a level history coursework cold war

The Cold War, 1950-1975

The Origins and Development of the Cold War, 1950-1975

• From 1950 to 1953, the Korean War took place, marking the first major conflict of the Cold War. This conflict expanded the Cold War beyond Europe and set the precedent for future US intervention in other regional conflicts.
• 1953 saw the death of Joseph Stalin , leading to a transformation of the Soviet leadership and introducing the possibility of ‘peaceful co-existence’.
• During the mid-1950s, there was a thaw in East-West relations known as The Thaw period and ‘Peaceful Coexistence’ . This was highlighted by major political events such as the Hungarian Uprising and the Suez Crisis.
• In 1961, the Berlin Wall was constructed, creating a physical barrier between East and West Berlin and becoming a powerful symbol of the political and ideological division between East and West.
• In 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. This event highlighted the dangerous escalation of Cold War tensions and led to a reassessment of Cold War strategies.
• The 1960s and early 1970s were also marked by the US-led Vietnam War , which not only exacerbated East-West tensions but also led to domestic unrest in the US and global anti-war movements.

Key Figures of the Cold War, 1950-1975

• Dwight D. Eisenhower (US President, 1953-61) implemented the policy of ‘massive retaliation’ to deter Soviet aggression.
• Nikita Khrushchev (Soviet leader, 1956-64) introduced the policy of ‘peaceful coexistence’, though also involved the USSR in crises such as the Cuban Missile Crisis.
• John F. Kennedy (US President, 1961-63) faced the Bay of Pigs Invasion and Cuban Missile Crisis, leading to a shift towards more flexible response options in US Cold War strategy.
• Lyndon B. Johnson (US President, 1963-69) escalated US involvement in Vietnam, contributing to domestic and international opposition to the war.
• Leonid Brezhnev (Soviet leader, 1964-82) initiated a period of détente with the West, although he also suppressed political dissent in Eastern Europe (notably during the 1968 Prague Spring).

Major Themes of the Cold War, 1950-1975

• Arms race and space race : Continued competition between the US and USSR in the development of nuclear and conventional weapons, as well as in space exploration.
• Nuclear brinkmanship : The strategy of taking disputes to the verge of armed conflict, with the hope that the opposing side would back down.
• Proxy wars : The US and USSR indirectly confronting each other through smaller conflicts in other nations, notably in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
• Détente : A period of relative peace and improved diplomatic relations between the US and USSR, which began in the late 1960s and lasted throughout the 1970s.
• Ideological competition : Continued rivalry between the capitalist West and communist East, which was reflected not only in military and economic competition but also in areas such as propaganda and sports.

Welcome to Seneca Revision Notes

Short and effective seneca revision notes for a-level & gcse.

1 Origins of the Cold War, 1945-9

1.1 Events of 1945

1.1.1 The Grand Alliance

1.1.2 Yalta Conference

1.1.3 Potsdam Conference

1.2 The Collapse of the Grand Alliance

1.2.1 Communism in the 20th Century

1.2.2 Relations between Roosevelt, Stalin & Attlee

1.2.3 A-A* (AO3/4) - Origins of the Cold War

1.3 Developing Tensions

1.3.1 USSR Actions

1.3.2 Long Telegram & Iron Curtain Speech

1.3.3 Cominform

1.3.4 Greek Civil War & the Truman Doctrine

1.3.5 A-A* (AO3/4) - Developing Tensions

1.4 US Involvement in Europe

1.4.1 US Policy Towards Britain & Europe

1.4.2 US Attitudes Towards Germany & Berlin

1.4.3 The Marshall Plan

1.5 Conflict over Germany

1.5.1 Sectors & Bizonia

1.5.2 The Berlin Blockade

1.5.3 The Formation of NATO, April 1949

1.5.4 A-A* (AO3/4) - US Involvement in Europe

2 Widening of the Cold War

2.1 US Containment in Asia

2.1.1 Japan

2.1.2 China & Taiwan

2.2 The Korean War

2.2.1 Causes & Military Action in Korean War

2.2.2 Attitudes of the USSR, China & the USA

2.2.3 Panmunjon Armistice & Impact of the Korean War

2.2.4 A-A* (AO3/4) - Widening of the Cold War

2.3 Increasing Cold War Tensions, 1949 -1953

2.3.1 McCarthyism & The 'Red Scare'

2.3.2 USA Dominance in the United Nations

2.4 Global Alliances

2.4.1 Global Alliances in Europe & Asia

2.4.2 Eisenhower, Brinkmanship & Domino Theory

2.4.3 A-A* (AO3/4) - Tensions & Alliances

3 The Global War

3.1 Khrushchev

3.1.1 Polish & Hungarian Uprisings 1956

3.1.2 East-West Relations

3.2 Cold War Rivalries

3.2.1 Arms Race & Space Race

3.2.2 Berlin Crisis & The Berlin Wall

3.2.3 A-A* (AO3/4) - Khrushchev

3.3 Conflict in Asia

3.3.1 Indo-China

3.4 Confrontation Between Superpowers

3.4.1 Relations Between the USA & Cuba

3.4.2 The Cuban Missile Crisis & its Significance

4 Confrontation & Cooperation

4.1 Vietnam

4.1.1 Johnson

4.1.2 Nixon

4.1.3 Paris Peace Talks

4.2 Cooperation

4.2.1 Khrushchev & Kennedy

4.3 Pressures on the USSR

4.3.1 Czechoslovakia

4.3.2 A-A* (AO3/4) - Confrontation & Cooperation

5 Brezhnev Era

5.1 Detente

5.1.1 Settlements

5.1.2 Detente up to 1979

5.2 Second Cold War

5.2.1 Renewed Hostilities

5.3 Developments in Africa & Americas

5.3.1 Angola, Ethiopia, Chila, Nicaragua, Grenada

5.3.2 A-A* (AO3/4) - Brezhnev Era

6 Ending of the Cold War

6.1 Gorbachev

6.1.1 Gorbachev & Reforms

6.2 Cooperation between US & USSR

6.2.1 Key Figures & Summits

6.3 Collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe

6.3.1 Significance of 1989

6.4 End of Tensions Across the World

6.4.1 Africa, Afghanistan & the Americas

6.4.2 Malta Summit & the Aftermath

6.4.3 A-A* (AO3/4) - Ending of the Cold War

The Cold War (1945-53)

The Cold War 1945-53

• 1939 Germany and USSR signed a Non-aggression Pact
• Great Britain and France wanted to help Finland against the Soviets
• Stalin was angered by the Allied refusal to begin a second front against Germany in 1942
• Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) wanted the break-up of the British Empire
• He made concessions to Stalin which angered Churchill
• Stalin didn’t enter the war against Japan until he heard the atom bomb was to be used – he entered to secure as much territory as he could

The Iron Curtain

• August 1945 Allied leaders met at Potsdam
• Included Franklin D. Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin
• Allies suspicious of Soviet actions in Eastern Europe
• Poland was regarded as a part of Soviet sphere of influence
• The Polish government-in-exile in the West was imprisoned when it returned home
• Russian-dominated governments were also set up in other countries captured by the Red Army e.g. Bulgaria, Rumania, and Albania
• Churchill drew attention to this
• Sent telegram to President Truman (replaced FDR who had died)
• It said “What is to happen about Russia? An iron curtain is drawn upon their Front. We do not know what is going on behind”
• March 1946 at Fulton Missouri he made a speech saying “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the continent”

The Meaning of ‘Cold War’

• It wasn’t a real or ‘hot’ war – there was no declaration of war
• When there was fighting (e.g. Korea) it was under ‘assumed’ titles
• The struggle was conducted with an arms’ race and propaganda
• The enemy was attacked with cartoons, articles, speeches and interviews
• Constant attempts were made to win over neutral countries
• Used economic and/or military aid
• The powers had nuclear weapons and there was the fear that a war would destroy the world
• Numbers of nuclear weapons reached a level known as ‘MAD’ or Mutually Assured Destruction, also known as ‘Overkill’
• Countries had compulsory military service whereby young men had to serve in the armed forces for a limited period
• After the death of Stalin in 1953 the tension eased somewhat but there seemed little hope of peaceful co-existence
• At Yalta and Potsdam Greece was named as a British sphere of influence
• After the Germans had gone in 1944 British troops fought communist guerrillas to keep the monarchy in power
• 1946 the communists rose again helped by neighbouring Moscow controlled states
• February 1947 Great Britain no longer had enough money to fight for the defence of Greece
• So the US was asked to help

The Truman Doctrine

• Unlike FDR, Truman did not trust Stalin
• He feared he would take over Greece
• US Congress was persuaded to vote for a commitment to ‘free’ Europe
• March 1947 Truman set out his policy – US would support free peoples resisting aggression by armed minorities and outside forces
• Congress voted $4 billion for forces to be sent to Greece and Turkey
• US would not return to the isolationism of the inter-war years
• They would not attempt to ‘roll back’ communism
• It wanted the principle of co-existence
• Communism would not be allowed to advance further
• This was the principle of containment

Marshall Aid

• 1945-7 US sent aid to War damaged Europe through the United Nations relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA)
• This ended in 1947 but Europe hadn’t recovered
• 5 th June 1947 US Secretary of State George Marshall said US would provide the aid to continue European recovery
• Stalin banned any Russian controlled-country from accepting this
• Ernest Bevin the British Foreign Secretary persuaded the other European Countries to form the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation
• 16 states joined this OEEC
• The western part of Germany was an associated member
• April 1948 Congress voted $5.3 billion for this aid
• $13 billion had been given by mid-1952
• Stalin saw it as a US attempt to control Europe

Czechoslovakia

• 1919-1939 this was a liberal democracy until Nazis moved in
• In World War II the communists played a part in guerrilla actions against occupation
• 1945 President Benes wanted Soviet help
• He agreed to help the communists having more power
• So he agreed to ban the Agrarian Party to secure communists participation
• The communist Gottwald was made PM
• The communists were given important posts in government
• They controlled: the police; communications e.g. radio; the armed forces
• 1947 Benes allowed purge of non-communist Social Democratic Party so that a communist could become its leader
• When Stalin banned Marshall Aid the Czechs were divided
• They needed economic and financial aid but the communists insisted on obeying Stalin
• Several ministers resigned and communists power thus increased
• Student demonstrations against the government were crushed
• Czech elections postponed – communists feared popular opposition
• Benes rejected demands for the dismissal of the communists in favour of popular ministers
• Communist gangs seized the offices of non-communists ministers
• Jan Masaryk, son of the state’s founder died when he was thrown from a window at his ministry
• In the May elections there was a single list of candidates to vote for or against
• Overwhelming victory for communists National Front
• Benes resigned – Gottwald became President
• Gottwald now purged the Communist Party
• Anyone opposed the Stalinist line was tried, imprisoned or executed e.g. Slansky the Party secretary

Catholic Church

• Archbishop Beran led Church opposition to the communists
• He had been put in a Nazi concentration camp for opposing them
• Government demanded oath of loyalty from all priests
• Beran refused this
• 1950 monasteries were closed; most Church property was confiscated
• 1951 Beran was exiled and 7 bishops arrested
• Yalta it was decided to divide to Germany into 4 occupation zones
• Berlin was divided on same lines
• USSR was to take reparations from Germany to compensate for war damage
• Leading Nazis were put on trial at Nuremberg
• Lesser Nazis were tried by German judges at other places
• In Germany thousands were homeless, short of fuel and food
• Currency system had collapsed
• Problems made worse by large number of refugees from Poland
• 1946 US drew up plans to rebuild Germany but Soviets and French disagreed
• 1946-7 winter very severe – made situation worse
• 1947 Great Britain and US agreed to merge their zones to help Germany
• New currency introduced and aid poured in
• France now merged her zone with the US/GB one
• Soviets refused to be involved and banned western officials from their zone
• 1948 Marshall Aid extended to western zones
• 1949 West Germany was granted an occupation statute
• A German Parliamentary Council drew up a new constitution
• Soviets announced the formation of the German Democratic Republic from their zone i.e. East Germany

The Berlin Crisis

• February 1948 the Soviets announced that all of Berlin was part of their zone
• June 1948 London Agreement led to formation of a federal government in West Germany
• Soviets said the new currency in the western zones was the principles of Potsdam i.e. that all 4 powers should co-operate in the governing of all Germany
• The new currency was excluded from Soviet zone
• That meant it didn’t circulate in Berlin (Soviet zone)
• June 1948 Soviets closed all land links between the west and Berlin – for ‘repairs’
• They aimed to make it impossible for Western powers to supply  and govern the west Berlin zones – the city would fall to the Soviets
• Allies replied with an airlift and for nearly a year all food, fuel and supplies were flown in
• May 1949 the blockade was ended and supplies were once again delivered by road, rail and canal

NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization)

• March 1947 Great Britain and France signed Treaty of Dunkirk
• It was aimed at a revived Germany
• March 1948 they were joined by Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg (Benelux countries) in the Treaty of Brussels
• This was for mutual aid against German or Soviet aggression
• These Brussels powers had 12 divisions (USSR had 250)
• Events in Berlin and Czechoslovakia increased fear of USSR
• April 1949 the 5 Brussels powers were joined by USA, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Italy and Portugal in NATO
• Greece and Turkey joined 1952
• West Germany joined 1955
• Stalin’s hopes to extend Soviet power was hit by: Yugoslavia breaking with the Eastern bloc; failure of Berlin blockade; the creation of NATO
• Stalin turned his ambitions to Far East
• Encouraged communist revolts in Malaya and Indonesia 1948-50 (failed)
• Korea had been ruled by Japan but by the Cairo Conference (1943) was to gain independence after World War II
• August 1945 Soviet (in the north) and US forces (in the south) moved in after surrender of Japan
• The dividing line between the two zones was 38 th parallel
• 1948 USSR set up the communist People’s Republic
• In the south the US set up the Republic of Korea
• US and USSR withdrew forces but border clashes began
• 1948 UN tried to hold national elections but failed
• June 1950 North Korea invaded the South and drove latter army back to Pusan
• USSR was boycotting UN because Communist China wasn’t allowed to join
• USA got Security Council to condemn North Korean aggression and send a force to drive them out
• 15 countries apart from US sent troops
• General MacArthur was in command
• UN forces were driven back to Pusan
• An amphibious landing was made at Inchon behind the communists who were driven back across the border
• MacArthur planned to chase them to the Yalu River
• China threatened war if that happened – MacArthur carried out his plan so China acted
• UN forces were driven back again
• MacArthur wanted to drop atom bombs on China but fear that this might lead to world war led to President Truman sacking MacArthur
• Fierce fighting ensued with severe casualties on both sides
• June 1951 Soviets proposed an armistice but the fighting went on
• 1953 a truce was agreed at Panmunjon and the border remained where it was
• A demilitarised zone has divided the 2 Korean states ever since
• Massive destruction, millions die
• Bitter enmity between China and US continued
• Anti-communist feeling in US allowed Senator McCarthy to gain support for his anti-communist witch-hunt
• The South East Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) was set up (1954) as an Asian version of NATO to combat communist aggression

1953 Death of Stalin

• Stalin dies March 1953
• He had ruled USSR since 1920s after Bolshevik Revolution
• West sent help to anti-communist side in Russian Civil War
• After World War II he extended Soviet power into Eastern Europe and Asia
• His successor was Khrushchev – a different person to Stalin
• He never had the power Stalin enjoyed
• He was prepared to accept Truman’s idea of co-existence
• A ‘thaw’ in East-West relations followed

This website works best with JavaScript switched on. Please enable JavaScript

• Centre Services
• Associate Extranet
• All About Maths

AS and A-level History

• Specification
• Planning resources
• Teaching resources
• Assessment resources
• Introduction

Specification at a glance

• 1A The Age of the Crusades, c1071–1204
• 1B Spain in the Age of Discovery, 1469–1598 (A-level only)
• 1C The Tudors: England, 1485–1603
• 1D Stuart Britain and the Crisis of Monarchy, 1603–1702
• 1E Russia in the Age of Absolutism and Enlightenment, 1682–1796 (A-level only)
• 1F Industrialisation and the people: Britain, c1783–1885
• 1G Challenge and transformation: Britain, c1851–1964
• 1H Tsarist and Communist Russia, 1855–1964
• 1J The British Empire, c1857–1967
• 1K The making of a Superpower: USA, 1865–1975
• 1L The quest for political stability: Germany, 1871–1991
• 2A Royal Authority and the Angevin Kings, 1154–1216
• 2B The Wars of the Roses, 1450–1499
• 2C The Reformation in Europe, c1500–1564 (A-level only)
• 2D Religious conflict and the Church in England, c1529–c1570
• 2E The English Revolution, 1625–1660
• 2F The Sun King: Louis XIV, France and Europe, 1643–1715 (A-level only)
• 2G The Birth of the USA, 1760–1801
• 2H France in Revolution, 1774–1815 (A-level only)
• 2J America: A Nation Divided, c1845–1877
• 2K International Relations and Global Conflict, c1890–1941 (A-level only)
• 2L Italy and Fascism, c1900–1945
• 2M Wars and Welfare: Britain in Transition, 1906–1957
• 2N Revolution and dictatorship: Russia, 1917–1953
• 2O Democracy and Nazism: Germany, 1918–1945
• 2P The Transformation of China, 1936–1997
• 2Q The American Dream: reality and illusion, 1945–1980
• 2R The Cold War, c1945–1991
• 2S The Making of Modern Britain, 1951–2007
• 2T The Crisis of Communism: The USSR and the Soviet Empire, 1953–2000 (A-level only)
• Component 3: Historical investigation (non-exam assessment) (A-level only)
• Scheme of assessment
• Non-exam assessment administration
• General administration

Subject content

• Component 1: Breadth study

1A The Age of the Crusades, c1071–1204

1B Spain in the Age of Discovery, 1469–1598

1C The Tudors: England, 1485–1603

1D Stuart Britain and the Crisis of Monarchy, 1603–1702

1E Russia in the Age of Absolutism and Enlightenment, 1682–1796

1F Industrialisation and the people: Britain, c1783–1885

1G Challenge and transformation: Britain, c1851–1964

1H Tsarist and Communist Russia, 1855–1964

1J The British Empire, c1857–1967

1K The making of a Superpower: USA, 1865–1975

1L The quest for political stability: Germany, 1871–1991

• Component 2: Depth study

2A Royal Authority and the Angevin Kings, 1154–1216

2B The Wars of the Roses, 1450–1499

2C The Reformation in Europe, c1500–1564

2D Religious conflict and the Church in England, c1529–c1570

2E The English Revolution, 1625–1660

2F The Sun King: Louis XIV, France and Europe, 1643–1715

2G The Birth of the USA, 1760–1801

2H France in Revolution, 1774–1815

2J America: A Nation Divided, c1845–1877

2K International Relations and Global Conflict, c1890–1941

2L Italy and Fascism, c1900–1945

2M Wars and Welfare: Britain in Transition, 1906–1957

2N Revolution and dictatorship: Russia, 1917–1953

2O Democracy and Nazism: Germany, 1918–1945

2P The Transformation of China, 1936–1997

2Q The American Dream: reality and illusion, 1945–1980

2R The Cold War, c1945–1991

2S The Making of Modern Britain, 1951–2007

2T The Crisis of Communism: The USSR and the Soviet Empire, 1953–2000

Component 3: Historical Investigation

AS students must take assessments in both of the following components, in the same series.

Students must:

• study the history of more than one country
• study a British history option for Component 1 or 2
• study a non-British history option for Component 1 or 2

Assessments

Prohibited Combinations

Students must study a British history option for either Component 1 or Component 2. If a British history option is chosen for Component 1, it must be combined with a non-British option for Component 2. If a British history option is chosen for Component 2, it must be combined with a non-British option for Component 1. Any British option may be combined with any non-British option.

The following are designated British history options :

Component 1

1C The Tudors: England, 1485–1547

1D Stuart Britain and the Crisis of Monarchy, 1603–1649

1F Industrialisation and the People: Britain, c1783–1832

1G Challenge and Transformation: Britain, c1851–1914

1J The British Empire, c1857–1914

Component 2

2A Royal Authority and the Angevin Kings, 1154–1189

2B The Wars of the Roses, 1450–1471

2D Religious Conflict and the Church in England, c1529–c1547

2E The English Revolution, 1625–1642

2M Wars and Welfare: Britain in Transition, 1906–1929

2S The Making of Modern Britain, 1951–1979

A-level students must take assessments in all three of the following components in the same series:

• Component 3: Historical investigation (Personal study)
• study topics from a chronological range of at least 200 years
• Through the topics studied in Components 1, 2 and 3 (Historical investigation), A-level students must cover a chronological range of at least 200 years.

Students must study a British history option for either Component 1 or Component 2. If a British history option is chosen for Component 1, it must be combined with a non-British option for Component 2. If a British history option is chosen for Component 2, it must be combined with a non-British option for Component 1. Any British option may be combined with any non-British option, other than the following:

• 1C The Tudors may not be combined with 2C The Reformation in Europe
• 1D Stuart Britain and the Crisis of Monarchy may not be combined with 2F The Sun King: Louis XIV, France and Europe

This is because there is a strong conceptual emphasis which runs across both breadth and depth options which would result in a narrowing of the student’s experience.

The following are designated British history options:

1F Industrialisation and the People: Britain, c1783–1885

1G Challenge and Transformation: Britain, c1851–1964

2D Religious Conflict and the Church in England, c1529–c1570

• International
• Education Jobs
• Schools directory
• Resources Education Jobs Schools directory News Search

The origins of the Cold War to 1945 / A level history OCR

Subject: History

Age range: 16+

Resource type: Worksheet/Activity

Last updated

31 May 2023

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

New and improved Origins of the Cold War to 1945 notes with interactive tasks. History A level can be tough from getting notes together to writing high grade essays.

This pack contains notes on: Background events Tehran conference Yalta conference Potsdam Conference Liberation of Eastern Europe

PLUS interactive tasks and an A grade example

**Note this is a PDF **

**About me:

Hi, I’m Liv and I have put together some resources that really helped me through A levels as a dyslexic student who achieved 3 A*'s in History Politics and Geography. I hope these resources are as useful to you as they were to me in achieving the highest grades **

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Get this resource as part of a bundle and save up to -20%

A bundle is a package of resources grouped together to teach a particular topic, or a series of lessons, in one place.

The Cold War/ The origins of the Cold War to 1945 workbook + Engaging tasks

*New * This bundle contains a full set of notes for the Origins of the Cold War in Europe and will give you a fantastic start on your revision journey. History A level can be tough from getting notes together to writing high-grade essays. In this bundle, you will receive notes on the topic as well as interactive tasks and example high-grade essays to keep you engaged. If you are looking for a starter task for lessons, tutoring sessions, or personal revision this is the bundle for you. This bundle includes the extra tasks that are not included in the pack titled 'FULL The Cold War in Europe 1941–1995 /Notes/ OCR A level /+FREE SPACE RACE & ARMS RACE TIME LINE'. This pack contains notes on: Background events Tehran conference Yalta conference Potsdam Conference Liberation of Eastern Europe Plus save 20% if you buy these resources a bundle!

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

The UK National Charity for History

Password Sign In

Become a Member | Register for free

Introduction

You don't have permission to view this page.

Please return to the Unit Homepage

• HISTORY & CULTURE

What was the Cold War—and are we headed to another one?

The 45-year standoff between the West and the U.S.S.R. ended when the Soviet Union dissolved. Some say another could be starting as tensions with Russia rise.

As World War II dragged to an end in 1945, the leaders of the “Big Three” allied powers—the United States, Soviet Union, and Great Britain—met in Potsdam, Germany, to hash out   terms to conclude the bloodiest conflict the world had ever seen. The great powers split Germany into occupation zones, recognized a Soviet-backed government in Poland, and partitioned Vietnam, monumental decisions that shaped the postwar global order. The talks were meant to forge a lasting peace, but within 18 months, a Cold War began that lasted more than four decades.

One of the most important moments at Potsdam was not captured in a memo or proclaimed at a press conference. Late in the conference, U.S. President Harry Truman took aside Soviet premier Joseph Stalin to share some explosive news: The U.S. had just successfully tested a weapon of “unusual destructive force.” It was a nuclear weapon capable of destroying entire cities, the most dangerous and powerful armament the world had ever seen.

( Subscriber exclusive: For Hiroshima's survivors, memories of the bomb are impossible to forget .)

Within weeks, the U.S. used the atomic bomb to force Japan’s surrender. With a devastating and proven weapon in its armory, the U.S. suddenly had the upper hand among the powers who were allies in the war. What followed was a dangerous struggle for supremacy between two superpowers, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., that lasted until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Though the two nations were technically at peace, the period was characterized by an aggressive and costly arms race; bloody proxy wars fought across Latin America, Africa, and Asia; and competing bids for world dominance between U.S.-led capitalist governments and the Soviet-led communist bloc.

The Cold War lasted nearly half a century. Here’s a look at why it began, how it escalated, its legacy today—and why some analysts think another Cold War is already underway.

Why’s it called the Cold War?

The term “cold war” had existed since the 1930s, when guerre froide was used in France to describe increasingly fraught relationships between European countries. In 1945, shortly after the United States dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, British writer George Orwell used the term in an essay that explored what the atom bomb meant for international relations.

The atom bombs killed more than 100,000 Japanese citizens, unveiling a destructive power so terrifying that Orwell predicted it would discourage open warfare among great powers, creating instead “a state which was at once unconquerable and in a permanent state of ‘cold war’ with its neighbours.”

Orwell’s prediction of a “peace that is no peace” came true as seeds of distrust between the former allies grew.

Okay, so how did the Cold War begin?

The U.S.S.R. had borne the highest number of military and civilian casualties in the war— an estimated 24 million —while liberating huge swaths of Eastern Europe from Nazi control. Soviet leader Josef Stalin was dissatisfied with the postwar division of Europe, which he felt didn’t fairly reflect his nation’s contribution.

In the U.S., diplomat George Kennan outlined the Soviet Union’s growing distrust in the 1946 “Long Telegram,” as it is now known. Kennan warned that the U.S.S.R. was illogical and insecure and would not cooperate with the West in the long-term. In response, Washington began to pursue a policy of “containment” to prevent the spread of Soviet ideology and influence.

The U.S. soon got an opportunity to flex its new policy. In 1947, Britain announced it would withdraw aid from Greece and Turkey, which were both battling communist uprisings. President Harry Truman seized the occasion to ask Congress for funds to assist both countries, establishing what became known as the Truman Doctrine —the principle that the U.S. should support countries or people threatened by Soviet forces or communist insurrection. Stalin saw the move as the opening shot of a shadow war.

The term “Cold War” became a shorthand to describe the ideological struggle between capitalism in the West and communism in the East.   American journalist Walter Lippmann popularized the term in a series of articles in 1947 as nations chose sides in the standoff.

Why was NATO created?

The U.S. wasn’t alone in worrying about Stalin’s push to extend Soviet influence westward and bring other states under communist rule. In 1948, the U.S.S.R. backed a communist coup in Czechoslovakia and launched a blockade of west Berlin, which had been divided into occupation zones controlled by communists in the east and capitalists in the west.

To demonstrate a united front, the U.S. and its allies formed a transatlantic mutual defense alliance known as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO. On April 4, 1949, the U.S., Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and the U.K. signed a treaty agreeing that “an armed attack against one or more…shall be considered an attack against them all.”  

The U.S.S.R. responded by creating a defensive alliance of its own. Signed in 1955, the Warsaw Pact included the Soviet Union and seven satellite states, including Poland and East Germany, reinforcing the ideological and military barrier between Eastern and Western Europe that Winston Churchill had dubbed the “ Iron Curtain ” in a 1946 speech.

How close did the world come to nuclear war?

As the two sides faced off across that Iron Curtain, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. engaged in an arms race, pouring trillions of dollars into accumulating nuclear arsenals .

The U.S. had an advantage at the start of the arms race. But once the U.S.S.R. built its own nuclear arsenal, the two sides were at a standoff over “mutually assured destruction” —the idea that if either side attacked, the other would retaliate, unleashing apocalyptic consequences for both parties.

You May Also Like

A military spouse reflects on life over two decades of war—and what comes next

What the end of the war in Afghanistan means to one mother and her family

‘A ball of blinding light’: Atomic bomb survivors share their stories

( See the abandoned Soviet bunkers hidden beneath Georgia's capital city .)

Both countries had missile defenses pointed at one another, and in 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis brought the countries closer to the brink than any other event in the Cold War. The U.S. detected Soviet missile bases and arms in communist Cuba, just 90 miles south of Florida. Demanding they be removed, President John F. Kennedy declared that a strike on U.S. territory would trigger an immediate nuclear strike on the U.S.S.R.

The threat of imminent nuclear war hung over nearly two weeks of tense negotiations. Finally, the U.S.S.R. agreed to dismantle its weapons facilities if the U.S. pledged not to invade Cuba. Behind the scenes, the U.S. agreed to remove nuclear weapons from Turkey; that agreement did not become public until 1987.  

Nevertheless, both sides’ nuclear arsenals continued to grow exponentially. By the late 1980s, the United States had an estimated 23,000 nuclear weapons to the Soviet Union’s 39,000.

How else was the Cold War fought?

Over more than four decades of Cold War, the U.S. and Soviet Union waged multiple proxy wars across the globe. In the Korean War , the Vietnam War , and other armed conflicts, the superpowers funded opposing sides or fought directly against communist or capitalist militias. Both sides funded revolutions, insurgencies, and political assassinations in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

The U.S. and Soviet Union also jockeyed to prove technological dominance in a 20-year Space Race . The Soviet Union scored first with the 1957 launch of Sputnik-1, the first artificial satellite, while the U.S. was first to send a man to the moon in 1969. Only in the mid 1970s did the two nations begin to cooperate on joint missions.

( 50 years after Apollo 11, a new moon race is on .)

How did the Cold War end?

By the mid 1980s, life behind the Iron Curtain had changed. Democratic uprisings were percolating in Soviet bloc nations, and the U.S.S.R. itself struggled with economic and political chaos. The U.S. and U.S.S.R. forged a more open relationship, even brokering a nuclear treaty in 1987 that eliminated a class of particularly dangerous ground-launched missiles from the nations’ arsenals.

By 1991, the Soviet Union had lost most of its bloc to democratic revolutions, and the Warsaw Pact was formally dissolved. Mikhail Gorbachev, the last leader of the U.S.S.R., opened his country to the West and instituted economic reforms that undercut institutions that relied on nationalized goods. In December 1991, the U.S.S.R. was dissolved into separate nations.

What does all this mean now?

The U.S.S.R. is gone, and nuclear arsenals have dramatically decreased thanks to nonproliferation treaties between Washington and Moscow in the 1980s and 1990s. In recent decades, the U.S. and Russia have cooperated on a number of global issues, including Afghanistan and the war on terror.

But the Cold War still affects modern geopolitics. Both nations still have divergent geopolitical interests, large defense budgets, and international military bases. NATO still wields political power and has grown to include 30 member states. The alliance now stretches to Russia’s borders and includes former Soviet states and Warsaw Pact members, such as Poland and the Baltic States. Since the 1990s, Russia has seen the eastward expansion of NATO as a threat to its security .

Tensions between Russia and the West reached a new high point following the February 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which had applied to take the first steps toward NATO membership in 2008, before a new president shelved the plan two years later. Some commentators have likened the current crisis to the beginnings of a new Cold War.

( Follow Ukraine's 30-year struggle for independence with this visual timeline .)

Is a 21st-century Cold War already being waged? It remains to be seen. Though historians say the decisions at Potsdam set the stage for a long post-World War II rivalry, we may not recognize the beginnings of a new Cold War until it’s visible in history’s rear-view mirror.

Related Topics

• VIETNAM WAR
• NUCLEAR WEAPONS

This pill could protect us from radiation after a nuclear meltdown

Oppenheimer: The secrets he protected and the suspicions that followed him

The true history of Einstein's role in developing the atomic bomb

How Chien-Shiung Wu changed the laws of physics

How does ‘Oppenheimer’ re-create history? We asked Christopher Nolan.

• Environment
• Paid Content
• Photography

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• History Magazine
• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Destination Guide
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

World War I

World War I pitted Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire against Great Britain, the United States, France, Russia, Italy and Japan. New military technology resulted in unprecedented carnage. By the time the war was over and the Allied Powers claimed victory, more than 16 million people—soldiers and civilians alike—were dead.

World War I Battles: Timeline

For four years, from 1914 to 1918, World War I raged across Europe’s western and eastern fronts after growing tensions and then the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria ignited the war. Trench warfare and the early use of tanks, submarines and airplanes meant the war’s battles were devastatingly bloody, claiming an estimated 40 […]

Outbreak of World War I

Europe by 1914 Almost exactly a century before, a meeting of the European states at the Congress of Vienna had established an international order and balance of power that lasted for almost a century. By 1914, however, a multitude of forces was threatening to tear it apart. The Balkan Peninsula, in southeastern Europe, was a […]

Prelude to Lusitania: Germany Announces Unrestricted Submarine Warfare When World War I erupted in 1914, President Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924) pledged neutrality for the United States, a position that the vast majority of Americans favored. Britain, however, was one of America’s closest trading partners, and tension soon arose between the United States and Germany over the […]

Battle of the Somme

Battle Begins – July 1, 1916 Prior to the attack, the Allies launched a week-long heavy artillery bombardment, using some 1.75 million shells, which aimed to cut the barbed wire guarding German’s trench defenses and destroy the enemy’s positions. On the morning of July 1, 11 divisions of the British 4th Army—many of them volunteer […]

World War I Alliances

In the years leading up to WWI, a series of agreements between the powers of Europe helped determine where and when battlelines were drawn.

The Harlem Hellfighters

The Harlem Hellfighters were an African-American infantry unit in WWI who spent more time in combat than any other American unit. Despite their courage, sacrifice and dedication to their country, they returned home to face racism and segregation from their fellow countrymen.

Deconstructing History: U-Boats

These deadly German submarines dominated the waters in both WWI and WWII.

The One Thing You Should Know About WWI

The story of World War I is vast and intricate, but if you had to know just one thing about World War I, what would it be?

How Imperialism Set the Stage for World War I

Many of the powers in World War I were competitive in overtaking territories in Europe and Africa.

How Airplanes Were Used in World War I

Even though airplanes were a relatively new invention, the race for air superiority started during World War I.

How a Regional Conflict Snowballed Into World War I

When Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia in 1914, each of their allies quickly joined the fight.

11 Objects Carried by World War I Infantrymen

Here are some of the essential items that typical American infantrymen carried with them on the battlefields of World War I.

This Day in History

Benito Mussolini declares himself dictator of Italy

This Day in History Video: What Happened on January 18

This Day in History Video: What Happened on December 25

This Day in History Video: What Happened on November 11

Battle of the somme begins, john maynard keynes predicts economic chaos.

Origins of the Cold War, A-Level History Teaching Resources & Student Activities

Origins of the cold war, a-level teaching resources (16-18 years). can be used across examination board specifications. perfect for classroom teaching or the homeschool environment., teach any origins of the cold war, 1945-1949 topic, no prep needed.

Do you want to save dozens of hours in time? Get your evenings and weekends back? Be fully prepared to teach any Origins of the Cold War , 1945-1949 A Level topic?

Every Origins of the Cold War, 1945-1949 topic is covered, and each module comes complete with:

Lesson Presentation

Revision notes, student activities.

Download free samples →

A Level Origins of the Cold War, 1945-1949 Resources

At the end of the lesson, the students should be able to:

• Understand the role of personalities in shaping postwar relations;
• Analyse the events that caused tensions in Europe;
• Assess the US involvement in postwar Europe; and
• Discuss the emergence of the Cold War in Southeast Asia.

Resource Examples

Lesson presentation:.

Student Assessment:

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

Biden’s Push to End the War in Gaza

The american president revealed a secret cease-fire proposal that may force israel’s leader to choose between the end of the war and his political survival..

This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email [email protected] with any questions.

Hey, it’s Michael. Before we start today, we wanted to invite you to something really special. The legendary Tribeca Festival is starting a brand new annual gala to celebrate excellence in audio. And for this, the inaugural year, they’ve chosen to celebrate “The Daily.” We know that you, our incredible audience, are all over the world, but we’d like you to join us.

The Gala is in New York on June 9th at 5:00 PM. You can get all the details and buy tickets at tribecafilm.com/thedaily. That’s tribecafilm.com/thedaily. I’m going to be there. So is Sabrina, along with a bunch of us from the show. Mo Rocca is going to host it. So if you’re in the area or visiting, we’d love to see you there. OK, on with today’s show.

From “The New York Times,” I’m Sabrina Tavernise. And this is “The Daily.”

[MUSIC PLAYING]

In an unexpected speech last week, President Biden revealed the details of a secret proposal intended to end the war in Gaza. Most surprising was where that proposal had come from. Today, my colleague Isabel Kershner explains Biden’s gambit and the difficult choice it presents for Israel’s leader, Benjamin Netanyahu.

It’s Wednesday, June 5.

Isabel, tell us about this speech from President Biden last Friday at the White House.

So last Friday, President Biden made a speech. And it came at a pivotal moment in the war because for weeks beforehand, the whole world had been focused on Israel’s long delayed invasion of the city of Rafah, the southernmost city in the Gaza Strip and also the city that about a million displaced Palestinians had fled to to find refuge from fighting in other areas of the Gaza Strip. So understandably, there was huge concern internationally and particularly a lot of pressure coming from the White House for Israel not to go into Rafah. It was just considered way too risky.

But for the Israelis, they were saying the last battalions of Hamas are there. Many hostages are there. And without taking control of that area, the Israelis felt they wouldn’t have accomplished anything.

So in the end, they did begin to move into the Eastern part of Rafah. But then as the Israelis were operating in Eastern Rafah with their tanks and ground troops, the Israelis on May 26 carried out a strike, an airstrike.

This was an attack meant to target two Hamas operatives. And they did, in fact, strike those two operatives and killed them with what they said were the smallest missiles that their jets could carry.

Unfortunately, that strike then set off an absolutely devastating fire because the area the strike took place in is right by a camp of makeshift shacks and tents where hundreds or thousands of Palestinians were sheltering. This fire ripped through the tents and ended up killing 45 civilians according to the Gazan health authorities. And it was exactly the kind of disaster that everybody had feared if Israel were to operate in this crowded, southern, dusty border town.

Which presumably put a lot more pressure on the Biden White House to do something about this war.

That’s right. Now, we know that the White House, the Biden administration, would very much like to see this war come to an end as soon as possible. And then on Friday —

Good afternoon. Before I begin my remarks —

— President Biden gives a speech. And surprisingly —

Now to another issue.

— this speech when it turns to the Israel-Hamas war was not about Rafah. In fact, it was something totally different and much bigger.

Israel has now offered — Israel is offering a comprehensive new proposal. It’s a road map to an enduring ceasefire and the release of all hostages.

What President Biden described as the outline of an Israeli proposal for a ceasefire truce and hostage release deal with Hamas that would end the war.

This proposal has been transmitted by Qatar to Hamas. Today, I want to lay out his terms for the American citizens and for the world.

And, Isabel, what did he mean exactly by the Israeli proposal?

Well, there’s been a lot of smoke and mirrors around this whole process of talks and negotiations between Israel and Hamas. And, in fact, the last time we saw a negotiation actually result in a temporary cease fire and a partial hostage release was at the end of last November.

But, in fact, there had been this on again, off again attempt at getting negotiations back on track over the last few weeks. And it soon came to light that this was the latest Israeli proposal that was apparently presented. And this proposal it turns out was unanimously approved as a basis for the negotiation by Israel’s war cabinet.

And here is an American president spelling out this previously undisclosed Israeli position on television.

Absolutely. And the Israeli public knew nothing about this.

So what does Biden actually say? What does he say is in this proposal?

OK, well, what he says —

This new proposal has three phases. Three.

He presents it as a deal in three phases, which is generally in line with all the previous plans of the last few months. And the first phase would involve a six week temporary ceasefire during which a certain number of hostages —

— including women, the elderly, the wounded —

— the most vulnerable ones —

There are American hostages who would be released at this stage. And we want them home.

— would be exchanged for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. And Israeli forces would be withdrawing from population centers within the Gaza Strip.

— with 600 trucks carrying aid into Gaza every single day.

Humanitarian aid would be flowing at a much greater level and generally the beginning of a change in atmosphere and climate.

So this seems in some ways like the temporary ceasefire in November, right? Women and children, vulnerable hostages, a cease in hostilities for six weeks. What about phase two?

Well, here we get to the crucial part because during phase one, the sides are supposed to start negotiating phase two.

Now, I’ll be straight with you. There are a number of details to negotiate to move from phase one to phase two.

And phase two is supposed to culminate in all remaining living hostages released and exchanged again for many more Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. This would involve also the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip. And in his speech, President Biden does say that as long as Hamas lives up to its commitments, the temporary ceasefire would become, in the words of the Israeli proposal —

— the cessation of hostilities permanently.”

— essentially meaning the end of the war.

So Biden is actually talking about the end of the war. He’s saying that out loud, which is not something we’ve been hearing from Israel at all, at least publicly. On the contrary, in fact, our colleagues wrote a story at the end of last week when one senior Israeli official said the war would last until at least the end of the year. So this is something very new.

Absolutely. And then we get to phase three because there’s a third phase to this plan. And that is moving ahead already to the day after the war, which has been kept very vague by the Israelis up to now. And the phase that President Biden outlined was essentially just for a major reconstruction plan for Gaza.

That’s the offer that’s now on the table and what we’ve been asking for. It’s what we need.

So the president is saying that this is a deal that should be accepted, that meets the requirements of both sides, that can point to a path forward. And he makes a couple of points to bolster that —

The people of Israel should know they can make this offer without any further risk to their own security because they’ve devastated Hamas forces.

— one of which is that in his view, Hamas has already been sufficiently degraded and devastated to the point where, as President Biden puts it, Hamas is no longer capable of carrying out another October 7.

In other words, that goal of total victory that Netanyahu talks about, Biden is actually saying they’ve accomplished it. The Israelis have accomplished it.

Not really, actually. He takes on Netanyahu on the total victory slogan —

Indefinite war in pursuit of an unidentified notion of total victory will not bring Israel and will not bring down — will only bog down Israel in Gaza, draining the economic, military, and human resources and furthering Israel’s isolation in the world.

— and says that total victory is a kind of nebulous and unrealistic goal that would basically mean indefinite war because what does total victory mean? You can’t kill every last Hamas operative. And even if you did, presumably there would be many more Palestinians who would come to replace them.

And in a way, he’s using this speech to go over the head of Netanyahu and go straight to the Israeli people and present them with these terms to in a way corner Netanyahu, but also to put down the gauntlet to Hamas and say, here are the terms. They sound very like the terms Hamas was asking for and putting Hamas equally on the spot to come back to the table even though Israel is still fighting in Rafah.

It’s time to begin this new stage, for the hostages to come home, for Israel to be secure, for the suffering to stop. It’s time for this war to end, for the day after to begin. Thank you very much.

So Biden is essentially saying here, listen. Israel, you have won the war effectively. Hamas is degraded. Now it’s time to accept the ceasefire deal that you yourself have designed. What was the reaction inside Israel?

The initial reaction took a while to come because President Biden made his speech. And it landed at about 8:30 in the evening on Friday Israel time. And this is the time where many, many families are sitting around their Sabbath dinner table, as I was with my family and friends, not watching the news, not looking at phones for the most part. Observant Jews have actually switched off for the Sabbath and aren’t going to hear any news until Saturday night.

And as the news did begin to trickle out, it really shook Israel up. And this leaves Netanyahu in a great bind because for months, he’s really been playing for time and juggling competing interests and really not having to make a decision one way or the other on what comes next.

We’ve been hearing that Rafah is really the last stronghold of Hamas, and this is something the military has to do. But after that, there was just a kind of void and no news on the hostages or a ceasefire or a deal on the horizon.

And so when this speech was made, suddenly it shook up everything. And Netanyahu is suddenly facing a very crucial choice.

We’ll be right back.

So, Isabel, you said that this is a very important moment for Netanyahu, that now he really is facing a choice. What does he do? What does he come out and say?

So his office actually put out a statement. And his first response was that Israel is sticking to its objectives of the destruction of Hamas’s military and governing capabilities. And he said the actual proposal put forward by Israel would allow Israel to uphold these principles.

Now, this was a slightly ambiguous response that you could pass in different ways. He wasn’t exactly denying that this was an Israeli proposal. And indeed, we quickly learned that, in fact, Israel’s war cabinet had unanimously voted on the general outlines of what President Biden had presented. He wasn’t denying it. But the one thing missing from that statement was this declaration we’d been hearing for months on end that the war wouldn’t end until there was total victory. That had gone.

So total victory had gone, which is a difference, which means potentially the war goals have shifted a little bit.

Well, the way he articulated it is talking about the degradation or dismantling of Hamas’s capabilities as opposed to talking about the total elimination of Hamas as a movement. And then he followed up. His office put out another statement on Saturday, also still during the Sabbath, which was a little stronger. He said under the proposal, Israel would insist on its conditions being met, these same war objectives, before a permanent cease fire is put in place and that any suggestion that Israel would agree to that permanent ceasefire before the conditions are met would be a non-starter.

But again, it was kind of conditional and could be interpreted in different ways. At what point does one declare that the capabilities have been dismantled or sufficiently degraded? So it left a lot of room for maneuver.

And so what is Netanyahu up to here, Isabel?

I think he’s trying to balance all these competing sides. He’s seems to be trying not to torpedo the chances of this deal but at the same time to be able to hang on politically when he has a very serious challenge looming within his government should this deal go ahead.

So tell me about that challenge.

Israel’s government is formed of a coalition of parties. Netanyahu’s Likud is the main party. But it totally relies for its majority in parliament on its partners in the coalition. And they include two ultra-orthodox parties and two far right parties. And the far right parties have both come out explicitly saying that should this deal as outlined by President Biden go ahead, they will not be party to it.

So Netanyahu faces this real political danger on his right.

That’s right. So there are the leaders of these two right wing parties who he relies on for his coalition government. He relies on them for his majority in parliament. And the leaders of those parties are Itamar Ben-Gvir, who’s the national security minister, and Bezalel Smotrich, who is currently the finance minister.

Now, neither of these parties nor their leaders are sitting in the much more tight and small war cabinet that actually oversees and directs and makes the decisions on the course of the war in Gaza. They were seen as way too extreme to be part of that forum. That forum is much more reflective of the national consensus.

But these parties are part of the broader government. And they have threatened not only to oppose the deal as outlined by President Biden should it go ahead. But they have actually vowed if it does go ahead, they would withdraw their support to Netanyahu and bring his government down. And if his government were to collapse as a result, he would then be facing a new election.

Now, he has been trying to stave off the end of the war and the prospect of new elections ever since October 7 because then he’s in danger of facing that public reckoning for the perceived failures that the government’s policy failures, the military’s failures, the intelligence failures leading up to the Hamas led attack of October the 7. But we really might be getting to crunch time when it comes to his political lifeline here.

So this is a pretty dramatic moment for Netanyahu then, right? I mean, he’s under tremendous pressure from Biden, his biggest ally. Biden’s basically asking him to choose between this deal, which means the end of the war, something his coalition partners, these hard right guys, really don’t want, and his own power essentially, right? Staying alive politically or the end of the war and the hostages coming home. That is a very stark choice.

Absolutely. And then there are other choices that he has to weigh because Israel has been increasingly isolated and under international censure for its prosecution of the war in Gaza. Netanyahu himself is facing the prospect of possible arrest warrants being put out against him from the International Criminal Court in the Hague. Israel is in the dark on a genocide case in the International Court of Justice in the Hague. So should he go ahead with this deal, he has been offered sweeteners like an invitation to address congress. And this would in a way be a way of bringing him back into the fold.

So, Isabel, say Netanyahu approves this proposal. How likely is it that the right wing, Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, actually do leave the government? I mean, they would be giving up power, too, no?

They would. And if we look at all the opinion polls being done in Israel in the last few months, Bezalel Smotrich and his religious Zionism party for one would barely scrape back into parliament in another election. And therefore, there’s a lot at stake for him, too, and for Itamar Ben-Gvir because if the next government that’s formed is not going to be a right wing and far right government, he would find himself out of power, too.

But, Isabel, let’s say they do leave. What happens in that scenario?

Well, the assumption is that the government would collapse. It would lose its majority. And naturally, the Knesset would vote to dissolve itself and set a date for a new election, which would have to come within five months. And during that period, this government would turn into a caretaker government.

Now, usually a caretaker government that’s a transitional one in that period before elections isn’t supposed to make dramatic decisions for the country. But being a caretaker government during wartime, this puts Israel in uncharted political territory. Then theoretically, if we were to ask could such a government even approve a deal once it had been negotiated, even without the support of those far right parties, apparently there would still be enough in favor to see it through.

Interesting. So it seems like there are a lot of possibilities for how this could go. But it does in a way rely on Netanyahu deciding what Israel’s course will be. And it seems like he probably needs to land on one of these options. What do you think he’s going to do?

Well, it might not end up being black and white, take the deal or not take the deal. We might end up seeing something in between because I think Netanyahu, who is facing huge public pressure to bring back those hostages who still are alive, would definitely want to move ahead with at least that first part of the deal that would see a six week temporary ceasefire in return for the most vulnerable hostages. And then you get into the much trickier part of that negotiation for the next stage, which would involve essentially ending the war.

And it could be that we might see Netanyahu wanting to proceed with this deal but only partially and then get to a point where it can’t go further. And Netanyahu is probably very keenly aware of the American political timetable. There are skeptics here who say that by Labor Day, all the American attention is going to be focused on America’s own internal politics running up to the November elections and that Netanyahu basically just has to survive another 90 days to get to that point, at which point the pressure subsides.

So this is a scenario in which he just basically runs out the clock. He keeps on that tightrope.

That’s a possibility, absolutely, and one that he would be very adept at doing if the past is anything to go by.

OK, so there are a number of ways Netanyahu could actually handle this. How should we think about what Biden has really accomplished here?

Well, I think it’s hard to say that one speech is going to change the course or the outcome of this war. But it certainly has crystallized the issues and brought them out into the light after months and months of murkiness that Netanyahu was able to in a way hide behind and operate within. And I think now he’s in the spotlight. And assuming that Hamas is willing to accept and go along with this negotiation for this proposal, the Israeli public’s expectations have certainly been risen now toward a deal. And all eyes are now on Netanyahu to see which way he will go.

Isabel, thank you.

Thank you so much.

In an interview with “Time Magazine” published on Tuesday, Biden was asked whether Netanyahu was prolonging the war in Gaza in an effort to hold on to office. Biden said, quote, “There is every reason for people to draw that conclusion.”

Here’s what else you should know today. On Tuesday, Republican lawmakers in Arizona voted to put a ballot measure before voters in November that would make unlawfully crossing the border from Mexico a crime in the state. The move would put the border crisis directly onto the ballot in a key swing state, potentially firing up anti-immigration conservative voters. It is similar to a law passed in Texas earlier this year, currently held up in court after it was challenged by the Biden administration.

And the results of a major election in India have been tallied. And they are deeply disappointing for India’s prime minister Narendra Modi. Modi appeared to have secured a third consecutive term in office. However, his BJP party did not deliver the landslide victory it had promised and even lost its majority in parliament. Now Modi and the BJP must come to an agreement with other parties in order to form a coalition government in India’s parliamentary system.

Today’s episode was produced by Will Reid, Eric Krupke, and Sydney Harper. It was edited by Brendan Klinkenberg and Michael Benoist, contains original music by Marion Lozano, Diane Wong, Dan Powell, and Rowan Niemisto, and was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly.

That’s it for “The Daily.” I’m Sabrina Tavernise. See you tomorrow.

• June 6, 2024   •   23:38 The Fight Over the Next Pandemic
• June 5, 2024   •   30:42 Biden’s Push to End the War in Gaza
• June 4, 2024   •   29:17 A Conversation With President Zelensky
• June 3, 2024   •   32:07 How Trump’s Conviction Could Reshape the Election
• May 31, 2024   •   31:29 Guilty
• May 30, 2024   •   25:21 The Government Takes On Ticketmaster
• May 29, 2024   •   29:46 The Closing Arguments in the Trump Trial
• May 28, 2024   •   25:56 The Alitos and Their Flags
• May 24, 2024   •   25:18 Whales Have an Alphabet
• May 23, 2024   •   34:24 I.C.C. Prosecutor Requests Warrants for Israeli and Hamas Leaders
• May 22, 2024   •   23:20 Biden’s Open War on Hidden Fees
• May 21, 2024   •   24:14 The Crypto Comeback

Hosted by Sabrina Tavernise

Featuring Isabel Kershner

Produced by Will Reid ,  Eric Krupke and Sydney Harper

Edited by Brendan Klinkenberg and Michael Benoist

Original music by Marion Lozano ,  Diane Wong ,  Dan Powell and Rowan Niemisto

Engineered by Chris Wood

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube

In an unexpected speech last week, President Biden revealed the details of a secret proposal intended to end the war in Gaza. Perhaps the most surprising thing was where that proposal had come from.

Isabel Kershner, a reporter for The Times in Jerusalem, explains Mr. Biden’s gambit and the difficult choice it presents for Israel’s leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

On today’s episode

Isabel Kershner , who covers Israeli and Palestinian affairs for The New York Times.

Background reading

Mr. Biden called for an end to the war in Gaza, endorsing an Israeli cease-fire proposal .

Mr. Netanyahu answered the call for a truce by insisting on the “destruction” of Hamas.

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, John Ketchum, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Summer Thomad, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson, Nina Lassam and Nick Pitman.

Isabel Kershner , a Times correspondent in Jerusalem, has been reporting on Israeli and Palestinian affairs since 1990. More about Isabel Kershner

Advertisement

Election latest: Tories fall to worst rating since Truss in new poll - as Reform gain ground

It's a quiet day for the election campaign, owing to commemorations marking the 80th anniversary of D-Day. But new polls published today have brought no respite for the Tories, with one putting them at their lowest level since Liz Truss was PM - and with Reform breathing down their necks.

Friday 7 June 2024 06:41, UK

• General Election 2024

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Election news

• Labour accuse Sunak of 'skipping' D-Day ceremony to 'convince people he's not a liar'
• Tories record worst rating since Truss in new poll
• Sunak under fire for taking more cash from race row donor
• Explained: Where do political parties get their funds?
• Minister defends exposing 'tender meat flippers' on train
• Scottish Tory candidate dropped for leader 'very saddened'
• Live reporting by Tim Baker and (earlier)  Ollie Cooper

Expert analysis

• Jon Craig: Dash for seats makes Tory duo look like self-serving elite
• Connor Gillies: Top Scottish Tory likely to face backstabbing claims

Election essentials

• Battle For No 10: PM and Starmer taking part in Sky News special
• Have your say: Be in the audience for our election leaders event
• Campaign Heritage: Memorable moments from elections gone by
• Trackers: Who's leading polls? | Is PM keeping promises?
• Follow Sky's politics podcasts: Electoral Dysfunction | Politics At Jack And Sam's
• Read more: Who is standing down? | Key seats to watch | How to register to vote | What counts as voter ID? | Check if your constituency is changing | Your essential guide to election lingo | Sky's election night plans

Good morning!

We're deep into the second full week of the fight for all 650 parliamentary seats - and the keys to Number 10.

Political parties are spreading out across the country to get their message out ahead of polling day on 4 July.

Here's what you need to know:

• Labour's election manifesto is expected to pledge recognition of a Palestinian state before the end of a peace process, Sky News understands. The manifesto will be formally signed off at a "Clause Five" meeting today, and unveiled to the public next Thursday;
• The prime minister will return to the campaign trail today. He will be in the South West as the Conservatives pledge to cut taxes for families;
• Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer and deputy Angela Rayner will visit a housing development in Greater London as they launch a "freedom to buy" scheme to get more young people on the housing ladder;
• The Lib Dems will be meeting families in South London as they pledge reforms to parental leave, including a "dad month" of paid leave for new fathers and a doubling of statutory maternity pay;
• Scotland's first minister and SNP leader John Swinney will claim that both Labour and the Conservatives are "concealing" the extent of spending cuts to come at a campaign speech in Glasgow;
• The final countdown has begun for candidates to file their nominations for the general election, with the deadline at 4pm this afternoon. The statement of persons nominated will be published shortly afterwards;
• "Leading figures" from the seven main parties will take part in a BBC debate this evening. Penny Mordaunt will represent the Conservatives, Angela Rayner for Labour, Daisy Cooper for the Lib Dems, Nigel Farage for Reform, Stephen Flynn for the SNP and Carla Denyer for the Greens. 

This morning's guests will be:

• David Johnston , parliamentary under-secretary of state for children, families and wellbeing at 7am ;
• Matthew Pennycook , shadow housing minister at 7.50am ;

Stick with us for all the latest political news throughout the day.

We're ending our live coverage for the night - but don't worry, we'll be back in the morning.

Before you go, here are the major announcements from the two big parties tonight.

Make sure to check back in the morning as the general election campaign rumbles on towards the end of another week.

Labour are going on the offensive after Rishi Sunak left the D-Day ceremonies in Normandy today early.

While the prime minister was present for the initial parts of the commemoration on the 80th anniversary of the landings, he was absent later on.

Defence Secretary Grant Shapps and Foreign Secretary Lord David Cameron took his place, with the latter pictured alongside leaders like Germany's Olaf Scholz, the US's Joe Biden and France's Emmanuel Macron.

Labour has also been keen to highlight a picture of Sir Keir Starmer alongside Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

A Labour Party source said: "If the prime minister has skipped this afternoon's D-Day commemorations to try and convince people he's not a liar, he should just tell the truth".

Jonathan Ashworth, Labour’s shadow paymaster general, said: "The prime minister skipping off early from D-Day commemorations to record a television interview where he once again lied through his teeth is both an embarrassment and a total dereliction of duty.

"Our country deserves so much better than out-of-touch, desperate Rishi Sunak and his chaotic Tory Party."

Meanwhile, Reform leader Nigel Farage said: "The prime minister has ducked out of the international D-Day event to fly back to the UK to campaign.

"I am here in Normandy in a personal capacity because I think it matters. Does he?"

The accusation that he was trying to defend himself against accusations of being a liar came after ITV News tweeted a clip of an interview with Mr Sunak.

Allegations that Mr Sunak was lying about the Labour Party wanting to raise tax by £2,000 were put to him.

The prime minister said this was "desperate" - and did not accept the claim was "dubious".

ITV's Paul Brand, who carried out the interview, later confirmed the chat took place after the PM came back from France - but ITV did not choose the time.

The £2,000 figure relates to alleged tax rises the Conservatives think Labour will put in place over the next four years - equating to £500 a year.

As Sky data and economics editor Ed Conway explained here - there are many flaws with the figure, and it ignores the fact the Conservatives have raised tax by £13,000 in the past five years if you use the same method.

It's just gone 10pm on what has been a reasonably quiet day on the election front - given the D-Day commemorations in Normandy - but there are still developments to bring you up to speed on. 

Notably, it's emerged the Conservative Party accepted fresh cash from donor Frank Hester days after the prime minister had condemned "racist and wrong" comments he made about Diane Abbott.

Here is what you may have missed:

• Labour said Rishi Sunak has "proven he is a man with no integrity" after accepting more money from Frank Hester;
• This includes a £5m donation in January, and another £150,000 in March , which came after the prime minister had condemned his comments about Labour's Diane Abbott;
• As a reminder, it was reported earlier this year that - in 2019 - he'd said Ms Abbott should be "shot" and made him "want to hate all black women" ;
• Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey has called on the PM to return the cash, while his party have pledged to introduce a cap on political donations;
• More polls are showing Reform catching up with the Conservatives;
• Labour has faced accusations it has U-turned on support for Waspi women who claim they are owed pension compensation;
• Elsewhere, Scottish Conservative leader Douglas Ross has officially announced his plans to stand at the general election;
• The move prompted Sky  chief political correspondent Jon Craig  to examine so-called "chicken run" Tory candidates;
• The Green Party  has pledged to spend £50bn a year more on the NHS through those with "broadest shoulders" paying more;
• The party also ditched a pledge made on its website to "reduce" childbirth interventions;
• In lighter news, veterans minister Johnny Mercer defended himself - and his "tender meat flippers" - after he was pictured barefoot on a train.

Sky News is also looking for people to be in the audience for its leaders' programme with Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer .

The Battle For Number 10 will air from 7pm next Wednesday.

Here are some other stories you might want to read:

Our essential political podcast,  Politics At Jack And Sam's ,  is going out every weekday through the election campaign to bring a short burst of everything you need to know about the day ahead as this election unfolds.

Listen to today's edition below… 

Tap here to follow Politics At Jack At Sam's wherever you get your podcasts .

The Sky News live poll tracker - collated and updated by our data and forensics team - aggregates various surveys to indicate how voters feel about the different political parties.

See the latest update below - and you can read more about the methodology behind the tracker  here .

Nadine Dorries, who was one of Boris Johnson's most loyal allies, has predicted the party is facing "annihilation" and might "disappear".

The former culture secretary has laid the blame at the feet of Rishi Sunak for not paying attention to Reform and UKIP and allowing them to take votes off the Conservatives.

Ms Dorries has been a prominent critic of Mr Sunak since she failed to get an honour on Mr Johnson's resignation list.

She was also asked about her opinions on allies of Mr Sunak - like party chairman Richard Holden - being given new seats to stand in .

Ms Dorries told the News Agents podcast it's "incredibly disgusting actually".

She said she and others were "reeling from the shock of it".

This morning we reported news that the Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross would stand in a seat where the party's expected candidate is recovering from surgery.

Mr Ross had announced he was standing down as a Westminster MP to concentrate on his job as an MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament) ahead of the 2026 Holyrood election campaign.

But with 24 hours left for nominations to be confirmed, he announced he will be standing in the new Aberdeenshire North and Moray East constituency.

The expected candidate, David Duguid, has just released a statement disputing claims from his own party that he was "unable to stand" due to his recovery.

'I am very saddened'

"This is simply incorrect," he said.

"Having been adopted by local members, I was very much looking forward to campaigning - albeit in a different format from normal. 

"It was not my decision not to stand."

He said the Scottish Conservatives made the decision without visiting him and without any "professional medical prognosis".

"Needless to say I am very saddened by the way this whole episode has unfolded, and it would be wrong of me to pretend otherwise," he added.

Our chief political correspondent Jon Craig has described the ordeal as "highly unusual" and said it "looks like a shabby stitch-up".

To close out tonight's Politics Hub With Sophy Ridge , her panel discussed whether manifestos make a difference to general elections.

These documents - which we expect to be start being published next week - contain the detailed set of policies each party wants to enact if it enters government.

Charlie Rowley , who was previously an advisor to Michael Gove, highlights the 2017 general election.

It was after the Conservatives and Theresa May published their manifesto that a row erupted over her social care plans - which contributed to the party losing significant ground in the polls.

He suggested that something "too bold" being in the Labour manifesto could see a similar change in electoral fortunes.

You can read more about Mrs May's manifesto woes in our Campaign Heritage post here .

Andy Street , who was until last month's shock election defeat the Tory mayor of the West Midlands, is speaking with  Sophy Ridge .

Seen as a totem of the centre ground in the Conservative Party, Mr Street lost his job to Labour by fewer than 2,000 votes.

He calls on Tories to try not to overly focus on Nigel Farage and the threat of his Reform party.

Instead, the Conservatives need to focus on the centre ground.

Tories shouldn't focus on 'core voters'

Mr Street points out how every major political change in the past 100 years has come from the middle.

Mr Street highlights Stanley Baldwin, Neville Chamberlain, Harold Macmillan, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and David Cameron as examples.

Pursuing the party's "core voters" - like pensioners and the wealthy - will see the Tories "cede the middle ground".

He says his message to the party is that "the real battle is with Labour and the Lib Dems over the middle ground".

"We're all obsessed with what Nigel Farage is doing at the moment - but that is just one flank," he says.

"The real debate is in the centre."

 Controversy around political donations has erupted again today after it emerged the Tories had received yet more money from their top donor Frank Hester.

That's despite him having made comments about Labour's Diane Abbott that the prime minister said were "racist and wrong".

It prompted our  deputy political editor Sam Coates to dive into the numbers - many of them strikingly large - behind how our political parties get their money...

Be the first to get Breaking News

Install the Sky News app for free