Duiker W.J., Spielvogel J.J. The Essential World History. Volume 2: Since 1500

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

be known as the Re-

public of V ietnam).

A demilitarized zone

separated the two at

the 17th parallel.

Elections were to be

held in two years to

create a unified gov-

ernment. Cambodia

and Laos were both

declared indepen-

dent under neutral

governments. Fr ench

forces, which had

suffered a major de-

feat at the hands of

Vietminh troops at

the Battle of Dien

BienPhuinthe

spring of 1954, were

withdrawn from all

three countries.

China had

played an active

role in bringing

about the settlement and clearly hoped t hat it would

reduce tensions in the area, but subsequent effor ts to

improve relations between China a nd the United S tates

foundered on the issue of Taiwan. In the fall of 1954, the

United States signed a mutual security treaty with the

Republic of China guaranteeing U.S. militar y support in

case of an invasion of Taiwan. When Beijing demanded

U.S. withdrawal f rom Taiwan as the price for imp roved

relations, diplomatic talks between the two countries

collapsed.

From Confrontation

to Coexistence

Focus Question: What events led to the era of

coexistence in the 1960s, and to what degree did each

side contribute to the reduction in international

tensions?

The decade of the 1950s opened with the world teetering

on the edge of a nuclear holocaust. The Soviet Union had

detonated its first nuclear device in 1949, and the two

blocs---capitalist and socialist---viewed each other across

an ideological divide that grew increasingly bitter with

each passing year. Yet as the decade drew to a close, a

measure of sanity crept into the Cold War, and the leaders

of the major world powers began to seek ways to coexist

in a peaceful and stable world.

The first clear sign of change occurred after Stalin’s

death in early 1953. His successor, Georgy Malenkov

(1902--1988), openly hoped to improve relations with the

Western powers in order to reduce defense expenditures

and shift government spending to growing consumer

needs. Nikita Khrushchev (1894--1971), who replaced

Malenkov in 1955, continued his predecessor’s efforts to

reduce tensions with the West and improve the living

standards of the Soviet people.

In an adroit public relations touch, in 1956 Khrushchev

promoted an appeal for a policy of peaceful coexistence

with the West. In 1955, he had surprisingly agreed to

negotiate an end to the postwar occupation of Austria by

the victorious allies and allow the creation of a neutral

country with strong cultural and economic ties with the

West. He also called for a reduction in defense expenditures

and red uced the size of the Soviet armed for ces.

Ferment in Eastern Europe

At first, Western leaders wer e suspicious of Khrushchev’ s

motives, especially in light of events that were taking place

in Eastern Eur ope. The key to security along the western

frontier of the Soviet Union was the string of Eastern

Eur opean satellite states that had been assembled in the

aftermath of World War II (see Map 26.1). Once Com-

munist domination had been assured, a series of ‘‘little

Stalins’’ put into power by Mosc o w instituted Soviet-type

five-year plans that emphasized heavy industry rather than

consumer goods, the collectivization of agriculture, and the

nationalization of industry. They also appropriated the

political tactics that Stalin had perfected in the Soviet

U nion, eliminating all non-Communist parties and

establishing the classical institutions of repression---the

secret police and military forces. Dissidents were tracked

down and thrown into prison, and ‘‘national Communists’’

who resisted total subservience to the Soviet Union were

charged with treason in mass show trials and executed.

Despite these repressive efforts, discontent became

increasingly evident in several Eastern European coun-

tries. Hungary, Poland, and Romania harbored bitter

memories of past Russian domination and suspected that

Stalin, under the guise of proletarian internationalism,

was seeking to revive the empire of the tsars. For the vast

majority of peoples in Eastern Europe, the imposition of

the so-called people’s democracies (a term invented by

Moscow to define a society in the early stage of socialist

transition) resulted in economic hardship and severe

threats to the most basic political liberties. The first in-

dications of unrest appeared in East Berlin, where popular

THAILAND

DEMOCRATIC

REPUBLIC OF

VIETNAM

REPUBLIC

OF VIETNAM

CAMBODIA

CHINA

Hanoi

Dien Bien

Phu

Saigon

Demilitarized

Zone

LAOS

Huê

Vientiane

Phnom Penh

0 100 200 Miles

0 200 400 Kilometers

Indochina After 1954

656 CHAPTER 26 EAST AND WEST IN THE GRIP OF THE COLD WAR

riots broke out against Communist rule in 1953. The riots

eventually subsided, but the virus had spread to neigh-

boring countries.

In Poland, public demonstrations against an increase

in food prices in 1956 escalated into widespread protests

against the regime’s economic policies, restrictions on the

freedom of Catholics to practice their religion, and

the continued presence of Soviet troops (as called for by

the Warsaw Pact) on Polish soil. In a desperate effort to

defuse the unrest, the party leader stepped down and was

replaced by Wladyslaw Gomulka (1905--1982), a popular

figure who had previously been demoted for his ‘‘na-

tionalist’’ tendencies. When Gomulka took steps to ease

the cris is, Khrushchev flew to Warsaw to warn him

against adopting policies that could undermine the po-

litical dominance of the party and weaken security links

with the Soviet Union. After a tense confrontation,

Poland agreed to remain in the Warsaw Pact and to

maintain the sanctity of party rule; in return, Gomulka

was authorized to adopt domestic reforms, such as eas-

ing restrictions on religious practice and ending the

policy of forced collectiv ization in rural areas.

The Hungarian Revolution The developments in Po-

land sent shock waves throughout the region. The impact

was strongest in neighboring Hungary, where the meth-

ods of the local ‘‘little Stalin,’’ Matyas Rakosi, were so

brutal that he had been summoned to Moscow for a

lecture. In late October 1956, student-led popular riots

broke out in the capital of Budapest and soon spread to

other towns and villages throughout the country. Rakosi

was forced to resign and was replaced by Imre Nagy

(1896--1958), a national Communist who attempted to

satisfy popular demands without arousing the anger of

Moscow. Unlike Gomulka, however, Nagy was unable to

contain the zeal of leading members of the protest

movement, who sought major political reforms and the

withdrawal of Hungary from the Warsaw Pact. On No-

vember 1, Nagy promised free elections, which, given the

mood of the country, would probably have brought an

end to Communist rule. After a brief moment of uncer-

tainty, Moscow decided on firm action. Soviet troops,

recently withdrawn at Nagy’s request, returned to Buda-

pest and installed a new government under the more

pliant party leader J



anos K



ar (1912--1989). While



ar rescinded many of Nagy’s measures, Nagy sought

refuge in the Yugoslav embassy. A few weeks later, he left

the embassy under the promise of safety but was quickly

arrested, convicted of treason, and executed.

Different Roads to Socialism The dramatic events in

Poland and Hungary graphically demonstrated the vul-

nerability of the Soviet satellite system in Eastern Europe,

and many observers throughout the world anticipated that

the United States would intervene on behalf of the free-

dom fighters in Hungary. After all, the Eisenhower ad-

ministration had promised that it would ‘‘roll back’’

communism, and radio broadcasts by the U.S.-sponsored

Radio Liberty and Radio Free Eur ope had encouraged the

peoples of Eastern E urope to rise up against Soviet dom-

ination. In reality, Washington was well aware that U.S.

intervention could lead to nuclear war and limited itself to

protests against Soviet brutality in crushing the uprising.

The year of discontent was not without consequences,

however. Soviet leaders no w recognized that Mo sco w could

maintain control over its satellites in Eastern Europe only

by granting them the leeway to adopt domestic policies

appropriate to local conditions. Khrushchev had already

embarked on this path in 1955 when he assur ed Tito that

there were ‘‘different roads to socialism.’’ Some Eastern

Eur opean Communist leaders now took Khrushchev at his

word and adopted reform programs to make socialism

more palatable to their subject populations. Even K



ar,

derisively labeled the ‘‘butcher of Budapest,’’ managed to

preserve many of Nagy’s reforms to allow a measure of

capitalist incentive and freedom of expression in Hungary.

Crisis over Berlin But in the late 1950s, a new crisis

erupted over the status of Berlin. The Soviet Union had

How the Mighty Have Fa llen. In the fall of 1956, Hungarian

freedom fighters rose up against Communist domination of their country

in the short-lived Hungarian revolution. Their actions threatened Soviet

hegemony in Eastern Europe, however, and in late October, Soviet leader

Nikita Khrushchev dispatched troops to quell the uprising. In the

meantime, the Hungarian people had demonstrated their discontent by

toppling a gigantic statue of Joseph Stalin in the capital of Budapest.

Statues of the Soviet dictator had been erected in all the Soviet satellites

after World War II. (‘‘W.C.’’ identifies a public toilet in European

countries.)

AP Images

FRO M CONFRONTATION TO COEXISTENCE 657

launched its first intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)

in August 1957, arousing U.S. fears of a missile gap be-

tween the United States and the Soviet Union. Khrush-

chev attempted to take advantage of the U.S. frenzy over

missiles to solve the problem of West Berlin, which had

remained a ‘‘Western island’’ of prosperity inside the

relatively poverty-stricken state of East Germany. Many

East Germans sought to escape to West Germany by

fleeing through West Berlin, a serious blot on the credi-

bility of the GDR and a potential source of instability in

East-West relations. In November 1958, Khrushchev an-

nounced that unless the West removed its forces from

West Berlin within six months, he would turn over con-

trol of the access routes to the East Germans. Unwilling to

accept an ultimatum that would have abandoned West

Berlin to the Communists, U.S. President Dwight D. Ei-

senhower and the West stood firm, and Khrushchev

eventually backed down.

Despite such periodic crises in East-West relations,

there were tantalizing signs that an era of true peaceful

coexistence between the two power blocs could be achieved.

In the late 1950s, the United States and the Soviet Union

initiated a cultural exchange program. While Leningrad’s

Kirov Ballet appeared at theaters in the United States,

Benny Goodman and the film West Side Story played in

Moscow. In 1958, Khrushchev visited the United States and

had a brief but friendly encounter with President Ei-

senhower at the presidential retreat in northern Maryland.

Rivalry in the Third World

Yet Khrushchev could rarely avoid

the temptation to gain an advan-

tage over the U nited States in the

competition for influence thr ough-

out the world, a posture that exac-

erbated the unstable relationship

between the two global super-

powers. U nlik e Stalin, who had

exhibited a profound distrust of all

political figures who did not slav-

ishly follow his lead, Khrushchev

viewed the dismantling of colonial

regimes in Asia, Africa, and Latin

America as a potential advantage

for the So viet Union. When neu-

tralist leaders like Nehru in India,

Tito in Yugoslavia, and Sukarno in

Indonesia founded the Nonaligned

M ov ement in 1955 as a means of

pro viding an alternative to the two

major power blocs, Khrushchev

took every opportunity to promote

Soviet interests in the Third World

(as the nonaligned countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin

America were now popularly called). Khrushchev openly

sought alliances with strategically important neutralist

countries like India, Indonesia, and Egypt, while

Washington ’s ability to influence events at the United

N ations began to wane.

In January 1961, just as John F. K ennedy (1917--1963)

assumed the U.S. presidency, Khrushchev unnerved the

new president at an informal summit meeting in Vienna

by declaring that the Soviet Union would provide active

support to national liberation movements throughout the

world. There were rising fears in Washington of Soviet

meddling in such sensitive trouble spots as Southeast

Asia, where insurgent activities in Indochina continued to

simmer; in Central Africa, where the pro-Soviet tendencies

of radical leader Patrice Lumumba aroused deep suspicion

in Washington; and in the Caribbean, where a little-known

Cuban revolutionary named Fidel Castro threatened to

transform his country into an advanced base for Soviet

expansion in the Americas.

The Cuban Missile Crisis and the Move

Toward D



etente

In 1959, a left-wing revolutionary named Fidel Castro

(b . 1927) overthrew the Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista

and established a Soviet-supported totalitarian regime. As

tensions increased between the new government in Havana

The Kitchen Debate. During the late 1950s, the United States and the Soviet Union sought to defuse

Cold War tensions by encouraging cultural exchanges between the two countries. On one occasion, U.S.

Vice President Richard M. Nixon visited Moscow in conjunction with the arrival of an exhibit to introduce

U.S. culture and society to the Soviet people. Here Nixon lectures Soviet Communist Party chief Nikita

Khrushchev on the technology of the U.S. kitchen. On the other side of Nixon, at the far right, is future

Soviet president Leonid Brezhnev.

AP Images

658 CHAPTER 26 EAST AND WEST IN THE GRIP OF THE COLD WAR

and the United States, the Eisenhower administration broke

relations with Cuba and drafted plans to overthrow Castro,

who reacted by drawing closer to Mosco w.

Soon after taking office in early 1961, Kennedy ap-

prov ed a plan to support an invasion of Cuba by anti-

Castro exiles. But the attempted landing at the Bay of Pigs

in southern Cuba was an utter failure. A t Castro ’s invita-

tion, the So viet U nion then began to station nuclear

missiles in Cuba, within striking distanc e of the American

mainland. (That the U nited States had placed nuclear

weapons in Turkey within easy range of the Soviet U nion

was a fact that Khrushchev was quick to point out.) When

U.S. intelligence discovered that a Soviet fleet carrying

more missiles was heading to Cuba, K ennedy decided to

dispatch U .S. warships into the Atlantic to prevent the fleet

from reaching its destination.

This approach to the problem was risky but had the

benefit of delaying confrontation and giving the two sides

time to find a peaceful solution. After a tense standoff

during which the two countries came frighteningly close

to a direct nuclear confrontation (the Soviet missiles

already in Cuba were launch-ready), Khrushchev finally

sent a conciliatory letter to Kennedy agreeing to turn back

the fleet if Kennedy pledged not to invade Cuba. In a

secret concession not revealed until many years later, the

president also promised to dismantle U.S. missiles in

Turkey. To the world, however (and to an angry Castro),

it appeared that Kennedy had bested Khrushchev. ‘‘We

were eyeball to eyeball,’’ noted U.S. Secretary of State

Dean Rusk, ‘‘and they blinked.’’

The ghastly realization that the world might have

faced annihilation in a matter of days had a profound

effect on both sides. A communication hotline between

Moscow and Washington was installed in 1963 to expe-

dite rapid communication between the two superpowers

in time of crisis. In the same year, the two powers agreed

to ban nuclear tests in the atmosphere, a step that served

to lessen the tensions between the two nations.

FILM & HISTORY

HE MISSILES OF OCTOBER (1973)

Never has the world been closer to nuclear holocaust than in the

month of October 1962, when U.S. and Soviet leaders found them-

selves in direct confrontation over Nikita Khrushchev’s decision to

introduce Soviet missiles into Cuba, just

90 miles from the coast of the United

States. When President John F. Kennedy

announced that U.S. warships would in-

tercept Soviet freighters destined for

Cuban ports, the two countries teetered

on the verge of war. Only after pro-

tracted and delicate negotiations was the

threat defused. The confrontation so-

bered leaders on both sides of the ‘‘iron

curtain’’ and led to the signing of the

first test ban treaty, as well as the open-

ing of a hotline between Moscow and

Washington.

The Missiles of October, amade-

for-TV film produced in 1973, is a

tense political drama that is all the

more riveting because it is based on

fact.Althoughitislesswellknown

than the more recent Thirteen Days,

released in 2000, i t is i n many ways

more persuasive, and the acting is

demonstrably superior. The film stars

William Devane as John F. Kennedy

and Martin Sheen as his younger

brother, Rober t. Based in part on Robert Kennedy’s Thirteen Days

(New York, 1969), a personal account of the crisis that was pub-

lished shortly after his assassination in 1968, the film traces the

tense discu ssions that took place in

the White Ho use as the president’s

key advisers debated how to respond

to the Soviet challenge. President

Kennedyremainscoolashereinsin

his more bellicose adv isers to bring

about a compromise solution that

successfully avoids the see mingly v ir-

tual certaint y of a nuclear confronta-

tion with Moscow.

Because the film is based on the

recollections of Robert F. Kennedy, it

presents a favorable portrait of his

brother’s handling of the crisis, as

might be expected, and the somewhat

triumphalist attitude at the end of the

film is perhaps a bit exaggerated. But

Khrushchev’s colleagues in the Krem-

lin and his Cuban ally, Fidel Castro,

viewed the U.S.-Soviet agreement as a

humiliation for Moscow that neverthe-

less set the two global superpowers on

the road to a more durable and peace-

ful relationship. It was one Cold War

story that had a happy ending.

John Kennedy (William Devane, seated) and Robert

Kennedy (Martin Sheen) confer with advisers.



Everett Collection

FRO M CONFRONTATION TO COEXISTENCE 659

The Sino-Soviet Dispute

Nikita Khrushchev had launched his slogan of peaceful

coexistence as a means of improving relations with the

capitalist powers; ironically, one result of the campaign was

to undermine Moscow’s ties with its close ally China.

During Stalin’ s lifetime, Beijing had accepted the Soviet

U nion as the acknowledged leader of the socialist camp.

After Stalin ’s death, however, relations began to deteriorate.

P art of the reason may have been Mao Zedong’s conten-

tion that he, as the most experienc ed Marxist leader ,

should now be acknowledged as the most authoritativ e

voice within the socialist community. But another deter-

mining factor was that just as Soviet policies were moving

toward moderation, China ’s were becoming more radical.

Several other issues were involved, including territo-

rial disputes along the Sino-Soviet border and China’s

unhappiness with limited Soviet economic assistance. But

the key sources of disagreement involved ideology and the

Cold War. Chinese leaders were convinced that the suc-

cesses of the Soviet space program confirmed that the

socialists were now technologically superior to the capi-

talists (the East Wind, trumpeted the Chinese official

press, had now triumphed over the West Wind), and they

urged Khrushchev to go on the offensive to promote

world revolution. Specifically, China wanted Soviet assis-

tance in retaking Taiwan from Chiang Kai-shek. But

Khrushchev was trying to improve relations with the West

and rejected Chinese demands for support against Taiwan.

By the end of the 1950s, the Soviet Union had begun

to remove its advisers from China, and in 1961, the dis-

pute broke into the open. Increasingly isolated, China

voiced its hostility to what Mao described as the ‘‘urban

industrialized countries’’ (which included the Soviet

Union) and portrayed itself as the leader of the ‘‘rural

underdeveloped countries’’ of Asia, Africa, and Latin

America in a global struggle against imperialist oppres-

sion. In effect, China had applied Mao Zedong’s concept

of people’s war in an international framework (see the

box on p. 661).

The Second Indochina War

China’s radicalism was intensified in the early 1960s by

the outbreak of renewed war in Indochina. The Ei-

senhower administration had opposed the peace settle-

ment at Geneva in 1954, which divided Vietnam

temporarily into two separate regroupment zones, spe-

cifically because the provision for future national elec-

tions opened up the possibility that the entire country

would come under Communist rule. But Eisenhower had

been unwilling to send U.S. military forces to continue

the conflict without the full support of the British and the

French, who preferred to seek a negotiated settlement.

In the end, Washington promised not to break the pro-

visions of the agreement but refused to commit itself to

the results.

During the next several months, the United States

began to provide aid to the new government in South

Vietnam. Under the leadership of the anti-Communist

politician Ngo Dinh Diem, the government began to root

out dissidents. With the tacit approval of the United

States, Diem refused to hold the national elections called

for by the Geneva Accords. It was widely anticipated, even

in Washington, that the Communists would win such

elections. In 1959, Ho Chi Minh, despairing of the

peaceful unification of the country under Communist

rule, decided to return to a policy of revolutionary war in

the south.

Late the following year, a political organization that

was designed to win the support of a wide spectrum of

the population was founded in an isolated part of South

Vietnam. Known as the National Liberation Front (NLF),

it was under the secret but firm leadership of high-

ranking Communists in North Vietnam (the Democratic

Republic of Vietnam).

By 1963, South Vietnam was on the verge of collapse.

Diem’s autocratic methods and inattention to severe

economic inequality had alienated much of the popula-

tion, and revolutionary forces, popularly known as the

Viet Cong (Vietnamese Communists) and supported by

the Communist government in the North, expanded their

influence throughout much of the country. In the fall of

1963, with the approval of the Kennedy administration,

senior military officers overthrew the Diem regime. But

factionalism kept the new military leadership from re-

invigorating the struggle against the insurgent forces, and

the situation in South Vietnam grew worse. By early 1965,

the Viet Cong, their ranks now swelled by military units

infiltrating from North Vietnam, were on the verge of

seizing control of the entire country. In March, President

Lyndon Johnson decided to send U.S. combat troops to

South Vietnam to prevent a total defeat for the anti-

Communist government in Saigon. Over the next three

years, U.S. troop levels steadily increased as the White

House counted on U.S. firepower to persuade Ho Chi

Minh to abandon his quest to unify Vietnam under

Communist leadership.

The Role of China Chinese leaders observed the gradual

escalation of the conflict in South Vietnam with mixed

feelings. They were undoubtedly pleased to have a firm

Communist ally---one that had in many ways followed the

path of Mao Zedong---just beyond their southern frontier.

Yet they were concerned that bloodshed in South Viet-

nam might enmesh China in a new conflict with the

660 CHAPTER 26 EAST AND WEST IN THE GRIP OF THE COLD WAR

OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS

EACEFUL COEXISTENCE OR PEOPLE’S WAR?

The Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin had contended

that war between the socialist and imperialist

camps was inevitable because the imperialists

would never give up without a fight. That assump-

tion had probably guided the thoughts of Joseph Stalin, who

told colleagues shortly after World War II that a new war

would break out in fifteen to twenty years. But Stalin’s suc-

cessor, Nikita Khrushchev, feared that a new world conflict

could result in a nuclear holocaust and contended that the

two sides must learn to coexist, although peaceful competi-

tion would continue. In this speech given in Beijing in 1959,

Khrushchev attempted to persuade the Chinese to accept his

views. But Chinese leaders argued that the ‘‘imperialist na-

ture’’ of the United States would never change and countered

that the crucial area of competition was in the Third World,

where ‘‘people’s wars’’ would bring down the structure of im-

perialism. That argument was presented in 1966 by Marshall

Lin Biao of China, at that time one of Mao Zedong’s closest

allies.

Khrushchev’s Speech to the Chinese, 1959

Comrades! Socialism brings to the people peace---that greatest bless-

ing. The greater the strength of the camp of socialism grows, the

greater will be its possibilities for successfully defending the cause of

peace on this earth. The forces of socialism are already so great that

real possibilities are being created for excluding war as a means of

solving international disputes. ...

When I spoke with President Eisenhower---and I have just

returned from the United States of America---I got the impression

that the President of the U.S.A.---and not a few people support

him---understands the need to relax international tension. ...

There is only one way of preserving peace---that is the road of

peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems. The ques-

tion stands thus: either peaceful coexistence or war with its cata-

strophic consequences. Now, with the present relation of forces

between socialism and capitalism being in favor of socialism,

he who would continue the ‘‘cold war’’ is moving towards his

own destruction. ...

It is not at all because capitalism is still strong that the socialist

countries speak out against war, and for peaceful coexistence. No,

we have no need of war at all. If the people do not want it, even

such a noble and progressive system as socialism cannot be imposed

by force of arms. The socialist countries therefore, while carrying

through a consistently peace-loving policy, concentrate their efforts

on peaceful construction; they fire the hearts of men by the force of

their example in building socialism, and thus lead them to follow in

their footsteps. The question of when this or that country will take

the path to socialism is decided by its own people. This, for us, is

the holy of holies.

Lin Biao, ‘‘Long Live the Victory of People’s War’’

Many countries and peoples in Asia, Africa, and Latin America are

now being subjected to aggression and enslavement on a serious

scale by the imperialists headed by the United States and their

lackeys. ... As in China, the peasant question is extremely impor-

tant in these regions. The peasants constitute the main force of the

national-democratic revolution against the imperialists and their

lackeys. In committing aggression against these countries, the impe-

rialists usually begin by seizing the big cities and the main lines of

communication. But they are unable to bring the vast countryside

completely under their control. ... The countryside, and the coun-

tryside alone, can provide the revolutionary basis from which the

revolutionaries can go forward to final victory. Precisely for this rea-

son, Mao Tse-tung’s theory of establishing revolutionary base areas

in the rural districts and encircling the cities from the countryside

is attracting more and more attention among the people in these

regions.

Taking the entire globe, if North America and Western Europe

can be called ‘‘the cities of the world,’’ then Asia, Africa, and Latin

America constitute ‘‘the rural areas of the world.’’ Since World War II,

the proletarian revolutionary movement has for various reasons

been temporarily held back in the North American and West Euro-

pean capitalist countries, while the people’s revolutionary movement

in Asia, Africa, and Latin America has been growing vigorously. In a

sense, the contemporary world revolution also presents a picture of

the encirclement of cities by the rural areas. In the final analysis, the

whole cause of world revolution hinges on the revolutionary strug-

gles of the Asian, African, and Latin American peoples, who make

up the overwhelming majority of the world’s population. The social-

ist countries should regard it as their internationalist duty to sup-

port the people’s revolutionary struggles in Asia, Africa, and Latin

America. ...

Ours is the epoch in which world capitalism and imperialism

are heading for their doom and communism is marching to victory.

Comrade Mao Tse-tung’s theory of people’s war is not only a prod-

uct of the Chinese revolution, but has also the characteristic of our

epoch. The new experience gained in the people’s revolutionary

struggles in various countries since World War II has provided con-

tinuous evidence that Mao Tse-tung’s thought is a common asset

of the revolutionary people of the whole world.

Why did Nikita Khrushchev feel that, contrary to Lenin’s

prediction, conflict between the socialist and capitalist camps

was no longer inevitable? How did Lin Biao respond?

FRO M CONFRONTATION TO COEXISTENCE 661

United States. Nor did they welcome the

specter of a powerful and ambitious

united Vietnam, which might wish to

extend its influence throughout mainland

Southeast Asia, an area that Beijing con-

sidered its own backyard.

Chinese leaders therefore tiptoed

delicately through the minefield of the

Indochina conflict. As the war escalated in

1964 and 1965, Beijing publicly an-

nounced that the Chinese people fully

supported their comrades seeking na-

tional liberation but privately assured

Washington that China would not directly

enter the conflict unless U.S. forces

threatened its southern border. Beijing

also refused to cooperate fully with Mos-

cow in shipping Soviet goods to North

Vietnam through Chinese territory.

Despite its dismay at the lack of full

support from China, the Communist

government in North Vietnam responded

to U.S. escalation by infiltrating more of

its own regular troops into the South, and

by 1968, the war had reached a stalemate

(see the comparative illustration at the

right). The Communists were not strong

enough to overthrow the government in

Saigon, whose weakness was shielded by

the presence of half a million U.S. troops,

but President Johnson was reluctant to

engage in all-out war on North Vietnam

for fear of provoking a global nuclear

conflict. In the fall, after the Communist-

led Tet offensive undermined claims of

progress in Washington and aroused in-

tense antiwar protests in the United

States, peace negotiations began in Paris.

Quest for Peace Richard Nixon came

into the White H ouse in 1969 on a pledge

to bring an honorable end to the Vietnam

War . W ith U.S. public opinion sharply di-

vided on the issue, he began to withdraw

U .S. troops while continuing to hold peace

talks in P aris. But the centerpiece of his

strategy was to improve relations with

China and thus undercut Chinese support

for the North Vietnamese war effort. Dur-

ing the 1960s, relations between Moscow

and Beijing had reached a point of extreme

tension, and thousands of troops were

COMPARATIVE ILLUSTRATION

War in the Rice Paddi es. The first stage of the Vietnam War

consisted primarily of guerrilla conflict, as Viet Cong insurgents

relied on guerrilla tactics in their effort to bring down the U.S.-

supported government in Saigon. In 1965, however, President Lyndon Johnson

ordered U.S. combat troops into South Vietnam (top photo) in a desperate bid

to prevent a Communist victory in that beleaguered country. The Communist

government in Hanoi, North Vietnam, responded in kind, sending its own regular

forces down the Ho Chi Minh Trail to confront U.S. troops on the battlefield.

In the photo on the bottom, North Vietnamese troops storm the U.S. Marine

base at Khe Sanh, near the demilitarized zone, in 1968, the most violent

year of the war. U.S. military commanders viewed the use of helicopters as

a key factor in defeating the insurgent forces in Vietnam. This conflict,

however, was one instance when technological superiority did not produce

a victory on the battlefield.

How do you think helicopters were used to assist U.S. operations in South

Vietnam? Wh y didn ’t they produc e a favorable result?

AP Images



Three Lions/Getty Images

662 CHAPTER 26 EAST AND WEST IN THE GRIP OF THE COLD WAR

stationed on both sides of their long common frontier. To

intimidate their Communist rivals, Soviet sources hinted

that they might launch a preemptive strike to destroy

Chinese nuclear facilities in Xinjiang. Sensing an opportu-

nity to split the two onetime allies, N ixon sent his

emissary, Henry Kissinger , on a secret trip to China. Re-

sponding to assurances that the United States was deter-

mined to withdra w from Indochina and hoped to improve

relations with the mainland regime, Chinese leaders invited

President Nixon to visit China in early 1972. Nixon ac-

cepted, and the two sides agreed to set aside their differences

over Taiwan to pursue a better mutual relationsh ip .

The Fall of Saigon Incensed at the apparent betrayal by

their close allies, North Vietnamese leaders decided to seek

a peaceful settlement of the war in the south. In January

1973, a peace treaty was signed in Paris calling for the

removal of all U.S. forces from South Vietnam. In return,

the Communists agreed to halt military operations and to

engage in negotiations to resolve their differences with the

Saigon regime. But negotiations between north and south

over the political settlement soon broke down, and in

early 1975, the Communists resumed the offensive. At the

end of April, under a massive assault by North Vietnamese

military forces, the South Vietnamese government sur-

rendered. A year later, the country was unified under

Communist rule.

The Communist victory in Vietnam was a severe

humiliation for the United States, but its strategic impact

was limited because of the new relationship with China.

During the next decade, Sino-American relations contin-

ued to improve. In 1979, diplomatic ties were established

between the two countries under an arrangement whereby

the United States renounced its mutual security treaty

with the Republic of China in return for a pledge from

China to seek reunification with Taiwan by peaceful

means. By the end of the 1970s, China and the United

States had forged a ‘‘strategic relationship’’ in which they

would cooperate against the common threat of Soviet

hegemony in Asia.

Why had the United States failed to achieve its ob-

jective of preventing a Communist victory in Vietnam?

One leading member of the Johnson administration later

commented that Washington had underestimated the

determination of its adversary in Hanoi and over-

estimated the patience of the American people. Deeper

reflection suggests, however, that another factor was

equally important: the United States had overestimated

the ability of its client state in South Vietnam to defend

itself against a disciplined adversary. In subsequent years,

it became a crucial lesson to the Americans on the perils

of nation building.

An Era of Equivalence

Focus Question: Why did the Cold War briefly flare

up agai n in the 1980s, and why did it come to a

definitive end at the end of the decade?

When the Johnson administration sent U.S. combat

troops to South Vietnam in 1965, Washington’s main

concern was with Beijing, not Moscow. By the mid-1960s,

U.S. officials viewed the Soviet Union as an essentially

conservative power, more concerned with protecting its

vast empire than with expanding its borders. In fact, U.S.

policy makers periodically sought Soviet assistance in

seeking a peaceful settlement of the Vietnam War. As long

as Khrushchev was in power, they found a receptive ear in

Moscow. Khrushchev was firmly dedicated to promoting

peaceful coexistence (at least on his terms) and sternly

advised the North Vietnamese against a resumption of

revolutionary war in South Vietnam.

After October 1964, when Khrushchev was replaced

by a new leadership headed by party chief Leonid

Brezhnev (1906--1982) and Prime Minister Alexei Kosygin

(1904--1980), Soviet attitudes about Vietnam became

more ambivalent. On the one hand, the new Soviet leaders

had no desire to see the Vietnam conflict poison relations

between the great powers. On the other hand, Moscow

was eager to demonstrate its support for the North

Vietnamese to deflect Chinese charges that the Soviet

U nion had betrayed the interests of the oppressed peoples

of the world. As a result, Soviet officials publicly voiced

sympathy for the U.S. predicament in Vietnam but put no

pressure on their allies to bring an end to the war. Indeed,

the Soviet Union became Hanoi’s main supplier of ad-

vanced military equipment in the final years of the war.

The Brezhnev Doctrine

In the meantime, new Cold War tensions were brewing in

Eastern Europe, where discontent with Stalinist policies

began to emerge in Czechoslovakia. The latter had not

shared in the thaw of the mid-1950s and remained under

the rule of the hard-liner Antonin Novotny (1904--1975),

who had been installed in power by Stalin himself. By the

late 1960s, however, Novotny’s policies had led to wide-

spread popular alienation, and in 1968, with the support

of intellectuals and reformist party members, Alexander

Dubc

ek (1921--1992) was elected first secretary of the

Communist Party. He immediately attempted to create

what was popularly called ‘‘socialism with a human face,’’

relaxing restrictions on freedom of speech and the press

and the right to travel abroad. Economic reforms were

announced, and party control over all aspects of society

AN ERA OF EQUI VALENCE 663

was reduced. A period of euphoria erupted that came to

be known as the ‘‘Prague Spring.’’

It proved to be short-lived. Encouraged by Dubc

ek’s

actions, some Czechs called for more far-reaching re-

forms, including neutrality and withdrawal from the

Soviet bloc. To forestall the spread of this ‘‘spring fever,’’

the Soviet Red Army, supported by troops from other

Warsaw Pact states, invaded Czechoslovakia in August

1968 and crushed the reform movement. Gustav Hus



(1913--1991), a committed Stalinist, replaced Dubc

ek and

restored the old order, while Moscow attempted to justify

its action by issuing the so-called Brezhnev Doctrine (see

the box above).

In East Germany as well, Stalinist policies continued

to hold sway. The ruling Communist government in East

Germany, led by Walter Ulbricht, had consolidated its

position in the early 1950s and became a faithful Soviet

satellite. Industry was nationalized and agriculture col-

lectivized. After the 1953 workers’ revolt was crushed

by Soviet tanks, a steady flight of East Germans to West

Germany ensued, primarily through the city of Berlin.

This exodus of mostly skilled laborers (‘‘Soon only party

chief Ulbricht will be left,’’ remarked one Soviet observer

sardonically) created economic problems and in 1961 led

the East German government to erect a wall separating

East Berlin from West Berlin, as well as even more fear-

some barriers along the entire border with West Germany.

After building the Berlin Wall, East Germany suc-

ceeded in developing the strongest economy among the

Soviet Union’s Eastern European satellites. In 1971, Ul-

bricht was succeeded by Erich Honecker (1912--1994), a

party hard-liner. Propaganda increased, and the use of the

Stasi, the secret police, became a hallmark of Honecker’s

virtual dictatorship. Honecker ruled unchallenged for the

next eighteen years.

An Era of D



etente

Still, under Brezhnev and Kosygin, the Soviet Union

continued to pursue peaceful coexistence with the West

THE BREZHNEV DOCTRINE

In the summer of 1968, when the new Communist

Party leaders in Czechoslovakia were seriously con-

sidering proposals for reforming the totalitarian

system there, the Warsaw Pact nations met under

the leadership of Soviet party chief Leonid Brezhnev to assess

the threat to the socialist camp. Shortly after, military forces of

several Soviet bloc nations entered Czechoslovakia and im-

posed a new government subservient to Moscow. The move

was justified by the spirit of ‘‘proletarian internationalism’’ and

was widely viewed as a warning to China and other socialist

states not to stray too far from Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy, as

interpreted by the Soviet Union. But Moscow’s actions also

raised tensions in the Cold War.

A Letter to the Central Committee of the Communist

Party of Czechoslovakia

Dear comrades!

On behalf of the Central Committees of the Communist and Workers’

Parties of Bulgaria, Hungary, the German Democratic Republic, Po-

land, and the Soviet Union, we address ourselves to you with this let-

ter, prompted by a feeling of sincere friendship based on the principles

of Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and by the

concern of our common affairs for strengthening the positions of

socialism and the security of the socialist community of nations.

The development of events in your country evokes in us deep

anxiety . It is our firm conviction that the offensive of the reactionary

forces, backed by imperialists, against your Party and the foundations

of the social system in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, threatens

to push your country off the road of socialism and that consequently

it jeopardizes the interests of the entire socialist system. ...

We neither had nor have any intention of interfering in such

affairs as are strictly the internal business of your Party and your state,

nor of violating the principles of respect, independence, and equality in

the relations among the Communist Parties and socialist countries. ...

At the same time we cannot agree to have hostile forces push

your country from the road of socialism and create a threat of severing

Czechoslovakia from the socialist community. ... This is the common

cause of our countries, which have joined in the Warsaw Treaty to en-

sure independence, peace, and security in Europe, and to set up an in-

surmountable barrier against the intrigues of the imperialist forces,

against aggression and revenge. ... We shall never agree to have impe-

rialism, using peaceful or nonpeaceful methods, making a gap from

the inside or from the outside in the socialist system, and changing in

imperialism’s favor the correlation of forces in Europe. ...

That is why we believe that a decisive rebuff of the anti-Communist

forces, and decisive efforts for the preservation of the socialist system in

Czechoslovakia are not only your task but ours as well. ...

We express the conviction that the Communist Party of Czecho-

slovakia, conscious of its responsibility, will take the necessary steps to

block the path of reaction. In this struggle you can count on the soli-

darity and all-round assistance of the fraternal socialist countries.

Warsaw, July 15, 1968.

How did Leonid Brezhnev justify the Soviet decision to

invade Czechoslovakia? To what degree do you find his argu-

ments persuasive?

664 CHAPTER 26 EAST AND WEST IN THE GRIP OF THE COLD WAR

and adopted a generally cautious posture in foreign affairs.

By the early 1970s, a new age in Soviet-American relations

had emerged, often referred to by the French term d



etente,

meaning a reduction of tensions between the two sides.

One symbol of d



etente was the Anti-Ballistic Missile

(ABM) Treaty, often called SALT I (for Strategic Arms

Limitation Talks), signed in 1972, in which the two na-

tions agreed to limit the size of their ABM systems.

Washington’s objective in pursuing the treaty was to

make it unlikely that either superpower could win a nu-

clear exchange by launching a preemptive strike against

the other. U.S. officials believed that a policy of ‘‘equiva-

lence,’’ in which the two sides had roughly equal power,

was the best way to avoid a nuclear confrontation. D



etente

was pursued in other ways as well. When President Nixon

took office in 1969, he sought to increase trade and cul-

tural contacts with the Soviet Union. His purpose was to

set up a series of ‘‘linkages’’ in U.S.-Soviet relations that

would persuade Moscow of the economic and social

benefits of maintaining good relations with the West.

A symbol of that new relationship was the Helsinki

Accords. Signed in 1975 by the United States, Canada,

and all European nations on both sides of the iron

curtain, these accords recognized all borders in Europe

that had been established since the end of World War II,

thereby formally acknowledging for the first time the

Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. The Hel-

sinki Accords also committed the signatories to recognize

and protect the human rights of their citizens, a clear

effort by the Western states to improve the performance

of the Soviet Union and its allies in that arena.

Renewed Tensions in the Third World

Protection of human rights became one of the major

foreign policy goals of the next U.S. president, Jimmy

Carter (b. 1924). Ironically, just at the point when U.S.

inv olvement in Vietnam came to an end and relations with

China began to improve, U.S.-So viet relations began to

sour, for several reasons. Some Americans had become

increasingly concerned about aggressiv e new tendencies in

Soviet foreign policy . The first indication came in

Africa. Soviet influence was on the rise in Somalia, across

the Red Sea from South Yemen, and later in neighboring

Ethiopia. In Angola, once a colon y of P ortugal, an insur-

gent mo vement supported b y Cuban troops came to

power. In 1979, Soviet troops were sent across the border

into Afghanistan to protect a newly installed Marxist re-

gime facing internal resistance from fundamentalist M us-

lims. Some observers suspected that the ultimate objective

of the Soviet advance into hitherto neutral Afghanistan was

to extend Soviet power into the oil fields of the Persian

Gulf. To deter such a possibility, the W hite House

promulgated the Carter Doctrine, which stated that the

U nited States would use its military pow er, if necessary, to

safeguard Western access to the oil reserves in the Middle

East. In fact, sour c es in Mosc ow later disclosed that the

Soviet advance had little to do with the oil of the Persian

Gulf but was an effort to increase Soviet influence in a

region increasingly beset by Islamic fervor. Soviet officials

feared that Islamic activism could spread to the M uslim

populations in the Soviet republics in Central Asia and

were confident that the United States was too distracted by

the ‘‘Vietnam syndrome’’ (the public fear of U .S. in-

volvement in another Vietnam-type conflict) to respond.

Another reason for the growing suspicion of the

Soviet Union in the United States was that some U.S.

defense analysts began to charge that the Soviet Union

had rejected the policy of equivalence and was seeking

strategic superiority in nuclear weapons. Accordingly,

they argued for a substantial increase in U.S. defense

spending. Such charges, combined with evidence of So-

viet efforts in Africa and the Middle East and reports

of the persecution of Jews and dissidents in the Soviet

U nion, helped undermine public support for d



etente in the

United States. These changing attitudes were reflected in

the failure of the Carter administration to obtain con-

gressional approval of a new arms limitation agreement

(SALT II), signed with the Soviet Union in 1979.

Countering the Evil Empire

The early years of the administration of President R onald

Reagan (1911--2004) witnessed a return to the harsh

CHRONOLOGY

The Cold War to 1980

Truman Doctrine 1947

Formation of NATO 1949

Soviet Union explodes first nuclear device 1949

Communists come to power in China 1949

Nationalist government retreats to Taiwan 1949

Korean War 1950--1953

Geneva Conference ends Indochina War 1954

Warsaw Pact created 1955

Khrushchev calls for peaceful coexistence 1956

Sino-Soviet dispute breaks into the open 1961

Cuban Missile Crisis 1962

SALT I treaty signed 1972

Nixon’s visit to China 1972

Fall of South Vietnam 1975

Soviet invasion of Afghanistan 1979

N ERA OF EQUIVALENCE 665