# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Did Soviets Invade Afghanistan? Documents Offer History Lesson for Trump (Published 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Trump claimed the Soviet Union went to war in 1979 to battle terrorists. But a newly published cable underscores Moscow’s fear that Afghanistan would switch loyalties to the West.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The North Atlantic Treaty, signed Washington D.C.

4 April 1949

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments. They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area. They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security.

4. Military Exercises. In September 1952, Operation Mainbrace was the first major NATO naval exercise (200 ships practiced defending Denmark and Norway). NATO also held regular army exercises (including practising retreating in good order before overwhelming Soviet forces).

5. The Clandestine Planning Committee (CPC) planned guerrilla resistance in any country which might be conquered by the Soviets ('Operation Gladio').

6. In 1962, NATO countries were on standby during the Cuban Missiles crisis.

1. Originally, NATO consisted of 12 members: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland (did not have an army, by did have a good strategic geographic position in the Atlantic), Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Britain and the USA.

NATO in 1949

2. Greece and Turkey joined the alliance in 1952.

3. In 1954, the Soviet Union tried to join NATO, but was turned down.

4. Instead, on 9 May 1955, NATO brought West Germany into NATO - it was this act which provoked the Soviet Union to form the Warsaw Pact (1955).

NATO in 1955

5. On 11 March 1959, France complained the Britain and the USA had too much influence within NATO, and withdrew its Fleet from NATO command. In 1966 France withdrew all its armed forces from NATO, and all NATO troops and SHAPE were asked to leave France.

Two years after the Second World War, on 4 March 1947, France and Britain signed the Treaty of Dunkirk, to support each other if either of them should 'become again involved in hostilities with Germany'.

A year later, on 17 March 1948, France and Britain joined with the Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands to sign the Treaty of Brussels. In many ways, this looked like an expansion of the Treaty of Dunkirk. However, there were key differences, inasmuch as the Treaty of Brussels:

1. pledged to ' fortify and preserve the principles of democracy, personal freedom and political liberty'.

2. changed 'involved in hostilities with Germany' to 'an armed attack in Europe'.

So it was clear that, in the Treaty of Brussels, attention had shifted from the danger of Germany to the danger from the Soviet Union. Next month, in April 1948, the Brussels Pact agreed to set up a 'Western Union Defence Organization' (WUDO). WUDO was formed in September 1948 (during the Berlin crisis), and in 1949 it held a naval training exercise in the Bay of Biscay involving 60 British, French, and Dutch warships.

It was becoming increasingly clear that no European force would be strong enough to stop the Red Army if Stalin attacked, so in March 1949 the Brussels Pact opened secret negotiations with the Americans, and in April 1949 the North Atlantic Treaty was signed, which set up the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).

The North Atlantic Treaty promised:

* To safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty.

* Continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid to maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

However, Article 4 stated:

* If an armed attack occurs, each of them [will help with] such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force. (i.e. they promised to help, but not necessarily to send military aid).

* And Article 5 limited the alliance's operations to the 'area north of the Tropic of Cancer' (i.e. the North Atlantic).

The Treaty also set up a Council which would meet regularly as necessary. It should be clear from this that the chief aim of NATO was to resist the threat of the Soviet Union, and that - as the words 'continuous and effective' indicated - that this would be a very active, armed resistance.

Key achievements have been:

1. 1300 STANAGs (Standardization Agreements), including standardised bullets (so all NATO soldiers can fire the same bullets), aircraft marshalling signals (so any NATO aircraft could land at any NATO base) and the NATO phonetic alphabet).

2. NATO countries participated in the Korean War in 1950-3.

3. The 1952 Lisbon Conference expanded NATO:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The North Atlantic Treaty, signed Washington D.C. 4 April 1949 The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.johndclare.net/cold_war8.htm

# data[].attributes.headline
Truman's tactics (linked to the Marshall plan) were described as "Dollar Imperialism" i.e. the idea that the USA were trying to influence Europe and control financial markets. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Truman's tactics (linked to the Marshall plan) were described as "Dollar Imperialism" i.e. the idea that the USA were trying to influence Europe and control financial markets. 

# data[].attributes.headline
How the Suez Crisis could've resulted in Russia launching a Nuclear War

# data[].attributes.subject
How the Suez Crisis could've resulted in Russia launching a Nuclear War

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The war began with an imperialist invasion to seize the Suez Canal. It ended with the Soviet Union threatening to nuke Britain, France and Israel.

The 1956 British and French attack on Suez, and the parallel 1956 Israel-Egypt War, have to be among the strangest conflicts in history. The cast of characters includes two fading empires reluctant to admit their decline, a charismatic Arab dictator, a paranoid Jewish state, a semi-fake war and a superpower with nuclear weapons.

The crisis began over who just owned the Suez Canal, gateway between Europe and Asia. In July 1956, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser announced he would nationalize the canal, which was controlled still by European shareholders even after Egypt achieved independence from Britain (the same situation would later apply to the United States and the Panama Canal). Nasser's decision was prompted by the cutoff of American funding for the massive Aswan Dam, after Nasser had signed a huge arms deal with the Soviet bloc.

Nasser's response was simple: if the Americans and British wouldn't subsidize the Aswan Dam, then Egypt would nationalize the Suez Canal and use the toll revenues to build the dam itself. Unfortunately, he forgot a basic rule of history: there is nothing more dangerous than a declining empire.

Or two empires. In 1956, the sun had already set on the British and French imperiums, even if they couldn't admit it to themselves. Battered and bankrupted by World War II, these former great powers were still coming to grips with the new reality of becoming supporting actors on a global stage dominated by America and Russia.

But for Britain, the Suez Canal was a symbol of imperial prestige, as well as a lifeline to its bases in the Middle East and Persian Gulf. For the French, the issue was less about the canal and more about Nasser, whom they accused of arming Algerian rebels fighting for independence from France. British prime minister Anthony Eden alluded to Munich, as if taking down Nasser would make up for not stopping Hitler in 1938.

Meanwhile, the Arab-Israeli conflict smoldered as it always does. After Israel's victory in the 1948 War of Independence, Egypt sponsored Palestinian terrorist attacks from Sinai into Israel, to which Israel swiftly retaliated. The Israelis were convinced that another war was inevitable with Egypt, and they were eager to stop Egypt's blockade of the Straits of Tiran, which kept Israeli ships from exiting the Red Sea to trade with Africa and Asia.

France, Britain and Israel eventually hatched a plan-the Protocol of Sèvres-breathtaking in its cynicism. First, Israel would invade the Egyptian-held Sinai Peninsula. Then, ostensibly to protect the Suez Canal, Britain and France would issue an ultimatum for Israel and Egypt to withdraw from the Canal Zone. When Egypt predictably refused, Anglo-French forces would invade and take over the canal. Nasser would be humiliated and overthrown, European control over the Suez Canal restored, and the good old days of nineteenth-century imperialism would be restored.

The war kicked off on October 29, 1956, with Israel's Operation Kadesh, the brainchild of Chief of Staff Moshe Dayan. With typical ingenuity, Israeli P-51 Mustangs flew low over the Sinai to cut telephone wires with their propellers, severing Egyptian military communications. At the same time, Israeli paratroopers dropped on the strategic Mitla Pass through the Sinai mountains. Other paratroopers, led by Col. Ariel Sharon, raced across the desert to link up with them, as did other Israeli infantry and tank columns. Despite occasionally fierce fighting, Israel controlled the Sinai within a few days.

This gave Britain and France an excuse to issue their ultimatum. When Egypt ignored it, Operation Musketeer ( Opération Mousquetaire to the French) commenced. A better name would have been Operation Mouseketeer, because the whole operation was Mickey Mouse. As pointed out by President Eisenhower, who knew more than most about planning invasions, the Anglo-French didn't have a lot of troops compared to D-Day and other World War II landings. Some eighty thousand troops were involved, as well as more than two hundred warships (including five British and two French aircraft carriers) and hundreds of aircraft. While some of the British troops were unenthusiastic conscripts who couldn't figure out why they were going to Egypt, the landings were spearheaded by elite British and French paratroopers and commandos.

After the Egyptian Air Force was destroyed in the opening hours of the invasion, paratroopers dropped on the Canal Zone, backed by Royal Marines coming in on amphibious landing craft. Troop-carrying helicopters from British carriers also conducted the world's first ship-based helicopter assault.

Like the Israelis, the Anglo-French forces faced numerous but poorly trained and led Egyptian troops. Despite sporadic street fighting and sniper attacks-Nasser handed out guns to Egyptian civilians-the invasion was never really in doubt. The British suffered about a hundred casualties (compared to about four thousand at D-Day), the French lost about fifty men, and the Israelis around 1,100. Combined Egyptian losses to the dual invasions were on the order of eight thousand or so.

Militarily, the Anglo-Franco-Israeli plan was a success. Politically, it was a disaster. Antiwar protests erupted in Britain from a public that was in no mood to die for the empire. Others were shocked by the sheet deceit and manipulation of the operation.

However, what really mattered was the reaction of the superpowers. Soviet premier Nikolai Bulganin warned that the Soviet Union was ready to fire nuclear-armed ballistic missiles at Britain, France and Israel unless those nations withdrew. This, too, was a deception: the Soviet Union's ICBM force was mostly propaganda at this time. Not to mention hypocritical, given that just a month before, Soviet tanks had brutally suppressed Hungarian rebels in Budapest.

Equally shocking was the reaction of the United States. Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles threatened economic sanctions against Israel if it failed to withdraw from the Sinai. It also threatened Britain's oil supply (Saudi Arabia did embargo Britain and France) and considered selling off British bonds, which would have devastated the British economy. A UN resolution, spurred by the United States, called for a ceasefire and withdrawal of foreign forces.

The damage to the West was immense. U.S.-British relations were damaged, and Soviet prestige enhanced. Eden resigned as prime minister, while the British resigned themselves to no longer acting as an imperial power. The West Germans noted that the Soviets had threatened to attack Western Europe, and the United States had not protested. Israel grudgingly withdrew, and began preparing for the next war (which would come in 1967). Instead of being overthrown, Nasser became the hero of the Arab world; his comeuppance would also come in 1967.

Leaders such as Saddam Hussein and Muammar el-Qaddafi have left a bad taste in the mouth when it comes to Arab strongmen. And yet in this case, it's hard not to sympathize a little with Nasser. Ultimately, the Suez Canal is Egyptian territory.

There have been other Western invasions since 1956, notably Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011. But for old-fashioned nineteenth-century imperialism, Suez was the last gap.
Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the National Interest. He can be found on : Russian Tu-95 Bear 'H' aircraft. Wikimedia Commons/RAF/MOD and .

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In 1956, Russia Almost Launched a Nuclear War against Britain, France and Israel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The war began with an imperialist invasion to seize the Suez Canal. It ended with the Soviet Union threatening to nuke Britain, France and Israel. The 1956 British and French attack on Suez, and the parallel 1956 Israel-Egypt War, have to be among the strangest conflicts in history.

# data[].attributes.body
Khrushchev's part played

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Cold War: Analyse the part played by Cuba in the development of the Cold War | MyTutor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Towards the later half of the Cold War, Cuba played an increasingly larger role in the development of international tensions. It not only served as...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The interpretive wars over the Cold War, 1945-60 Melvyn P. Leffler 

# data[].attributes.headline
Extended reading on the development of the Cold War

# data[].attributes.subject
Extended reading on the development of the Cold War

# data[].attributes.body
"Containment policy"