Introduction:
The containment policy was first suggested by George Kennan. Its primary was to stop the spread of communism through political and economic means.
Main Body:
The containment policy had been quite successful in the initial stages. Politically, the Truman Doctrine was to provide funding, weapons and supplies to governments who were fighting against the communist threat. It successfully helped Greece and Turkey in resisting a communist takeover. As an economic strategy to counter the spread of Communism, the Marshall Plan was introduced as it was perceived that prolong poverty would result in more people believing in communism. Therefore, through the Marshall Plan, Europe would recover from the Second World War and become prosperous again. With prosperity, countries would reject communism. The Marshall Plan was a success as Western Europe regained its prosperity and Communism could not spread to that region. The formation of NATO was also part of the containment policy. Consisting mainly of countries in Western Europe, it provided a form of deterrence against any Soviet aggression to spread communism to Western Europe. This ensured Western Europe remained free of communism. Finally, the Berlin Airlift also demonstrated the success of the containment policy. It took a strong stand against communism and also ensure that Berlin would not be taken over by the communists.
However, the containment policy had its limitations. Firstly, it could only stop the spread of communism in Europe but not elsewhere. For example, the containment policy was not extended to places in Asia, which resulted in China and Vietnam becoming communist. Even in Korea, US involvement was under the UN banner and not really an extension of the Truman Doctrine, although South Korea was resisting a communist takeover. No assistance in the scope of the Marshall Plan was offered to any country outside Europe too. Secondly, the containment policy had no relevance to countries within the Soviet sphere of influence. When Hungary tried to break away from communist rule in 1956, the US did not provide any assistance to the Hungarians. Thus, there was no consistency in the application of the Truman Doctrine.
Sunday 20 February 2011
Tuesday 15 February 2011
How far did competing ideologies contribute to the outbreak of the Cold War? Explain your answer. [12]
Introduction:
The breakdown of the wartime alliance started after the Second World War ended in 1945. Therefore, it can be assumed that when we examine the factors related to this breakdown, we should focus on events before and just after the end of the Second World War.
Main body:
Firstly, the different ideologies between the two sides made long-term cooperation difficult. The West stood for democracy and capitalism while the USSR practised communism. Both sides saw the other ideology as a threat and would often find ways to undermine the other side. This was already the case even before the outbreak of the Second World War. The West tried to prevent the successful establishment of communism in Russia when they got involved in the Russian Civil War in 1918-1921. On the other hand, the establishment of the Comintern in 1923 to spread communism was a threat to the West. Even when Nazism seemed to be threatening the peace in Europe, the West and the USSR did not cooperate to deal with it, until both sides were attacked by Germany. Thus, the roots of conflicts were already there.
Secondly, the wartime alliance was not one without tensions. Both sides created a sense of distrust through their actions. The West caused distrust when their delay in launching the second front allowed Germany to focus its offensive on the USSR from 1941-43. The loss of 20 million Russians caused the USSR to suspect Western intentions in using German offensives to weaken Soviet troops. On the other hand, the USSR caused distrust when they refused to provide assistance to their Polish allies during the Warsaw Uprising. All these events naturally created distrust, which made the wartime alliance unlikely to last for a long time.
Thirdly, the common objective of the wartime alliance was to defeat Germany in the Second World War. Once Germany had been defeated, the common objective that bound the USSR and the West had been fulfilled. When this happened, both sides would start to fulfill their other objectives that served their own national interests. Unfortunately, this was where their national interests clashed. For the USSR, Germany had attacked them twice in 30 years, with tremendous damages. Therefore, they needed to secure those areas that could form a buffer between Germany and the USSR. At the same time, USSR would not want Germany to be strong again. That led to the establishment of pro-Soviet governments in Eastern Europe. For the West, the post-war priority would be the recovery of Europe so that peace and stability would return. The establishment of pro-Soviet governments in Eastern Europe was certainly not seen by the West as a move towards peace and stability but simply a form of aggression. The recovery of Europe would require the return of German prosperity, given Germany's central position in Europe. Thus, the treatment over Germany also became a source of tension. With these conflicting postwar objectives, the wartime alliance could not be transformed into a peacetime alliance.
The breakdown of the wartime alliance started after the Second World War ended in 1945. Therefore, it can be assumed that when we examine the factors related to this breakdown, we should focus on events before and just after the end of the Second World War.
Main body:
Firstly, the different ideologies between the two sides made long-term cooperation difficult. The West stood for democracy and capitalism while the USSR practised communism. Both sides saw the other ideology as a threat and would often find ways to undermine the other side. This was already the case even before the outbreak of the Second World War. The West tried to prevent the successful establishment of communism in Russia when they got involved in the Russian Civil War in 1918-1921. On the other hand, the establishment of the Comintern in 1923 to spread communism was a threat to the West. Even when Nazism seemed to be threatening the peace in Europe, the West and the USSR did not cooperate to deal with it, until both sides were attacked by Germany. Thus, the roots of conflicts were already there.
Secondly, the wartime alliance was not one without tensions. Both sides created a sense of distrust through their actions. The West caused distrust when their delay in launching the second front allowed Germany to focus its offensive on the USSR from 1941-43. The loss of 20 million Russians caused the USSR to suspect Western intentions in using German offensives to weaken Soviet troops. On the other hand, the USSR caused distrust when they refused to provide assistance to their Polish allies during the Warsaw Uprising. All these events naturally created distrust, which made the wartime alliance unlikely to last for a long time.
Thirdly, the common objective of the wartime alliance was to defeat Germany in the Second World War. Once Germany had been defeated, the common objective that bound the USSR and the West had been fulfilled. When this happened, both sides would start to fulfill their other objectives that served their own national interests. Unfortunately, this was where their national interests clashed. For the USSR, Germany had attacked them twice in 30 years, with tremendous damages. Therefore, they needed to secure those areas that could form a buffer between Germany and the USSR. At the same time, USSR would not want Germany to be strong again. That led to the establishment of pro-Soviet governments in Eastern Europe. For the West, the post-war priority would be the recovery of Europe so that peace and stability would return. The establishment of pro-Soviet governments in Eastern Europe was certainly not seen by the West as a move towards peace and stability but simply a form of aggression. The recovery of Europe would require the return of German prosperity, given Germany's central position in Europe. Thus, the treatment over Germany also became a source of tension. With these conflicting postwar objectives, the wartime alliance could not be transformed into a peacetime alliance.
Wednesday 9 February 2011
How far did colonial rule benefit the Southeast Asian states? Explain your answer. [13]
Introduction:
The Europeans came to Southeast Asia and colonised many areas. Their period of rule had benefitted the locals in many ways. However, there were disadvantages too.
Main Body:
One major benefit was the development of the Southeast Asian economies. Most of the Southeast Asian economies opened up as many of them were converted to cash economies. With the introduction of cash economies, the volume of trade increased greatly. The development of many areas into plantations also took place during colonial rule. This was the case in Malaya, where many rubber plantations were set up, and in Indonesia, where cash crops were cultivated on a massive scale in Java and Sumatra. All these economic activities brought prosperity to the Southeast Asian colonies.
Another benefit resulting from colonial rule was modernisation. Colonial societies started to develop socially, as western technology was introduced. Communications between different Southeast Asian states also improved, as railways and roads were built. For example, in Malaya, a railway line linking Penang to Singapore was completed by 1923. For Indonesia, sea links were provided by the KPM. Western technology also helped to improved economic and farming practices. In Indonesia, the Dutch introduced new irrigation systems and provided more effective fertilisers. In education, locals started to receive western knowledge in science and technology. The exposure to Western concepts of democracy, nationalism and communism would also unconsciously benefit the locals in their pursuit for independence subsequently.
However, the existence of resistance to colonial rule certainly showed that colonial rule was not without disadvantages
One of the disadvantages of colonial rule was the negative impact of the economic changes. While the colonies prospered in general, it made the economies of the colonies dependent on the world economy. This would cause instability in the income of the workers and farmers. In addition, there was economic exploitation on the locals. The local workers often suffered from poor working and living conditions. The profits resulting from the prosperity were rarely passed down to them. For example, in Vietnam, it was the French and the Chinese who reaped the profits from the plantations they owned. This was also the case in Indonesia, where the Dutch owned most of the plantations.
Another disadvantage of colonial rule was the loss of authority experienced by the local rulers. They could no longer rule the state without reference to the colonial masters. In some cases, the traditional leaders were entirely removed. This was the case in Cochin China, where direct rule was imposed and caused the Vietnamese court to lose its prestige. Even in places where indirect rule was imposed, the rulers had to rule in a way desired by the colonial masters. This was the case even in some colonies under British rule, where the Resident had more power than the Sultan.
The threat to local culture could be another disadvantage to Southeast Asian states. In Vietnam, Confucianism was challenged by Catholicism. At the same time, Vietnamese writing was forcibly replaced by Roman writings. In Indonesia, the Balinese resisted fiercely against the imposition of Dutch influence.
The Europeans came to Southeast Asia and colonised many areas. Their period of rule had benefitted the locals in many ways. However, there were disadvantages too.
Main Body:
One major benefit was the development of the Southeast Asian economies. Most of the Southeast Asian economies opened up as many of them were converted to cash economies. With the introduction of cash economies, the volume of trade increased greatly. The development of many areas into plantations also took place during colonial rule. This was the case in Malaya, where many rubber plantations were set up, and in Indonesia, where cash crops were cultivated on a massive scale in Java and Sumatra. All these economic activities brought prosperity to the Southeast Asian colonies.
Another benefit resulting from colonial rule was modernisation. Colonial societies started to develop socially, as western technology was introduced. Communications between different Southeast Asian states also improved, as railways and roads were built. For example, in Malaya, a railway line linking Penang to Singapore was completed by 1923. For Indonesia, sea links were provided by the KPM. Western technology also helped to improved economic and farming practices. In Indonesia, the Dutch introduced new irrigation systems and provided more effective fertilisers. In education, locals started to receive western knowledge in science and technology. The exposure to Western concepts of democracy, nationalism and communism would also unconsciously benefit the locals in their pursuit for independence subsequently.
However, the existence of resistance to colonial rule certainly showed that colonial rule was not without disadvantages
One of the disadvantages of colonial rule was the negative impact of the economic changes. While the colonies prospered in general, it made the economies of the colonies dependent on the world economy. This would cause instability in the income of the workers and farmers. In addition, there was economic exploitation on the locals. The local workers often suffered from poor working and living conditions. The profits resulting from the prosperity were rarely passed down to them. For example, in Vietnam, it was the French and the Chinese who reaped the profits from the plantations they owned. This was also the case in Indonesia, where the Dutch owned most of the plantations.
Another disadvantage of colonial rule was the loss of authority experienced by the local rulers. They could no longer rule the state without reference to the colonial masters. In some cases, the traditional leaders were entirely removed. This was the case in Cochin China, where direct rule was imposed and caused the Vietnamese court to lose its prestige. Even in places where indirect rule was imposed, the rulers had to rule in a way desired by the colonial masters. This was the case even in some colonies under British rule, where the Resident had more power than the Sultan.
The threat to local culture could be another disadvantage to Southeast Asian states. In Vietnam, Confucianism was challenged by Catholicism. At the same time, Vietnamese writing was forcibly replaced by Roman writings. In Indonesia, the Balinese resisted fiercely against the imposition of Dutch influence.
How similar were the reasons that encouraged the French, the Dutch and the British to colonise areas in Southeast Asia? Explain your answer. [12]
Introduction:
The reasons that prompted the Europeans to colonise areas in Southeast Asia could usually be classified under economic, cultural and external pressure. However, different European powers might have place different priorities on the various reasons.
Main Body:
One of the common reasons the three European powers had was economic. Trade was one of the primary motives. The French always believed that there could be a trade route to China via the Mekong River and therefore, control of Vietnam was critical. The Dutch also wanted to protect the spice trade which had always been profitable to them. For the British, they needed a base in Malaya to protect their China trade. Other economic benefits were also considered by the three European powers. The French believed Vietnam could provide raw materials such as iron and zinc. For the Dutch, the abundant areas in Indonesia meant that the growing of cash crops could be a profitable business. For the British, the tin mines in Malaya would be a great source of raw materials for Vritish industries.
External pressure was also a common reason for the three European powers to colonise areas in Southeast Asia. The French had lost all their colonies after the Napoleonic Wars. In order to restore their glory, they needed to gain new colonies to challenge British supremacy again. For the Dutch, British presence in maritime Southeast Asia was a threat, especially when James Brooke started to acquire Borneo territories for the British. This prompted the Dutch to extend their control over areas beyond Java. For the British, they were pressured into interfering in Malaya in order to restore peace and stability. This was critical in protecting British trade and businesses.
However, the desire to spread their own culture differed among the three European powers. The French was most interested in spreading French culture. There was a strong sense of mission in developing the people in Southeast Asia by introducing French culture. The most obvious attempt to introduce French culture was the enthusiastic attempt to convert Vietnamese to Catholicism. Despite persecution from the Vietnamese, French missionaries continued to spread Catholicism in Vietnam. For the British and the Dutch, little attempt was made to impose their culture on their colonies. As long as British and Dutch interests were not negatively affected, both of them were more prepared to respect local culture. This was most evident when both the British and the Dutch preferred to introduce indirect rule instead of direct rule.
The reasons that prompted the Europeans to colonise areas in Southeast Asia could usually be classified under economic, cultural and external pressure. However, different European powers might have place different priorities on the various reasons.
Main Body:
One of the common reasons the three European powers had was economic. Trade was one of the primary motives. The French always believed that there could be a trade route to China via the Mekong River and therefore, control of Vietnam was critical. The Dutch also wanted to protect the spice trade which had always been profitable to them. For the British, they needed a base in Malaya to protect their China trade. Other economic benefits were also considered by the three European powers. The French believed Vietnam could provide raw materials such as iron and zinc. For the Dutch, the abundant areas in Indonesia meant that the growing of cash crops could be a profitable business. For the British, the tin mines in Malaya would be a great source of raw materials for Vritish industries.
External pressure was also a common reason for the three European powers to colonise areas in Southeast Asia. The French had lost all their colonies after the Napoleonic Wars. In order to restore their glory, they needed to gain new colonies to challenge British supremacy again. For the Dutch, British presence in maritime Southeast Asia was a threat, especially when James Brooke started to acquire Borneo territories for the British. This prompted the Dutch to extend their control over areas beyond Java. For the British, they were pressured into interfering in Malaya in order to restore peace and stability. This was critical in protecting British trade and businesses.
However, the desire to spread their own culture differed among the three European powers. The French was most interested in spreading French culture. There was a strong sense of mission in developing the people in Southeast Asia by introducing French culture. The most obvious attempt to introduce French culture was the enthusiastic attempt to convert Vietnamese to Catholicism. Despite persecution from the Vietnamese, French missionaries continued to spread Catholicism in Vietnam. For the British and the Dutch, little attempt was made to impose their culture on their colonies. As long as British and Dutch interests were not negatively affected, both of them were more prepared to respect local culture. This was most evident when both the British and the Dutch preferred to introduce indirect rule instead of direct rule.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)