Stalin's death, Peaceful Co-existence, and Brinkmanship

Khrushchev’s Secret Speech - How did Khrushchev criticise Stalin’s rule? What about Stalin did he not criticise?

• Khrushchev denounced Stalin as a brutal despot (a ruler who holds absolute power), calling Stalin’s a regime of “suspicion, fear

Peaceful co-existence - What was Malenkov’s new course? Why was it adopted?

Malenkov, Khrushchev and Bulagnin formed a collective leadership and the New Course involved a softer tone towards the West being developed. The New Course recognised the limitations of a hard-line approach of confrontation towards the West. Malenkov believed that war between communism and capitalism was no longer inevitable. Also as the arms race and nuclear weapon development continued for both East and West, war became very risky.

What was involved with Khrushchev’s Peaceful Co-existence?

The more conciliatory line adopted by Soviet leadership produced cease-fire in the Korean War in 1953; It began to seem to the West that under Khrushchev, a greater chance of agreement was possible. Khrushchev pledged Soviet Commitment to a “peaceful coexistence” with Capitalism. It was adopted to avoid nuclear war, but also to develop the Soviet economy.

How was Khrushchev’s desire to develop smooth relations with the West demonstrated in the early years of his rule?

Meetings with Eisenhower in 1955 and JFK in 1961, as well as his tour of the US in 1959.

Peaceful co-existence - How did The Austrian State Treaty reflect changing relations between East and West?

In 1945, Austria had been divided into zones of occupation, with the USSR using their zone as a source of economic resources while the US used Marshall Aid to rebuild and modernise Austria. The Austria State Treaty in 1955 agreed that both the USSR and the USA would withdraw its armed forces from Austria in return for agreeing its neutrality, meaning that the influence of both powers was reduced and it removed a potential source of tension, reflecting a commitment on both sides to negotiate to smooth relations and prevent war.

How did the Soviet’s withdrawal from Finland further reflect the Soviet commitment to peaceful co-existence?

In 1955, Khrushchev withdrew the Soviet presence from Porkkala, which the Finns had ceded to the Soviets in the Finnish-Soviet Peace Treaty of 1947, as he saw no reason to retain Soviet influence in a non-communist country. In 1956, Porkkala was returned to Finland — reflects a reduction in the expansionist ideology that characterised tensions during Stalin’s rule.

In what ways can Khrushchev’s peaceful coexistence be considered limited?

• Popular uprising against Soviet control in Hungary was crushed by Soviet troops, resulting in around 3000 deaths — demonstrated that the USSR would still use force to maintain control of its satellite states

• 1958 - Khrushchev challenged the status of Berlin and when the West wouldn’t yield to his demands that the Western sectors be incorporated into Eastern Germany, he approved the building.of the Berlin Wall in 1961.

• He cancelled a meeting with Eisenhower in 1960 after the Soviets shot down American aircraft that was over the Soviet zone

What was De-Stalinisation? How was it limited?

Attempts by Khrushchev to move away from Stalin’s policies — he criticised Stalin’s use of terror and his economic policies of heavy industry and forced collectivisation of agriculture. He encouraged those in Eastern Europe who wanted reform to push for change. However, events in Hungary did show that there were limits to de-Stalinisation — it wouldn’t be allowed to threaten the security of the socialist bloc

How did Eisenhower and Dulles, his secretary of state, reject the idea of peaceful co-existence?

Republicans expected that Eisenhower would adopt a firmer line as they had felt that Truman’s foreign policy had been too soft on communism. Dulles believed that the way to face up to communism was to build up the USA’s nuclear weapons so that the USSR would know that any aggressive actions would be met with massive retaliation.

US foreign policy - What was Massive Retaliation?

A strategy that was put forward by Dulles to be used if the USSR attacked US interests, involving using all available means, including nuclear weapons, to destroy the enemy — significantly harsher line against communism, particularly when there were attempts being made by the USSR to ease East-West relations, though there were limits to this. Opinion was polarised - many feared the consequences of huge nuclear strikes.

US foreign policy - What was roll back? How did it mark the more aggressive stance of the US against communism and the USSR?

Roll back not only involved containing communism, but extended it to rolling it back, turning communist nations capitalist and it focused on the nuclear weapons rather than conventional arms to act as a deterrent to communism.

US foreign policy - What was Brinkmanship?

It was felt that roll back and massive retaliation wouldn’t work unless the enemy thought that the US would be prepared to use nuclear weapons — it meant going to ‘the brink of war without being scared.’ With both superpowers in possession of the H-Bomb by the end of 1953, Brinkmanship was a dangerous strategy - if massive retaliation became a reality, it would surely end in human extinction. Importantly, the US failed to intervene when there was unrest in Europe in 1953 and 1956.

What were the limitations of Massive Retaliation and Brinkmanship?

It left Eisenhower with no other options other than nuclear war to combat Soviet aggression — this is seen in 1956, when the USSR brutally crushed a popular uprising in Hungary - Hungary requested American military assistance, but Eisenhower felt he could not risk turning the Cold War into a nuclear war over a small nation such as Hungary.