World History

Unit 7: The World Since 1945

Chapter 32: Superpowers in the Modern Era

Mon, May 12, 2014

66. Tue, May 13, 2014

If you look at a picture in the newspaper very closely, with your face right up to the page and maybe a powerful close-range magnifying glass like a jeweler’s loupe, you will see the dots of which it is made. That is a more precise view of the picture than anything you’ll get otherwise. It may be more accurate in that limited sense; but at the same time it’s probably not very faithful to the purpose for printing the picture — allowing the reader of the paper to see and grasp the big picture that makes sense of those dots in relation to each other. To some extent, that’s the task facing us with the material of the last of the historical chapters of this book. (The very last chapter is arguably something else, since it has generally been taken as axiomatic in the discipline that one cannot chronicle the events of the future. This book was published in 2000: it really has nothing historical to say about the twenty-first century.) Ask your parents about it: they will certainly remember at least a large part of it. They may not agree with each other on bits of it. They probably will disagree with a lot of other people about what it meant.

That’s the problem with recent history. We don’t have perspective on it. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t look at it — but we should look at it with a certain skepticism, realizing that we don’t know nearly enough. It doesn’t mean, either, that one cannot, by dint of thoughtful analysis and argument, arrive at some meaningful conclusions. In fact, the historical perspective usually suggests that we want to view it from the point of view of the longer historical sweep, and by bringing precedent, historical patterns, and context tog bear, we are able to bring a kind of perspective to these events that other less historically oriented approaches might miss. But it’s chancy at best. Be warned, therefore.

We’ll divide our deliberations into two separate areas — the “free world”, so-called, and the fall of the Soviet Union and its aftermath.

The textbook discusses particularly the Vietnam War and the latter stages of the Cold War in reference to the United States’ status as a superpower.

• The Vietnam conflict (whether to call it a “war” is a matter of terminology: no war was ever declared) was in some ways the logical extension of the Truman Doctrine of containment. Some saw it as indicative (along with the Korean conflict) of a fundamental flaw in that doctrine. Others saw its ultimate apparent failure as a mere indication that the United States had lost its will or its nerve. Still others just thought that we never should have been there in the first place, irrespective of doctrines or will. Those aren’t perhaps mutually exclusive explanations, and there may be others possible. What do you think?
• The era ranging from 1963 (the assassination of Kennedy) to 1974 (the fall of Nixon), and culminating perhaps in 1968 (several more assassinations, various riots, and a Democratic convention that was a shambles) contains a protracted story of the loss of confidence in government on the part of the American people. To some extent, some of that has been regained. Some of it arguably has not. Where do you think we stand as a national culture in this regard?
• It has been widely accepted in at least some circles that the United States “won” the Cold War by simply outlasting (or perhaps outspending) the Soviet Union. Is victory really a meaningful category in this regard, though? What has it cost us, and what did it buy us in the long run? Is the world more secure today than it was in 1960?
• The United States and many other countries have applauded the efforts of various countries in Eastern Europe and elsewhere to free themselves from the sphere of Soviet domination. And yet similar situations in other parts of the world seem far less clear-cut to us. How consistent are we — in theory or practice or policy — when it comes to things like the Basque or Quebecois separatist movements? How does all this relate, as well, to things like the American Civil War, which was a war of separation? Are we consistent and rational?

Contents of this page © Copyright 2011, 2012 by Paul Christiansen and Bruce A. McMenomy.
Permission to download or print this page is hereby given to members of Scholars Online for purposes of personal study only. All other use constitutes a violation of copyright.