DOCSLIB.ORG

Unit-16 End of the Cold War

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Unit-16 End of the Cold War The BAPS, Self Learning Materials follows the UGC prescribed State Model Syllabus under Choice Based Credit System (CBCS). This course material is designed and developed by Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), New Delhi and K.K Handiqui Open University. Bachelor of Arts POLITICAL SCIENCES (BAPS) BAPS-7 Perspectives on International Relations Block-4 AN OVERVIEW OF TWENTIETH CENTURY IR HISTORY-II UNIT-14 COLD WAR EVOLUTION AND DIFFERENT PHASES UNIT-15 EMERGENCE OF THE THIRD WORLD UNIT-16 END OF THE COLD WAR UNIT-14 COLD WAR EVOLUTION AND DIFFERENT PHASES Structure 14.1 Objectives 14.2 Introduction 14.3 What Was the Cold War 14.4 Different Phases of Cold War 14.5 Cold War in the Far East 14.6 Relaxation of the Cold War 14.7 The Rebirth of the Cold War 14.8 Patterns and Dimensions 14.9 End of the Cold War 14.10 Disintegration of USSR 14.11 Summary 14.12 Key Words 14.13 Exercise 14.14 Reference 14.1 OBJECTIVES This unit discusses the Cold War, after going through the Unit you will be able to: define the concept of the Cold War; trace the origin of this non-military conflict; define the different phases of cold war understand the pattern and dimensions of the Cold War; identify the causes for the demise of the Cold War; and Define the impact and aftermath of the Cold War. 14.2 INTRODUCTION The First World War (1914-18) ended with the birth of a new system, the socialist system in the world. The war also sowed the seeds of another world war. These two developments have conditioned the subsequent decades in a big way. In 1939 the Second World War broke out. The Second World War was fought between the two blocs-the Allied powers and the Axis powers. The socialist bloc joined the Allies. The Allies won the war. The war ended with the destruction of the old capitalist 1 imperialist dominated world. The world now was divided into two blocs-Western or capitalist blocs, headed by the neo-colonialist power, the United States of America (USA) and the Socialist bloc headed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The USA and the USSR emerged as the two super powers. no blocs represented two contradictory systems. Conflict between them was inevitable. The conflict was turned into Cold War because the world meanwhile experienced a qualitative change. At the end of the Second World War, a world body named United Organisation (UN) was founded to make the world safe for peace. The two superpowers acquired highly sophisticated destructive weapons. Europe became dependent upon the USA. Decolonialization became the reality. Above all world public opinion disfavoured any worldwide holocaust. But these developments failed to stop the local or civil wars in different countries and to refrain the two superpowers from tension ridden competition for establishing supremacy over the world. The hostile competition turned into Cold war. 14.3 WHAT WAS THE COLD WAR The Cold War was an unarmed peacetime conflict. It was a war in which armed forces did not engage themselves in battles, guns were not fired, the tanks did not roll and the bombs were not dropped. The Second World War had begun in 1939 with the German attack on Poland and consequent declaration of war by the British Empire, its Dominions and France against Germany. Hitler's Germany was joined by Italy and Japan. Together these three powers were known as the Axis Powers. The opponents, called Allies led by the UK and France were joined in June 1941 by the Soviet Union (after German attack on it), and the United States in December 1941 following Japanese bombardment at Pearl Harbor. As the war drew to a close the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as the two Super Powers as their combined might had defeated the enemy. The other victors lost much of their military and economic capabilities. It hastened decolonisation, and yet many East European countries were brought into communist fold. They were led by the USSR, and known as the Eastern or Communist bloc. Several Western capitalist countries came under the American wings and were called Western or American Bloc. The emergent international system featured distribution of powers between many European and non-European sovereign States. "In addition", wrote Kegley Jr, and Wittkopf in World Politics, "the advent of nuclear weapons radically changed the role that threats of warfare would play henceforth in world politics. Out of these circumstances grew the competition between the United States and the Soviet Union for hegemonic leadership." Meaning and Nature of Cold War The term Cold War was first used for hostile attitude adopted by the United States and its friends on one side, and the Soviet Union and its allies on other, soon after the 2 Second World War. Unlike traditional wars, this was a diplomatic conflict, without the use of armed forces. The two sides maintained normal diplomatic relations, yet behaved like enemies. Walter Lippmann, in 1947, used the term "diplomatic war". The Cold War was defined by Fleming as "a war that is fought not in the battle field, but in the minds of men; one tries to control the minds of others." John Foster Dulles, US secretary of state in early 1950s, a leading critic of the USSR, had said that, "The Cold War was a moral crusade for normal values-for good against bad; right against wrong; religion against atheism" Giving a moral dimension to the Cold War. Dulles thus described the Soviet Union as bad, wrong and atheist. Louis Malle in his book The Cold War as History described the Cold War as a situation of high tension between two power blocs, it was more dangerous than an armed conflict; the parties to the Cold War tried to complicate the issues rather than attempt to resolve them; and all disputes and conflicts were used as pawns in the Cold War. Unlike a normal war, it was fought in the diplomatic channels and the United Nations forum. According to Grieves, the Cold War was "a form of conflict taking place below the level of hot war in a thermonuclear age." The nature of Cold War underwent constant changes during over four decades of its duration. However, Kegley Jr. and Wittkopf mentioned three primary characteristics of the Cold War. These were: The periods of intense conflict alternated with periods of relative cooperation; and reciprocal, action-reaction exchanges were also evident. Both actors (US and USSR) were willing to disregard their respective professed ideologies whenever their perceived national interests rationalized such inconsistencies, for example, each backed allies with political systems antithetical to its own when the necessities of power politics seemed to justify doing so. Throughout the Cold War contest: both rivals consistently made avoidance of all-out war their highest priority. Through a gradual learning process involving push and shove, restraint and reward, tough bargaining and calm negotiation, the Super Powers created a security system, or rules for the peaceful management of their disputes. Thus, Cold War was a state of peacetime unarmed warfare. Both the Super Powers had constructed their blocs, mostly on ideological basis. There indeed were several unattached or non-aligned countries, but Cold War was essentially fought between two power blocs. Each side used ideological weapons against the other. The two Super Powers tried to weaken the other block to generate defections, and to strengthen their own position. Both gave liberal economic aid and established military bases in the territories of smaller allies. Propaganda, espionage, military intervention, military alliances, regional organisations and supply of armaments were some of the tools used to promote the bloc interests. Such actions aggravated the cold war. The Super Powers and their close allies looked at every issue from their ideological and 3 bloc viewpoint. Attempts were made to encourage industrial unrest, ethnic conflicts, and feelings of narrow nationalism to weaken the opposite bloc. Thus, as Louis Halle said, the Cold War was even worse than a regular-armed conflict. Origin and Evolution of Cold War In this unit dealing with end of the Cold War, it is neither necessary nor possible to go into details of origin and evolution of the Cold War. However, a brief mention may be made here to highlight the major events. Nobody could say for certain as to when the Cold War began. Blame was put on the US by the Soviet Union for having started the conflict by not opening the second front against Germany till mid-1944, leaving USSR alone to light the enemy. The West was also suspected of hidden agenda to seek destruction of both Nazi-Fascist dictators and the Soviet .Union so that the Western countries could alone enjoy the fruits of victory. The Soviet Union felt strongly upset at the secret development of atom bomb by the United States and its use against Japan when the USSR was just about to declare war against it. After the war, the United States created anti- Soviet front through Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan. The Fulton speech of Winston Churchill in March 1946 (preceding Truman Doctrine) signaled hate Champaign against the Soviet Union Churchill had condemned the USSR for violation of Yalta Agreement to hold democratic elections in liberated countries, and for having erected an "iron curtain" at the East-West dividing line. He called for a campaign to protect freedom, Christian civilization and democracy, and to contain communism. The Western countries, on the other hand, blamed the USSR for violation of pledge to allow liberated countries to elect governments of their choice and for installing puppet communist regimes in Eastern Europe.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Documents of Contemporary Art: TIME Edited by Amelia Groom, the Introduction Gives an Overview of Selected Writings Addressing Time in Relation to Art
    “It is important to realize that the appointment that is in question in contemporariness does not simply take place in chronological time; it is something that, working within chronological time, urges, presses and transforms it. And this urgency is the untimeliness, the anachronism that permits us to grasp our time in the form of a ‘too soon’ that is also a ‘too late’; of an ‘already’ that is also a ‘not yet.’ Moreover, it allows us to recognize in the obscurity of the present the light that, without ever being able to reach us, is perpetually voyaging towards us.” - Giorgio Agamben 2009 What is the Contemporary? FORWARD ELAINE THAP Time is of the essence. Actions speak louder than words. The throughline of the following artists is that they all have an immediacy and desire to express and challenge the flaws of the Present. In 2008, all over the world were uprisings that questions government and Capitalist infrastructure. Milan Kohout attempted to sell nooses for homeowners and buyers in front of the Bank of America headquarters in Boston. Ernesto Pujol collaborated and socially choreographed artists in Tel Aviv protesting the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Indonesian artist, Arahmaiani toured the world to share “HIS Story,” performances creating problematic imagery ending to ultimately writing on her body to shine a spotlight on the effects of patriarchy and the submission of women. All of these artists confront terrorism from all parts of the world and choose live action to reproduce memory and healing. Social responsibility is to understand an action, account for the reaction, and to place oneself in the bigger picture.
    [Show full text]
  • ACTA UNIVERSITATIS UPSALIENSIS Skrifter Utgivna Av Statsvetenskapliga Föreningen I Uppsala 194
    ACTA UNIVERSITATIS UPSALIENSIS Skrifter utgivna av Statsvetenskapliga föreningen i Uppsala 194 Jessica Giandomenico Transformative Power Challenged EU Membership Conditionality in the Western Balkans Revisited Dissertation presented at Uppsala University to be publicly examined in Brusewitzsalen, Gamla Torget 6, Uppsala, Saturday, 19 December 2015 at 10:15 for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The examination will be conducted in English. Faculty examiner: Professor David Phinnemore. Abstract Giandomenico, J. 2015. Transformative Power Challenged. EU Membership Conditionality in the Western Balkans Revisited. Skrifter utgivna av Statsvetenskapliga föreningen i Uppsala 194. 237 pp. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. ISBN 978-91-554-9403-2. The EU is assumed to have a strong top-down transformative power over the states applying for membership. But despite intensive research on the EU membership conditionality, the transformative power of the EU in itself has been left curiously understudied. This thesis seeks to change that, and suggests a model based on relational power to analyse and understand how the transformative power is seemingly weaker in the Western Balkans than in Central and Eastern Europe. This thesis shows that the transformative power of the EU is not static but changes over time, based on the relationship between the EU and the applicant states, rather than on power resources. This relationship is affected by a number of factors derived from both the EU itself and on factors in the applicant states. As the relationship changes over time, countries and even issues, the transformative power changes with it. The EU is caught in a path dependent like pattern, defined by both previous commitments and the built up foreign policy role as a normative power, and on the nature of the decision making procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • The Beginning of the Berlin Wall Erin Honseler, Halie Mitchell, Max Schuetze, Callie Wheeler March 10, 2009
    Group 8 Final Project 1 The Beginning of the Berlin Wall Erin Honseler, Halie Mitchell, Max Schuetze, Callie Wheeler March 10, 2009 For twenty-eight years an “iron curtain” divided East and West Berlin in the heart of Germany. Many events prior to the actual construction of the Wall caused East Germany’s leader Erich Honecker to demand the Wall be built. Once the Wall was built the cultural gap between East Germany and West Germany broadened. During the time the Wall stood many people attempted to cross the border illegally without much success. This caused a very unstable relationship between the government of the West (Federal Republic of Germany) and the government of the East (German Democratic Republic). In this paper we will discuss events leading up to the construction of the Berlin Wall, the government that was responsible for the construction of the Wall, how it divided Germany, and how some people tried to escape from the East to the West. Why the Berlin Wall Was Built In order to understand why the Berlin Wall was built, we must first look at the events leading up to the actual construction of the Wall in 1961. In the Aftermath of World War II Germany was split up into four different zones; each zone was controlled by a different country. The western half was split into three different sectors: the British sector, the American sector and the French sector. The Eastern half was controlled by the Soviet Union. Eventually, the three western occupiers unified their three zones and became what is known as the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG).
    [Show full text]
  • John F. Kennedy and Berlin Nicholas Labinski Marquette University
    Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Master's Theses (2009 -) Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Projects Evolution of a President: John F. Kennedy and Berlin Nicholas Labinski Marquette University Recommended Citation Labinski, Nicholas, "Evolution of a President: John F. Kennedy and Berlin" (2011). Master's Theses (2009 -). Paper 104. http://epublications.marquette.edu/theses_open/104 EVOLUTION OF A PRESIDENT: JOHN F. KENNEDYAND BERLIN by Nicholas Labinski A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Milwaukee, Wisconsin August 2011 ABSTRACT EVOLUTION OF A PRESIDENT: JOHN F. KENNEDYAND BERLIN Nicholas Labinski Marquette University, 2011 This paper examines John F. Kennedy’s rhetoric concerning the Berlin Crisis (1961-1963). Three major speeches are analyzed: Kennedy’s Radio and Television Report to the American People on the Berlin Crisis , the Address at Rudolph Wilde Platz and the Address at the Free University. The study interrogates the rhetorical strategies implemented by Kennedy in confronting Khrushchev over the explosive situation in Berlin. The paper attempts to answer the following research questions: What is the historical context that helped frame the rhetorical situation Kennedy faced? What rhetorical strategies and tactics did Kennedy employ in these speeches? How might Kennedy's speeches extend our understanding of presidential public address? What is the impact of Kennedy's speeches on U.S. German relations and the development of U.S. and German Policy? What implications might these speeches have for the study and execution of presidential power and international diplomacy? Using a historical-rhetorical methodology that incorporates the historical circumstances surrounding the crisis into the analysis, this examination of Kennedy’s rhetoric reveals his evolution concerning Berlin and his Cold War strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S.-Russian Relations Potomac Paper 22
    PPoottoommaacc PPaappeerr 2222IFRI ______________________________________________________________________ U.S.-Russian relations The path ahead after the crisis __________________________________________________________________ Jeffrey Mankoff December 2014 United States Program The Institut français des relations internationals (Ifri) is a research center and a forum for debate on major international political and economic issues. Headed by Thierry de Montbrial since its founding in 1979, Ifri is a non- governmental and a non-profit organization. As an independent think tank, Ifri sets its own research agenda, publishing its findings regularly for a global audience. Using an interdisciplinary approach, Ifri brings together political and economic decision-makers, researchers and internationally renowned experts to animate its debate and research activities. With offices in Paris and Brussels, Ifri stands out as one of the rare French think tanks to have positioned itself at the very heart of European debate. The views expressed herein are those of the authors. The United States Program at Ifri publishes a series of online policy papers called “Potomac papers”. They present analyses of U.S. policies, politics and social debates, and are reviewed by experts before publication. They are written either in English or French, with a one-page executive summary in both languages. Dr. Laurence Nardon, Head of the U.S. Program at Ifri, is the editor. Many thanks are extended to the Russia/NIS Center at Ifri, whose team kindly agreed to review the
    [Show full text]
  • Honecker's Policy Toward the Federal Republic and West Berlin
    Scholars Crossing Faculty Publications and Presentations Helms School of Government Spring 1976 Contrast and Continuity: Honecker’s Policy toward the Federal Republic and West Berlin Stephen R. Bowers Liberty University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/gov_fac_pubs Part of the Other Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons, Political Science Commons, and the Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration Commons Recommended Citation Bowers, Stephen R., "Contrast and Continuity: Honecker’s Policy toward the Federal Republic and West Berlin" (1976). Faculty Publications and Presentations. 86. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/gov_fac_pubs/86 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Helms School of Government at Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications and Presentations by an authorized administrator of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 308 STEPHEN R. BOWERS 36. Mamatey, pp. 280-286. 37. Ibid., pp. 342-343. CONTRAST AND CONTINUITY: 38. The Letters of Theodore Roosevelt, Volume VIII (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1954), p. 1364. 39. Robert Ferrell, 'The United States and East Central Europe Before 1941," in Kertesz, op. cit., p. 22. HONECKER'S POLICY 40. Ibid., p. 24. 41. William R. Caspary, 'The 'Mood Theory': A Study of Public Opinion and Foreign Policy," American Political Science Review LXIV (June, 1970). 42. For discussion on this point see George Kennan, American Diplomacy (New York: Mentor Books, 1951); Walter Lippmann, The Public Philosophy (New York: Mentor Books, TOWARD THE FEDERAL 1955). 43. Gaddis, p. 179. 44. Martin Wei!, "Can the Blacks Do for Africa what the Jews Did for Israel?" Foreign Policy 15 (Summer, 1974), pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Schießbefehl and the Issues of Retroactivity Within the East German Border Guard Trials Keegan Mcmurry Western Oregon University, [email protected]
    Western Oregon University Digital Commons@WOU Student Theses, Papers and Projects (History) Department of History 2018 Schießbefehl and the Issues of Retroactivity Within the East German Border Guard Trials Keegan McMurry Western Oregon University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.wou.edu/his Part of the Diplomatic History Commons, European History Commons, Legal Commons, and the Political History Commons Recommended Citation McMurry, Keegan, "Schießbefehl and the Issues of Retroactivity Within the East German Border Guard Trials" (2018). Student Theses, Papers and Projects (History). 264. https://digitalcommons.wou.edu/his/264 This Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of History at Digital Commons@WOU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Student Theses, Papers and Projects (History) by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@WOU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Schießbefehl1 and the Issues of Retroactivity Within the East German Border Guard Trials Keegan J. McMurry History 499: Senior Seminar June 5, 2018 1 On February 5th, 1989, 20-year old Chris Gueffroy and his companion, Christian Gaudin, were running for their lives. Tired of the poor conditions in the German Democratic Republic and hoping to find better in West Germany, they intended to climb the Berlin Wall that separated East and West Berlin using a ladder. A newspaper account states that despite both verbal warnings and warning shots, both young men continued to try and climb the wall until the border guards opened fire directly at them. Mr. Gaudin survived the experience after being shot, however, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Heroes of Berlin Wall Struggle William D
    History Faculty Publications History 11-7-2014 Heroes of Berlin Wall Struggle William D. Bowman Gettysburg College Follow this and additional works at: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/histfac Part of the Cultural History Commons, Diplomatic History Commons, Eastern European Studies Commons, European History Commons, Military History Commons, Political History Commons, Race, Ethnicity and Post-Colonial Studies Commons, Social History Commons, and the Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies Commons Share feedback about the accessibility of this item. Bowman, William D. "Heroes of Berlin Wall Struggle." Philly.com (November 7, 2014). This is the publisher's version of the work. This publication appears in Gettysburg College's institutional repository by permission of the copyright owner for personal use, not for redistribution. Cupola permanent link: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/histfac/53 This open access opinion is brought to you by The uC pola: Scholarship at Gettysburg College. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of The uC pola. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Heroes of Berlin Wall Struggle Abstract When the Berlin Wall fell 25 years ago, on Nov. 9, 1989, symbolically signaling the end of the Cold War, it was no surprise that many credited President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev for bringing it down. But the true heroes behind the fall of the Berlin Wall are those Eastern Europeans whose protests and political pressure started chipping away at the wall years before. East
    [Show full text]
  • Timeline of the Cold War
    Timeline of the Cold War 1945 Defeat of Germany and Japan February 4-11: Yalta Conference meeting of FDR, Churchill, Stalin - the 'Big Three' Soviet Union has control of Eastern Europe. The Cold War Begins May 8: VE Day - Victory in Europe. Germany surrenders to the Red Army in Berlin July: Potsdam Conference - Germany was officially partitioned into four zones of occupation. August 6: The United States drops atomic bomb on Hiroshima (20 kiloton bomb 'Little Boy' kills 80,000) August 8: Russia declares war on Japan August 9: The United States drops atomic bomb on Nagasaki (22 kiloton 'Fat Man' kills 70,000) August 14 : Japanese surrender End of World War II August 15: Emperor surrender broadcast - VJ Day 1946 February 9: Stalin hostile speech - communism & capitalism were incompatible March 5 : "Sinews of Peace" Iron Curtain Speech by Winston Churchill - "an "iron curtain" has descended on Europe" March 10: Truman demands Russia leave Iran July 1: Operation Crossroads with Test Able was the first public demonstration of America's atomic arsenal July 25: America's Test Baker - underwater explosion 1947 Containment March 12 : Truman Doctrine - Truman declares active role in Greek Civil War June : Marshall Plan is announced setting a precedent for helping countries combat poverty, disease and malnutrition September 2: Rio Pact - U.S. meet 19 Latin American countries and created a security zone around the hemisphere 1948 Containment February 25 : Communist takeover in Czechoslovakia March 2: Truman's Loyalty Program created to catch Cold War
    [Show full text]
  • The Fall of the Wall: the Unintended Self-Dissolution of East Germany’S Ruling Regime
    COLD WAR INTERNATIONAL HISTORY PROJECT BULLETIN, ISSUE 12 /13 131 The Fall of the Wall: The Unintended Self-Dissolution of East Germany’s Ruling Regime By Hans-Hermann Hertle ast Germany’s sudden collapse like a house of cards retrospect to have been inevitable.” He labeled this in fall 1989 caught both the political and academic thinking “whatever happened, had to have happened,” or, Eworlds by surprise.1 The decisive moment of the more ironically, “the marvelous advantage which historians collapse was undoubtedly the fall of the Berlin Wall during have over political scientists.”15 Resistance scholar Peter the night of 9 November 1989. After the initial political Steinbach commented that historians occasionally forget upheavals in Poland and Hungary, it served as the turning very quickly “that they are only able to offer insightful point for the revolutions in Central and Eastern Europe and interpretations of the changes because they know how accelerated the deterioration of the Soviet empire. Indeed, unpredictable circumstances have resolved themselves.”16 the Soviet Union collapsed within two years. Along with In the case of 9 November 1989, reconstruction of the the demolition of the “Iron Curtain” in May and the details graphically demonstrates that history is an open opening of the border between Hungary and Austria for process. In addition, it also leads to the paradoxical GDR citizens in September 1989, the fall of the Berlin Wall realization that the details of central historical events can stands as a symbol of the end of the Cold War,2 the end of only be understood when they are placed in their historical the division of Germany and of the continent of Europe.3 context, thereby losing their sense of predetermination.17 Political events of this magnitude have always been The mistaken conclusion of what Reinhard Bendix the preferred stuff of which legends and myths are made of.
    [Show full text]
  • Looking Back, Looking Forward: Central and Eastern Europe 30 Years After the Fall of the Berlin Wall
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Grieveson, Richard et al. Research Report Looking back, looking forward: Central and Eastern Europe 30 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall wiiw Essays and Occasional Papers, No. 4 Provided in Cooperation with: The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies (wiiw) - Wiener Institut für Internationale Wirtschaftsvergleiche (wiiw) Suggested Citation: Grieveson, Richard et al. (2019) : Looking back, looking forward: Central and Eastern Europe 30 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, wiiw Essays and Occasional Papers, No. 4, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies (wiiw), Vienna This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/213923 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence.
    [Show full text]
  • Building of the Berlin Wall
    BUILDING OF THE BERLIN WALL a A CITY TORN APART b A CITY TORN APART OF BUILDING THE BERLIN WALL in conjunction with a symposium given on 27 OCTOBER 2011 at the NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC WASHINGTON, DC RECORDS ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND at the 27 OCTOBER 2011 in conjunction with a symposium given on BUILDING BERLIN WALL OF ITY TORN APART A C BUILDING OF THE BERLIN WALL brandenburg gate Built in 1791, standing 85 feet high, 215 feet long and 36 feet wide, this former city gate is one of the most iconic symbols of Berlin and Germany. Throughout its existence it has served as a visual representation of various political ideologies, ranging from Prussia’s imperialism to East Germany’s communism. It was closed by the East Germans on 14 August 1961 in a response to West Berliners’ demonstration against the building of the wall dividing their city into East and West. It remained closed until 22 December 1989. Its design is based upon the gate way to the Propylaea, the entry into the Acropolis in Athens, Greece. It has 12 Doric columns, six to a side, forming five passageways. The central archway is crowned by the Quadriga, a statue consisting of a four horse chariot driven by Victoria, the Roman goddess of victory. After Napoleon’s defeat, the Quadriga was returned to Berlin and the wreath of oak leaves on Victoria was replaced with the new symbol of Prussia, the Iron Cross. i A CITYC ITY TORNTO RN APART a family divided A couple from Berlin may never see each other again because they became separated by the newly formed Berlin Wall.
    [Show full text]