cold war essay history

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

The Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union lasted for decades and resulted in anti-communist suspicions and international incidents that led two superpowers to the brink of nuclear disaster.

Cold War History

The Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union lasted for decades and resulted in anti-communist suspicions and international incidents that led the two superpowers to the brink of nuclear disaster.

Joseph McCarthy

The Cold War In the years after World War II ended, events at home and abroad seemed to many Americans to prove that the “Red menace” was real. In August 1949, for instance, the Soviet Union exploded its first atomic bomb. Later that year, Communist forces declared victory in the Chinese Civil War and established […]

The Red Scare was hysteria over the perceived threat posed by Communists in the U.S. during the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States, which intensified in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

Palmer Raids

Red Scare Following the Russian Revolution in 1917, America was on high alert, fearing Communist revolutionaries on their own shores. The Sedition Act of 1918, which was an expansion of the 1917 Espionage Act, was a direct result of the paranoia. Targeting those who criticized the government, the Sedition Act set into motion an effort […]

Here’s Why the Suez Crisis Almost Led to Nuclear War

Discover the history of the Suez Canal and how Egypt’s President Nasser, with the support of the Soviet Union, seized the canal from the British in 1956, causing an international crisis. See how President Eisenhower intervened to help restore order.

Formation of NATO

Tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union resulted in the formation of key alliances that would endure throughout the Cold War.

Fidel Castro

During Fidel Castro’s tenure as President of Cuba, he survived an estimated 638 attempts on his life – and that’s just from the CIA.

HUAC: A Cold War Witch Hunt

Take a crash course on the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), a group that investigated the ‘loyalty’ of those suspected of having Communist ties after World War II.

Who Were the Hollywood 10?

Hollywood blacklisted these screenwriters, producers and directors for refusing to testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee.

Why Eisenhower Added ‘Under God’ to the Pledge of Allegiance During the Cold War

The pledge, as recited by U.S. schoolchildren, wasn’t standardized until World War II, and didn’t contain “under God” until 1954.

Photos: 7 Decades of the Soviet Union

The Soviet Union, founded in 1922 on Marxist-socialist principles, became one of the biggest and most powerful nations in the world—before its fall and dissolution in 1991.

Key Moments in the Cuban Missile Crisis

These are the steps that brought the United States and Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war in 1962.

This Day in History

One million people demonstrate in New York City against nuclear weapons

Full u.s.-cuba embargo is announced.

Fidel Castro announces that Cubans are free to leave the island

Soviet dancer mikhail baryshnikov defects from ussr.

This Day in History Video: What Happened on August 31

This Day in History Video: What Happened on October 20

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

World History Project AP®

Course: world history project ap®   >   unit 8, read: cold war - an overview.

• READ: The Cold War Around the World
• READ: Chinese Communist Revolution
• BEFORE YOU WATCH: Chinese Communist Revolution
• WATCH: Chinese Communist Revolution
• BEFORE YOU WATCH: Decolonization and the Cold War - Through a Caribbean Lens
• WATCH: Decolonization and the Cold War - Through a Caribbean Lens
• BEFORE YOU WATCH: Decolonization and the Cold War - Through an Asian Lens
• WATCH: Decolonization and the Cold War through an Asian Lens
• READ: End of Old Regimes

First read: preview and skimming for gist

Second read: key ideas and understanding content.

• According to the author, what was the basic difference at the heart of the Cold War conflict?
• What does this author identify as the three main features of the Cold War?
• Why did Stalin want to expand Soviet influence in Eastern Europe?
• What was the policy of containment and what does the author use as an example of this policy?

Third read: evaluating and corroborating

• To what extent does this article explain the causes and effects of the ideological struggle of the Cold War?
• The Cold War was a conflict that divided nations across the world. Which of the AP themes do you think best describes why the Cold War happened?

Cold War: An Overview

What was the cold war, a divided europe, the cold war heats up around the world, the end of the cold war, want to join the conversation.

• HISTORY & CULTURE

What was the Cold War—and are we headed to another one?

The 45-year standoff between the West and the U.S.S.R. ended when the Soviet Union dissolved. Some say another could be starting as tensions with Russia rise.

As World War II dragged to an end in 1945, the leaders of the “Big Three” allied powers—the United States, Soviet Union, and Great Britain—met in Potsdam, Germany, to hash out   terms to conclude the bloodiest conflict the world had ever seen. The great powers split Germany into occupation zones, recognized a Soviet-backed government in Poland, and partitioned Vietnam, monumental decisions that shaped the postwar global order. The talks were meant to forge a lasting peace, but within 18 months, a Cold War began that lasted more than four decades.

One of the most important moments at Potsdam was not captured in a memo or proclaimed at a press conference. Late in the conference, U.S. President Harry Truman took aside Soviet premier Joseph Stalin to share some explosive news: The U.S. had just successfully tested a weapon of “unusual destructive force.” It was a nuclear weapon capable of destroying entire cities, the most dangerous and powerful armament the world had ever seen.

( Subscriber exclusive: For Hiroshima's survivors, memories of the bomb are impossible to forget .)

Within weeks, the U.S. used the atomic bomb to force Japan’s surrender. With a devastating and proven weapon in its armory, the U.S. suddenly had the upper hand among the powers who were allies in the war. What followed was a dangerous struggle for supremacy between two superpowers, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., that lasted until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Though the two nations were technically at peace, the period was characterized by an aggressive and costly arms race; bloody proxy wars fought across Latin America, Africa, and Asia; and competing bids for world dominance between U.S.-led capitalist governments and the Soviet-led communist bloc.

The Cold War lasted nearly half a century. Here’s a look at why it began, how it escalated, its legacy today—and why some analysts think another Cold War is already underway.

Why’s it called the Cold War?

The term “cold war” had existed since the 1930s, when guerre froide was used in France to describe increasingly fraught relationships between European countries. In 1945, shortly after the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, British writer George Orwell used the term in an essay that explored what the atom bomb meant for international relations.

The atom bombs killed more than 100,000 Japanese citizens, unveiling a destructive power so terrifying that Orwell predicted it would discourage open warfare among great powers, creating instead “a state which was at once unconquerable and in a permanent state of ‘cold war’ with its neighbours.”

Orwell’s prediction of a “peace that is no peace” came true as seeds of distrust between the former allies grew.

Okay, so how did the Cold War begin?

The U.S.S.R. had borne the highest number of military and civilian casualties in the war— an estimated 24 million —while liberating huge swaths of Eastern Europe from Nazi control. Soviet leader Josef Stalin was dissatisfied with the postwar division of Europe, which he felt didn’t fairly reflect his nation’s contribution.

In the U.S., diplomat George Kennan outlined the Soviet Union’s growing distrust in the 1946 “Long Telegram,” as it is now known. Kennan warned that the U.S.S.R. was illogical and insecure and would not cooperate with the West in the long-term. In response, Washington began to pursue a policy of “containment” to prevent the spread of Soviet ideology and influence.

The U.S. soon got an opportunity to flex its new policy. In 1947, Britain announced it would withdraw aid from Greece and Turkey, which were both battling communist uprisings. President Harry Truman seized the occasion to ask Congress for funds to assist both countries, establishing what became known as the Truman Doctrine —the principle that the U.S. should support countries or people threatened by Soviet forces or communist insurrection. Stalin saw the move as the opening shot of a shadow war.

The term “Cold War” became a shorthand to describe the ideological struggle between capitalism in the West and communism in the East.   American journalist Walter Lippmann popularized the term in a series of articles in 1947 as nations chose sides in the standoff.

Why was NATO created?

The U.S. wasn’t alone in worrying about Stalin’s push to extend Soviet influence westward and bring other states under communist rule. In 1948, the U.S.S.R. backed a communist coup in Czechoslovakia and launched a blockade of west Berlin, which had been divided into occupation zones controlled by communists in the east and capitalists in the west.

To demonstrate a united front, the U.S. and its allies formed a transatlantic mutual defense alliance known as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO. On April 4, 1949, the U.S., Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and the U.K. signed a treaty agreeing that “an armed attack against one or more…shall be considered an attack against them all.”  

The U.S.S.R. responded by creating a defensive alliance of its own. Signed in 1955, the Warsaw Pact included the Soviet Union and seven satellite states, including Poland and East Germany, reinforcing the ideological and military barrier between Eastern and Western Europe that Winston Churchill had dubbed the “ Iron Curtain ” in a 1946 speech.

How close did the world come to nuclear war?

As the two sides faced off across that Iron Curtain, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. engaged in an arms race, pouring trillions of dollars into accumulating nuclear arsenals .

The U.S. had an advantage at the start of the arms race. But once the U.S.S.R. built its own nuclear arsenal, the two sides were at a standoff over “mutually assured destruction” —the idea that if either side attacked, the other would retaliate, unleashing apocalyptic consequences for both parties.

You May Also Like

A military spouse reflects on life over two decades of war—and what comes next

What the end of the war in Afghanistan means to one mother and her family

‘A ball of blinding light’: Atomic bomb survivors share their stories

( See the abandoned Soviet bunkers hidden beneath Georgia's capital city .)

Both countries had missile defenses pointed at one another, and in 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis brought the countries closer to the brink than any other event in the Cold War. The U.S. detected Soviet missile bases and arms in communist Cuba, just 90 miles south of Florida. Demanding they be removed, President John F. Kennedy declared that a strike on U.S. territory would trigger an immediate nuclear strike on the U.S.S.R.

The threat of imminent nuclear war hung over nearly two weeks of tense negotiations. Finally, the U.S.S.R. agreed to dismantle its weapons facilities if the U.S. pledged not to invade Cuba. Behind the scenes, the U.S. agreed to remove nuclear weapons from Turkey; that agreement did not become public until 1987.  

Nevertheless, both sides’ nuclear arsenals continued to grow exponentially. By the late 1980s, the United States had an estimated 23,000 nuclear weapons to the Soviet Union’s 39,000.

How else was the Cold War fought?

Over more than four decades of Cold War, the U.S. and Soviet Union waged multiple proxy wars across the globe. In the Korean War , the Vietnam War , and other armed conflicts, the superpowers funded opposing sides or fought directly against communist or capitalist militias. Both sides funded revolutions, insurgencies, and political assassinations in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

The U.S. and Soviet Union also jockeyed to prove technological dominance in a 20-year Space Race . The Soviet Union scored first with the 1957 launch of Sputnik-1, the first artificial satellite, while the U.S. was first to send a man to the moon in 1969. Only in the mid 1970s did the two nations begin to cooperate on joint missions.

( 50 years after Apollo 11, a new moon race is on .)

How did the Cold War end?

By the mid 1980s, life behind the Iron Curtain had changed. Democratic uprisings were percolating in Soviet bloc nations, and the U.S.S.R. itself struggled with economic and political chaos. The U.S. and U.S.S.R. forged a more open relationship, even brokering a nuclear treaty in 1987 that eliminated a class of particularly dangerous ground-launched missiles from the nations’ arsenals.

By 1991, the Soviet Union had lost most of its bloc to democratic revolutions, and the Warsaw Pact was formally dissolved. Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the U.S.S.R., opened his country to the West and instituted economic reforms that undercut institutions that relied on nationalized goods. In December 1991, the U.S.S.R. was dissolved into separate nations.

What does all this mean now?

The U.S.S.R. is gone, and nuclear arsenals have dramatically decreased thanks to nonproliferation treaties between Washington and Moscow in the 1980s and 1990s. In recent decades, the U.S. and Russia have cooperated on a number of global issues, including Afghanistan and the war on terror.

But the Cold War still affects modern geopolitics. Both nations still have divergent geopolitical interests, large defense budgets, and international military bases. NATO still wields political power and has grown to include 30 member states. The alliance now stretches to Russia’s borders and includes former Soviet states and Warsaw Pact members, such as Poland and the Baltic States. Since the 1990s, Russia has seen the eastward expansion of NATO as a threat to its security .

Tensions between Russia and the West reached a new high point following the February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which had applied to take the first steps toward NATO membership in 2008, before a new president shelved the plan two years later. Some commentators have likened the current crisis to the beginnings of a new Cold War.

( Follow Ukraine's 30-year struggle for independence with this visual timeline .)

Is a 21st-century Cold War already being waged? It remains to be seen. Though historians say the decisions at Potsdam set the stage for a long post-World War II rivalry, we may not recognize the beginnings of a new Cold War until it’s visible in history’s rear-view mirror.

Related Topics

• VIETNAM WAR
• NUCLEAR WEAPONS

This pill could protect us from radiation after a nuclear meltdown

Oppenheimer: The secrets he protected and the suspicions that followed him

The true history of Einstein's role in developing the atomic bomb

How Chien-Shiung Wu changed the laws of physics

These modern soldiers put Bronze Age armor to the test–how did it hold up?

• Paid Content
• Environment
• Photography
• Perpetual Planet

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• History Magazine
• Mind, Body, Wonder
• World Heritage
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

PODCAST: HISTORY UNPLUGGED J. Edgar Hoover’s 50-Year Career of Blackmail, Entrapment, and Taking Down Communist Spies

The Encyclopedia: One Book’s Quest to Hold the Sum of All Knowledge PODCAST: HISTORY UNPLUGGED

The Cold War Timeline

This post is a comprehensive timeline of the Cold War, from the origins of the Russian-American conflict following World War Two to the final dissolution of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall at the end of the 20th century.

Scroll down to learn more. Alternatively, watch this nine-minute explainer video for an overview of the Cold War.

This article is part of our larger collection of resources on the Cold War. For a comprehensive outline of the origins, key events, and conclusion of the Cold War, click here. 

This article is also part of our larger selection of posts about the Vietnam War. To learn more, click here for our comprehensive guide to the Vietnam War .

This article is part of our larger selection of posts about the Cold War. To learn more,  click here for our comprehensive guide to the Cold War .

Additional Resources About Cold War

What was the iron curtain and how did it collapse, the origins of the cold war timeline, cold war detente — us/soviet enmity cools, when did china become communist, cite this article.

• How Much Can One Individual Alter History? More and Less...
• Why Did Hitler Hate Jews? We Have Some Answers
• Reasons Against Dropping the Atomic Bomb
• Is Russia Communist Today? Find Out Here!
• Phonetic Alphabet: How Soldiers Communicated
• How Many Americans Died in WW2? Here Is A Breakdown

• Society and Politics
• Art and Culture
• Biographies
• Publications

Grade 12 - The Cold War

How did the Cold War period shape international relations after the Second World War?

After the Second World War, there was a struggle between two world powers, the US and Russia. Why was it called the ‘Cold War’ ? The reason lay in the threat of new and even deadlier weapons of nuclear technology that prevented outright open warfare. The Cold War was characterised by conflict through proxy wars, the manipulation of more vulnerable states through extensive military and financial aid, espionage, propaganda, rivalry over technology, space and nuclear races, and sport. Besides periods of tense crisis in this bi-polar world, the Cold War deeply affected the newly independent countries in Africa and the liberation struggles in southern Africa from the 1960s until the 1990s, when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)  was dismantled.

Did you know?  The term “Cold War” was first used by George Orwell, author of the book satirizing Stalinism, “Animal Farm”.

The detente (friendship) that existed between the Allied powers (The US, France and Russia) after 1945 was no more. That military aid would be offered to each other when faced with Nazism fell away, and increased hostility was the order of the day. Some historians argue that it was the formulation and implementation of common policy documents by the USSR for its East European territories that heralded the beginning of different spheres of influence.  Quickly, two distinct blocs emerged.

Also see: National Senior Certificate Grd 12, History Paper 1, November 2014 and National Senior Certificate Grd 12, History Paper 2, November 2014 .

Most learners will understand that a ‘war’ involves conflict between warring parties; that a ‘war’ involves the use of weaponry amongst ‘warring parties’ BUT what is meant by a ‘COLD’ war as opposed to a ‘HOT’ one? Common reference to any war usually involves the type of war that involves weaponry, personnel, devastation, explosions, and most of the images of war. A “COLD” war would refer to a battle of ideologies where the protagonists do not face each other, or fight, each other DIRECTLY.

The Cold War was characteristics by different ideologies being imposed or sold to other countries.

It dissected the world into spheres of influence, with the United States of America (USA) as a champion of democracy (and incidentally, Capitalism, as well) pitted against the USSR (Russia), which stood as a beacon of Communism. These divisions played themselves out in the exporting of influence...and then arms and money....to countries sympathetic to either cause.

The Cold War, which occurred from 1945 until 1989/1990 had far-reaching consequences for the world in general. Much of the literature during this period focussed on the bi-polar nature of the globe. Nation-states across the world, whatever explicit or not, empathised with either Russia or the USA. These countries became the battlefields for the competing influences of Democracy/Capitalism against Communism/Centrally-planned economies.

So, learners might ask as to why this Cold War did not escalate into a ‘Hot’ war, where conventional means of warfare were employed. The reason lies in the proliferation (increase) of nuclear weapons so that if these weapons were ever used, the destruction that would follow would result in a global destruction. So, this Cold War was fought behind the threat of a nuclear war.  The Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) was probably the closest that the world got to a full-blown conventional war.

The Cold War was a period of increased hostility between two blocs of power, the USA and its allies on the one hand; and the USSR and China, on the other. From the end of the Cold War until the early 1990s, world politics and events were primarily viewed through this lens the battle to exert control and influence globally. The Cold War spread outside Europe to every region of the world, and drew to a close by end of the late 1980s / early 1990s. Towards the end of the 1980s, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev held conferences with USA President Ronald Reagan. The USSR introduced reform policies aimed at restructuring (perestroika) and opening the Russian economy (glasnost).

In December 1989, after more than four decades, Russian President Gorbachev and American President G. H.W Bush declared the Cold War officially over.

Timeline (Source:  “ Timeline of events in the Cold War ” [ Accesssed: 23 January 2015])

• 1945:  Cold War begins
• 1946:  Winston Churchill delivers his ‘ Iron Curtain’ speech
• 1947:  Marshall Plan is announced
• 1948 :  February, Communists take over Czechoslovakia
• 1948 :  June, The ‘Berlin Blockade’ begins
• 1949 :  July, NATO is ratified
• 1950 :  February, McCarthy begins communist witchunt
• 1954 :  KGB established.  CIA assists in overthrowing ‘unfriendly’ regimes in Iran and Guatemala
• 1961 :  Bay of Pigs invasion.  Construction of Berlin Wall begins.  US involvement in Vietnam increases ( troops were dispatched in 1965)
• 1962 :  Cuban Missile Crisis
• 1965 :  150000 troops dispatched to Vietnam
• 1970 :  US President Nixon extends the war to Cambodia.
• 1973 :  Ceasefire between the US and Vietnam.
• 1975 :  North Vietnam defeats South Vietnam.
• 1979 :  USSR invades Afghanistan
• 1983 :  Ronald Reagan proposes Star Wars
• 1989 :  Soviet troops withdraw from Afghanistan.  Communist governments collapse in Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Romania.  The Soviet Empire ( USSR ) ends.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/what%20was%20the%20cold%20war.htm

http://www.amazon.com/The-Cold-War-New-History/dp/0143038273

USSR and USA and the creation of spheres of interest :

- installation of Soviet-friendly governments in satellite states;

- USA’s policy of containment: Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan;

- Berlin Crises from 1949 to 1961 (broad understanding of the crises); and

- opposing military alliances: NATO and Warsaw Pact (broadly)

Containment and brinkmanship: the Cuban crisis (as an example of containment and brinkmanship)

Collections in the Archives

Know something about this topic.

Towards a people's history

The Cold War (1945-1989) essay

The Cold War is considered to be a significant event in Modern World History. The Cold War dominated a rather long time period: between 1945, or the end of the World War II, and 1990, the collapse of the USSR. This period involved the relationships between two superpowers: the United States and the USSR. The Cold War began in Eastern Europe and Germany, according to the researchers of the Institute of Contemporary British History (Warner 15).  Researchers state that “the USSR and the United States of America held the trump cards, nuclear bombs and missiles” (Daniel 489). In other words, during the Cold War, two nations took the fate of the world under their control. The progression of the Cold War influenced the development of society, which became aware of the threat of nuclear war. After the World War II, the world experienced technological progress, which provided “the Space Race, computer development, superhighway construction, jet airliner development, the creation of international phone system, the advent of television, enormous progress in medicine, and the creation of mass consumerism, and many other achievements” (Daniel 489). Although the larger part of the world lived in poverty and lacked technological progress, the United States and other countries of Western world succeeded in economic development. The Cold War, which began in 1945, reflected the increased role of technological progress in the establishment of economic relationships between two superpowers.   The Cold War involved internal and external conflicts between two superpowers, the United States and the USSR, leading to eventual breakdown of the USSR.

• The Cold War: background information

The Cold War consisted of several confrontations between the United States and the USSR, supported by their allies. According to researchers, the Cold War was marked by a number of events, including “the escalating arms race, a competition to conquer space, a dangerously belligerent for of diplomacy known as brinkmanship, and a series of small wars, sometimes called “police actions” by the United States and sometimes excused as defense measures by the Soviets” (Gottfried 9). The Cold War had different influences on the United States and the USSR. For the USSR, the Cold War provided massive opportunities for the spread of communism across the world, Moscow’s control over the development of other nations and the increased role of the Soviet Communist party.

In fact, the Cold War could split the wartime alliance formed to oppose the plans of Nazi Germany, leaving the USSR and the United States as two superpowers with considerable economic and political differences. The USSR was based on a single-party Marxist–Leninist system, while the United States was a capitalist state with democratic governance based on free elections.

The key figure in the Cold War was the Soviet leader Gorbachev, who was elected in 1985. He managed to change the direction of the USSR, making the economies of communist ruled states independent. The major reasons for changing in the course were poor technological development of the USSR (Gottfried 115). Gorbachev believed that radical changes in political power could improve the Communist system. At the same time, he wanted to stop the Cold War and tensions with the United States. The cost of nuclear arms race had negative impact on the economy of the USSR. The leaders of the United States accepted the proposed relationships, based on cooperation and mutual trust. The end of the Cold War was marked by signing the INF treaty in 1987 (Gottfried 115).

• The origins of the Cold War

Many American historians state that the Cold War began in 1945. However, according to Russian researchers, historians and analysts “the Cold War began with the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, for this was when the capitalist world began its systematic opposition to and effort to undermine the world’s first socialist state and society” (Warner13). For Russians, the Cold War was hot in 1918-1922, when the Allied Intervention policy implemented in Russia during the Russian Civil War. According to John W. Long, “the U.S. intervention in North Russia was a policy formulated by President Wilson during the first half of 1918 at the urgent insistence of Britain, France and Italy, the chief World War I allies” (380).

Nevertheless, there are some other opinions regarding the origins of the Cold War. For example, Geoffrey Barraclough, an outstanding English historian, states that the events in the Far East at the end of the century contributed to the origins of the Cold War. He argues that “during the previous hundred years, Russia and the United States has tended to support each other against England; but now, as England’s power passed its zenith, they came face to face across the Pacific” (Warner 13). According to Barraclough, the Cold War is associated with the conflict of interests, which involved European countries, the Middle East and South East Asia. Finally, this conflict divided the world into two camps. Thus, the Cold War origins are connected with the spread of ideological conflict caused by the emergence of the new power in the early 20-th century (Warner 14). The Cold War outbreak was associated with the spread of propaganda on the United States by the USSR. The propagandistic attacks involved the criticism of the U.S. leaders and their policies. These attacked were harmful to the interests of American nation (Whitton 151).

• The major causes of the Cold War

The United States and the USSR were regarded as two superpowers during the Cold War, each having its own sphere of influence, its power and forces. The Cold War had been the continuing conflict, caused by tensions, misunderstandings and competitions that existed between the United States and the USSR, as well as their allies from 1945 to the early 1990s (Gottfried 10). Throughout this long period, there was the so-called rivalry between the United States and the USSR, which was expressed through various transformations, including military buildup, the spread of propaganda, the growth of espionage, weapons development, considerable industrial advances, and competitive technological developments in different spheres of human activity, such as medicine, education, space exploration, etc.

There four major causes of the Cold War, which include:

• Ideological differences (communism v. capitalism);
• Mutual distrust and misperception;
• The fear of the United State regarding the spread of communism;
• The nuclear arms race (Gottfried 10).

The major causes of the Cold War point out to the fact that the USSR was focused on the spread of communist ideas worldwide. The United States followed democratic ideas and opposed the spread of communism. At the same time, the acquisition of atomic weapons by the United States caused fear in the USSR. The use of atomic weapons could become the major reason of fear of both the United States and the USSR. In other words, both countries were anxious about possible attacks from each other; therefore, they were following the production of mass destruction weapons. In addition, the USSR was focused on taking control over Eastern Europe and Central Asia. According to researchers, the USSR used various strategies to gain control over Eastern Europe and Central Asia in the years 1945-1980. Some of these strategies included “encouraging the communist takeover of governments in Eastern Europe, the setting up of Comecon, the Warsaw Pact, the presence of the Red Army in Eastern Europe, and the Brezhnev Doctrine” (Phillips 118). These actions were the major factors for the suspicions and concerns of the United States. In addition, the U.S. President had a personal dislike of the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin and his policies. In general, the United States was concerned by the Soviet Union’s actions regarding the occupied territory of Germany, while the USSR feared that the United States would use Western Europe as the major tool for attack.

• The consequences of the Cold War

The consequences of the Cold War include both positive and negative effects for both the United States and the USSR.

• Both the United States and the USSR managed to build up huge arsenals of atomic weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles.
• The Cold War provided opportunities for the establishment of the military blocs, NATO and the Warsaw Pact.
• The Cold War led to the emergence of the destructive military conflicts, like the Vietnam War and the Korean War, which took the lives of millions of people (Gottfried13).
• The USSR collapsed because of considerable economic, political and social challenges.
• The Cold War led to the destruction of the Berlin Wall and the unification of the two German nations.
• The Cold War led to the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact (Gottfried 136).
• The Cold war provided the opportunities for achieving independence of the Baltic States and some former Soviet Republics.
• The Cold War made the United States the sole superpower of the world because of the collapse of the USSR in 1990.
• The Cold War led to the collapse of Communism and the rise of globalization worldwide (Phillips 119).

The impact of the Cold War on the development of many countries was enormous. The consequences of the Cold War were derived from numerous internal problems of the countries, which were connected with the USSR, especially developing countries (India, Africa, etc.). This fact means that foreign policies of many states were transformed (Gottfried 115).

The Cold War (1945-1989) essay part 2

Do you like this essay?

Our writers can write a paper like this for you!

Order your paper here .

The Cold War

After World War II, the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its satellite states began a decades-long struggle for supremacy known as the Cold War. Soldiers of the Soviet Union and the United States did not do battle directly during the Cold War. But the two superpowers continually antagonized each other through political maneuvering, military coalitions, espionage, propaganda, arms buildups, economic aid, and proxy wars between other nations.

From Allies to Adversaries

The Soviet Union and the United States had fought as allies against Nazi Germany during World War II. But the alliance began to crumble as soon as the war in Europe ended in May 1945. Tensions were apparent in July during the Potsdam Conference, where the victorious Allies negotiated the joint occupation of Germany.

The Soviet Union was determined to have a buffer zone between its borders and Western Europe. It set up pro-communist regimes in Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Albania, and eventually in East Germany.

As the Soviets tightened their grip on Eastern Europe, the United States embarked on a policy of containment to prevent the spread of Soviet and communist influence in Western European nations such as France, Italy, and Greece.

During the 1940s, the United States reversed its traditional reluctance to become involved in European affairs. The Truman Doctrine (1947) pledged aid to governments threatened by communist subversion. The Marshall Plan (1947) provided billions of dollars in economic assistance to eliminate the political instability that could open the way for communist takeovers of democratically elected governments.

France, England, and the United States administered sectors of the city of Berlin, deep inside communist East Germany. When the Soviets cut off all road and rail traffic to the city in 1948, the United States and Great Britain responded with a massive airlift that supplied the besieged city for 231 days until the blockade was lifted. In 1949, the United States joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the first mutual security and military alliance in American history. The establishment of NATO also spurred the Soviet Union to create an alliance with the communist governments of Eastern Europe that was formalized in 1955 by the Warsaw Pact.

The Worldwide Cold War

In Europe, the dividing line between East and West remained essentially frozen during the next decades. But conflict spread to Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The struggle to overthrow colonial regimes frequently became entangled in Cold War tensions, and the superpowers competed to influence anti-colonial movements.

In 1949, the communists triumphed in the Chinese civil war, and the world's most populous nation joined the Soviet Union as a Cold War adversary. In 1950, North Korea invaded South Korea, and the United Nations and the United States sent troops and military aid. Communist China intervened to support North Korea, and bloody campaigns stretched on for three years until a truce was signed in 1953.

In 1954, the colonial French regime fell in Vietnam.

The United States supported a military government in South Vietnam and worked to prevent free elections that might have unified the country under the control of communist North Vietnam. In response to the threat, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) was formed in 1955 to prevent communist expansion, and President Eisenhower sent some 700 military personnel as well as military and economic aid to the government of South Vietnam. The effort was foundering when John F. Kennedy took office.

Closer to home, the Cuban resistance movement led by Fidel Castro deposed the pro-American military dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista in 1959. Castro's Cuba quickly became militarily and economically dependent on the Soviet Union. The United States' main rival in the Cold War had established a foothold just ninety miles off the coast of Florida.

Kennedy and the Cold War

Cold War rhetoric dominated the 1960 presidential campaign. Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard M. Nixon both pledged to strengthen American military forces and promised a tough stance against the Soviet Union and international communism. Kennedy warned of the Soviet's growing arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles and pledged to revitalize American nuclear forces. He also criticized the Eisenhower administration for permitting the establishment of a pro-Soviet government in Cuba.

John F. Kennedy was the first American president born in the 20th century. The Cold War and the nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union were vital international issues throughout his political career. His inaugural address stressed the contest between the free world and the communist world, and he pledged that the American people would "pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty."

The Bay of Pigs

Before his inauguration, JFK was briefed on a plan drafted during the Eisenhower administration to train Cuban exiles for an invasion of their homeland. The plan anticipated that support from the Cuban people and perhaps even elements of the Cuban military would lead to the overthrow of Castro and the establishment of a non-communist government friendly to the United States.

Kennedy approved the operation and some 1,400 exiles landed at Cuba's Bay of Pigs on April 17. The entire force was either killed or captured, and Kennedy took full responsibility for the failure of the operation.

The Arms Race

In June 1961, Kennedy met with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna, Austria. (See a memorandum below outlining the main points of conversation between President Kennedy and Khrushchev at their first lunch meeting.) Kennedy was surprised by Khrushchev's combative tone during the summit. At one point, Khrushchev threatened to cut off Allied access to Berlin. The Soviet leader pointed out the Lenin Peace Medals he was wearing, and Kennedy answered, "I hope you keep them." Just two months later, Khrushchev ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall to stop the flood of East Germans into West Germany.

As a result of these threatening developments, Kennedy ordered substantial increases in American intercontinental ballistic missile forces. He also added five new army divisions and increased the nation's air power and military reserves. The Soviets meanwhile resumed nuclear testing and President Kennedy responded by reluctantly reactivating American tests in early 1962.

JFKPOF-126-009-p0024. Memorandum relaying the main points of the conversation between John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev during their first lunch meeting in Vienna, on June 3, 1961.

During this meeting, President Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev discussed Soviet agriculture, Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin's space flight, the possibility of putting a man on the moon, and their hopes that their two nations would have good relations in the future.

More information

JFKPOF-126-009-p0025. Memorandum relaying the main points of the conversation between John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev during their first lunch meeting in Vienna, on June 3, 1961. 

JFKPOF-126-009-p0026. Memorandum relaying the main points of the conversation between John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev during their first lunch meeting in Vienna, on June 3, 1961. 

JFKPOF-126-009-p0027. Memorandum relaying the main points of the conversation between John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev during their first lunch meeting in Vienna, on June 3, 1961. 

The Cuban Missile Crisis

In the summer of 1962, Khrushchev reached a secret agreement with the Cuban government to supply nuclear missiles capable of protecting the island against another US-sponsored invasion. In mid-October, American spy planes photographed the missile sites under construction. Kennedy responded by placing a naval blockade, which he referred to as a "quarantine," around Cuba. He also demanded the removal of the missiles and the destruction of the sites. Recognizing that the crisis could easily escalate into nuclear war, Khrushchev finally agreed to remove the missiles in return for an American pledge not to reinvade Cuba. But the end of Cuban Missile Crisis did little to ease the tensions of the Cold War. The Soviet leader decided to commit whatever resources were required for upgrading the Soviet nuclear strike force. His decision led to a major escalation of the nuclear arms race.

In June 1963, President Kennedy spoke at the American University commencement in Washington, DC. He urged Americans to critically reexamine Cold War stereotypes and myths and called for a strategy of peace that would make the world safe for diversity. In the final months of the Kennedy presidency Cold War tensions seemed to soften as the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was negotiated and signed. In addition, Washington and Moscow established a direct line of communication known as the "Hotline" to help reduce the possibility of war by miscalculation.

In May 1961, JFK had authorized sending 500 Special Forces troops and military advisers to assist the government of South Vietnam. They joined 700 Americans already sent by the Eisenhower administration. In February 1962, the president sent an additional 12,000 military advisers to support the South Vietnamese army. By early November 1963, the number of US military advisers had reached 16,000.

Even as the military commitment in Vietnam grew, JFK told an interviewer, "In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it—the people of Vietnam against the Communists. . . . But I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. . . . [The United States] made this effort to defend Europe. Now Europe is quite secure. We also have to participate—we may not like it—in the defense of Asia." In the final weeks of his life, JFK wrestled with the need to decide the future of the United States commitment in Vietnam—and very likely had not made a final decision before his death.

Essay on the Cold War: it’s Origin, Causes and Phases

After the Second World War, the USA and USSR became two Super Powers. One nation tried to reduce the power of other. Indirectly the competition between the Super Powers led to the Cold War.

Then America took the leadership of all the Capitalist Countries.

Soviet Russia took the leadership of all the Communist Countries. As a result of which both stood as rivals to each other.

Definition of the Cold War:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

In the graphic language of Hartman, “Cold War is a state of tension between countries in which each side adopts policies designed to strengthen it and weaken the other by falling short by actual war”.

Image Source: i.ytimg.com/vi/y9HjvHZfCUI/maxresdefault.jpg

Infact, Cold War is a kind of verbal war which is fought through newspapers, magazines, radio and other propaganda methods. It is a propaganda to which a great power resorts against the other power. It is a sort of diplomatic war.

Origin of Cold War:

There is no unanimity amongst scholars regarding the origin of the Cold War In 1941 when Hitler invaded Russia, Roosevelt the President of USA sent armaments to Russia. It is only because the relationship between Roosevelt and Stalin was very good. But after the defeat of Germany, when Stalin wanted to implement Communist ideology in Poland, Hungery, Bulgaria and Rumania, at that time England and America suspected Stalin.

Winston Churchill, the Prime Minister of England in his ‘Fulton Speech’ on 5 March 1946 said that Soviet Russia was covered by an Iron Curtain. It led Stalin to think deeply. As a result of which suspicion became wider between Soviet Russia and western countries and thus the Cold War took birth.

Causes of the Cold War:

Various causes are responsible for the outbreak of the Cold War. At first, the difference between Soviet Russia and USA led to the Cold War. The United States of America could not tolerate the Communist ideology of Soviet Russia. On the other hand, Russia could not accept the dominance of United States of America upon the other European Countries.

Secondly, the Race of Armament between the two super powers served another cause for the Cold War. After the Second World War, Soviet Russia had increased its military strength which was a threat to the Western Countries. So America started to manufacture the Atom bomb, Hydrogen bomb and other deadly weapons. The other European Countries also participated in this race. So, the whole world was divided into two power blocs and paved the way for the Cold War.

Thirdly, the Ideological Difference was another cause for the Cold War. When Soviet Russia spread Communism, at that time America propagated Capitalism. This propaganda ultimately accelerated the Cold War.

Fourthly, Russian Declaration made another cause for the Cold War. Soviet Russia highlighted Communism in mass-media and encouraged the labour revolution. On the other hand, America helped the Capitalists against the Communism. So it helped to the growth of Cold War.

Fifthly, the Nuclear Programme of America was responsible for another cause for the Cold War. After the bombardment of America on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Soviet Russia got afraid for her existence. So, it also followed the same path to combat America. This led to the growth of Cold War.

Lastly, the Enforcement of Veto by Soviet Russia against the western countries made them to hate Russia. When the western countries put forth any view in the Security Council of the UNO, Soviet Russia immediately opposed it through veto. So western countries became annoyed in Soviet Russia which gave birth to the Cold War.

Various Phases of the Cold War:

The Cold War did not occur in a day. It passed through several phases.

First Phase (1946-1949 ):

In this phase America and Soviet Russia disbelieved each other. America always tried to control the Red Regime in Russia. Without any hesitation Soviet Russia established Communism by destroying democracy in the Poland, Bulgaria, Rumania, Hungery, Yugoslavia and other Eastern European Countries.

In order to reduce Russia’s hegemony, America helped Greece and Turkey by following Truman Doctrine which came into force on 12 March 1947. According to Marshall Plan which was declared on 5 June, 1947 America gave financial assistance to Western European Countries.

In this phase, non withdrawal of army from Iran by Soviet Russia, Berlin blaockade etc. made the cold was more furious. After the formation of NATO in 1949, the Cold War took a halt.

Second Phase (1949-1953 ):

In this phase a treaty was signed between Australia, New Zeland and America in September, 1957 which was known as ANZUS. America also signed a treaty with Japan on 8 September, 1951. At that time by taking armaments from Russia and army from China, North Korea declared war against South Korea.

Then with the help of UNO, America sent military aid to South Korea. However, both North Korea and South Korea signed peace treaty in 1953 and ended the war. In order to reduce the impact of Soviet Communism, America spent a huge amount of dollar in propaganda against Communism. On the other hand, Soviet Russia tried to be equal with America by testing atom bomb.

Third Phase (1953-1957):

Now United States of America formed SEATO in 1954 in order to reduce Soviet Russia’s influence. In 1955 America formed MEDO in Middle East. Within a short span of time, America gave military assistance to 43 countries and formed 3300 military bases around Soviet Russia. At that time, the Vietnamese War started on 1955.

To reduce the American Power, Russia signed WARSAW PACT in 1955. Russia also signed a defence pact with 12 Countries. Germany was divided into Federal Republic of Germany which was under the American control where as German Democratic Republic was under Soviet Russia. In 1957 Soviet Russia included Sphutnick in her defence programme.

In 1953 Stalin died and Khrushchev became the President of Russia. In 1956 an agreement was signed between America and Russia regarding the Suez Crisis. America agreed not to help her allies like England and France. In fact West Asia was saved from a great danger.

Fourth Phase (1957-1962):

In 1959 the Russian President Khrushchev went on a historical tour to America. Both the countries were annoyed for U-2 accident and for Berlin Crisis. In 13 August 1961, Soviet Russia made a Berlin Wall of 25 Kilometres in order to check the immigration from eastern Berlin to Western Berlin. In 1962, Cuba’s Missile Crisis contributed a lot to the cold war.

This incident created an atmosphere of conversation between American President Kenedy and Russian President Khrushchev. America assured Russia that she would not attack Cuba and Russia also withdrew missile station from Cuba.

Fifth Phase (1962-1969 ):

The Fifth Phase which began from 1962 also marked a mutual suspicion between USA and USSR. There was a worldwide concern demanding ban on nuclear weapons. In this period Hot Line was established between the White House and Kremlin. This compelled both the parties to refrain from nuclear war. Inspite of that the Vietnam problem and the Problem in Germany kept Cold War between USA and USSR in fact.

Sixth Phase (1969-1978 ):

This phase commencing from 1969 was marked by DETENTE between USA and USSR- the American President Nixon and Russian President Brezhnev played a vital role for putting an end to the Cold War. The SALT of 1972, the summit Conference on Security’ of 1975 in Helsinki and Belgrade Conference of 1978 brought America and Russia closer.

In 1971, American Foreign Secretary Henry Kissinger paid a secret visit to China to explore the possibilities of reapproachment with China. The American move to convert Diego Garcia into a military base was primarily designed to check the Soviet presence in the Indian Ocean. During the Bangladesh crisis of 1971 and the Egypt-Israel War of 1973 the two super powers extended support to the opposite sides.

Last Phase (1979-1987 ):

In this phase certain changes were noticed in the Cold War. That is why historians call this phase as New Cold War. In 1979, the American President Carter and Russian President Brezhnev signed SALT II. But in 1979 the prospects of mitigating Cold War were marred by sudden development in Afghanistan.

Vietnam (1975), Angola (1976), Ethiopia (1972) and Afghanistan (1979) issues brought success to Russia which was unbearable for America. American President Carter’s Human Rights and Open Diplomacy were criticised by Russia. The SALT II was not ratified by the US Senate. In 1980 America boycotted the Olympic held at Moscow.

In 1983, Russia withdrew from a talk on missile with America. In 1984 Russia boycotted the Olympic game held at Los-Angeles. The Star War of the American President Ronald Regan annoyed Russia. In this way the ‘New Cold War’ between America and Russia continued till 1987.

Result of the Cold War:

The Cold War had far-reaching implications in the international affairs. At first, it gave rise to a fear psychosis which resulted in a mad race for the manufacture of more sophisticated armaments. Various alliances like NATO, SEATO, WARSAW PACT, CENTO, ANZUS etc. were formed only to increase world tension.

Secondly, Cold War rendered the UNO ineffective because both super powers tried to oppose the actions proposed by the opponent. The Korean Crisis, Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam War etc. were the bright examples in this direction.

Thirdly, due to the Cold War, a Third World was created. A large number of nations of Africa, Asia and Latin America decided to keep away from the military alliances of the two super powers. They liked to remain neutral. So, Non-Alignments Movement became the direct outcome of the Cold War.

Fourthly, Cold War was designed against mankind. The unnecessary expenditure in the armament production created a barrier against the progress of the world and adversely affected a country and prevented improvement in the living standards of the people.

Fifthly, the principle ‘Whole World as a Family’, was shattered on the rock of frustration due to the Cold War. It divided the world into two groups which was not a healthy sign for mankind.

Sixthly, The Cold War created an atmosphere of disbelief among the countries. They questioned among themselves how unsafe were they under Russia or America.

Finally, The Cold War disturbed the World Peace. The alliances and counter-alliances created a disturbing atmosphere. It was a curse for the world. Though Russia and America, being super powers, came forward to solve the international crisis, yet they could not be able to establish a perpetual peace in the world.

Related Articles:

• Essay on the Cold War, 1945
• Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO): Structure, Principles and Other Details
• History of The Cold War: Origin, Reasons and Other Details
• Truman Doctrine: A Policy Statement Made by US during the Cold War

Review: Putting the Cold War on the Couch

Create an FP account to save articles to read later and in the FP mobile app.

ALREADY AN FP SUBSCRIBER? LOGIN

• World Brief
• Editors’ Picks
• Africa Brief
• China Brief
• Latin America Brief
• South Asia Brief
• Situation Report
• Flash Points
• War in Ukraine
• Israel and Hamas
• U.S.-China competition
• U.S. election 2024
• Biden's foreign policy
• Trade and economics
• Artificial intelligence
• Asia & the Pacific
• Middle East & Africa

What to Expect From Mexico’s Elections

Analyzing india’s election results, ones and tooze, foreign policy live.

Spring 2024 Issue

Print Archive

FP Analytics

• In-depth Special Reports
• Issue Briefs
• Power Maps and Interactive Microsites
• FP Simulations & PeaceGames
• Graphics Database

FP Global Health Forum 2024

Fp at nato’s 75th summit, nato in a new era, fp security forum, fp @ unga79.

By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.

Your guide to the most important world stories of the day

Essential analysis of the stories shaping geopolitics on the continent

The latest news, analysis, and data from the country each week

Weekly update on what’s driving U.S. national security policy

Evening roundup with our editors’ favorite stories of the day

One-stop digest of politics, economics, and culture

Weekly update on developments in India and its neighbors

A curated selection of our very best long reads

Putting the Cold War on the Couch

A new psychological analysis of soviet leaders fundamentally alters 20th-century global history..

For nearly a half-century, there was a single factor, a single raison d’être, at the heart of the entire Soviet project. But it wasn’t fanning communist revolution or even spreading Marxist Leninism itself. Rather, it was—as Sergey Radchenko argues in To Run the World , his new, more than 600-page doorstopper on the Soviet leaders’ views during the Cold War—something far simpler, and far more universal: prestige.

That is, instead of pursuing anti-capitalist ends or even pro-communist alliances, Soviet leadership found itself propelled primarily by the pursuit of status and stature, from late Stalinism all the way through Mikhail Gorbachev’s final days.

To Run the World: The Kremlin’s Cold War Bid for Global Power , Sergey Radchenko, Cambridge University Press, 768 pp., $35, May 2024

It’s a bold reformulation of the entire Soviet standoff, and one that would be nearly unrecognizable to most of those who lived through the Cold War. But Radchenko, a history professor at Johns Hopkins University specializing in Sino-Soviet history, at least recognizes the stakes of such a reformulation.

He admits at the outset of To Run the World that his argument is a “radical new interpretation of the underlying motivations of Soviet foreign policy”—a massive, almost encyclopedic effort to slog through the sloganeering about Leninism and class warfare to get to what, at heart, motivated Soviet leadership through the apocalyptic heights and sudden denouement of the Cold War. Moscow believed “that the Soviet Union for one reason or another deserved its high perch in the global order,” Radchenko writes. “Being recognized by others as legitimately occupying this perch was a central preoccupation of Soviet foreign policy from Stalin to Gorbachev.”

There’s certainly merit to the argument, as Radchenko unflinchingly details throughout the book. The product of a decade’s worth of work translating archival material in places such as Moscow and Beijing, Radchenko’s read provides unparalleled insights into the Soviet leadership’s decision-making processes. Not only has it surpassed anything yet written, but given the archival access that Radchenko obtained—and the fact that such access has disintegrated in the face of President Vladimir Putin’s return to a totalitarian Russia—this book will also likely be the standard-bearer for years, and potentially decades, to come.

And, in many ways, rightfully so—though not necessarily for the reasons that Radchenko argued. The book advances an argument about Soviet leaders’ political motivations. But if anything, it is Radchenko’s psychological excavation of figures including Nikita Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev, and Gorbachev himself —their intentions, their ignorance, their ignominies—that not only separates this book from any others assessing Soviet strategy during the Cold War, but also reframes the entire Cold War itself.

Leaders Nikita Khrushchev of the Soviet Union (right) and Fidel Castro of Cuba shake hands at a meeting in Moscow, seen circa 1963. Bettmann Archive/via Getty Images

Indeed, it is these potted biographies of the Soviet premiers that provide Radchenko’s most successful interventions in how the West still understands the history of the Cold War. While all three leaders have flattened into two-dimensional characters over the past few decades—Khrushchev the screw-loose screamer, Brezhnev the mildewing statesman, Gorbachev the thwarted reformer—Radchenko recreates their worlds, looking especially at how their own psychological tics structured Soviet strategy overall.

There is, for instance, the groundbreaking work Radchenko has done on unearthing Khrushchev’s decision-making in the lead-up to the Cuban missile crisis. Instead of U.S. weakness providing an opening for Khrushchev to pepper Cuba with nuclear weapons, as is popularly remembered in the West, Radchenko traces Khrushchev’s moves to a fear of a renewed U.S. invasion of the island.

And understandably so; not only was the Bay of Pigs fiasco fresh in Moscow’s minds, but American influence and infiltration of the island also had, at that point, a decadeslong pedigree. In Khrushchev’s mind, shipping nuclear weapons to Cuba was never about pressing Soviet advantages in the Caribbean—but about impeding the United States’ pending reinvasion.

And in Khrushchev’s mind, the gambit arguably succeeded. Not only did the Americans refrain from any invasion redux, but Khrushchev convinced the White House to remove its Jupiter missiles from Turkey, restoring a semblance of parity to both superpowers’ nuclear capabilities. Khrushchev’s gamesmanship may have brought the world closer to a nuclear Armageddon than ever before (and potentially after)—but, in many ways, it was a gamble that redounded to Khrushchev’s benefit, at least in the short term. (Along the way, Radchenko also makes sure to reinforce Khrushchev’s colorful, even off-kilter communication, such as when he frothed to the Albanian defense minister, “You will be spat at in the Soviet Union and you will drown in spit!”)

Of course, Khrushchev’s blush with the apocalypse hardly assured others in the Kremlin that he was the stabilizing force required for the era. An internal putsch soon placed Brezhnev in power, and his so-called Brezhnev Doctrine brought a range of the Soviet Union’s most striking victories, not least in thwarting reforms in places such as Czechoslovakia.

But it is in widening the Cold War’s aperture—moving far beyond the checkpoints in Berlin or the tanks in Prague—that makes Radchenko’s work on Brezhnev stand out. Rather than the stale, staid leader of memory, Brezhnev’s nimbleness as Soviet premier shines through in his efforts in Asia, in relations with both Beijing and Hanoi. Radchenko’s beat-by-beat navigation of Brezhnev’s tactical decisions in the region, especially as the Vietnam War began splitting open, paints the Soviet premier in a far more flattering light than he’s otherwise been remembered.

Outflanking both China and the United States, Brezhnev saw arguably his greatest strategic victory on the beaches and battlefields of South Vietnam, at least in terms of expanding Soviet interests. (Not that the Americans necessarily made it difficult; as a perplexed Brezhnev once said, “I just can’t figure it out: have the Americans become so stupid that they can’t understand that bombs will not solve the Vietnamese problem ?”)

Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev (left) talks with U.S. President Richard Nixon at the White House in Washington, D.C, on June 18, 1973. Consolidated photo/AFP via Getty Images

Nor is it just Brezhnev’s strategic successes that Radchenko recovers. It’s also his rote racism—and how that racism, rampant among Soviet leadership, played a role in the Sino-Soviet split. “Brezhnev’s depictions of China and the Chinese were shockingly racist,” Radchenko writes, pointing to Brezhnev’s claims that the Chinese were “treacherous,” “exceptionally sly,” and brimming with “perfidy” and “hypocrisy.” At one point, Brezhnev—who freely claimed the Soviet Union was a “European” country—claimed that Europe has the “most civilized society” in the world. Small wonder that Chinese leader Mao Zedong, in whispers behind Brezhnev’s back, would complain of Moscow’s tsarist-era annexations of swaths of traditional Chinese territory. “We have yet to settle this bill with them,” Mao menaced.

Brezhnev, of course, eventually shriveled—both physically and mentally—while the Kremlin squandered what geopolitical advantages it may have gained by its bungling into Afghanistan. By the mid-1980s, it was clear that the Soviet project was failing both within and without. Hence, the rise and reforms of Gorbachev—and, within a few years’ time, the dissolution of not only the Soviet empire, but the Soviet Union itself.

But as Radchenko retraces Gorbachev’s faltering, he also presents as useful corrective to Western remembrances of Gorbachev’s leadership and his legacy. While the former Soviet premier is broadly remembered, even celebrated, for a supposed aversion to violence, Radchenko surfaces a wealth of evidence to the contrary. While Gorbachev may have refrained from siccing tanks on protesters in Warsaw or Bucharest, he nonetheless led bloodied crackdowns on the Soviet populace itself, from Kazakhstan to Lithuania to Georgia , all in the name of shoring up the crumbling Soviet edifice.

No, This Is Not a Cold War—Yet

Why are China hawks exaggerating the threat from Beijing?

And while he never went as far as his Chinese counterparts—not least Deng Xiaoping, who oversaw the slaughter of thousands of protesters at Tiananmen Square—Gorbachev let any pacifist mask slip when speaking about the Chinese crackdown. As Radchenko writes, when “presented with the evidence that the [Chinese] army massacred 3,000 students in Beijing, Gorbachev privately remarked: ‘We must be realists. They, like us, have to hold on. Three thousand… So what?’”

Radchenko’s interventions, be they personal or political, are all welcome, deepening our understanding of both the psychological and geopolitical contours of the Cold War. But the question remains: Was prestige really at the heart of the Soviet Union’s entire postwar project? The answer—disappointingly both for us and the book—is: It depends.

There were, to be sure, myriad instances in which prestige propelled the Kremlin’s decisions. The search for stature, the almost pathetic pleading for respect as a superpower, laces decisions ranging from Brezhnev’s calls for a Soviet-American “condominium” overseeing global affairs to Gorbachev’s at-times-unilateral push for arms reductions. But as the single force—as the central factor around which Soviet officials organized their latticework of decisions—prestige falters.

Go back, for instance, to the Cuban missile crisis mentioned above. While prestige may have played a role in Khrushchev’s initial decisions—especially when it came to wanting to be seen as the protector of nascent communist regimes in places such as Cuba—the end of the crisis illustrated that security concerns would, in the end, always trump prestige. Khrushchev ended the crisis with a clear tactical success, forcing the Americans to stand down from housing nuclear weapons in Turkey, strengthening Soviet security that much more. But the secrecy of the deal’s details meant that Khrushchev’s supposed pursuit of prestige was fatally undermined. Even Khrushchev recognized as much, with the Soviet premier “acutely aware of the blow to his global prestige,” Radchenko notes.

Or fast-forward a few decades, as the walls closed in on a flailing Gorbachev. While the final Soviet leader may have initially seen prestige as a foreign-policy motivator, by his latter years he’d clearly transformed into a figure who gave equal, if not greater, weight to regime security Cracking down on anti-regime protesters in a number of colonies agitating for independence, Gorbachev revealed himself as a leader happy to resort to violence if the Soviet Union’s internal colonies ever agitated for independence, regardless of the cost to his prestige in the West.

A crowd of demonstrators gathers to protest against Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, seen in Manezh Square, Moscow, in February 1991. Alain Nogues/Sygma via Getty Images

Still, while prestige may not be the most important tether tying the entire Soviet project together, Radchenko’s book does restore it to its proper place as one of a basket of factors undergirding Soviet decision-making.

If anything, elevating that search for prestige points the way to a far more interesting book, buried underneath Radchenko’s granular psychoanalysis. As Radchenko aptly frames, the Cold War was never one thing, catapulting one bloc against another. It was never even something you could properly boil down to capitalism versus communism. Rather, as Radchenko outlines, it’s perhaps better understood as capitalism versus communisms , with regimes such as Beijing and even Havana charting their own courses, refracting Soviet designs to pursue their own paths—and undercutting Soviet demands for prestige, and for recognition of status, in the process.

After all, arguably the single greatest Western success of the entire Cold War period—the Nixon administration’s peeling-off of China, gutting any Soviet pretensions to hegemony in Asia in the process—came as a direct result of Moscow’s pursuits of both prestige and power. Without the Soviet demands that China, as Khrushchev said, recognize the Kremlin as the “first fiddle” of the communist world, and without concomitant tensions and outright violence playing out from the Sino-Soviet border all the way down to Vietnam, Beijing never would have considered entreaties from the Americans. Thanks directly to the Soviet pretensions of superpower status, Beijing dove directly into U.S. arms.

The Soviets were, naturally, aghast at China’s lurch toward the United States. But that did little to deter Moscow from continuing to pursue the same kinds of prestige and power elsewhere—all of which, whether in the wastelands of Afghanistan or the walls in Berlin, ended up decimating not only the Kremlin’s pretensions to global status, but imploding the Soviet Union as a whole.

Khrushchev may have believed, perhaps correctly, that the Chinese were “haunted restlessly by the mania of greatness.” But it was the Soviet Union that was haunted by a search for both prestige and power—and that, in the end, ended up with neither.

Books are independently selected by FP editors. FP earns an affiliate commission on anything purchased through links to Amazon.com on this page.

Casey Michel is head of the Human Rights Foundation's Combating Kleptocracy Program and author of American Kleptocracy: How the U.S. Created the World’s Greatest Money Laundering Scheme in History . Twitter:  @cjcmichel

Join the Conversation

Commenting on this and other recent articles is just one benefit of a Foreign Policy subscription.

Already a subscriber? Log In .

Subscribe Subscribe

View Comments

Join the conversation on this and other recent Foreign Policy articles when you subscribe now.

Not your account? Log out

Please follow our comment guidelines , stay on topic, and be civil, courteous, and respectful of others’ beliefs.

Change your username:

I agree to abide by FP’s comment guidelines . (Required)

Confirm your username to get started.

The default username below has been generated using the first name and last initial on your FP subscriber account. Usernames may be updated at any time and must not contain inappropriate or offensive language.

More from Foreign Policy

The day after iran gets the bomb.

Scholars and policymakers are still trying to understand what would happen after Tehran acquires a nuclear weapon.

U.S. Intelligence Is Facing a Crisis of Legitimacy

Bad-faith attacks are putting U.S. security in danger.

The U.S. Navy Can’t Build Ships

Decades of deindustrialization and downsizing have left America without shipyards to build and maintain a fleet.

The Woman Inheriting AMLO’s Revolution

If she wins Mexico’s presidency, Claudia Sheinbaum’s most daunting political challenge will be persona, not policy.

Why Realists Oppose the War in Gaza

Consulting firms have stumbled into a geopolitical minefield, giorgia meloni is europe’s new kingmaker, what produced the china miracle, the man who would help trump upend the global economy, the advocate, immediacy ruined our politics, china is trying to remake uyghur kitchens, the new ‘mad max’ makes the end of the world fun again, icj orders israel to stop its rafah offensive, raisi’s funeral has exposed the two irans.

Sign up for World Brief

FP’s flagship evening newsletter guiding you through the most important world stories of the day, written by Alexandra Sharp . Delivered weekdays.

'Last line of defense': Cold War reheats at Nike missile museum at Sandy Hook

• During the Cold War, the Army maintained a missile base at Fort Hancock on the northern end of Sandy Hook, the last line of defense against an attack on New York.
• While no hot war ever broke out with the Soviet Union, accidents at the base and elsewhere in the region killed multiple people protecting the U.S.
• A group of veterans are keeping the memories alive, giving tours of what's left of the missile base.

SANDY HOOK - It was a typical day at work for Bill Jackson until an electric heater malfunctioned and a fire broke out.

But this wasn’t just any job, and it wasn’t just any fire.

It happened at the Nike missile site at Fort Hancock, the U.S. Army base on the northern end of Sandy Hook. And Jackson’s task at that moment was to emergency-disarm the Hercules missiles that sat perilously close to the flames.

“The heater was shooting flames out just above the missiles,” the Asbury Park resident recalled. “We had to get that fire out in a hurry.”

Fort Hancock: How Sandy Hook base protected New York City from being bombarded

This was in the late 1960s, about a decade after the chain-reaction explosion of eight Ajax missiles killed 10 men at the nearby Nike base in Middletown , so Jackson was acutely aware of the danger. The Hercules missile was bigger and nastier than the Ajax — and came equipped with nuclear warheads.

“During that period of time like most young men, I was young, dumb and felt indestructible,” said Jackson, now 77. “But there were a couple of times where I had the (crap) scared out of me.”

Like in the summer of 1970, when the alarm blared and all personnel got called to “battle stations” as a Soviet bomber entered U.S. airspace off the East Coast.

“The job was a lot of repetition and boredom, punctuated by periods of terror,” Jackson said.

It’s one thing to tell these fascinating Cold War stories. It’s another to show civilians the actual launch button, to sound the alarm for them, to walk them past the radar that tracked enemy targets, to invite them to pose for photos with an actual Ajax or Hercules missile.

Jackson and a bunch of fellow veterans have made all of that possible, keeping the Project Nike story alive 50 years after Fort Hancock closed and the program was deactivated in 1974. Though there were once more than 250 Nike bases around the country, Fort Hancock’s (known as Nike Missile Site NY-56) is one of the few the public can experience to this extent. Last month, Jackson and his nonprofit organization — the Fort Hancock Nike Site NY-56 Volunteers Association — opened a museum next to Parking Lot L near Sandy Hook’s Horseshoe Cove Beach.

Sandy Hook Fort Hancock Officers Row: Are these crumbling, stately homes doomed? Apartment plan in trouble

“People who come here are engrossed,” said Sal DiFede, an Air Force veteran who lives in Little Silver and volunteers with the nonprofit. “This is history — the threat was real.”

As tour guides, these veterans dive deep into that threat and its repercussions, from the engineering details to top-secret close calls to tragedies of the era (always important to remember, especially on Memorial Day).

“We could be ready to go to war in 15 minutes,” Jackson said. “This was the last line of defense against a surprise attack from the Soviet Union.”

'We got within five minutes of a launch'

Occasionally, when a longtime Bayshore resident tours the site, there will be questions about the disaster on May 22, 1958.

That’s when eight fully armed Ajax missiles at the Nike base in the Chapel Hill section of Middletown blew up “in a furious mushroom of fire and death,” as the Associated Press reported. The accident killed 10 men — six soldiers and four civilian contractors. It actually could have been worse; one missile nearly landed in a backyard three-quarters of a mile away, falling just a stone’s throw shy of a home-lined street.

Jackson said contractors were performing maintenance modifications on the arming system of the missiles.

“They were hurrying so they could get it done and punch out without incurring overtime,” he said. “They had all the missiles out and lined up — and they were going from one missile to the next, making this modification. Part of the modification required drilling into the missile.”

'It shouldn't be forgotten': Middletown fireman who died in Nike missile explosion honored

He added, “While we don’t know exactly what happened because the missiles were destroyed and the people, they were pretty much shredded, one of the theories is as they were drilling in, the man who was drilling hit a detonation cord, which detonated that missile, which in turn detonated all the other missiles.”

The tragedy changed Nike procedures “radically,” said Jackson, who worked at Fort Hancock’s Nike base from 1968-1972.  

“After that you would never bring more than one missile up at a time to perform a maintenance modification,” he said. “You literally went by the book. One man would read the step, and another man would perform the step. No one was allowed to rely on their memory.”

The U.S. Air Defense early warning system was dangerous business. In 1960 a helium tank’s explosion caused a fire in a nuclear-tipped BOMARC missile in Plumsted, causing radioactive contamination. In 1961, Texas Tower 4, a radar station off the coast of Long Beach Island, sank during a nor’easter, killing all 28 men who worked there.

Keeping memories alive: Mystery man who honored pilot killed in Pine Barrens fighter jet crash comes forward

The stakes were highest with the introduction of the Hercules, a 41-foot, 10,000-pound missile that reached a sound barrier-puncturing speed of Mach 2 by the time it left the launchpad. Hercules’ range was 100 miles with an altitude up to 150,000 feet. In the summer of 1970 at Fort Hancock there were 24 of them armed with nuclear warheads, the largest of which was 40 kilotons — nearly three times the power of the bomb that leveled Nagasaki in World War II.

The point of going nuclear, Jackson said, was that the missile didn’t have to hit the exact target to take it out. Just detonating “in the neighborhood” could fell an approaching enemy bomber, or an entire fleet of them.

As the Soviet bomber approached that summer day, Jackson said, “we got within five minutes of a launch. We had 16 missiles topside, all still horizontal. Ready to elevate, we were told ‘hold fire, hold fire!’”

Air Force jets “were able to get him turned back toward the Soviet Union,” Jackson said. As the jets escorted the rogue bomber east, “we stayed (at battle stations) for an hour to make sure he didn’t come back.”

Finally the order came to “stand down” and “do not talk about this to anyone.”

The brush with calamity never appeared in the press.

Bayshore battles: From World War to Cold War in Highlands

A herculean effort

With the blessing of the National Park Service, which maintains Sandy Hook and Fort Hancock’s remnants, Jackson began giving tours of the Nike site two decades ago. Over time he recruited fellow veteran volunteers to help him. In 2012 Superstorm Sandy ransacked the peninsula, rendering the launch pad inaccessible, but Jackson and his cohorts painstakingly restored the Integrated Fire Control Area that served as the nerve center.

They acquired a first-generation Nike Ajax missile from Picatinny Arsenal in Morris County , where it had been rusting away outside, and spent nearly 1,000 hours refurbishing it. Today it gleams white as the museum’s centerpiece — 34 feet long, including rocket booster, it sports a 12-inch diameter and weighs 2,400 pounds. Its guidance system is removed and on display nearby, along with a protective suit used by soldiers during the fueling process.

Visitors also can walk through the nearby control room, which still lights up as it did during that close encounter of 1970. That’s next to the workshop where the veterans are restoring the second-generation Hercules they garnered with much effort from the New Jersey National Guard.

Memorial Day: Remember this Freehold 21-year-old helicopter pilot who vanished in Vietnam

“We’ve had this for six years,” said Richard “Dusty” Griffith, a Little Silver resident and master machinist who is leading the restoration. “It was in bad shape.”

The hope is it will be ready for display within two years. Griffith also has plans to get one of the site’s three radars rotating again.

All of this is a herculean effort, so to speak, by an incredibly dedicated group of retirees whose last mission is to keep this chapter of American military history alive. They fund it almost entirely through donations, with some material help from the National Park Service.

“We need more volunteers. We’re going to need younger people to give the tours in the future,” Jackson said. “I would love to be able to pass on the knowledge that we have.”

For more information about the Fort Hancock Nike Site NY-56 Volunteers Association, their free tours, getting involved or making donations, visit www.ny56nike.weebly.com , find them on Facebook ( Ft. Hancock Nike Association ) or email president Bill Jackson at [email protected] .

Jerry Carino is community columnist for the Asbury Park Press, focusing on the Jersey Shore’s interesting people, inspiring stories and pressing issues. Contact him at [email protected].

Best Movies About the Cold War, Ranked

From The Hunt for Red October to Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, these are the best movies about the Cold War, ranked.

War films are some of the most appreciated films in the industry. From Apocalypse Now to Dunkirk , there is no shortage of movies in this genre out there. While many films have been criticized for their lack of accuracy, like Pearl Harbor , it has become the goal of many filmmakers to try to recreate the true essence and brutality of war on the big screen. Whether it's the brutality of the Vietnam War or the harsh realities faced by civilians in WWII, the war film genre covers everything. One topic that often goes neglected is the Cold War.

The Cold War was a period of tension after WWII between the United States and the Soviet Union. This period lasted from 1947 to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. It is called the Cold War because no large-scale fighting actually occurred between the opposing groups. The lack of action during the Cold War is part of why there is a lack of films that take place during the Cold War. That said, there are still plenty that show the realities of the fear of nuclear war constantly hanging over the heads of special agents and spies globally. These are the best movies about the Cold War, ranked.

13 The Courier (2021)

The courier.

The most recent film on this list is The Courier , the true story of Greville Wynne, a British businessman who is unwittingly recruited to take part in the Cuban Missile Crisis. After forming an unlikely partnership with Soviet officer Oleg Penkovsky, the two work together to provide intelligence used to defuse the conflict and prevent nuclear war.

Why It's Great

The Courier was praised for its overall ability to retell a true story without boring the audience, with special praise given to Benedict Cumberbatch and his performance. The film, due to the fantastic performance by the actors and excellent storytelling, feels more like a spy thriller, with its human, emotional elements intact. While the film was set to be released in 2020, the release was delayed to 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Stream on Prime Video.

12 Charlie Wilson's War (2007)

Charlie wilson's war.

The 2007 film Charlie Wilson's War stars Tom Hanks in the role of Congressman Charlie Wilson, who, along with Gustav Avrakotos, a CIA agent, and Joanne Herring, a socialite from Texas, helps the Afghan mujahedin in the Soviet-Afghan War. The film is a biographical comedy-drama that blends these elements perfectly with the political scenario of the time. The movie also gives the audience a comprehensive view of the secret operation and the effects it will have on the political climate of the USA in the future.

Even though it covers a serious incident, the writing and performances make this film incredibly funny and entertaining to watch. Tom Hanks is a treat to the eyes in the role of Wilson, a politician more interested in parties and the ladies than legislation. Philip Seymour Hoffman is incredible , as always, in the role of Gustav Avrakotos, and his performance earned him a nomination for Best Supporting Actor at the Academy Awards. The movie does become more serious in the end which foreshadows the changes to come in the political climate of the world. Stream on Max.

11 The Spy Who Came in From the Cold (1965)

Based on the spy novel of the same name by John le Carré, The Spy Who Came in From the Cold follows the story of British MI6 agent Alec Leamas who is sent to East Germany, masquerading as a drunken defector to gain intel about an East German intelligence officer. When Leamas is thrown in jail, he finds himself caught up in a web of plots and counterplots.

This classic spy film features a dynamite cast including Richard Burton and Claire Bloom. The film was a phenomenal success and won four BAFTA Awards for Best British Film, Best Actor, Best Cinematography, and Best Art Direction. Burton was praised across countries for his phenomenal acting. It is one of the best espionage drama movies to have been made regarding the Cold War. Stream on Kanopy.

10 Thirteen Days (2000)

Thirteen Days is yet another movie highlighting the Cuban Missile Crisis , and it shows the audience how President John F. Kennedy and his advisors dealt with the knowledge of Russians hiding nuclear missiles in Cuba. It stars Kevin Costner as top White House Assistant Kenneth P. O'Donnel, Bruce Greenwood as President Kennedy, Dylan Baker as Rober McNamara, the Secretary of Defense, and Steven Culp as Robert F. Kennedy, the Attorney General.

The film is one of the greatest historical political thrillers made about the Cuban Missile Crisis. The actors in the movie did a great job bringing these historically important figures to life. Even though some parts of the movie are somewhat exaggerated, it is an enjoyable film on the topic nonetheless. The critics' response to the film was mostly positive, even though it was not a hit at the box office at the time of release. Rent or buy on Apple TV+.

9 Bridge of Spies (2015)

Bridge of spies.

This 2015 historical drama tells the story of U.S. pilot Francis Gary Powers, who is captured by the Soviet Union after they shot down his plane. Being sentenced to 10 years in prison, he seeks the help of lawyer James Donovan to take on his case and help him get released. Donovan’s tactic is to gain Powers’ freedom through a prisoner exchange, giving the Russians a convicted spy in exchange for Powers.

Directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Tom Hanks, Bridge of Spies was a box-office smash and a critical success, receiving six Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture. The movie, even though lacking in terms of action, is a tension-filled one and goes on to give us a nail-biting end. It was praised for its ability to bring old-school Hollywood back to life, with the overall ambiance of the film making it one of the best modern Cold War films of all time. Stream on Paramount+.

8 The Shape of Water (2017)

The shape of water.

You might know Guillermo del Toro's film The Shape of Water as the film that made waves after winning four Academy Awards including Best Picture and Best Director, but a lot of people overlook the fact that it is a fantasy drama with the backdrop of the Cold War. It tells the story of a mute woman named Elisa Esposito, who works as a custodian in a secret government lab in Maryland. There, she meets an amphibian man-creature whom the lab captured from a South American river. Secret meetings turn into romance and the two of them fall in love with each other.

Unlike most of the movies on this list, The Shape of Water is a romance, and a beautiful one at that. It has the essential del Toro style which makes it visually stunning and captivating. Even though the film focuses more on the romance and the fantastical elements and less on the Cold War background, it is still a great movie to watch. The film received immense critical acclaim all over the globe because of its unique visual storytelling and heartening story. Stream on Fubo, FXNow, DirecTV.

7 The Hunt For Red October (1990)

The hunt for red october (1990).

Based on the Tom Clancy novel of the same name, The Hunt for Red October follows Soviet submarine Captain Marko Ramius, who abandons his orders and heads for the east coast of the United States. Thanks to the advanced stealth technology of the Society Union, Ramius’ submarine “Red October” is almost undetectable until an American sub briefly detects the Russians’ presence. CIA agent Jack Ryan sets off on a journey to figure out Ramius’ motives, suspecting him to be planning an attack on the United States.

Starring Sir Sean Connery as Ramius and Alec Baldwin as Jack Ryan, The Hunt for Red October was the first installation in the series of films with Jack Ryan as the protagonist. The storytelling of the film is amazing as it is fast-paced and exciting, managing to keep the audience glued to the screen for the entirety of it. The film was subject to critical acclaim, earning the Academy Award for Best Sound Effects Editing. Stream on Paramount+.

6 Three Days of the Condor (1975)

Three Days of the Condor is a great political thriller about a CIA analyst, Joe Turner, codename Condor, who one day comes back to his office to find all of his co-workers murdered. The scared and bookish agent tries to contact his higher-ups about the tragedy but finds out that his superiors are involved in the incident as they also tried to kill him. With a murderous hitman on his toe, the film shows us how Turner runs for his life while also trying to figure out what went wrong in his agency.

The film is everything a thriller lover could ever want. It is high-speed and filled with tension until the last moment. It is also filled with high-stakes action scenes that pair very well with the story of Condor running away from his assailants and dodging their attacks left and right. Robert Redford also did a phenomenal job in the role of Joe Turner, which earned him and the movie immense critical acclaim. Stream on Prime Video.

5 Fail Safe (1964)

Starring Henry Fonda and Walter Matthau, Fail Safe is a classic Cold War film. U.S. bomber jets are equipped with fail-safe boxes that instruct pilots when and if to attack. When an attack order is administered due to a system malfunction, the President of the United States must fix the mistake before bombs drop on Moscow. The President succeeds in stopping the bombing, except for one determined pilot, who is dead-set on completing his mission.

Based on the novel of the same name by Eugene Burdick and Harvey Wheeler, Fail Safe was a box office flop at the time of its release but was critically praised for its cinematic depiction of the Cold War. The iconic Henry Fonda was also praised for his performance as the President of the United States. It is a great political thriller that successfully builds and keeps the suspense right until the climax. A remake of the film was made in 2000 as a televised play starring George Clooney and Richard Dreyfuss. Rent on Apple TV+.

4 The Manchurian Candidate (1962)

Near the end of the Korean War, a platoon of U.S. soldiers is brainwashed by communists, and when the platoon is returned home, the soldiers find themselves suffering from strange nightmares. The platoon’s Captain Raymond Shaw discovers that he has become an unwitting assassin as a part of an international communist conspiracy. The Manchurian Candidate features Frank Sinatra, Laurence Harvey, and Angela Lansbury as the main cast.

The original film was released in October 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis, making the content particularly poignant. Upon release, and in the years since, The Manchurian Candidate has received significant praise, being nominated for two Academy Awards. Later, in 1994, the United States National Film Registry recognized The Manchurian Candidate by the Library of Congress as being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.” Stream on Prime Video.

3 North by Northwest (1959)

North by northwest.

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock and starring Cary Grant, the 1959 film North by Northwest is one of the greatest spy thrillers of all time. It tells the story of an advertising executive from New York named Robert Thornhill, who has to go on the run after he is mistaken for a government agent and hunted by foreign spies who want him dead. The intricate tale of mistaken identity lands him in various life-threatening scenarios, and he tries to find the real government agent.

The film is not only an all-time best thriller but also features a great love story. North by Northwest received three Academy Awards nominations and was praised by critics all over the world. With its high-stakes storyline and themes of espionage, mistaken identity, and deception, the film is easily one of the most entertaining Hitchcock movies. Stream on Apple TV+.

2 Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

Yet another film on this list to be based on a novel, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is one of the more recent Cold War movies. Starring Gary Oldman and Colin Firth, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy follows an MI6 agent who has been dispatched to meet with a Hungarian General who knows the identity of a Soviet spy within the organization. When the General dies before he can reveal the information, Undersecretary Oliver Lacon calls on veteran Agent George Smiley to ferret out the mole.

Related: Best British War Films Set in the 20th Century

A favorite among many real-life intelligence agents, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was well-received with talk of a potential sequel circulating around with a script ready, but nothing confirmed. The thrilling espionage psychological thriller was also graced by great performances by the actors, mainly Firth, who is always excellent, and Oldman. Stream on Starz or DirecTV.

1 Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb (1964)

A classic Stanley Kubrick film , Dr. Strangelove satirizes the Cold War situation by examining what could happen if the wrong person pushes the wrong button. When Air Force General Jack Ripper goes insane, he sends his bomber wing to destroy the U.S.S.R. thinking that communists are trying to pollute the bodily fluids of the American people.

Dr. Strangelove has gained incredible critical acclaim, being considered one of the greatest films of all time, nominated for four Academy Awards, and selected for preservation in 1989. It is probably the best political satire film centering around the Cold War. Thanks to the legacy Dr. Strangelove left behind, a potential sequel was discussed until the death of Stanley Kubrick, when any idea for a sequel was retired. Rent or buy on Apple TV+.

Cold War collaboration

The postal civil defense plan was released may 27, 1955.

USPS quickly delivered hundreds of millions of COVID-19 test kits at the government’s request during the pandemic, but as monumental as that task was, little compares to the civil defense responsibilities the postal system took on during the Cold War.

On May 27, 1955, Postmaster General Arthur Summerfield released the Post Office Department’s civil defense plan, the response to a presidential order requiring all federal agencies to prepare for a nuclear attack.

The first of the plan’s two parts focused on continuity of postal operations. It required facility heads — including all postmasters — to create a succession plan.

The second outlined ways in which Post Offices would support civil defense through use of its facilities, services and personnel.

Among the developments over the next decades:

• 25,000 postal trucks were designated as civil defense vehicles, affixed with a distinct “CD” decal, and used in drills.

• About 1,500 postal facilities were selected as fallout shelters and equipped with food, water and supplies. Postmasters were expected to manage the shelters in the event of an emergency, and the larger ones were fitted with radiological instruments.

• Every Post Office in the country was sent a supply of two new forms: an emergency change-of-address card and a safety notification card that, in the event of a nuclear attack, survivors could send to anyone, free of charge.

• Roughly 1,500 postal employees who were licensed ham radio operators formed a voluntary network called Post Office Net, designed for use when normal means of communications broke down.

The collapse of the Soviet Union changed the United States’ civil defense posture dramatically. In 1994, the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 — the law that inspired Summerfield’s plan —was repealed.

Though never used, the emergency and safety notification cards were kept in stock at the national supply center until 2018.

The “History” column appears occasionally in Link.

Post-story highlights

More to read.

One for the ages

The first Forever stamp was issued April 12, 2007

It was fast, it didn’t last long but it left a legacy

A pipe dream realized

The first postal pneumatic tube system debuted in Philadelphia in 1893

Footer items

• Off the Clock
• Week in Review

USPS National Employee Emergency Hotline:

888-363-7462

Weekly highlights

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

Dear Boomers, the Student Protesters Are Not Idiots

By Elizabeth Spiers

Ms. Spiers, a contributing Opinion writer, is a journalist and a digital media strategist.

Appearing last week on “Morning Joe,” Hillary Clinton lamented what she views as the ignorance of students protesting the war in Gaza. The host, Joe Scarborough, asked her about “the sort of radicalism that has mainstream students getting propaganda, whether it’s from their professors or from the Chinese Communist government through TikTok.” Ms. Clinton was happy to oblige. “I have had many conversations, as you have had, with a lot of young people over the last many months,” she said. “They don’t know very much at all about the history of the Middle East or frankly about history in many areas of the world, including in our own country.”

I’ve taught students at the college level for 12 years, most recently at New York University’s journalism school. I’ve also seen and heard the assumptions made about them by some of their elders — administrators, parents and others. So it’s no surprise now to hear protesters described as “ spoiled and entitled kids ” or delicate “ snowflakes ” who cower in their safe spaces and don’t believe in free speech . Billionaires like Ken Griffin , Bill Ackman and, of course, Donald Trump — as entitled as anyone — have been particularly vocal in their disdain, calling the students in one instance “whiny” and demanding that they be punished for protesting. Representative Mike Lawler, a Republican from New York, even suggested that TikTok should be banned in part because “you’re seeing how these kids are being manipulated by certain groups or entities or countries to foment hate on their behalf and really create a hostile environment here in the U.S.”

Whether they realize it or not, Ms. Clinton, Mr. Lawler and the rest are engaging in a moral panic about America’s youth that is part of a larger effort to discredit higher education in general. That effort includes fearmongering about diversity programs and critical race theory. But it starts with students.

In the current panic, the protesters are described as somehow both terribly fragile and such a threat to public safety that they need to be confronted by police officers in riot gear. To justify the police department’s excessive response at Columbia University, Deputy Commissioner Kaz Daughtry showed Newsmax viewers a large chain and a book with the title “Terrorism” that had been recovered from one site of protest. The former was a common bike chain Columbia sells to students and the latter was part of Oxford University Press’s lovely “Very Short Introductions” series, which covers topics from animal behavior to Rousseau and black holes.

There are some obvious partisan factors at work here: Staunch support for Israel among Republicans , for instance, and the long-running right-wing insistence that elite universities are liberal indoctrination camps. But recent research reveals a significant generational divide as well. A recent YouGov poll found that 45 percent of people ages 45 to 64 strongly opposed the protests, as did 56 percent of people 65 and older. By comparison, only 12 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds strongly opposed them, and 21 percent of people ages 30 to 44.

It’s not just about Gaza; similar age gaps emerged in response to protests after the murder of George Floyd, too. Eighty-seven percent of adults ages 18 to 34 supported the protests in June 2020, according to Gallup , while only 54 percent of adults 65 and older did. And just 3 percent of the older group had participated in the protests, while 26 percent of the younger group had.

We know from research that adults under 40 are more likely to participate in a protest than adults over 40, and generally prefer informal political participation more than their older cohorts, who are more likely to participate by voting. But that doesn’t fully explain the outright hostility some have leveled at campus protesters.

High-profile public figures of all ideological stripes have varyingly called for the students to be kicked out of their institutions, made unemployable or sent to prison. They’ve floated implausible scenarios in which the protests turn deadly. Students brave enough to risk their financial aid and scholarships are derided as childish rather than principled. And though they are educated to participate in civic life, as soon as these students exercise their First Amendment rights, they are told that protecting private property is a more pressing public concern. It’s as though some older adults simply can’t wrap their heads around the idea that college students, who are old enough to marry, have families and risk their lives for their country, are capable of having well thought-out principles.

“They basically want students to shut up and study,” is how Robert Cohen, a scholar of 20th-century social protest, put it when I spoke to him this week. It doesn’t matter how virtuous the cause, he explained; older generations start with a bias against students. But protest is often the only way students have any voice at all in university matters. “People do not understand that university governance is fundamentally undemocratic,” Mr. Cohen said, noting that even students who have convinced universities to consider divestment have won, at best, the right to make their case to the board.

In my experience, the stereotypes about today’s students are often ludicrously far from reality. College students of this generation have far more knowledge about complex world events than mine or Ms. Clinton’s did, thanks to the availability of the internet and a 24/7 news cycle fire-hosed directly into their phones. Representative Lawler may be correct that some portion of that information comes from clips on TikTok, and social media can be misleading, but there’s no evidence that college students are more likely to be misled by TikTok than people Mr. Lawler’s age and older are likely to be misled by Facebook. In fact, research indicates that younger people are more savvy and skeptical about media, and more likely to triangulate among different sources to see if something is true.

They may also be more sensitive to the horrors of children being killed here and elsewhere because they grew up participating in active shooter drills and watching the aftermath of mass shootings on the news. They are less financially secure than generations prior, and less likely to believe that institutions will save them or reward them for loyalty and hard work . But they are not babies, and they are not oblivious or naïve. And their ideas and actions cannot be dismissed just because some bad actor — no mass movement is without them — does or says something stupid.

I’m somewhat sympathetic to those who find protests uncomfortable. They’re always disruptive, as they’re supposed to be. And big loud crowds make me nervous now in a way that they didn’t when I was 22 and a big loud crowd was fun and meant I was at a club with oontz-oontz-oontz music and 73 of my closest friends. I now prefer political participation that is less hard on the knees. But I am exhilarated to see students using protest for exactly the reasons it’s protected by the First Amendment. It allows them to stand up for their values, invest in what’s happening in the world and hold decision makers accountable, even if it means putting themselves at risk. And most compellingly, it’s getting the attention of the president and other lawmakers who can effect change far beyond the walls of any university campus.

Elizabeth Spiers, a contributing Opinion writer, is a journalist and a digital media strategist.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .