How the Superpowers Kept Influence
Introduced| English |
|---|
| NATO/ˈneɪtəʊ/ |
| Warsaw Pact/ˈwɔːsɔː pækt/ |
| led to nuclear proliferation/led tə ˈnjuːklɪə prəˌlɪfəˈreɪʃn/ |
| led to proxy wars/led tə ˈprɒksi wɔːz/ |
Alliances on both sides
- The Cold War produced new military alliances, including NATO 北约 and the Warsaw Pact 华沙条约组织.
- Each alliance turned a group of states into a single security commitment, exactly as the alliance system of 7.2 had.
- The difference is that this time both blocs knew what alliances had done in 1914, and built them anyway.
Select all the military alliances the CED names.
The League belongs to 7.5; non-alignment is the refusal of both blocs.
Nuclear proliferation
- The Cold War led to nuclear proliferation 核扩散.
- A weapon that cannot be used without destroying its user changes what an alliance is for: deterrence rather than victory.
- So the two superpowers competed almost everywhere except directly with each other.
Select all the proxy conflicts the CED names.
They span Asia, Africa and Latin America — the CED's three named regions.
Proxy wars
- The Cold War led to proxy wars 代理人战争 between and within postcolonial states in Latin America, Africa and Asia.
- The CED names the Korean War, the Angolan Civil War, and the Sandinista–Contras conflict in Nicaragua.
- Note within as well as between: a civil war could become a superpower contest without either superpower fighting.
Alliance, proliferation, or proxy war?
Sort each Cold War development.
Proxy wars happened only between states, not within them.
The CED writes between and within postcolonial states.
The CED says proxy wars happened between and within postcolonial states. A civil war could become a superpower contest with neither superpower fighting — which is why the Angolan and Nicaraguan examples sit beside the Korean one, and why "proxy war" is not a synonym for "invasion".
Nuclear weapons changed what an alliance is for: ____ rather than victory.
So the superpowers competed almost everywhere except directly with each other.
Comparing the two approaches
- The objective is to compare the ways in which the United States and the Soviet Union sought to maintain influence.
- Shared instruments: military alliances, arms and aid, support for friendly governments, and intervention in proxy conflicts.
- Differences lie in the economic model offered, the political conditions attached, and the relationship each had with its own bloc.
Select all the shared instruments of influence this lesson names.
Support for friendly governments completes the four; direct colonisation is unit 6.
Compare on instruments, not on verdicts
- A comparison paragraph runs one instrument at a time across both superpowers.
- Alliances, aid, arms, intervention — four instruments, and both sides used all four.
- The analysis is in how each used them, which is a question the CED's own examples can answer.
Two factions inside one newly independent state each acquire a foreign patron, foreign weapons and foreign advisers. Neither superpower declares war on the other; the conflict is nonetheless a Cold War conflict, and its casualties are local. That asymmetry is the defining feature of a proxy war.
The Cold War produced new military alliances, including NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and led to nuclear proliferation and proxy wars between and within postcolonial states in Latin America, Africa and Asia — the Korean War, the Angolan Civil War, the Sandinista–Contras conflict. Compare the superpowers one instrument at a time: alliances, aid, arms, intervention.