Assignments for International history in week4^5

Questions:

 1) In describing the onset of the Cold War confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union, which level of analysis do the authors emphasize? 

I believe that authors used all of levels of analysis within description. The individual level such as Truman's dislike and distrust toward Stalin, the state level such as Republican's victory in domestic election, or acute economic among each nations, and the system level such as the argument between West-Soviet in Iran and Greece. But I think the system level takes the crucial position. Taking insurgence in Greece as instance, the U.S. took place immediately after British had left a power vacuum, as we all know that Greece would be a frontline for either Western or Soviet side. I think this is a classic case showing that America succeeded British's hegemony. Also, the argument about seizure and industrial recovery of German can be another example that the fate of German can be regarded as a compromise between Soviet and British-American alliance.

2) What is the significance of the document NSC-68 (April 1950) in the Cold War history?

Although it had over exaggerated the threats from communism, it became the white paper toward communist parties all over the world. I would say that the Korean War consolidated the effectiveness of  NSC-68, which resulted in west Germany being able to restart military industrial. NSC-68 provide a blueprint for America to deploy resources at Europe and Far East, though South Korea and Taiwan were excluded from the defense chain.  

Comment

Although I think that which level of analysis authors emphasized is the system level, sometimes it is hard to distinguish which level of analysis should be used to realize an international event. At the last few lines in page 35, it was said that the U.S. also suffered from insufficient of oil supply, so it can be partially domestic issue. However, the attempt of avoiding Iran from Red occupation should be also consider a case of the system analysis. The ambiguity can be also seen when we try to know the Marshall Plan and how they deal with German. 

My Questions:

1.Is the system level the most superior, significant level that may even bring up other factors of the individual level or the state level? During 1947, Soviet Union rejected the Marshall Plan which the U.S. hope them to, leading them had to recover economic on their own.

2.Would a certain aid to West Europe necessarily exist? We know that one of reasons starting Marshall Plan which is an enormous recovery plan is to prevent West Europe heading to communism. Is the assistance from America a necessity to prevent it? Is it be determined that Europe Continent would be under Soviet hegemony without any American economically or financially assistance?

Questions: 

1) Explain the “domestic-politics-centered approach” presented by the author. 

The factors deciding constructs and changes of foreign policies in Mao's China are the domestic situation (and perhaps, Mao's ideology). Because in Mao's mind, the China revolution were not finished by then, a strong alliance sharing same communism value would help it's process. The reason why Mao so insisted entering the Korean War is to export revolution and subsequently to restore China's position in East Asia. During the Korean War, Mao was eager to gain pragmatic financial, technological, and security support from the Soviet Union, and moreover, Nation's reputation among the world, particularly East Asia. 

2) How did Mao’s view of “continuous revolution” affect his strategic choice of “Lean-to-One-Side” decision in 1949?

Mao believes that the Soviet Union, which is the first regime of proletarian dictatorship, the most advanced, progressive communist state, is the ideal model to follow. The continuous revolution means that not until China reborn as a completely new Marxism-communism state that can reclaim it's old glory a hundred years ago and become a model to the rest of the world, the revolution shall not stop. In this perspective, leaning to Soviet is like following the best tutor can be found in the world. Allying with the Soviet Union was not merely just about foreign policy, but was also about domestic policy to tell Chinese people and comrades that his determination destroying the old China and building a new one instead.

Comments 

According to this article, we can know that there are multiple motivations, both practical and ideological for Mao to lean to the Soviet Union or to break up with. About invasion to Taiwan and the Korean War, I think individual analysis and domestic approach take larger proportion to know Mao's decision, while system analysis is relatively important to know Soviet's foreign policy. I prefer to say that because China wasn't a superpower by then. In retrospect, it seemed to be a appropriate choice making alliance with Soviet Union to seize basic energy to enter the following Korean War, and seemed to be a appropriate choice joining the War to eradicate domestic unfinished "revolution".