Introduction
The Cold War was one of the most significant events in the twentieth century. It is remembered for several vital events that happened during this time, including events such as the completion between USSR and the United States. At this period USSR was a communist country based on collectivism, whereas the USA was a modern nation based on individualism. Meaning that USSR was placed on the left part of the economic spectrum, whereas the USA was placed on the right side. The difference between the two states was based on ideology (Dunbabin, 2014). Their differences in ideology were the primary source of clash between the USSR and the USA, as the USSR strived to expand communism to other parts of the world, and the USA stopped it with the policy of containment. With regards to the mutual assure destruction concept, all the parties involved will be destroyed in case of a nuclear war emerges. With their differing ideologies, in case of a fired missile at the United States or Soviet Union, non-of the two would have intercepted. But since both were developed nations, they had detection systems which would detect when one side launches a missile against the other, the other side would immediately launch a missile back to the other side too. Therefore, the no first use of nuclear weapons principle and the nuclear restraint are risky as they would strike a war. Essentially, “the major theme of the Cold War was the ideological division between USSR and the USA.” Drawing from this quotation, this paper will evaluate the Cold War’s competing ideologies and also present an argument that either the realist or idealist values upheld peace at the course of the Cold War.
Evaluation of competing ideologies
“The main theme of the Cold War was the ideological division between the USSR and the USA.” This is because this was the event that stood out as the ideological conflict between USSR and the United States intensified. In other words, it meant a conflict between capitalism against communism. By an in-depth analysis of John F. Kennedy’s speech presented at the start of the 1960s as well as comparing them to Khrushchev’s speech, USSR leader, it is sure that there is a variance in the terms the utilized in describing USSR’s political and economic organization. The USSR were consider to be socialists, whereas the United States considered themselves as communists, whereby they did not take part in the free-market policy (Huntington, 2014). With regard to this, it can be concluded that the USA started a contention of communism policy, whereas the USSR seized their expansionist policy very considerately. This was the major issue that resulted in a strong opposition between both nations. A clear example of this division was in the Korean war whereby it was divided into two; North Korea which remain as a People’s Republic and South Korea which became a pro-American doctrine.
It is clear that their national interest was interfering with each path, and proceeding forward; one side had to get out of the way or be forced. It can be said that this conflict for power in the Cold War, USA strived to maintain power while USSR strived to acquire it. In essence, the ideological might turned out to be vital for the two countries after 1947, at the time when President Harry Truman requested the Congress to fund the conquest against Turkey and Greece besieged economies trying to minimize the USSR influence (Belmonte, 2013). For instance, the Truman Doctrine was the first containment policy supported by the United States and intervened in capitalist states.
Idealist and realist values
In the course of the Cold War, both the realist interests and idealist values play a big role in maintaining peace. Essentially, realists did not recognize any candid alternate to existence in an anarchical nation but admitted the modernized state system as a necessary thing. This acceptance contributed a lot to promoting peace during the Cold War period. Despite this acceptance, the realists would still defend the interest of their country by strictly adhering to the diplomacy and war rules as stipulated by the 17th and 18th-century writers (Belmonte, 2013). However, the conduct rules were not established to avert conflict or war, but it intended to mitigate their effect and to ensure that states survive. According to realists, the war was not an irregularity, but they consider it a certain condition, which needs preparation when there is a possibility to subdue the consequences. Previously, the wars they were conversant with were generally the only way for altering the unwanted political conditions. For instance, after the tension has prevailed caused by the ideological differences, following the idealist ideas, a red phone was established which created a direct line between White House and Kremlin so that it would be easy resolving future issues early before getting out of control (Dunbabin, 2014). Peace prevailed as realists admitted power politics to be a natural occurrence of the international way of life, along with the affiliated dependence on armies, alliances as well as secret diplomacy.
Peace also transpired among the realists through proclaiming the supremacy of the nation over individual welfares. Therefore, they perceived the universal values leading human rights to be conditional whenever they threaten the nation’s wellbeing. The realists are observant of the vital truth that countries exist successfully in the world’s anarchy (Ross, 2016). Evidence that should that realism promoted peace through the preference of peace over war and also the progressive material development within human affairs.
Idealists, too, promoted peace as they perceived the international system as an appurtenance of conflict. According to them, international conflict was a needless and unnecessary type of human organization. Idealists considered the power of politics as an opportunity to promote peace (Belmonte, 2013). For example the United States still uses idealism to promote progress and cooperation. While realist doctrine stressed on national interests as well as security, idealist focused on issues related to individual welfare as well as the overall humanity interests. Moreover, idealists supposed that the validity of objection, the power of universal laws, principles, and values should apply to international and domestic affairs.
However, realists and idealists differ basically on the main determining factor of state behavior within international politics. According to realists, external factors are defining the possible choices for policy-makers to promote peace. These options were not clear and tended to be elusive and required preparedness and caution. This was demonstrated by Dean Acheson, the Secretary of State when he said that the future remains to be unpredictable, and there is only one unexpected thing (Gorman & O’LEARY, 2016). Moreover, the German historian Leopold Von Ranke established this view in line with the American realists that it is wise to be prepared for what is likely to happen, instead of basing our course on faith in what needs to happen. The realists preferred preventing wars or conflict early than waiting for it to happen. They preferred peace over conflicts. The realists emphasize that the dangers of international life form the primacy of foreign affairs as well as the superiority of security interests due to domestic worries. Advocacy for peace can be viewed from the conscious historical changes as they were more concerned with the behavior of nations (Ross, 2016). Emphasis was made that policies can vary within regimes, but vital interests once set, they remain constant.
Conclusion
To sum it all, the conflicting ideologies between USSR and the USA were a significant theme during the Cold War period. USSR sided as communists while the USA sided as capitalists. It is clear that their national interest was interfering with each path, and proceeding forward; one side had to get out of the way or be forced. During the Cold War period, peace prevailed due to the realist interests and the idealist values. The realist and idealist values both promoted peace, which later resulted in peace prevailing during the Cold War period.