20th Century Conflict the Latter

20th Century Conflict

The Latter 20th Century: Conflict Fueled by Economic and Political Change

World War II marked an inflection point in world history. The old order of European dominance subsided in the clearing smoke of one long, expansive and horrific conflict and with it would come the emergence of new world powers. In 1945, the power structure of the world was diametrically shifted, with the victors of the war parlaying this demonstration of political, economic and military might into a long-term shaping of thw global community. As the text by Goff et al. points out, the end of World War II would not bring relief to the war-afflicted global community. To the contrary, this moment would represent the initiation of the Cold War. With Germany, France, Spain, Great Britain and Japan in a state of rebuilding, the opportunities present for the United States and the United Soviet Social Republic to widen their respective spheres of influence would become a dominant reality as the 20th century progressed. As a result, it would become fair to at least characterize the latter 20th century as a time marked by conflicts both ongoing and highly varied in nature. To recall this part of history without acknowledging the defining role played by bloody and violent conflict would be misguided.

That said, it would not be entirely fair to define this period only according to the conflicts which would mark the subsequent 55 years. Underlying the proxy wars waged by the United States and the Soviet Union in Korea (1950-1953), in Cuba (1955-1963) in Vietnam (1955-1975), in Afghanistan (1979-1989) and throughout South America (1980s) were the vested interests of two growing superpowers. And while the carnage visited upon these nations and the fighting forces of the U.S. And U.S.S.R. make it difficult to separate the violence from some of its larger implications, doing so allows us to understand the century as something more than just a series of terrible wars. Each of these wars carried a rhetoric, as Moss points out in the text's examination of Russian interests during the Cold War, that claimed to define the future political and cultural identity of the world. The United States aggressively pushed its sphere of influence toward the mores of free market capitalism and democratic governmental order. And as Moss indicates, Russia produced a direct counterpart with the Communist orientation and totalitarian order which it imposed upon the territories under its sphere.

The result would be a world not just divided along ideological and military lines, but also one divided on how best to meet the challenges of modernization. Indeed, if any engine may be said to have been at the continued drive toward war in the late 20th century, it was the thrust of industrialization, technological advancement and infrastructural solidification. Both Russia and the United States, Moss indicates, viewed their respective governmental philosophies as the channel through which future global prosperity would be channeled. Moreover, both viewed the distinctive opportunities afoot in helping the world to define itself along either capitalist or communist lines. To this extent, the period following World War II may actually be defined as a transitional phase necessary encumbered by brutal conflict. The end of feudalism and colonialism in Europe, marked most officially by the end of the WWII and the need for each European nation to look inward toward rebuilding, would signal a new period in the history of human governance. American and Soviet orientation would reflect new ideals, to the extent that we can define the world of the late 20th century as distinguished by efforts at redefining government orientation. With the eras of enlightenment and industrialization now past, these European institutions were no longer plausible or relevant.

In many ways, the conflicts of the next several decades would be the natural byproduct of attempts to define some more universal standards for both economic and political orientation. To the point, even as conflicts raged, institutions such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the European Union and the North American Treaty Organization emerged. While all would be used as a pathway to creating coalitions in an ideologically divided world, they would also demonstrate the clear move toward a global community with a set of collective interests. Accordingly, it would not be inappropriate to characterize the late 20th century as a period of globalizing, with the conflicts underlying this process being characterized as symptomatic of the dramatic changes occurring throughout the world.