Khrushchev Genuinely committed to peaceful coexistence

In the years 1955 ­62, Khrushchev was genuinely committed to peaceful coexistence. Peaceful co ­existence is the idea that the two superpowers in the world, the USSR and the USA can accept each other’s ideologies and consequentially their satellite states in the interests of peace, whether Khrushchev was entirely committed to this notion is debatable due to his ‘behind the scenes’ actions between 1955 and 1962. The Austrian state treaty of 1955 seemed to show Khrushchev’s commitment to peaceful coexistence, but his aggression after the U2 spy plane incident of 1960 and the gamble with peace over the Berlin wall in 1961 and Cuba in 1962 suggest his commitment to†¦show more content†¦This shows the imperialistic nature of the Soviet Union and not of truly peaceful cohabitation by clearly dividing the world on the wider Cold War basis by intrusive political and military intervention. It seems contradictory to the previous peaceful concessions made by the Soviet Union at the Geneva Summit and this shows how the Soviet Union were still trying to maintain an advantage over the Capitalist world rather than accepting a diplomatic change. This can be deduced as an attempt to build on Soviet power whilst also trying to repress American power through far less than peaceful methods. Furthermore tension was at it’s highest following the military actions of the Soviet Union prior to the Cuban Missile in 1962. For example Khrushchev created a physical and metaphorical barrier that divided Eastern and West germany yet also divided the Capitalist and Communist worlds. This was evident with the erection of the Berlin Wall on 13th August 1961. This was done in order to prevent the massive emigration of East GermanShow MoreRelatedOne Significant Change That Has Occurred in the World Between 1900 and 2005. Explain the Impact This Change Has Made on Our Lives and Why It Is an Important Change.163893 Words   |  656 Pages however, to the weaknesses of the League, resistance to the rise of internal repression and interstate aggression in the interwar years was feeble at best. Stalinist, fascist, and Japanese militarist contempt for civil rights, much less even peaceful protest, opened the way for brutally repressive regimes that actively promoted or systematically engineered the massive episodes of rape, oppression, and genocidal killing that were major offshoots of a second global conflict in the early 1940s