To what extent is the modern world a product of the lessons learned from the Second World War?
United Kingdom
To a large extent, after the Second War there was a profound international desire to reconstruct international relationships in such a way that similar conflicts would become less likely. Economic ties were deepened as a way of achieving this and left leaning political models became, to an extent, popular. Bothe domestically and internationally, this has been thought of as the post-war consensus. The post-war consensus is a historian's model of political co-operation in post-war British political history, as well as many other western democracies in Europe and North America, from the end of World War II in 1945 to the late-1970s, and its repudiation by Conservative Party leader Margaret Thatcher. Majorities in both parties agreed upon it. The consensus tolerated or encouraged nationalisation, strong trade unions, heavy regulation, high taxes, and a generous welfare state.
The concept states that there was a widespread consensus that covered support for coherent package of policies that were developed in the 1930s and promised during the Second World War, focused on a mixed economy, Keynesianism, and a broad welfare state. However, there has also been debate as to whether a "postwar consensus" ever really existed.
The concept states that there was a widespread consensus that covered support for coherent package of policies that were developed in the 1930s and promised during the Second World War, focused on a mixed economy, Keynesianism, and a broad welfare state. However, there has also been debate as to whether a "postwar consensus" ever really existed.
|
1. Write a brief description of the main features of the pot-war consensus. 2. Why was there a post-war consensus and why did it last until the 1970's? 3. Why might the post-war consensus be thought to have ended? Read the article and add to your notes.
Be prepared to discuss the content with the class after reading. |
China
The People's Republic of China was established in 1949, after the Chinese Communist Party defeated China's Nationalists. At the end of the Long March, the Communists set up their headquarters in Yan'an. They carried out guerrilla campaigns against the Japanese, building a support base amongst the people, and increasing the size of their army to nearly a million troops. In 1945, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki led to Japan's surrender, and Japanese troops left China. The USA tried to persuade China's Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek to work together with the communists to establish a government for China, but the attempts failed, and full-scale civil war broke out between the Nationalists and the Communists. The Communists took control of Manchuria in the wake of the Japanese retreat, and built up their strength for a decisive assault on the Nationalists. Chiang Kai-shek initially had better armaments and a larger army, but his regime was unpopular because of inflation and corruption. In 1949, Chiang Kai-shek's remaining forces disintegrated, and he fled to the island of Taiwan, where the Nationalists continued to call their regime the Republic of China, based in the city of Taipei. The communist Red Army marched triumphantly into Beijing, where in 1949 Mao Zedong proclaimed the formation of the People's Republic of China.
|
USA
Much of Europe was in ruins at the close of World War II, and conditions remained chaotic in the following months and years. In an effort to extend its defensive perimeter and expand the scope of Communism, Josef Stalin had seized upon the situation to impose satellite governments on the Soviet Union's Eastern European neighbours, creating what Winston Churchill described as an "iron curtain" dividing the continent. Carrying the strategy further, the Soviet Union supported Communist uprisings in Greece and Turkey.
By 1947, these developments, together with Communist insurgencies in China and North Korea, led many Americans to view the Soviet Union as the head of a monolithic movement bent on world domination. George Kennan, deputy head of the U.S. Mission in Moscow, advised a policy of "containment" in which the United States would reinforce its support of Western European allies to block the spread of Communism. Moreover, Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson argued that Soviet success in Greece and Turkey would inevitably lead to the fall of other European governments. The challenge for the president was to persuade a public that had been exhausted by the war and a Republican Congress elected on a platform of reducing taxes and government spending to support what would be costly efforts to oppose the Greek and Turkish insurgencies.
Truman and Acheson persuaded Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg, formerly a leading isolationist and a prospective challenger to Truman in the upcoming 1948 elections, to back the president's policy; but Vandenberg warned the White House that the public would have to be "scared" into supporting such a measure. Truman's response was an address to a joint session of Congress on March 12, 1947, in which he stressed the division of the world into totalitarian and free spheres. The speech secured speedy appropriation of funds and articulated what came to be known as the Truman Doctrine of protecting and spreading freedom throughout the world.
The Truman Doctrine launched the Cold War policies of the U.S. government and quickly generated the enactment of the Marshall Plan to aid in Europe's reconstruction and the creation of the Department of Defence and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), all in 1947, and the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in 1949. As NATO gained strength and West Germany was fortified, the Soviet Union then formalised its relationship with Eastern Europe in the Warsaw Pact. Developments in Yugoslavia and later China would prove that Communism was not monolithic. Despite "hot wars" in Korea and Vietnam and crises in Cuba, the Middle East, and Africa, the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union dominated the next 40 years of international relations.
By 1947, these developments, together with Communist insurgencies in China and North Korea, led many Americans to view the Soviet Union as the head of a monolithic movement bent on world domination. George Kennan, deputy head of the U.S. Mission in Moscow, advised a policy of "containment" in which the United States would reinforce its support of Western European allies to block the spread of Communism. Moreover, Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson argued that Soviet success in Greece and Turkey would inevitably lead to the fall of other European governments. The challenge for the president was to persuade a public that had been exhausted by the war and a Republican Congress elected on a platform of reducing taxes and government spending to support what would be costly efforts to oppose the Greek and Turkish insurgencies.
Truman and Acheson persuaded Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg, formerly a leading isolationist and a prospective challenger to Truman in the upcoming 1948 elections, to back the president's policy; but Vandenberg warned the White House that the public would have to be "scared" into supporting such a measure. Truman's response was an address to a joint session of Congress on March 12, 1947, in which he stressed the division of the world into totalitarian and free spheres. The speech secured speedy appropriation of funds and articulated what came to be known as the Truman Doctrine of protecting and spreading freedom throughout the world.
The Truman Doctrine launched the Cold War policies of the U.S. government and quickly generated the enactment of the Marshall Plan to aid in Europe's reconstruction and the creation of the Department of Defence and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), all in 1947, and the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in 1949. As NATO gained strength and West Germany was fortified, the Soviet Union then formalised its relationship with Eastern Europe in the Warsaw Pact. Developments in Yugoslavia and later China would prove that Communism was not monolithic. Despite "hot wars" in Korea and Vietnam and crises in Cuba, the Middle East, and Africa, the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union dominated the next 40 years of international relations.
|
1. What was the Truman Doctrine and what was the cause of its creation? 2. What were the series of events that brought about the Cold War? 3. How did each side in the Cold War perceive the goals of the other side, and were these perceptions justified? 4. How did the presence of nuclear weapons affect international politics during the Cold War? Explain. |
USSR
At the end of World War II, the Soviet Union occupied Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Poland and eastern Germany. Great Britain, the United States, France, and the Soviet Union divided Germany and Berlin into four occupation zones to be administered by the four countries. The Soviet Union was determined to establish governments in Eastern Europe who were friendly to the Soviet Union. While the war was still taking place, Soviet occupation troops assisted local communists in putting Communist dictatorships in Romania and Bulgaria in power. Yugoslavia and Albania supported the rise of communist dictatorships in their countries; however, both of these countries remained outside of the Soviet sphere of influence. In 1949 the Communist German Democratic Republic was established in the Soviet, German occupation zone. The East European satellite regimes depended on Soviet military power to maintain control of their communist governments. Over one million Red Army soldiers remained stationed in Eastern Europe. On March 5, 1946, Winston Churchill, speaking at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri with President Harry S. Truman on the stage with him, summed up the situation in Europe with what is known as the “Iron Curtain” speech: “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the continent.” Churchill’s speech may have been the first shot fired in the Cold War which would last until 1989.
Europe and the EU
The establishment of international organisations provided a measure of American protection. But what about the future of Western European states? Both the First World War and the Second World War occurred in large part because of Franco-German conflicts. Creating a stable Europe required reconciliation between France and Germany.
One of the major obstacles to Franco-German reconciliation after the war was the question of coal and steel production. Coal and steel were the two most vital materials for developed nations; the backbone of a successful economy. Coal was the primary energy source in Europe, accounting for almost 70% of fuel consumption. Steel was a fundamental material for industry and to manufacture it required large amounts of coal. Both materials were also needed to create weapons.
The largest concentration of coalmines and steel production was found in two areas in Western Germany: the Ruhr Valley, and the Saarland. The Allies detached the Saarland from West Germany and made it a semi-autonomous region. In the Ruhr Valley, the Allies placed restrictions on the production, ownership and sale of coal and steel in an attempt to restrict German economic growth. The Ruhr Valley coal and steel production was also restricted as a guarantee to Germany’s neighbours, France, Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands, that these crucial resources would not be used to re-create a Germany army.
France wanted to control and access the coal and steel in the Ruhr Valley and wanted the Saarland permanently separated from West Germany. The French government was especially worried that West Germany could use its massive coal and steal resources to attack France once again. West Germans, under the leadership of Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, who was elected in 1949, wanted the Saarland returned to Germany and objected to the strict controls placed on Germany heavy industry. The Franco-German conflict persisted over coal and steel. A reconciliation of the two former enemies seemed unlikely.
The solution to the coal and steel problem and the core of the reconciliation between France and Germany was the Schuman Plan, named after the French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman. The Schuman Plan was presented on 9 May 1950. It argued that coal and steel production should be placed under a supranational High Authority. Following shortly after Schuman’s declaration, the negotiations that established the European Coal and Steel Community began. The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) pooled the coal and steel resources of six European countries: France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg (BENELUX). These countries would be collectively known as “the Six”. Pooling coal and steel resources greatly reduced the threat of war between France and West Germany. The ECSC became a reality in 1952.
One of the major obstacles to Franco-German reconciliation after the war was the question of coal and steel production. Coal and steel were the two most vital materials for developed nations; the backbone of a successful economy. Coal was the primary energy source in Europe, accounting for almost 70% of fuel consumption. Steel was a fundamental material for industry and to manufacture it required large amounts of coal. Both materials were also needed to create weapons.
The largest concentration of coalmines and steel production was found in two areas in Western Germany: the Ruhr Valley, and the Saarland. The Allies detached the Saarland from West Germany and made it a semi-autonomous region. In the Ruhr Valley, the Allies placed restrictions on the production, ownership and sale of coal and steel in an attempt to restrict German economic growth. The Ruhr Valley coal and steel production was also restricted as a guarantee to Germany’s neighbours, France, Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands, that these crucial resources would not be used to re-create a Germany army.
France wanted to control and access the coal and steel in the Ruhr Valley and wanted the Saarland permanently separated from West Germany. The French government was especially worried that West Germany could use its massive coal and steal resources to attack France once again. West Germans, under the leadership of Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, who was elected in 1949, wanted the Saarland returned to Germany and objected to the strict controls placed on Germany heavy industry. The Franco-German conflict persisted over coal and steel. A reconciliation of the two former enemies seemed unlikely.
The solution to the coal and steel problem and the core of the reconciliation between France and Germany was the Schuman Plan, named after the French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman. The Schuman Plan was presented on 9 May 1950. It argued that coal and steel production should be placed under a supranational High Authority. Following shortly after Schuman’s declaration, the negotiations that established the European Coal and Steel Community began. The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) pooled the coal and steel resources of six European countries: France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg (BENELUX). These countries would be collectively known as “the Six”. Pooling coal and steel resources greatly reduced the threat of war between France and West Germany. The ECSC became a reality in 1952.
The ECSC provided the first a small but important step towards European integration. By integrating coal and steel under a single authority, the Schuman Plan demonstrated that European integration was feasible. Furthermore, it eased tensions between France and Germany.
However, in 1955 Belgian Foreign Minister Paul-Henri Spaak advanced a new proposal on the integration of European economies. The proposal was based on the experience the Benelux countries, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg in economic integration. On 5 September 1944, the leaders of the Benelux countries, who were exiled in London, signed the Netherlands-Belgium-Luxemburg Customs Convention. This treaty provided for the institutions and powers needed to integrate the economies of the three countries.
At the Messina (Italy) conference between the member states of the ECSC on 15 June 1955, Paul Henri Spaak was charged with chairing a committee that would produce a draft version of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Communities (EEC). The aim of the EEC was to create a common market between the six member states (the Six). Spaak’s committee also drew up a proposal for the integration of nuclear power among the Six at French insistence. The report on the EEC and the integration of atomic energy (Euratom) was submitted to the leaders of the six in May 1956.
After a year of negotiations, the Six signed the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community in Rome on 25 March 1957. This treaty, usually called the Treaty of Rome, was modeled on the ECSC. The Treaty of Rome marked a significant stage in the procession of European integration. The EEC was the main vehicle for European integration, both political and economic.
However, in 1955 Belgian Foreign Minister Paul-Henri Spaak advanced a new proposal on the integration of European economies. The proposal was based on the experience the Benelux countries, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg in economic integration. On 5 September 1944, the leaders of the Benelux countries, who were exiled in London, signed the Netherlands-Belgium-Luxemburg Customs Convention. This treaty provided for the institutions and powers needed to integrate the economies of the three countries.
At the Messina (Italy) conference between the member states of the ECSC on 15 June 1955, Paul Henri Spaak was charged with chairing a committee that would produce a draft version of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Communities (EEC). The aim of the EEC was to create a common market between the six member states (the Six). Spaak’s committee also drew up a proposal for the integration of nuclear power among the Six at French insistence. The report on the EEC and the integration of atomic energy (Euratom) was submitted to the leaders of the six in May 1956.
After a year of negotiations, the Six signed the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community in Rome on 25 March 1957. This treaty, usually called the Treaty of Rome, was modeled on the ECSC. The Treaty of Rome marked a significant stage in the procession of European integration. The EEC was the main vehicle for European integration, both political and economic.
All you need to know about the Cold War
|
|
|
|
Formative task
In groups of 2 or 3, you are to create and present an argument that explains and justifies the post-war position of one of the 5 blocks studied above, from 1945 until 2000.
Further research and detailed specific arguments will be needed. Consider:
Use:
Be analytical in your arguments and ensure you have historically valid evaluations and conclusions. |
Areas of assessment
Knowledge Will be able to recall, select and deploy relevant historical knowledge in support of a logical argument. Skills Will be able to communicate clearly and coherently, using some appropriate historical terminology. Analysis and Application Will be able to interpret and analyse some historical sources and use them as evidence. |
Writing analytical and evaluative answers
Although analysis can come in many forms, here is a solid approach that can be taken.
Evidence does not speak for itself. Evidence without analysis and interpretation only amounts to a list of facts or events.
Explain to the reader in your own words what meaning to take from a piece of evidence.
Your explanation of the evidence tells the reader why a particular piece of information is important and how it supports your argument.
To avoid presenting a mere narrative/description of events:
Although analysis can come in many forms, here is a solid approach that can be taken.
Evidence does not speak for itself. Evidence without analysis and interpretation only amounts to a list of facts or events.
Explain to the reader in your own words what meaning to take from a piece of evidence.
Your explanation of the evidence tells the reader why a particular piece of information is important and how it supports your argument.
To avoid presenting a mere narrative/description of events:
- Explain and analyse your examples and facts.
- What conclusions do you want your reader to draw from them?
- What do the examples and facts reveal?
- Explain why the example or fact makes your point.
- Explain the connection between the example and your thesis/argument.
TASK - Response to a piece of writing Your job is to focus on your experience reading a written piece. You are going to write your reactions to the piece as a reader. Follow the following steps in order: 1) Read the opening few lines of the introductory paragraph. Stop. On OneNote or your exercise book, write down how you feel. Are you curious? Bored? Confused? Intrigued? 2) Now continue reading until you find what you think is the argument being made. Write what you think are the argument areas. Are the areas “previewed or just “listed”? 3) Now, look at the paragraphs. According to the topic sentence, what is the author going to be writing about in the paragraph? 4) Write a few words or phrases which summarise the main examples used in each of the paragraphs. 5) Now compare the topic sentence of the paragraphs with the main examples you noted. Are there examples used in the paragraphs that aren’t mentioned in the topic sentence? (An example might be a topic sentence that tells you the paragraph is going to be about the changes in colour and technique in art but the some of the examples talk about themes in art.) Do you feel the topic sentence matches the examples in the paragraph, and if it doesn’t, what “extra” information is in the paragraph. 6) In the topic sentence, does the author help you understand why they are starting a new paragraph? Is there a transition that refers to the previous paragraph as it introduces the new topic? Yes or no? 7) Do the paragraphs seem like a list of facts, or does the author explain to you how the facts develop the argument of the paper? Does it read like the author simply wrote the outline in sentence form, or does the author explain what the facts mean and why they help prove the overall argument? List of facts only or explanation/analysis included? 8) Do the paragraphs end with a conclusion sentence that helps to show what was argued? Yes or no? |
Why did Bush go to war in Iraq?www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/bush-war-iraq-190318150236739.html. Article by Ahsan Butt.
Sixteen years after the United States invaded Iraq and left a trail of destruction and chaos in the country and the region, one aspect of the war remains criminally under examined: why was it fought in the first place? What did the Bush administration hope to get out of the war? The official, and widely-accepted, story remains that Washington was motivated by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programme. His nuclear capabilities, especially, were deemed sufficiently alarming to incite the war. As then US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, "We do not want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Despite Saddam not having an active WMD programme, this explanation has found support among some International Relations scholars, who say that while the Bush administration was wrong about Saddam's WMD capabilities, it was sincerely wrong. Intelligence is a complicated, murky enterprise, the argument goes, and given the foreboding shadow of the 9/11 attacks, the US government reasonably, if tragically, misread the evidence on the dangers Saddam posed. A quick and decisive victory in the heart of the Arab world would send a message to all countries, especially to recalcitrant regimes such as Syria, Libya, Iran, or North Korea, that American hegemony was here to stay. Put simply, the Iraq war was motivated by a desire to (re)establish American standing as the world's leading power. Indeed, even before 9/11, then-Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld saw Iraq through the prism of status and reputation, variously arguing in February and July 2001 that ousting Saddam would "enhance US credibility and influence throughout the region" and "demonstrate what US policy is all about". Moreover, Afghanistan was a "fair" war, a tit-for-tat response to the Taliban's provision of sanctuary to al-Qaeda's leadership. Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz, and Under Secretary of Defence for Policy Douglas Feith considered restricting retaliation to Afghanistan dangerously "limited", "meager", and "narrow". Doing so, they alleged, "may be perceived as a sign of weakness rather than strength" and prove to "embolden rather than discourage regimes" opposed to the US. They knew that sending a message of unbridled hegemony entailed a disproportionate response to 9/11, one that had to extend beyond Afghanistan. Iraq fit the bill both because it was more powerful than Afghanistan and because it had been in neoconservative crosshairs since George HW Bush declined to press on to Baghdad in 1991. A regime remaining defiant despite a military defeat was barely tolerable before 9/11. Afterwards, however, it became untenable. But this, sadly, is no conspiracy theory. Even Bush officials have sometimes dropped their guard. Feith confessed in 2006 that "the rationale for the war didn't hinge on the details of this intelligence even though the details of the intelligence at times became elements of the public presentation". That the administration used the fear of WMDs and terrorism to fight a war for hegemony should be acknowledged by an American political establishment eager to rehabilitate George W Bush amid the rule of Donald Trump, not least because John Bolton, Trump's national security adviser, seems eager to employ similar methods to similar ends in Iran. |
Source analysis practice
Using the technique of Origin, Purpose, Value and Limitation (OPVL), it is possible to critically analyse any historical, geographical or information source.
Using the structures above, answer the questions below using the sources given.
Original newsreel footage from May 1967 - Russian forces, Missiles and ICBMs parade through Moscow's Red Square. Narrated in the US for a US audience.
1. Considering the origin of the source, suggest the purpose of this newsreel clip.
2. Considering the origin and purpose of the source, suggest 2 ways in which this newsreel clip can be seen to be valid.
3. Considering the origin and purpose of the source, suggest 2 limitations of this newsreel clip.
4. Considering the audience, suggest why the clip shows mostly rockets, missiles, soldiers and Soviet leaders?
2. Considering the origin and purpose of the source, suggest 2 ways in which this newsreel clip can be seen to be valid.
3. Considering the origin and purpose of the source, suggest 2 limitations of this newsreel clip.
4. Considering the audience, suggest why the clip shows mostly rockets, missiles, soldiers and Soviet leaders?
Twitter feed of Donald J. Trump, POTUS, concerning the previous administrations conduct in Iraq and Syria.
1. Considering the origin of the source, suggest the purpose of this tweet.
2. Considering the origin and purpose of the source, suggest 2 ways in which this tweet can be seen to be a valid appraisal of the events relating to the wars in Iraq and Syria in the early 21st Century.
3. Considering the origin and purpose of the source, suggest 2 limitations of this tweet as an appraisal of the events relating to the wars in Iraq and Syria in the early 21st Century.
4. Suggest why the president of United States uses Twitter to communicate with the outside world?
5. Give 2 potential consequences in the use of unedited tweets by the President of the United States.
2. Considering the origin and purpose of the source, suggest 2 ways in which this tweet can be seen to be a valid appraisal of the events relating to the wars in Iraq and Syria in the early 21st Century.
3. Considering the origin and purpose of the source, suggest 2 limitations of this tweet as an appraisal of the events relating to the wars in Iraq and Syria in the early 21st Century.
4. Suggest why the president of United States uses Twitter to communicate with the outside world?
5. Give 2 potential consequences in the use of unedited tweets by the President of the United States.
Case study:
Impacts of late 20th Century relations - The Space Race
After World War II drew to a close in the mid-20th century, a new conflict began. Known as the Cold War, this battle pitted the world’s two great powers–the democratic, capitalist United States and the communist Soviet Union–against each other. Beginning in the late 1950s, space would become another dramatic arena for this competition, as each side sought to prove the superiority of its technology, its military firepower and–by extension–its political-economic system.
The competition to conquer space was so huge that a new benchmark was set by one of the two superpowers almost every year throughout 1950s and 1960s. There were many “firsts” during the Space Race. The first intercontinental ballistic missile in 1957, the first artificial satellite (Sputnik 1) in 1957, the first dog in orbit (sent by Sputnik 2) in 1957, the first solar-powered satellite, the first communication satellite, etc.
The Space Race didn’t just leave an impact on the area of space research, it left a wider impact in the field of technology. The technological superiority required for the dominance of space was deemed a necessity for national security, and it was symbolic of ideological superiority. The Space Race spawned pioneering efforts to launch artificial satellites. It prompted competitive countries to send unmanned space probes to the Moon, Venus and Mars. It also made possible human spaceflight in low Earth orbit and to the Moon.
The zeal the United States and USSR had to outperform one another proved quite beneficial to the progress of science. The work culture of the two superpowers was poles apart yet both were trying to be better than the other in order to become the best in the world. While the USSR had a highly centralised setup that had an impact on the source of investments in their space program, the United States, on the other hand, got private players to to invest in their space program. NASA, the premiere space research agency, was also built in 1958 during the Space Race to counter the early success in USSR in outer space.
The zeal the United States and USSR had to outperform one another proved quite beneficial to the progress of science. The work culture of the two superpowers was poles apart yet both were trying to be better than the other in order to become the best in the world. While the USSR had a highly centralised setup that had an impact on the source of investments in their space program, the United States, on the other hand, got private players to to invest in their space program. NASA, the premiere space research agency, was also built in 1958 during the Space Race to counter the early success in USSR in outer space.
The Space Race started with the USSR launching Sputnik 1 in 1957, which created a furore worldwide. The governments and masses were excited to see mankind taking another leap towards progress. When the human race ventured into space, it was a “paradigm shift” moment. Neil Armstrong landing on Moon is still regarded as one of the breakpoints in history and his words, “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for the mankind,” are now one of the most quoted phrases in literature.
In a May 1961 speech to Congress, President John F. Kennedy presented his views on the Space Race when he said, “These are extraordinary times and we face an extraordinary challenge. Our strength as well as our convictions has imposed upon this nation the role of leader in freedom’s cause.”
“If we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they should take. . . . Now it is time to take longer strides—time for a great new American enterprise—time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future on Earth,” he added.
“If we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they should take. . . . Now it is time to take longer strides—time for a great new American enterprise—time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future on Earth,” he added.
The space programs of both the superpowers were not just for civilian purposes; it was as much about the military-space program. Through this, the idea was to fight the battle with the rival by displaying power without actually having to fight an actual war. At that point, the United Nations had to step in to ensure that outer space didn’t become a battleground for the superpowers.
That is when the Outer Space Treaty came into picture. The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international-space law. Formally known as Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, the treaty bars states party to the treaty from placing weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise stationing them in outer space.
That is when the Outer Space Treaty came into picture. The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international-space law. Formally known as Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, the treaty bars states party to the treaty from placing weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or otherwise stationing them in outer space.
It exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military manoeuvres, or establishing military bases, installations and fortifications. Soviets were reluctant to sign this treaty because, in their opinion, the treaty would restrict their dominance over the United States in the Space Race. They later signed the treaty in 1967 when it was opened for signatures. To date, more than one hundred nations have become signatories to the treaty.
The Space Race didn’t have an end date and in many ways the race still continues. But the “space rivalry” ended between the United States and USSR in 1975, when the first multinational human-crewed mission went to space under the Apollo-Soyuz joint-test mission. In that mission, three U.S. astronauts and two Soviet cosmonauts became the part of first joint U.S.-Soviet space flight.
The Space Race didn’t have an end date and in many ways the race still continues. But the “space rivalry” ended between the United States and USSR in 1975, when the first multinational human-crewed mission went to space under the Apollo-Soyuz joint-test mission. In that mission, three U.S. astronauts and two Soviet cosmonauts became the part of first joint U.S.-Soviet space flight.
The Space Race left a legacy in the field of space research worldwide. As the pioneers of space missions, both the United States and USSR helped their allies build their space missions through the training of scientists and engineers, the transferring of technology, and by allowing other researchers to visit their space laboratories. That way, both superpowers could learn and improve their knowledge and skills related to space research.
The Indian space mission was in its very nascent stage when the Space Race was at its peak. The Indian space program owes its development and expansion to the aid and assistance of both the United States and the USSR because Indian space scientists and engineers were sent to train in both those countries. As a nonaligned country, India maintained a delicate balance between keeping good relations with both the superpowers, especially in the arena of space cooperation. As a result, the Indian Space Research Organisation went on to become one of the best space research institutions in the world.
The Indian space mission was in its very nascent stage when the Space Race was at its peak. The Indian space program owes its development and expansion to the aid and assistance of both the United States and the USSR because Indian space scientists and engineers were sent to train in both those countries. As a nonaligned country, India maintained a delicate balance between keeping good relations with both the superpowers, especially in the arena of space cooperation. As a result, the Indian Space Research Organisation went on to become one of the best space research institutions in the world.
In conclusion, the Space Race is one of the most iconic moments in the history of mankind. It is quite difficult to assess its full impact in the area of space research and technology. One thing is for sure though—if there had been no Space Race, then surely the world of space research and space missions would be quite different from what it is today.
Taken from an article found in nationalinterest.org by Martand, a junior research fellow at Jawaharlal Nehru University’s School of International Studies Centre for Russian and Central Asian Studies in New Delhi, India.
TASK
Reread the article and categories the information in terms of its political, economic or social importance. Put these into your notes.
1. How does the space race mirror the international relations of this period? Can you think of any comparable examples to support your judgement?
2. Can we say that one side won the space race or did it just become less important after the end of the Cold War? Use evidence from the text to support your answer.
Reread the article and categories the information in terms of its political, economic or social importance. Put these into your notes.
1. How does the space race mirror the international relations of this period? Can you think of any comparable examples to support your judgement?
2. Can we say that one side won the space race or did it just become less important after the end of the Cold War? Use evidence from the text to support your answer.
Is the Space Race back on?
TASK
Watch the video and complete the tasks and questions.
1. Identify similarities between the situation presented in the video and the late 20th Century space race. Create a table to do this. Use the two headings: Cold War Space Race and Modern Space Race.
2. What evidence is there in the video that a new space race is back on?
Watch the video and complete the tasks and questions.
1. Identify similarities between the situation presented in the video and the late 20th Century space race. Create a table to do this. Use the two headings: Cold War Space Race and Modern Space Race.
2. What evidence is there in the video that a new space race is back on?
Using analytical skills to evaluate recent events
The skills we have learnt can be used across other subjects and can be applied to any set of issues and sources of information. Let's give it a go.
TASK - Group analysis and group discussion.
In groups of 3 or 4, choose one of the issues below. Use at least 4 sources of information from different perspectives, and apply OPVL, to analyse the international issue discussed.
Use the concepts of Point Evidence/Example Evaluation, Political Economic Environmental Social and Who? What? Why? Where? When? How? as an aid to structure.
Your group will then feed back your analysis and evaluation of the issue to the class.
Be prepared to be able to defend your judgements and evaluations.
Click on a story below to start your analysis.
In groups of 3 or 4, choose one of the issues below. Use at least 4 sources of information from different perspectives, and apply OPVL, to analyse the international issue discussed.
Use the concepts of Point Evidence/Example Evaluation, Political Economic Environmental Social and Who? What? Why? Where? When? How? as an aid to structure.
Your group will then feed back your analysis and evaluation of the issue to the class.
Be prepared to be able to defend your judgements and evaluations.
Click on a story below to start your analysis.