冷战结束，对现今世界政治局势发展有何影响？请讲解。
1个回答
展开全部
苏联解体，冷战结束，美国成为世界上主要的超级大国。 苏联的行动促使十二个西方国家于1949年4月组成“北大 西洋公约组织”(the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) ， 简称“北约”，藉以阻止苏联的扩张，最后，苏联被迫于 同年5月解除对柏林的封锁。 柏林危机导致德国分裂为东、西德。德国于1990年10月3日重新统一，结束了持续达41年的分裂局面。 .knowledge.yahoo/question/?qid=7007041403836 在冷战后期，历史学家们开始寻求一种后修正主义的解答。到冷战结束后，这一派观点已经占了上风。这派历史学家并不认为两个超级大国中的任何一国应该为冷战负全责，而是归咎于双方的误解与反应，两方都应对冷战负责。后修正主义学者追随了现实主义国际关系的看法，认为美国在欧洲的政策，如1947年对希腊的援助和马歇尔计划是必要的。 根据这种观点，「共产主义运动」并不是西欧困境的根源。相反，在经济、政治方面的全面战争，以及欧洲的社会结构才是其根源。而马歇尔计划重建了一个良好的欧洲经济体系，从而减少了极左势力在西欧的吸引力。对欧洲来说，经济援助结束了资金短缺， *** 了对战后重建的投资。对美国来说，该计划解决了生产过剩的问题，增加了美国对外出口。北约组织则将西欧国家纳入共同防御体系，从而避免了共产主义的扩张。后修正主义学派不认为共产主义具有扩张性，企图推翻「自由世界」，但是他们同时认为美国在欧洲的政策在确保欧洲的稳定方面是必要的，从而避免权力向苏联倾斜，最终危及到西方的经济、政治制度。 .knowledge.yahoo/question/?qid=7006121704377
参考: other
I believe what you are asking about after the cold war
so the previous wer
which look at the Marshall plan is quite irrelevant. I think there are 2 major schools of thought which consider your question and yield quite different wer. The first one is the liberalist. Scholars like Fukuyama had once famously addressed that the collapse of the USSR signified the victory of liberal democracy against muni *** - “the end of history ”and “a world made up of liberal democracies should have much less incentive for war.” Hence
all countries would (and should) now move towards democracy. This can be used as a justification for the US invasion of Iraq
as it is a mission to establish democracy. In short
if you are a liberalist
this will mean all countries will eventually bee democracies. The other school of thought is the realist (eg Waltz). They do not think peace has anything to do with democracy (or vice versa). They believe the key to peace is the balance of power is they see the international stage as an anarchy. Thus
the collapse of USSR me that balance no longer exist and the US is free to do whatever it wants until a new balance is established (eg the EU or China.) This can be used to *** yse the war in Iraq as well as it can be seen as US trying to benefit from the oil as it is the only super power. Those 2 are only very broad overviews. There are a lot more to those theories (even the liberalist have many branches) and I hope
they can help you for now.
参考: Me (I am studying Politics in university)
参考: other
I believe what you are asking about after the cold war
so the previous wer
which look at the Marshall plan is quite irrelevant. I think there are 2 major schools of thought which consider your question and yield quite different wer. The first one is the liberalist. Scholars like Fukuyama had once famously addressed that the collapse of the USSR signified the victory of liberal democracy against muni *** - “the end of history ”and “a world made up of liberal democracies should have much less incentive for war.” Hence
all countries would (and should) now move towards democracy. This can be used as a justification for the US invasion of Iraq
as it is a mission to establish democracy. In short
if you are a liberalist
this will mean all countries will eventually bee democracies. The other school of thought is the realist (eg Waltz). They do not think peace has anything to do with democracy (or vice versa). They believe the key to peace is the balance of power is they see the international stage as an anarchy. Thus
the collapse of USSR me that balance no longer exist and the US is free to do whatever it wants until a new balance is established (eg the EU or China.) This can be used to *** yse the war in Iraq as well as it can be seen as US trying to benefit from the oil as it is the only super power. Those 2 are only very broad overviews. There are a lot more to those theories (even the liberalist have many branches) and I hope
they can help you for now.
参考: Me (I am studying Politics in university)
已赞过
已踩过<
评论
收起
你对这个回答的评价是？
推荐律师服务：
若未解决您的问题，请您详细描述您的问题，通过百度律临进行免费专业咨询
