Because of the war, the US and the USSR needed the support of other countries in case a battle broke out. They used allies for military support or even just as a trading partner. They bribed some developing countries to be on their side, since they knew they needed …show more content…
the money (Doc. 6). Although India chose the path of nonalignment, they still accepted aid from both sides. Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India at the time once said, “We think that by the free exchange of ideas and trade and other contacts between nations, each will learn from each other and truly prevail. We therefore endeavor to maintain friendly relations with all countries, even though we may disagree with them,” (Doc. 1). Since India believed in trade between all countries, their political differences didn’t stop them from accepting aid from the US and USSR. They needed the money being given to them to help establish a new, strong country. In this way, India played each country off each other, because each would keep paying more to get India on their side. Another country, Egypt, also depended on others’ attitudes during the war. Egypt never became directly involved in the war, meaning they would never be military allies, but still sided with the USSR. By not becoming militarily involved, they stayed at peace while still receiving Russian aid for development (Doc. 2). This was a smart tactic, because no developing country would want to go to war and create havoc. Cuba, almost like India, depended on both superpowers for developmental aid. For a while, Cuban aid only came from the US. America had supported Cuban acts of revolution, but when they saw the Communist Soviets, Cuba changed its ways. When the US saw Cuba take it’s first steps towards radicalism, they cut them off, driving them right into the USSR. Fidel Castro, dictator of Cuba, said, “The duty of every revolutionary is to make revolution. We know that in America and throughout the world, revolution will be victorious,” (Doc. 3). Castro used America to develop his country, but when they disagreed with the outcome of the revolutions, it was the Soviets’ turn to help.
While developing a new country, the government usually goes through a reform, for better or worse.
The governments of the countries each country supported heavily influenced the leaders or Cuba, Egypt and India. Egypt was solely influenced by the USSR, and slowly made their way towards communism. Anwar Sadat, ally of dictator Nasser of Egypt, spoke to the Egyptians, claiming they were strong enough to make the decision of peace and war (Doc. 2), meaning the government could make these powerful choices by itself. If the government could decide whether or not to go to war, it could decide to tell it’s people what to do, which it wound up doing. Now, Egypt had come to a time where they could “no longer raise the standard” (Doc. 2) of its people, so the government took a stand. It slowly reformed its government, presenting more and more ideas of communism every step of the way until it wanted a social revolution. Cuba’s aid came from the USSR, so once its revolution turned radical, it started to develop communist habits. Castro wanted to make conditions equal for all people in Cuba, so he started a land reform seizing and distributing land to the poor. Conditions were poor in Cuba, death rates stagnated at a high percentage, illiteracy increased, and it lacked many important necessities (Doc. 3). Reform swept throughout the country and became very successful, especially in social welfare. Welfare is a way to bring equality to a country, which is a communist state of mind. Since …show more content…
India was on neither side, it received both capitalist and communist influence. Even though it saw both types of government, it leaned more towards capitalism, as the other two countries may have done, had they been exposed to it. When Nehru says, “…can true freedom flourish and people grow according to their own genius,” (Doc. 1) he is obviously speaking from a non-communist standpoint. Communist leaders would not want people to be free and flourish individually, but under rule with the rest of the country. Also, no communist would think that, “by free exchange of ideas…will the truth prevail,” (Doc. 1). The Soviets would be infuriated if anyone in Russian had dared to speak their mind against their rule. India was governed very capitalistically.
Despite their differences, none of these countries truly gained their independence.
Although by definition each had become an independent nation-state, they didn’t achieve that goal themselves. They received help from the USSR and US, which means they were dependent on these countries. For a country to become independent, it needs to learn how to stand up on it’s own or else it will fall right back down. The war did affect each country’s independence because it lead to them not actually having any. Cuba’s economy depended on Soviet support and American trade. Latin America supplied all the materials for manufactured goods and then wound up paying high prices for those products, therefore countries that traded with Cuba dominated the economies (Doc. 3). Egypt also depended on the two superpowers for economic support. Once America had cut off their aid, the Soviets couldn’t match it and Nasser’s social programs became too expensive. Anwar Sadat said, “We can no longer enjoy the products of our hands and the fruit of our labor in a world where plunder prevails and flourishes,” (Doc. 2). He’s trying to say that the Egyptians couldn’t enjoy the products that came from their own raw materials because other countries like the USSR took advantage of the cheap goods, and took over their economy just like in Cuba. India welcomed foreign investment, which means that their income didn’t exactly come from themselves and they were depending on the foreign
investments.
The Cold War had great effects on the developing countries of its time. Both superpowers heavily influenced the decisions each country made, just by having their support. Because of the conditions Egypt, India and Cuba were exposed to they all had different types of reform, development and independence. The goals of each leader revolved around whatever they could get from the US and USSR. The Cold War affected the new nations to a great extent.