“Far from Being a ‘Thaw’ the Cold –War Became Significantly Frostier Between 1953 and 1958.” How Far Do You Agree with This View?

“Far from being a ‘thaw’ the Cold –War became significantly frostier between 1953 and 1958.” How far do you agree with this view?

o Structure:
 Introduction
 Main Body
• Yes o 1954,
 Geneva accords o 1955,
 Vietnam War
 Taiwan Crisis o 1956,
 Suez Crisis
 Hungarian Crisis crushed

• No o Khrushchev denounced Stalin – peaceful co-existence o 1955
 April: Austrian State Treaty
 July, Geneva Summit
 Conclusion

• Introduction o In July 1953, a military armistice was signed at Panmujom; ending the Korean War. o Consequences of the war on the Cold War:
 Globalisation – conflicts in both Europe and Asia
 Militarised the Cold War – increase in US and USSR:
• 10% of US’ GNP
• 2.8 Million Soviet troops in 1950 to 5.8 million in 1955 o At the same time, Stalin had died and was replaced by Khrushchev and Eisenhower had been voted as president. How correct is the suggestion that the Cold War got ‘frostier’ between 1953 and 1958?

• Main Body o Yes, it became frostier:
 The Geneva accords of 1954:
• Introduced to settle the issue between France and Vietnam
• It created SEATO(South-East Asia Treaty Organisation) signed by Australia, Britain, France, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines and Thailand. o Agreed to meet together in case of armed attack on one of them and, if agreement was unanimous, to take action. o It included Laos, Cambodia & South Vietnam as protected areas’ o It was hence a legal basis for US to take action against North Korea
• The accords certainly allowed the Americans to go to war with the North Koreans, which would be the basis for another war. The accords could be seen as a cause of greater tension in Asia – so frosting the ‘thaw’ – as it meant another hot war between USSR and USA, like the Korean War had just ended two years earlier.

 Following the Geneva Accords, the Vietnam War began in 1955:
• The war began after the disagreement of an electoral vote in Vietnam, under the demand of Diem and the US – the Vietcongs decided to retaliate using force – starting the war o American bases were already instated in the region o The war would last even beyond the period of the question up to 1975
• The War is seen as a contributor to international friction – the fact that the US had started another war based on ideological differences meant that tension between both superpowers was growing continuously. Already with the Geneva Accords, mistrust was building with the implementation of American bases. Now, the war meant definite separation.

 Matters became worse with the development of the Taiwan Crisis that same year
• The Taiwan crisis was largely due to Eisenhower’s decision to remove the seventh fleet from the state to literally ‘unleash’ Chiang-Kei Shek so that he may attack China.
• China bombed two islands in Taiwan so the US threatened China that it would use nuclear weapons if they attempted to invade Taiwan o They also persuaded the USSR to force China to back down
• Obviously this was as part of ‘massive retaliation’ – Eisenhower’s foreign policy – but it was another occasion at which the US threatened to use nuclear weapons. The USSR’s decision in telling China to ‘back-off’ literally saved the world; but these were not uncommon scenarios. Fact of the matter is threatening to use Nuclear weapons is a definite basis for an increase in tension, which did indeed occur.

 Although the Taiwan Crisis was later resolved, a new war had begun; the Suez Crisis.
• The Suez Crisis was reportedly caused by a surreptitious agreement between the UK, France and Israel in an attempt to oust Nasser. o Nasser was supported by the USSR, fact was the US allies were fighting against them, automatically involving the US. o It was another Cold War war as a large factor for the war – according to historian Charles D Smith in ‘Palestine and the issues of the Middle East’ – was the Czech arms deal of 1955
• It is no doubt that the Suez Crisis had stirred more problems between the two superpowers as now it had brought the Cold War into the Middle-East. The fact that it also meant the crushing of the Hungarian uprising also brought anger to the West – an Eastern bloc country trying to escape gets recaptured.
• Historian Schulze in his book ‘The Arab-Israeli conflict’ largely explains the link between tension in the Cold War and the Suez Crisis simply because it had become a ‘Cold War arena’. The fact that both sides were indirectly fighting in a small region meant further agreements would be reduced.

 Lastly, the technology race proved more than effective in increasing tension.
• The launch of ‘Sputnik’ – first artificial satellite in the world – brought fear to the US in terms of possible threat and as it represented superiority in missile technology
• As a consequence, a race began to see who would become more and more superior.
• It is no surprise that the race had increased tension between both superpowers – it brought forth another competitive aspect, it meant that at any occasion, the powers would use their strengths against each other and as always it widened mistrust.
• Historian John Lewis Gaddis in ‘The Cold War’ highlights this mistrust by mentioning how Khrushchev jokingly encircled the city of a US representative ‘to remind himself to spare that area’. The fact that Khrushchev jokingly asserts that statement and that it is noted even today reveals the mistrust between the powers and how it rapidly grew.
 As it all appears to be, the period between 1953 and 1958 did indeed increase the ‘frost’ of the Cold War.

o No, it did not become frostier
 But as always, it could be argued that it did not become frostier. For instance, the peaceful co-existence speech made by Khrushchev.
• Following death of Stalin in 1953, he was succeeded by Khrushchev, Malenkov and Bulganin as a collective leadership. They wanted to set a ‘New Course’ with the West. Renamed to ‘peace co-existence’ after Khrushchev won the leadership struggle.
• It went away from the Leninist view on inevitable war
• It enforced the idea of Capitalists and Communists accepting existence of one another rather than use war to destroy each other.
• Both sides believed the other would collapse eventually, so no need for nuclear weapons.
• This speech marked the first measure of international correspondence and ‘working together’, meaning an alleviation of the tension brought forth from previous Cold War conflicts. It could be said that the speech, although at a time when tension grew high like with the Taiwan crisis, saved the world from destruction as it sort of ‘steamed the engine’ – peace talks were being made.

 But the speech was not the only peace talk, a sequence of talks soon followed like the Austrian State Treaty hosted by the USSR.
• It ended the four-power occupation of Austria and created an independent country.
• The creation of this treaty meant that unlike the case of Germany, the USSR was trying to avoid a repetition of that case – this could be seen as the next step towards international diplomacy – which it was.
• As such, it could once again be asserted that tension actually reduced with the commencement of these peace talks

 The treaty also brought forth the Geneva Summit in July of the same year. This was the first heads of government meetings:
• Proposals on Germany and the arms race got nowhere and there were a variety of disagreements.
• Although some suggest the Summit was a complete failure, the fact that the heads were actually speaking to each other marked a serious change in government and the Cold War as a whole. As a food for thought, the two superpower were somewhat working together to ‘contain’ world destruction and direct conflict – as seen with the Taiwan Crisis and the Suez Crisis.

o Conclusion:
As the essay demonstrates, there is a respective quantity to suggest that the Cold War got frostier between 1953 and 1958, just as there is to suggest otherwise. As a whole, it could be argued and well confirmed that the Cold War did get more intense with the development of several different wars occurring at the same time, notwithstanding the introduction of the Cold War to a new world region. Fact is, although the superpowers took the initiative for international talks, they were unable to carry it through – which even explains later conflicts such as the Cuban missile crisis. So it is without doubt that the Cold War became frostier.