How did Clausewitz’s theory of warfare affect Kennedy and Khrushchev’s decision-making process during the Cold War? This essay will look at the decisions by Kennedy (from the USA) and Krushchev (from the USSR) and how their decisions are linked to Clauswitz’s theory related to war. The Cold War happened because both men were stubborn and wanted to be the most powerful leaders in the world. Not too many people were surprised that the USA were involved in the Cold War as they were the superpower of the time and were involved in many political problems such as World War I and World War II. The questions that need to be asked include how were the decisions made by Kennedy and Khrushchev related to Clausewitz’s theory? And were the decisions made by these leaders a conscious effort to follow Clausewitz’s theory? Clausewitz was a theorist who specialised in the nature of war. He stressed the importance of understanding how the context of a situation contributed to the dynamics and structure of a possible war (1). President Khrushchev of the USSR and President Kennedy of the United States of America (USA), realised the importance of the context during the 1960s and this affected international politics as there was a clear divide between the East and West. There was also a divide of ideologies being Capitalism from the USA and Communism from the USSR. The most rational way for us to understand politics and conflict is to integrate subjects such as philosophy, psychology and so forth. War is not autonomous and violence expresses the political purpose in wars and should do so in a sensible manner (2). Problems emerge in the context due to the opportunities, people, solutions and the people involved in the situation (3). Leaders also play an important role and need to be sensitive to the perceptive response to and from the opponent, the role of history and the intellectual creativity of the situation (Bell, 1978: 51). Clausewitz referred to the ‘genius’ in his theory about wars, in which is the role of important individuals, their power of choice and rationality were emphasised (Paret, 1989: 204). Khrushchev has been described as a leader that did not want a nuclear war and ultimately wanted a ‘peaceful co-existence’ with the USA. Perhaps, Khrushchev realised that if the Soviet Union tried to fight against the USA, it would have lost (4).
Comment [MG1]: When first discussing abbreviations, write the whole word out first followed by the abbreviation. Once this is done, the abbreviation can be used throughout the work. Comment [MG2]: Be careful not to include assumptions in academic assignments Comment [MG3]: This introduction hasn’t introduced the points that are going to be discussed throughout the work
Comment [MG4]: Incorrect referencing. Reference through the software to automatically insert the numbers. Comment [MG5]: Is this relevant information? If so, explain why.
Comment [MG6]: Make sure the paragraphs are in the same style and that there is 1.5 spacing throughout the essay Comment [MG7]: Choose which referencing style to do throughout the work and stick to it. Do not use more than one style.
Leaders are the actors that control and direct the wars (Paret, 1989: 199). War is seen as a continuation of policy in which armed forces should be included in to control the mobilisation of forces and limited achievements (Paret, 1989: 199). Clearly seen with the USA and Soviet Union, Khrushchev and Kennedy pulled the conflict away from becoming a nuclear war.
Nuclear missiles were used as a bargaining move. If the Soviet Union was to remove their missiles, it was assumed that the USA removes their missiles from Turkey and Italy (Allison, 1971: 42).
(1) (2) (3) (4)
Paret, 1989: 186 Paret, 1989: 199 Eisenhartdt & Zbaracki, 1992: 27 Allison, 1971: 64
Comment [MG8]: Make sure all the work is in the same size font and the same font style
Comment [MG9]: Reference through the software so it will automatically appear at the bottom of the page.