Question : With reference to 2 SEAsian states, explain the factors that led to the rise of nationalism in SEA before WWII.

Instructions : Using COMPLETE sentences fill in the table as if you would do an essay. Please take note that the case studies should come from different SEAsian states.

Qns. “Ideological concern was the most important factor that shaped the development of the Cold War”. Assess the validity of this view with regard to the period 1945-1950.
Note to everyone:
1. In this essay, I have chosen to give evidences from BOTH superpowers, because I felt that it was important to provide an extensive view of the situation. However, do take note that as long as you are able to prove that P, I, E or S was the basis of a superpower’s actions, and that developed the Cold War, either by changing its nature, or because it caused a reaction by the other superpower, it should be sufficient to show that the factor in the paragraph did develop the Cold War.
2. This essay has demonstrated a style of evidence giving and evaluation which may not be as clean and clear-cut as those that you received earlier, where the evaluation only appeared after the evidence has been completely described. Do take note that this particular style works for some, and not for others. It is up to you to decide which style you want to attempt eventually but for now, I personally think you should NOT use it in an exam without further practice.
3. When giving ELABORATION AS WELL AS EVIDENCE, NEVER only describe what happened. Always direct my eyes and attention to a particular aspect of an incident which you want me to see. This will make your elaborations and evidences clearer. In short, explain, until you can explain no more. Not describe.
Important questions to ask while elaborating include: “Why? What’s so important? So what? Did I link back to the question? Did my elaboration really answer the question?”
4. This essay is merely a model homework. I do not expect to see such standards in the exams simply because there is just enough time, so I hope you love me for doing up this model for you, though I suspect many of you will hate me, because it pressurizes you raise your standards to impossible heights.
5. Try, try again. It is always really satisfying when one has crafted an excellent essay, and you just know that you did fantastic and a job well done. Believe me.

Introduction:
Rephrasing the question:
- Time frame:
- Players:
- Definition:

The question is asking whether ideological concern was the motivation for superpowers’ actions and their implemented decisions which escalated the development of the Cold War. The parties involved were the two major superpowers, US and USSR. The time frame of this essay is from1945 to 1950. Cold War is defined as a state of high degree of tension hostility between the two major superpowers, US and USSR, with no direct confrontation and an indirect war without the use of arms.

Questioning the assumption:
- Assumption of the supporting stand
- Challenge by the challenge
- Debate

The debate of this question is whether ideological concern was the dominant factor which shaped the superpowers’ actions and their implemented decisions, thus escalating the development of the Cold War, or were there any other factors which shaped the superpowers’ actions and their implemented decisions, thus escalating the development of the Cold War. The question assumes that ideological concern was the most dominant factor which shaped the superpowers’ actions and their implemented decisions, thus escalating the development of the Cold War. However, it is too simplistic to ideological concern was the sole dominant factor which shaped the superpowers’ actions that led the escalation of the development of the Cold War.
Thesis:
- Actions
- Criteria (If possible)

Therefore, it is essential to examine how ideological concern as well as the superpowers’ power struggle and the need for security shaped the superpowers’ actions that led the escalation of the development of the Cold War.
Body
GA (S1):
The first reason why ideological concern was a very most dominant factor which shaped the superpowers’ actions that led the escalation of the development of the Cold War was because the desire to spread the ideology directed both US and USSR policy, and in so doing caused them to perform actions that were naturally offensive to the other superpower, whether it was knowingly done or otherwise.
Elaboration:
Furthermore, both sides believed that they held the key to the future happiness of the human race. By imposing on other countries to spread their ideology, their ideological differences widened more and more into open hostility. Hence when one rival believes that the other implements policies too zealously to spread either democracy-capitalism or communism, the other would be unwilling to concede and would respond similarly as well. Hence, the US and USSR eventually found the other party a hindrance to achieving their aim, and therefore wanted to remove the other party, leading to even more signs of open hostility, developing the Cold War in the process.
Evidence and Evaluation:
Evidence for this can be seen in the chain of events after the Greece Crisis in 1947 beginning with the decision by the Soviets not to restrain the Greece Communists from continuing their civil war, although it was in their ability to do so. If security was the only consideration of the Soviets, then forcing the Greeks to cease and desist would have made the most sense, since it would signal Soviet adherence to the Percentages Agreement with Britain, which was crucial to winning Western acceptance of Eastern Europe as the Soviet buffer zone as a reciprocal action. If power was the main focus, then direct Soviet intervention and domination of the Greeks would have made the most sense, since the Soviets were able to accomplish all that easily, since they outnumber both American and British forces in Europe, and American troops numbers were still winding down in 1947. However, the need to secure its ideological influence played a role in causing the Soviets to vacillate between both views, since the Greek Communists were willing supporters of the USSR, and to dominate them would convince others that the Soviets were dictators, but to reject the Greek Communists outright would have dealt the expansion of Communism a severe blow, since the USSR, the de facto patron state of communism would have shown its weakness and lack of desire to spread the ideology. Whatever the intention of the Soviets, it remains true that their action, which was motivated by ideological concerns, played a prominent role in provoking the Americans against them and widening the rift between the superpowers because the Americans felt provoked enough to implement the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan, which represented what was effectively an unlimited commitment by the Americans to defeat the Soviets, raising the tensions between the superpowers still further.
Alternative Evidence and Evaluation
Evidence can be seen in the American decision to offer the Marshall Plan to Eastern Europe in the hope of inducing them to align themselves with capitalism. Cannot be seen as a merely economic act, because although Eastern Europe was an excellent source of natural resources, the countries with the most industrial know-how were Germany, France, and Britain, hence it would have made more sense to develop them first, rather than make a grab for countries which were already under intense Soviet domination anyway. This decision by the government to support undermining the Soviets economically is better understood if one accepts that the Americans did believe their ideology of capitalism to be superior to communism, and were infused with a desire to prove Communism wrong. This ideological act by the Americans offended the Soviets so badly that they rapidly enforced their hold on Eastern Europe, beginning with the ouster of the Czech PM in 1948, and in the process, further widened the rift between both powers, and developing (by worsening) superpower tensions, and had the effect of finalizing the bloc formation which was taking place between the superpowers, because from this time forth, Eastern Europe was now finally firmly dominated by the Soviets, with no hope of any independent action whatsoever, and Western Europe is now firmly integrated with the West via the Marshall Plan.
GA (S2):
The second reason why ideological concern was a very dominant factor which shaped the superpowers’ actions that led the escalation of the development of the Cold War was because it tainted the views of both superpowers so deeply that misperceptions and mistrust of one another’s ideology easily intensified the tensions between the two superpowers by stripping both the USA and USSR of the ability to understand and empathize with each other.
Elaboration:
Hence by having misperceptions and mistrust of one another’s ideology, both superpowers became afraid and insecure of its own standing and then implemented even more policies to keep themselves safe. Escalation of development of Cold War came when both superpowers were too engrossed in protecting oneself and had tend to undermine the other party, putting the other party always at disadvantage even if it meant showing hostility and intolerance against the other party, increasing tensions drastically between both superpowers.
Evidence and Evaluation:
Evidence which supports this view is found in the way the Americans persistently chose to view the Soviets as being rabidly expansionistic despite facts that imply the opposite. For instance, the Americans chose to see the Soviets as being rabidly expansionistic and Communism as being generally monolithic despite the fact that the Yugoslavs under Tito have broken from the Soviet bloc, and was in fact receiving Marshall Plan aid. Despite that, many Americans still persisted in believing Communism to be monolithic and Soviet-controlled soon after China turned Communist, refusing to accept that the Chinese could actually have chosen to be Communist on their own accord, and in the process expelling these knowledgeable people from government service during the Red Scare – and leaving the intolerant and most rabidly communist politicians in power.
Alternative Evidence and Evaluation:
Soviet perception of the West were so tainted by their belief of an inevitable apocalyptic showdown with the Capitalist world that they obsessively chose to maintain a strong military and obtain a nuclear deterrent, even though such a research was prohibitively expensive. However, the Soviets still chose to seek a nuclear deterrent, and in 1949, succeeded in exploding an atomic device merely 4 years after the Americans, with all their economic advantages, did. American insecurity because of this incident can be seen in the fact that NSC-68, which was signed in 1950, recommended that the Americans continue stockpiling atomic devices, which shows that the Americans believed the Soviets would do the same, even though they knew that the Soviets were paying a heavy economic price to do so, which would be difficult to sustain indefinitely. These evidences show us that ideologically-colored misperceptions played a huge role in developing the Cold War, since it caused both parties to overreact to the actions of the other.

Conversely, there are factors which one of them might be the important factor for shaping the development of the Cold War.
GA (C1)
The first reason why ideological concern was not the most dominant factor which shaped the superpowers’ actions that led the escalation of the development of the Cold War because both superpowers, being ambitious, were both concerned with obtaining superiority and prestige over the other, and hoped to transform, if possible, the bipolar system they were in into a unipolar system where the other rival (either US or USSR) was defeated.
Elaboration:
To achieve this, they sought to use their superior power to influence others to join them. This fierce competition developed the Cold War into a zero-sum game where the superpowers sought every advantage, even symbolic victories to prove they were stronger and superior to their rival, even if victory was not possible in the short term.
Evidence and Evaluation:
Evidence supporting this argument is “Salami Tactics” which aimed to extend Soviet hegemony over Eastern Europe and expand Soviet control and dominate in the area; totally secure Eastern Europe from Western influence. This shows that they were expansionistic, and implied that their real aim was to divide and conquer process of threats and alliances to overcome opposition for political / power gains. By trying to overcome opposition through all means, even brute force, the Soviets showed that they earnestly desired power and were willing to use all possible methods to achieve it. This developed the Cold War because the West now saw the Soviets as a distinct threat, and reacted harshly, causing the Cold War to be distinctly bipolar, at least in Europe. Firstly the Americans were now amenable to extending their influence in Europe, and the West Europeans, especially Britain, actively sought American involvement to counter the rise of the Soviets in Europe, given their pitiful economic condition because of the exertions of WWII, this eventually resulted in the formation of NATO in 1949, which included the Americans and much of Western Europe.
Alternative Evidence and Evaluation:
In the same way, the Americans, too showed that power was a major consideration in their plans, and that they, too wanted to make sure that they were always more powerful than the Soviets. We know this because the Americans frequently responded to provocations from the Soviets through aggressive over-reactions. For instance, in response to Soviet aggression in Greece and Turkey, the Americans declared their decision to support ANY COUNTRY facing the threat of aggression, and not only did that, but went one step further, and threatened the Soviets’ control of Eastern Europe by effectively attempting to bribe the Eastern European states into joining the West through its use of Dollar Diplomacy via the Marshall Plan. Furthermore, after the Berlin Blockade ended, the Americans retaliated by announcing their intention to form West Germany, and strengthen it economically in the process, even though the initial agreement between the West and USSR was that Germany should be weakened. This was also accompanied by the formation of NATO, which potentially threatened the Soviets since it allowed them to attack the Soviets if an excuse can be found to claim that the Soviets attacked, harmed, any single signatory of NATO, even though the USA itself was not harmed. This potentially allowed the Americans to use their powerful nuclear arms against the USSR as long as a casus belli could be found, however flimsy it was, and showed how determined the USA was to challenge the Soviets in the arena of power.


GA(S2)
The second reason that rivals, or even surpasses ideological concern as the most dominant factor which shaped the superpowers’ actions, and hence, the development of the Cold War is the irrational need for security, which made the superpowers more aggressive in their actions, while simultaneously causing them to feel unjustifiably threatened by the other side.
Elaboration:
Therefore, the superpowers came up with policies and actions to secure what they felt to be their own immediate and urgent non-negotiable interests and needs, even if it meant risking the ire of the other superpower, and making long-term conflict a definite reality, or risking a prohibitive short term cost.
Evidence and Evaluation:
Evidence supporting this argument is the fact that the Soviets chose to purse the use of Salami Tactics against Eastern Europe even though they were aware that it was breaking the Agreement of Liberated Europe which they had signed at Yalta, and that the Americans, their rival, were displeased with it, and possessed the means to devastate them in retaliation through the monopoly of the atomic bomb. For them to have begun attempting it at the height of their prowess during the Potsdam Conference, and not when American demobilization was well underway suggests that the Soviets were desperate to secure their own survival at the soonest possible time, even if it meant taking on heavy risks to secure it, since the atomic bomb can destroy cities, but a USSR without a buffer zone would always be vulnerable to national destruction by any power coming from the West, as the Germans so aptly demonstrated in WWII.
Alternative Evidence and Evaluation:
The desire for security by the Americans, too, can be seen in the fact that they justified their proclamation of the Truman Doctrine on the basis that international aggression is a threat to their national security, and backed it up with action – first with the formation of NATO in response to the Berlin Blockade, and then with the approval of the NSC-68 recommendations, such as the stockpiling of atomic weapons, in response to Communist aggression in Korea. This shows us, therefore, that security, too, played an important role in the decision making process of the Americans. Furthermore, not only did it play an important decision-making role, it also played a big role in causing the Soviets to react. For instance, the usage of the Marshall Plan, which was envisioned concurrently with the Truman Doctrine, was countered by the formation of COMECON, a economic assistance plan to Eastern Europe which was akin to the Marshall Plan. Hence, security concerns can be seen as a significant factor developing the Cold War.

Conclusion:
Summarizing the strengths of both sides:
In conclusion, this essay sought to decide whether ideological concern was the most dominant factor which shaped the superpowers’ actions and their implemented decisions, thus escalating the development of the Cold War. While the challenging side had a few strong arguments such that other factors such as power struggle between the two superpowers and the need for security had also escalated the Cold War, which was compelling as preserving the nation’s or state’s own prestige and glory and protecting its own people, its own interest and its survival were crucial that motivated the superpowers to stamp out one another. They aimed for a unipolar world. However, the supporting side had more compelling arguments such that ideological-based economic interests, determination and aggressiveness to spread their respective ideology and the misperceptions and mistrust had caused the superpowers to implement policies and determine their actions.
Explaining the trump card – why one side rules the day:
This had shown the power of ideology over minds and mindsets which influenced people to the extent of making decisions and justified their actions, be it political, power, military, security, or economic in nature. Furthermore, although the scope of this essay is primarily from 1945 to 1950, one must remember that the respective ideology that both superpowers adopted were inveterate long before World Wars started, and had a far more profound influence in Cold War developments than this essay could explore.
Stand:
Hence, this essay concludes ideological concern was the most important factor which shaped the development of the Cold War.