To what extent was the United States responsible for the collapse of the Grand Alliance at the end of the Second World War Essay Example

To what extent was the United States responsible for the collapse of the Grand Alliance at the end of the Second World War Essay Example To what extent was the United States responsible for the collapse of the Grand Alliance at the end of the Second World War Paper To what extent was the United States responsible for the collapse of the Grand Alliance at the end of the Second World War Paper to complete the formation of a bloc of several European countries hostile to the interests of the democratic countries of Eastern Europe and most particularly to the interests of the Soviet Union. 8 (italics original). Some historians since have been sympathetic to this view; W. A. Williams argues that the postwar atmosphere degenerated into hostility in large part because of American insistence on an open-door policy of total free trade between nations, rather than, offer[ing] the Soviet Union a settlement based on other, less grandiose, terms. 9 However, this argument is predicated on the assumption that eastern Europe was already in economic isolation from the west, whereas in fact this was a state of affairs forcibly created by the USSR. Therefore, if the Marshall Plan did increase postwar tensions this was only because of the actions already taken by the Soviet Union; without communist domination of east Europe, a plan to revive shattered economies in former warzones would not have had the degenerative effect on international relations which it evidently did have. In this sense, the Marshall Plan was a response to the Soviet aggression which had caused Cold War tensions to increase, rather than an ipso facto cause of antipathy itself. There are other examples given of where the west was responsible for an increase in superpower hostility following 1945 however. One episode deserves special mention: US interference in the Italian general election of 1948. American and British officials were concerned that in the war-ravaged countries of France and Italy, economic hardship might result in communist parties coming to power through free elections; by 1946 such organisations already seemed poised to become the largest single political forces within those countries. 0 These worries quickly disappeared in the case of France, but when an election was scheduled for April 18th 1948 in Italy, the Italian communist party, at two million members the largest outside of the Soviet bloc, was poised certainly to win a large enough share of the vote to make it impossible to keep them out of a governing coalition, and possibly an outright majority. The United States decided to intervene. A massive letter-writing campaign was organised, resulting in some ten million letters being sent by Italian-Americans to relatives in Italy arguing against a vote for the communists, and the CIA in conjunction with the Catholic Church ran a huge anti-Marxist propaganda campaign. In addition, some $2-3 million was distributed by the CIA to various anti-communist political parties in Italy. When election day came the communists were humiliated, their share of the vote halved from what they had achieved in the 1946 local elections. 1 This is not the place to discuss whether American actions were justified, but undoubtedly the precedent set by the Italian effort, and its resounding success, resulted afterwards in the United States being far more willing to engage in anti-Soviet activities elsewhere, and this case is therefore cited as an instance where the actions of America contributed to the breakup of the Grand Alliance. Another reason sometimes given is the American monopoly on nucl ear weapons in the aftermath of World War Two. On July 16th 1945, the largest man-made explosion in history took place at the Alamogordo test site in New Mexico,12 and the United States was immediately catapulted into a position of total military superiority. Though the Soviet Union had ended the war with colossal conventional armed forces, the atomic bombings of Japan in August of that year left the Russians in no doubt that their on-paper ally had become indisputably the most powerful military force in the history of the world. It has therefore been argued that this obvious fact caused Stalin and his government to feel threatened and bullied by the United States, and that this was the reason for the antagonistic nature of postwar negotiations. Williams again writes: Particularly after the atom bomb was created and used, the attitude of the United States left the Soviets with but one real option: either acquiesce in American proposals or be confronted with American power and hostility. 13 Undoubtedly the US was sometimes guilty of flaunting its nuclear dominance: American officials evidently thought that the Paris Peace Conference of July 1946 would be far more productive were it to be immediately preceded by two nuclear weapons tests. 14 On the other hand, it is quite possible that considerations of American nuclear power did not factor significantly into Soviet thinking. At the Potsdam conference (July-August 1945), more than one western official observed Stalins surprising calmness, even nonchalance, when told by President Truman that the US was in possession of a new weapon of unusual destructive force. Only later did it transpire that not only did the USSR have an atomic weapons programme dating back to 1942 but that, due to the laxness of the Manhattan Projects managers respecting its wartime ally,15 the Soviets had spies passing nuclear secrets to Moscows scientists. 6 Stalin was therefore fully aware that the United States monopoly on atomic weapons would be only temporary, and therefore that this need not be factored into long-term Soviet strategic thinking. Furthermore, the aggressive actions taken by the USSR in the postwar period (see below) show no signs of restraint by Russian leaders on account of the destructive capability of the Americans nuclear arsenal. The Berlin Blockade (June 1948-May 1949) took place and concluded before the Soviets successfully tested a nuclear bomb of their own on August 29th 1949. 7 The USSRs leaders seem to have calculated, probably correctly, that the United States wanted to avoid war with the Soviet Union at almost any cost; after August 1949 this only became more true as MAD thinking began to gain widespread acceptance. The more orthodox interpretation of the postwar period is that the alliance collapsed primarily because of the actions taken by the Soviet Union after the defeat of Germany, especially concerning the areas of Europe occupied by soldiers of the Red Army. At the Yalta conference in February 1945, only months away from the defeat of Germany, major disputes arose over the fate of European nations such as Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia which had been liberated from German control by the troops of the Soviet Union. The western leaders, President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Prime Minister Winston Churchill, wanted Stalin to conduct free and fair elections with the aim of establishing self-governing sovereign entities, but were under no illusions that the Soviet leader intended to turn them into friendly buffer states, and probably totalitarian one-party regimes at that. With respect to Poland especially, Stalin had already shown his contempt for national democracy movements by allowing the Wehrmacht to crush the Warsaw uprising in August-October 1944, and had a pro-Soviet puppet government ready and waiting to take over from the German authorities. 18 Previous Soviet treatment of Finland and the Baltic states gave every indication needed of how Stalin would react to attempts made at installing democracy in other countries. Section V pledged all of the allied powers, including the Soviet Union, to the earliest possible establishment through free elections of Governments responsive to the will of the people, and asserted the right of all people to choose the form of government under which they will live. 19 It does not need to be repeated that Stalin never had any intentions of carrying out the requirements of this passage. Immediately after the war the leaders of national communist parties, many of whom had spent the pre-war and wartime years in exile in Moscow and had long been subdued under Stalins whip, began their gradual accumulation of power. Invariably, the communists would contest a free-ish election under the auspices of the Red Army, win a minority of the vote (as little as 17% in Hungary and never more than 38%, in Czechoslovakia), and then agree to take part in a coalition government. Under pressure from Stalin, their rivals would agree to give communists control of ministries of justice and of the interior, which would then be used to disappear political opponents. In Poland the Soviet puppets methods were less subtle: a massive campaign of violence and intimidation preceded the first postwar elections in 1947, and the communists claimed 80% of the vote. 20 Despite assertions by some historians that western leaders handed over Eastern Europe to the Soviets at Yalta, short of a full-scale war with the USSR there was little if anything Roosevelt and Churchill could have done to prevent Stalin from turning eastern European countries into satellite states. Nevertheless, the dictators flagrant violations of the USSRs promises at Yalta created a chasm between the former Allies even before V-E Day, and is therefore frequently cited as the primary reason for the collapse of the Grand Alliance. As Roosevelts biographer Conrad Black has written, The issue of whether the British and Americans (and Frances) foremost ally would be Germany or Russia would be determined by whether Stalin could resist the temptation of enslaving Eastern Europe. 21

What Is Dynamic Equilibrium Definition and Examples

What Is Dynamic Equilibrium Definition and Examples SAT / ACT Prep Online Guides and Tips Dynamic equilibrium is an important concept in chemistry. But what is dynamic equilibrium exactly? How can something be dynamic but also at equilibrium? Keep reading to learn the best dynamic equilibrium definition, common dynamic equilibrium examples, and how dynamic and static equilibrium may look the same but are in fact very different. What Is Dynamic Equilibrium? Chemical reactions can either go in both directions (forward and reverse) or only in one direction. The ones that go in two directions are known as reversible reactions, and you can identify them by the arrows going in two directions, like the example below. H2O(l) â‡Å' H+(aq) + OH-(aq) Dynamic equilibrium only occurs in reversible reactions, and it’s when the rate of the forward reaction is equal to the rate of the reverse reaction. These equations are dynamic because the forward and reverse reactions are still occurring, but the two rates are equal and unchanging, so they’re also at equilibrium. Dynamic equilibrium is an example of a system in a steady state. This means the variables in the equation are unchanging over time (since the rates of reaction are equal). If you look at a reaction in dynamic equilibrium, it’ll look like nothing is happening since the concentrations of each substance stay constant. However, reactions are actually continuously occurring. Dynamic equilibrium doesn't just occur in chemistry labs though; you've witnessed an dynamic equilibrium example every time you've had a soda. In a sealed bottle of soda, carbon dioxide is present in both the liquid/aqueous phase and the gaseous phase (bubbles). The two phases of carbon dioxide are in dynamic equilibrium inside the sealed soda bottle since the gaseous carbon dioxide is dissolving into the liquid form at the same rate that the liquid form of carbon dioxide is being converted back to its gaseous form. The equation looks like this: CO2(g) â‡Å' CO2(aq). Changing the temperature, pressure, or concentration of a reaction can shift the equilibrium of an equation and knock it out of dynamic equilibrium. This is why, if you open a soda can and leave it out for a long time, eventually it'll become "flat" and there will be no more bubbles. This is because the soda can is no longer a closed system and the carbon dioxide can interact with the atmosphere. This moves it out of dynamic equilibrium and releases the gaseous form of carbon dioxide until there are no more bubbles. Dynamic Equilibrium Examples Any reaction will be in dynamic equilibrium if it’s reversible and the rates of the forward and reverse reactions are equal. For example, say that you prepare a solution that is saturated with an aqueous solution of NaCl. If you then add solid crystals of NaCl, the NaCl will be simultaneously dissolving and recrystallizing within the solution. The reaction, NaCl(s) â‡Å' Na+(aq) + Cl-(aq), will be in dynamic equilibrium when the rate of the dissolution of the NaCl equals the rate of recrystallization. Another example of dynamic equilibrium isNO2(g) + CO(g) â‡Å' NO(g) + CO2(g) (again, as long as the two rates are equal). Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) reacts with carbon monoxide (CO) to form nitrogen oxide (NO) and carbon dioxide (CO2), and, in the reverse reaction, nitrogen oxide and carbon dioxide react to form nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide. If you’re observing a reaction, you can tell it’s not at dynamic equilibrium if you can see changes occurring in the amounts of reactants or products. (If you can’t see any changes, that doesn’t guarantee it’s at dynamic equilibrium, since it may be at static equilibrium or the changes may be too small to see with the naked eye.) An example of an equation that could never be at dynamic equilibrium is: 4 Fe(s) + 6 H2O(l) + 3O2(g) → 4 Fe(OH)3(s). This is an equation for the formation of rust. We can see that it’ll never be in dynamic equilibrium because the arrow for the reaction only goes one way (which is why a rusty car won’t become shiny again on its own). There's no dynamic equilibrium for this car! Dynamic Equilibrium vs Static Equilibrium If you observe reactions at dynamic equilibrium and reactions at static equilibrium, neither will have visible changes occurring, and it'll look like nothing is happening. However, reactions at static equilibrium are actually very different from those at dynamic equilibrium. Static equilibrium (also known as mechanical equilibrium) is when the reaction has stopped and there is no movement at all between the reactants and products. The reaction is complete and the forward and reverse reaction rates are both 0. While reactions at dynamic equilibrium are reversible (can proceed in either direction), those at static equilibrium are irreversible and can only proceed in one direction.However, both dynamic equilibrium and static equilibrium are examples of systems at steady state, in which the net force action on the systems is zero. Below is a chart showing the key differences between dynamic and static equilibrium. Dynamic Equilibrium Static Equilibrium Reversible Irreversible Reaction is still occurring Reaction has stopped Rate of forward reaction = rate of reverse reaction Both reaction rates are zero Occurs in a closed system Can occur in an open or closed system How Does Dynamic Equilibrium Relate to Rate Constants? When a reaction is at dynamic equilibrium, the reaction will have a specific rate constant, known as the equilibrium constant, or Keq. The equilibrium constant, or rate constant, is a coefficient that shows the reaction quotient (or the relative amounts of products and reactants in the reaction at a given point in time) when the reaction is at equilibrium. The value of the equilibrium constant will tell you the relative amounts of product and reactant at equilibrium. If Keqis 1000, at equilibrium there will be mostly product. If Keqis between .001 and 1000, at equilibrium there will be a significant amount of both product and reactant. If Keqis .001, at equilibrium there will be mostly reactant. For the reactionaA + bBâ‡Å'cC+dD, A and B represent the reactants and C and D represent the products. The equation for the equilibrium constant is Keq=[C]c[D]d/[A]a[B]b. Example Take the reaction N2(g)+O2(g)⇋2NO(g). Using the equation for the equilibrium constant, Keqis equal to [NO]2/[N2][O2]. You would either leave the equation like this, or, if you're given equilibrium concentrations/the equilibrium constant, you can plug those in to find any missing values. Say we know the concentrations of both[N2] and [O2]=.15 M and the concentration of [NO] is 1.1 M. Plugging in those values would give you: Keq= (1.1)2/(.15)(.15) or 1.21/.0225. You can solve and find that Keq=53.8. SinceKeqis between .001 and 1000, there will be a significant amount each of NO, O2, and N2at equilibrium. Summary: What Is Dynamic Equilibrium? What is the best dynamic equilibrium definition? Dynamic equilibrium occurs when, for a reversible reaction, the rate of the forward reaction equals the rate of the reverse reaction.Since the two rates are equal, it looks like nothing is happening, but in reality the reaction is continuously occurring at its stable rate. In contrast, reactions at stable equilibrium are complete and no further reaction is occurring. The equation for the equilibrium constant isKeq=[C]c[D]d/[A]a[B]b. What's Next? Writing a research paper for school but not sure what to write about?Our guide to research paper topicshas over 100 topics in ten categories so you can be sure to find the perfect topic for you. Want to know the fastest and easiest ways to convert between Fahrenheit and Celsius?We've got you covered!Check out our guide to the best ways to convert Celsius to Fahrenheit(or vice versa). Are you studying clouds in your science class?Get help identifying thedifferent types of cloudswith our expert guide.