“Gorbachev's actions were the most important factor

leading to the end of the Cold war.” Discuss.

The twentieth century transpired in history as the century of three world wars. The third Cold
War, fortunately, did not bring such damages, deaths, and destruction as the two previous wars.
However, this event also left a deep imprint, and above all, a disturbing memory, which even
today does not give us rest. In November of 2020, there will be the thirtieth anniversary of the
formal end of the Cold War - the signing by the participants of the Conference on Security and
Cooperation in Europe of the “Paris Charter for a New Europe”. Gladly, nowadays there has
been a departure from the old ideologized schemes and stereotypes in most researches. The
creation of a new history of the Cold War began, the distinguishing features of which were
interdisciplinarity, multi-archivalism, and internationalism. Therefore, it is much easier to deepen
into happened situations and analyze everything. In history, Gorbachev took a significant place
thanks to his actions. Because of his ideologies, there were global changes in the structure known
as perestroika (1). The aim of this paper is to investigate the role of Gorbachev's actions at the
end of the Cold War. To be concrete, analyze to what extent actions of Gorbachev ended the
Cold War.

In the early 1990s, after the collapse of the socialist system and the collapse of the Soviet Union
in world history, attention to the history of the Cold War significantly increased. After the
Second World War, the balance of power in the international arena changed significantly - the
bipolar world replaced the Eurocentric world. The United States of America significantly
overtook other countries economically and militarily and turned into a superpower, and the
leader of the capitalist world. The second superpower was the Soviet Union, which had
enormous industrial and military potential. He controlled the countries of Central and Eastern
Europe, and also enjoyed the support of China, the country with the largest population in the
world. Both superpowers led the respective essentially two worlds, two alternatives to social
development that survived after the war: social reformist capitalism and revolutionary socialism
(communism). Thus formed the two main poles of gravity on the planet. The situation among
two superpowers was extremely harsh and complicated. The global confrontation between the
blocs led by the Soviet Union and the USA began to be called the Cold War since it was
ideological. Moreover, during the Cold War, the spread of a certain way of life, worldview, the
establishment of an appropriate regime was reinforced by the military power of rival
superpowers and military-political blocs. The ideological confrontation inevitably led to the
ideologization of foreign policy and international relations, which in turn was accompanied by
excessive suspicion, distrust and hostility, propaganda, and psychological impact on the
population. As a result, the Cold War was distinguished not only by tense relations and sharp
rivalry between the two worlds but also by its expressed desire to bring the matter to the
complete victory of one of them [2].

1
Since the end of World War II, these two countries have been the main enemies. However, when
Gorbachev came to power, the policy of the USSR began to change and, in fact, led to a
weakening of forces against the enemy. In the second half of the 80s, after a change of leadership
in the USSR, it was time for new efforts to reduce tension and improve the international political
climate. M.S. Gorbachev came up with the concept of “new thinking”, which suggested
“socialist pluralism” and “the priority of universal human values over class values”. At the same
time, he considered foreign policy not only as a way to achieve a respite for carrying out reforms
in his country but also as a means to help these changes come true. He wanted to open the Soviet
Union to the outside world and thereby overcome the Stalinist heritage, which was expressed
primarily in opposition to Western countries. Soon, “new thinking” became synonymous with a
radical reassessment of all official ideology. Of course, Gorbachev had high hopes for reducing
international tension, which could bring relief to the overextended budget - “peaceful dividends”
by reducing military spending, obtaining Western loans, and helping Western companies
reconstruct the Soviet industry [7]. And, indeed, the negotiations that began between the leaders
of the USSR and the USA indicated tendencies for radical changes in the system of international
relations. Since 1987, the ideological and military-political confrontation between the United
States and the USSR began to rapidly lose sharpness, and over the next two to three years, the
confrontation almost came to naught.

It should be emphasized that the decisive prerequisite for ending the Cold War was the change in
the socio-political situation in the Soviet Union during the years of perestroika. Professor Zubok
speaks directly in his thoroughly documented book of Gorbachev's Westernism, which did not
experience a grain of xenophobia or hostility towards the West, Western life and culture. A clear
example of the Westernism of the last Secretary-General of the CPSU Central Committee is the
idea of a “pan-European home,” and adherence to pan-European values formed the basis of his
convictions and many actions. However, it is clear that Gorbachev’s passionate pro-Western
mood did not coincide with the restrained pragmatism of most of his Western colleagues.
According to Zubok, the policy of the Americans and Western Europe towards the Soviet Union
was based not on certain ideas, messianic plans, and personal decency, but the geopolitical,
economic, and military interests of their states (2) [4].

M.S. Gorbachev used all the power at his disposal to carry out his plan. In this, the Secretary-
General actively supported a large part of the Soviet intelligentsia, which became the conductor
of the idea of restoring cooperation with the West as the leader of intellectual and economic
progress. The future of the country was associated primarily with the end of the confrontation in
Europe, from where culture, writing, science, etc. came to Russia. The propaganda of the
Western way of life during the perestroika period was an extraordinary success and contributed
to the establishment of the anti-isolationist course of the Soviet leadership and the ensuing
intention to carry out Westernization of the Soviet Union.

2
In Malta, December 2–3 of 1989, a meeting of the leaders of the USSR and the USA took place.
The content of the negotiations is still not known enough, but after their completion M.S.
Gorbachev and US President George W. Bush went to the press and said the Cold War was over.
The parties recognized the irreversibility of the changes that have begun, and although this was
not reflected in the official documents, this idea received their approval and appropriate support.
In the future, both Gorbachev and Bush insisted that the main result of the meeting was the end
of the Cold War, although this was not entirely true. Nevertheless, negotiations in Malta led to an
improvement in Soviet-American relations and a marked decrease in the level of confrontation in
the Cold War. In addition, the leaders of the two superpowers began to coordinate their positions
on the most important issues of world politics. However, it is hard not to notice that the
weakening of the confrontation was largely due to the pliability of the Soviet leader. A feature of
the negotiations was that Gorbachev promised a lot, while Bush nodded and agreed, but
promised nothing in turn [1]. The pressure of the West on the Soviet Union began to decline, but
this was not due to its peaceful attitude to our country, but to the fact that the Western countries
were satisfied with the general course of events in the USSR.

At the end of 1989, the popular Soviet political weekly, Novoye Vremya, published an interview
with the chairman of the KGB, V.A. Kryuchkov. Answering a question from the editorial office
about the end of the Cold War, he said: “I would very much like to answer that the Cold War has
completely and finally sunk into the past. There are some reasons to think so if we mean by this
term an acute form of political confrontation. If we proceed from the fact that the end of the cold
war means a kingdom of complete trust between East and West, then this is not yet” (5) [6].
Then he named the reasons for the situation: the West does not always adequately respond to the
open policy of the USSR, its desire for peace; attempts continue to be made by the military-
industrial complex and extreme right-wing forces, which do not accept everything connected
with socialism, to discredit Soviet domestic and foreign policy, and to launch an arms race in
new forms; the intervention of Western intelligence services in the internal affairs of the Soviet
Union continues.

The next milestone towards the end of the Cold War was negotiations on the unification of
Germany, which began shortly after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The American and West German
leaders were not sure that the USSR would agree to leave East Germany. Both sides realized that
the two Germanys are extremely important for both the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) and the Warsaw Treaty Organization. And they have long been aware that power over a
united Germany ensures a dominant position in Europe. Interestingly, the former Soviet
ambassador to the United States A.F. Dobrynin later claimed that even in Malta, Gorbachev
ignored the directive of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, according to which the
reunification of Germany was allowed only “when both blocs - NATO and the Warsaw Pact -
were dissolved or united by mutual agreement” [5].

3
On November 19-21 of 1990, the main event of the final stage of the Cold War took place in
Paris - a meeting of heads of state and government participating in the Conference on Security
and Cooperation in Europe. The “Charter of Paris for a New Europe” signed by the heads of
delegations spoke of the end of the era of confrontation and split of Europe, the beginning of a
new era of democracy, peace, and unity, the era of prosperity through economic freedom and
social justice, and equal security for all European countries was proclaimed continent based on
friendly relations between them [3]. “With the end of the split in Europe,” the Charter noted, “we
will strive to give a new quality to our security relations with full respect for the freedom of
choice that everyone has in this area. Security is indivisible and the security of each participating
State is inextricably linked to the security of everyone else. Therefore, we commit ourselves to
cooperate in building confidence and security between us and in promoting arms control and
disarmament”. Thus, it was at the CSCE Paris meeting that the cold war line was drawn. It is
also important to emphasize that then no one spoke of victory. And no one had the idea to
consider the Soviet Union as the losing side.

In conclusion, it is clear that Gorbachev’s actions were the most important factor which ended
the Cold War. Gorbachev himself was an extremely democratic person who wanted to achieve
peace in the world. As I mentioned previously, even during the important meetings, he always
tried to find a consensus. When Gorbachev was named as the next leader of the USSR, it was the
beginning of the end. Of course, his new ideas were not fully understood or supported by his
colleagues. After the enormous number of great idols who ruled the USSR, Gorbachev
differentiated from others because of his new ideologies. Some people judged Gorbachev for
being weak, but others thought that he was a good democrat. Opinions about the actions of
Gorbachev is another debate, which will take an eternity until all people would come to a
consensus. However, one thing remains true, Gorbachev played a significant role in the ending
of the Cold war and further changes.

Word Count: 1981 words

FOOTNOTES:

1. (number) - footnote; [number] - citation

2. My bibliography is in alphabetical order
3. Perestroika - reconstruction (translation)

4
 4. Originally is in Russian language “...а приверженность общеевропейским ценностям
легла в основу его убеждений и многих действий. Однако совершенно очевидно,
что пылкие прозападные настроения Горбачева не совпадали со сдержанным
прагматизмом большинства его западных коллег. По мнению Зубока, политика
американцев и западноевропейцев по отношению к Советскому Союзу
основывалась не на неких идеях, мессианских планах и личной порядочности, а на
геополитических, экономических и военных интересах их государств”, translated by
me into English language
5. Originally is in Russian language “Очень хотелось бы ответить, что холодная война
полностью и окончательно канула в прошлое. Какие-то основания так считать есть,
если под этим термином иметь в виду острую форму политической конфронтации.
Если же исходить из того, что конец холодной войны означает царство полного до-
верия между Востоком и Западом, то этого пока еще нет”, translated by me into
English language

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. David S. Foglesong. ‘Roots of ‘liberation’: American images of the future of Russia in

the early cold war, 1948–1953.’ The International History Review 21 (1999): 57-79.
2. John Lewis Gaddis. The Cold War: a new history. (New York: Penguin, 2005), 96 p.
3. LaFeber, Walter, and Brian Abbott. America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945-1975.
(New York: Wiley, 1976), 12 p.
4. Robert English. Russia and the Idea of the West: Gorbachev, Intellectuals, and the End
of the Cold War. (Columbia: Columbia University Press, 2000), 47 p.
5. Sheila Fitzpatrick. A spy in the archives: A memoir of cold war Russia. (Moscow:
Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013), 17 p.
6. Vladimir Kruchkov. Radio Svoboda. Available at: http://www.svoboda.
org/content/article/26764365.html
7. Vladislav Zubok. Neudavshayasya imperiya: Sovetskiy Soyuz v kholodnoy voyne ot
Stalina do Gorbacheva. [A Failed Empire: the Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin
to Gorbachev]. (Moscow: Rossiyskaya politicheskaya entsiklopediya (ROSSPEN),
2011), 671 p.

“The Catholic Church was forced to deal with nationalism

because of the rise of Fascism.” Discuss.

As it is known, Catholicism in its face has always been the spiritual leader of the "family of
nations", which called for the solidarity of nations. However, when it came to the spread of
strong nationalism, which led to fascism, the Catholic Church was silent for a long time,

5
formally not expressing its protest against nationalist and fascist actions. The doctrine and
missionary work of the church was to determine its consistent negative position regarding racism
and nationalism, their theoretical concepts, and practical consequences. However, despite this,
their actions were mixed. This means that there are examples of the struggle of German or Italian
Catholic priests against the chauvinistic regime, the participation of Catholics in the ranks of the
Resistance, criticism of racist and nationalist theories in Catholic publications, and conflicts
between the Vatican and the Nazis as well as examples of cooperation between bishops and local
fascist regimes, the papacy's tolerance of Mussolini and Hitler. The list of examples can be
continued, but the point of interest is in the main tendency of the attitude of Catholicism towards
nationalism, stemming from its ideology and political orientation in a specific historical situation
and related to the social function of religion. The aim of this paper is to analyze to what extent
the Catholic Church was forced to deal with nationalism because of the sharp increase of fascism
which brought danger to all countries and human kinds. Moreover, the main question is to what
extent the Catholic Church fought with nationalism.

One can refer to the numerous condemnations of nationalism in Catholic social philosophy. The
speeches of the popes also contain references to “false ideals” and “destructive doctrines”
(meaning nazism and fascism). But as a rule, these concepts are given only a moralizing
interpretation, in which there is no social-class, political assessment of these phenomena. For
example, German Nazism in the Welti Social Catechism is called “fake nationalism” and is
explained as “national pride”, “national egoism”, “national ill-will”, “feeling of national hatred”
[1]. Here it is only about the manifestations of nationalism, but not about its essence.
Considering at one level the concepts of "class", "race", "nation", Catholic ideologists preach
peace among them. In a Christmas message of 1947, Pope Pius XII wrote: “So, mankind cannot
get out of the present crisis and hopelessness in order to take the path of a more secure future, if
it does not tame and overcome the forces of schism and discord by the force of the sincere spirit
of brotherhood, which embraced all classes, races, nations would be equal in love ... ”[2]. The
same position was stated in the statement of the German bishops at the beginning of the war: the
bishops called on Catholic soldiers to fulfill their duty, selflessly obeying the Fuhrer, and not
spare their strength. As it is obvious, the Catholic Church highlighted the wrongness of the idea
of nazism and fascism. Popes called people to be wiser and to withdraw making before-
mentioned mistakes. However, they had a clear statement in their minds that religion should not
be part of politics. Thus, the Catholic Church decided to not show concrete opposition and
avoided strong actions.

The most strained relations initially developed with National Socialism and the German bishops
forbade Catholics to join the Nazi party, but after the arrival of Hitler, the ban was lifted. In
1937, Pope Pius XI, in the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge, condemned Nazism and indicated
that anti-Semitism was incompatible with Christianity. During World War II, the Catholic
Church was forced to maintain partial neutrality in order to preserve the lives of the believing
masses and their independence. Many Catholic priests and monks passed through Nazi

6
concentration camps, some of them died, some of them were subsequently canonized
(Maximilian Kolbe, Edith Stein, Tit Brandsma and others). Various Catholic organizations saved
thousands of people of "non-Aryan" nationality and anti-fascists from death. Extraterritorial
status in the Vatican buildings granted asylum to several persecuted persons. In Italy, the
Catholic Church initially opposed the Nazis in the face of the White Rose Alliance. However, in
Germany, according to some media reports, the Catholic Church used the labor of Soviet
prisoners. In Germany, out of 13 million foreign citizens imported for forced labor, 6,000
worked in Catholic institutions, where conditions were better than elsewhere [4]. In Croatia,
Catholic priests and monks took a wide part in the genocide of the Serbs, and Archbishop
Stepinac supported the regime of Croatian Ustashi (3) [3]. Therefore, it is a complicated question
about what exactly was done by the Catholic Church in order to stop nationalistic actions. In
some countries, Popes often invited human beings into meetings where they discussed such
matters. On the other hand, in some countries, there was a strong belief that nationalism should
not be labeled as something bad. Of course, when it comes to the idea that the Catholic Church
was forced to deal with nationalism because of the rise of fascism, this question needs a proper
deepened analysis of history. However, it should be mentioned that history has many sides, and
thus, it is extremely difficult to examine the truth.

In conclusion, in this paper, there were given various amounts of examples from history to
answer the main question about the Catholic Church's actions against nationalism. In the topic, it
was stated that the Catholic Church was forced by a rise of fascism to deal with nationalism.
However, this question demands a long term debate to decide whether it is true or not. The
reason is that the Catholic Church cannot be forced by such movement as it is known as the
higher power. Additionally, there were many contradictions in the actions of the Catholic Church
about nationalism. The main argument is that the Catholic Church showed clear tolerance by
calling all people for peace among nations. There were not any sharp oppositions in the actions
of the Catholic Church, but they explained the wrongness of the nationalistic's core. The
movements of the Catholic Church played a significant role in gaining everyone together, and in
the understanding of the danger that nationalism with fascism can cause.
Word Count: 1017 words

FOOTNOTES:

1. (number) - footnote; [number] - citation

2. My bibliography is in alphabetical order
3. “In Croatia, Catholic priests and monks took a wide part in the genocide of the Serbs, and
Archbishop Stepinac supported the regime of Croatian Ustashi” was translated by me
from Russian source. Originally “В Хорватии католические священники и монахи

7
 принимали широкое участие в геноциде сербов, а архиепископ Степинац
поддержал режим хорватского усташи”.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. Anthony D. Smith. Nationalism in the twentieth century. (Oxford: ANU Press, 1979) 117
p.
2. Madalena Meyer Resende. Catholicism and Nationalism: Changing Nature of Party
Politics. (New York: Routledge, 2015), 15 p.
3. Maria A. Rivelli. Archbishop of genocide. Monsignor Stepinac, Vatican and Ustas
dictatorship in Croatia 1941-1945. (Moscow: Moscow, 2011), 211-212 p.
4. Vilma Žaltauskaitė. "Catholicism and Nationalism in the Views of the Younger
Generation of Lithuanian Clergy in the Late-Nineteenth And Early-Twentieth Centuries."
Lithuanian historical studies 5, no. 1 (2000): 113-130.