DOCSLIB.ORG

Rules for Cold War: CIA Vs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rules for Cold War: CIA Vs RULEBOOK treachery – to ensure their side emerges Introduction victorious. “There is nothing wrong with Welcome to the covert world of spies, change, if it is in the right assassins, and proxy wars. direction.” Welcome to the Cold War. – Winston Churchill The end of World War II has brought The Object of the Struggle chaos and confusion to the nations of In each game turn, which represents the world as two new global superpow- one year of conflict, a single country or ers – the USA and USSR – each seek the event (represented by an Objective Card) upper hand. becomes the focus of a covert ideological clash between the USA and USSR. Each In Cold War: CIA vs. KGB, two players, player sends an undercover agent (an each controlling a side of this worldwide Agent Card) to spearhead his activities, conflict, send agents to attempt to “per- infiltrating and manipulating the locals suade” foreign governments to embrace (Group Cards) to gain the upper hand in the “proper” ideologies. These shadowy that struggle. By prevailing, players claim operatives will resort to any means the Objective Cards, which provide them necessary – dirty tricks, devious ploys, with victory points. The first player to ac- underhanded machinations, and outright cumulate 100 victory points wins the game. Game Components 12 Agent Cards (6 CIA, 6 KGB) 2 Domination Tokens (1 CIA, 1 KGB) These cards represent the agents the super- These tokens are used to mark which powers utilize to achieve their goals. superpower has achieved influence over the objective. 21 Objective Cards (15 nations, 6 events) 1 Balance Token These cards represent the nations or The possessor of this token determines events the superpowers are attempting to which superpower must make the first move dominate. in the attempt to dominate the objective. 2 Score Cards (1 CIA, 1 KGB) and 2 Score 24 Group Cards (6 military, 6 economic, 6 Markers media, 6 political) These cards and markers are used to track These cards represent the local assets the how well each superpower is doing in the superpowers use to achieve their goals. Cold War. 1 Rulebook (this booklet) 2 Agent Cards and places them in a stack, Setup facedown, in front of himself to form his Follow the steps below to set up the game: HEADQUARTERS. Both sides are equal, but if 1. Create Objective Deck: Shuffle the both players want the same one, choose Objective Cards and place them facedown randomly. in the center of the table to form the 4. Take Player Components: Each player Objective deck. takes his corresponding domination token 2. Create Group Deck: Shuffle the Group (blue for the CIA, red for the KGB), score Cards and place them facedown in the cen- card, and score marker. One player places ter of the table to form the Group deck. the balance token adjacent to the Objec- tive deck. 3. Select Side: Each player takes either the six CIA Agent Cards or the six KGB 5. Begin the Game. SETUP DIAGRAM GEORGE BORIS CIA Player KGB Player C C *52836 *52836 *52836 *52836 B A F +21'85$6 +21'85$6 F +21'85$6 D D E A OBJECTIVE DECK C HEADQUARTERS E BALANCE TOKEN B GROUP DECK D DOMINATION TOKEN F SCORE CARD AND MARKER 3 Game Turns 1. Determine Objective Each game turn is divided into six phases: 2. Assign Balance Token 1. Briefing 3. Shuffle Group Deck 2. Planning Determine Objective 3. Influence Struggle Flip the top card of the Objective deck faceup (leaving it on top of the Objective 4. Cease-fire deck). This card is the object of conflict for the game turn and is simply called the “ob- 5. Debriefing jective.” Each objective is worth from 5 to 6. Détente 20 victory points, depending on the card. Each phase is completed by both players Most Objective Cards represent nations that before the next phase begins. Each phase the superpowers seek to control, but some is described in detail in the sections that are event cards, which represent other follow. arenas in which the USA and USSR fight for domination. After the Détente Phase, the game turn is over and a new one begins, starting with Event cards give the players who win them the Briefing Phase. Players continue resolv- the option to use special abilities. See ing turns until one player reaches 100 or “Event Card Special Abilities” on page 14 more victory points (see “Winning the for more information. Game” on page 14). Assign Balance Token Phase 1: Briefing The player with the lowest victory point score takes the balance token. If there’s a The Briefing Phase of each game turn sets tie, the player who lost last turn’s Cease-fire the table for that year’s struggle. There are Phase takes it. If both players caused civil three steps to each Briefing Phase, which disorder last turn, the balance token re- are as follows: mains with its current owner (see page 11). 4 On the first turn of the game, the balance OBJECTIVE CARDS token is assigned randomly. The player who has the balance token Nation Card chooses which player goes first in the Influence Struggle Phase. 1 2 Shuffle Group Deck One player shuffles the Group Card discard 4 pile back into the Group deck. This step is skipped on the first game turn, as no groups 3 have been discarded yet. 6 Note: If either player successfully used his Analyst Agent Card in the previous game Event Card turn, he then looks at the top three cards of the Group deck and replaces them in the order of his choice (see page 13). 1 2 Example: Boris and George reveal their first objective, flipping “Cuba” faceup from the 4 top of the Objective deck. They randomly determine that George will start with the 3 balance token. They don’t need to shuffle 5 the Group deck, since this is the first turn. 6 Phase 2: Planning 1 NAME 4 STABILITY In the Planning Phase, each player secretly 2 BIAS ICONS 5 SPECIAL ABILITY chooses one of his agents to send into the field and fight for the game turn’s objec- 3 POPULATION 6 VICTORY POINTS tive. The Agent Card each player chooses ICONS becomes his Agent X for the remainder 5 of the game turn. Each player places his Agent X facedown on the table in front of AGENT CARDS himself, separate from his headquarters. A player can choose any of the agents in 1 his headquarters as his Agent X. However, agents who were sent on leave in the previous game turn (because they were in 2 the field last turn, for example) are not at 3 headquarters and can’t be chosen as Agent X (see page 14). Likewise, agents who’ve been terminated (due to the Assassin’s agenda or because they caused civil disor- der) are no longer in play and also can’t be chosen (see page 13). 1 NAME 2 INITIATIVE 3 AGENDA Note: If a player successfully used his as his Agent X, placing it facedown in front Double Agent’s agenda in the previous of himself. turn, he may be allowed to see the iden- tity of his opponent’s Agent X before he Phase 3: Influence Struggle chooses his own Agent X (see page 12). During the Influence Struggle Phase, each Once each player has chosen his Agent player draws Group Cards one at a time, X for the turn, agents on leave return to which contribute to his Influence total. Each their respective headquarters, ready for player tries to accumulate an Influence total assignment in future game turns. as close as possible to the objective’s Stabil- ity score, but without exceeding it (see the Example: George decides to play aggres- Objective Cards diagram on page 5). sively, choosing his Assassin Agent Card as his Agent X. He places that card facedown Each player must also try to see through in front of himself. Boris opts for a more his opponent’s actions, because the identity devious plan, choosing his Master Spy of each player’s Agent X may later tip the 6 struggle’s outcome in a surprising direction. Is your opponent trying to lose on pur- GROUP CARDS pose, because his Master Spy will turn the 3 tables? Or is he just trying to fool you into thinking that? The player with the balance token decides 2 which player goes first. On each player’s turn to act, he must choose one of these three options: 1 • Recruit a group, by drawing the top card 4 from the Group deck and placing it faceup in front of himself. 1 NAME 2 INFLUENCE • Activate a group, by using the power de- 3 FACTION 4 POWER scribed on one of the Group Cards already in front of himself. • Pass, by doing nothing for the moment. A player who has no Group Cards in front of himself must always choose the “recruit a group” option. He may not activate a group READY STATE MOBILIZED STATE (obviously) or pass. Recruit a Group a mobilized one is turned on its side. To recruit a group, a player takes the top When ready groups are mobilized, they’re card from the Group deck and places it turned sideways to the horizontal position. faceup in front of himself. When mobilized groups are readied, they’re A group on the table in front of a player turned back to the vertical. Newly drawn can be in one of two states: READY or MOBI- groups always begin in the ready state.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Brezhnev Era (1964–1982)
    Name _______________________________________________ Date _____________ The Brezhnev Era (1964–1982) Next to Stalin, Leonid Brezhnev ruled the Soviet Union longer than any other leader. Brezhnev and his supporters stressed the ties with the Stalinist era by focusing on his good points and ignoring his crimes. 1. What is the KGB? Brezhnev strengthened the Soviet bureaucracy as well What was its as the KGB (Committee of State Security)—formed in purpose? (list 2) 1954; its mission was to defend the Soviet government from its enemies at home and abroad. The KGB suppressed dissidents who spoke out against the government at home and in the satellite countries. The Soviets also invested in a large military buildup and were determined to never again suffer a humiliating defeat, as happened in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Yet Brezhnev proceeded cautiously in the mid-1960s and sought to avoid confrontation with the West. He was determined, however, to protect Soviet interests. Brezhnev Doctrine (1968) 2. What was the Prague In 1968, Alexander Dubček (1921–1992) became head of the Czechoslovakia Spring? Communist Party and began a series of reforms known as the Prague Spring reforms, which sought to make communism more humanistic. He lifted censorship, permitted non-communists to form political groups, and wanted to trade with the West, but still remain true to communist ideals. Brezhnev viewed these reforms as a capitalistic threat to the socialist ideologies of communism and, in August of 1968, sent over 500,000 Soviet and Eastern European troops 3. How did Brezhnev to occupy Czechoslovakia. In the Brezhnev Doctrine, he defended the Soviet react to the Prague military invasion of Czechoslovakia, saying in effect, that antisocialist elements Spring? in a single socialist country can compromise the entire socialist system, and thus other socialist countries have the right to intervene militarily if they see the need to do so.
    [Show full text]
  • Indochina, the Vietnam War, and the Mayaguez Incident
    Defining a War: Indochina, the Vietnam War, and the Mayaguez Incident Lieutenant Colonel Michael Hunter Marine Corps History, Volume 6, Number 2, Winter 2020, pp. 72-90 (Article) Published by Marine Corps University Press For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/796393/summary [ Access provided at 30 Sep 2021 11:21 GMT with no institutional affiliation ] This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Defining a War: INDOCHINA, THE VIETNAM WAR, AND THE MAYAGUEZ INCIDENT by Lieutenant Colonel Michael Hunter, USA Abstract: Only two weeks after the fall of Saigon in May 1975, Khmer Rouge forces seized the American mer- chant ship SS Mayaguez (1944) off the Cambodian coast, setting up a Marine rescue and recovery battle on the island of Koh Tang. This battle on 12–15 May 1975 was the final U.S. military episode amid the wider Second Indochina War. The term Vietnam War has impeded a proper understanding of the wider war in the American consciousness, leading many to disassociate the Mayaguez incident from the Vietnam War, though they belong within the same historical frame. This article seeks to provide a heretofore unseen historical argument con- necting the Mayaguez incident to the wider war and to demonstrate that Mayaguez and Koh Tang veterans are Vietnam veterans, relying on primary sources from the Ford administration, the papers of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, and interviews with veterans. Keywords: Vietnam, Cambodia, veterans, memory, Mayaguez, the Wall, Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Koh Tang, Koh Tang Mayaguez Veterans Organization, Gerald R.
    [Show full text]
  • The Space Race
    The Space Race Aims: To arrange the key events of the “Space Race” in chronological order. To decide which country won the Space Race. Space – the Final Frontier “Space” is everything Atmosphere that exists outside of our planet’s atmosphere. The atmosphere is the layer of Earth gas which surrounds our planet. Without it, none of us would be able to breathe! Space The sun is a star which is orbited (circled) by a system of planets. Earth is the third planet from the sun. There are nine planets in our solar system. How many of the other eight can you name? Neptune Saturn Mars Venus SUN Pluto Uranus Jupiter EARTH Mercury What has this got to do with the COLD WAR? Another element of the Cold War was the race to control the final frontier – outer space! Why do you think this would be so important? The Space Race was considered important because it showed the world which country had the best science, technology, and economic system. It would prove which country was the greatest of the superpowers, the USSR or the USA, and which political system was the best – communism or capitalism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvaEvCNZymo The Space Race – key events Discuss the following slides in your groups. For each slide, try to agree on: • which of the three options is correct • whether this was an achievement of the Soviet Union (USSR) or the Americans (USA). When did humans first send a satellite into orbit around the Earth? 1940s, 1950s or 1960s? Sputnik 1 was launched in October 1957.
    [Show full text]
  • Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference by Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J
    STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES 11 Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference by Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J. Lamb Center for Strategic Research Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University The Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS) is National Defense University’s (NDU’s) dedicated research arm. INSS includes the Center for Strategic Research, Center for Complex Operations, Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs, Center for Technology and National Security Policy, Center for Transatlantic Security Studies, and Conflict Records Research Center. The military and civilian analysts and staff who comprise INSS and its subcomponents execute their mission by conducting research and analysis, publishing, and participating in conferences, policy support, and outreach. The mission of INSS is to conduct strategic studies for the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Unified Combatant Commands in support of the academic programs at NDU and to perform outreach to other U.S. Government agencies and the broader national security community. Cover: Kathleen Bailey presents evidence of forgeries to the press corps. Credit: The Washington Times Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference By Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J. Lamb Institute for National Strategic Studies Strategic Perspectives, No. 11 Series Editor: Nicholas Rostow National Defense University Press Washington, D.C. June 2012 Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Defense Department or any other agency of the Federal Government.
    [Show full text]
  • KGB Spy War with U.S. Falls Victim to Glasnost Soviet Intelligence Ief to Revamp Agency Atm C4 Ttifve,L
    KGB Spy War With U.S. Falls Victim to Glasnost Soviet Intelligence ief to Revamp Agency Atm c4 ttifve,L. *By Michael dobbs Washington Post Foreign Service MOSCOW, Oct. 2—Abandoning the shadowy anonymity favored by his predecessors, the Kremlin's new spymaster declared an end to- day to the secret intelligence war with the United States and prom- ised to put a stop to the practice of sending Soviet agents abroad under journalistic cover. Yevgeny Primakov, who was nominated as the Soviet Union's top spy two days ago by President Mikhail Gorbachev, told a news conference that he was in favor of greater glasnost, or openness, in the intelligence business. He said that his agency would follow the example of the U.S. CIA by making YEVGENY PRIMAKOV some of its information available to ... "we must use analytical methods" scholars and businessmen in addi- tion to the government. "If you think that spies are people into a professional intelligence- in gray coats, skulking around gathering organization along the street corners, listening to people's lines of the CIA. His appointment conversations and wielding iron comes at a time when both the KGB bars, then my appointment is un, and its foreign intelligence arm are natural," said Primakov, 61, a for- in the throes of major internal up- mer journalist and academic who heavals following August's abortive served as Gorbachev's chief diplo- coup by hard-line Communists. matic trouble-shooter. "We must The First Chief Directorate, as use analytical methods, synthesize the foreign intelligence service has information.
    [Show full text]
  • Fifty Years Ago This May, John F. Kennedy Molded Cold War Fears Into a Collective Resolve to Achieve the Almost Unthinkable: Land American Astronauts on the Moon
    SHOOTING FOR THE MOON Fifty years ago this May, John F. Kennedy molded Cold War fears into a collective resolve to achieve the almost unthinkable: land American astronauts on the moon. In a new book, Professor Emeritus John Logsdon mines the details behind the president’s epochal decision. .ORG S GE A IM NASA Y OF S NASA/COURTE SHOOTING FOR THE MOON Fifty years ago this May, John F. Kennedy molded Cold War fears into a collective resolve to achieve the almost unthinkable: land American astronauts on the moon. In a new book, Professor Emeritus John Logsdon mines the details behind the president’s epochal decision. BY JOHN M. LOGSDON President John F. Kennedy, addressing a joint session of Congress on May 25, 1961, had called for “a great new American enterprise.” n the middle of a July night in 1969, standing The rest, of course, is history: The Eagle landed. Before a TV outside a faceless building along Florida’s eastern audience of half a billion people, Neil Armstrong took “one giant coast, three men in bright white spacesuits strolled leap for mankind,” and Buzz Aldrin emerged soon after, describing by, a few feet from me—on their way to the moon. the moonscape before him as “magnificent desolation.” They climbed into their spacecraft, atop a But the landing at Tranquility Base was not the whole story massive Saturn V rocket, and, a few hours later, of Project Apollo. I with a powerful blast, went roaring into space, the It was the story behind the story that had placed me at weight on their shoulders far more than could be measured Kennedy Space Center that July day.
    [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]
  • CIA Files Relating to Heinz Felfe, SS Officer and KGB Spy
    CIA Files Relating to Heinz Felfe, SS officer and KGB Spy Norman J. W. Goda Ohio University Heinz Felfe was an officer in Hitler’s SS who after World War II became a KGB penetration agent, infiltrating West German intelligence for an entire decade. He was arrested by the West German authorities in 1961 and tried in 1963 whereupon the broad outlines of his case became public knowledge. Years after his 1969 release to East Germany (in exchange for three West German spies) Felfe also wrote memoirs and in the 1980s, CIA officers involved with the case granted interviews to author Mary Ellen Reese.1 In accordance with the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act the CIA has released significant formerly classified material on Felfe, including a massive “Name File” consisting of 1,900 pages; a CIA Damage Assessment of the Felfe case completed in 1963; and a 1969 study of Felfe as an example of a successful KGB penetration agent.2 These files represent the first release of official documents concerning the Felfe case, forty-five years after his arrest. The materials are of great historical significance and add detail to the Felfe case in the following ways: • They show in more detail than ever before how Soviet and Western intelligence alike used former Nazi SS officers during the Cold War years. 1 Heinz Felfe, Im Dienst des Gegners: 10 Jahre Moskaus Mann im BND (Hamburg: Rasch & Röhring, 1986); Mary Ellen Reese, General Reinhard Gehlen: The CIA Connection (Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Press, 1990), pp. 143-71. 2 Name File Felfe, Heinz, 4 vols., National Archives and Records Administration [NARA], Record Group [RG] 263 (Records of the Central Intelligence Agency), CIA Name Files, Second Release, Boxes 22-23; “Felfe, Heinz: Damage Assessment, NARA, RG 263, CIA Subject Files, Second Release, Box 1; “KGB Exploitation of Heinz Felfe: Successful KGB Penetration of a Western Intelligence Service,” March 1969, NARA, RG 263, CIA Subject Files, Second Release, Box 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cold War and East-Central Europe, 1945–1989
    FORUM The Cold War and East-Central Europe, 1945–1989 ✣ Commentaries by Michael Kraus, Anna M. Cienciala, Margaret K. Gnoinska, Douglas Selvage, Molly Pucci, Erik Kulavig, Constantine Pleshakov, and A. Ross Johnson Reply by Mark Kramer and V´ıt Smetana Mark Kramer and V´ıt Smetana, eds. Imposing, Maintaining, and Tearing Open the Iron Curtain: The Cold War and East-Central Europe, 1945–1989. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2014. 563 pp. $133.00 hardcover, $54.99 softcover, $54.99 e-book. EDITOR’S NOTE: In late 2013 the publisher Lexington Books, a division of Rowman & Littlefield, put out the book Imposing, Maintaining, and Tearing Open the Iron Curtain: The Cold War and East-Central Europe, 1945–1989, edited by Mark Kramer and V´ıt Smetana. The book consists of twenty-four essays by leading scholars who survey the Cold War in East-Central Europe from beginning to end. East-Central Europe was where the Cold War began in the mid-1940s, and it was also where the Cold War ended in 1989–1990. Hence, even though research on the Cold War and its effects in other parts of the world—East Asia, South Asia, Latin America, Africa—has been extremely interesting and valuable, a better understanding of events in Europe is essential to understand why the Cold War began, why it lasted so long, and how it came to an end. A good deal of high-quality scholarship on the Cold War in East-Central Europe has existed for many years, and the literature on this topic has bur- geoned in the post-Cold War period.
    [Show full text]
  • YUGOSLAV-SOVIET RELATIONS, 1953- 1957: Normalization, Comradeship, Confrontation
    YUGOSLAV-SOVIET RELATIONS, 1953- 1957: Normalization, Comradeship, Confrontation Svetozar Rajak Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy London School of Economics and Political Science University of London February 2004 UMI Number: U615474 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615474 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 ” OF POUTICAL «, AN0 pi Th ^ s^ s £ £2^>3 ^7&2io 2 ABSTRACT The thesis chronologically presents the slow improvement of relations between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, starting with Stalin’s death on 5 March 1953, through their full normalization in 1955 and 1956, to the renewed ideological confrontation at the end of 1956. The normalization of Yugoslav-Soviet relations brought to an end a conflict between Yugoslavia and the Eastern Bloc, in existence since 1948, which threatened the status quo in Europe. The thesis represents the first effort at comprehensively presenting the reconciliation between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, between 1953 and 1957. It will also explain the motives that guided the leaderships of the two countries, in particular the two main protagonists, Josip Broz Tito and Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev, throughout this process.
    [Show full text]
  • COLD WAR, DETENTE & Post- Cold War Scenario
    Lecture #01 Political Science COLD WAR, DETENTE & Post- Cold War Scenario For B. A.(Hons.) & M.A. Patliputra University, Patna E-content / Notes by Prof. (Dr.) S. P. Shahi Professor of Political Science & Principal A. N. College, Patna - 800013 Patliputra University, Patna, Bihar E-mail: [email protected] 1 Outline of Lecture Cold War: An Introduction Meaning of Cold War Causes of Cold War DETENTE End of Cold War International Scenario after Cold War Conclusion Cold War: An Introduction 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. It is a type of diplomatic war or ideological war. The Cold War was a period of geopolitical tension or conflict between two superpowers i.e., the United States of America and USSR, after World War-II. 2 The period is generally considered to span the Truman Doctrine (1947) to the dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991), but the first phase of the Cold War began immediately after the end of the Second World War in 1945. The conflict was based around the ideological and geopolitical struggle for global influence by the two powers. United States of America was a representative of Capitalistic ideology and Soviet Union was a representative of Socialist ideology. The United States created the NATO military alliance in 1949 in apprehension of a Soviet attack and termed their global policy against Soviet influence containment. The Soviet Union formed the Warsaw Pact in 1955 in response to NATO.
    [Show full text]
  • The Marshall Plan and the Beginnings of Comecon
    THE MARSHALL PLAN AND THE BEGINNINGS OF COMECON Cristian BENȚE Abstract: The integration of the Eastern-European states into the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence at the end of the Second World War represented a complex process that aimed all the vital sectors in those states. In a relatively short period of time, the political, economic, social and cultural life of the Eastern-European states was radically transformed, according to the models imposed by Moscow. The Soviet Union imposed its control over Eastern Europe because it had strategic, political, military and economic interests in this region. The states in this region became, after the Soviet Union broke relations with its former Western allies, the main suppliers of resources for the recovery of the soviet economy. The soviet control over the Eastern-European economies took many forms: from the brutal transfer of raw materials, finite products and technology during the first years after the war, to more subtle methods, as the establishment of “mixed enterprises”, the initialization of bilateral agreements and finally by establishing the COMECON. The establishment of the COMECON in January 1949 was one of the measures taken by Moscow in order to counteract the effects of the Marshall Plan and to consolidate the Soviet influence in the satellite-states from Eastern Europe. This measure was preceded by other actions meant to strengthen Moscow’s political, economic and ideological control over these states. Keywords: Marshall Plan, COMECON, Cold War economic integration, Iron Curtain The launch of the Marshall Plan in the summer of 1947 and its rejection by the Soviet Union represents a turning point in the evolution of the Cold War.
    [Show full text]