World History

In the context of the Australian colonies in the period of the American Revolution, ‘liberty’ and ‘self-government’ shifted from the concept of British colonies to basic political virtues of a new nation. In its earliest usage, ‘liberty formed a part of a legalistic understanding of the rights of individual citizens under British law, the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights. This is because colonists felt they had the freedom to be productive without interference a freedom they felt the British were violating through policies such as the imposition of taxes without consent.

The phenomenon of liberty over time evolved into applying to concepts drawn from the Enlightenment philosophers such as John Locke as the revolution was on full swing. From English constitutional rights it moved to ‘natural rights’ – fundamental liberties such as life, property and liberty. Thomas Paine just escalated it with ‘Common Sense’, claiming liberty couldn’t exist with monarchy and calling for independence.

As did ‘self-governance’. First of the local assemblies who were subject to British control, it evolved to what is understood today as sovereignty of the popular. The same held true for the Continental Congress and state constitutions, as the colonists attempted to create republican governments that would not be influenced by the British empire.

Thus, by the Revolution’s end ‘liberty’, concept was linked with ‘republicanism’ – individual and composite freedom and self-rule. In a critical manner, self governance evolved during the period of articles of confederation and later during the constitution through managing both state and federal relations and at same time actively involving citizens in political decision making. These changes set the context for the United States, but arguments for or against them and specifically with respect to equality, would continue. That is the way, in which ideas of the revolution about liberty and self-government influenced future movements for justice and democracy.

War Communism and the New Economic Policy: A Comparative Analysis:
The Bolshevik regime followed two different kinds of economic policies- War Communism and New Economic Policy (NEP)- that they introduced to fight against the Russian Civil War and later, the economic debacle that emerged afterward.

War Communism (1918-1921)
The extreme centralisation policy and complete control by the state characterised the War Communism. These included:

Nationalisation of industry: All big-scale industries were nationalized, and workers were put into labor armies.

Forced requisition of grain: The government seized grain from the peasantry for feeding Red Army and city workers.

Rationing: Foodstuffs and other vital commodities were rationed for proper distribution.
Ban on private trade: Private trade was banned and replaced by barter and markets controlled by the state.

Effects of War Communism:

-Economic breakdown: The policy brought about total economic ruin as the industrial production drastically fell and the agricultural production sharply declined.
-Famine and starvation: The policy caused widespread famine due to grain requisition.
-Social turmoil: The policy also alienated the peasantry who did not accept the seizure of their grain. It brought about much social unrest in many regions.

The New Economic Policy (NEP) (1921-1928)

To alleviate the failure of War Communism, the Bolsheviks brought forward the New Economic Policy, which came into effect from 1921 to 1928. The main features of this policy were:

-Market reforms: NEP permitted the resumption of private trade and small-scale industry.
-Taxation in kind: Forced requisition of grain was substituted with a fixed tax in kind that left peasants free to sell any surplus on the market.
-Concessions to foreign capital: The government offered concessions to foreign companies to invest in Russian industries.
-Mixed economy: The NEP was a mixture of a market economy with state control in sectors such as heavy industry, banking, and transportation.

Aftermaths of the NEP:

-Economic recovery: The NEP brought a major recovery to the Russian economy with the growth of agricultural and industrial production.
-Improved living standards: The policy enhanced the living standards of the population, especially in urban centers.
-Strengthening of the Bolshevik regime: Economic recovery helped stabilize the regime, and more importantly, the living conditions improved.
Social tensions between the wealthy peasants, known as kulaks, and less fortunate peasants, and between citizens in the cities and rural areas created social tensions because of NEP.

In conclusion, both War Communism and the New Economic Policy had severe effects on Russia. War Communism, although a necessity to keep the Bolshevik regime alive in the Civil War, was doomed to economic collapse and social uprisings. The NEP stabilized the economy and improved living standards but created new social tensions and challenges for future development of the Soviet Union.

The major powers had indeed employed strategies and tactics throughout the war depending precisely with their objectives, resources and geographical location they were in. The Allies – the United States, the Soviet Union, and Britain – inclined to use strategies of exhaustion and numeric superiority and a large scale attack on multiple fronts. Key participants such as Germany, Japan and Italy focused on speedy and forceful operations that aimed at achieving monopolized victories during the early stage of the war.

Germany adopted the style called ‘Blitzkrieg’ (Lightning war), which means an attack which combines both air forces, including armor and infantry which are supposed to bog down the adversary. It emerged strong in the Europe initially but overstretch, including the invasion of the Soviet Union, and inability to absorb lessons for a long war led to key defeats especially at Stalingrad and Kursk.

Japan used the strategy of unexpected strike and the naval superiority and the attack on Pearl Harbor was perfect example for early successes for Japan in the pacific. But they failed to produce industrial out put equal to USA and the tide changed near Midway which badly damaged their position.

Some of the examples of the Allied techniques include the “island-hopping campaign” in the Pacific; the “Normandy invasion” in Europe that benefited from multiple advantages and cooperation. The barbarous Soviet defenders repulsed Germans at Stalingrad, and an equally ferocious counterattack extinguished the Wehrmacht on the Eastern Front.
These tactics have caused the terrible devastation of the Axis powers, tremendous deaths and damages, and new world organization that resulted to a cold war.

It was argued that state intervention in the Indian economy must aim at effective utilization of resource and active participation of market forces and private sector. According to India’s socio-economic diversification, the structure of inequalities has to be addressed when the market could be freed.

It is also vital that the state should provide for social capital investment for purposes of infrastructure development on issues to do education, healthcare and affordable housing. It will also mean that growth will be as inclusive as possible when the necessary investment is made. Schemes such as MGNREGA and PDS reduce poverty and improve degraded sections of the society. Regional imbalances have to be corrected through incentives to enable investment on areas of weak economy besides enhancing opportunity access. End.

The state also has to promote efficiency in markets by controlling monopolies, encouraging fair competition and supply of infrastructure. Organisations such as the CCI ensure that there is balance in the market, and that investors do not take advantage of small investors, while public investments ensures that transaction costs are brought down to enhance productivity. Market solutions can only be used if markets fail and externalities like environmental issues of public goods must be corrected.

The state can facilitate economic growth by simplifying the requirements affecting the private sector in order to foster public private partnerships and support for young enterprises leading to employment creation. Thus, Make in India and Startup India are the initiatives that combine market efficiency with the national agenda.

Thus, the specific actions of the state could be complemented by the liberalization policies, and these imbalances could be eliminated, effectiveness increased, and more durable economic growth achieved for the people’s benefit.

The early 1960 US-Cuba deteriorating relationship of interlock play among historical, ideological, and geopolitical factors.

Key Factors:

1. Cuban Revolution:
Cuba was led by Fidel Castro from the Batista whom the US supported this was after the communism coup d’état in 1959.
The socialization of US owned industries and properties has turned the scenario into economic sanctions and political conflict through the US-Cuban relation.

2. Cold War Tensions:
Cold war rivalry between the US & Soviet Union continued, and both tried to control as large an area as they could.
Favouring the Soviet Union worsened the relations between Cuba and United States.

3. Bay of Pigs Invasion:
Just in 1961, the US-backed invasion at the Bay of Pigs ended in complete disaster and that leaves the US with much shame and intensifies Castro control.
The event resulted in Cuban disappointment in the US and thus made it ally even closer to the Soviet Union.

4. Deployment of Soviet Missiles
Soviet Union in order to counter the threat posed by the United States intended to put nuclear armed missiles in Cuba. This took the world to the brink of the nuclear warfare. This is a direct threat to the security interest of the US and of course is the most dangerous form of escalation in the Cold War.

Cuban Missile Crisis

The Cuban Missile Crisis was the forty-day standoff between the two superpowers: The United States and the Soviet Union, over the Soviet nuclear armed missiles in Cuba. That was a dangerous moment when the whole world was close to the nuclear war.

Primarily, the reasons for the same are as follows:

– Encirclement of Cuba by the USA: The US placed a naval blockade on Cuba and threatened military attacks.
– USSR in strategic interests: The Soviet Union is interested in the protection of Cuba from American aggression and the mismatch of nuclear advantage between America and the Soviet Union.
– Miscalculation and brinkmanship: Both superpowers were guilty of risky brinkmanship but an accidental miscalculation could precipitate nuclear catastrophe.

In the end, there was a diplomatic settlement associated with the withdrawal of the missiles from Cuba in exchange for a promise by the United States not to invade Cuba. It also served as an unmistakable reminder of the nuclear horrors that would occur, and therefore the importance of diplomatic settlement of international disputes.