1) In this 21st century, can European nations (both individually and collectively) speak meaningfully about moral duties to other nations and their populations? Consider the changes that have taken place in Europe during and following the Second World War when you respond to this question. How has the role of Europe evolved over the latter half of the 20th century and the early 21st century? What role should European nations play in the new remainder of the 21st century? In the 21st Century, I believe that European nations can and should speak meaningfully about moral duties to other nations and their populations.
In the postwar and cold war eras, this was not possible due to the tensions between nations. Although all nations do not get along perfectly, there are definitely improved relations between European countries. After World War II, Europe was split into the capitalist West and the communist East, right down to the division of Germany into two separate countries. This created further tensions, even within organizations themselves. France and Britain had to be forced to invite West Germany to join NATO.
It’s probable that had one nation in Europe needed assistance, the other nations would not have helped them, even if they had a moral duty to do so. This has all changed as time went on, though. Germany was reunified as one country, and with the fall of communism and the USSR, Europe looks more as one than it has in a very long time. Many nations around the world are members of the United Nations, an organization that outlined a collective global authority that would any conflicts. This shows a sense of international solidarity that would not have been possible immediately after WWII.
When the UN was founded in 1945, it had only 51 member nations. Today it has 193. In the remainder of the 21st century, I believe that European nations should speak even more meaningfully about moral duties to other nations and their populations. This was obviously not the case during the Holocaust, as no country stepped in to help before 6 million Jews were murdered and countless other lives lost. This issue of morality has gotten better over time, but there is still room to improve. The current situation involving Syrian refugees illustrates this well. The United States has stated that they will not accept any more Syrian refugees.
This shows that we still have a lot of work to do. However, many European nations are accepting refugees. France and Germany are just two of many European nations that are accepting Syrian refugees. This shows how far Europe has come since the days of WWII in terms of morality. 2) Consider the rise of the Soviet Sphere of influence in Eastern Europe after World War II; discuss the numerous ways that the capitalist West and the communist East conflicted with each other in Europe during the Cold War. How did these conflicts lead to the initial strengthening, but ultimate downfall, of the USSR?
After World War II, the influence of the Soviet Sphere rose in Europe. The continent was divided into the capitalist West and the communist East, and the two sides often conflicted with each other during the Cold War. Aside from the obvious political differences, the two sides of Europe clashed in many ways. Economically, the West did much better than the east. Hoards of people were tasked with rebuilding, thus creating jobs. The Marshall Plan boosted recovery with American dollars and created an increase in food, consumer goods, automobiles, and luxury appliances.
In the East, Stalin collectivized agriculture and nationalized private property. Although this did good for the USSR in the long run, the short term consequences of his decisions were brutal. Socially, the West had much more freedom than did the East. Differences could be seen all over Europe, but the differences between East and West Germany were so stark because their citizens used to be one nation, but now were separate. People in West Germany, as well as Western Europe, people could travel freely, dressed more provocatively, and became more involved in the popular culture associated with radio and television.
East Berliners were prohibited from travelling into West Berlin, because it was feared that they would not returned. One way in which Eastern Europeans had more freedom is when it came to gender roles. In Western Europe, postwar women returned to housewife roles, whereas in the East, women remained in the workforce and many times outnumbered the men. Initially, the authoritarian rule of Eastern Europe strengthened the USSR. They had so much power over the people that they could get away with just about anything. However, people soon became fed up with this way of life that it led to the downfall of the Soviet Union.
Thousands of East Berliners escaped into West Berlin. Some were successful, but others were not. In the rest of the east, many under communist rule revolted, like, for example, Prague Spring in 1968. Unrest among communist countries led to the collapse of the Soviet Bloc, the collapse of communism as a whole, and eventually the collapse of the USSR itself. 3) In the Post-1945 world, what was the purpose of NATO? How did NATO enforce its role during the Cold War? In what ways did NATO’s purpose change in 1989? Why do you think NATO’s mission changed after the Cold War? Do you agree or disagree with NATO’s current role in world politics?
NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It was formed in 1949 by the United States, Canada, and allies in Western Europe and Scandinavia. NATO provided a unified military force for its members. It was rivaled by the Soviet Union and its satellite countries with their military organization known as the Warsaw Pact. Politics all around Europe revolved around and between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. In general, NATO’s purpose when it was first formed was to defend the involved countries from rival nations, especially the USSR, and to prevent communism from taking over their nations.
NATO enforced its role during the Cold War by combining the military powers of some of the most powerful nations. Competing military alliances created a lot of tension during the Cold War, especially when it came to West Germany and East Germany. West Germany was a part of NATO, while East Germany was a part of the Warsaw Pact. NATO, and more specifically the United States, had accelerated arms buildups, and were working on the increasingly powerful nuclear weapons. This took some of the individual power away from member countries, thus allowing NATO to enforce its role more dominantly.
By the end of the Cold War in 1989, NATO’s purpose changed slightly. Part of its original purpose was to stop the communist Soviet Union from taking control of their countries. At this time, communism collapsed in the Soviet Bloc, and then in other Soviet satellites. Soon, the USSR would cease to exist. When the Berlin Wall fell, it symbolized the reunification of Europe as one continent. Therefore, NATO no longer had to worry about the spread of communism. NATO’s current role in world politics remains as a military alliance between several North American and European nations.
While I don’t disagree with what NATO stands for, many experts believe that the organization is becoming obsolete. If one member country is attacked, it is an attack on all. Today, there are tensions between a vast number of nations worldwide. Knowing this, the United States could easily become involved in military conflict that has little to nothing to do with our country. I’m not suggesting that we should leave NATO, but I am suggesting that we become more aware of the possibility of a disaster.
