|
TOPIC
|
QUESTION |
|
Suez |
How could the USA
and USSR pass a resolution in the UN to demand
immediate ceasefire (after Suez crisis) without
Britain and France (who were also permanent
members of the UN security council) ?
Did Britain and France's invasion have any effect
on the UN (as the permanent members did not
agree) ?
The USA and the USSR joined to pass this
resolution : did it have any affects on the cold
war? |
|
NCB writes |
The UN didn't
pass a resolution as you say because of the
British and French Veto. But they were in the
minority with even Australia (one of the
temporary members of the Security Council) voting
against them. In some ways the UN was weaker
because of Suez but the leadership of the
Secretary General, Dan Hammerskold probably
increased its prestige. Interestingly, both the
US and USSR agreed (for different reasons) that
GB and France were in the wrong. So no Cold War
there. However, it marks the real beginnings of
both Soviet and US interference and as such
increased Cold War tensions in the area. The US
will act under what became known as the
Eisenhower doctrine and the USSR will increase
economic and military help for Egypt. |
|
Vietnam |
What was involved in the Vietnamisation of the
war? |
|
NCB writes |
Training the
South Vietnam Army to fight for itself and
extending the war wider e.g. invasion of Cambodia. |
|
Vietnam |
What was "Mi lay" ? And what was the Tet
offensive? |
|
NCB writes |
Mai Lay was a
village where US forces carried out a horrifying
massacre. Hugely increased protests inside the
USA against the war. The Tet offensive was a
combined North Vietnam and Vietcong offensive
(Spring offensive) against South Vietnam and the
US in 1968. Initially damaging but in the medium
term unsuccessful. Long term, however, showed
such an offensive was possible and was another
step on the road towards US withdrawal. |
|
French
Decolonization |
What are
exactly the FIDES reforms of 1946-1956? And what
are their significance? |
|
NCB writes |
FIDES (Fonds
d’intervention pour le développement économique
et social) was introduced after the 2WW by the
French government as a way of improving
economies, social fabric, education in its
colonies. Was it to prepare for independence or
to strengthen French control? In any case France
poured considerable sums into their colonies... |
|
Containment |
What is
exactly SEATO and CENTO? What was their
significance? |
|
NCB writes |
SEATO (South
East Asia Treaty Organisation) and CENTO (Central
Treaty Organisation) were extensions to the Far
East and to Central Asia of NATO. SEATO came
about after Korea and the IndoChina war to
prevent further Communist advances and had as its
members: Australia, France, Great Britain, New
Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, and
the United States. CENTO was the logical
continuation (Baghdad Pact) with Iraq, Turkey,
Pakistan, Iran, and the United Kingdom. The US
joined in 1958 when Iraq's revolution brought in
the Ba'ath Party and Iraq left Cento began to
look to Moscow. This 'Pactomania' saw also the
extension on NATO to include West Germany....and
eventually (1955) the Warsaw Pact was formed to
counter all this. |
|
YALTA |
I am not sure
to have fully understood why the Big Three argued
about their interpretations of 'democracy' after
discussing Poland at Yalta.
What did "democracy" precisely mean to the
Soviets, if they considered communism to be
democratic? Did they mean that the way the
country was for the people, and therefore
democratic? |
|
NCB writes |
I don't think
they argued about their interpretations of
democracy although they certainly understood it
differently. Stalin was happy to have it in the
text since it allowed a common statement to be
issued on Poland. Meanwhile, he could begin to
manipulate the subsequent elections without there
being much his allies could do. As for
interpretations of democracy, the Western allies
understood it to involve multi-party elections
whereas Stalin believed that democracy could be
achieved through a single party system. |
|
Br decol
Long Q
worth
reading! |
I'd like to
know what happened exactly in Malaya. I know the
USA supported Britain to stay there because of
the communist threat, but I'd like to have
precisions about this threat. Malaya was divided
between Chinese community, Malay community and
Indian community, and at the time China hadn't
yet fallen to communism, however the Malayan
Peoples Anti-Japanese Army was Chinese and
communist-dominated. That is what I have
understood, but after that I find it confusing.
What is it about the equal rights for Chinese
that Britain promised and btw Chinese and Indian
later ? I don't grasp how it was that Malaya
finally gained independence, because even though
the Malayan Chinese Association, the United
Malays' National Organisation and the Malayan
Indian Congress formed a coalition in 1953, the
communist threat still existed no ? Was it in
1955 when the Malay Federation was created that
Malaya was considered independent, or was it in
1957 ? What is there exactly to remember about
Malaya ? |
|
NCB writes |
The
important thing to emphasize is that Britain did
not intend to keep Malaya and independence was
promised not long after India's. It was just a
question of the type of independence and the
process. Britain wanted to leave
Westminster-style parliamentary democracy. This
was not favoured by the Malays because it would
give the Indians and Chinese too much influence.
First delay. Then, there was no question of
leaving a situation favourable to Communism
(essentially Chinese Communism). Second delay.
The British were prepared to fight against that
(General Temple) but not for long. It was too
expensive. By having the elections and leaving,
they took away the official reason for Chinese
resistance. |
|
Korea |
In my readings
about the Korean War, the role of China is
sometimes emphasised and sometimes completely
ignored; and I don't know what to make of that. |
|
NCB writes |
It's difficult to know why
some books, especially textbooks, simply discuss
the role of the USSR and whether it did or didn't
back North Korea. I suppose it's normal, though,
since not even 'Time' questioned that orthodoxy.
In July 1950, I read in Time,
"An 83 year old
man in Los Angeles...had an urge to call up Joe
Stalin and ask what he was up to...." But
as the story unfolded, China starts to become
more of the focus. "Time" in December is saying
something different to what it discussed in July.
Its map shows China
as the threat and there are articles about the
rise of Mao and Communism. It emphazises that
China is Communist from 1949. The advance of
Communism must have seemed terrifying to the US
and many others. Of course, the USSR was the
prime suspect in backing N Korea but MacArthur
still wanted to take out China before being
stopped by Truman. And then...China invaded and
the war was nearly lost. In the end the UN held
on but China had become a major world player. As
Time, 11/12/50 wrote:
"His (Mao's)
armies are giving the most powerful nation on
earth the worst beating in its military
history........Radio Peking last week blared the
order of the Red day, exhorted Mao's men on: "The
imperialist armies under the command of MacArthur
await their fate of being totally crushed...The
entire people of Korea, of China of Asia and the
whole world are watching your glorious struggle
with unbounded respect." Once History
books, too, get on describing the war, China
takes a central role and reflect why people at
the time talked of "The Yellow Peril". |
|
Decol |
I'm finding
it difficult to understand the question: "how far
were British decolonisations swifter and less
violent than French ones?"
Many historians claim that this is true, but
Britain only gave independence to Zimbabwe in
1979 and French decolonisation was not
particularly violent on the whole. Besides
Britain also had violent decolonisations. I was
wondering whether there was a better alternative
for a question about decolonisation comparison. |
|
NCB writes |
See below for
whether it was less violent. I think you have the
wrong question. Surely you mean to say 'easier'
and not swifter? You're right, the two processes
took roughly the same length of time with
practically all of it done (except places like
Rhodesia) by the mid sixties. Why it was swift
for both is an interesting question.... and the
Second World War has a lot to do with it! |
|
Cuba |
I was
wondering whether or not we should outline all
the events of the Cuban Missile Crisis in the
subject about the origins and consequences of the
crisis because after all it does only say origins
and consequences. The problem is that I find it
difficult to just outline all the events briefly
and it would take me 3-4 minutes talking about
what actually happened and wouldn't leave me much
time to approach the actual origins and
consequences. |
|
NCB writes |
Thanks for
this question. Take note everybody: telling the
story takes 3-4 minutes and doesn't leave much
time to approach the actual origins and
consequences. So DON'T tell the story. Only use
the events to illustrate aspects of origins or
significance. |
| Cuba |
How much was
the American policy after the Bay of Pigs (covert
action + diplomatic and economic sanctions +
military pressure...) an example of flexible
response (that's what I've read) because i
thought flexible response meant that any attack
would be met with the appropriate level of
tactical, conventional or strategic nuclear
response. I just don't see the link between the
two here. |
|
NCB writes |
Presumably
this refers to Kennedy's so-called crisis
management during the Missile Crisis itself which
was flexible. But you're right to ask...I'll
check further. |
|
Decol |
I'm having
trouble trying to find the reasons as to why
French decolonisation was more violent than
British decol a part from a different approach to
the colonies altogether and the presence of white
settlers.... |
|
NCB writes |
Was it? When
you think of it, Morocco, Tunisia and all of
French Equatorial Africa and French West Africa
(creating countries like Senegal, Chad, Ivory
Coast...) were all peaceful and relatively
successful. The French Union (1946) and then the
French Community (1959) resembled the British
Commonwealth which later became the Commonwealth.
So there was only Indochina and Algeria which
were not. Both of those countries had special
circumstances, just as Malaya and Kenya did for
the British. In Malaya, Britain fought a war
against Communist infiltration before giving
independence, and in Kenya it defeated the
Mau-Mau. So in Indochina, France, who began
trying to recover lost prestige after the 2WW,
also found themselves fighting a war against
Communism; a war which was supported and paid for
by the USA. Algeria, which was never considered
anything other than France, was, of course
different....... |
|
Fr 4&5th
|
What is there to retain from the 4th & 5th
Republics period ?........ |
|
NCB writes |
Your long question on
France might be answered soon on a full page. In
the meantime, the Economy of the
4th Rep is already up. |
|
Mid-East |
Was Arab
nationalism and Arab leadership a real issue in
the 1956 Suez crisis? |
|
NCB writes |
Yes, I think
it was. Nasser was certainly exalting Arab
Nationalism and was riding on a wave of
popularity which encouraged him to challenge
Western influence. This Nationalism was part of
the emergence of Arab Progressive Socialist
states (cf Iraq 1958). As for leadership, Nasser
was certainly the Arab leader making the largest
impact and he will soon be clearly bidding for it
with the creation of the UAR (United Arab
Republic) with Syria. |
|
Decol |
What was the
"Simon commission"? |
|
NCB writes |
Mention of the
Simon commission would come when discussing
British attitudes towards India and would be very
brief. How prepared was Britain to entertain
Independence? That Britain was discussing India's
future government is in itself significant and
the Simon Commission, which had been sitting for
some years, reported in 1930. It envisaged Indian
participation in provincial government and a
central legislature elected by provincial
legislatures, which themselves had been set up in
1919. On the other hand, it did not alter the
executive government, controlled by the British,
and there were no Indians on the Commission. Much
more important were the Round Table conferences
(1931-2) in which Indians, including Gandhi, did
sit. These proposed a Federation which was put
forward in the Government of India Act in 1935. |
|
Far East |
What were the
exact significances of the Korean War? |
|
NCB writes |
Well, I'm not
sure we want to have our answers in black and
white but I can give you a few lines of thought.
1. It was the moment when the Cold War, and
particularly the policy of Containment, was
extended to the Far East.
2. It represented a change in American policy in
three other ways:
|
a)
|
Instead
of being just Containment, it was now
active. This had been already understood at
the time of NSC 68 (a paper which outlined
American policy in 1954). As the war went
on, American policy took on the appearance
of "Roll Back" especially when MacArthur
was influential. |
|
b) |
The USA
now understood that future conflicts could
be 'Conventional' rather than 'Nuclear'.
(but in 1953 when Eisenhower came to power
he saw that the Korean War was expensive in
material and lives and so he looked also to
a nuclear policy of overwhelming response
as a deterrent. 'A bigger bang for your
buck'.) |
|
c) |
The US
developed the domino theory that if one
state fell to communism, they would all
fall. Therefore we see them changing their
attitude to the French colonial war in
Indochina which they now practically pay
for. |
4 Following the war, we see the extension of
Containment alliances: SEATO, CENTO and the
extension of NATO ( all known as Pactomania)
5. It is possible to say, therefore, that the
timing of the Warsaw Pact's creation (1955) in
response to the entry of West Germany into NATO,
was indirectly a result of the Korean War
6. And we can perhaps say that the rearmament
that the war caused led to hardships in East
Europe and the uprisings in Berlin in 1953...
7 It sees the arrival of China on the World stage
even if it was later 'contained' by both the USA
AND the USSR.
8 It underlined structural weaknesses in the UN
which will not agree another Security Council
vote for action until after the fall of Communism
(Kuwait war)
9 It was wasteful in lives on a horrific scale
(see figures) and was yet to become known as 'The
Forgotten War'. |
The Open Door Web Site