end of cold war essays

The Cold War

The end of the cold war.

Three events heralded the end of the Cold War: the fall of the Berlin Wall , the reunification of Germany and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. All came in the last years of the tumultuous 1980s when ordinary but defiant people challenged the viability of socialism and socialist governments. The collapse of the Soviet bloc occurred at remarkable speed, and by the end of 1991, many of the formal structures of the Cold War had vanished into history.

‘People power’

By and large, the Cold War was brought to an end by people in the Soviet bloc demanding a relaxation or an end to socialist policies. The pressures they applied undermined and eroded political authority their respective nations. With Moscow no longer demanding adherence to socialist policies, those national governments relented, allowing political reforms or relaxing restrictions such as border controls.

In East Germany , the epicentre of Cold War division, popular unrest brought about a change in leadership and the collapse of the Berlin Wall (November 1989). Within a few months, the two Germanys were rejoined after 45 years of division.

Meanwhile, the Soviet Union was also in its death throes. After two decades of economic stagnation , the USSR was weakening internally. As the historian John Lewis Gaddis put it, the USSR was a “troubled triceratops”: it remained powerful and intimidating but on the inside its “digestive, circulatory and respiratory systems were slowly clogging up then shutting down”. Mikhail Gorbachev ‘s twin reforms, glasnost and perestroika , failed to save the beast.

Internal divisions vanish

The demise of the Berlin Wall cleared the road for the reunification of Germany. Internal borders between East and West Germany, as well as those within the divided city of Berlin, were quickly removed. West German chancellor Helmut Kohl seized the moment by drafting a ten-point plan for German reunification, doing so without consulting either NATO allies or members of his own party.

While most Germans welcomed the move, the prospect of a reunified Germany did not please everyone. It was particularly troubling for older Europeans with lingering memories of Nazism and World War II. British prime minister Margaret Thatcher was privately concerned about it, as were many French, Italians and indeed the Soviets.

Israel, now home to thousands of Holocaust survivors with first-hand experience of German nationalism, was another vocal opponent of German reunification.

German reunification and elections

In March 1990, East Germany held its first free elections, producing a resounding defeat for the communists. The two German also states stepped up their political and economic co-operation, agreeing to a single currency (the Deutschmark ) in July 1990.

Work was already underway on the formalities of reunification and the composition of a new German state. These questions were finalised by the Unification Treaty , which was signed in August 1990 and came into effect on October 3rd.

A general election – the first all-German free election since 1932 – was held in December 1990. A coalition of Christian conservative parties won almost half the seats in the Bundestag (parliament), while Helmut Kohl was endorsed as chancellor. In the years that followed, Germany would dispel concerns about its wartime past by becoming one of the most prosperous and progressive states in Europe.

Soviet Union abolished

The Soviet Union remained the last bastion of socialism in Europe but it, too, was rapidly changing. Gorbachev’s reforms of the mid-1980s had failed to arrest critical problems in the Soviet economy. Soviet industries faced critical shortages of resources, leading to a decline in productivity. Meanwhile, Soviet citizens endured shortages of state-provided food items and consumer goods, giving rise to a thriving black market.

Moscow’s big-ticket spending on the military, space exploration and propping up satellite states only further drained the stagnating Soviet economy. More reforms in 1988 allowed private ownership in many sectors, though this came too late to achieve any reversal. It became clear that the Soviet economy could not recover on its own: it needed access to Western markets and emerging technologies.

The political dissolution of the Soviet Union unfolded gradually in the late 1980s. A series of reforms in 1987-88 loosened Communist Party control of elections, released political prisoners and expanded freedom of speech under glasnost . Outside Russia, the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) agitated for independence while separatist-driven violence was reported in Azerbaijan and Armenia.

In early 1990, the Communist Party accepted Gorbachev’s recommendation that Soviet bloc nations be permitted to hold free elections and referendums on independence. By the end of 1990, the citizens in six states – Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Armenia, Georgia and Moldova – had voted to leave the Soviet Union. Ukraine, a region of considerable economic value, also declared its independence in July 1990. The Soviet republics that remained were given greater political and economic autonomy.

The August 1991 coup

“Many Russians sympathised with the plotters… because they approved of their motivation, that of preventing the Soviet Union from unravelling. After the initial euphoria… had died down, and people began to face the realities of a disbanded Soviet empire, disenchantment set in. Within a couple of years, the Yeltsin administration was itself pushing for a ‘reintegration’ of the former Soviet republics.” Amy Knight, historian

In 1991, Gorbachev attempted to restructure and decentralise the Soviet Union by granting its member-states greater autonomy. Under Gorbachev’s proposed model, the USSR would become the “Union of Soviet Sovereign Republics”, a confederation of independent nations sharing a military force, foreign policy and economic ties.

These proposed changes angered some Communist Party leaders, who feared they would erode Soviet power and bringing about the collapse of the USSR. In August 1991, a group of hardliners including Gorbachev’s vice-president, prime minister, defence minister and KGB chief, decided to act. With Gorbachev at his dacha in Crimea, the group ordered his arrest, shut down the media and attempted to seize control of the government.

The coup leaders misread the mood of the Russian people, however, who came out in support of Gorbachev. The coup collapsed after three days and Gorbachev was returned to office, though with his authority reduced. By Christmas 1991, the Soviet Union had passed into history. It was formally dissolved and replaced by a looser confederation called the Commonwealth of Independent States.

Who ‘won’ the Cold War?

The death of the Soviet Union marked the curtain call of the Cold War. While communist regimes remained in China , North Korea and Cuba , the perceived threat of Soviet imperialism had been lifted from the world.

Debate raged then, and continues to some degree now, about who was most responsible for ending the Cold War. Some hailed Gorbachev and other Soviet bloc reformers as the architects of change and reform. Others credited strong-minded Western leaders like Ronald Reagan and Thatcher with bringing down the Soviet empire. Some believed communism was defeated by its own false promises: it was an unsustainable economic system that had collapsed from within.

There was some truth in all three perspectives. In the tumultuous 1980s, however, it was the ordinary people of a divided Europe who were the true engine of change.

For decades, citizens in the Soviet bloc had lived under oppressive one-party regimes with little or no say in government. They were forced to work, denied the right to protest or speak and denied the choices available to their neighbours in the West. The final years of the Cold War were defined by these ordinary people, who risked their lives to raise their voices and rejoin the free world. Their determination and, indeed, heroism were observed by novelist John Le Carre:

“It was man who ended the Cold War, in case you didn’t notice. It wasn’t weaponry, or technology, or armies or campaigns. It was just man. Not even Western man either, as it happened, but our sworn enemy in the East, who went into the streets, faced the bullets and the batons and said: ‘We’ve had enough’. It was their emperor, not ours, who had the nerve to mount the rostrum and declare he had no clothes. And the ideologies trailed after these impossible events like condemned prisoners, as ideologies do when they’ve had their day.”

1. Three significant events heralded the end of the Cold War: the fall of the Berlin Wall, the reunification of Germany and the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

2. The fall of the Berlin Wall prompted the removal of borders between East and West Germany, while West German chancellor Helmut Kohl began pushing for the reunification of the two states.

3. Despite opposition from some quarters, reunification proceeded during 1990. It was finalised by the Reunification Treaty (October) and free elections for a single Germany (December).

4. Beset by internal economic and political problems, the Soviet Union weakened during the late 1980s. After an unsuccessful coup attempt by hardliners, the USSR was dissolved in 1991.

5. There is much debate about the factors that brought the Cold War to an end. Some attribute it to Gorbachev’s reforms, strong leadership in the West or the unsustainability of socialist economic systems. The role of ordinary people in the late 1980s is also undeniable.

US intelligence paper: ‘The Soviet system in crisis’ (November 1989) The German Unification Treaty (August 1990) Communist hardliners justify their attempted coup to unseat Mikhail Gorbachev (August 1991) The Minsk Agreement dissolves the Soviet Union (December 1991)

Citation information Title: ‘The end of the Cold War’ Authors: Jennifer Llewellyn , Steve Thompson Publisher: Alpha History URL: https://alphahistory.com/coldwar/end-of-the-cold-war/ Date published: November 2, 2019 Date updated: November 20, 2023 Date accessed: September 13, 2024 Copyright: The content on this page is © Alpha History. It may not be republished without our express permission. For more information on usage, please refer to our Terms of Use .

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser or activate Google Chrome Frame to improve your experience.

Gr. 12 HISTORY T3 W1:The end of the Cold War and a new world order 1989 to the present

This essay focus on Gorbachev's reforms in the Soviet Union in 1989 and its impact on South Africa

Do you have an educational app, video, ebook, course or eResource?

Contribute to the Western Cape Education Department's ePortal to make a difference.

Home Contact us Terms of Use Privacy Policy Western Cape Government © 2024. All rights reserved.

The End of the Cold War – An In-Depth Analysis

Collapse of the cold war: a thorough dissection, introduction.

The Cold War, a term coined in the aftermath of World War II, does not denote a conventional war fought with direct military engagements between the superpowers, but rather a prolonged state of political and military tension. The two primary antagonists, the United States and the Soviet Union, engaged in various forms of psychological warfare, economic clashes, and proxy wars, influencing global politics for nearly half a century. This essay seeks to unravel the complex tapestry of events and undercurrents that led to the end of this ideological standoff, marking a significant transition in world affairs. The termination of the Cold War was not brought about by a singular event, but by a series of economic, political, and ideological factors that precipitated the dissolution of the Soviet Union and mitigated global hostilities.

Historical Context

The post-world war ii geopolitical landscape.

Following the devastation of World War II, two nations emerged as superpowers: the United States and the Soviet Union. The geopolitical landscape of the time was heavily influenced by the ruins of war and the need for reconstruction. The establishment of the United Nations in 1945 was a testament to the world’s collective desire for peace and cooperation, yet the superpowers were already on a path to confrontation. This bipolar world was soon divided into spheres of influence, with the U.S. promoting a capitalist, democratic model and the USSR espousing a communist, authoritarian ideology. The Iron Curtain metaphorically descended across Europe, delineating the Western nations from the Eastern bloc, which were under Soviet influence.

Formation of NATO and the Warsaw Pact

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was created in 1949 by the United States, Canada, and several Western European nations to provide collective security against the Soviet threat. In response, the USSR and its allies formed the Warsaw Pact in 1955, solidifying the divide in Europe and setting the stage for various Cold War confrontations. The respective military alliances were the embodiment of the struggle for power between the East and the West, and they played a pivotal role in maintaining the balance of terror, which prevented direct military engagement between the superpowers.

Key Early Events: Berlin, Korea, and Cuba

The Berlin Blockade of 1948-1949 was one of the first major crises of the Cold War. The Soviet Union’s attempt to push the Allies out of Berlin was countered by the Western nations’ remarkable Berlin Airlift, setting a precedent for Cold War confrontations. The Korean War (1950-1953) further entrenched the divide as forces from the North, backed by China and the USSR, clashed with South Korean and UN forces, primarily composed of U.S. troops. Lastly, the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 brought the world to the brink of nuclear war when the Soviet Union placed nuclear missiles in Cuba, just 90 miles from the U.S. coastline. These early events not only exemplified the potential for global catastrophe inherent in the Cold War but also set the tone for the intense rivalry that would persist until the late 20th century.

Economic Factors

The economic dimension of the Cold War played a critical role in its eventual resolution. The sustainability of the superpower competition relied heavily on economic strength, and ultimately, the economic vulnerabilities of the Soviet Union contributed significantly to its collapse. Understanding these economic factors is vital to comprehending the decline of one of the 20th century’s most formidable powers.

The Burden of the Arms Race

The arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union was a massive economic drain for both powers, but disproportionately so for the USSR. Nuclear proliferation required enormous investment, with a significant portion of the Soviet Union’s GDP allocated to defense spending. This relentless pursuit of military parity with the U.S. placed an unsustainable burden on the Soviet economy, diverting resources away from consumer industries and social programs.

Impact on Soviet Economy

The Soviet Union’s centralized economy struggled under the weight of its military obligations. Unlike the U.S., which had a diverse and robust economy, the USSR’s economic system was less adaptable and more vulnerable to the strains of military expenditure. The inefficiencies of central planning, coupled with the stagnation of economic growth, exacerbated the impact of the arms race, leading to shortages, declining standards of living, and eventual economic crisis.

Western Economic Policies

The economic strategies employed by the West, particularly during the Reagan administration, were designed to exacerbate the Soviet Union’s economic difficulties. Reaganomics, characterized by tax cuts and increased defense spending, was not only a domestic economic policy but also a calculated maneuver to force the Soviet Union into an untenable position in the arms race. The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), although never fully realized, compelled the USSR to invest in countermeasures, further straining its finances.

Trade Embargoes and Sanctions on the USSR

Trade embargoes and sanctions played a subtle yet significant role in undermining the Soviet economy. By limiting access to technology and markets, the West was able to restrict the Soviet Union’s economic growth and access to resources. These economic measures were particularly impactful during a time when global trade was becoming an increasingly important component of economic strength.

Internal Economic Struggles of the USSR

The internal economic structure of the Soviet Union was fraught with problems. Centralized planning failed to respond effectively to the needs of the economy, leading to widespread inefficiencies and corruption. Additionally, the economy suffered from a lack of innovation and the inability to compete in the burgeoning global market. The oil price crash in the 1980s dealt a severe blow to the Soviet economy, which was heavily reliant on oil exports for foreign currency. This reduction in revenue further exacerbated the existing economic instability.

Political and Ideological Factors

The interplay of political maneuvering and ideological contest within and beyond the borders of the Soviet Union were central to the unravelling of the Cold War. While the ideological schism had long provided the bedrock for Cold War tensions, political dynamics within the Soviet Union and its sphere of influence during the 1980s brought these issues to a critical juncture.

Gorbachev’s Policies

When Mikhail Gorbachev assumed leadership of the USSR in 1985, he brought with him a new set of policies and an approach that contrasted sharply with that of his predecessors. Gorbachev’s dual policies of Glasnost (openness) and Perestroika (restructuring) sought to revive the stagnant Soviet economy and to liberalize the oppressive political system. Glasnost allowed for increased transparency and freedom of expression, leading to a flood of pent-up criticism of the government, while Perestroika aimed to decentralize the economy to foster productivity and efficiency.

Eastern European Political Shifts

The political landscape of Eastern Europe, long dominated by Soviet influence, began to shift as the 1980s progressed. In Poland, the Solidarity movement, led by Lech Wałęsa, became a symbol of resistance against Soviet control and an advocate for political reform. Similar movements gained momentum across Eastern Europe, including Hungary, where reforms led to multi-party elections, and Czechoslovakia, which experienced the peaceful “Velvet Revolution.” These shifts indicated a growing weariness with authoritarian rule and a leaning towards democratic governance.

The Role of Ideological Dissent

The increased flow of information and the exposure to Western ideologies, facilitated in part by Gorbachev’s Glasnost, amplified ideological dissent within the Soviet Union and its satellite states. The spread of democratic ideals, coupled with the visible economic success of Western nations, undermined the credibility of the communist model. This ideological erosion was profound, not only in the public’s consciousness but also within the ruling Communist Party, leading to a loss of confidence in the system and contributing to the eventual collapse.

Influence of Western Ideals

Western influence played a subtle, yet significant role in shaping the ideological debate within the Soviet bloc. The allure of Western culture and the appeal of its consumerist lifestyle became more pronounced as the Iron Curtain’s permeability increased. The stark contrast between the stagnation in the Soviet Union and the prosperity in the West challenged the legitimacy of the communist ideology and spurred a desire for change among the Eastern European populace.

The Spread of Democracy

The latter half of the 20th century saw a global trend towards democracy, a wave that eventually reached the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence. The democratic movements within Eastern Europe not only contributed to the political realignment but also reflected a broader ideological shift towards democracy and away from authoritarian regimes. This trend was a clear ideological victory for the West and a blow to the Soviet Union, which had long posited itself as a viable alternative to capitalist democracy.

The Role of International Diplomacy

International diplomacy was a key instrument in navigating the Cold War’s intricate and often perilous tensions. As the ideological rift between the Soviet Union and the United States began to close, diplomatic efforts intensified to manage and, ultimately, resolve the conflict. The artful handling of international relations proved to be as decisive as any military strategy in the Cold War’s denouement.

The Reagan-Gorbachev Dialogues

The series of summits and negotiations between U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev marked a significant thaw in Cold War relations. Their meetings, which spanned from Geneva in 1985 to Moscow in 1988, provided a platform for dialogue and set the groundwork for major arms reduction agreements. The most notable of these, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty of 1987, eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons and symbolized a shift away from the doctrine of mutual assured destruction.

Impact of ‘New Thinking’

Gorbachev’s “New Thinking” was a doctrine that reimagined Soviet foreign policy, emphasizing international cooperation and peaceful coexistence over ideological confrontation. This shift had profound implications for the Soviet Union’s relationships with its Eastern Bloc allies and the non-aligned movement, and it signalled an openness to integrate with the global community. Gorbachev’s willingness to withdraw from Afghanistan in 1988 and to allow greater autonomy for Eastern Bloc nations were indicative of this seismic change in Soviet diplomacy.

Engagement of Smaller States and Non-State Actors

Throughout the Cold War, smaller states and non-state actors played a role in the international diplomatic arena, often as proxies or pawns of the superpowers. However, as the Cold War waned, these actors found new agency in shaping the dialogue. The contributions of smaller nations in brokering peace, and the influence of transnational organizations in promoting disarmament and dialogue, helped create an environment conducive to ending the Cold War.

The United Nations’ Evolving Role

The United Nations emerged as a forum for peaceful resolution and international cooperation. As Cold War hostilities subsided, the U.N. played a more active role in resolving conflicts that had once been Cold War flashpoints. The resolution of long-standing disputes, such as the occupation of Namibia and the Iran-Iraq War, with U.N. mediation, exemplified this renewed capacity to foster peace.

Normalization of Relations

The gradual normalization of relations between the Eastern and Western blocs was a testament to the effective use of diplomacy. Beyond the U.S.-Soviet summits, a series of bilateral and multilateral engagements facilitated the easing of travel restrictions, cultural exchanges, and economic cooperation. This normalization was not an end in itself but a means to build trust and to dismantle the structures of hostility that had long perpetuated the Cold War.

Decisive Events Leading to the End of the Cold War

The culmination of the Cold War was not precipitated by a singular event, but rather a series of critical junctures that signaled a shift away from the half-century-long geopolitical and ideological standoff. These events, occurring in rapid succession, underscored the transformation of the international order and the changing ethos of global politics.

The Fall of the Berlin Wall

Perhaps no other event symbolized the end of the Cold War more powerfully than the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989. The collapse of this concrete barrier, which had stood as the most tangible manifestation of the Iron Curtain, not only reunited Germany but also marked the beginning of the end for Soviet influence in Eastern Europe. This pivotal moment was as much a consequence of the erosion of Soviet authority as it was a catalyst for further change.

The Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia

The peaceful Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, which saw the overthrow of the communist regime in late 1989, was a testament to the power of nonviolent resistance and the waning Soviet grip on Eastern Europe. The success of this revolution and the subsequent election of dissident playwright Václav Havel as president represented the triumph of democratic principles over authoritarian rule.

The Romanian Revolution

In stark contrast to the peaceful transitions in other parts of Eastern Europe, Romania experienced a violent revolution in December 1989 that led to the fall of Nicolae Ceaușescu’s dictatorial regime. The bloody nature of the Romanian Revolution highlighted the varying degrees of resistance to change within the Eastern Bloc and underscored the lengths to which people were willing to go to secure their freedom.

The Baltic States’ Push for Independence

The Baltic republics of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia declared their independence from the Soviet Union in 1990. These declarations were significant, as they represented a direct challenge to Soviet territorial integrity. The peaceful mass protests, such as the Baltic Way, in which approximately two million people formed a human chain spanning the three countries, demonstrated the popular support for independence and the limitations of Soviet power to quell the tide of nationalism.

The Coup Attempt Against Gorbachev

In August 1991, hardline members of the Soviet government and military attempted a coup d’état against Gorbachev, hoping to reverse the disintegration of Soviet power. The coup failed, largely due to the resistance led by Boris Yeltsin, president of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. The coup’s failure accelerated the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of communist authority.

The Dissolution of the Soviet Union

The final act in the Cold War drama was the dissolution of the Soviet Union itself. On December 25, 1991, Mikhail Gorbachev resigned as President of the USSR, and the Soviet flag was lowered for the last time over the Kremlin. The formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) by Russia and other former Soviet republics effectively signified the end of the Soviet Union as a political entity and the definitive end of the Cold War.

Consequences and Aftermath

The end of the Cold War marked a transformative moment in global history, with profound consequences that reshaped international relations, domestic politics, and economic paradigms across the world. The aftermath of this ideological and geopolitical conflict’s resolution set the stage for the new world order of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

The New World Order

With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the United States emerged as the world’s sole superpower, a status that led to the proclamation of a “new world order.” This term, popularized by U.S. President George H.W. Bush, reflected a vision for a post-Cold War era characterized by U.S. leadership in creating a world where democracy and free market economies were the norm, and where international disputes would be settled by peaceful means through international institutions like the United Nations.

Shifts in NATO and European Security

The end of the Cold War necessitated a reevaluation of NATO’s role in a world no longer defined by the U.S.-Soviet rivalry. The organization shifted its focus from collective defense against the Warsaw Pact to crisis management and peacekeeping. Additionally, the Warsaw Pact was dissolved, and many of its former members sought closer ties with the West, with several joining NATO and the European Union, signaling a significant realignment in European security structures.

Economic Transformations

The transition from command economies to market-based systems in the former Eastern Bloc was a rocky process, marked by significant hardship for many. The “shock therapy” approach to economic reform had varying levels of success, leading to the rapid emergence of a capitalist class but also contributing to widespread poverty, unemployment, and social dislocation. Despite these challenges, many Eastern European countries eventually found paths to economic growth and integration into the global economy.

The Rise of Ethnic and Regional Conflicts

The power vacuum left by the Soviet Union’s collapse led to the re-emergence of long-suppressed ethnic and regional conflicts, particularly in the Balkans and the Caucasus. The wars in the former Yugoslavia and the violent struggles in Chechnya were among the most devastating, highlighting the complexities of nation-building and the challenges of maintaining peace and security in a post-Cold War context.

Democratic Expansion and Authoritarian Resistance

The post-Cold War era saw a significant expansion of democracy, particularly in Eastern Europe and Latin America. However, this “third wave of democratization” was met with resistance in some quarters, where authoritarian regimes persisted and, in some cases, reasserted themselves. The struggle between democratic forces and authoritarianism remained a central theme in global politics, demonstrating that the ideological contestations of the Cold War continued in different forms.

Legacy of the Cold War

The legacies of the Cold War are manifold and enduring. It left behind a world deeply scarred by proxy wars, nuclear proliferation, and ideological divisions. At the same time, the end of the Cold War provided opportunities for reconciliation and the forging of new partnerships. The lessons learned from this period continue to influence how current generations approach international conflict, cooperation, and the pursuit of global peace.

Alternative Perspectives on the End of the Cold War

While the mainstream historical narrative attributes the end of the Cold War to a combination of economic, political, and diplomatic factors, alternative perspectives offer different interpretations. These viewpoints challenge conventional wisdom and provide a more nuanced understanding of this complex period.

Revisionist Views

Revisionist historians argue that internal economic challenges within the USSR, rather than Western pressure, were the primary drivers of the Soviet collapse. They suggest that the arms race, while a burden, was not as decisive as the inherent inefficiencies and the eventual failure of the Soviet economic model.

Role of Middle Powers

Some scholars emphasize the role of middle powers and their diplomatic efforts during the final years of the Cold War. Countries such as Canada, Australia, and the Nordic nations are cited for their ‘soft power’ approaches that promoted human rights and disarmament, influencing both superpowers indirectly and contributing to a climate ripe for the Cold War’s resolution.

People’s Movements

Another perspective highlights the influence of grassroots movements and the collective action of citizens. The pivotal role played by solidarity movements in Poland, human rights activists in the USSR, and the pan-European peace movement are seen as critical forces that undermined the legitimacy of communist governments and compelled leadership to seek reform.

Globalization and Cultural Exchange

Others argue that the cultural exchanges and the onset of globalization played a more significant role in ending the Cold War than has been acknowledged. The penetration of Western culture and ideas into the Eastern Bloc via media and personal contacts is seen as a catalyst for change, as it exposed the shortcomings of the Soviet system and inspired a desire for a different way of life.

The Cold War’s conclusion was a pivotal event in world history, marking the end of a period of intense ideological rivalry and nuclear brinkmanship. The dissolution of the Soviet Union and the subsequent geopolitical shifts have had lasting implications for international politics, economics, and social dynamics. This essay has traced the complex web of factors that contributed to the end of the Cold War, acknowledging that no single factor can fully explain this transformative period. Understanding these various elements provides not only a clearer picture of the past but also insights into current global tensions and the potential pathways to their resolution.

As we reflect on this history, it becomes evident that the end of the Cold War was not the “end of history” as some had proclaimed, but rather the beginning of a new era of challenges and opportunities. The legacy of the Cold War continues to shape our world, reminding us of the importance of dialogue, cooperation, and the relentless pursuit of peace.

Class Notes and Outline – End of the Cold War

As the tension between the United States and the Soviet Union grew it was clear that the US had a decided advantage. The US was the worlds only atomic power and United States policy became of containment had proven to be successful. Stalin felt forced to respond. Stalin acted quickly and decisively to attempt to limit US influence in Eastern Europe and balance the emerging power of the United States. As the Cold War pressed on the US tried to enforce its policy of containment. Sometimes it was successful, other times it was not. The policy of containment brought US troops to the far edges of the world. Perhaps to the young it seemed inevitable but on that day in 1989 when the Berlin Wall came down (brick by brick sold off in a capitalist venture it should be noted!) It seemed almost surreal. The giant monolith of the Soviet Union had been defeated. The foundation of the Soviet Union had been crumbling for a decade… some might say it had never actually been solid yet nonetheless for those of us that lived through the Cold War the sight was still shocking. It all seemed so sudden. The days of air raid drills and realistic fears of

a nuclear war would never leave us. What had vanquished the giant of the Soviet Union? What would be the future of world politics? What would happen to all of those nuclear weapons? So many questions… a very uncertain period of time.

• When it was proven that LBJ had lied, this power was withdrawn during the Nixon administration with the passage of the War Powers Act that only allows the President to commit troops for 90 days without Presidential approval. (NY Times v United States)

In 1959 Fidel Castro, a Marxist, took control of Cuba. What did we do about it?

The Cold War Didn’t Have to End. Gorbachev Made It Happen

I f there was one belief shared in 1985 by Western politicians, the leaders and peoples of Eastern Europe, and the Soviet political elite, it was that maintenance of Soviet-type Communist systems in the Warsaw Pact countries was for Moscow non-negotiable. However much Washington politicians talked, especially in the 1950s about rollback of Communism, Communist systems carried on. Western leaders condemned the Soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956 and of Czechoslovakia in 1968, but no American president contemplated a military response. As Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev , who died on August 30 at 91, later agreed, nuclear war could not be won and must never be fought.

What changed? The decommunization of Eastern Europe and the end of the Cold War was not a consequence of Reagan’s military build-up and his starry-eyed Strategic Defense Initiative. Even Robert Gates joked that “there appeared to be only two people on the planet who actually thought SDI would work—Reagan and Gorbachev”. Gorbachev’s concern was not because he believed this would work in the manner Reagan hoped, but because to nullify a missile defense system meant overwhelming it with the sheer number of incoming missiles, some with nuclear warheads and some without. In other words, an acceleration of the arms race. The Soviet Ministry of Defense were perfectly content with that prospect, but Gorbachev was not.

Reagan’s presidency coincided with the last two years of Leonid Brezhnev’s Soviet leadership, the whole of the short Kremlin tenures of Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko, and the first four years of Gorbachev as general secretary of the Soviet Communist Party. Nothing changed fundamentally in Eastern Europe, or for the better in East-West relations, until the last of these four leaders came to power.

In the late 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. had military superiority over the Soviet Union. Yet, Communism was not only sustained in Eastern Europe, it spread further afield. That makes it all the odder to argue, as some do, that in the mid-1980s when there was a rough military parity between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., a Soviet leadership had no alternative but to seek to end the Cold War.

So long as it remained cold and not hot, this standoff had big advantages for the Soviet party-state bosses. Political isolation made it easier to avoid ideological contamination and to preserve the status quo. Constant warnings of the imperialist threat helped justify strict party control and the vigilance of the KGB against enemies at home or abroad.

Maintaining the military capacity for Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) took a larger share of the Soviet economy than a comparable policy did in the larger American economy, but it was a price Soviet leaders were willing to pay, egged on by the most powerful of institutional interests. For Gorbachev to out manoeuvre the military-industrial complex required boldness and political finesse. The way he used the unscheduled and unchallenged flight to the edge of Red Square of a young West German, Matthias Rust, in May 1987 was an example. Gorbachev seized the opportunity to dismiss not only the conservative Minister of Defense but about a hundred other military leaders who were opposed to the concessions he was prepared to make to secure large-scale arms reductions.

Gorbachev made three contributions that were fundamental to ending the Cold War. The first was to remove its ideological foundations. In a break with Soviet Marxism-Leninism, Gorbachev called in 1988 for a “deideologization of interstate relations” and argued for priority to be given to values and interests that united the whole of humanity rather than those of any one class, nation or group. These included “the worldwide ecological threats” which, ahead of most Western leaders, he declared in his 1988 speech at the United Nations to be “simply frightening.”

The second crucial contribution to ending the Cold War was his embrace of fundamental change of the Soviet political system and Soviet society. The new tolerance within the Soviet Union itself—from an end to persecution of religion to a burgeoning freedom of speech and, before long, of publication reduced the sense of Soviet threat. When Gorbachev announced in 1988 that the following year there would be contested elections for a new legislature, this was a decisive step toward making the political system different in kind.

Gorbachev’s third fundamental contribution to ending the Cold War was his recognition that means in politics are as important as ends, and that included his commitment to change by peaceful means. The former head of Soviet Space Research, Roald Sagdeev, who emigrated to the U.S. in 1989, remarked on Gorbachev’s faith in persuasion, and how this, too, differentiated him from previous Soviet political bosses who would just issue an order and expect to have it obeyed.

At the international level, nothing was more important than Gorbachev’s eschewal of the use of force. What had appeared in 1985 too remote for serious consideration—the end of Communist rule in Eastern Europe—was calmly accepted by Gorbachev. Not for a moment did he consider the use of force to prevent this. Indeed, he was in the process of dismantling the Communist system in his own country. Responding to later Russian criticism that he had given up the countries of the Soviet bloc without a fight, his response was, “To whom did we surrender them? To their own people.”

Anyone who thinks that Soviet leaders had no option but to accept the end of their hegemony in East-Central Europe and then the interconnected dissolution of the Soviet Union (East European countries gaining their independence raised the expectations of the most disaffected nations within the Soviet Union itself) need look no further than Ukraine in 2022. The brutal war being waged there is a reminder that the militarily stronger Soviet Union did have the option of preserving their statehood by force. It is confirmation that the values of political leaders—a Gorbachev or a Putin—still matter.

More Must-Reads from TIME

• How Kamala Harris Knocked Donald Trump Off Course
• Introducing TIME's 2024 Latino Leaders
• George Lopez Is Transforming Narratives With Comedy
• How to Make an Argument That’s Actually Persuasive
• What Makes a Friendship Last Forever?
• 33 True Crime Documentaries That Shaped the Genre
• Why Gut Health Issues Are More Common in Women
• The 100 Most Influential People in AI 2024

Contact us at [email protected]

Reagan and Gorbachev: Shutting the Cold War Down

Subscribe to this week in foreign policy, strobe talbott strobe talbott distinguished fellow - foreign policy.

August 1, 2004

Review of Jack F. Matlock Jr.’s book, Reagan and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended.

Ronald Reagan was widely eulogized for having won the cold war, liberated Eastern Europe and pulled the plug on the Soviet Union. Margaret Thatcher, Joe Lieberman, John McCain, Charles Krauthammer and other notables offered variations of The Economist ‘s cover headline: “The Man Who Beat Communism.”

Actually, Jack F. Matlock Jr. writes in Reagan and Gorbachev , it was “not so simple.” He should know. A veteran foreign service officer and respected expert on the Soviet Union, he reached the pinnacle of his career under Reagan, serving first as the White House’s senior coordinator of policy toward the Soviet Union, then as ambassador to Moscow. In both the title of his memoir and the story it tells, he gives co-star billing to Mikhail Gorbachev.

Reagan himself went even farther. Asked at a press conference in Moscow in 1988, his last year in office, about the role he played in the great drama of the late 20th century, he described himself essentially as a supporting actor. “Mr. Gorbachev,” he said, “deserves most of the credit, as the leader of this country.”

This quotation was much cited at the time as an example of Reagan’s graciousness, tact and self-deprecation. But Matlock’s book bears out his former boss’s judgment. The 40th president of the United States emerges here not as a geopolitical visionary who jettisoned the supposedly accommodationist policies of containment and detente, but as an archpragmatist and operational optimist who adjusted his own attitudes and conduct in order to encourage a new kind of Kremlin leader.

During his first term, Reagan denounced the pre-Gorbachev Soviet Union as an “evil empire.” The name-calling riled many Soviets (and more than a few Sovietologists) but did little diplomatic harm, since relations between Washington and Moscow were already in a rut. The Kremlin had become a geriatric ward, with Red Square doubling as the world’s largest funeral parlor.

Then, in 1985, soon after Reagan’s second inauguration, the vigorous, 54-year-old Gorbachev ascended to the leadership. He wanted to demilitarize Soviet foreign policy so that he could divert resources to the Augean task of fixing a broken economy. Initially, he expected no help from Reagan, whom he regarded as “not simply a conservative, but a political ‘dinosaur.’”

For his part, Reagan assumed the new general secretary of the Communist Party would be “totally dedicated to traditional Soviet goals.” Nonetheless, he was prepared to test Prime Minister Thatcher’s first impression: ” like Mr. Gorbachev; we can do business together.”

Getting back into the business of diplomacy with the principal adversary of the United States appealed to Reagan, just as it had to six previous occupants of the Oval Office. Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy had tried to make the most of Nikita S. Khrushchev’s slogan of “peaceful coexistence”; Lyndon B. Johnson jump-started arms control talks with Aleksei N. Kosygin; Richard Nixon, Gerald R. Ford and Jimmy Carter signed strategic-arms limitation agreements with Leonid I. Brezhnev. But those Soviet leaders were committed, above all, to preserving the status quo. Sooner or later, each caused a setback or a showdown with the United States through some act of barbarity or recklessness: the crushing of the Hungarian uprising in 1956, the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, the invasions of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Afghanistan in 1979, the destruction of a South Korean airliner that had wandered off course in 1983. Breakthroughs in United States-Soviet relations were inherently subject to breakdowns.

Gorbachev altered that dynamic. He was determined to take the Soviet Union in a radically different direction—away from the Big Lie (through his policy of glasnost), away from a command economy (through perestroika) and away from zero-sum competition with the West.

Reagan came quickly to recognize that Gorbachev’s goals, far from being traditional, were downright revolutionary. He also saw that the transformation Gorbachev had in mind for his country would, if it came about, serve American interests.

As a result, without much fuss and without many of his supporters noticing, Reagan underwent a transformation of his own. The fire-breathing cold warrior set about trying, through intense, sustained personal engagement, to convince Gorbachev that the United States would not make him sorry for the course he had chosen.

Matlock describes in telling detail how Reagan rehearsed for his first meeting with Gorbachev, which took place in Geneva in November 1985. Reagan assigned the role of the Soviet leader to Matlock who, for maximum authenticity, played his part in Russian, mimicking Gorbachev’s confident, loquacious style. Matlock also sent Reagan a series of “spoof memos” that were “interlaced with jokes and anecdotes,” based on an educated guess at what Gorbachev’s own advisers were telling him in preparation for the encounter.

Shortly before setting off for Geneva, Reagan dictated a long memo of his own, laying out his assessment of the man he was about to meet. The Reagan game plan was to look for areas of common interest, be candid about points of contention and support Gorbachev’s reforms while (in Matlock’s paraphrase) “avoiding any demand for ‘regime change.’” He cautioned the members of his administration not to rub Gorbachev’s nose in any concessions he might make. Above all, Reagan wanted to establish a relationship with his Soviet counterpart that would make it easier to manage conflicts lest they escalate to thermonuclear war—an imperative for every American president since Eisenhower.

Matlock puts the best light he can on Reagan’s dream of a Star Wars anti-missile system, but he stops short of perpetuating the claim, now an article of faith among many conservatives, that the prospect of an impregnable shield over the United States and an arms race in space caused the Soviets to throw in the towel. Instead, Matlock focuses on Reagan’s attempt to convince Gorbachev that American defense policy posed no threat to legitimate Soviet interests and should therefore not prevent the two leaders from establishing a high degree of mutual trust.

That word figured in Reagan’s mantra, “trust but verify.” It set Gorbachev’s teeth on edge. However, Reagan intended the motto not just as a caveat about dealing with the Soviets but also as a subtle admonition to his relentlessly hard-line and mistrustful secretary of defense, Caspar W. Weinberger. According to Matlock, Weinberger was “utterly convinced that there was no potential benefit in negotiating anything with the Soviet leaders and that most negotiations were dangerous traps.” The rivalry that Matlock describes between Weinberger and Secretary of State George P. Shultz bears an eerie similarity to what we know of the one between Colin L. Powell and Donald H. Rumsfeld. Shultz grew so exasperated with Weinberger’s militancy and obstructionism that he contemplated resigning. Reagan wrote in his diary, “I can’t let this happen. Actually, George is carrying out my policy.”

That policy, as Matlock summarizes it, “was consistent throughout.” Reagan “wanted to reduce the threat of war, to convince the Soviet leaders that cooperation could serve the Soviet peoples better than confrontation and to encourage openness and democracy in the Soviet Union.”

Presidential attachment to those precepts neither began nor ended with Ronald Reagan. It was Jimmy Carter who first put human rights prominently on the agenda of American-Soviet relations. George H. W. Bush skillfully served as a kind of air traffic controller in 1991, when the increasingly beleaguered Gorbachev brought the Soviet Union in for a relatively soft landing on the ash heap of history—a major contribution to the end of the cold war that Matlock dismisses in a footnote as “cleanup” diplomacy.

While Matlock could have been more charitable to Reagan’s predecessors and to his immediate successor, his account of Reagan’s achievement as the nation’s diplomat in chief is a public service as well as a contribution to the historical record. It is simultaneously admiring, authoritative and conscientious. It is also corrective, since it debunks much of the hype and spin with which we were blitzed earlier this summer. The truth is a better tribute to Reagan than the myth.

Related Content

Strobe Talbott

November 9, 2009

December 7, 2017

James E. Goodby

January 29, 2003

Related Books

Jerry F. Hough

May 1, 1997

Raymond L. Garthoff

July 26, 2000

John E. Chubb, Paul E. Peterson

June 1, 1985

Foreign Policy

Europe & Eurasia Russia

Robin Brooks

September 12, 2024

Chinasa T. Okolo

September 10, 2024

Carlo Bastasin

September 9, 2024

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Cold War History

By: History.com Editors

Updated: June 26, 2023 | Original: October 27, 2009

The Cold War was a period of geopolitical tension marked by competition and confrontation between communist nations led by the Soviet Union and Western democracies including the United States. During World War II , the United States and the Soviets fought together as allies against Nazi Germany . However, U.S./Soviet relations were never truly friendly: Americans had long been wary of Soviet communism and Russian leader Joseph Stalin ’s tyrannical rule. The Soviets resented Americans’ refusal to give them a leading role in the international community, as well as America’s delayed entry into World War II, in which millions of Russians died.

These grievances ripened into an overwhelming sense of mutual distrust and enmity that never developed into open warfare (thus the term “cold war”). Soviet expansionism into Eastern Europe fueled many Americans’ fears of a Russian plan to control the world. Meanwhile, the USSR came to resent what they perceived as U.S. officials’ bellicose rhetoric, arms buildup and strident approach to international relations. In such a hostile atmosphere, no single party was entirely to blame for the Cold War; in fact, some historians believe it was inevitable.

Containment

By the time World War II ended, most American officials agreed that the best defense against the Soviet threat was a strategy called “containment.” In his famous “Long Telegram,” the diplomat George Kennan (1904-2005) explained the policy: The Soviet Union, he wrote, was “a political force committed fanatically to the belief that with the U.S. there can be no permanent modus vivendi [agreement between parties that disagree].” As a result, America’s only choice was the “long-term, patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.”

“It must be the policy of the United States,” he declared before Congress in 1947, “to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation…by outside pressures.” This way of thinking would shape American foreign policy for the next four decades.

Did you know? The term 'cold war' first appeared in a 1945 essay by the English writer George Orwell called 'You and the Atomic Bomb.'

The Cold War: The Atomic Age

The containment strategy also provided the rationale for an unprecedented arms buildup in the United States. In 1950, a National Security Council Report known as NSC–68 had echoed Truman’s recommendation that the country use military force to contain communist expansionism anywhere it seemed to be occurring. To that end, the report called for a four-fold increase in defense spending.

In particular, American officials encouraged the development of atomic weapons like the ones that had ended World War II. Thus began a deadly “ arms race .” In 1949, the Soviets tested an atom bomb of their own. In response, President Truman announced that the United States would build an even more destructive atomic weapon: the hydrogen bomb, or “superbomb.” Stalin followed suit.

As a result, the stakes of the Cold War were perilously high. The first H-bomb test, in the Eniwetok atoll in the Marshall Islands, showed just how fearsome the nuclear age could be. It created a 25-square-mile fireball that vaporized an island, blew a huge hole in the ocean floor and had the power to destroy half of Manhattan. Subsequent American and Soviet tests spewed radioactive waste into the atmosphere.

The ever-present threat of nuclear annihilation had a great impact on American domestic life as well. People built bomb shelters in their backyards. They practiced attack drills in schools and other public places. The 1950s and 1960s saw an epidemic of popular films that horrified moviegoers with depictions of nuclear devastation and mutant creatures. In these and other ways, the Cold War was a constant presence in Americans’ everyday lives.

HISTORY Vault: Nuclear Terror

Now more than ever, terrorist groups are obtaining nuclear weapons. With increasing cases of theft and re-sale at dozens of Russian sites, it's becoming more and more likely for terrorists to succeed.

The Cold War and the Space Race

Space exploration served as another dramatic arena for Cold War competition. On October 4, 1957, a Soviet R-7 intercontinental ballistic missile launched Sputnik (Russian for “traveling companion”), the world’s first artificial satellite and the first man-made object to be placed into the Earth’s orbit. Sputnik’s launch came as a surprise, and not a pleasant one, to most Americans.

In the United States, space was seen as the next frontier, a logical extension of the grand American tradition of exploration, and it was crucial not to lose too much ground to the Soviets. In addition, this demonstration of the overwhelming power of the R-7 missile–seemingly capable of delivering a nuclear warhead into U.S. air space–made gathering intelligence about Soviet military activities particularly urgent.

In 1958, the U.S. launched its own satellite, Explorer I, designed by the U.S. Army under the direction of rocket scientist Wernher von Braun, and what came to be known as the Space Race was underway. That same year, President Dwight Eisenhower signed a public order creating the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), a federal agency dedicated to space exploration, as well as several programs seeking to exploit the military potential of space. Still, the Soviets were one step ahead, launching the first man into space in April 1961.

That May, after Alan Shepard become the first American man in space, President John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) made the bold public claim that the U.S. would land a man on the moon by the end of the decade. His prediction came true on July 20, 1969, when Neil Armstrong of NASA’s Apollo 11 mission , became the first man to set foot on the moon, effectively winning the Space Race for the Americans. 

U.S. astronauts came to be seen as the ultimate American heroes. Soviets, in turn, were pictured as the ultimate villains, with their massive, relentless efforts to surpass America and prove the power of the communist system.

The Cold War and the Red Scare

Meanwhile, beginning in 1947, the House Un-American Activities Committee ( HUAC ) brought the Cold War home in another way. The committee began a series of hearings designed to show that communist subversion in the United States was alive and well.

In Hollywood , HUAC forced hundreds of people who worked in the movie industry to renounce left-wing political beliefs and testify against one another. More than 500 people lost their jobs. Many of these “blacklisted” writers, directors, actors and others were unable to work again for more than a decade. HUAC also accused State Department workers of engaging in subversive activities. Soon, other anticommunist politicians, most notably Senator Joseph McCarthy (1908-1957), expanded this probe to include anyone who worked in the federal government. 

Thousands of federal employees were investigated, fired and even prosecuted. As this anticommunist hysteria spread throughout the 1950s, liberal college professors lost their jobs, people were asked to testify against colleagues and “loyalty oaths” became commonplace.

The Cold War Abroad

The fight against subversion at home mirrored a growing concern with the Soviet threat abroad. In June 1950, the first military action of the Cold War began when the Soviet-backed North Korean People’s Army invaded its pro-Western neighbor to the south. Many American officials feared this was the first step in a communist campaign to take over the world and deemed that nonintervention was not an option. Truman sent the American military into Korea, but the Korean War dragged to a stalemate and ended in 1953.

In 1955, the United States and other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) made West Germany a member of NATO and permitted it to remilitarize. The Soviets responded with the Warsaw Pact , a mutual defense organization between the Soviet Union, Albania, Poland, Romania, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Bulgaria that set up a unified military command under Marshal Ivan S. Konev of the Soviet Union.

Other international disputes followed. In the early 1960s, President Kennedy faced a number of troubling situations in his own hemisphere. The Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 and the Cuban missile crisis the following year seemed to prove that the real communist threat now lay in the unstable, postcolonial “Third World.” 

Nowhere was this more apparent than in Vietnam , where the collapse of the French colonial regime had led to a struggle between the American-backed nationalist Ngo Dinh Diem in the south and the communist nationalist Ho Chi Minh in the north. Since the 1950s, the United States had been committed to the survival of an anticommunist government in the region, and by the early 1960s it seemed clear to American leaders that if they were to successfully “contain” communist expansionism there, they would have to intervene more actively on Diem’s behalf. However, what was intended to be a brief military action spiraled into a 10-year conflict .

The End of the Cold War and Effects

Almost as soon as he took office, President Richard Nixon (1913-1994) began to implement a new approach to international relations. Instead of viewing the world as a hostile, “bi-polar” place, he suggested, why not use diplomacy instead of military action to create more poles? To that end, he encouraged the United Nations to recognize the communist Chinese government and, after a trip there in 1972, began to establish diplomatic relations with Beijing.

At the same time, he adopted a policy of “détente”—”relaxation”—toward the Soviet Union. In 1972, he and Soviet premier Leonid Brezhnev (1906-1982) signed the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT I), which prohibited the manufacture of nuclear missiles by both sides and took a step toward reducing the decades-old threat of nuclear war.

Despite Nixon’s efforts, the Cold War heated up again under President Ronald Reagan (1911-2004). Like many leaders of his generation, Reagan believed that the spread of communism anywhere threatened freedom everywhere. As a result, he worked to provide financial and military aid to anticommunist governments and insurgencies around the world. This policy, particularly as it was applied in the developing world in places like Grenada and El Salvador, was known as the Reagan Doctrine .

Even as Reagan fought communism in Central America, however, the Soviet Union was disintegrating. In response to severe economic problems and growing political ferment in the USSR, Premier Mikhail Gorbachev (1931-2022) took office in 1985 and introduced two policies that redefined Russia’s relationship to the rest of the world: “glasnost,” or political openness, and “ perestroika ,” or economic reform. 

Soviet influence in Eastern Europe waned. In 1989, every other communist state in the region replaced its government with a noncommunist one. In November of that year, the Berlin Wall –the most visible symbol of the decades-long Cold War–was finally destroyed, just over two years after Reagan had challenged the Soviet premier in a speech at Brandenburg Gate in Berlin: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” By 1991, the Soviet Union itself had fallen apart. The Cold War was over.

‘Blood in the Water’: The Cold War Olympic Showdown Between Hungary and the USSR

Just weeks before the match, Soviet tanks and troops brutally crushed the short‑lived Hungarian Revolution.

How the Cold War Space Race Led to US Students Doing Tons of Homework

In the first half of the 20th century, U.S. educators shunned homework. The Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik 1 changed that.

Why the Berlin Airlift Was the First Major Battle of the Cold War

American and British pilots ferried some 2.3 million tons of supplies into West Berlin on a total of 277,500 flights, in what would be the largest air relief operation in history.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Ohio State navigation bar

• BuckeyeLink
• Search Ohio State

The End of the Cold War: Its Meaning and Implications

Hogan, Michael J.

This timely collection of essays offers one of the first, serious efforts to examine the end of the Cold War. The book presents the thinking of leading historians, political scientists, policy analysts, and commentators from the United States, Great Britain, Germany, France, Norway and the former Soviet Union. Together they discuss such important issues as the origins of the Cold War, its ideological and geopolitical sources, the cost of that epic conflict, its influence on American life and institutions, its winners and losers.

Investigators

Filters: 1992

Home / Essay Samples / War / Cold War / The End Of The Cold War

The End Of The Cold War

• Category: War , Government , History
• Topic: Cold War , Communism , Joseph Stalin

Pages: 3 (1253 words)

Views: 2529

• Downloads: -->

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Revolutionary War Essays

Civil Rights Movement Essays

Rosa Parks Essays

The Columbian Exchange Essays

The Progressive Era Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service  and  Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->