the Russian people. Peasant families that struggled before now lost their breadwinner to a war that they had been dragged into by their Tsar. The repercussions upon the families of the millions of Russians killed in action (Appendix A) did little to help the image of the Tsar, and Russia’s economic plight offered no form of assistance. Both on the Eastern and Home Fronts, people were hit hard by Russia’s dwindling resources, as her economy struggled to keep up with the needs of a nation. Even before the war, Russia ‘both in trade and industry… lagged far behind the main foreign states,’ (Halsall, P. 2007) and the war simply exacerbated these problems. The Tsar recognised and admitted these deficiencies, when he wrote in a letter to his wife: ‘If we had a rest from fighting for about a month, our condition would greatly improve.’ (Learnthings. 2006) Socially, politically and economically, Russia was simply not prepared for the consequences which war would bring.

Tsarist Russia was a country whose economic deficiencies were rapidly pushing her over the abyss and into revolution. As Sergei Witte remarked in 1900 on the state’s budget: Russia’s ‘industry is still very backward both by comparison with foreign states and in relation to the needs of the population.’ (Halsall, P. 2007) Although these problems were evident before the outbreak of war, conscription exacerbated Russia’s economic deficiencies because the absence of peasants from the land led to food shortages in the cities. (Oxley 2001, p.23) Durnovo, a high-ranking Russian official in 1914 attributed Russia’s dwindling economy to the country’s ‘great dependence on foreign industry… [and its] insufficient network of strategic railroads.’ (Rempel, G. 1999) Russia’s dependence on foreign aid placed her in dire straits when she was blockaded upon Turkey’s entry into the war. The blockade separated Russia from its allies and destroyed it economically and militarily, for it could no longer be supplied from abroad. (Laffin 1980, p.13) The impact of this blockade impaired Russia’s war effort so significantly that the Allies were compelled to launch an attack at Gallipoli; with the purpose of opening the trade route between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. As history has shown, the ultimate failure of the Dardanelles campaign sealed Tsarist Russia’s fate. Unable to import supplies, the impact on the Eastern Front was felt almost immediately. Felix Yusupov remarked on the state of the Russian soldiers fighting on the front line in 1915: ‘Our troops were underfed, ill-equipped, and had no ammunition, yet… they fought against the best-equipped army in the world.’ (Learnthings. 2006) As more peasants were conscripted into the army, and fewer supplies were imported, the Russian economy found itself floundering in a war with no end in sight. Families struggled to survive as more and more men were called to the front, and the Tsar; with his position at the head of the army, was now seen as responsible for the entire war effort. He now found himself at the forefront of his people’s displeasure, and because of the war many of his subjects began to explore alternative sources of government.

Ineffective and despotic rule by the Tsars was a key factor in the 1917 revolution; which ended over three hundred years of autocratic rule in Russia. Throughout their rule, the Tsars had ruthlessly suppressed numerous rebellions with scant regard for human life. An American diplomat who saw first hand the brutal manner in which the 1905 revolution was suppressed commented: ‘All classes condemn the authorities and more particularly the Tsar. The Tsar has lost absolutely the affection of the Russian people.’ (White 1994, p.22) Despite this, the Tsar retained power in 1905 simply because he held the loyalty of the Russian Army. All that changed on the Eastern Front upon the outbreak of war, for as Russia’s difficulties mounted in August 1915, the Tsar… decided to take over the command of the armed forces. (Gibbons 1965, p.175) For a man with no military training or prowess, this was a mistake. In the past, any decisions he had made, had simply meant the difference between hunger and prosperity for many of his subjects. Now on the Eastern Front they meant the difference between life and death. Hamilton Fyfe; a reporter at the front echoed the thoughts and feelings of many soldiers: ‘The Russian troops… were being wasted because of the incompetence, intrigues, and corruption of the men who governed the country.’ (Learnthings. 2006) Poor judgment by the Tsar had led Russia into a war it was not prepared for, and now he was feeling the consequences. As Russian defeats continued, the soldiers grew to despise their leaders; who they began to see as synonymous with defeat. One particular group of troops was overheard to comment that: ‘When ten or fifteen generals are on the gallows we shall begin to win.’ (Robottom 1972, p.55) As dissent in the army grew, the Tsar’s Ministers begged him to reconsider his position at the head of the army with the words: ‘Your adoption of such a decision threatens Russia, yourself and your dynasty with serious consequences.’ (Oxley 2001, p.23) Unfortunately for the Tsar it was too late. Now every defeat, every casualty rested squarely on his soldiers; and from then on his people’s anger and resentment about the war was directed solely at him. The difference between the 1905 revolution and the one that occurred in 1917 was that the Tsar had lost the loyalty of the one force that could assert or destroy his rule.

Political opposition to the Tsar inspired the widespread uprising of the 1917 Revolution. Powerful leaders such as Vladimir Lenin emerged; inciting widespread opposition to Tsarist rule. While such opposition had always existed, the political upheaval it wrought had, in the past always been suppressed by the army, under the direction of the Tsar. This had occurred during the 1905 revolution. However, when the Great War broke out, the majority of the Russian army was tied up fighting on the Eastern Front and as military defeat ensued, many revolutionaries saw the possibilities of turning; as Lenin put it: The ‘imperialist war into a civil war.’ (Learnthings. 2006) As public opinion turned against the war, the revolutionaries seized their chance. They promoted a smear campaign against the Tsar, portraying him as the foundation of all Russia’s problems. Milyukov, a Cadet Leader in 1916 was one of many who believed that the grievances of the Russian people were because of: ‘the incompetence and evil intentions of the present government.’ (White 1994, p.23) Just like in 1905, the Russian people revolted and soldiers were sent to suppress the revolution. However, unlike 1905, of the troops and police [who] were sent to break up demonstrations… many army units refused. (Shermer 1973, p.123) With the majority of his troops fighting on the Eastern Front, the Tsar was powerless to prevent the uprising. Powerful revolutionary leaders and the disasters on the Eastern Front had swayed public opinion against him. The few troops who remained in the capital were unable to assert his rule, deserting him and joining the revolutionaries. The Great War had been the Tsar’s downfall; for when the whisperings of revolution reached his ears, his army was bogged down on the Eastern Front, too far away to be of any use.

Based on compelling evidence, the conflict of the Great War clearly led to the downfall of the Tsars. The consequences of the armed conflict with Germany resulted in millions of Russian lives being lost; leaving an economy in tatters and a Tsar fallen from grace. The Great War sucked all of Russia’s resources to the front, draining government coffers and slowing the production of food. In such conditions, revolution was inevitable, with the masses turning on the monarchy and replacing it with a system of government that was arguably more draconian than Tsarist rule had ever been. All this could have been avoided had Nicholas II paid a little more attention to the moods of the people on which his rule was based. For, at the end of the day; the people cared more for potatoes than a constitution. (Robottom 1972, p.57)

Appendices:

Appendix A: Smele, J. (2004). War and Revolution in Russia 1914 – 1921. (Online).

Available: Source

[There] were rumours that the Tsarina, Alexandra, and her favourite, the infamous Rasputin, were German spies. The rumours were unfounded, but by November 1916 influential critics of the regime were asking whether Russia's misfortunes - including 1,700,000 military dead and 5,000,000 wounded - were a consequence of 'stupidity or treason'.

Annotated Bibliography

Gibbons, S. (1965). World War One. Essex : Longman Group

The author of this book holds a doctorate in international history, and has written several articles on the First World War. All sources are duly acknowledged, and the information was presented in a factual and unbiased manner. The purpose of this book was to provide a detailed description of the Great War, and included both primary sources and the author’s own inferences. Although this book was published in 1965, the information it provided is still current, and its coverage of the Great War was excellent. I found this book to provide a useful insight into the difficulties Russia encountered upon, and indeed before enter the war in 1914.

Halsall, P. (2007). Sergei Witte on the tasks for economic policy. (Online).

Available: Source

This website contained the original budget for Russia in 1900 and was extremely useful for my paragraph on Russia’s economy. The site had recently been updated, but since it is a primary source it never loses its credibility. The budget report was written in a factual manner and no bias was evident, it was published solely for educational purposes.

Laffin, J. (1980). Damn the Dardanelles. Lane Cove : Doubleday

The author has written many volumes on war and military history. He has provided an extensive bibliography, and his work is based on both primary and secondary quotes and sources. Throughout this source the author maintained a neutral tone, and there was no evidence of bias from the range of information provided. There is sufficient coverage of the topic to prove that the failure of the Dardanelles campaign had massive ramification upon Tsarist Russia, and this was an excellent resource for researching my essay. This source was published in 1980 so the information was still valid and useful.

Learnthings. (2006). Revolutionary Russia. (Online).

Available: Source

The section of this website that was used for this assignment consisted of a series of primary quotes. Although the organisation that established this site had its name prominently displayed, no individual could be found to be the author. Nevertheless I found this site to be an excellent resource, and since only primary quotes were listed on the site, no bias was evident.

Oxley, P. (2001). Russia. Oxford : Oxford University Press

This resource was published by Oxford University in 2001, so it contained recent information from a reputable source. It contains a wealth of primary sources, which are analysed throughout the volume. The information is presented in a factual and unbiased fashion. All resources are acknowledged and its extensive coverage of Tsarist Russia was extremely useful when researching this topic.

Rempel, G. (1999). War and Revolution. (Online).

Available: Source

The author of this website is a professor at the Western New England College. The information presented on this site was presented in a neutral tone with no bias evident for purely educational purposes. Primary sources were analysed, and I found the author’s insight on the revolution very useful to my assignment. The website was last updated in 1999 so the information was not outdated.

Robottom, J. (1972). Modern Russia. Essex : Longman Group

The author’s name was clearly labelled on the front page of this book, and all of its resources were acknowledged. Both primary and secondary sources were referred to in this volume and I found it a useful resource throughout this essay. The information was presented in a factual and unbiased manner, and no hidden agenda was evident. Although this book was published 35 years ago, I still found it an excellent resource and the information presented was not outdated.

Shermer, D. (1973). World War I. London : Octopus Books

The information presented in this small book was extremely helpful, and the primary resources quoted in it were insightfully analysed. The author’s name was prominently displayed on the cover, and all resources were duly acknowledged. The information presented was still relevant today, 34 years on and I found it to be extremely useful. No bias was evident in the text, as the information was presented in a strictly neutral manner as the books purpose was for education.

Smele, J. (2004). War and Revolution in Russia 1914 – 1921. (Online).

Available : Source

The author of this site held a doctorate, although admittedly the type was not specified. This website was published relatively recently, so you could be sure that the information was up to date. The site contained a wealth of primary and secondary quotes which were both insightful and unbiased. This website was extremely useful and I would readily recommend it as an excellent resource.

Unknown. The Great World War. Unknown

This source was a very old book that had had its bibliographic details torn out. The book provided a detailed description of the Great War and found it very useful. Although the information contained in this volume was consistent with other research, no quotes were used in this assignment because of the lack of bibliographic details. Nevertheless, it provided a mixture of excellent primary and secondary sources which was presented in a factual and unbiased manner.

White, A. (1994). Russia and the USSR. London : HarperCollins Publishers

Although no background information on the author was visible in the book, an extensive list of referenced sources was available at the back. The information appeared to be presented clearly and in an unbiased fashion, focussing on a multitude of primary sources. Although this book could have gone into greater detail about Russia’s involvement in the Great War, on the whole I found it to be a useful and informative source.

The Great War Essay

The War To End All Wars 

‘…Our men lived there, and died there within a few yards of the enemy. They crouched around sandbags… and if they dug to get deeper cover, their shovels went into the softness of dead bodies who had been their friends. Scraps of flesh, booted legs, blackened hands and eyeless heads came falling over them when the enemy fired shells at their position.’ (Deary, T. (1998). Horrible Histories: The Frightful First World War. London : Scholastic) (See appendix 1)

"World War I was the result of the nineteenth century glorification of the nation." This statement suggests that in Europe, during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the countries of Europe maintained a policy of national independence and patriotism to such an excessive degree that it led to a war that would ‘thrust forward technological change, create new independent nations in the place of empires, and republics in the place of monarchies. It would destroy European global domination, create Soviet Russia as the world’s first communist state, and ushered the United States of America to the world stage for the first time.’ (Barnett, C. (1979). The Great War. London : George Rainbird Limited) This assignment will put forward the proposition that the implications of European nationalism and militant socialism led to a war of such magnitude that it engaged the whole world with unprecedented numbers of dead and mutilated resulting. (Shermer, D. (1973). World War I. London : Octopus Books Limited)

The actual underlying causes of the Great War date back fifty years before the outbreak of hostilities, as Sir Basil Liddell Hart wrote: ‘fifty years were spent in making Europe explosive.’ (Shermer, D. (1973). World War I. London : Octopus Books Limited) In 1871 when Prussia had defeated France in the Franco-Prussian war with the help of their Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck. Prussia united the German states into an empire and imposed harsh peace terms upon France, which stripped her of two rich provinces: Alsace and Lorraine, and charged billions of Francs for reparations and reimbursement. Germany was now the most powerful nation in Europe, yet Bismarck feared that one day France would strike back to revenge the humiliation of her defeat and retake her lost provinces. Therefore, in order to contain France, through careful diplomatic relations, Bismarck managed to associate Germany with Russia and Austria-Hungary in what became known as the Three Emperors League. Over the next few years, up to 1887, Bismarck successfully negotiated for Germany alliances with Austria-Hungary, Italy, Serbia, Rumania and Russia. Now France had been successfully isolated, and Britain was being kept on friendly terms. As Bismarck said; his goal was to: ‘keep Britain in friendly isolation and France in unfriendly isolation. (Shermer, D. (1973). World War I. London : Octopus Books)

Then, in 1890 Bismarck’s careful plans to isolate France were obliterated by the arrogant and unstable Kaiser Wilhelm II. Made jealous of his most brilliant subject’s prestige with his people, he had Bismarck dismissed and the Kaiser ended Germany’s treaty with Russia in favour of Austria. With the Kaiser over the years that followed unable to keep Bismarck’s positive diplomatic relations between the other countries of Europe, Germany soon found herself with only one ally: Austria. Meanwhile, Russia, France and Britain had allied themselves in the Triple Entente. As the two rival powers became increasingly hostile to one another, an arms race broke out as Germany tried to build a navy powerful enough to challenge the British superiority at sea – superiority that Britain had enjoyed since Trafalgar. Haunted by fears of a sudden breakout of war, politicians allowed their generals increasingly severe powers and war plans, and mobilization techniques were drawn up. By 1914 Europe was a power keg awaiting a spark. (Shermer, D. (1973). World War I. London : Octopus Books Limited)

All these alliances and political and military maneuvers could all have boiled down to nothing if it wasn’t for the virulent nationalism of the countries of Europe that created the spark that ignited the war to end all wars. Germany had become that spark, because as a young nation flexing its muscles and seeking its fortune, the situation in Europe was bitterly unjust.’ (Shermer, D. (1973). World War I. London : Octopus Books Limited) Because Germany was such a new nation, she had not had the opportunity to create an empire for herself or to secure her position as a power through colonial expansion. Britain and France had spent the last century building up empires, and Germany was bitter because she believed that England and France were denying them their rightful share of colonial influence. (Shermer, D. (1973). World War I. London : Octopus Books Limited) Germany now looked on war as a safety valve for national emotions, ambitions and frustrations.’ (Shermer, D. (1973). World War I. London : Octopus Books Limited) The Kaiser himself was demanding ‘a place in the sun’ for his country; Presumably by pushing someone else into the shade. (Deary, T. (1998). Horrible Histories: The Frightful First World War. London : Scholastic)

Now with Europe teetering on the edge of war, only the first stone needed to be thrown and it happened on the 28th of June 1914 when assassins from Serbia assassinated the heir to the Austrian monarchy and his wife. This set in motion a chain of events in which the Kaiser of Germany saw an opportunity to create an empire for his nation through a show of military strength – after all he reasoned, Germany had the biggest and best equipped army in Europe at the time. The Kaiser’s haste to jump straight to war spurred on by his patriotism and a wish to see his nation become the most powerful in the entire world had doomed his nation to defeat.

After four bloody years of war that saw the deaths of millions, a dispirited Germany was brought to her knees by the Allied powers. Many things were the eventual cause of her defeat; she had alienated America, who had chosen to join the Allies with all her military and industrial strength. Germany had also been starved into defeat by the Allied naval blockade – she had never been able to amass a fleet strong enough to defend her merchant ships.

Nationalism was a major cause of the First World War. The patriotism that the Kaiser of Germany inspired and felt led to the eventual downfall of him and his people and crushed their spirit and economy. It is unfortunate for Germany that she had acted so rashly; it is speculated that if she hadn’t declared war then in the years that followed she would have become the most powerful nation in Europe on account of her economic wealth and power.

Appendices 

Appendix One: Primary Source - Written by a Veteran

‘Bodies and bits of bodies and clots of blood, and green metallic-looking slime made by the explosive gases were floating on the surface of the water. Our men lived there, and died there within a few yards of the enemy. They crouched around sandbags and burrowed in to the sides of trenches. Lice crawled over them in swarms and if they dug to get deeper cover, their shovels went into the softness of dead bodies who had been their friends. Scraps of flesh, booted legs, blackened hands and eyeless heads came falling over them when the enemy fired shells at their position.’

Appendix Two: Recruitment posters: Used by the government to take advantage of the nationalism and patriotism felt by the citizens at the time.

Annotated Bibliography 

Barnett, C. (1979). The Great War. London : George Rainbird Limited

This book was useful because it contained views and arguments that were based upon reliable sources (it contained a bibliography). I would recommend this book as a useful point of reference to extract factual information as well as the author’s views and opinions which were based on hypotheses backed up by factual information from Primary sources.

Deary, T. (1998). Horrible Histories: The Frightful First World War. London : Scholastic

I would recommend this book as a useful starting point for someone who does not know very much about World War I. The information was presented clearly and was articulately explained. If I had never studied World War history before this would have been my most useful source.

Owen, D. (2002). Hidden Secrets. London : Quintet

The majority of this book was based on espionage through the ages, yet it did contain useful information and offered opinions as to why the First World War began. It did not contain any Primary sources, but the bibliography at the back of the book told me that the author had thoroughly researched his work. I would recommend this book as a good place to begin researching the War as the information was clear and distinct.

Shermer, D. (1973). World War I. London : Octopus Books Limited

This book was my most useful source of information and included both Primary and Secondary sources. The majority of the information was however secondary and was based on the writers conclusions that he had based on his research. There were also Primary sources that were extracts from diaries and reports from the time. I would readily recommend this book to anyone who could stomach its massive size and sift through the huge tracts of information it contains.

The New Book of Knowledge. (2001). USA : Grolier Incorporated, Volume W pp 276-291

The information in this encyclopedia was presented in a very factual manner with no opinions offered. It was all based on Secondary sources and was useful because I could use it to add little bits of extra information to my essay that the other, thicker research books I had used had missed.