TyroCity: International Relations and Diplomacy Notes

Attack upon Czechoslovakia

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

The occupation of Austria made the situation of Czechoslovakia most difficult. The young Republic found herself surrounded on all sides, with the exception of her short common frontier with Rumania, by three states, Germany, Hungary and Poland, who laid claim to some of her territory and who, with the support of Italy, prepared a concerted action in this direction. The new strength gained by Nazi Germany, and the inflammatory speeches of some Nazi leaders, influenced large parts of the German minority in Czechoslovakia to expect, within a short time, the annexation to Nazi Germany of the territory inhabited by their minority. The Sudeten-German Party, which, under the leadership of Konrad Henlein, represented the majority of Czechoslovak-Germans, now became more and more intransigent in its demands for complete autonomy within Czechoslovakia and for the Nazification of the Czechoslovak democracy. To outside observers it seemed as if Germany had prepared for May 21 a surprise occupation of Czechoslovak territories similar to what she had done in the case of Austria. A most successful partial mobilization of the Czech army carried through at the shortest notice prevented any breach of the peace.

On March 13, Field Marshal Goering as acting Foreign Minister, had officially assured the Czechoslovak Government that Germany had no hostile designs upon her. But the tension within Czechoslovakia grew, since the Czechoslovak Germans firmly believed in the support of the German Government for their demands of complete autonomy and free development of their Nazi ideology and institutions, demands which a democratic state could not grant without undermining completely its integrity and its democratic Constitution. In spite of the presence of Lord Runciman as head of an unofficial British mission in Czechoslovakia, Germany started in August to mobilize her army to the strength of one million men, to hold army maneuvers not far distant from the Czechoslovak border, and to rush the building of most modern and impregnable fortifications along her Western frontier. For this last, a decree for the mobilization of all labor in Germany was promulgated; over 400,000 men were actually mobilized, and the whole German industry was put on a war basis, working day and night for the strengthening of the air fleet and the army.

Meanwhile, the Czechoslovak Government showed itself ready to grant the most far-reaching concessions to the German minority. Although, during the whole crisis, it gave proof of outstanding moderation and restraint, the German military preparations and the violent press campaign in German papers against Czechoslovakia not only went on unabated, but increased steadily in fury. Repeated warnings by the British Government to the effect that it could not remain indifferent to a war in Central Europe, and its pleas for a lessening of the tension, remained unheeded, as the German Government was convinced that Britain would not hinder Germany’s expansion in Central or Eastern Europe.

The crisis reached its culmination during the month of September. Under flimsy pretexts, the Sudeten German leaders broke off most promising negotiations with the Czechoslovak Government. Chancellor Hitler and Konrad Henlein met on Sept. 1 at Berchtesgaden, and Chancellor Hitler demanded, on Sept. 12, in his speech at the Party Congress at Nuremberg, “self-determination” for the Sudeten Germans, implying their right to secede from Czechoslovakia. At this moment the British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, personally intervened. He asked Chancellor Hitler for an interview which was granted him at Berchtesgaden on Sept. 15. The British leading Conservative weekly, the Spectator, published in its issue of Sept. 16 an editorial article under the heading, “A Momentous Mission” in which it wrote: “Mr. Chamberlain has certainly not gone to Berchtesgaden with the idea of settling the future of Czechoslovakia over the heads of the Czechs. . . . Anxiety is to be felt regarding only one commitment into which the Prime Minister might conceivably enter, concurrence with the demand put forward by Herr Hitler in a veiled form in his Nuremberg speech for a plebiscite in the Sudeten German area. Mr. Chamberlain is more likely on many grounds to resist that demand than to endorse it.” What the Spectator had regarded as impossible or improbable, happened. In three momentous conferences, at Berchtesgaden on Sept. 15, in Godesberg on Sept. 22, and in Munich on Sept. 29, Mr. Chamberlain agreed to settlement of the question of German expansion in Czechoslovakia, without any participation on the part of the Czechoslovak Government in the deliberations, and in the growing sense of a complete cession of all the Sudeten German territory to Germany.

The agreement, signed on Sept. 29 in Munich, between Germany, Italy, Great Britain and France, sanctioned the cession to Germany of all Czechoslovak territory inhabited, according to the census of 1910, by a German majority; and the occupation of this territory within ten days, in successive stages, beginning October 1st. A commission, under German chairmanship, of delegates from Germany, Italy, Great Britain, France and Czechoslovakia, was to regulate all further questions involved in the transfer of territories and in the delimitation of new frontiers. It soon became clear that this commission acted entirely according to the wishes of Germany, and that, in the final settlement, Germany got more territorial and economic advantages than she had expected at the conclusion of the Munich agreement.

As the result of this historical crisis, Germany acquired a territory of approximately 11,583 sq. mi. (about the size of Belgium) with approximately 3,500,000 inhabitants of whom about 750,000 were Czechs. But more important for Germany than this additional territorial aggrandizement, which brought the increase in her population within one year to about ten million, was the fact that the remainder of Czechoslovakia lay entirely defenseless before Germany, having lost her natural and strategic frontiers and fortifications. This new Czechoslovakia became for all practical purposes an integral part of the economic, political and strategic system of Germany, an important spearhead for German penetration into Rumania, Hungary and beyond. The position thus acquired within one year, without a war, put Germany into a much stronger position than even Bismarck’s Germany had occupied after three victorious wars. At the same time, the influence of France and Great Britain in Central and Eastern Europe came practically to an end, and the smaller states of Central and Southeastern Europe were forced to veer toward the political and economic orbit of Germany.

Development of Foreign Policy in Nepal

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Nepal had diplomatic relationship only with the four countries- India, America, England and France till 2007 B.S.
International relationship took a new turn after Nepal got the membership of the UNO in 2012 B.S.
In 2013 B.S. Nepal established diplomatic relationship with USSR, China, Japan, Switzerland etc.
In 2013 B.S., Nepal took part in the general assembly of the UNO for the first time.
Since 2018 B.S. Nepal has been participating in conferences of non-alignment held at different countries regularly.
First time in 1969-70 and in 1988-89 for the second time, Nepal was elected temporary member of UNO security council.
Nepal got support from many countries on the proposal of declaring it as zone of peace by the then His Majesty King Birendra in 2031 B.S.
A new chapter began by adding a new dimension in the foreign policy of nepal after the peoples movement 2046 B.S.
In 1991 Nepal signed in the six different important international treaties at the same time.
In 1992, the prime minister of Nepal took part in non-alignment conference.
Nepal has been strengthening its foreign relationship in the international sector through regional forum showing active participation in the different SAARC summits held till now.

Division of the world between NATO and warsaw pact

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO]

NATO was founded with the North Atlantic Treaty (also called the Washington Treaty) signed on 4 April 1949 in Washington which came into force in August 1949.

Twelve states initially signed the treaty, including the United States, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom.

Since then, NATO’s membership has expanded to include a total of 28 states as of June, 2013.

NATO has its headquarters in Brussels, Belgium. Its guiding principle has always been to establish a just and lasting peaceful order in Europe based on common values of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

The alliance’s goal was the eventual integration of the national armed forces of the member nations into a unified military command.

Key Provisions :

The North Atlantic Treaty consists of 14 articles.

The Treaty calls for peaceful resolution of disputes and economic and political cooperation between parties.

The Treaty also calls for the development of the capacity for defense and provides for joint consultations when a member is threatened.

As mentioned in Article 5 (heart of NATO), the Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.

They promised the use of the members’ armed forces for “collective self‐defense” in case of such attack.

Structure

The highest authority within NATO is the North Atlantic Council composed of ministerial representatives of the member states, who meet at least twice a year.

The position of the secretary‐general has always been held by a European. The council is responsible for general policy, budgetary outlines, and administrative actions, and is the decision‐making body of NATO.

At other times the council is chaired by the NATO secretary‐general and the ambassadors represent the member states instead of the ministers.

Below the Council, there are the Secretariat, various temporary committees, and the Military Committee.

The position of Supreme Commander of the Military has always been held by an American.

Roles, Uses and Success of NATO

The signing of the Intermediate‐Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) in 1987 between the US and USSR to eliminate all intermediate range nuclear weapons is considered as a success of NATO.

No NATO member was ever attacked during the Cold War – it never had to use its military forces during Cold War.

It used military force for the first time after Cold War in 1995 to end the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In 1999, NATO forces used force against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for the protection of Albanians in Kosovo. The first time a NATO member (the US) was attacked was on September 11, 2001 (by non‐state actor al‐ Qaeda).

NATO invoked article 5 of the Treaty for the first time following the September 11, 2001, attacks against the United States

NATO Now

After the formal end of the Cold War in 1991, NATO expanded to include the former members of the Warsaw Pact

It serves as a permanent and institutionalized link between the United States and an ever growing number of European allies in collective defense, crisis management and cooperative security

It has been the most important alliance for the US for the past more than 60 years.

Under the plan known as Partnership for Peace (PFP), nonmembers could be invited to participate in information sharing, joint exercises, and peacekeeping operations in NATO.

NATO activities are no longer confined only to Europe. In 2003, for the first time in its history, NATO took up peacekeeping activities outside of Europe by deploying troops in Afghanistan.

The Warsaw Pact

Warsaw Pact refers to the treaty establishing a mutual‐defense organization (Warsaw Treaty Organization) composed originally of a group of Eastern European nations and the Soviet Union.

The treaty was signed in Warsaw, Poland on May 14, 1955. The parties to the treaty were the Soviet Union and its satellite countries in Eastern Europe: Albania, East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic and Slovakia), Bulgaria, and Romania.

The treaty was to last for 20 years, with an automatic 10‐year extension. The creation of the Warsaw Pact was prompted by the integration of a “re‐militarized” West Germany into NATO on May 9, 1955.

The competing military alliance was formed by USSR also because of its own fears of a rearmed Germany.

Soviet troops to occupy Eastern European countries as part of Warsaw Pact activities, the Soviet Union allowed itself to defend any attacks that might come from the West and, at the same time, to keep communist regimes stable.

Key Provisions

The members of the Warsaw Pact pledged to defend each other if one or more of the members were attacked.

The treaty also stated that relations among the signatories were based on mutual noninterference in internal affairs and respect for national sovereignty and independence.

It integrated the armed forces of Eastern Europe into a unified command under the USSR.

Soviet military units were placed on the territories of the other participating states.

High‐ranking Soviet officers were assigned to the defense ministries of Warsaw Pact members to ensure a uniformity of training and to keep the national militaries a part of the armed forces of the Soviet Union.

Two major bodies carried out the functions of the Warsaw Pact: the Political Consultative Committee and the Unified Command of Pact Armed Forces, both headquartered in Moscow.

Controversies and Criticisms

There was a great deal of distrust between the Soviet Union and the member states and among the member states themselves.

the Soviets did not want other pact members to have armies, air forces, or navies that could present obstacles to the Soviet Union.

The Warsaw Pact’s only military action was directed against Czechoslovakia in August 1968 when Czechoslovakia sought closer relations with the West.

The Warsaw Pact no longer exists. After the democratic revolutions of 1989 in Eastern Europe, the Warsaw Pact became stagnant and was formally declared “nonexistent” on July 1, 1991, at a final summit meeting of Warsaw Pact leaders in Prague, Czech

Intermediate Consequences of Cold War

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

- The Korean War
Japan had taken over Korea in 1910 & ruled it until 1945.

Republic of Korea (South Korea) was established in 1948 in the zone that had been occupied by the US after defeating Japan. Communist North Korean troops, backed by Soviet Union invaded South Korea in June 1950 in order to unite Korea under communist regime.

The U.S. sent troops to defend democratic South Korea. By mid‐July 1950, a 17‐nation military coalition fighting under a U.S.‐led UN Command was engaged in fierce fighting against advancing North Korean troops

In late December 1950, China intervened in the war when UN forces were about to defeat North Korean forces.

The Chinese troops pushed the U.S. back to the 38th parallel (38° North latitude) where the border of North Korea and South Korea still stands today.

The war came to the state of ceasefire in 1953 after the move of the UN Security Council. No peace treaty was signed, and North and South Korea remain technically at war to this very day.

Cuba and the 1962 Missile Crisis

The 1959 Cuban Revolution sparked the most dangerous confrontation of the entire Cold War.

The US wanted to crush emerging communism in Cuba that was just 90 miles from Florida.

US destabilize and topple the Castro regime, in april1961, the United States even sponsored a failed invasion of Cuba designed to remove Castro from power.

After that, the Soviets vowed to protect Cuba from U.S. intervention.

The John F. Kennedy administration publicly confronted the Soviets and demanded that supply of missiles be stopped.

The US relaxed its attitude towards Cuba, and the USSR withdrew supplying the missiles when the US agreed to remove its missiles from Turkey.

Introduction to Peace Keeping Works of UN

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Peacekeeping is one among a range of activities undertaken by the United Nations to maintain international peace and security throughout the world.

UN Peacekeepers provide security and the political and peace‐building support to help countries make the difficult, early transition from conflict to peace. The UN Charter gives the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. In fulfilling this responsibility, the Council can establish a UN peacekeeping operation. UN peacekeeping operations are deployed on the basis of mandates from the United Nations Security Council. United Nations Peacekeeping began in 1948. So far, 67 peacekeeping operations have been deployed by the UN. Over the years, hundreds of thousands of military personnel, as well as tens of thousands of UN police and other civilians from more than 120 countries have participated in UN peacekeeping operations. More than 3,000 UN peacekeepers from some 120 countries have died while serving under the UN flag. There are currently 17 UN peace operations deployed on four continents.

Legacies of World War II

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

World War II ended with the surrender of Germany on May 8, 1945 and the surrender of Japan on August 14, 1945. Statistically, this military conflict overshadows every war ever fought. Some 1.7 billion people from 61 nations engaged in a struggle waged on the land, on the sea, and in the skies of Europe, East and Southeast Asia, North Africa, and the islands of the Pacific Ocean. The clash left behind a trail of carnage and destruction unparalleled in human history. World War II took the lives of some 55 million soldiers and civilians and destroyed untold amounts of property. It cost more to finance World War II than any war before it. Beyond the awesome and almost unfathomable statistics, the conflict left a permanent mark on all aspects of human experience and shaped the history of the postwar world. For a generation of men and women everywhere, World War II was “the war.”

World War II vastly affected the world, so some sort of understanding of the war is needed to grasp much of the present. However, how people know the war relates directly to their experience of the world after it. The war was global, so participants experienced only some aspect of it, thus making their war experiences unique. While the Japanese refer to World War II as the Greater East Asia War, the Chinese call it the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression. For most citizens of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), the war remains the Great Patriotic War, while Solomon Islanders call it, simply and appropriately, Big Death.

Contemporary politics and historical hindsight also affect current visions of the war and, therefore, visions of the world after the war. For example, Russian historians often have omitted or downplayed the importance of the 1944 Allied invasion of Normandy in concluding the war. However, they stress the strategic importance of the eastern front and the Red Army’s heroic campaigns against the Third Reich. Conversely, Americans have tended to view D-Day in Normandy as a key military operation, frequently ignoring the pivotal role of the USSR in ending the war in Europe.

In short, varying views on World War II have resulted in different histories and interpretations. Perhaps the most balanced assessment of World War II and its legacies is found in a global approach; one that downplays national or regional views, and instead focuses on war legacies affecting the larger world.

The Price of Total War

The most immediate legacy of World War II was the material damage and human suffering it inflicted. World War I (1914-1918) established a pattern of total war that nations quickly adopted in this conflict. Fundamental to the concept of total war was the premise that warfare is conducted between entire societies and their populations. Accordingly, World War II made enormous demands on economic resources and human beings. For example, governments collectively mobilized some 110 million people for military service. Moreover, the nature of the conflict ensured that an unprecedented number of women and children participated, often fighting in uniform alongside men. By 1943 Soviet leadership had added approximately 900,000 women (about 8 percent of all Soviet military personnel) to the Red Army. Meanwhile, as the Third Reich crumbled, Hitler called on 12-year-old boys to defend the fatherland. The mobilization of human resources, the unprecedented physical destruction, and the obscene number of human casualties were all part of waging total war.

During the course of the war, entire populations had become the legitimate targets of warfare, and by 1945 at least 55 million people had died. Any distinction between battlefront and home front had vanished, and over half of the dead were civilians, the victims of bombs, massacres, and famines. An even darker side of the war was the persecution and murder of entire populations viewed as enemies or undesirables. The Nazi regime targeted European Jews for physical annihilation, and in the resulting Holocaust more than 5 million Jews perished. The deliberate uprooting of ethnic populations and the transfer of prisoners of war and slave laborers resulted in the death of many more untold millions.

Total war also affected the economies of the world. At the end of the war, the United States accounted for almost half of all the goods and services produced in the global economy. The war had laid waste to every major industrial region in the world except for those of North America. The landscapes of much of Japan and central and eastern Europe were barren: their cities jagged with bombed-out ruins, their industries and shipping destroyed, and their waterways choked with debris. Agricultural production everywhere had fallen precipitously, and in Europe most of the 45 million homeless survivors of the war relied on American aid for sustenance. But while the war was measured in costs to human life, habitat, and industry, it produced much more than that.

The United Nations

Another legacy of World War II was the creation of a new international organization dedicated to promoting peace, cooperation, and human rights. In 1945 nations determined to maintain the hard-won peace of that total war founded the United Nations (UN). The UN is an association of sovereign nations that provides the machinery to cope with international disputes and to find solutions to problems that exceed the boundaries and means of national states.

The organization’s founding document, the United Nations Charter, was an international treaty obligating member states to settle their disputes by peaceful means—that is, to refrain from the threat or use of force against other states. The primary responsibility for maintaining peace and security rests with the 15-member Security Council. To enforce its decisions, the Council can impose economic sanctions on countries that threaten the peace. It can send peacekeeping missions to troubled areas to wedge opposing forces apart or implement a peace agreement. As a last resort, the Council can authorize coalitions of member states to use military action to deal with a conflict.

While the effectiveness of the UN’s peacekeeping efforts often is debated, most experts acknowledge that the UN positively affects the lives of many people. Through its specialized agencies, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Food Program, or the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the UN tackles problems facing people everywhere. Throughout the world, the UN and its agencies fight epidemics, combat famine, help advance the rights of women and children, assist refugees, help expand food production, and make loans to developing countries. For example, in the last 10 years UN agencies have made safe drinking water available to 1.3 billion people in rural areas, helped institute family planning programs in developing countries, and eradicated smallpox from the planet.

Justice in Nürnberg (Nuremberg) and Tokyo

World War II also contributed to the development of international law. The victorious Allies were determined to bring to justice those believed to be responsible for starting the war and committing many of its atrocities. At the end of the war the Allies convened international military tribunals to try those who committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against peace.

At the war crime trials in Nürnberg, Germany (November 1945–October 1946), the primary defendants were the surviving leaders of the Nazi regime. Others, such as Adolf Hitler, Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels, and German Police Commander Heinrich Himmler had committed suicide to avoid prosecution. The postwar trials in Nürnberg also tried industrialists who had taken advantage of slave labor as well as physicians charged with cruelly experimenting on human beings. Of the 22 major war criminals arraigned at Nürnberg, 12 were executed. The Western Allies held additional trials in their zones of occupation, and by 1960 they had tried more than 5,000 war criminals and executed 500 of those convicted. In separate proceedings, the Soviets tried 10,000 additional Germans and executed many of them.

The International War Crimes Tribunal in Tokyo (May 1946–November 1948) sentenced 7 out of 25 Japanese wartime leaders to death, including the former prime minister General Tojo Hideki. Throughout Japan’s former empire, additional war trials charged Japanese detainees with crimes ranging from the mistreatment of prisoners of war to cruelty inflicted on local populations. Over 900 of the accused faced execution.

While there was little controversy over trials and convictions on charges of war crimes, the introduction at Nürnberg and Tokyo of charges involving crimes against peace and against humanity raised two criticisms. First, before the war, no specific laws addressed crimes against peace or humanity, so those on trial could not have committed any crimes in a legal sense. Second, only persons from or allied with the defeated nations were tried, so the tribunals and their proceedings were seen by some as unfair. Nevertheless, in 1946 the General Assembly of the United Nations affirmed the principles recognized by the Tribunals’ judgement. And in 1950 an International Law Commission recognized war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity as violations of international law.

Jewish Survivors and the Establishment of Israel

An unintended outcome of the Nazis’ war against the Jews of Europe was the establishment of a Jewish state. The Holocaust had deepened the desire of Jewish survivors and Zionists (Jewish nationalists) to establish Palestine as a Jewish state capable of defending the world’s remaining Jews. Zionists had been settling in Palestine since the late 1800s, but the end of World War II heightened the Zionist yearning for these lands as a refuge and for religious fulfillment. Palestine, however, was no empty haven waiting to receive the Jews of Europe. Since the end of World War I, Britain had ruled Palestine and tried desperately to balance the interests of Jewish immigrants and the Palestinian Arabs who possessed the land. Britain limited the migration and settlement of Jews while it promised to protect Arab political and economic rights, but its efforts to balance these competing aims fairly proved futile. Arab hostility to British rule and Zionist settlement, in conjunction with Jewish resistance to immigration quotas, resulted in repeated outbreaks of violence that British military forces could barely contain.

Shortly after the end of World War II, Britain announced its intention to withdraw from Palestine. The British placed the Palestine issue before the newly founded UN in 1947. The UN General Assembly recommended the partition of Palestine into separate Arab and Jewish states and the creation of international enclaves that included Jerusalem and Bethlehem, both of which contained sites of religious significance for Jews, Muslims, and Christians. While the partition plan was acceptable to most Jews, Arabs inside and outside of Palestine found this solution unacceptable. As the British completed their withdrawal, a civil war erupted between Arabs and Jews. In May 1948 the Jews in Palestine proclaimed the creation of the independent state of Israel, which provoked an attack by surrounding Arab nations. This first Arab-Israeli war ended in victory for the Jewish state. It also resulted in the flight of more than half of Palestine’s Arab population. To this day, the hostility engendered by the creation of Israel threatens the peace and stability of the Middle East.

Science and Technology

World War II catalyzed advances in science and technology and stimulated the maturation of planned research and development. Before the outbreak of the war, scientists in British, German, and Soviet research labs had been engaged in a “wizard war” of new combat-weapon technology. As governments made war-related research and development a national priority, scientists and engineers produced a dazzling array of new products and devices. For example, military demands for the ability to identify and pinpoint the location of targets propelled the development of radar. Likewise, the modern jet engine was born out of military demands. The U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development stimulated the production of destructive technologies, such as the proximity fuse and antitank bazooka rockets. But it also helped introduce DDT to combat malaria and sparked the widespread use of antibiotic penicillin for treating wounds.

Yet nothing shaped postwar military strategy and politics more than the scientific and technological developments that resulted in the ballistic missile and the atom bomb. As the tide of the war turned, the Nazi government called upon German rocket scientists to develop ballistic missiles, which carry explosives along a long, arced trajectory. In 1944 the Germans deployed some 4,300 V-2 rockets against targets in Western Europe and England. The harnessing of the atom for military aims was more dramatic in its effects. In 1938 German physicists had effectively demonstrated nuclear fission, and scientists in Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States subsequently assessed the prospects of constructing an atomic device. Ultimately, the U.S. government-sponsored efforts, code-named the Manhattan Project, developed the world’s first atomic bomb. In July 1945 a test explosion in New Mexico ushered in the nuclear age. Little or no official thought was given to the consequences of this potentially cataclysmic creation. In the Cold War world that existed after World War II, nuclear weapons, especially when attached to ballistic missiles, threatened to engulf the entire planet in an atomic blaze.

Superpower Rivalry and Cold War

The end of World War II signaled a dramatic change in global relations. The war seriously undermined the ability of Germany, Japan, Britain, and France to continue playing leading roles in the world. As these countries ceased to be great powers in economics, politics, and military might, two new superpowers, the United States and the USSR, took their place. The collective policies and actions of these superpowers dominated international relations and the global balance of power for more than 45 years.

The leaders of the United States and the USSR joined forces in 1941 to defeat their common enemies. Ultimately, it was the material and military resources of the two nations that ended the war. Yet this wartime alliance, which always had been a marriage of convenience, collapsed shortly after 1945 in the face of conflicting postwar aims and deep-seated ideological animosities. By 1947, both sides were engaged in what political observers labeled a “cold war.” Devoid of direct military confrontation, the Cold War soon extended beyond Europe and assumed the character of a global geopolitical and ideological rivalry that lasted until the collapse of the USSR in 1991.

The Cold War was not simply a great-power rivalry. At its heart was a conflict between different social, economic, and political systems, a conflict that dated back to the Russian Revolution of 1917. This clash of capitalism and democracy against socialism and one-party politics manifested itself in the division of the world into military alliances and political blocs. This division led to an unprecedented arms race that repeatedly threatened the world with nuclear annihilation. The Cold War also was responsible for diplomatic crises and warfare between pro U.S. and pro USSR forces in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and other countries. Moreover, the competition between the superpowers influenced the foreign policies, political institutions, and economic systems of societies in almost every corner of the world.

Many nations—especially those recently freed from colonial rule—tried to avoid becoming pawns in the Cold War by announcing policies of nonalignment. However, the USSR and the United States used military and economic strategies to win what U.S. president John F. Kennedy (1917-1963) described as “the hearts and minds of the underdeveloped and uncommitted peoples of the world.” Both sides backed often-brutal dictatorships to further their own geopolitical advantages. As the Cold War intensified during the 1960s, the process of decolonization kept pace.

Decolonization

Like the Cold War, decolonization—or the loss of colonial possessions—gave rise to great changes in global politics. World War II set the stage for the rapid collapse of European and Japanese empires. On the eve of World War II, the countries of Western Europe, with the notable exception of Spain, still ruled or otherwise controlled immense territories in Asia, Africa, and the Pacific. In 1941 British Prime Minister Winston Churchill confidently announced, “I have not become His Majesty’s Chief Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire.” But Churchill was decidedly mistaken in his optimism.

German and Japanese victories in Europe and Asia had dealt a devastating blow to the military might of the European colonial powers and shattered their aura of invincibility. As nationalist independence movements in the colonies and protectorates arose, the public back home began to view overseas empires as liabilities. Continued imperial rule loomed as an unappealing financial burden as the prolonged war also seriously sapped the economic strength of imperial societies. Beginning in 1945 decolonization accelerated rapidly. As European imperialism expired, more than 90 independent nations joined the global community of national states, and some 800 million people became responsible for their own destinies.

By the 1990s the process of decolonization had essentially run its course. European empires either are extinct or are now miscellaneous claims to scattered real estate. Likewise, the resurgence of democracy in Eastern Europe, the collapse of the USSR, and the unification of Germany ended the Cold War. World War II gave rise to decolonization and the Cold War, and together they were responsible for forging the political and economic contours of the postwar world. While it is apparent that their force has been spent, it is less clear what will take their place. Meanwhile, technological and scientific advancements have continued to thrive in the world’s growing economies. The Jewish-Palestinian conflicts of the Middle East are largely unresolved. And the power of the UN and international law are challenged and reasserted continually. How these developments of World War II will continue to shape our world in the coming centuries is yet to be known, but understanding war gives us a greater possibility for understanding the world as it unfolds.

Long‐term Consequences of Cold War

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Proxy Wars: Vietnam War, African Decolonization Movements, and Afghan Crisis

Proxy wars were fought throughout the developing world

During 1961–1973, the United States gradually escalated its involvement in the Vietnam War.

Vietnam was divided into North and South regions after its decolonization in 1954. North Vietnam came under communist influence while US backed South

Gradually nationalistic forces from the North that aimed to unify Vietnam began to encroach into the South. The Americans saw it as a communist threat and began to provide military support to the south.

The U.S. government withdrew its military in the early 1970s. The U.S. effort to prevent a communist takeover in South Vietnam failed.

In other parts of the world, but most notably in Africa, post–World War II decolonization movements witnessed both the Americans and Soviets competing for influence.

This superpower rivalry either precipitated regional or civil wars or greatly prolonged conflicts already in progress. Such was the case in Congo (Zaire), Nigeria, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Kenya, among other African states.

Millions of people died in these wars mainly because of genocide, forced relocations, and starvation.

In late 1970s Afghanistan experienced a sort of revolution. A communist government was installed in power in Afghanistan

The US, USSR and China all had vested interests in Afghanistan due to its oil.

But anti‐communist force in collaboration with the religious fundamentalist forces opposed the new government. As a result Afghanistan plunged into a civil War.

In this civil war the USA supported the anticommunists and the fundamentalists (mujahedeen) via Pakistan. On the other hand, the communist government sought military and economic aid from the USSR.

The war was a disaster for the Soviet Union. USSR ultimately withdrew in 1990.

Nepal’s Participation in the UN peacekeeping Operations

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Nepal has been one of the major contributing stakeholders in peace‐keeping missions of the United Nations by contributing a large number of army troops and police.

Quantitatively, Nepal is the sixth in rank among the highly contributing nations to peace missions in the world.

As of June 2013, Nepal has already participated in 39 UN peacekeeping operations around the globe contributing more than 95,000 Nepali peacekeepers including the military, police personnel and other civilians including doctors, engineers, etc.

Nepal has responded to every call of the General Assembly and the Security Council for the cause of conflict prevention and peacekeeping efforts immediately after joining the United Nations.

Nepal started its participation in the peacekeeping operations with the first involvement of the Nepalese Army in United Nations Military Observation Group in Lebanon (UNMOGIL) in June 1958 and the Nepal Police Force in Former Yugoslavia (UNPROFOR) in 1992.

Contribution:

Nepalese peacekeepers have been entrusted with assignments have been both at the headquarters (e.g. deputy military advisor) and field levels such as Force Commanders of various peacekeeping operations.

Nepal has conveyed its willingness to provide up to 5000 military peacekeepers at the request of the United Nations.

In 2008, Nepal observed the 50th anniversary of Nepal’s participation in the UN peacekeeping operations.

Nepal has signed the Memorandum of Understanding under the UN Standby Arrangements to contribute, at a short notice, 3500 troops including doctors, engineers, observers and headquarters staff and 200 civilian police monitors for peacekeeping purposes.

Nepalese peacekeepers have earned a very good reputation. International community has appreciated the performance of Nepalese peacekeepers for their loyalty, professionalism, dedication, and impartiality.

Challenges:

Nepal’s financial limitations place a heavy burden on its abilities to send troops with required logistics especially transport vehicles and helicopters etc.

Nepal needs to enhance the capabilities of the peacekeepers through persistent training to fulfill more complex and multidimensional mandates as required by new missions.

French‐speaking skills should also be promoted among the peacekeepers for the missions spreading over French speaking areas.

Nepal should consider promptly procuring necessary quality equipment to be supplied to the missions.

Nepal should also focus on gender balance in composing the troops being sent on UN missions.

Transparency in selection in UN Peacekeeping Operation.

Strong vetting (Examining) system should be developed.

Nepalese peacekeeper should provide a senior level responsibility in UN mission

Peace Keeping Mandate

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Depending on their mandate, peacekeeping operations may be required to:

1.Deploy to prevent the outbreak of conflict or the spill‐over of conflict across borders;

2.Stabilize conflict situations after a ceasefire, to create an environment for the parties to reach a lasting peace agreement.

3.Assist in implementing comprehensive peace agreements;

4.Lead states or territories through a transition to stable government, based on democratic principles, good governance and economic development.

UN Peacekeeping is guided by three basic principles:

Consent of the parties
Impartiality
Non‐use of force except in self‐defense and defense of the mandate

Propaganda and Diplomacy

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

The usefulness of the instrument of propaganda is now recognized by all the states of the world. But it assumed a significance of its own in the age of cold war. The foreign policy maker paid due attention to the role of propaganda and the diplomats had to perform and execute their job by sailing on winds of propaganda. A study related on propaganda and diplomacy has shown recent year’s development that diplomacy is spread through by propaganda which is contained in communications sent form one government to the other in notes, request, protests, publication, demands for apologies, declarations, official speeches and the like. Sometime, official declaration made for propaganda purposes have their own impact upon the diplomatic bargaining. Whether such declarations should be treated as sincere commitments or not, is verified by the events that occur afterwards. In most of the cases it is found that such declarations are just meant for creating propaganda.

In the time of fascism, propaganda is considering one of the essential parts of the official ideology. The fascist’s official agencies create mass hysteria by means of propaganda to enthuse people so as to deify the authority of the supreme leader. New slogans and symbols like Mussolini’s fasces and Hitler’s Swastik are used to inspire the people to take part in a life of do or die for ht cause. Badges and fancy uniforms are distributed among the soldiers and other paramilitary forces to inculcate a feeling of importance and status.

In this age of democratic diplomacy, propaganda has become very important for the obvious reason that more and more people are becoming participants in the process of diplomacy. Besides, the advanced means of communications are creating a host of serious problems for the diplomats. The days are gone when the foreign affairs were considered to be a matter of specialized study and their conduct was left to the experts. A common man was entirely ignorant of the process of politics in the national or international affairs. Now the elements of propaganda have entered into the world of diplomacy and diplomacy is sometimes dominate by the propaganda.

Wartime Propaganda

Massive modern propaganda techniques began with World War I (1914-1918). From the beginning of the war, both German and British propagandists worked hard to win sympathy and support in the United States. A Ministry of Information was set up, as it had been during the First World War, which employed film directors, actors and entertainers throughout the war. When war broke out in September 1939, the British Government was very aware of the importance of propaganda. That is to say, providing information about the way the war was going trying to make sure that people obeyed the regulations and restrictions that were imposed by the government and keeping up people’s morale. The approach of World War II in 1939 brought many changes of using media too. To counter the propaganda being broadcast by Germany and Italy, the British government asked the BBC to offer services in Arabic and Spanish, and agreed to pay the additional costs required.

German propagandists appealed to the many Americans of German descent and to those of Irish descent who were traditionally hostile to Great Britain. Soon, however, Germany was virtually cut off from direct access to the United States. Thereafter British propaganda had little competition in the United States, and it was conducted more skillfully than that of the Germans. Once engaged in the war, the United States organized the Committee on Public Information, an official propaganda agency, to mobilize American public opinion. This committee proved highly successful, particularly in the sale of Liberty Bonds. The exploitation by the Allies of President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, which seemed to promise a just peace for both the victors and the defeated, contributed greatly toward crystallizing opposition within the Central Powers to continuation of the war.

After World War I propaganda achieved great importance as an instrument of national policy in the totalitarian state. Germany, Italy, Japan, and the Soviet Union deliberately molded public opinion through government propaganda agencies. In Germany, Adolf Hitler established the extremely powerful ministry of propaganda headed by Paul Joseph Goebbels. Completely dominating all public statement in Germany, this agency activates the so-called war of nerves. Before each new aggressive move by Germany; for example, against Czechoslovakia in 1938, the German press and radio publicized alleged evidence of persecution of German minorities in the victim country. Incidents were manufactured and exploited to justify German intervention, and the German war machine was depicted as invincible. The technique proved effective in dividing populations, weakening the power of the victim to resist, and causing its allies to hesitate. As the European crisis intensified, German agents in France spread propaganda of defeatism. Through books, pamphlets, and venal newspapers and in the legislature and the army, they encouraged dissatisfaction with the government, distrust of allies, and fear of German military power. These divisive efforts hastened the collapse of French resistance when the German army finally struck in May 1940.

The propaganda aspects of World War II were similar to those of World War I, except that the war was greater in scope. In the 1930s the United States and Germany engaged in a propaganda war leading up to World War II. Radio played a major role, and propaganda activities overseas were more intense. Both Germany and the United Kingdom again sought to persuade American opinion. German propagandists played on anti-British sentiment, represented the war as a struggle against communism, and pictured Germany as the unbeatable champion of a new order in world affairs. German agents also gave their support to movements in the United States that supported isolationism. German propaganda efforts again proved ineffective, especially after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor; the evidence of German aggression was too clear, and American sympathies were increasingly on the side of the United Kingdom. After the United States entered the war, the Axis powers sought to weaken the morale of the Allied armed forces and civilian populations by radio propaganda. The British traitor (conspirator) William Joyce broadcast from Germany under the sardonic name “Lord Haw Haw”; the American poet Ezra Pound broadcast for the Fascist cause from Italy; U.S. forces in the South Pacific became familiar with the voice of Iva Ikuko Toguri D’Aquino, a native Californian of Japanese descent, who broadcast from Japan as “Tokyo Rose.”

Allied propaganda efforts were aimed at separating the peoples of the Axis nations from their governments, which were solely blamed for the war. Radio broadcasts and leaflets dropped from the air carried Allied propaganda to the enemy. The official U.S. propaganda agencies during World War II were the Office of War Information (OWI), charged with disseminating information at home and abroad, and the Office of Strategic Service (OSS), charged with conducting psychological warfare against the enemy. At Supreme Headquarters in the European theater of operations, the OWI and OSS were coordinated with military activities by the Psychological Warfare Division.

Cold –War Propaganda

In the period of the Cold War, a marked conflict of interests between the United States and the Soviet Union following World War II, propaganda continued to be a significant instrument of national policy. Both Democratic and Communist blocs of states attempted by sustained campaigns to win to their side the great masses of uncommitted peoples to achieve their objectives without resorting to armed conflict. Every aspect of national life and policy was exploited for purposes of propaganda. The Cold War was also marked by the use of defectors, trials, and confessions for propaganda purposes.

In this propaganda war the Communist nations seemed initially to have a distinct advantage. Because their governments controlled all media, they could largely seal off their peoples from Western propaganda. At the same time, the highly centralized governments could plan elaborate propaganda campaigns and mobilize resources to carry out their plans. They could also count on aid from Communist parties and sympathizers in other countries. Democratic states, on the other hand, could neither prevent their peoples from being exposed to Communist propaganda nor mobilize all their resources to counter it. This apparent advantage for Communist governments eroded during the 1980s, as communications technology advanced. Inability to control the spread of information was a major factor in the breakdown of many Communist regimes in Eastern Europe at the end of the decade.

The United States Information Agency (USIA), established in 1953 to conduct propaganda and cultural activities abroad, operates the Voice of America, a radio network that carries news and information about the United States in more than 40 languages to all parts of the world. In 1978 USIA functions were taken over by the International Communication Agency; its name was changed back to the U.S. Information Agency in 1982. In 1967 it was revealed that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had for many years covertly supported numerous American and foreign labor, student, and political organizations, such as Radio Free Europe, the efforts of which benefited U.S. foreign policies.

Propaganda before and after World War 2

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

Propaganda before and after World War 2 before 1914, propaganda was usually associated with religion and the implanting of ideas to be cultivated in support of existing beliefs and ‘faith’. Its wartime applications, in the Napoleonic or the American independence wars, were confined largely to calls to arms, lampooning the enemy, glorifying victory, and sustaining morale. The intention by the few to impress the many can be traced back to the ancient world in art, architecture, and symbolism. The advent of printing in the 14th century shifted the emphasis from script to print. In wars of religion, propaganda from the pulpit remained a potent method of swaying emotions, hence the Vatican’s Sacre Congregatio. Massive advances in communications technologies in the 19th century, the development of a global cable network, and the arrival of the mass media by the end of the century extended propaganda to a global audience.

The Great War of 1914-18, a total war which industrialized warfare and made the home front as important as the fighting front, altered the nature of popular involvement and introduced domestic morale as a military asset. It also discredited the word ‘propaganda’ which henceforth came to be associated with the manipulation of opinion, by foul means rather than fair, with lies or half-truths, and with deceit. In particular, the popularization of atrocity propaganda through the relatively new mass-circulation press and the increasingly popular silent cinema discredited the relationship between propaganda and ‘truth’. It was this manipulative power over human emotions which Hitler identified as being a weapon that could be of enormous value for his purposes.

In the new USSR also, propaganda was seized upon as a device that could serve the state, by extending revolutionary ideas to the illiterate masses and, more innovatively, into the international class struggle. With the advent of radio broadcasting in the 1920s, the ability to transmit propaganda across frontiers and appeal directly to foreign audiences undermined traditional notions about non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. A series of radio ‘wars’ prompted the League of Nations in 1936 to pass a convention attempting to outlaw the use of broadcasting for these purposes. More honored in the breach as the Nazi and Fascist regimes positioned propaganda as a central feature of their domestic and foreign policies, the BBC ideal that ‘Nation Shall Speak Peace unto Nation’ fell victim to the ideological conflict that was to produce both WW II and the subsequent Cold War.

By the outbreak of WW II, the sound cinema had also become an important medium for disseminating propaganda. The British Ministry of Information (the choice of words reflecting the nervousness of democratic countries in eschewing propaganda) recognized that ‘for the film to be good propaganda it must also be good entertainment’. Once the USA entered the war, the formidable American motion-picture industry (‘Hollywood’) was mobilized in support of wartime propaganda themes: ‘why we fight’, ‘know your enemy’, ‘unity is strength’, and so on. The wartime democratic alliance evolved a ‘Strategy of Truth’ towards their propaganda, which did not mean that the whole truth was told. But the reputation for credibility which organizations like the BBC were able to develop in their broadcasts to Nazi-occupied Europe was a serious corrective to the propaganda output of Josef Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment encapsulated by the phrase the ‘Big Lie’.

While propaganda by press, poster, radio, and film was used extensively on the domestic fronts to sustain popular morale through the harsh realities of war, bombing, rationing, victories, and defeats, on the fighting fronts it was used as an adjunct to military tactics. Millions of leaflets were dropped over enemy lines, mobile loudspeaker teams shouted out messages, and radio transmissions attempted to sow seeds of confusion, doubt, and defeatism. It is axiomatic that successful propaganda must go hand in hand with policy. The Allies in this respect shot themselves in the foot with the insistence on unconditional surrender following the Casablanca Conference of 1942. By announcing that all Germans in defeat would be treated in exactly the same way, this policy fused the fate of the German people with that of the Nazi Party in a way undreamed of by a grateful Goebbels. It enabled him to launch his own drive for total war, it pre-empted the Allied use of such inducements as ‘surrender or die’ since any German soldier would be treated as a war criminal, and it partly helps to explain why the German people kept fighting to the bitter end.

Developments in new communications technologies during the 1980s, such as the portable satellite phone, the laptop computer, and digital data transmission meant that such military control of the information environment would never be possible again. However, as the Gulf war of 1991 indicated, propaganda had not been confined to the dustbin of history. An increasingly sophisticated US military information policy was able to secure a desired view of warfare through the release of videotapes showing missiles hitting (not missing) their targets with unprecedented accuracy, and through live television press conferences which bypassed the traditional role of the media as mediator. Despite the unprecedented effort by the Iraqis to counter this propaganda of a ‘clean’ and ‘smart’ high-tech war by permitting correspondents from Coalition countries to stay behind in the enemy capital under fire, the military information agenda succeeded in dominating the media coverage. Democracies had indeed demonstrated that they could wage war in the presence of more than 1, 500 journalists, and thereby sustain public support in the process.

Propaganda, Diplomacy, and International Public Opinion

The Cold War inaugurated a paradigm shift in the U.S. practice of diplomacy that reflected changes in the nature of diplomatic activity worldwide. Through propaganda, policy initiatives, and covert action, agents of the U.S. government acted directly to influence the ideas, values, beliefs, opinions, actions, politics, and culture of other countries. Foreign affairs personnel not only observed and reported, they also participated in events or tried to influence the way that they happened. The old maxim that one government does not interfere in the internal affairs of another had been swept aside.

The pattern of international relations was further transformed by the electronic communications revolution and the emergence of popular opinion as a significant force in foreign affairs. Foreign policy could no longer be pursued as it had during the nineteenth century, when diplomacy was the exclusive province of professional diplomats who used (often secret) negotiations to reach accords based on power and interest. Developments in mass communication and the increased attentiveness to domestic audiences abroad to foreign affairs meant that the target of diplomacy had now widened to include popular opinion as much, if not more so, than traditional diplomatic activities. In other words, by appealing over the heads of governments directly to public opinion, effective propaganda and other measures would encourage popular opinion to support U.S. policies, which would in turn exert pressure on government policymakers.

Throughout the Cold War, propaganda and diplomacy operated on multiple levels. At the most obvious level, propaganda as it is conventionally understood (the utilization of communication techniques to influence beliefs and actions) was employed as a distinct instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Through the United States Information Agency, Central Intelligence Agency, and other mechanisms, the United States waged a war of words and of ideas that attacked communism, promoted capitalism and democracy, defended U.S. foreign policies, and advertised the American way of life in order to win the Cold War.

On another level, the awareness that international public opinion had become a major factor in the conduct of diplomacy meant that propaganda considerations intruded on the policymaking process itself. American policymakers were increasingly aware that international public opinion had to be an ingredient in policy formulation at all levels: in the planning and policy formulation stage, in the coordination and timing of operations, and finally in the last phase of explanation and interpretation by government officials and information programs.

This attitude played itself out most visibly in the United Nations, which became one of the most important arenas for Cold War propaganda. It also was reflected in the marked increase in the foreign travel of U.S. presidents and vice presidents, an important device for generating news coverage and for reaching international audiences directly. On a more routine basis, consideration of international public opinion simply involved the careful selection of words and phrases to describe the objectives of American foreign policy—including the process of creating what came to be known as a “sound bite. Even within the State Department—an institution wedded to traditional diplomacy and wary of popular opinion—the Policy Planning Staff began to argue in the mid-1950s that convincing foreign officials was often less important than carrying issues over their heads to public opinion, reasoning that popular opinion would exert more of an impact on government officials than vice versa. The extensive and instantaneous media coverage that accompanied diplomatic conferences meant that negotiations needed to be conducted on two levels: on the diplomatic level between governments, and on the popular level to win international public support for policies. Diplomatic conferences were no longer merely opportunities for resolving international disputes; they were sounding boards for public opinion and forums for propaganda.

The psychological dimension of postwar American diplomacy also included a preoccupation with American prestige and credibility—concepts that connoted the reliability of American commitments and served as code words for America’s image and reputation. As Robert McMahon has argued, throughout the postwar period American leaders invoked the principle of credibility to explain and justify a wide range of diplomatic and military decisions. American actions in such disparate crises as Korea (1950–1953), Taiwan Strait (Quemoy-Matsu) (1954–1955), Lebanon (1958), and Vietnam (1954–1973) were driven by a perceived need to demonstrate the resolve, will, and, determination—in a word, credibility—of the United States. .

The infusion of psychological considerations and propaganda tactics into the practice of diplomacy is one of the Cold War’s most important legacies, but given the revolution in communication technologies of the late twentieth century it was perhaps inevitable that the ancient art of diplomacy would become affected by the techniques of propaganda and public persuasion. Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War’s propaganda battles, foreign policy continued to be swayed by images transmitted instantly around the globe.

Propaganda

“Propaganda is a soft weapon; hold it in your hands too long, and it will move about like a snake, and strike the other way.” – Jean Anouilh

“Propaganda has a bad name, but its root meaning is simply to disseminate through a medium, and all writing therefore is propaganda for something. It’s a seeding of the self in the consciousness of others.” – Elizabeth Drew

Propaganda is the dissemination of information aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda. Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.

Propaganda can be defined as any message intended to modify the attitudes and behaviour of people at whom it is directed, primarily by appealing to their emotions. Its use is not confined to dictatorships and authoritarian organizations. Democracies have employed it extensively in wartime. In peacetime it plays a significant role in electoral politics, and in public-service campaigns relating to social problems. Messages may range from simple verbal texts to elaborate combinations of aural and visual signals (e.g. television commercials). The media used have included print, graphic art, film, radio, television, and architecture, from baroque palaces to fascist monuments.

Types
Propaganda is generally an appeal to emotion, contrasted to an appeal to intellect. It shares techniques with advertising and public relations. Advertising and public relations can be thought of as propaganda that promotes a commercial product or shapes the perception of an organization, person or brand, though in post-World War II usage the word “propaganda” more typically refers to political or nationalist uses of these techniques or to the promotion of a set of ideas, since the term had gained a pejorative meaning, which commercial and government entities couldn’t accept. The refusal phenomenon was eventually to be seen in politics itself by the substitution of ‘political marketing’ and other designations for ‘political propaganda’.

Propaganda was often used to influence opinions and beliefs on religious issues, particularly during the split between the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant churches. Propaganda has become more common in political contexts, in particular to refer to certain efforts sponsored by governments, political groups, but also often covert interests. In the early 20th century, propaganda was exemplified in the form of party slogans. Also in the early 20th century the term propaganda was also used by the founders of the nascent public relations industry to describe their activities. This usage died out around the time of World War II, as the industry started to avoid the word, given the pejorative connotation it had acquired.

Techniques
Common media for transmitting propaganda messages include news reports, government reports, historical revision, junk science, books, leaflets, movies, radio, television, and posters. In the case of radio and television, propaganda can exist on news, current-affairs or talk-show segments, as advertising or public-service announce “spots” or as long-running advertorials. Propaganda campaigns often follow a strategic transmission pattern to indoctrinate the target group. This may begin with a simple transmission such as a leaflet dropped from a plane or an advertisement. Generally these messages will contain directions on how to obtain more information, via a web site, hot line, radio program, et cetera (as it is seen also for selling purposes among other goals). The strategy intends to initiate the individual from information recipient to information seeker through reinforcement, and then from information seeker to opinion leader through indoctrination.

A number of techniques based in social psychological research are used to generate propaganda. Many of these same techniques can be found under logical fallacies, since propagandists use arguments that, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid. Some time has been spent analyzing the means by which propaganda messages are transmitted. That work is important but it is clear that information dissemination strategies become propaganda only strategies when coupled with propagandistic messages. Identifying these messages is a necessary prerequisite to study the methods by which those messages are spread. Below are a number of techniques for generating propaganda:

Appeal to prejudice -Using loaded or emotive terms to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition.

Black-and-White fallacy –Presenting only two choices, with the product or idea being propagated as the better choice. (e.g., “You are either with us, or you are with the enemy”)
Beautiful people -The type of propaganda that deals with famous people or depicts attractive, happy people. This makes other people think that if they buy a product or follow a certain ideology, they too will be happy or successful. (This is more used in advertising for products, instead of political reasons)
Big Lie -The repeated articulation of a complex of events that justify subsequent action. The descriptions of these events have elements of truth, and the “big lie” generalizations merge and eventually supplant the public’s accurate perception of the underlying events. After World War I the German Stab in the back explanation of the cause of their defeat became a justification for Nazi re-militarization and revanchist aggression.
Demonizing the enemy -Making individuals from the opposing nation, from a different ethnic group, or those who support the opposing viewpoint appear to be subhuman (e.g., the Vietnam War-era term “gooks” for National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam aka Vietcong, (or ‘VC’) soldiers), worthless, or immoral, through suggestion or false accusations.
Direct order -This technique hopes to simplify the decision making process by using images and words to tell the audience exactly what actions to take, eliminating any other possible choices. Authority figures can be used to give the order, overlapping it with the Appeal to authority technique, but not necessarily. The Uncle Sam “I want you” image is an example of this technique.
Disinformation -The creation or deletion of information from public records, in the purpose of making a false record of an event or the actions of a person or organization, including outright forgery of photographs, motion pictures, broadcasts, and sound recordings as well as printed documents.
Euphoria -The use of an event that generates euphoria or happiness, or using an appealing event to boost morale. Euphoria can be created by declaring a holiday, making luxury items available, or mounting a military parade with marching bands and patriotic messages.
Half-truth -A half-truth is a deceptive statement which may come in several forms and includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may utilize some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade blame or misrepresent the truth.
Intentional vagueness -Generalities are deliberately vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations. The intention is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analyzing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness or application. The intent is to cause people to draw their own interpretations rather than simply being presented with an explicit idea. In trying to “figure out” the propaganda, the audience forgoes judgment of the ideas presented. Their validity, reasonableness and application may still be considered.
Name-calling -Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears and arouse prejudices in their hearers in the intent that the bad names will cause hearers to construct a negative opinion about a group or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish hearers to denounce. The method is intended to provoke conclusions about a matter apart from impartial examinations of facts. Name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against the an idea or belief on its own merits.
Oversimplification -Favorable generalities are used to provide simple answers to complex social, political, economic, or military problems.

Nazi Germany
Most propaganda in Germany was produced by the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. Joseph Goebbels was placed in charge of this ministry shortly after Hitler took power in 1933. All journalists, writers, and artists were required to register with one of the Ministry’s subordinate chambers for the press, fine arts, music, theater, film, literature, or radio. The Nazis believed in propaganda as a vital tool in achieving their goals. Adolf Hitler, Germany’s Führer, was impressed by the power of Allied propaganda during World War I and believed that it had been a primary cause of the collapse of morale and revolts in the German home front and Navy in 1918 (see also: Dolchstoßlegende). Hitler would meet nearly every day with Goebbels to discuss the news and Goebbels would obtain Hitler’s thoughts on the subject; Goebbels would then meet with senior Ministry officials and pass down the official Party line on world events. Broadcasters and journalists required prior approval before their works were disseminated. Along with posters, the Nazis produced a number of films and books to spread their beliefs.

Cold War propaganda

The United States and the Soviet Union both used propaganda extensively during the Cold War. Both sides used film, television, and radio programming to influence their own citizens, each other, and Third World nations and USA. The United States Information Agency operated the Voice of America as an official government station. Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, which were in part supported by the Central Intelligence Agency, provided grey propaganda in news and entertainment programs to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union respectively. The Soviet Union’s official government station, Radio Moscow, broadcast white propaganda, while Radio Peace and Freedom broadcast grey propaganda. Both sides also broadcast black propaganda programs in periods of special crises.

In 1948, the United Kingdom’s Foreign Office created the IRD (Information Research Department) which took over from wartime and slightly post-war departments such as the Ministry of Information and dispensed propaganda via various media such as the BBC and publishing.

The ideological and border dispute between the Soviet Union and People’s Republic of China resulted in a number of cross-border operations. One technique developed during this period was the “backwards transmission”, in which the radio program was recorded and played backwards over the air. (This was done so that messages meant to be received by the other government could be heard, while the average listener could not understand the content of the program.) When describing life in capitalist countries, in the US in particular, propaganda focused on social issues such as poverty and anti-union action by the government. Workers in capitalist countries were portrayed as “ideologically close”. Propaganda claimed rich people from the US derived their income from weapons manufacturing, and claimed that there was substantial racism or neo-fascism in the US.

When describing life in Communist countries, western propaganda sought to depict an image of a citizenry held captive by governments that brainwash them. The West also created a fear of the East, by depicting an aggressive Soviet Union. In the Americas, Cuba served as a major source and a target of propaganda from both black and white stations operated by the CIA and Cuban exile groups. Radio Habana Cuba, in turn, broadcast original programming, relayed Radio Moscow, and broadcast The Voice of Vietnam as well as alleged confessions from the crew of the USS Pueblo. George Orwell’s novels Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four are virtual textbooks on the use of propaganda. Though not set in the Soviet Union, these books are about totalitarian regimes in which language is constantly corrupted for political purposes. These novels were, ironically, used for explicit propaganda. The CIA, for example, secretly commissioned an animated film adaptation of Animal Farm in the 1950s with small changes to the original story to suit its own needs.

Afghan War
In the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, psychological operations tactics were employed to demoralize the Taliban and to win the sympathies of the Afghan population. At least six EC-130E Commando Solo aircraft were used to jam local radio transmissions and transmit replacement propaganda messages. Leaflets were also dropped throughout Afghanistan, offering rewards for Osama bin Laden and other individuals, portraying Americans as friends of Afghanistan and emphasizing various negative aspects of the Taliban. Another shows a picture of Mohammed Omar in a set of crosshairs with the words “We are watching.” This technique has been shown to be rather ineffective in terms of long term opinions change given current political and social conditions in Afghanistan.

Iraq War
In November 2005, The Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times, alleged that the United States military had manipulated news reported in Iraqi media in an effort to cast a favorable light on its actions while demoralizing the insurgency. Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a military spokesman in Iraq, said the program is “an important part of countering misinformation in the news by insurgents”, while a spokesman for former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the allegations of manipulation were troubling if true. The Department of Defense has confirmed the existence of the program. The New York Times published an article about how the Pentagon has started to use contractors with little experience in journalism or public relations to plant articles in the Iraqi press. These articles are usually written by US soldiers without attribution or are attributed to a non-existent organization called the “International Information Center.” Planting propaganda stories in newspapers was done by both the Allies and Central Powers in the First World War and the Axis and Allies in the Second; this is the latest version of this technique.

Anti-Semitic propaganda for children
In Nazi Germany, the education system was thoroughly co-opted to indoctrinate the German youth with anti-Semitic ideology. This was accomplished through the National Socialist Teachers League, of which 97% of all German teachers were members in 1937. It encouraged the teaching of “racial theory.” Picture books for children such as Don’t Trust A Fox in A Green Meadow Or the Word of A Jew, The Poisonous Mushroom, and The Poodle-Pug-Dachshund-Pincher were widely circulated (over 100,000 copies of Don’t Trust A Fox… were circulated during the late 1930s) and contained depictions of Jews as devils, child molesters, and other morally charged figures. Slogans such as “Judas the Jew betrayed Jesus the German to the Jews” were recited in class. The following is an example of a propagandistic math problem recommended by the National Socialist Essence of Education:

Impact of the cold war

International Relations — Sun, 18 Aug 2013 05:41:42 +0000

1. Immediate Consequences

Communist Containment, the Truman Doctrine, and the Marshall Plan

President Harry S. Truman announced the Truman Doctrine on March 12, 1947.

The containment policy would take necessary diplomatic, economic, and military measures to stop communism from spreading to new areas instead of fighting in the areas that were already communist.

Truman proclaimed that the United States would commit itself to support any nation struggling against “armed minorities or outside pressures.”

U.S. foreign policy thereby formally adopted the Truman Doctrine or the containment policy became a key component of U.S. foreign policy throughout the Cold War.

In June 1947, U.S. secretary of state George C. Marshall announced a U.S.‐sponsored economic aid program (the Marshall Plan) to help European nations recover from World War II.

The Marshall Plan was generally an attempt to protect Europe from being taken over by the Communists. The Marshall Plan was often considered as the economic weapon of the Truman Doctrine of containment.

By strengthening West European economies, the threat of communism taking hold in the region was diminished.

The Marshall Plan was considered to be successful.