History questions not worth their own thread II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why did detente (Cold War) happen?

There were several factors in both the Soviet Union and United States that contributed.

1. Khrushchev was an unpredictable leader. He was more open and willing to work with the West than Stalin, but at other times was a hard line old school communist (the invasion of Hungary, Cuban Missile Crisis, etc). Though Khrushchev was more willing to work with the West than Brezhnev, at least the latter brought a certain amount of stability to the table. The West knew what to expect from him.

2. By extension of above, the simple stasis that the Soviet Union had reached under Brezhnev. Life wasn't great, but it was tolerable. Basically everyone living in a major urban area in the USSR had access to food (much of it imported from the USA), a kitchen, indoor plumbing and any of the other necessities required for bare mediocre life by the time of detente. At this same time, information and travel were restricted making everything relatively stable. Brezhnev realized this and knew the country's problems with balancing the budget and maintaining an equal technology level with the West and thus chose to simply keep with the status quo rather than potentially rock the boat.

3. The rise of Communist China as a competitor rather than an ally to the Soviet Union put the Soviets on the defensive as the leaders of World Communism. The USSR became more worried about maintaining influence in their own backyard rather than far abroad where they were more likely to butt heads with the U.S.

4. The United States was somewhat reeling from the Vietnam War and no President was willing to escalate any major conflicts.

5. Civil Rights, Social Welfare and Environmental causes became more important to the U.S. in this period. This not only meant that the U.S. was more focused on domestic issues, but that the Soviets lost a lot of their argument about the capitalist West being so abusive to their population and not caring about their own societal welfare. I don't know if you are familiar with the old Soviet Tu quoque argument they often used "And you are lynching Negroes!", well once these kind of blatant disregards for human and civil rights became much less commonplace, a lot of the Soviet argument in this area was gone. Of course the Soviets would continue to lie to their population about what was going on in the West, but information did inevitably leak into the Soviet Union and damage was done to the image of the West as being so evil.

6. Economic decline in the United States. Detente happened basically the same time as oil prices were rising and as Japanese auto manufacturers were becoming true competitors in the U.S. market. This meant not only that everyone was more focused on domestic issues, but the U.S. share of global trade declined as a whole.

7. Arms control treaties. The Cuban Missile Crisis wasn't good for either side. Both the Soviet Union and United States saw the real risk of nuclear war. This combined with the fact the Soviet Union was pretty much poor, the United States was more focused inward and the rise of new (and unpredictable) nuclear powers such as China and India meant that both sides now had incentives to control arms. First amongst these was the NPT (Nuclear Proliferation Treaty) which also led to the SALT talks. New technologies such as ABMS (Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems) were scary to both sides as they encouraged a first strike and lead to the ABM Treaty.
 
who was the mental giant that drew the international dateline.

I don't of an individual (or if there was even a single person) but it was basically formally decided and adopted by the UK, France, USA and a few other nations after the Anglo-French Naval Conference of 1917.
 
There were several factors in both the Soviet Union and United States that contributed.



4. The United States was somewhat reeling from the Vietnam War and no President was willing able to escalate any major conflicts.

[1-3] Agree.

[4] Fixed - Even before Congress point blank refused to fund any more aid to Vietnam
in 1974, the political climate was such that the only place US aid to a conflict would
be tolerated was Israel (1973).

If you were'nt living in the US (and at least a teenager) at the time it's difficult to
appreciate the impact that the combination of Vietnam and Watergate had on the US.

Henry Kissinger said that the Soviet attitude towards us changed significantly after
mid 1973, when the major Watergate revelations started coming to light, and the
Nixon Administration started working on little more that its own survival.

The foreign policy paralysis created by those two events IMO led to the undermining
of detente, because the Soviets believed (correctly until 1980) that we were unable/
unwilling to to play the power politics game seriously.

5. Economic decline in the United States. Detente happened basically the same time as oil prices were rising and as Japanese auto manufacturers were becoming true competitors in the U.S. market. This meant not only that everyone was more focused on domestic issues, but the U.S. share of global trade declined as a whole.

I'm not sure how far this played into things. The serious economic problems didn't
occur until 1979.



6. Arms control treaties. The Cuban Missile Crisis wasn't good for either side. Both the Soviet Union and United States saw the real risk of nuclear war. This combined with the fact the Soviet Union was pretty much poor, the United States was more focused inward and the rise of new (and unpredictable) nuclear powers such as China and India meant that both sides now had incentives to control arms. First amongst these was the NPT (Nuclear Proliferation Treaty) which also led to the SALT talks. New technologies such as ABMS (Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems) were scary to both sides as they encouraged a first strike and lead to the ABM Treaty.

I look on the treaties as part of detente, not a cause of it. I do agree that the Cuban
Missile Crisis was a factor, though.

I also think that Nixon's rapprochement with China in 1971 was a significant
factor in detente, because of Soviet fear of the US and China deciding to work jointly
against them (known as 'playing the China card' at the time).
 
[1-3] Agree.

[4] Fixed - Even before Congress point blank refused to fund any more aid to Vietnam
in 1974, the political climate was such that the only place US aid to a conflict would
be tolerated was Israel (1973).

If you were'nt living in the US (and at least a teenager) at the time it's difficult to
appreciate the impact that the combination of Vietnam and Watergate had on the US.

of detente, because the Soviets believed (correctly until 1980) that we were unable/unwilling to to play the power politics game seriously.

I'm not sure how far this played into things. The serious economic problems didn't
occur until 1979.

I look on the treaties as part of detente, not a cause of it. I do agree that the Cuban
Missile Crisis was a factor, though.


I actually agree with you on Vietnam. I was simply being broad because this is just a general question thread and I didn't feel like getting into the politics or debate on the domestic results of the Vietnam War and thought a general understanding was fine.

On the economic problems, I suppose "economic decline" wasn't exactly the right set of words. I simply meant that a decline in U.S. percentage of global trade and and growing interdependence made less seeds for conflict. Oil prices weren't at the ridiculous levels they were in the late 70s early 80s, but it was still rising. Soviet Oil was exported to the West and made the global price cheaper in general. The decline of oil prices in the 1980s and Reagan's use of this as leverage against the Soviet Union was a significant factor in the end of Detente.

Yeah, the Arms Control Treaties were more part of Detente rather than a cause, but I thought explaining the reasoning behind them was important.
 
In the Star Spangled Banner, there's a line that reads "And the rockets' red glare".
And yet the poem was made in 1814 (getting dates from Wikipedia), 125 years before the rocket as a V-1 was invented? Even in 1936, when it became the national anthem, the modern rocket still wasn't invented. Wasn't the cannon the only artillery available even in the Civil War, and this was 75 years before that war? And, even if the word is mistaken for "cannonball", it's that cannonballs do not have a red glare, and can you even see the iron balls except when it's coming straight for you?
 
Rockets existed for hundreds of years (by the 13th century military rockets were in use) in the East. The ones referred to were Congrieve Rockets. Adpted by the British very early in the 19th century, based on Indian designs (from the Mysore wars, I believe).

As for the V-1, it wasn't a rocket. It was powered by a pulse jet, and its significance was its size and guidance system.
 
In the Star Spangled Banner, there's a line that reads "And the rockets' red glare".
And yet the poem was made in 1814 (getting dates from Wikipedia), 125 years before the rocket as a V-1 was invented? Even in 1936, when it became the national anthem, the modern rocket still wasn't invented. Wasn't the cannon the only artillery available even in the Civil War, and this was 75 years before that war? And, even if the word is mistaken for "cannonball", it's that cannonballs do not have a red glare, and can you even see the iron balls except when it's coming straight for you?

Wiki on the congreve rocket.

Spoiler wiki :
War of 1812
During their confrontation with the US during the War of 1812, the British used rockets at the Battle of Bladensburg, which led to the burning and surrender of Washington, D.C..
It was the use of Congreve rockets by the British in the bombardment of Fort McHenry in the U.S. in 1814 that inspired the fifth line of the first verse of the United States National Anthem, The Star-Spangled Banner: "And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air".


EDIT -

Found at last! Rambuchan's article from a while back "A Brief History of Rocketry to 1800"
 
who was the mental giant that drew the international dateline.

I don't of an individual (or if there was even a single person) but it was basically formally decided and adopted by the UK, France, USA and a few other nations after the Anglo-French Naval Conference of 1917.

There's more to it than just "180 degrees from the Prime Meridian"?
 
Could be worse. All of China is in one time zone because China decided they wanted to be one time zone.
 
Why, if it's not convenient? It's arbitrary to have the prime meridian in one place rather than another to start with; there's no reason why this arbitrary division has to dictate everything else.

It's equally artificial to put the clocks forward an hour in summer, but if it's more convenient for people, why not?

(I should add that I hate putting the clocks forward in summer, but I am in a minority on that.)
 
It zigs and zags around whole island chains, kind of like how American time zones dodge counties and states sometimes.

Personally, I think the idea of such strange time zone lines is stupid, it should be the meridians and nothing else that defines them.

Imagine if it passes through a street - it's 7pm on one side of the road, 8pm on the other. :lol:

The International Date Line was modified recently at the request of Kiribati. Before that they had an issue where the eastern part of the country was a day behind the western part of the country.
 
[Eran] Most people seem to like it. Remember that Britain is further north than most of the US and therefore there is considerably more difference in light levels between winter and summer, which means that changing the clocks is more helpful (to people who like light, anyway). Every year when the clocks go back again there are always calls to make BST permanent and never go back to GMT, although this was tried in the 1970s and didn't turn out very successful.
 
Here, I think most people don't think enough about it to care.

It zigs and zags around whole island chains, kind of like how American time zones dodge counties and states sometimes.
All time zones do that. And that is what the International Date Line is, a border between time zones.
 
I despise daylight savings time with a passion I usually reserve for my girlfriend's taste in movies. It is an evil device designed to eliminate the meal of dinner.
 
A question I have pondered for some time:

In the American Civil War, there was significant fighting on the Mississippi and other rivers - a large number of warship were designed specifically for fighting on the river, etc. I know that they are strategically valuable in any war, but were there any other conflicts in which fighting on the river played such a major role?
 
Now that's an opinion I can endorse whole-heartedly.

But why do Americans call it "daylight savings time"? It doesn't save daylight.


It brings the hours of daylight more in line with the hours of other scheduled parts of the day. Rather than rescheduling activities by other methods.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom