Peaceful coexistence failed because neither the East nor the West was fully committed to it
‘Peaceful coexistence failed because neither the East nor the West was fully committed to it.’ How valid is this assessment?
Peaceful coexistence developed as a policy designed to meet the short term needs of both the East and the West. It was a superficial policy that disguised the continuation of fundamental differences between the two superpowers during the ‘thaw’ of 1953-1956, and was therefore never fully supported by either side. During this time, the arms race escalated, ideological conflict continued and security remained a distinct priority. By 1956 peaceful coexistence was shown to have been nothing more than a facade as the differences between the two sides returned to the fore.
Neither side was ever fully committed to peaceful coexistence. It was a policy that, at time was in the best interests both superpowers for various reasons. For the USSR, one of the main reasons was that Khrushchev wanted to establish his position and separate himself from Stalin (though his policy of ‘destalinisation’) and peaceful coexistence was part of this plan. However, there were other reasons; the Russian economy was not matched with the economy of the USA and Khrushchev wanted to buy time to allow them to ‘catch up’ with the USA. Also the development of nuclear weapons made conflict with the USA undesirable for the USSR, the fact that they continued developing nuclear weapons throughout the period of peaceful coexistence shows that, although at the time it was beneficial to them, it was only superficial and they wanted to be prepared for when it was over. The USA also saw the benefits of peaceful coexistence, the Korean War had cost the USA millions of dollars and Eisenhower had promised to reduce the deficit by cutting back military spending. By agreeing to peaceful coexistence he ensured that there would be no major spending on war in the near future. Also there were many domestic issues in the USA at the time over the civil rights movement and so they were wary of
Peaceful coexistence developed as a policy designed to meet the short term needs of both the East and the West. It was a superficial policy that disguised the continuation of fundamental differences between the two superpowers during the ‘thaw’ of 1953-1956, and was therefore never fully supported by either side. During this time, the arms race escalated, ideological conflict continued and security remained a distinct priority. By 1956 peaceful coexistence was shown to have been nothing more than a facade as the differences between the two sides returned to the fore.
Neither side was ever fully committed to peaceful coexistence. It was a policy that, at time was in the best interests both superpowers for various reasons. For the USSR, one of the main reasons was that Khrushchev wanted to establish his position and separate himself from Stalin (though his policy of ‘destalinisation’) and peaceful coexistence was part of this plan. However, there were other reasons; the Russian economy was not matched with the economy of the USA and Khrushchev wanted to buy time to allow them to ‘catch up’ with the USA. Also the development of nuclear weapons made conflict with the USA undesirable for the USSR, the fact that they continued developing nuclear weapons throughout the period of peaceful coexistence shows that, although at the time it was beneficial to them, it was only superficial and they wanted to be prepared for when it was over. The USA also saw the benefits of peaceful coexistence, the Korean War had cost the USA millions of dollars and Eisenhower had promised to reduce the deficit by cutting back military spending. By agreeing to peaceful coexistence he ensured that there would be no major spending on war in the near future. Also there were many domestic issues in the USA at the time over the civil rights movement and so they were wary of