Hist Final Part 3

  1. July 1975 met at Helsinki
    • · Set of agreements concluded on August 1, 1975
    • · Helsinki Final Act said that the status quo as it existed following WWII would be accepted as normal. West Germans would no longer claim part of Poland being Germany.
    • · All powers agreed that changes in these boundaries would only happen by peaceful means.
    • · There were three baskets. Human Rights 3rd basket - right of all people to basic legal rights. this led to ending the cold war. Countries in the East could point to the final act in Helsinki as trying to take their human rights. Kissinger and US were seeing this as a way of criticizing the Communists.
  2. Soviets changed boundaries
    after WWII but
    none of this was acknowledged by the West. Germany said they would acknowledge these boundaries, so they lost a significant part of land. Now, the Western powers accepted it.
  3. High point of Détente in Europe was at Helsinki. After that it began to disintegrate.
    · Soviets began to expand military.
  4. Soviets ended detente by...
    • December 25 1979
    • the Soviets invaded Afghanistan ending detaunte.
  5. Who and why stopped using the word detente?
    Gerald Ford and others stopped using the word detaunte because it was not a popular word in the US.
  6. Trilateral commission established why?
    • · closer cooperation between US Europe, and japan
    • · July 1973
    • · Included David Rockefeller, politicians,
    • · Jimmy Carter was brought in. Cyrus Vance (worked in 1960's in defense department in Vietnam, became Carters Sec of State), Zbigniew Brzezinski, Harold Brown came in as well.
    • · They criticized Nixon's foreign policy
  7. Andrew Young was the
    • · American ambassador in UN
    • · Worked with Martin Luther King
    • · Only person that had significant role in Carters administration that wasn't in the trilateral commission
  8. Carter unlike Kissinger and Nixon and Ford
    • · Was much more at home in diverse world.
    • · Nixon and Kissinger aligned with white regimes in Africa instead of ones under black leadership
    • · Nixon and Ford thought they were communists
  9. Black students would attend
    mission schools then came
    • · to American schools. Andrew Young as a
    • minister? knew they were not
    • communists. Young and Carter knew they were Christians.
  10. We live in a world that is
    tremendously diverse.
    All kinds of people. Different color, ideology, life experiences. At same time this world has become interdependent. There has been a movement towards globalization. This creates tension. If world is increasingly tied together, but made of all kinds of people with different types of agendas there are a number of conflicts that can come up. Examples of interdependency
  11. International Economy
    • · - Americans emphasized that our economy was tied to economies of countries around the world. Americans became aware in 1970's was that interdependence works in both ways. US also depended on other people
    • o Most dramatic example was oil
  12. o Most dramatic example was oil
    • October 1973 OPEC countries imposed an embargo. Cut off sale of oil to oil consuming countries (including western Europe, Japan, and USA). It was a response to Yan Kipper War Oct. 1973 attack against Isreal by Egypt and Isreal attacked back.
    • Up until 1950's America could use their own oil but after they increased imports from Venezuela, mexico, and middle east. Oil prices increased rapidly and gas lines started. Was a problem in Europe, japan and US. Americans consumed 3 times as much oil per capita.By 1960's and 1970's Americans were driving huge cars compared to what they were driving in Japan and Western Europe.Carter began to try to find a way to get away from this dependence. None of it worked and today US is more dependent than we were even in the 1960's
  13. Survival of a
    Nuclear war was another one
    • · Jimmy Carter beginning 1977 called for greater arms control. called for ending reliance on nuclear weapons. in meantime Americans depended on triad of nuclear deterrence by end of 1970's
    • o intercontinental ballistic missles (ICBM), armed with nuclear war heads were targeted against soviet Union. could utterly destroy soviet Union. In 1981 - US had 1054 ICMB's Svoits had 1398 ICBM's
    • o Submarine launched Ballistic missiles. This made it difficult for soviets to target these missles (586 missiles, soviets had 950 submarine launched ballistic missiles
    • o Strategic bombers (B52)
    • § 1981 - US had double the long range bombers as Soviets o By 1981 US had 9000 atomic war heads, soviets had only 7000
  14. Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD)
    · Given arms race. Kissinger and Nixon tried to slow down this race, making it cheaper, and was important when Americans did not want to spend as much on military purposes
  15. Moscow summit may 1972
    • · SALT 1 (Strategic arms limitation treaty 1) - anti ballistic missile treaty. Limited both sides only 2 defense missile systems, but each side only did one
    • · Interim 5 year agreement on offensive missile delivery systems. Did not stop the idea of putting war heads on a missile.
  16. Melvin Laird
    · Justified all of these missiles by siting SALT 1 because they were not regulated. If we could build them then we should.
  17. Salt 2 came in
    June 1979. Both sides agreed to limit delivery systems, all of them, to 2250. Would give both sides the same total number of delivery vehicles. By this time US was well ahead. (1983 - US had 10,000 strategic war heads, soviets had 7,400. Intermediate and tactical too. You total US - 29,000 nuclear war heads compared to 17,400 for soviets. By beginning of Regan we were way ahead.)
  18. Everyone in the world
    depended on mutual restraint
    New air force report just released has argued that 311 nuclear war heads should be enough of a deterrent. 100 war heads on ICBM 192 Sub launged 19 cruise missiles is enough to utterly destroy anyone. This was prior to massive build up under Regan.
Card Set
Hist Final Part 3
detaunte to confrontation