Compare and contrast the contributions of Gandhi and Nehru to the Independence movement in India up to 1947.

Gandhi

Nehru

Lower class background.

Public displays of policy. Appeals to everyday man.

“Disciples” – British converts as well as Indians.

Generation older than Nehru.

Figurehead and leader of protests – but also the one who has to call it off.

Agrarian reform and village based society.

Religious.

Upper class rich background.

More successful lawyer.

Statesman, politician.

Associated to higher ups and political parties.

More of an equal to the British as a negotiator to the British.

Marxism (socialism) and industrialization.

Atheist.

Both want independence for India. Despite falling out in 1939, they get back together during the war with the united belief in Indian independence.

Indian independence may not have come as quickly and as relatively bloodlessly had these two not been there.

Détente

Détente was the decreasing of tensions between the Eastern and Western bloc in the 1970s. Economic and political problems on both sides showed the leaders of the respective superpowers that the face of the Cold War was changing. Brezhnev's regime found it could no longer support the nuclear arms buildup which for so long it had followed with single-minded intensity. The US under Johnson and then Nixon were embroiled in war in Vietnam, and facing grave domestic difficulties as a result. The USSR also feared a US-Chinese alliance following the Sino-Soviet split, while the US realized in its backdoor discussions with the USSR that the Soviets cared little about the war in Vietnam. The advent of the Yom-Kippur War and the following talks between the two superpowers that led to its premature cessation further showed both sides that things could be done differently.

 

In Europe, meanwhile, the prominence of Willy Brandt as a major West German politician with pro-East European policies led to a similar warming in relations between the Warsaw Pact countries and Western Germany, and signaled a possible detachment in the West Germany surrogacy to the United States.

 

Eventually, despite many treaties and trade agreements, Détente came to an end. While relations directly between the superpowers became more friendly, "proxy wars" were still being fought with each side supporting their respective candidates, particularly in Southern Asia and the Middle East. Tensions were still high, both sides continued to have vast arsenals of strategic nuclear weapons, and spying continued. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the election of Presidents Carter and then Reagan hammered a nail into the coffin of Détente, as tensions once again escalated and the old hostility between the superpowers returned as the West took a swing to the right.

Analyze the role of Germany in the origin and development of the Cold War.

The two superpowers at the end of the Second World War met in 1945 over the “corpse of Nazi Germany” (Walker). Berlin in particular and Germany as a whole were very important in the origin and development of the cold war as the war torn country acted as the “Dueling Ground” where the two sides met and their policies came into direct, close conflict.

                During the First World War, part of what enabled the Russian Revolution and Bolshevik takeover was the war with the Germans which decimated Tsarist loyal forces and the Russian economy. Germany therefore had an important effect which would eventually lead to the Cold War beginning, as the newly in-power Soviets called for Communist revolutions across the world. Their ideology and this hostile stance as well as their withdrawal from war with Germany immediately caused their alienation from the rest of the allied international community (the West). Germany was therefore important before 1945, in the origins of the Cold War, as it caused the Soviets to be able to take power, as well as to reach superpower status and be a threat to the West in their race to become a match to the United States and the Third Reich prior to and during the Second World War.

During the Cold War, Germany was the place where the two sides met. It was the only place where their military forces, particularly in Berlin, mixed and faced off against each other. This naturally led to extreme tension due to the great suspicion and mistrust between the two sides. Particularly this was expressed in very different policies and ideas of what to do with Germany during the end of the war and post-war. The Yalta and Potsdam conferences (especially the former) failed to come to a consensus except that Germany’s would be an unconditional surrender. Other than this, the US side was generally kinder to the inhabitants, contrasting to the vengeful Russians who raped and pillaged their way to Berlin. In one case, German P.O.W.s hijacked a train and told the Russians they had a disease, so desperate were they to be sent to the allied side (they were) (von Luck, Panzer Commander). Immediately post-war, the West attempted to feed the starving Germans and rebuild the country through policies such as the Marshal Plan. The Russians instead stole German Industry and technology, again as a means of revenge. These contrasting views and early policies led to major tensions and did much to exacerbate the Cold War’s origin.

                Germany was also the cause of major policy deadlocks which aggravated the war and contributed to its development. Stalin’s attempt to takeover Berlin by closing the borders led to the Berlin airlift, which showed to both sides the importance of the city to the West and East. As General Clay said in a cable to Washington D.C.:

“...We are convinced that our remaining in Berlin is essential to our prestige in Germany and in Europe. Whether for good or bad, it has become a symbol of the American intent.”

 The US also allowed West Berlin to create an Army, despite post-war disarmament of the country, which worried the Soviets, considering the war they had just fought to ensure the defeat of the German Army. West Berlin’s glittering capitalism and economic prosperity also led to the emigration of essential East Germans to the West and the eventual building of the Berlin Wall, also an important policy change by the East which shows the importance of the country to the USSR and therefore the continuing development of the Cold War. Kennedy even made speeches promising his support to the West Germans in Berlin itself to show his convictions. Before the Wall was built, a major confrontation occurred between Soviet and US military forces, as tanks from both sides faced off along the main street connecting the West and East sections of Berlin. Though no shots were fired, this sort of duel of conviction showed both sides and the world the seriousness of the situation. Because of the tensions in the country the US could not interfere behind the Iron Curtain due to the threat of war and their promises to West Germany. Germany was the line drawn in the sand between the two dueling sides which showed to all where the conflict borders were.

Alternatively it can be argued that Germany is not as important because of the cataclysmic importance of events elsewhere and so its role in the development of the war is not so big. For example, the dropping of the atomic bombs in Japan, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Korean War, Vietnam War, etc. all occur elsewhere and in many cases mark major events in the Cold War’s development. The evolution of nuclear technology to ICBM’s also made it a global conflict and not one limited to fighting over Germany. However, as Sir Frank Roberts says, the Russians view was that though the border was in Germany it was mutually understood that both sides would cause problems elsewhere on either side; but Germany was the dividing line and is therefore very important in the Cold War.

Germany is generally recognized by historians to have played an important role in the origin and development of the Cold War. There are many academic schools of thought, including so called “orthodox”, “revisionist”, and “post revisionist”. To take a brief look at each one in relation to Germany, the post revisionist and orthodox views are particularly interesting to look at here. The orthodox view of the war, represented by historians such as Richard Pipes, blames the USSR and claims the Soviets were overly aggressive and hostile towards the West. Given that Germany and WW I are largely to blame for the Soviet government coming to power, Germany is very important to the orthodox point of view. Post-revisionists, such as John Lewis Gaddis, on the other hand tend to be more balanced between blaming the West as opposed to the USSR. Germany is still important to their point of view, being more balanced, as it is a good location from which to address the actions of both sides coming into close conflict with each other. Revisionists tend to be a lot more critical of the Western powers, and focus on their actions, many of the most controversial of which took place outside of Germany. Therefore, Germany being very important in the origin and development of the war is represented best by these two schools of thought, orthodox and post-revisionist.

In conclusion, while there are other important factors in the origin and development of the Cold War, Germany is still essential in both the origin and the development as the place where forces met and where the line in the sand between dueling superpowers was drawn.

To what extent did events in the final year of the Second World War turn wartime allies into Cold War enemies?

The final year of the second World War did less to turn the wartime allies against each other than it did to reaffirm that they were already enemies. Before WW II began, the USSR was an enemy of the Western powers and so the tensions of the ending year of WW II and the defeat of the their common enemy only brought that conflict to light once more.

Prior to their alliance of necessity in 1942 when the Germans invaded Russia, Stalin had been using the West and capitalism as scapegoats for problems in the USSR. Roosevelt and Churchill had also denounced Stalin early in the war when he invaded Finland, the Baltic states, and Eastern Poland in compliance with his NAP with Germany. Even before this, when the USSR pulled out of the First World War early and left the West to fight Germany alone following their Bolshevik revolution, they were enemies. The West had even fought Russia during the Russian Civil War (Reds vs. Whites). They were, definitely, enemies.


The Germans seemed a bigger threat though, and provided both the Russians and the Western Allies with a common enemy which both sides hoped would foster friendship between them, as well as defeat Hitler. Stalin tried to appease the Western leaders, and the Western leaders were quite impressed by Stalin's courtesy (they didn't know he was spying on them, and they ignored evidence that he was in fact the leader of a regime of terror). But this mutual friendship was superficial, as it turned out. Stalin continually failed to live up to his agreements made at the Yalta conference in terms of the post-war status of Poland and Eastern Europe - there were no free elections, and governments were put in place to make the Eastern European powers puppet states of the USSR. The West was upset, and made that clear at the Potsdam conference.


The US and UK also revealed to Stalin at the Potsdam conference of the existence of their "powerful weapon". Given the bad feeling between the allies at the conference, it was somewhat threatening to tell Stalin that and still be so vague as to the nature of the bomb (Stalin of course already knew, though). Within 7 days following the conference, the US dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, ending the war but also attempting to intimidate the USSR.


By this point, the Western allies realized Stalin was a dictator and expansionist and couldn't be trusted, while Stalin realized the US had power over him and were threatening to use it. The wartime allies were enemies again, but they were not enemies for the first time. Instead, the bad blood that had existed between them before the war was simply brought to light again as both sides realized mutual friendship was just not going to happen now that their common enemy was gone. They were now Cold War enemies, and the last year of the war helped them realize that, but it was nothing new and the final year did not begin the conflict.

EE: The Peninsular War 1808 - 1814

As many of you are aware, my History EE's topic concerns the Napoleonic Wars, specifically the British efforts relating to the Peninsular War. The exact question is:
"Which was more significant in winning the Peninsular War (1808-1814), the British Army or the Royal Navy?"
For the purposes of providing a general explanation that anyone interested can take a look at, I'd like to give a brief outline of exactly what that question entails and the problems in answering it.

The Peninsular War began, for the British, with then-Sir Arthur Wellesley's assignment by War Minister Lord Castlereagh to defend Portugal and oust the French invaders in 1808.
This date and assignment is important, because it represents a new phase in the War for Britain. Until Wellesley's army entered Portugal, every single other deployment of British troops on mainland Europe had ended in dismal failure (not counting the second expedition to Copenhagen) (indeed, every other deployment of British troops during the Peninsular War elsewhere in Europe ended similarly). This was due to a variety of reasons, but in particular it was because the British regular army was very small, initially poorly equipped, and even more poorly led and trained. The Peninsular War almost ended the same way right off the bat for the British, but Wellesley's victories at Rolica and Vimiero changed that - it gave the British a military victory on land (for a change) to celebrate, and an excuse to the concerned politicians to continue their efforts.

The Peninsular War began for the British, technically, in 1808. Spain had however been invaded by the French in 1807, and naval battles had been fought around the Iberian Peninsula for many years before that (the battles off Cape St. Vincent and Cape Trafalgar in particular come to mind). England was a naval power, and had only survived up until that point because it possessed naval superiority - without which Napoleon would have long since invaded. Besides the threat of invasion alone, England would not have survived due to economic concerns (a fact Napoleon was well aware of and attempted to focus on following his failed invasion attempts, see also the Treaty of Tilsit), and only did thanks to its extensive Empire and many trading partners (and colonies it could extort) outside Europe. The Navy was also essential to eventually both keep Wellington's army alive in the Peninsula with its supplies ferried in from England, but to keep the French occupied and their fleets bottled up elsewhere on the coast.

The question therefore comes down to this:
Were the Royal Navy's efforts, being essential to win the war, more significant than that of the Army's?
Through a detailed look at the many details and facets of this problem in my essay, I hope to be able to choose one or the other, for sure, and back it up with evidence.

Why did the Cold War begin in Europe?

 

Because during World War II, the theatre of war that the victorious powers, the United States (Britain & France) and the USSR, were both involved in was that of Europe. By the end of the war both sides controlled significant amounts of territory that they had not before, and as they differed ideologically and no longer had a common enemy, they immediately sized each other up and became very secretive. There was no open fighting, but there was paranoia and hostility on both sides.