Causes and effects of wars (750–1500)

From Grand Alliance to superpower rivalry, 1943–1949

US–USSR–China relations, 1947–1979

Confrontation, reconciliation and the end of the Cold War, 1980–1991

The impact of Cold War leaders

The Cold War’s impact on individual countries

Comparing Cold War crises

### An alliance built around a common enemy

The **Grand Alliance** brought the US, the USSR and Britain together against Nazi Germany. This was a military partnership, not a shared plan for the post-war world. Distrust persisted throughout the war. Soviet leaders remembered Western hostility towards communism and the delay in opening a second front. Western governments, meanwhile, remained wary of Stalin’s dictatorship and Soviet territorial ambitions.

At Tehran in November–December 1943, the Allies agreed to launch a Western invasion of France and discussed post-war borders. They went further at Yalta in February 1945, agreeing to divide Germany into occupation zones, set up occupation arrangements for Berlin and create the United Nations. Stalin promised to enter the war against Japan. He also accepted a broadly worded commitment to representative government in liberated Europe. Poland’s borders and political future remained disputed.

By Potsdam in July–August 1945, the circumstances were very different. Germany had surrendered. Truman had replaced Roosevelt, while Attlee replaced Churchill during the conference. The US had also successfully tested an atomic bomb. Disputes soon surfaced over reparations, Germany and Soviet control in eastern Europe.

### Ideology, fear and aggression

The US supported multiparty politics, private enterprise and access to international markets. The Soviet system relied on Communist Party rule, state ownership and central planning. Both sides interpreted the other’s actions through these ideological assumptions.

Repeated invasions from the west shaped Soviet security fears, especially the German invasion of 1941. Stalin wanted governments friendly to Moscow along the USSR’s western frontier. Between 1945 and 1948, communist control spread across much of eastern Europe. Coalition tactics and control of security ministries played a part, alongside electoral manipulation and the removal of opponents.

Western governments viewed these actions as expansion, not defence. Churchill expressed the belief that Europe was being divided in his March 1946 “iron curtain” speech. Soviet leaders saw matters differently. To them, US possession of the atomic bomb, Western economic power and US forces stationed overseas all posed potential threats.

Fear and aggression fed into each other. Measures intended as defensive by one side looked offensive to the other, a pattern often called the **security dilemma**. Soviet control over neighbouring states strengthened Western resistance. In turn, Western economic and military initiatives reinforced Stalin’s belief that the USSR was being encircled.

### Economic interests and rival programmes

The US wanted Europe to recover. Poverty and political instability could strengthen communist parties, while prosperous economies could take part in an open trading system. Announced in March 1947, the Truman Doctrine promised support for governments resisting armed minorities or outside pressure. Greece and Turkey received the initial aid, but the doctrine established the broader policy of **containment**: limiting further communist expansion.

The Marshall Plan followed in June 1947, offering reconstruction assistance to European states. The USSR refused to participate and stopped eastern European governments from accepting the offer. Moscow viewed the programme as a way to extend US economic and political influence. Its response was Cominform in 1947 and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance in 1949.

Meanwhile, the Western occupation zones of Germany were becoming more closely integrated. Currency reform arrived in June 1948. Stalin responded by blocking land access to West Berlin, so the US and Britain supplied the city by air until the blockade ended in May 1949. The confrontation sped up the creation of the Federal Republic of Germany in May 1949 and the German Democratic Republic in October 1949.

### Rivalry in Asia

At Yalta, Stalin gained territorial and strategic concessions in exchange for entering the war against Japan. Soviet forces attacked Japanese positions in August 1945 and occupied northern Korea. US forces accepted the Japanese surrender south of the 38th parallel. By 1948, separate governments had emerged in Korea, embedding superpower rivalry in the region.

In Japan, the US occupation led by General Douglas MacArthur introduced political and economic reforms, while the US kept exclusive control of the occupation. As Cold War tensions increased, US policy shifted towards rebuilding Japan as a stable anti-communist partner. Renewed civil war in China ended in October 1949, when Mao Zedong proclaimed the People’s Republic of China and Chiang Kai-shek’s government retreated to Taiwan. The result transformed the Asian balance and deepened US fears of communist expansion.

### Comparing responsibility

| US role | USSR role |
|---|---|
| Used its economic strength to shape reconstruction and promote an open international economy | Established loyal governments in neighbouring states and limited their political independence |
| Developed containment through the Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan | Rejected Marshall aid and enforced tighter ideological and economic coordination in eastern Europe |
| Integrated the Western zones of Germany and kept a strategic atomic advantage | Blockaded West Berlin and treated Germany as a security threat as well as a source of reparations |
| Built influence through the occupation and reconstruction of Japan | Expanded its position in northeast Asia through wartime agreements and military occupation |

One interpretation assigns primary responsibility to Stalin’s coercive actions and the expansion of Soviet power. Another stresses US economic dominance, atomic diplomacy and the hardening of containment. A more balanced interpretation sees the breakdown as the product of incompatible interests, mutual insecurity and choices made by both governments.

### Containment and the formation of rival blocs

From 1947, the US aimed to stop Soviet and communist power from expanding further, without directly conquering states that were already under communist rule. Containment took several forms: economic aid, military alliances, overseas bases and nuclear deterrence. At times, it also involved covert intervention.

NATO’s creation in 1949 committed the US to defending western Europe. The USSR responded later by organizing the Warsaw Pact in 1955. Meanwhile, competition spread across Asia. The US rebuilt Japan, refused to recognize the People’s Republic of China and backed anti-communist governments. Washington often viewed international communism as a coordinated movement, even when revolutionary forces were pursuing strong local aims.

Military alliances didn’t remove the need for caution. As nuclear weapons became more destructive, both sides relied on **deterrence**: each tried to prevent an attack by keeping the ability to retaliate. This helped prevent a direct US–Soviet war, but it fuelled the arms competition and encouraged conflict through allies and client states.

### Peaceful co-existence

Following Stalin’s death in 1953, Khrushchev promoted **peaceful co-existence**. Political and economic competition with capitalism would continue, but direct war was no longer treated as inevitable. The Austrian State Treaty of 1955 and the Geneva Summit held that year showed that limited negotiation was possible.

Rivalry continued all the same. Khrushchev negotiated, but he also applied pressure, made nuclear threats and supported revolutionary movements. In May 1960, the shooting down of a US U-2 reconnaissance aircraft over the USSR wrecked the planned Paris summit. Both powers kept competing for influence in newly independent states.

### From Sino-Soviet alliance to split

After the People’s Republic of China was established in 1949, the USSR recognized it. The Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance followed in February 1950. Soviet advisers and loans then helped Chinese industrial development.

Relations began to worsen after 1956. Mao opposed Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin and regarded peaceful co-existence as insufficiently revolutionary. Beijing resented being treated by the Soviets as a junior partner. Moscow, in turn, criticized policies such as the Great Leap Forward. In 1960, the USSR withdrew its technical advisers.

What began as an ideological disagreement developed into a strategic conflict. China attacked the Soviet willingness to negotiate with the US, while the USSR feared China’s independent ambitions and nuclear programme. Armed clashes along the Ussuri River in 1969 demonstrated that two communist powers could become military rivals. The split undermined the idea of a single communist bloc and opened the way for the US to pursue triangular diplomacy.

### Sino-US rapprochement

At first, the US isolated the People’s Republic of China and continued to recognize Chiang Kai-shek’s government on Taiwan. By the late 1960s, however, Washington and Beijing both viewed the USSR as a major danger. President Nixon and his adviser Henry Kissinger turned to secret diplomacy to reopen relations.

In 1971, China entered the United Nations in place of Taiwan. Nixon visited China in February 1972. The resulting Shanghai Communiqué acknowledged the two countries’ differences while creating a basis for further contact. Full diplomatic relations were established under President Carter in January 1979. Rapprochement didn’t turn the US and China into allies, but it altered the balance among the three powers and put greater pressure on Moscow to negotiate.

### Détente

**Détente** reduced tension through negotiation, regular diplomatic contact and agreements designed to manage competition. Ideological conflict and the arms race still continued.

Several pressures drove US–Soviet détente. Nuclear parity made an uncontrolled confrontation dangerous, while the arms race imposed high costs. The USSR wanted recognition of the post-war European settlement. After prolonged conflict in Southeast Asia, the US sought greater flexibility. Sino-US rapprochement gave Moscow another reason to improve relations with Washington.

The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks led to the 1972 SALT I Interim Agreement and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. In 1975, the Helsinki Final Act recognized European frontiers and committed its signatories to principles concerning human rights. The US and USSR also cooperated in trade and science, as well as in the 1975 Apollo–Soyuz space mission.

Yet détente was fragile. Arms limitations placed controls on selected weapons rather than bringing general disarmament. Across Africa, Asia and the Middle East, both powers continued backing opposing governments and movements. Criticism grew within the US, while Soviet leaders rejected Western efforts to use human-rights commitments against communist rule. SALT II was signed in 1979 but wasn’t ratified by the US Senate. Renewed international confrontations then ended this phase of détente.

### Renewed confrontation

By 1980, little remained of détente’s cooperative atmosphere. The USSR’s military involvement in Afghanistan from December 1979 sharpened Western fears of Soviet expansion. In response, the Carter administration restricted trade, increased support for Soviet opponents and withdrew SALT II from Senate consideration.

Ronald Reagan took office in January 1981 and adopted a more confrontational approach. His administration raised US defence expenditure and deployed intermediate-range missiles in western Europe. It also supported anti-communist forces abroad. Announced in 1983, the Strategic Defense Initiative proposed research into systems that could intercept nuclear missiles. Soviet leaders feared the technology might weaken their nuclear deterrent, although the project remained technically uncertain.

Tensions peaked in 1983. The USSR shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007 after it entered Soviet airspace. Some Soviet officials also interpreted the NATO exercise Able Archer as a possible cover for attack. Both incidents showed how easily miscalculation could become dangerous.

### Ideological challenges and dissent

A growing divide separated communist governments’ official claims from everyday life. Censorship and restrictions on travel damaged their legitimacy, as did shortages and political privilege. Dissidents circulated forbidden writing, recorded human-rights violations and challenged the state’s control over information.

The independent Solidarity trade union emerged in Poland in 1980 under Lech Wałęsa. Martial law was imposed in December 1981, but the movement survived underground and kept broad social support. Eastern European activists used the Helsinki commitments as an international language of rights to criticize their governments.

Mikhail Gorbachev became Soviet leader in March 1985. **Glasnost** widened openness and public discussion. **Perestroika** aimed to restructure the economy and administration. Gorbachev intended these reforms to renew socialism, not abolish it. Yet they exposed failures, weakened censorship and gave national and political movements more room to organize.

### Economic problems and the arms race

Low productivity, technological weakness and inefficient planning troubled the Soviet economy. Heavy military expenditure added to the burden. Oil revenue had hidden some of these difficulties during the 1970s, but falling prices in the 1980s cut hard-currency earnings. Overseas commitments and subsidies to allied governments consumed further resources.

The arms race made these pressures worse. The USSR maintained strategic parity with a much wealthier US economy, devoting a substantial share of its resources to defence. Reagan’s military buildup, along with the prospect of new technologies, increased Soviet anxiety. Economic weakness alone, however, did not make a peaceful outcome inevitable. Gorbachev’s political choices determined Moscow’s response to those pressures.

### Reconciliation under Gorbachev

Gorbachev’s **new thinking** viewed security as mutual, rather than something achieved through unlimited military competition. He pursued arms reductions and cut support for costly foreign commitments. He also rejected the routine use of force to keep communist governments in power in eastern Europe.

A succession of summits changed the relationship. Gorbachev and Reagan met at Geneva in 1985, then at Reykjavík in 1986. Reykjavík brought no immediate general agreement, but it laid the groundwork for the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of December 1987. The treaty eliminated an entire category of land-based missiles. Soviet forces began withdrawing from Afghanistan in 1988. That year, Gorbachev told the United Nations that Soviet troop levels would be reduced.

The Bush administration first reviewed US policy, then worked with Gorbachev. Their meeting at Malta in December 1989 symbolized the end of superpower confrontation. Further negotiations produced the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty in 1990 and START I in July 1991.

### Collapse of communist rule and the USSR

Communist governments across eastern Europe fell from power in 1989, and Moscow did not send forces to restore them. Poland held partially free elections. Hungary opened its border with Austria, while mass protests forced change in the German Democratic Republic. The Berlin Wall opened on 9 November 1989. Germany reunified in October 1990.

Within the USSR, glasnost encouraged criticism, while economic disruption eroded confidence in reform. National movements called for sovereignty or independence. Communist hardliners attempted a coup in August 1991, but its failure further weakened Gorbachev and strengthened Boris Yeltsin. The USSR formally ceased to exist in December 1991.

### Weighing the causes

| Cause | Contribution | Limitation |
|---|---|---|
| Ideological challenges and dissent | Weakened communist legitimacy and mobilized opposition | Dissent had existed earlier without bringing Soviet power to an end |
| Economic weakness | Made military competition and overseas commitments harder to sustain | Economic problems produced withdrawal only after political decisions were made |
| Arms race and US pressure | Increased Soviet costs and encouraged negotiation | Reconciliation relied on cooperation as well as pressure |
| Gorbachev’s reforms | Reduced confrontation and permitted change in eastern Europe | The reforms also destabilized the Soviet system beyond Gorbachev’s intentions |
| Nationalism | Broke apart the Soviet state and its sphere of influence | National movements grew partly because central authority and ideology were already becoming weaker |

The comparison must cover two leaders from different IB regions. Here, the focus is on Dwight D. Eisenhower from the Americas and Deng Xiaoping from Asia and Oceania, though other suitable pairs may be studied instead.

### Eisenhower: strategy and nuclear deterrence

Dwight D. Eisenhower was US president from 1953 to 1961. He inherited a costly policy of global containment and wanted to uphold US commitments without depending on large conventional armies. His 1954 “New Look” placed greater emphasis on nuclear weapons, strategic air power and the threat of major retaliation.

The strategy strengthened deterrence and cut some military costs. At the same time, it put nuclear threats at the centre of diplomacy. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles portrayed the administration as prepared to approach the brink of war. Eisenhower himself was more cautious in practice, especially when direct conflict risked escalating into war with the USSR or China.

Through alliances and security relationships in Asia and the Middle East, Eisenhower widened the geographical reach of containment. His administration also turned to covert action. In 1953, the CIA helped remove Iran’s prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh; in 1954, it helped remove Guatemala’s president Jacobo Árbenz. These operations protected governments friendly to Washington, but they also linked the US to political intervention and authoritarian rule.

Pressure was combined with negotiation. Eisenhower attended the Geneva Summit in 1955, where he advanced the “Open Skies” proposal for mutual aerial observation. The USSR rejected it. His administration chose not to intervene when Soviet forces suppressed resistance in eastern Europe, exposing the limits of US rhetoric about liberation. Then, in 1960, the U-2 incident wrecked the planned Paris summit and left relations strained as Eisenhower’s presidency ended.

Eisenhower’s impact was mixed. He institutionalized a global, heavily nuclear form of containment, while his caution helped stop regional confrontations from developing into direct superpower war.

### Deng Xiaoping: reform and strategic realignment

From 1978, Deng Xiaoping emerged as China’s dominant leader, even though he did not hold all the highest formal offices. Modernization was his central aim. Market-oriented reforms, foreign investment and closer engagement with the world economy moved China away from Mao-era isolation without ending Communist Party rule.

Deng consolidated the Sino-US rapprochement that had begun earlier. Full diplomatic relations were established in January 1979, followed shortly afterwards by Deng’s visit to the US. Despite their major ideological differences, both governments saw Soviet power as the main strategic threat. This led to intelligence and security cooperation.

Tensions with the USSR continued. China attacked Vietnam in 1979, partly to punish a Soviet ally and to show that Moscow could not easily protect its partners in Asia. China also opposed Soviet military involvement in Afghanistan. Its independent policy showed that the Cold War could no longer be viewed simply as a struggle between two united ideological blocs.

Economic reform increased China’s long-term power and gave Beijing an interest in a comparatively stable international order. Deng placed less emphasis on exporting revolution, prioritizing trade and development instead. However, the suppression of demonstrations in Beijing in June 1989 damaged relations with Western governments. It also showed that economic opening did not entail political liberalization.

Deng’s main impact was not that he ended the Cold War, but that he changed its structure. China became an independent strategic pole, cooperated selectively with the US against the USSR and laid the economic foundations for influence beyond the Cold War.

### Comparing their impact

| Eisenhower | Deng Xiaoping |
|---|---|
| Made nuclear deterrence central to US containment | Made economic modernization central to Chinese power |
| Extended alliances and covert intervention across several regions | Consolidated China’s strategic cooperation with the US against the USSR |
| Mixed hard-line public language with caution about direct war | Replaced revolutionary internationalism with pragmatic state interests |
| Shaped an earlier, predominantly bipolar phase of the Cold War | Reinforced the later movement towards a more complex triangular balance |

Wider forces limited the choices available to both leaders. Eisenhower worked within the nuclear arms race and existing US commitments. Deng benefited from the Sino-Soviet split and from changes that had started before his return to power. Even so, leadership mattered because each man chose among several possible responses to these conditions.

The comparison requires two countries from different IB regions. Japan belongs to Asia and Oceania; Egypt belongs to Africa and the Middle East. Their experiences show that Cold War pressure shaped economies, societies and cultures in quite different ways.

### Japan: economic impact

Japan was occupied by the US until 1952. During the early years, reforms brought demilitarization, land redistribution and the restructuring of large business groups. As conflict with communism grew, US occupation policy turned towards economic recovery and political stability. Known as the “reverse course”, this shift strengthened conservative forces and positioned Japan as a central US partner in Asia.

During the war in Korea, US military procurement boosted Japanese production and sped up recovery. Under the 1951 Security Treaty, the US retained military bases while Japan kept its own defence expenditure comparatively limited. Rapid growth also drew on access to US markets, government industrial policy, high investment and an educated workforce. Cold War strategy alone didn’t create Japan’s economic success, but it supplied security and favourable access to the US-led economy.

### Japan: social and cultural impact

The 1947 constitution created a parliamentary government. It also included Article 9, under which Japan renounced war. Pacifism became an important part of post-war identity, even though the Self-Defense Forces were created in 1954.

The security relationship with the US divided Japanese society. Large protests challenged the revised security treaty in 1960. Communities near US bases also objected to land use, crime and noise. Even so, conservative governments kept the alliance, contributing to the long dominance of the Liberal Democratic Party.

American films, music, clothing and consumer goods gained influence, yet Japanese society didn’t simply adopt US culture. People adapted imported forms to local tastes. At the same time, memories of atomic destruction encouraged peace movements and opposition to nuclear weapons. Economic growth brought urbanization, expanded education and a mass consumer culture.

### Egypt: economic impact

Egyptian leaders tried to use superpower rivalry to secure arms, finance and development assistance, while preserving room for independent action. Western governments withdrew support for the Aswan High Dam in 1956, after which the USSR helped finance and construct it. Soviet assistance funded industrial projects as well and supplied extensive military equipment.

This strategic partnership delivered resources, but it also made Egypt more dependent on imported weapons and advisers. Military confrontation with Israel was costly and damaged infrastructure. During the 1970s, Anwar Sadat moved Egypt towards the US. He expelled many Soviet advisers in 1972 and introduced **infitah**, an economic opening intended to attract Western and Arab investment. US aid became increasingly important after the 1978 Camp David Accords and the 1979 Egyptian–Israeli peace treaty.

### Egypt: social and cultural impact

Cold War competition increased the power of the military and the centralized state. The expansion of state employment, education and welfare opened opportunities for social mobility, though it also added to bureaucracy. Defeat in 1967 damaged public confidence in the government. It also weakened broader claims that state-led development would bring national renewal.

Through Egyptian radio, cinema and political language, anti-imperial and pan-Arab ideas spread across the Arabic-speaking world. Soviet influence could be seen in technical education, military training and cultural exchanges. Egyptian political culture, however, remained rooted in Arab nationalism rather than Soviet communism. The later turn towards the US introduced Western consumer influences and greater economic inequality. Groups excluded from the benefits of infitah responded with criticism.

### Comparison

| Area | Japan | Egypt |
|---|---|---|
| Economic alignment | Integrated into the US-led capitalist system | Shifted from extensive Soviet assistance towards US support |
| Security | Protected by a US alliance while limiting its own military role | Built a large military and moved between external patrons |
| Social effects | Pacifism, base protests, urbanization and conservative political stability | Militarization, expanded state employment and tensions over inequality |
| Cultural effects | Adaptation of US consumer culture alongside a strong peace identity | Pan-Arab and anti-imperial culture alongside Soviet and later Western influences |

The Cold War had a powerful impact, but not the same one in each country. In Japan, existing institutions, the occupation experience and the US alliance supported export-led growth. Egypt’s regional conflicts and nationalism, together with its search for development, pushed its leaders to bargain between the superpowers. Domestic decisions shaped the effects of international rivalry in both societies.

Two crises from different IB regions need to be studied in detail. Here, the U-2 Crisis of 1960 in Europe is compared with the Ogaden crisis and war of 1977–1978 in Africa.

### U-2 Crisis: causes

The nuclear arms race drove an intense demand for intelligence. Since satellite reconnaissance was not yet fully operational, the US used high-altitude U-2 aircraft to photograph Soviet military and missile facilities. Eisenhower authorized these flights even though discovery risked damaging diplomacy and violated Soviet airspace.

A Paris summit was due to take place in May 1960. Eisenhower and Khrushchev were expected to discuss Germany and Berlin, as well as nuclear testing and disarmament. By permitting one more reconnaissance mission shortly before the summit, Eisenhower created the immediate conditions for the crisis.

### U-2 Crisis: course, impact and significance

On 1 May 1960, a Soviet missile shot down a U-2 flown by Francis Gary Powers near Sverdlovsk. At first, the US claimed that a weather aircraft had gone missing. Khrushchev then revealed that Powers had survived and that Soviet authorities held parts of the aircraft. This false explanation damaged US credibility.

When the Paris summit opened on 16 May, Khrushchev demanded an apology, an end to the flights and punishment of those responsible. Eisenhower accepted personal responsibility and stopped further flights. He refused to apologize, however, and Khrushchev left the summit.

The incident ended any immediate prospect of improved relations and gave more weight to hard-line arguments on both sides. It also exposed the danger of running intelligence operations alongside high-level diplomacy. The long-term impact was more limited. No military clash followed, and later satellite technology reduced the need for vulnerable reconnaissance flights.

### Ogaden crisis: causes

The Ogaden was an Ethiopian region inhabited largely by ethnic Somalis. Somali nationalism aimed to unite Somali communities across existing borders, while President Siad Barre wanted to incorporate the territory into Somalia. Ethiopia had been weakened after Emperor Haile Selassie was overthrown in 1974 and the Marxist Derg seized power.

This regional conflict became entangled with superpower competition. The USSR had supplied Somalia, but it developed closer relations with the Derg as Ethiopia moved towards Marxism. Somali leaders expected Ethiopia’s internal disorder and military weakness to allow a rapid victory.

### Ogaden crisis: course, impact and significance

Somali forces entered the Ogaden in July 1977, quickly capturing much of the territory. The USSR tried to mediate but ultimately backed Ethiopia because it offered greater population, strategic importance and regional influence. Moscow cut military support to Somalia and organized a major supply effort for Ethiopia. Thousands of Cuban troops also supported Ethiopian operations.

By March 1978, Ethiopian and Cuban forces had pushed the Somali army out of most of the Ogaden. Siad Barre expelled Soviet advisers and turned towards the US. Ethiopia became the USSR’s principal regional partner; Somalia sought assistance from the West and the Middle East.

The war brought deaths, displacement and destruction to the Horn of Africa. Defeat weakened Barre’s government and contributed to longer-term internal instability in Somalia. Ethiopia’s victory temporarily strengthened the Derg, but it neither ended domestic rebellion nor solved the underlying national and territorial disputes.

The rapid reversal of alliances gives the conflict its broader significance. Strategic calculations mattered more than ideological labels: the USSR abandoned one Marxist government for another, while the US moved closer to its former opponent. The crisis also shows how local ambitions could start conflicts that the superpowers then intensified.

### Direct comparison

| Issue | U-2 Crisis | Ogaden crisis |
|---|---|---|
| Primary cause | Superpower intelligence gathering and mistrust | Territorial nationalism and political instability in the Horn of Africa |
| Superpower role | Direct US–Soviet diplomatic confrontation | External support for regional states and a major Soviet realignment |
| Level of violence | No direct fighting between the superpowers | Large-scale conventional warfare involving foreign personnel and weapons |
| Immediate impact | Collapse of the Paris summit | Ethiopian victory and Somalia’s change of alignment |
| Wider significance | Revealed how mistrust could obstruct peaceful co-existence | Demonstrated the interaction of local causes with global rivalry |
| Long-term limitation | Produced a temporary diplomatic setback rather than a permanent transformation | Changed alliances but failed to resolve regional instability |

Mistrust, strategic calculation and the chance to gain an advantage shaped both crises. Their main causes, though, were different. The U-2 Crisis grew directly out of the superpower struggle. The Ogaden conflict began with regional territorial aims. Cold War rivalry could therefore cause a crisis itself or act as an external force that changed its scale and outcome.

Causes and effects of 20th century wars

History

IB History develops students' understanding of significant historical events, themes, and interpretations across different periods and regions.Students learn to analyze historical sources critically, understand complex historical narratives, and develop sophisticated historical thinking skills.

2.12 The Cold War: Superpower tensions and rivalries (20th century)

Question 1

[15]

Question 2

[15]

Question 3

[15]

Question 4

[15]

Question 5

[15]

Question 6

[15]