Category Archives: HIST254-Archive

Developing Countries and the Cold War

Posted on by

In “The Superpower Quest for Empire: The Cold War and Soviet Support for ‘Wars of National Liberation'”, Kanet illustrates that the conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States in the Cold War had deep, lasting effects in the developing world, as each superpower attempted to assert its dominance over Third World countries to either lead them on the communist path or away from it. Unlike my previous perceptions of the Cold War, Kanet characterizes much of the Soviet Union’s initiative as resulting from a lack of US response. After the Vietnam War, the United States stepped back and displayed a general inability to respond effectively to Soviet initiative. Such inability to act and deal with political instability was mirrored in other modern, pro-Western governments, resulting in the rise to power of a strong group of anti-western governments in the 1960s and ’70s. The United States, of course, reacted negatively to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan but, even here, the US reaction was not strong enough to illicit change – at least in the eyes of the next US President, Ronald Reagan. I had not before put such blame on the United States lacking initiative, but usually approach the Cold War as a somewhat balanced game between the two superpowers of stepping forward, then being pushed backward again, resulting in a somewhat continuous cycle between the two.

The Cold War is often painted as differences in ideology between the United States and the Soviet Union, but with an emphasis on the lack of actual, direct military action taken against either Superpower. In the focus on the direct conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States, the countries that are affected in the wake of the conflict are often underrepresented. How did the Cold War affect the economic and political development of these countries? What would have happened if they had been left alone? How did the United States and the Soviet Union change these governments’ (Afghanistan, Angola, Ethiopia, Cuba, etc) priorities?

The Cold War and the Third World

Posted on by

The Cold War was the result of growing political and military tension between the United States and the Soviet Union. Many are taught the Cold War was a nuclear stalemate between the two super powers, and that it caused the alliance that fought against Nazi Germany in World War II to end. And while all this is correct a major part of the Cold War that is often overlooked it the involvement of The United States and Soviet Union in the Third World. Roger Kanet’s essay “The Superpower Quest for Empire: The Cold War and Soviet Support for ‘Wars of National Liberation,’” focus on the Third World conflicts between the United States and Soviet Union during the Cold War. “In this essay we examine the ways in which the superpowers expand their initially European based conflict thought the developing world.”[1]

Kent’s essay focuses on why the two countries become involved in a war over developing countries. Both countries wanted to spread their beliefs on what the correct on political and economic practices were, and neither country wanted the others ideas to spread. Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan were three of the countries affected by this conflict. Many people do not realize that the United States involvement in these countries is a result of the Cold War.

Another aspect of the cold war that has been overlooked, according to Kent, is the lasting impact it had on the world. Kanet points out that the conflict has “faded into the historical background” and the lasting effects it had on the Third World are ignored. Kanet explains that the Third World is still suffering form the Cold War today and we should not overlook this.

Thought his essay Kanet uses treaties made during the conflict and plans by political leaders such as The Regan Doctrine and Gorbachev’s New Thinking to give a reliable take on the conflict. Kanet’s essay gives important insight to aspects of the Cold War many people do not know about and his ideas should be shared to give people more knowledge on their history and its impact on the world they live in today.

[1] Kanet, Roger E. “The Superpower Quest for Empire: The Cold War and Soviet Support for ‘Wars of National Liberation’”. Cold War History. Routledge August 2006. 331-352.

A New Cold War Narrative: The Superpower Quest for Empire

Posted on by

Spies. The Space Race. The Cuban Missile Crisis. The Iron Curtain. These are all aspects that the general public closely associate with the era of the Cold War. Save for the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, people do not immediately associate the conflict between capitalist United States and communist Soviet Union with hostilities in the Middle East, Latin America, or South Asia. However, in his article, “The Superpower Quest for Empire: The Cold War and Soviet Support for ‘Wars of National Liberation,’” Roger Kanet focuses strictly on the affect the Cold War had on the developing countries in these regions. Kanet argues that the superpowers, America and the Soviet Union, drew their attentions away from Europe and towards the developing world after the mid-late 1950s in an effort to establish their economic and political dominance.

He supports his main argument through an analysis of the increase in Soviet involvement in support of “progressive forces” across developing nations in their campaigns against Israeli and American imperialism. He also explores the United States’ response to these efforts by providing its own support to countries in the Third World against Soviet expansion. All of which led to military conflicts spread out throughout West Asia, Africa, and Central America. Kanet cites various treaties made during the Cold War to illustrate the new alliances that formed during this period between Third World countries and either the United States or Soviet Union. However, he relies heavily on secondary sources with few primary texts mostly in the form of memoirs of American political leaders such as Henry Kissinger. The lack of primary documents detailing either superpower’s decisions to enter into conflicts in the Third World as a way of attacking the other’s authority and power is surprising. Even with their biases, one would expect to see newspaper articles mentioned throughout the essay or even in the bibliography. Certainly, government documents should be included in a discussion regarding a nation’s military campaigns.

Regardless, the narrative Kanet presents in his article is one that few Americans know or understand. Americans generally associate the conflicts in Korea, Egypt, or the Middle East during this period as individual isolated occurrences not as the larger Cold War. Therefore, Kanet’s article is important to furthering the United States’ understanding of the Cold War.

Sevastopol and the Soviet Union

Posted on by

The article, “Who Makes Local Memories?: The Case of Sevastopol after World War II” makes a distinct focus on the impact and significance of Sevastopol to the Soviet Union in the time following World War II. Qualls asserts the point that Sevastopol, simultaneously shed its identification with two countries at the same time, he explains how the city marginalized the Soviet Union and completely ignored Ukraine and refused to be apart of it, which was due to the goal of tying to highlight a deeper Russian history, but instead creating a localized mythology. Quall’s argues that through the emergence of mythmaking and by introducing military valor and extraordinary feats by civilians, military personnel were combining pre-Revolutionary and Soviet conceptions of heroism. With this, heroism, resistance and self-sacrifice became the face of the city and what it was most known for. The city became to be the “glory of the Russian soul’, and a “symbol of faithfulness” the lives that were lost during the war. Quall’s explains how Sevastopol focused only on becoming local and not national, further removing itself or “shedding” itself from its Soviet identification. He argues that local city planning changed the topography and toponyms of the city that put society back to pre-revolutionary heroism and guidebook authors who wrote for international audiences further scattered the myth of Sevastopol more broadly.

With the removal of Soviet identity, the article has me question how Sevastopol’s evolution really affected the Soviet Union in a negative way, if it seemed that the city was only raising the Soviet Union on a pedestal, representing its victories and its heroic features.

Sevastopol – Mythmakers

Posted on by

The extreme hubris of  municipal and naval officers created difficulties faced by party officials who tried to redefine the traditional Russian past of Sevastopol and conform it to a more acceptable past dictated by the central authority.  Professor Qualls argues that party members were unable to force conformity among the people of Sevastopol, at least in their traditions, and instead the city held fast to its roots to the motherland. His use of the word “mythmakers” to describe party official designated to re-invent Sevastopol’s past is absolutely applicable because they tried to do exactly that.  The main idea behind Soviet mythmakers was to create saint-like civilian heroes, who were saved by party intervention, for the people to rally behind.  Sevastopol’s municipal and naval officers however were instead able to draw on wartime heroes who were attached to a Russian past, which allowed the history of Sevastopol to retain its Russian qualities.  “Heroism, resistance, and self-sacrifice became synonymous with Sevastopol.” How were the people of Sevastopol able to escape their primordial ascription?  In my opinion, their reliance on a distinctly Russian past especially during a time of war, as to avoid complications with the Soviets, allowed them to do so.

 

Sevastopol and Local Identity

Posted on by

In “Who Makes Local Memories?: The Case of Sevastopol After World War II”, Qualls asserts that various conflicts, most notably the Crimean War, have shaped the construction of the identity of the city of Sevastopol and it’s people in relation to Russia. He cites the example of the Crimean War in which Lev Tolstoy, a journalist, wrote of the Russian character of the city and necessity of fighting for it as one would do for Russia. At this stage the Russian identity of the city was reinforced through examples of military valor in the Crimean War and the loyalty of those who defended it. As Qualls points out these national myths serve to reinforce the identification of the city and it’s residents with the nation. Simultaneously Russia is able to generate a sense of belonging amongst the citizens and legitimize it’s claim to the region as a national power. This process of creating national myths continues into the 1930s when the Soviet government adapts the narrative once again to redirect loyalty towards the Party through the use of myths which center around the “ideal Soviet citizen,” who serves as an example of the importance of the Party in daily life and of what can be accomplished through allegiance to the Party.

With the onset of World War Two the narrative changes from loyalty to the Party or military valor to that of duty to citizens, soldiers, and Sevastopol. It is interesting to note the adaptability of the sense of identity and it’s importance to the citizen’s identification with Russia rather than Ukraine. Furthermore Qualls analyzes the myth creation blending the World War Two narrative with that of the Russian past and the Crimean War. It would be interesting to see on an individual level from the citizens of Sevastopol, how long it took for them to internalize this new myth and sense of identification and if there was any resistance. Also in if this identification with Russia, rather than Ukraine, extended to all citizens or if it was more prevalent amongst certain age groups? In the latter part of his article, Qualls did a good job demonstrating how the Soviets supported this new myth with propaganda. The Soviets utilized new media formats, such as film, to reach a broader audience and reinforce the new narrative. Finally I found it interesting to read about connection of the reconstruction of the city to the sense of identity, specifically how Trautmann campaigned for the renaming of streets and city areas for local heroes rather than Party heroes.

Sevastopol & Local Legacy

Posted on by

Qualls’s discussion on instill a local legacy within Sevastopol in the post-World War II world seemed quite compelling, as it deviated from the narrative generally presented about cities within the Soviet Union.

Most cities and locales within the Soviet Union, it appears, followed a particular school of thought, which exalted Lenin and other important thinkers involved with the history of Communism, and integrating their own histories with the collective history of the USSR. In Sevastopol, however, local officials paid more attention to local heroes and history, highlighting the importance of Sevastopol throughout Russian history (not just the history of the Soviet Union).

My main question, I suppose, is why was this able to become successful within the context of the Soviet Union–I’m not quite sure I fully understand how Sevastopol successfully achieved its local legacy, essentially rejecting the (perceived) more important legacy of the USSR as a whole.

Sevastopol

Posted on by

Professor Qualls’s article, “Who Makes Local Memories?  The case of Sevastopol after World War II” discussed who created memories of Sevastopol and how they were created after World War II. In his piece, Professor Qualls argued that despite central authorities attempts to paint Serastopals history in a certain way, it was the “municipal and naval officers” who chose to write the history of Serastopal in a “deeper Russian Historical” way, thus creating a “localized mythology.”  ((Professor Karl Qualls, “Who Makes Local Memories?: The Case of Sevastopol after World War II”  Carlisle: Dickinson College Faculty Publications, Paper 1, 2011. 3))  Citing important authors such as David Brandenberger, Karen Petrone, and Matthew P. Gallagher, Professor Qualls used his argument to show how local communities within the Soviet Union created their own mythical like images to advertise their cities.

One of the most interesting points that Professor Qualls brings up was his connection of the myths used with Sevastopal following World War II with the use of heroism in Soviet Propaganda during the 1930s.  He noted that “the military and local officials took the lead in crafting a myth of Soviet Sevastopol and its citizens as an extension of the great Russian defenders of the Motherland who sacrificed everything for a greater good.”  (Professor Karl Qualls, “Who Makes Local Memories?: The Case of Sevastopol after World War II”  Carlisle: Dickinson College Faculty Publications, Paper 1, 2011, 12)) Qualls noted here how the leaders Sevastopol took the methods of heroism in 1930s. He explained how the myths that were created had a heroism type feel to it so that the memory of Sevastopol would stand out.  I found Professor Qualls to be very effective in using 1930s Propaganda and its use of Heroism to discuss the memory of Sevastopol.  His comparison of two different periods split by World War II and his use of a variety of different scholars, showed how he was effective in writing about the memory of Sevastopol.

 

Sevastopol’s Importance

Posted on by

This article does an excellent job in explaining how Sevastopol was crucial in the past, from the World Wars to the myths surrounding it to the importance around the city that remains today.  It’s also interesting how the Soviets deliberately displayed the city in a myth-like way, using stories of heroism and its long past as a  propaganda tool.  In addition with the presence of a naval base of the Russian Black Fleet there today, all of these factors explain the Russian perception of why the city is so important, and also helps to explain the more recent Russian annexation of Crimea.

Russian history over Soviet values? Creating a Sevastopol identity

Posted on by

In “Who Makes Local Memories?: The Case of Sevastopol after World War II”, Qualls argues that the historical city of Sevastopol has been defined and shaped by its identification with Russian culture and history. Sevastopol’s residents and outsiders consider it to be a Russian city, and this tradition was evident as far back as 1845 when Leo Tolstoy wrote that it was “impossible to shake the spirit of the Russian people” (Qualls 3) during their defense of the city during the Seize of Sevastopol. During WWII, in creating its own wartime narrative, Sevastopol introduced their own heroes among Soviet heroes such as Zoya Kosmodemianskaia. In Soviet press, Sevastopol’s role in WWII was linked to the Crimean War and so the fight against the Nazis was coined as the “Second Great Defense.” Thus, in the creation a wartime narrative, Sevastopol’s heroes were linked and compared to pre-Soviet Russian heroes, such as Aleksandr Nevskii, Aleksandr Suvorov, and Mikhail Kutuzov. Thus, qualities such as self-sacrifice, resistance and heroism that were exhibited by these Russian heroes became “synonymous with Sevastopol” (Qualls 7). The city’s military history as the city of Catherine the Great’s fleet and its ancient Greek and Turkish origins contributed to the narrative of Sevastopol as a Russian, as opposed to Soviet city.

This replacement of Russian history over Soviet history is interesting, especially in the light of 2 decades before where Stalin called for a brotherhood of nations where the Soviet Union was national in structure but Soviet in form. Did this change in perspective happen in response to the war? If so, what about Russian history was more powerful than the Soviet narrative? Although Soviet values were not replaced completely replaced, why was history so important to Sevastopol narrative? It seems like the fact that a military history had already been such a staple of Sevastopol’s understanding of itself, from both its Soviet leaders and its population that harnessing this history would be more beneficial for the war effort than repeating Soviet propaganda.