The United States and Russia, the Cold War’s two main protagonists, have had a turbulent relationship since 1991. The US remains the world’s largest superpower, both economically and militarily. Despite the global financial crisis of 2008 and other problems, the American economy remains the largest and wealthiest in the world. The US government is still the world’s preponderant military power, with around 1.2 million full-time military personnel and 800,000 reservists. Washington spends more than $US600 billion per year on defence, almost three times that of China, nine times that of Russia and more than the next eight nations combined. The US remains the most influential member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) which since 1991 has continued to operate and expand, despite the end of the Cold War. Russia, in contrast, has been significantly weakened by the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It remains an important regional power with a nuclear arsenal and powerful military but has surrendered its global superpower status to the US and China.

From Soviet Union to Commonwealth of Independent States

The Cold War was ended by the dissolution of the Soviet Union on Christmas Day 1991. The USSR was replaced by a new entity called the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). It was formed to collaborate and coordinate policies on issues such as free trade, finance, security, immigration and crime prevention. Unlike the Soviet Union, the CIS is a loose confederation with no formal power over its member-nations. The CIS had 11 founding member-nations, all of which were former Soviet republics (Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan). Georgia joined the CIS in 1993 but has since withdrawn, along with Armenia and Ukraine. Russia remains the most powerful member-nation of the CIS – and in many respects its de facto leader. Despite the organisation’s lack of coercive power, Moscow has often been accused of determining CIS policy unilaterally or exerting undue pressure on other member-nations of the CIS.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, coupled with heavyhanded Russian policies during the 1990s, gave rise to nationalist and independence movements within the former USSR. The most violent of these separatist groups was formed in Chechnya, a small region in the North Caucasus, in 1991. Chechen separatists spent the next decade battling Moscow for independence. Their struggle included two full-scale wars (1994-96 and 1999-2000) that claimed more than 100,000 lives, including around 10,000 Russian soldiers. Chechen separatist violence continued into the 21st century and included acts of terrorism such as the Beslan school siege (September 2004) which claimed the lives of 186 children. Russian forces eventually gained control of Chechnya, eradicated separatist and terrorist groups and imposed a pro-Moscow regime. Russia has also had difficult relations with Ukraine, whose politicians and people have been divided on whether to retain ties with Moscow or forge new links with the West, such as seeking membership of NATO and the European Union (EU). In 2014 Russian troops annexed the Crimean peninsula, an autonomous province of Ukraine, and installed a pro-Russian government there. Internecine fighting erupted in eastern Ukraine and continues today, with the clandestine involvement of Russian forces. In July 2014 a Russian-operated missile team operating in eastern Ukraine shot down a civilian airliner, Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, killing 298 people.

The honeymoon period

Diplomatic relations between the US and Russia improved through the 1990s. Both nations signed an arms control treaty in January 1993, trade links were increased and Russian president Boris Yeltsin began a cordial relationship with his American counterpart Bill Clinton. US-Russia relations began to deteriorate in the late 1990s, for several reasons. In 1997 NATO offered membership to Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic; this expansion into eastern Europe by NATO was viewed by many as provocative to Russia and its interests. In 1999, NATO forces intervened in the Kosovo War by bombing Yugoslavia, a move opposed by Russia and undertaken without United Nations (UN) backing. The election of Vladimir Putin (1999) and George W. Bush (2000), followed by the September 11th terrorist attacks (2001), triggered pivotal shifts in Russian and American foreign policy. In December 2001, Washington outraged Moscow by announcing its intention to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, one of the Cold War’s most significant arms reduction agreements. A further provocation arose in 2007 when the US began constructing missile defence systems in Poland.

Tensions eased somewhat between 2009-2012 under the presidencies of Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev. In April 2010 these two leaders negotiated and signed a new treaty reducing strategic nuclear weapons. Since then, Moscow and Washington have drifted apart due to disagreements over several issues and policies. These include ongoing disputes over American missile and defence systems in Poland; conflict over Western and Russian influence or interference in Ukraine and Georgia; anti-democratic reforms and human rights abuses within Russia; and, most recently, Russian intervention in the ongoing civil war in Syria. In 2016 the Russian government was accused of actively interfering in the US presidential election, through a campaign of Internet hacking, propaganda and disinformation. Some believe Russian interference in the election contributed to Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton, possibly as ‘payback’ for Clinton’s 2011 remark that Russia’s own elections were “neither free nor fair”. Donald Trump’s decision to launch two missile strikes against Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, a Putin ally, has further inflamed bilateral relations between Moscow and Washington.

A new ‘cold war’?

This breakdown in relations has prompted some commentators to claim the US and Russia have entered a new cold war. Many historians and political scientists consider this inappropriate for the modern context, however. The term “cold war” suggests similarities or analogies with the geopolitics and conditions that existed between 1945 and 1991. The current situation, however, is much more complex – and according to some experts, considerably more dangerous. Vladimir Putin is a nationalist whose policies seek to restore Russian influence in eastern Europe and central Asia. He views the United States as an aggressive imperialist power that threatens Russia militarily by placing missiles in Poland and expanding NATO. Washington has also interfered in Russia’s traditional sphere of influence by supporting pro-Western ideas and policies in Ukraine and Georgia. Many in the US, in contrast, see Putin as an anti-democratic and authoritarian ruler who models his leadership on that of Joseph Stalin. They view Putin as a dishonest autocrat willing to use underhanded methods from the Cold War, such as arming separatist movements in Ukraine, deploying mass campaigns of misinformation and ‘fake news’ on the Internet, or ordering the murder of journalists and whistleblowers to silence dissent.

“Our relationship to Russia ought to be among our closest. We both are committed to reduction of weapons of mass destruction. We both have immediate interests in combating terrorism. Russia stands on the border of five significant Islamic republics and shares concerns with us regarding stability in the Balkans and the Black Sea region. Russia possesses immense natural resources, supplies many of our allies in Europe, and offers an alternative source to precarious Persian Gulf supplies. Russia has world-class scientists, physicist, and mathematicians. We use Russian rocket propulsion systems to launch space missions and cooperate on manned space missions. Russia offers a vast market for American and Western products and services, an opportunity more appreciated by European enterprises than American ones. Further, Russia can be of considerable help to us and our allies in venues as disparate as Iran, North Korea, and the Middle East. In each of these cases, they stand to lose at least as much as we do, if not more, from war in these regions. We should treat the Russians as partners, not subordinates.”
Gary Hart, former US Senator

Evaluating the current situation should also look beyond individual leaders and perceptions of government. The United States and Russia have endured considerable economic and structural change in the past generation. The US has undergone significant de-industrialisation, shedding or scaling down labour-intensive industries such as car manufacturing, shipbuilding and coal mining. The US today is more focused on retail, technology, communications, healthcare, light manufacturing and service-based industries. The American economy remains the largest in the world, with a gross domestic product in excess of $US18 trillion, though it is carrying a national debt in excess of $US21 trillion. Russia has also de-industrialised significantly since the Cold War; Moscow now relies on its vast natural reserves of oil and gas to drive the Russian economy. Both the US and Russia are confronted with significant challenges in the medium to long-term. Among these challenges are population change, ageing infrastructure, resource depletion, an increasing reliance on imports and growing inequalities of wealth and income. Both nations will also wrestle with external conditions, such as the growth of China and the effects of climate change. These factors will shape US-Russia relations, for better or worse, as we progress further into the 21st century.

1. Almost 30 years after the Cold War, the United States remains the world’s largest superpower. Russia, in contrast, is a significant regional power, though no longer a global superpower.

2. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 gave rise to separatist or independence movements, terrorist groups and civil wars in places like Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine.

3. US-Russia relations enjoyed a honeymoon period in the 1990s, as Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin negotiated cordially and signed trade and arms reduction agreements.

4. Relations then deteriorated as both nations adopted unilateral foreign policies. The expansion of NATO is one factor in worsening bilateral relations between the US and Russia.

5. Some believe the US and Russia are entering a new ‘cold war’, however, while tensions between Washington and Moscow undoubtedly exist, there are significant differences between the geopolitics and conditions of 1945-1991 and the current situation.

---

Content on this page is © Alpha History 2018-23. This content may not be republished or distributed without permission. For more information please refer to our Terms of Use.
This page was written by Jennifer Llewellyn and Steve Thompson. To reference this page, use the following citation:
J. Llewellyn & S. Thompson, “US-Russia relations since the Cold War”, Alpha History, accessed [today’s date], https://alphahistory.com/coldwar/us-russia-relations-since-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 at the end of a tumultuous decade where ordinary people challenged the viability of socialism and socialist governments. The pressures they applied undermined and eroded political authority in Soviet bloc nations. With Moscow no longer demanding adherence to socialist policies, these 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.

The demise of the Berlin Wall cleared the road to 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, without consulting 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, was the most vocal opponent of German reunification.

In March 1990, East Germany held its first free elections, producing a resounding defeat for the communists. The two German 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.

The Soviet Union passes into history

The Soviet Union remained the last bastion of socialism in Europe – but it too was rapidly changing. Gorbachev’s reforms of the mid-1980s 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 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 public, however, which 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.

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 among commentators and historians about who was 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, ordinary people were the true engine of change. For decades citizens in the Soviet bloc had lived under oppressive one-party regimes and had 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 rejoin the free world. Their determination and heroism were noted 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)

---

Content on this page is © Alpha History 2018. This content may not be republished or distributed without permission. For more information please refer to our Terms of Use.
This page was written by Jennifer Llewellyn, Jim Southey and Steve Thompson. To reference this page, use the following citation:
J. Llewellyn et al, “The end of the Cold War”, Alpha History, accessed [today’s date], https://alphahistory.com/coldwar/end-of-the-cold-war/.

In October 1949 Mao Zedong and his followers declared victory in the Chinese Revolution and proclaimed the formation of the People’s Republic of China. With more than a half billion people, China replaced the Soviet Union as the world’s most populous socialist state. By rights, the People’s Republic and Soviet Russia should have been close allies for the duration of the Cold War. Both shared large populations, a commitment to Marxist socialism, turbulent revolutions and difficult transitions into socialism. Both were also surrounded and confronted by Western opposition and military alliances (NATO in Europe, SEATO in the Asia-Pacific). Despite these similarities, the relationship between communist China and the Soviet Union was complex and changeable. In the 1960s the two powers began to drift apart – and by late 1968 they had reached the brink of war. The Sino-Soviet split, as it became known, was a critical development in the Cold War.

The links between Chinese and Russian communists dated back to 1919 and the formation of the Communist International, or Comintern. This Moscow-based agency was formed to promote, support and offer guidance to socialist revolutionaries around the world. The Comintern played an important role in the formation and direction of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). In line with Marxist theory, most members of the Comintern believed that China was not yet ready for socialist revolution. During the 1920s the CCP’s organisation, ideology and methodology followed instructions and advice from Moscow. When Mao Zedong gained control of the CCP in the mid-1930s he rejected the Comintern view, arguing that China was ready for a socialist revolution driven by the peasantry. The rise of Mao and his ideology of ‘peasant socialism’ formed the seeds of division between Chinese communists and the Soviet Union.

When Mao Zedong seized control of China in 1949, socialist regimes held power across one fifth of the globe and ruled a combined population of almost 800 million people. A friendly and productive relationship between Moscow and Beijing was considered vital for the advancement of world socialism. In late 1949 Mao travelled to Moscow to meet Joseph Stalin for the first time. Recognising the need for unity, Stalin and Mao signed a bilateral treaty called the Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance. It included a military alliance that required one to come to the other’s aid if they were attacked. More important to China were the treaty’s economic benefits, including a $300 million loan and the provision of Soviet technical advisors. During the 1950s thousands of scientists, industry experts and technicians from the Soviet Union lived and worked in China. Their advice and leadership played an important role in the industrialisation of China. Using the advice of Soviet economic strategists, Beijing committed itself to Stalinist models of development, growth and agricultural collectivisation.

Yet despite this successful collaboration, there were also signs of strain. Mao’s 1949 visit to Russia negotiated a successful treaty – but privately Mao felt undervalued and disrespected. The Chinese leader believed that Stalin had treated him as an underling rather than an important partner. In mid-1950, Mao committed forces to the Korean War, believing that Stalin would follow suit and commit Soviet forces and provide men, machinery and weapons. Stalin, however, preferred not to be drawn into an open conflict with the United States. He confined Soviet involvement in Korea to providing air support and supplying aircraft, weapons and munitions (for which he charged Mao’s government full price). The Korean War was politically successful for the Chinese but the costs to its struggling economy were enormous. Mao felt exploited and betrayed by Stalin, who had failed to honour his earlier assurances.

After Stalin’s death in 1953 Mao began to imagine himself as the world’s senior communist leader. In the Soviet Union leadership passed to Nikita Khrushchev, a party official who had previously shown unflinching loyalty to Stalin. This changed in February 1956 when Khrushchev delivered his famous ‘Secret Speech‘, in which he condemned the personality cult, despotism, show trials, purges and violence that occurred under Stalinism. Khrushchev’s criticism of Stalin placed Mao in an awkward position. While Mao distrusted Stalin in private, in public he had always praised Stalin is a brilliant socialist leader. Mao had also replicated Stalin’s cult of personality within China. For Mao, Khrushchev’s ‘Secret Speech’ was a betrayal of Stalin’s legacy. Chinese communists responded by developing their own interpretation of Stalin, which was articulated in the People’s Daily on April 5th 1956:

“Some people consider that Stalin was wrong in everything. This is a grave misconception. Stalin was a great Marxist-Leninist yet at the same time a Marxist-Leninist who committed several gross errors without realizing that they were errors. We should view Stalin from a historical standpoint, make a proper and all-round analysis to see where he was right and where he was wrong and draw useful lessons therefrom. Both the things he did right and the things he did wrong were phenomena of the international communist movement and bore the imprint of the times. Taken as a whole the international communist movement is only a little over 100 years old and it is only 39 years since the victory of the October Revolution… Great achievements have been made, but there are still shortcomings and mistakes.”

In October 1957 the Soviet Union and China signed a new defence accord, Moscow agreeing to share new military technologies including nuclear weapons prototypes. Sino-Soviet relations began to deteriorate shortly after, in part because of Khrushchev’s softer line toward the West. While Mao had always attacked the United States as an imperialist bully to be feared and resisted, Khrushchev suggested that “peaceful coexistence” with the US was possible. Khrushchev visited China in July 1958 but the meeting did not go well. The Soviet leader and his entourage were housed in dilapidated apartments without air conditioning, despite the sweltering heat. During the talks, Mao treated Khrushchev with arrogance and disdain – not dissimilar to how Mao had been treated by Stalin in 1949. Mao refused to consider Khrushchev’s proposed joint defence projects; Khrushchev retaliated by pulling the majority of Soviet advisors out of China. Khrushchev visited China again the following year and infuriated Mao with a speech that praised US president Dwight Eisenhower and his foreign policy. This particular trip was so acrimonious that it was trimmed from seven days to just three.

“The collapse of the Sino-Soviet alliance marked the transformation of the Cold War world from bipolarity to multipolarity… From its inception, the seemingly monolithic union was fraught with constantly shifting expectations about its precise place in the socialist world, subjected to American attempts to split it, and afflicted by the ideological radicalism of… Mao Zedong.”
Lorenz M. Luthi, historian

Moscow began to repudiate terms of the 1949 military alliance and within a  year the Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance was all but dead. In 1960 the Soviet Union pulled its remaining technical advisors out of China, leaving several major infrastructure projects unfinished. The war of words continued, including verbal clashes between Chinese and Russian delegates at party conferences in 1960 and 1961. In 1962, following the Cuban missile crisis, Mao accused Khrushchev of being afraid of the United States. When China and India went to war briefly in late 1962 over disputed borders, Moscow threw its support behind India. By this time China and the Soviet Union were engaged in a cold war of their own, however, relations continued to worsen. In 1964 Mao Zedong claimed the Soviet Union still possessed Chinese territory stolen by pre-revolutionary Russia. In July 1964 he withdrew China’s ambassador and cut diplomatic ties with Moscow. Anti-Soviet propaganda inside China reached fever pitch. In August 1967, at the height of the Cultural Revolution, some 200,000 Red Guards, whipped into a frenzy by Mao’s anti-Soviet rhetoric, laid siege to the Soviet embassy in Beijing.

The Sino-Soviet came to a head with a brief border war in the late 1960s. Arguments over a contested border in Xinjiang province in north-western China led to a round of Sino-Soviet talks, however, these quickly broke down. In the summer and autumn of 1968 both the Chinese and Soviets increased their military presence in the region. Eventually, more than 1.5 million soldiers were housed on both sides of the Ussuri River. In October 1968 Chinese defence minister Lin Biao claimed that his forces were preparing for an invasion of Soviet territory. The first skirmishes were reported in March 1969, with Chinese and Russian soldiers firing at each other on Zhenbao Island. More clashes followed, forcing the resumption of talks in June. Between 350 and 700 soldiers were killed in the sporadic fighting in Xinjiang, most of them Chinese. For a time Soviet commanders even considered using tactical nuclear weapons against its former ally. The death of Vietnamese communist leader Ho Chi Minh in September 1969 facilitated the restoration of diplomatic contact, though Sino-Soviet relations remained frosty.

1. Sino-Soviet cooperation began with the formation of the Soviet Union and the Moscow Comintern, which provided support and direction for the fledgeling Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
2. In late 1949 Mao visited Stalin in Moscow. While Mao felt undervalued and disregarded by Stalin, the two leaders signed an important treaty and military alliance.
3. In public Mao and CCP propaganda hailed Stalin as a visionary leader of world socialism, however, in private Mao felt betrayed by Stalin’s lack of support and involvement during the Korean War.
4. In 1956 Nikita Khrushchev denounced the brutality that occurred under Stalin’s leadership. This condemnation of Stalin placed Mao in an awkward position and forced the CCP to reevaluate its position on Stalin.
5. Sino-Soviet relations continued to worsen from 1957, driven by ideological divisions, different attitudes to the West, provocative and hostile remarks, failed talks between Mao and Khrushchev, and border disputes that led to a brief conflict in 1969.

---

© Alpha History 2018-23. Content on this page may not be republished or distributed without permission. For more information please refer to our Terms of Use.
This page was written by Glenn Kucha, Jennifer Llewellyn and Steve Thompson. To reference this page, use the following citation:
G. Kucha et al, “The Sino-Soviet split”, Alpha History, accessed [today’s date], https://alphahistory.com/coldwar/sino-soviet-split/.

A significant factor in the demise of the Cold War was growing economic problems in the Soviet Union. In 1961, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev told a party congress that the USSR would achieve full communism within 20 years. Khrushchev was gone within three years, however, replaced by a collective headed by Leonid Brezhnev. Under this new leadership, the Soviet government implemented decentralised, market-based reforms aimed at improving growth. The reforms were initially successful and the Soviet Union prospered for a time. The Soviet economy peaked in the early 1970s after its gross national product grew by five percent since 1965. The decade that followed, however, was disastrous. It is often referred to using the economic term “stagnation”, meaning a long period of slow or negative growth. Historians disagree on the causes of this stagnation, however, failures in central planning and the Soviet bureaucracy appear notable culprits. Whatever the causes, the 1970s were a dismal decade for the Soviet Union and its people. This left the USSR unprepared for the challenges to come.

Despite earlier reforms, the Soviet economy in the 1970s remained a highly centralised command economy. Production priorities and targets were announced in Five-Year Plans; specific targets and quotas were formulated by economic planners in Moscow; they were relayed and managed by Soviet bureaucrats at regional and local levels. This system contained little flexibility or scope for local decision-making. As the Soviet economy grew, its centralised decision-making and bureaucracy became problematic. To cope with the needs of economic management, the number of bureaucrats and clerical workers grew – often at a much faster rate than skilled and industrial workers responsible for production. The Soviet bureaucracy had grown too top-heavy, while the Soviet economy was becoming too unwieldy and complex to be centrally managed from Moscow. In 1965 Soviet premier Alexei Kosygin proposed a series of reforms drafted by Evsei Liberman, a Ukrainian economist. Liberman suggested decentralising the economy and reintroducing profit as an incentive for work units. Some of these changes were introduced in agriculture and light industry, though Liberman’s reforms were never fully implemented. Nevertheless, these changes stimulated the Soviet economy, which enjoyed its best period between 1965 and 1972.

The rise of stagnation

By the mid-1970s, however, the Soviet economy was beginning to suffer from contraction and low growth. Some of this was caused by changes in the international sphere, such as the United States’ abandonment of the gold standard (1971) and the OPEC oil crisis (1973) – but structural domestic problems were more to blame. The Soviet economy had endured years of massive military spending, shortfalls in natural resources, bureaucratic mismanagement and rising corruption. The Soviet Union’s rapid industrial and technological growth had come at the expense of its agricultural sector, which shrank steadily through the 1970s. By the 1980s, Soviet Russia could not produce enough grain to feed its own population. Moscow relied on grain imports – including large amounts from Western countries. This was not only embarrassing, it contributed to a sizeable trade deficit. Moscow found no effective solutions to the country’s economic slump. Major economic reform was clearly needed but there was inadequate political support for such a step. The Kremlin’s habit of micro-managing the economy meant new projects and policies were slow to be approved. The government’s only significant economic reform of the early 1980s was a series of anti-corruption measures.

This economic downturn had dire impacts on living standards. Soviet citizens had never enjoyed standards of living comparable to the West but by the late 1970s, they had deteriorated even further, due mainly to shortages of food and consumer goods. The Soviet economy had always prioritised military and industrial requirements over everyday consumer goods. As a consequence, there were dire shortages and long waiting periods for even the most basic items. Few Russians could afford a car and those who did faced a waiting period of several years. Electrical items like televisions, refrigerators and washing machines were difficult to obtain. The consumer goods produced in the USSR – mainly cars, clothing and footwear – were notorious for their poor quality and lack of durability. Imported European and American goods were hard to find, expensive and out of reach for most Russians. Images of Soviet stores with long queues or near-empty shelves became a staple in the Western media. United States president Ronald Reagan frequently told jokes that ridiculed parlous economic conditions in the Soviet Union.

Chernobyl and Afghanistan

In April 1986 the Soviet economy was dealt a further blow, following a devastating accident at Chernobyl, Ukraine. Chernobyl was a four-reactor nuclear power plant that generated around one-tenth of Ukraine’s power needs. On April 26th the plant was rocked by a series of explosions, followed by a major fire. The accident, caused by a combination of faulty design and human error, released large amounts of radioactive material over an area exceeding 100,000 square kilometres, mostly in the Ukraine, Belarus and southern Russia. With one of Chernobyl’s nuclear cores in danger of complete meltdown, the Kremlin faced a human and environmental disaster of immense proportions. Scientists and engineers raced to construct a concrete sarcophagus around the damaged reactor, to prevent the escape of further radioactivity. Vast areas of contaminated agricultural land around the site were cleared and thousands of livestock were destroyed. The economic costs of Chernobyl are believed to have approached 20 billion roubles, a price the Soviet government of the late 1980s could not afford.

Another drain on the Soviet economy was the USSR’s long occupation of Afghanistan. Soviet troops marched into the Central Asian nation in December 1979 and remained there until February 1989. During this period around 620,000 Soviet troops served in Afghanistan, with more than 100,000 there at any given time. Western estimates suggest Moscow spent around $US50 billion funding the war and propping up the pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan. While this was a fraction of what the United States spent on the Vietnam War (around $US170 billion), it was an added burden on an already flagging economy. The occupation of Afghanistan also reignited tensions with the West and proved costly in human terms (between 14,000 and 20,000 soldiers killed in the struggle against Afghan mujahideen). In addition, Afghanistan became one of several conduits for illegal drugs and smuggled goods, which helped supply a thriving black market within the Soviet Union.

The need for major reform

“A nation that was a military superpower and could mount a major space program could not provide adequate housing for its people, nor could it feed them properly. The transportation system in many parts of the country remained in a primitive state, pollution was rampant in the air, on the land and in the water, and resources were being depleted at frightening rates. The health of the people was literally deteriorating and quality medical care was rare… It was Gorbachev’s task to pull the nation out of the quicksand.”
William Moskoff, economist

By the early 1980s, many Soviet experts and politicians accepted that major reforms were needed to kick-start the ailing economy. This was easier said than done, however. Any significant reforms must be accepted and endorsed by the Communist Party and the Soviet government, where communist hardliners held sway. A reform agenda would require strong, skilful and dynamic leadership – qualities missing from the Soviet hierarchy in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Brezhnev suffered a series of life-threatening health issues during this period, so played a minimal role in policy formulation. Brezhnev’s reform-minded prime minister, Alexei Kosygin, lost his prestige and influence during the 1970s; in 1980 he was replaced by Nikolai Tikhonov, a conservative who had no interest in reform. When Brezhnev died in November 1982 he too was replaced by conservatives. Yuri Andropov (1982-84) introduced measures to eliminate corruption but made no structural changes to the economy. Konstantin Chernenko (1984-85) was in office for just a year and achieved little, other than signing a trade agreement with China.

When Chernenko died in March 1985, the Politburo bypassed older leadership candidates in favour of Mikhail Gorbachev. The new Soviet leader was 54 years old, comparatively youthful next to his predecessors (Andropov was 68 when he took office, Chernenko 72). Gorbachev was considered a rising star of the Communist Party. Born in a family of peasant farmers in southern Russia, he joined the Communist Party while studying law in Moscow. During the 1960s Gorbachev held party positions in Stavropol, south-west Russia. He acquired a reputation as an efficient administrator and skilled negotiator, qualities that helped him ascend through the ranks of the CPSU. Gorbachev became a member of the Central Committee before his 40th birthday and was promoted to the Politburo in 1979. Gorbachev travelled widely during the early 1980s, visiting more Western nations and meeting more foreign leaders than any other Politburo member.

1. The end of the Cold War was brought about in part by the decline of the Soviet Union, which was caused by a long period of economic stagnation in the 1970s and 1980s.

2. The Soviet economy thrived for a brief period between 1965 and the 1970s, however, centralised planning and control hindered further growth and the economy began to contract.

3. Economic stagnation produced a decline in Soviet living standards, which were already lower than those of the West, as food and consumer goods became increasingly scarce.

4. Other factors also had a detrimental effect on the Soviet economy, such as the 1973 oil crisis, the ongoing Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.

5. By the early 1980s, it was clear that major reforms were required if the Soviet economy was to recover. A succession of conservative leaders achieved little. In 1985, the Politburo elected Mikhail Gorbachev, a comparatively young leader with a history of successful administration and reform.

---

Content on this page is © Alpha History 2018. This content may not be republished or distributed without permission. For more information please refer to our Terms of Use.
This page was written by Jennifer Llewellyn and Steve Thompson. To reference this page, use the following citation:
J. Llewellyn & S. Thompson, “Stagnation in the Soviet Union”, Alpha History, accessed [today’s date], https://alphahistory.com/coldwar/stagnation-soviet-union/.

Cold War tensions and rivalries were often played out on the sporting arena. As with technology and space exploration, sport was an area where rival powers could prove or assert their dominance without going to war. Sport in the Cold War could, therefore, be highly politicised. Western countries and Soviet bloc nations invested heavily in sports training and development, particularly in sports involving international competition. The Olympic Games became one prominent arena where this rivalry was played out. Like the Nazis in 1936, Cold War superpowers sought to exploit the Olympics for political and ideological advantage. The Olympic Games hosted many notable clashes between Cold War combatants; these competitions received significant media attention and a few ended messily or controversially. The Olympics also served as a stage for political protests, such as controversial boycotts in the early 1980s. Sport in the Cold War could also be constructive. Sport occasionally served as an icebreaker. Interest in sports provided common ground and an opportunity for political rivals to communicate and forge better relations.

The Soviet Union (USSR) did not compete at the Summer Olympic Games between the two world wars. The USSR was invited to attend the London Olympics in 1948 but declined, apparently because Joseph Stalin was concerned that Soviet athletes were not up to world standard. Moscow launched an intensive effort to prepare for the 1952 Olympics in Helsinki, Finland. This was validated when the Soviet Union sent almost 300 athletes to Helsinki and won 71 medals, 22 of them gold. Moscow’s continuing focus on sport paid off in 1956. The Soviet team dominated the 1956 Winter Olympics in Italy, winning 16 medals. The Soviets also finished on top of the medal tally at the Summer Olympic Games in Melbourne, Australia, winning 98 medals (37 gold). This was the most medals ever won by a single nation at the Olympics, dwarfing the United States’ 74 medals (32 gold). Members of the Soviet team were hailed as heroes when they returned from Melbourne; 17 were awarded the prestigious Order of Lenin.

Moscow continued to invest heavily to ensure Olympic success. Athletes who won Olympic medals or broke national or world records were promised cash bounties or rewards in kind. Sports facilities, academies, coaching and training programs all received a sizeable amount of state funding. Between 1960 and 1980 the Soviet government invested heavily in sports infrastructure, doubling the number of stadiums and swimming pools, and building almost 60,000 new gymnasia. Successful sportsmen and women were celebrated in the state press and propaganda. Ordinary citizens were encouraged to participate in sports and sporting programs became mandatory in Soviet schools. Talent identification schemes spotted promising young athletes, who were offered state-funded coaching or scholarships. The Soviet Union joined many international sporting federations and became proficient in several sports – even those sports with a limited history in Russia, such as basketball, volleyball and football (soccer).

“What distinguished East Germans from the rest of the world’s athletes was not that some (not all) competed having taken steroids, [but that their] programme was a planned one. What must be remembered is the importance that compulsory physical culture played in East German life, the considerable number of highly trained coaches and volunteer instructors who worked in the country, and the vigilance paid to finding and training those with sports potential.”
James Riordan, historian

Other communists nations made similar investments in sport. East Germany (DDR) placed great emphasis on sporting prowess, motivated chiefly by its intense rivalry with West Germany. Neither of the two Germanys competed at the 1948 Olympics, while East Germany boycotted the 1952 Games after the International Olympic Committee (IOC) insisted on a unified German team. East Germany sent its own Olympic team for the first time in 1968, when its athletes finished fifth on the medal tally, winning 25 medals (nine gold). The 1972 Olympics, held in Munich, were a triumph for the East Germans. The DDR team competed in 18 sports and finished third on the medal tally (40 medals, 13 gold) – 26 medals clear of host nation West Germany. Despite its relatively small population of 16 million, East Germany became one of the most successful sporting nations of the 1970s and 1980s, particularly in athletics, swimming, rowing and gymnastics. The East German team finished runners-up in the medal tally, behind the Soviet Union, at the 1976, 1980 and 1988 Olympics (like the USSR, East Germany boycotted the 1984 Los Angeles games). East Germans also finished first or second at five successive Winter Olympics. The East German sporting program was later marred by allegations of doping and widespread steroid use, though little was proven.

The Melbourne Olympics (1956) was notable for one example of political tensions spilling onto the sporting arena. Two weeks before the opening ceremony Soviet forces invaded Hungary, deposed the reformist government of Imre Nagy and killed more than 2,000 Hungarian protestors. Hungary’s water polo team was then drawn to meet the Soviet Union team in a semi-final. During this encounter, later dubbed the ‘Blood in the Water’ match, both teams traded insults, kicks and punches. The Hungarian team’s rough tactics unsettled the Soviets, who conceded four goals while failing to score themselves. Towards the end of the match, Hungarian player Ervin Zador was struck in the head by his Soviet opponent. Zador left the pool bleeding from a gash to the eye and the match was called off with one minute to play. The Soviet team was booed and spat at by the Australian crowd as the players left the arena. Hungary progressed to the final where they defeated Yugoslavia 2-1 to win the gold medal. The Soviet team had to settle for bronze.

Another notable Olympic clash involved the United States and Soviet Union men’s basketball teams at the 1972 Munich Olympics. Both nations had powerhouse teams with long records of success. The United States team, then comprised of college players rather than professionals, had won gold at the previous seven Olympic Games. The Soviet team was a regular Olympic silver medallist and European champion. The US and Soviet teams were drawn in different groups at Munich. Both progressed to the final with relative ease, the Soviets defeating Cuba and the American trouncing Italy in the semi-finals. The gold medal match received a great deal of media attention, given the strength of both teams and the political rivalries of their nations.  The Soviets led for most of the game, however by the final seconds, the Americans had fought back to lead by one point. Errors and confusion between timekeeper and referees allowed the Soviets to transfer play to their end and score the winning basket. The 51-50 Soviet victory caused an uproar in the US camp, which claimed the final play was illegitimate. American officials lodged an unsuccessful protest, then an appeal to the International Olympic Committee (IOC). The US players refused to accept the silver medal, a stance they have maintained ever since.

The US was not the only Western nation to enjoy a hot rivalry with the Soviet Union. In 1972 Canadian and Soviet diplomats in Moscow initiated a series of ice hockey matches between the two countries. This series of eight games, four in each country, was played in September 1972. Initially dubbed the ‘Friendship Series’, it became known as the Summit Series. In sporting terms the Summit Series was a success, producing high-quality ice hockey. Canada entered the series as favourites but was shocked in their four home games, trailing 2-1 to the Soviets after four matches. The series attracted intense media coverage and aroused nationalist sentiment on both sides. On the field, it was marred by claims of biased refereeing, controversial tactics and gamesmanship from both sides. In the sixth match, Canadian player Bobby Clarke was accused of deliberately injuring Valeri Kharlamov in game six, fracturing his ankle. Canada won the series 4-3 but the high standard of the Soviet players surprised their opponents.

The Olympic Games occasionally became a platform for political grievances. At the 1968 games in Mexico City, Czechoslovakian Vera Caslavska – a world champion gymnast and an outspoken critic of Soviet communism in her home country – turned her head away during the playing of the Soviet anthem. Communist China was not recognised by the IOC, so did not compete at the Summer Olympics between 1956 and 1980. The Republic of China (Taiwan) team boycotted the 1976 Olympics after host nation Canada refused to acknowledge its sovereignty. The largest Olympic boycotts, however, came in the 1980s. In 1980 the United States and several other countries refused to attend the Moscow Olympics, a protest against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Instead, the US hosted an ‘alternative Olympics’, the Liberty Bell Classic, that was attended by athletes from 29 countries. The Soviet Union and 14 Soviet bloc nations retaliated by boycotting the 1984 games in Los Angeles. The Soviets too organised their own alternative carnival, called the Friendship Games.

Sport in the Cold War was often confrontational – but it was occasionally constructive. There is no better example than the role of table tennis in restoring US-Chinese relations. In 1971 members of the American table tennis team toured Japan and became friendly with members of the Chinese team. Chinese officials responded by inviting the American team to visit their country. The invitation was accepted and the American team toured China in April 1971. This visit, which included exhibition matches and visits to the Forbidden City and the Great Wall of China, sparked a great deal of curiosity and media attention in both countries. While the invitation was undoubtedly engineered by Chinese leaders, table tennis served as a diplomatic icebreaker, allowing shows of trust and goodwill without signs of political weakness. This ‘ping-pong diplomacy’, as it became known, paved the way for higher-level visits and meetings and, eventually, rapprochement between China and the US. Three months after the American tour US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger visited China for secret talks with Zhou Enlai. Kissinger was followed by president Richard Nixon, who visited Beijing and met Mao Zedong in February 1972. China was later accepted as a member state of the United Nations, while Washington restored diplomatic communications with Beijing.

The Goodwill Games were another example of sport being used to heal the wounds of the Cold War. Developed by American broadcaster Ted Turner and organised by his company Time Warner, the Goodwill Games were intended to heal the acrimony of the Olympic boycotts in 1980 and 1984. The first Goodwill Games, held in Moscow in July 1986, were attended by around 3,000 athletes from 79 different nations. These games were a resounding success, both on and off the field. They were not without their political issues, however, with Moscow banning athletes from Israel and South Korea. Four more Goodwill Games were held: in Seattle (1990), Saint Petersburg (1994), New York City (1998) and Brisbane (2001). They were then abandoned due to poor television ratings, declining interest from athletes, the end of the Cold War and improving international relations. Despite losing millions of dollars on the Goodwill Games, Turner expressed no regrets, claiming his creation played a pivotal role in easing Cold War tensions.

1. During the Cold War, many nations used sport for political or ideological purposes, such as demonstrating the superiority of their system over others.

2. From the late 1940s, the Soviet Union invested heavily in sport, creating infrastructure and programs to identify, develop and train new sporting talent.

3. This state funding paid dividends for the USSR in its first two Olympics. East Germany followed a similar path and became a dominant sporting nation in the 1970s.

4. Cold War tensions fuelled some controversial or violent Olympic clashes, such as the notorious ‘Blood in the Water’ match between the Soviet and Hungarian water polo teams in Melbourne, 1956.

5. Sport occasionally helped heal the divisions of the Cold War, by encouraging better communications and goodwill. The US-Chinese ‘ping-pong diplomacy’ (1971-72) and the Goodwill Games (1986-2001) were examples of this.

---

Content on this page is © Alpha History 2018-23. This content may not be republished or distributed without permission. For more information please refer to our Terms of Use.
This page was written by Jennifer Llewellyn and Steve Thompson. To reference this page, use the following citation:
J. Llewellyn & S. Thompson, “Sport in the Cold War”, Alpha History, accessed [today’s date], https://alphahistory.com/coldwar/sport-cold-war/.

Romania was another eastern European nation that fell to socialism after being occupied by the Soviets during World War II. Romania’s story, however, differs from that of its Soviet bloc neighbours. For most of the Cold War, Romania was ruled by two devotees of Joseph Stalin. Gheorghiu-Dej transformed Romania into a tightly controlled Stalinist state, forming a secret police agency, building prison camps and fast-tracking industrialisation. But the death of Stalin and the rise of Nikita Khrushchev opened a rift between Moscow and Bucharest. Romania then began to steer its own course, moving away from Soviet influence and establishing ties with the West, while retaining Stalinist economic systems and power structures. Gheorghiu-Dej died in 1965 and was succeeded by Nicolae Ceausescu, who ruled Romania for the next 24 years. Ceausescu’s leadership, economic policies and social experiments were unrealistic and dangerous, bringing two decades of suffering and misery to the Romanian people.

Romania is a small country with a diverse population and a rich history. It became a nation-state in 1881, after gaining independence from the Ottoman Empire. Before this Romania’s territory was occupied by three medieval principalities: Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania. Sandwiched between Russia, Austria and the Balkans, this region had long been a battleground for imperialists, warlords and nationalists. Perhaps the most famous of these of warlords was the Wallachian prince Vlad III (1431-1477), better known to history as Vlad the Impaler. From the 17th century, much of Romania’s territory was ruled by the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires. Nationalist movements grew and mobilised in the early 1800s, leading to attempted revolutions (1848) and the Romanian War of Independence (1877-1878). Romania was finally granted independence in 1881, becoming a constitutional monarchy. It fought alongside the Allies in World War I and was invaded and occupied by Germany in 1916-17. The Allied victory in 1918 saw Romania almost double in size, after receiving territory from Hungary and Russia. During the interwar period, Romania became one of Europe’s most prolific sources of oil and food.

Like many other European nations, Romania in the 1930s was beset by economic problems and political instability. In February 1938 King Carol II suspended the constitution and ruled using emergency powers. He set about reforming the country as an authoritarian dictatorship, while cautiously forging an alliance with Adolf Hitler. Carol was overthrown by fascists in September 1940 and, two months later, Romania entered World War II alongside Nazi Germany. Romanian troops participated in Operation Barbarossa, Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. Later, Romania came under attack from Allied planes and Soviet ground troops. The Romanian government changed hands again in August 1944 as Soviet forces invaded from the east. By mid-September the Red Army controlled most of the country, forcing the new government to sign an armistice. By the end of 1945, Romania had been occupied by around one million Soviet troops.

As they did elsewhere, the Soviets actively interfered in Romania’s post-war reconstruction, preventing the formation of a coalition government and installing communists like Gheorghiu-Dej and Ceausescu in key positions. National elections were held in November 1946 but were almost certainly rigged, the tiny Romanian Communist Party (Partidul Comunist Român, or PCR) receiving almost 90 percent of the vote. By 1948 Romania had an explicitly Stalinist government dominated by Gheorghiu-Dej. The new regime drew closer to Moscow, Romania joining COMINFORM, COMECON and, later, the Warsaw Pact. Gheorghiu-Dej developed and expanded Stalinist methods of control, including a brutal secret police force (the Securitate) and a network of prison and labour camps. His regime implemented Stalinist economic policies, particularly the forced collectivisation of agriculture and rapid industrialisation. The ranks of the government were filled with pro-Soviets, while churches and other political groups were suppressed.

The rise of Nikita Khrushchev and Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin’s methods (1956) saw Romania back away from its reliance on the Soviet Union. Committed to his own brand of Stalinism, Gheorghiu-Dej began to refuse advice from Moscow, developing his own economic and foreign policy. The Romanian leader forged alliances with communist China, Tito’s Yugoslavia and North Korea. He even sought trade deals with Western nations, particularly Britain, France and West Germany. When Gheorghiu-Dej died in March 1965 his successor, Nicolae Ceausescu, continued to act independently. In 1968 Ceausescu criticised Moscow’s military response to the Prague Spring, refusing to send Romanian troops and condemning the Warsaw Pact for its heavy-handedness:

“The incursion in Czechoslovakia of the troops belonging to the five socialist countries represents a big mistake and a serious threat to peace in Europe and for the destiny of socialism in the world. It is inconceivable in the present day world, when peoples rise to defend their national independence and for equal rights, that a socialist state infringes on the liberty and independence of another state. There can be no excuse, and there can be no reason to accept, even for a single moment, the idea of military intervention in the domestic affairs of a fraternal socialist state.”

This anti-Soviet defiance boosted Ceausescu’s popularity, both in his own country and in the West. Though still a communist, Ceausescu was seen as a free-thinking maverick who was not under the heel of Moscow. During the 1970s the Romanian leader visited many Western nations and met several heads of state, including US president Richard Nixon and Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II. Romania also established diplomatic relations with Western countries, recognised West Germany as a sovereign state and signed trade agreements with European nations. Ceausescu also visited and bonded with the leaders of other communist nations, particularly China, North Vietnam and North Korea. This contact only strengthened his commitment to Stalinist economics and systems of government. In 1974 Ceausescu consolidated his power by creating an executive presidency; he would be elected to this office for the next 15 years. Elevation to the presidency increased Ceausescu’s power considerably and allowed him to rule as a de facto dictator. He set about building a cult of personality, modelled on that of North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung.

Romania’s rapid decline in the 1970s and 1980s is one of the Cold War’s great tragedies. Ceausescu harboured nationalist ambitions that were grandiose and unrealistic. Hoping to develop Romania as a major European power, Ceausescu borrowed heavily to build a network of oil refineries. When these refineries failed to produce the expected profits, Romania was saddled with an enormous foreign debt (more than $US10 billion in 1981). To pay down this debt, Ceausescu exported food, industrial goods and electricity, while imposing strict rationing on his own people. Crop failures and devastating earthquakes in the mid-1970s only added to their misery. Romanian women suffered particularly heavily. One of Ceausescu’s objectives was to arrest a decline in the birth rate and increase Romania’s population from 25 million to 30 million. This gave rise to one of the 20th century’s most pervasive attempts at social engineering. In the late 1960s, the government issued Decree 770, a law prohibiting contraception and abortion. Romanian women were subject to compulsory monthly examinations by state doctors (the so-called “menstrual police”). Pregnancies were recorded and supervised to completion; women who miscarried were investigated for suspected abortion; women who failed to conceive were interrogated about their personal life and sexual habits. Forced to bear children in impoverished conditions, many Romanian women turned to backyard abortions, and tens of thousands died in the process.

“Some intellectual endeavour was devoted to finding a formula that described the peculiarity of the Ceausescu regime in the 1970s and 1980s. For some it was a primitive Stalinism. Others added a touch of Byzantine tradition to the classical communist totalitarianism; and still others spoke of an ersatz society, a pseudo-neo-Stalinism. There might have been all these ingredients, although in the end it looked in many respects like pure madness.”
Nestor Ratesh, Romanian writer

As the Romanian people suffered, Ceausescu and his inner circle lived in extravagant surroundings. Ceausescu himself owned numerous houses around the country, mostly grand mansions or estates tended by servants. Ceausescu’s wife Elena collected expensive furs, designer clothing and jewellery, while their son Nicu enjoyed expensive cars and imported foreign whisky. Ceausescu filled cabinet, government and diplomatic positions with his relatives, appointing his wife Elena to the Politburo (1973) and later making her deputy prime minister (1980). Together the pair pilfered vast amounts from Romania’s national treasury, hiding it in bank accounts offshore; the true amount stolen is unknown but may be close to $US1 billion. Ceausescu’s popular support dwindled in the 1980s, marked by a series of strikes and protests, many of which were brutally shut down. With a revolution brewing, Ceausescu delivered his final speech in Bucharest in December 1989. Violence broke out in the crowd, forcing Ceausescu and his wife to flee. They were soon captured, arrested and given a show trial, before being executed by firing squad on Christmas Day.

1. Romania is a small nation in eastern Europe. After siding with the Nazis in World War II, Romania was occupied by the Soviets, who installed a communist government.

2. For most of the Cold War, Romania was ruled by Stalinists, who attempted rapid industrialisation and collectivised farming, while using repressive social controls.

3. Romania’s leader, Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, severed ties with Moscow after the death of Stalin, adopting an independent foreign policy and negotiating with the West.

4. Nicolae Ceausescu continued this approach, opposing the Soviet reaction to the Prague Spring. This increased his popularity, both within Romania and around the world.

5. Ceausescu’s economics, social policies and corruption inflicted enormous suffering on the Romanian people, however, and he was overthrown and executed in December 1989.

---

Content on this page is © Alpha History 2018-23. This content may not be republished or distributed without permission. For more information please refer to our Terms of Use.
This page was written by Jennifer Llewellyn and Steve Thompson. To reference this page, use the following citation:
J. Llewellyn & S. Thompson, “Romania under Ceausescu”, Alpha History, accessed [today’s date], https://alphahistory.com/coldwar/romania-under-ceausescu/.

Cambodia is a south-east Asian nation bordered by Thailand, Laos and Vietnam. In medieval times Cambodia was home to the powerful Khmer Empire. From its magnificent capital in Angkor, the Khmers dominated the region in agriculture, trade, culture and philosophy for more than six centuries. The Khmer Empire went into gradual decline and eventually collapsed in the mid-1400s. After the fall of the Khmer Cambodia’s regions weakened and became vassal states to neighbouring kingdoms, particularly the Siamese (Thais). In 1867 Cambodia was colonised by the French, who ruled the area for almost a century. Cambodia was given its independence in November 1953. From this point, Cambodia’s fate was influenced by the Cold War generally and the Vietnam War specifically. Its leaders tried to steer a course of neutrality; instead, Cambodia tumbled into years of aerial bombardment, political division, foreign interference and civil war. In 1975 the Cambodian government was seized by the Khmer Rouge, a left-wing insurgency led by the ruthless Pol Pot. The Khmer Rouge promised to purify Cambodia and restore simple agricultural life and social harmony. Instead, Cambodia under Pol Pot became a genocidal experiment that produced more than two million deaths.

The rise of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia was a byproduct of the war in neighbouring Vietnam. In 1951 Vietnamese communists, working with Cambodian supporters, formed the Khmer People’s Revolutionary Party (KPRP). The KPRP was formed as a native Cambodian communist party, though in its first years it was controlled by Vietnamese communists. By the late 1950s, Cambodians had taken leadership positions in the KPRP. One was Saloth Sar, a history teacher who wanted a more radical movement. Sar joined the KPRP’s central committee in 1960 and became the party’s de facto leader in February 1963. A few weeks later Saloth Sar and his followers fled the capital Phnom Penh. They relocated to remote north-east Cambodia and set up a base camp, with help from the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. Under Sar’s leadership, the party became more militant and radical, seeking revolution rather than political reform. In 1966 the group was reformed as the Communist Party of Kampuchea (CPK). Like the followers of Mao Zedong in China, the CPK abandoned traditional Marxist ideology. The true path to a classless society, its leaders argued, was to restore Cambodia’s peasant economy and eradicate Western influence, intellectualism and technology.

During the mid-1960s the CPK worked on recruiting, training its members and gathering arms and supplies. The English press in Phnom Penh dubbed its members the Khmer Rouge (‘Red Khmers’). The Khmer Rouge began attacking government forces in January 1968. These attacks intensified following a March 1970 coup by pro-American general Lon Nol. Support for the Khmer Rouge grew steadily, fuelled by opposition to Lon Nol and continued American bombing in Cambodia. By 1972 the Khmer Rouge boasted around 30,000 regular soldiers and more than 100,000 reservists. As the Khmer Rouge grew in size it drove back government forces and occupied more territory. By the start of 1975 it was evident that before long, the Khmer Rouge would control the entire country. On April 1st, as Khmer Rouge forces reached the outskirts of Phnom Penh, Lon Nol resigned and fled the country. Twelve days later the United States military evacuated American diplomats, foreigners and some Cambodian officials.

The Khmer Rouge seized control of Phnom Penh on April 17th 1975. It was the first time a national capital had fallen to communist forces since the Korean War (1950-53). Their soldiers entered the city around noon. Most were armed, well disciplined and clad in black. They were also noticeably young, some in their early teens. Many residents of Phnom Penh, pleased to be finally rid of Lon Nol, cheered and welcomed the victors. Their tone changed in the afternoon when the Khmer Rouge began firing weapons and ordering people out of buildings and into the streets. Children were pulled from schools and the elderly were driven from their homes at gunpoint. There were reports of patients undergoing surgical procedures being forced onto the road, still bleeding from wounds and incisions. According to the guerrillas, Phnom Penh was at risk of a counter-revolutionary attack and American bombing, so Khmer Rouge leaders had ordered a three-day evacuation of the city. For most, however, it would be more than three years before they returned to Phnom Penh – and many would never return at all.

The Khmer Rouge also worked to identify and arrest foreigners. Once found they were either summarily executed, imprisoned or chased out of Cambodia. Sar’s men abolished the royal government and restored the former king Norodom Sihanouk, then living in exile in China, as head of state. Sihanouk returned to Cambodia in September 1975 and became a roving ambassador for the Khmer Rouge. The real decisions were made by the Khmer Rouge hierarchy, or Angkar (‘Organisation’), as it was better known. The Angkar leadership was less visible than that of other communist regimes. Orders and information were distributed down the line to functionaries, rather than in grand public statements or propaganda. The Khmer Rouge’s leader, Saloth Sar, did not allow a personality cult; he held few political rallies or meetings and gave only occasional speeches. Instead, the Khmer Rouge maintained a cloak of secrecy around its leaders. Sar was variously referred to as Pol Pot, ‘Brother Number One’ or ‘One with the Gun’. In January 1976 the Khmer Rouge gave their new regime a political basis, declaring a new constitution and reforming Cambodia as Democratic Kampuchea.

The Khmer Rouge’s transformation of Cambodian society was even more radical. Mimicking the leaders of the French Revolution, Pol Pot and his followers proclaimed their victory in April 1975 as “Year Zero”. Cambodia’s history – along with its colonial corruption, Western influences and technical advances – would be ‘wound back’ and started again. Pol Pot’s objective was to construct a classless, communal and self-sufficient Kampuchea, unspoiled by foreign influences, intellectualism and non-communist ideas. Schools and colleges were closed, foreign embassies were seized and Buddhist pagodas were demolished. Cambodia’s legal system and courts were virtually abolished; justice was instead to be dispensed by Khmer Rouge ‘death squads’ and its ‘re-education camps’. Millions of people were frogmarched out of Phnom Penh and other cities, which the Khmer Rouge condemned as “hives of bourgeois corruption”. Any Cambodians with higher education or professional training were singled out for immediate execution. Most Cambodians were herded into collective farms, where they were put to work in the fields and forced to labour from dawn to dusk. This work was carried out without adequate food, rest or medical care. Books were burned; money was destroyed; communication networks like television, radio and telephone wires were all dismantled and destroyed.

The Khmer Rouge’s social experiments were accompanied by a murderous campaign of political genocide. Anyone suspected of being a potential enemy of the revolution was whisked away, tortured and murdered. Most were killed with pickaxes, their bodies disposed of in mass graves or left in the open to rot. The first targets were those associated with the old regime: politicians, military personnel, bureaucrats, businessmen, priests and monks. Before long, anyone deemed to be pro-American, pro-Western, pro-capitalist or ‘intellectual’ – including academics, lawyers, doctors, journalists, artists, teachers, students, even musicians and clerks – were arrested and marched to the notorious ‘killing fields’. Just having fair skin, speaking a second language, wearing Western clothing or spectacles was enough to get you killed. During the four years of Khmer Rouge rule between 1.2 and 2.2 million Cambodians and foreigners died – either at the hands of Pol Pot’s murder squads or from malnutrition, starvation and disease in the collective farms.

“While the United States and Vietnam do share responsibility for much of Cambodia’s sorrows, ultimately Cambodians were the victims of their own leaders and their own traditions and history. The shimmering patina of a tropical paradise masked a country that had been told its people were threatened by extinction, and whose rulers encouraged a belief in Cambodia’s cultural and ethnic superiority. It is a country one accustomed to quarrelsome, despotic rulers who treated their subjects, or citizens, like children, and saw Cambodia as one of history’s great victims. And it is a country with a tradition of violence.”
Elizabeth Becker, historian

In December 1978 Democratic Kampuchea was invaded by almost a quarter million soldiers of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Without foreign allies or an industrial base to supply their military, the Khmer Rouge was hopelessly outgunned by Vietnamese planes, tanks and armoured vehicles. Phnom Penh fell to the Vietnamese in just two weeks, forcing Pol Pot and his followers to seek refuge in western Cambodia. They would remain in these jungle hideouts for two decades, leading a small but persistent insurgency against the new order. The Vietnamese eventually withdrew from Cambodia in 1989. An October 1991 peace agreement reformed the Cambodian state and scheduled elections for mid-1993. The Khmer Rouge, by now down to a few thousand insurgents, interfered with elections but could not prevent the formation of a new government. By 1996 Pol Pot had lost most of his supporters and was in poor health. He died in April 1998.

1. Cambodia is a south-east Asian nation, sandwiched between Thailand, Laos and Vietnam. Once the home of the powerful Khmer Empire, Cambodia was colonised by the French in the mid-1800s.

2. Cambodia gained its independence in 1953. Its leaders attempted to steer a neutral course, however, the war in neighbouring Vietnam led to the rise of a communist insurgency in Cambodia.

3. The Khmer Rouge, led by Saloth Sar (Pol Pot), seized control of Cambodia in April 1975. They evacuated the capital Phnom Penh and relocated millions of Cambodians to giant collective farms.

4. The Khmer Rouge renamed the nation Democratic Kampuchea. They sought to ‘wind back’ history, return the people to peasant farming and eradicate all vestiges of Western influence.

5. The Khmer Rouge was forced from power in early 1979. Their four-year rule decimated Cambodia, created widespread human suffering and as many as 2.2 million deaths.

---

Content on this page is © Alpha History 2018-23. This content may not be republished or distributed without permission. For more information please refer to our Terms of Use.
This page was written by Jennifer Llewellyn and Steve Thompson. To reference this page, use the following citation:
J. Llewellyn & S. Thompson, “Cambodia under Pol Pot”, Alpha History, accessed [today’s date], https://alphahistory.com/coldwar/cambodia-under-pol-pot/.

East Germany was a socialist nation, formed in 1949 after the division of Germany. East Germany was, in many respects, the first child of the Cold War. When Germany was invaded by the Allies and the Soviet Union at the end of World War II, they agreed to occupy different zones. At this point, there was no plan to partition Germany into separate states. Amid the tensions and divisions of 1945-48, however, Germany’s post-war future became less certain. Events in Soviet-occupied eastern Germany placed it on a path of separate development. In April 1946 a pro-Soviet group led by Walter Ulbricht formed the Socialist Unity Party (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands, or SED). With the backing of Soviet military authorities, Ulbricht and the SED came to dominate the political landscape in eastern Germany. Events like the Berlin blockade of 1947-48 contributed to the widening gulf between the Allied and Soviet zones. These divisions culminated with the formation of an independent nation, the German Democratic Republic (GDR), on October 7th 1949. The Allies refused to recognise this new nation or its socialist government. The world, however, came to know it as East Germany.

East Germany had a population of just over 18 million people in 1949. Sandwiched between Allied-occupied West Germany and the Soviet bloc, the GDR became a focal point for Cold War tensions and intrigues. As a newly created nation, built atop the ruins of the Nazi state, East Germany became a proving ground for socialist government and policies. Walter Ulbricht became the most significant figure in this transformation. A fanatical communist, Ulbricht wore a beard like that of Vladimir Lenin while his leadership style was modelled on Joseph Stalin. Ulbricht’s power and profile grew steadily in the early 1950s. He served as deputy prime minister in the first months of the East German government, becoming general secretary of the SED in 1950 and the party’s first secretary in 1953. Stalin’s death in March 1953 raised questions about Moscow’s future policy on East Germany. Known to be a committed Stalinist, Ulbricht’s own position became uncertain.

On June 16th 1953 construction workers in East Berlin went on strike, in protest against increased work quotas and threatened pay cuts. The following day they were joined by 40,000 Berliners, most angry about austere economic conditions and a lack of political freedoms. The violence in East Berlin quickly spread to other parts of the country. East German police and soldiers, as well as Soviet troops, were deployed to halt the demonstrations and quash a potential uprising. This resulted in many deaths and injuries; estimates of those killed range between 80 and more than 500. The June Uprising, as it became known, convinced the Kremlin that a firm hand was needed in East Germany. Ulbricht was summoned to Moscow in July and given authority to purge the SED and crack down on dissidents. East Germany’s notorious secret police agency, the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit or ‘Stasi‘, had its leadership replaced and powers expanded. In addition to silencing troublemakers, Ulbricht also moved to placate the protestors. In the following months, he moved to alleviate food shortages, increase wages and pensions, and reduce the price of consumer goods and transportation.

East Germany remained economically backward in its first decade. There were several reasons for this. After World War II eastern Germany’s industrial sector, manufactured goods and raw materials were raided and seized by the Soviet Union, which claimed them as war reparations. More than half the region’s industrial capacity passed into Soviet hands between 1945 and 1949, and most of what remained was nationalised. Short of raw materials, East Germany’s remaining industries began to rely on expensive imports. After independence in 1949, East German exports could only be sold to Soviet bloc nations at fixed prices; they were unable to access the larger, more lucrative markets in West Germany or western Europe. In 1950 Ulbricht’s socialist government adopted a Stalinist economic policy that emphasised industrial production and collectivised agriculture. Workers were subject to rigorous work quotas and targets, while wages and prices were fixed by the state. This emphasis on industrial production and infrastructure led to a shortage of housing and consumer goods. There was a significant decline in living standards, which contributed to the Republikflucht: an exodus of people from East Germany. An average of 175,000 emigrants left the Republic each year between 1949 and 1953. The dire working and living conditions also contributed to the June 1953 Uprising mentioned earlier.

In the mid-1950s the East German government relaxed its economic policies. Its Stalinist Five Year Plan was replaced with a more moderate seven-year version, while greater emphasis was placed on producing consumer goods. These reforms were fairly superficial, however, and the East German economy showed only marginal signs of growth. Desperate to match the economic successes of West Germany, Ulbricht responded by speeding up the transition to full socialism. In the late 1950s, his government ordered more collectivisation of agriculture and the nationalisation of industries still in private hands. East Berlin also intensified its campaign of communist indoctrination and propaganda. These changes achieved little, except for another spike in the Republikflucht. In 1960 East Germany suffered its worst yearly exodus of citizens, losing almost 200,000 people across the border. By 1961, one in five East Germans had left the country. More than half this number were under the age of 30; many were well trained, educated or skilled workers. This ‘brain drain’ precipitated the 1961 Berlin crisis, the closure of East-West borders and the erection of the Berlin Wall.

In 1963 Ulbricht’s government announced the New Economic System (NES). The NES promised a mixed economy, combining decentralised economic management with elements of a market-based system. Price controls were relaxed and prices became more influenced by supply and demand. Greater autonomy was given to factory managers, while worker syndicates were allowed to participate in decision making. Work units were rewarded with incentives for meeting goals, rather than punishments for failing to meet them. The NES produced some short-term improvements – but again, these reforms proved too superficial to achieve lasting change. After almost two decades in power, Ulbricht had failed to fix the stagnating East German economy. When Willy Brandt became chancellor of West Germany in 1969 he began to hint at opening relations with East Germany. Ulbricht showed little interest and maintained his belligerent rhetoric towards the West. The old Stalinist, it seemed, was yesterday’s man. In 1971 the SED, with Moscow’s backing, quietly pushed Ulbricht from power. He remained as East Germany’s head of state but exercised no control over policy.

Ulbricht was replaced as general secretary by Erich Honecker, whose more flexible leadership contributed to a decade of Ostpolitik (sometimes referred to as the ‘German Détente‘). Honecker’s negotiations with Brandt led to the signing of the Basic Treaty (December 1972) and the restoration of diplomatic contact between East and West Germany. The East German border was opened for transit and tourism, while Honecker’s government negotiated trade deals with non-Soviet countries. Honecker also spent heavily to improve living conditions, particularly housing (more than a million new homes and apartments were constructed during the 1970s). Economic planning was reoriented to produce greater volumes of consumer goods, especially electrical items and everyday items like toiletries. In 1975 the government claimed that three-quarters of East German homes had a refrigerator, while two-thirds had a television and washing machine. East German living standards became the highest in the Soviet bloc. Yet despite these improvements, its citizens still lacked the diversity, choices and comforts available in West Germany.

“East German citizens [had] access to West German television, which showed them the freedom as well as the economic well-being of the West. The Honecker leadership initially did not take this cultural penetration very seriously. [But] constant exposure to the West German consumer culture had an insidious impact on East German society, encouraging East Germans to compare it to their own relatively run-down, deprived society.”
Minton F. Goldman, historian

Despite Honecker’s economic reforms, East German society in the 1970s and 1980s was oppressive, stagnant and uninspiring. East Germans continued to endure a dull routine of work, obedience and conformity. Most aspects of life were dominated by socialist values and expectations. Television, radio and the press were all state-owned. Cinema was popular but most movies were produced in the Soviet bloc. Food staples were in sufficient supply but most food was monotonous and bland. Involvement in religion waned, to the point where fewer than one in three East Germans identified as Christians. Workplaces, trade unions, cultural organisations, even sporting clubs were controlled or monitored by loyal socialists. The gatekeepers of this rigid socialist existence were the feared Stasi, aided by a network of spies and informers. This security apparatus was swift to crack down on political threats, potential troublemakers and criticism of the government. Unapproved political groups, cultural movements or individualism were all quickly suppressed. Most East Germans endured this lack of freedom by withdrawing into their private lives.

1. East Germany (the German Democratic Republic, or GDR) was an independent socialist state. It was formed in October 1949 from the Soviet occupation zone in Germany.

2. In its first two decades East Germany was governed by the Socialist Unity Party (SED) and Walter Ulbricht, a communist who modelled himself on Lenin and Stalin.

3. Ulbricht’s government imposed socialist economic policies, suppressed dissent after the June 1953 uprising, closed its borders and erected the Berlin Wall.

4. In 1971 Ulbricht was replaced by Erich Honecker. He developed a working relationship with West Germany, while moving to improve living standards in the GDR.

5. Despite Honecker’s economic reforms East German society stagnated, with political freedoms and individualism suppressed by the Stasi and government spies and informers.

---

Content on this page is © Alpha History 2018-23. This content may not be republished or distributed without permission. For more information please refer to our Terms of Use.
This page was written by Jennifer Llewellyn and Steve Thompson. To reference this page, use the following citation:
J. Llewellyn & S. Thompson, “East Germany”, Alpha History, accessed [today’s date], https://alphahistory.com/coldwar/east-germany/.

Though it ended almost three decades ago, the Cold War continues to influence the modern world. The nation-building and internationalism of the Cold War, along with many of the political and military alliances forged during the period, continue to endure. Many Cold War ideas and attitudes still colour our political ideology and language. Proxy wars and meddling have profoundly affected the developing world and contributed to ongoing trouble in some areas. Cold War interventions in the Middle East and countries like Afghanistan have created destabilisation and contributed to the rise of separatist movements, Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. Many of the Cold War’s tensions and divisions – such as the Sino-Soviet split and the United States-Cuba freeze – have faded into history, while some still remain. As major powers, the United States and Russia have charted their own foreign policy in recent times, leading to new tensions and difficulties. Meanwhile, China has emerged as a post-Cold War superpower while nations like Germany, Japan and India have grown and prospered.

Nuclear weapons post-Cold War

The most dangerous legacy of the Cold War is its vast arsenal of nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, nuclear-capable states manufactured around 130,000 nuclear warheads, more than half of these produced by the United States. The vast majority of these weapons have been decommissioned and deconstructed. Today, the US and Russia retain active stockpiles of 4,000-4,500 nuclear warheads apiece, of which 1,300-1,400 are strategic nuclear weapons. There are seven other nuclear-capable states (Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and China) with stockpiles of between 120 and 300 nuclear warheads each. North Korea has successfully tested nuclear devices and may have up to 15 active warheads. Iran, Iraq and Lybia have undertaken secret research programs to develop nuclear weapons, though these programs are now believed to be defunct. South Africa is the only nation to have abandoned nuclear weapons, ordering the deconstruction of several nuclear warheads in 1989.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 raised questions about the fate of its 38,000 nuclear warheads. Experts pondered some dangerous and potentially catastrophic scenarios. The decentralisation of power could mean control of nuclear weapons passing to former Soviet republics with unstable or belligerent leaders. This situation was avoided with the signing of the signing of the Lisbon Protocol (May 1992) which surrendered all nuclear weapons in Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine to Russia. As a consequence, Russia remained the sole nuclear power in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). A more dangerous scenario was the possibility of the theft and sale of Soviet nuclear warheads to rogue states, dictators or non-state actors, such as terrorists or criminals. This situation was avoided through close cooperation and exchanges between American and Russian scientists, with the backing of their respective governments. Through this cooperation, all Soviet nuclear warheads were accounted for and decommissioned in large numbers.

Geopolitical changes

The decline of socialism and the end of the Cold War led to geopolitical change elsewhere. In central Europe, the election of a liberal government in Czechoslovakia coincided with rising Slovak nationalism in the country’s east. In July 1992 the Slovak parliament passed a declaration of independence and, six months later, Czechoslovakia separated into two sovereign nations: the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The dissolution of Yugoslavia was much less peaceful. Formed in 1945, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was largely held together by the leadership of Marshal Josip Tito. After Tito’s death in 1980, Yugoslavia was beset by ethnic and nationalist tensions. Led by Slobodan Miloševic, Serbian nationalists sought to maintain and extend their control over the region. Four disgruntled regions (Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina) all declared their independence in 1991 and 1992. These changes triggered a decade-long war in Yugoslavia, marked by lawlessness, war crimes and claims of racial genocide. NATO intervened twice in this conflict, bombing targets in 1995 and 1999 to stop ethnic violence by Serbian and Bosnian-Serb forces. The NATO intervention was opposed by Russia and increased tensions between Washington and Moscow.

The 1990s also saw greater cooperation and unity between former rivals. In November 1990, 32 European nations, along with the US and Canada, signed the Paris Charter for a New Europe. This agreement, which facilitated greater consultation and collaboration between all European nations, is viewed by some historians as the peace treaty that formally ended the Cold War. The Paris Treaty led to the formation of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), an intergovernmental body sometimes described as the ‘European United Nations’. The OSCE investigates and deliberates on many issues including security and policing, counter-terrorism, border control, crisis management, conflict prevention, fair elections, human trafficking, freedom of the press and other human rights issues. More controversial is the ongoing role of NATO, which has continued despite the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the end of the Cold War. In recent years several former Soviet bloc nations have been admitted as member-states of NATO, including Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Romania and the Baltic states. Russian leaders like Vladimir Putin view the continuation and expansion of NATO as an unjustifiable threat to their country.

Islamic terrorism

“Fighting Islamic terrorism is perhaps the most important post-Cold War challenge faced by the West… [Islamic fundamentalism] dares to lock horns with the Western establishment, which has in its midst the unique superpower, the victor of the two World Wars and the Cold War, the conqueror of the bastion of world communism, the victor of almost all wars it has fought, and the citadel of world capitalism. Worse still, the challenge is not even from a classical superpower but from a group of disgruntled renegades from the Third World.”
Al-amine Mohammed Abba Seid, author

As predicted by political theorist Samuel Huntington, the end of the Cold War coincided with an increase in radical Islamic movements in the Middle East and Asia. Cold War interventions contributed directly to this rise in Islamic radicalism. In 1953, Britain and the US orchestrated an coup d’état to replace the government of Iran. The Iranian prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, was a nationalist who enacted policies to reduce foreign ownership and control of his country’s vast oil reserves. Mosaddegh was imprisoned and replaced by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the incumbent Shah (monarch). The Shah governed Iran for the next 26 years, overseeing Western-style reforms, modernisation and infrastructure projects. An economic recession in the mid-1970s eroded his popularity, however, and left millions of young people unemployed. Numerous groups began to protest for political change. Among them was a coalition of religious groups led by Ruhollah Khomeini, better known as the Ayatollah (‘sign of God’). The Shah fled Iran in January 1979 and Khomeini and his followers gained control, establishing a theocratic government. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been hostile to the US and Western values ever since.

Islamic fundamentalism also took root in Afghanistan after the Cold War. The central Asian nation was governed by Mohammad Najibullah but the collapse of the Soviet Union left him without military or economic support. Najibullah resigned in 1992 and various tribal warlords and mujahideen groups began fighting for control of the capital Kabul. A group of radical Muslims backed by Pakistan and calling themselves the Taliban (‘students’) captured Kabul in September 1996. The Taliban ruled the vast majority of Afghanistan for the next five years, imposing laws based on their own warped interpretation of Islam. They conducted massacres of Harazas, Kurds and other non-Sunni Muslim groups. Afghan women were also subjected to religious oppression: they were banned from education, fraternising with men and appearing in public without a male relative. The Taliban also proved cover and support for al-Qaeda, an Islamic terrorist organisation headed by former mujahideen Osama bin Laden. When al-Qaeda carried out the September 11th terrorist attacks on the United States, a US-backed coalition invaded Afghanistan, overthrowing the Taliban and scattering remaining al-Qaeda members.

The rise of China

In the People’s Republic of China, the years after the Cold War produced significant reform and rapid economic growth. The death of Mao Zedong in 1976 saw the emergence of Deng Xiaoping as leader. While Mao was a communist idealist, Deng was a pragmatist who understood the need for economic growth and progress. In late 1978 he unveiled a series of reforms that abolished agricultural collectives and wound back government control of industry and manufacturing. Later reforms also allowed and encouraged greater foreign investment and trade. Over time, Deng’s economic liberalisation produced rapid growth, wage increases, improved standards of living and the formation of a large middle class in China’s cities. These improvements have been accompanied by a range of problems, such as excessive urbanisation, wide disparities of wealth and growing corruption. Despite difficult periods, such as the Asian financial crisis of 1997, the Chinese economy has continued to surge. Since Deng’s 1978 reforms, China’s gross domestic product has increased at an average of almost 10 percent each year. Today it has the world’s second-largest economy, with a gross domestic product exceeding $US10 trillion. China is the world’s largest trading power and houses the world’s largest bank and several of the world’s largest companies.

Despite embracing many aspects of capitalism, the People’s Republic remains a one-party state dominated by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). While there has been some political reform and decentralisation, the CCP continues to exert rigid control over government, policy and appointments. State propaganda and censorship remain strong features of Chinese society; around two-thirds of Chinese have access to the internet but the government operates rigorous control systems, blocking foreign sites like Facebook and monitoring individual use. Human rights abuses in China are widespread, including persecution of minorities and dissidents, the use of torture and detention without trial, an excessive use of the death penalty, forced abortions, exploitation and underpayment of workers and impingements on freedom of speech and freedom of the press. China has the second-largest military in the world behind the US, with 2.2 million full-time personnel and an unknown number of reservists. It remains a nuclear power and in recent times has modernised and expanded its air force, naval and submarine assets. In the past decade, the Chinese military has occupied several contested islands in the South China Sea, as well as constructing seven artificial islands using sand and concrete. These activities are viewed with concern by the US, which believes the islands may serve as forward bases for military activities. Others see this expansion as China moving to protect and fortify its major shipping lanes.

North Korea and Cuba

While communism dwindled in the 1990s, several communist regimes survived into the 21st century. The most significant of these was North Korea. By the 1980s, North Korea had evolved into a fully-fledged Stalinist state, marked by rigid authoritarianism and a cult of personality around leader Kim Il-Sung. North Korea relied heavily on Soviet trade and financial aid so the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 had dire effects on its economy, triggering major shortages and widespread famine. Despite this, Kim and his advisors maintained a sizeable military and funded programs to develop nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems. This apparent breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty led to an international crisis in 1993. Kim Il-Sung died suddenly in July 1994, raising hopes of rapprochement with the West – but his successor, eldest son Kim Jong-il, continued to expand North Korea’s military and repeatedly provoke South Korea and the West. Today, North Korea is the only surviving Stalinist state, ruled by Kim Il-Sung’s grandson Kim Jong-un. It has conducted several nuclear tests since 2006 and is believed to have constructed at least a dozen nuclear warheads. North Korea has maintained a hostile position with regard to neighbouring South Korea, though Kim Jong-un’s visit to the South in April 2018 has raised hopes of improved relations in the future.

The events of late 1991 also created problems in Cuba which, like North Korea, was reliant on Soviet support. Cuba slipped into an economic depression after losing almost four-fifths of its trade, while the importation of oil, food and medicine slowed to a crawl. The island nation suffered critical shortages of petroleum, paralysing its transportation system. Famine was avoided, chiefly due to international humanitarian aid, but hunger and malnutrition were widespread. The Cuban economy began to recover slowly in the mid-1990s, aided by the government’s decision to allow foreign tourists onto the island. The US maintained its diplomatic freeze and trade embargo, hoping to force the overthrow of Fidel Castro and his regime. In 2008 Castro, by now in his 80s and in poor health, retired and handed the presidency to his brother. Under Raul Castro, relations between Cuba and the US began to thaw. Washington allowed limited exports to Cuba in 2012. The Cuban thaw was completed in 2015 with the restoration of diplomatic ties, the reopening of the US embassy in Havana and a visit to the island by US president Barack Obama.

1. After the Cold War, Russia signed treaties with several former Soviet republics, assuming control of all Soviet Union nuclear warheads. Today there are ten nuclear-capable states.

2. The end of the Cold War led to geopolitical changes in Europe, such as the division of Czechoslovakia and the dissolution of Yugoslavia, which led to a deadly civil war.

3. The Cold War also sparked changes in the Middle East, such as an Islamic revolution in Iran and the rise of Islamic radicals and terrorist groups in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

4. Since 1991, China has replaced the USSR as the world’s second-largest power. It is controlled by the Communist Party but has embraced elements of globalised capitalism.

5. Two socialist remnants of the Cold War are North Korea and Cuba. North Korea remains an authoritarian, Stalinist state isolated from the rest of the world. Since the death of Castro, Cuba has charted a more moderate course, restoring and improving relations with the nearby United States.

---

Content on this page is © Alpha History 2018-23. This content may not be republished or distributed without permission. For more information please refer to our Terms of Use.
This page was written by Jennifer Llewellyn and Steve Thompson. To reference this page, use the following citation:
J. Llewellyn & S. Thompson, “The post-Cold War world”, Alpha History, accessed [today’s date], https://alphahistory.com/coldwar/post-cold-war-world/.

On September 1st 1983 a civilian airliner, Korean Air Flight 007, disappeared over the Sea of Japan. The Boeing 747-230B was flying from New York City to Seoul, via a refuelling stop in Alaska. There were 269 people on board, the majority of them South Koreans and Americans. Investigations soon revealed that Flight 007 was shot down by a Russian missile, probably while flying in international airspace. It had crashed off the southern tip of Sakhalin Island, a Russian possession to the north of Japan. All passengers and crew were killed. The Korean Air disaster, as it became known, prompted horror and outrage around the world. It was strongly condemned by United States president Ronald Reagan, who described it as a “crime against humanity… violating every concept of human rights”. The shooting down of Flight 007 marked a low point in US-Soviet relations. According to some commentators, it brought the two countries closer to war than at any point since the Cuban missile crisis.

Flying was a dangerous activity during the Cold War, due to the political tensions of the era, coupled with air defence systems and heightened states of alert. This was particularly true when flying in or near border regions. Between 1950 and 1970 no less than 15 US military planes were shot down by Soviet forces, while three Soviet planes were shot down by the Americans. The vast majority of these incidents in the Asia-Pacific region: off Russia’s Asian coastline or around the islands of Japan. There were also attacks and near misses in Europe. In March 1953 a Czech-piloted Russian MiG jet shot down an American F-84 flying over German airspace. In September 1958 an American C-130 reconnaissance plane, carrying six crewmen and 11 intelligence agents, was shot down in Soviet territory by four MiGs; all six crew were confirmed dead but the fate of the intelligence agents was never revealed. In January 1964 three American crewmen died when their training plane was shot down by a Soviet MiG over East Germany.

Attacks on civilian planes were less common, though they occasionally happened. In July 1954 Chinese-piloted Soviet fighters shot down a Cathy Pacific DC-4 flying to Hong Kong, killing ten people. Bulgarian MiG pilots shot down an Israeli civilian flight in July 1955, after it mistakenly veered into Bulgarian airspace; 58 passengers and crew were killed. There were also several takedowns of civilian planes by revolutionary and proxy forces in the Middle East and Africa. Portentously, Soviet forces had previously shot down a Korean Air Lines flight, the incident occurring in April 1978. On this occasion, the plane, a Boeing 707 flying from Paris to Seoul over the North Pole, had mistakenly entered Soviet airspace and failed to respond to radio and visual warnings. The Korean plane was struck by a Soviet missile and disabled but not destroyed. It made a forced landing on a frozen lake. All but two of the 109 passengers and crew survived and were quickly rescued by Russian helicopters.

Korean Air Flight 007 took off from New York City late on August 30th 1983, headed for the South Korean capital Seoul via a refuelling stop in Anchorage, Alaska. The flight carried 246 passengers and 23 crew members. Most of the passengers were Korean (76), American (62) and Japanese (28). Among the passenger list was Larry McDonald, a Democratic member of the US House of Representatives, travelling to Seoul for the 30th anniversary of a Cold War defence treaty.  After refuelling in Anchorage Flight 007 took off and headed south-west towards its destination. With the Boeing’s autopilot engaged, the pilots believed they were following a legitimate flight path over international waters – however, a number of technical mishaps, coupled with pilot misjudgement, meant the plane was actually headed towards Siberia. Flight 007’s course took it over Kamchatka, a mountainous peninsula peppered with Soviet radar facilities and military bases. It crossed over Kamchatka and on towards Sakhalin Island, another Soviet territory.

“The United States and its NATO allies have never shot down even a Soviet or Russian intelligence aircraft because the threat posed by such intrusions does not justify so draconian a response. The Soviet destruction of KAL 007 makes sense militarily and politically only if the Soviets believed an attack on their territory was imminent.”
Peter Vincent Pry, author

Soviet commanders had spotted the Korean jet as it approached Kamchatka, classifying it as “unidentified”. They suspected the plane was an American intelligence gathering aircraft, which had been active in the region. The Soviets continued to track the 747 as it overflew Sakhalin, scrambling four fighters to intercept. Flight 007 failed to respond to radio calls and did not spot warning shots fired by the Soviet jets. When the Korean plane climbed to a higher altitude, purely by coincidence, the Soviet pilots interpreted it as an evasive measure. Receiving an order to bring the plane down, they fired two air-to-air missiles at the Boeing. The missile detonation did not destroy the plane immediately but caused significant damage, resulting in a loss of control in the cockpit. The plane remained in the air for several minutes, first screaming skyward, then began a series of slow downward spirals. It crashed into the ocean near Moneron Island, off the southern tip of Sakhalin. All 269 on Flight 007 died, most likely after several terrifying minutes.

What followed was equally as diabolical. The Soviets launched an immediate search and rescue operation in the area – yet Moscow denied shooting down the plane or knowing its whereabouts. It would be five days before the Soviets acknowledged their role in downing the Korean plane. American, South Korean and Japanese ships were dispatched to search the area for bodies, debris and evidence. Their search attempts were continually hampered by interference from Soviet warships. This included the intimidation of civilian vessels, removing or sabotaging equipment, cutting moorings, sending decoy signals, orchestrating near collisions and even initiating missile ‘lock-ons’ against US Navy ships. The joint American-Korean search team found comparatively little evidence – a surprise, given the considerable size of Flight 007. Very few bodies, body parts or pieces of luggage were found, either by the surface team or civilian divers. It appeared to searchers that the crash site had already been picked over by Soviet teams. The lack of bodies and luggage at the crash site gave rise to several conspiracy theories.

The shooting down of a civilian airliner by a military plane invoked a furious reaction, both in the US and from other Western leaders. On September 5th Ronald Reagan delivered a nationwide address and condemned the Soviets, both for the attack and their subsequent response. The US and its Cold War ally Japan released audio recordings of the Soviet pilots and officers on the ground. Transcripts of these discussions suggested that an attack order had been given by Soviet commanders on the ground, despite scant information on the plane and uncertainty from Soviet pilots. Soviet leaders maintained the official line, asserting that Flight 007 was being used by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to overfly and gather information from secret military bases. The Soviet Union faced swift recriminations, including a United Nations resolution condemning its actions (later vetoed by Moscow) and the cancellation of Russian airline Aeroflot’s licence to operate in the US.

The attack on Flight 007 soured US-Soviet relations for months, if not years. The Soviet Union was not the last Cold War superpower to mistakenly shoot down a civilian jet, however. In July 1988 an American naval cruiser, USS Vincennes, was on duty in the Persian Gulf when it fired two surface-to-air missiles at an incoming plane. According to the testimony of the Vincennes’ crew, the plane was believed to be an Iranian F-14A fighter flying with hostile intent. In reality, it was Iran Air Flight 655, an Airbus A300 travelling to Dubai with 290 civilian passengers and flight crew onboard. The Iranian plane was struck by an American missile and obliterated. All onboard were killed. Washington explained the attack as a valid response to a legitimate threat: an unidentified and uncontactable plane flying in a known war zone. There had been several attacks on US ships in the Persian Gulf in the previous 18 months. Like the Soviets in 1983, the US refused to issue a formal apology to Iran, though Washington later agreed to pay $US61.8 million to compensate the families of victims.

1. The Korean Air disaster refers to an incident in September 1983 when Soviet fighter jets shot down a Korean civilian plane, killing all 269 people on board.

2. Attacks on aircraft, both civilian and military, were not uncommon in the Cold War, due to elevated political tensions and the readiness by air defence systems.

3. Korean Air Flight 007 was shot down by MiG fighters after straying into Soviet airspace, north of Japan. Its incorrect flight path was caused by technical glitches and pilot error.

4. The Soviet response was evasive. Moscow at first denied any involvement in the crash or any awareness of its location. Later, Soviet ships interfered with the joint US-Japanese search effort.

5. The attack on Flight 007 heightened tensions between Moscow and Washington. President Ronald Reagan condemned it as a “crime against humanity” and authorised a range of recriminations against the Soviets.

Transcripts from Korean Air Flight 007
Ronald Reagan on the global response to Flight 007

---

Content on this page is © Alpha History 2018-23. This content may not be republished or distributed without permission. For more information please refer to our Terms of Use.
This page was written by Jennifer Llewellyn and Steve Thompson. To reference this page, use the following citation:
J. Llewellyn et al, “The Korean Air disaster”, Alpha History, accessed [today’s date], https://alphahistory.com/coldwar/korean-air-disaster/.