National Cinema - Film 101 Assignment #3

National Cinema is difficult to define, but can be read in may ways in a text, it can be read in the way a Film is produced, with the director, actors, producers and language all being a contributing force. However, when these things are used together all with once major national influence it becomes apparent as to what is national cinema and what is not. Using the examples of Volver, The Orphanage and Pans Labryinth this will be shown. There are many types of national cimena and they all influence each other, with Hollywood influencing and the most dominant of them all.

National Cinema is, according to many, hard to define, however it is predominately used to define the movies and cinema produced by a single country (O'Regan) & (Triana-Toribio). The most widely known and easily recognizable examples of National cinema are Hollywood and India’s Bollywood. While it can be argued that Hollywood Cinema is not directly America’s national cinema it is a major contributor to all other forms of National Cinema, with many trying to replicate it. National cinema’s by replicating the way Hollywood Cinema is created try and fight the success it has on their market, by creating a piece of Cinema in a country that replicates Hollywood it streams the revenue back into the Nation and not into the large companies that produce Hollywood films.

A Domestic based or National cinema film-maker’s career will often be hinged on the success of getting their film into a Film festival like Sundance, Cannes or the other major international Film Festivals while also gaining entry into the Film festivals based in their own nation. For instance, a New Zealand Director may try to get his movie into the New Zealand Film Festival, while also trying to get it into Cannes or Sundance. The New Zealand Movie ‘Boy’, which was written and directed by Taika Waititi, and funded by the New Zealand Film commission, had its premiere at the Sundance Film Festival and another release at the Berlin Film Festival, there were both before its eventual theatrical release in New Zealand. What this shows is that the director’s aim was not only to have the film shown on a National level, but an international level. So while it can be argued that ‘Boy’ is an example of New Zealand national cinema, it has also been aimed for international release.

To gain commercial success, and also to break the international market, film makers will often outsource some of the production and acting responsibilities to foreigners, as this often helps them crack the international market and gain overseas distribution deals, big names will often pull bigger crowds (Pavlovic, Inmaculada and Blanc). This has happened with Spanish cinema, with movies like, The Others, and The machinist all staring big names, but remaining Spanish in origin. This idea can be translated into movies like Vantage Point and The Boy Who Stole a Million which are example’s of Films that have a Spanish setting but are a product of foreign cinema, with Vantage Point being an American production and The Boy Who Stole a Million being a British production. Having big budget movies filmed on location, is good for tourism but can also create the illusion that the film is National Cinema, when it is only a product of ‘location filming’. Over the years these movies and other co-productions have added to the outside influence on Spanish cinema (Triana-Toribio). Hollywood and other film industries looks to film on location because it presents a more authentic feel then a sound stage or creating a set does.

Volver is a 2006 Spanish film directed by Spaniard Pedro Almodovar. It was Co-produced by Pedro’s brother Agustin and another Spanish producer Esther Garcia, who had previously funded Pedro’s films. While he was filming Volver, Pedro kept a short diary as to what the movie was about, in an attempt to explain its origin, he explains how it is about death, but not just death itself, it also is about the culture surrounding death in the area where he grew up (Almodóvar). It also brings up the topic of Sex abuse, and how the character, Paula, finally dealt with the struggle that it caused her when the character of Paco, tried to rape her, which then resulted in his death while she is defending herself. Towards the conclusion of the film, the protaganist, Raimunda, played by Penelope Cruz, also finds out that Paula is not only her Daughter, but also sister, due to her fathers sexual abuse on her. This film deals with many issues facing families. Pedro cited his upbringing as a major influence on his ideas for this Film, with many of the Characters and plot segments based loosely on parts of his childhood surroundings. This reference to his childhood helps to create a more authentic feel to the movie, as he is drawing from experiance, but is not re-creating it.

Volver can be seen as an example of national cinema because in a few different ways. Firstly, the setting, it is set in the La Mancha region of Spain, just south of Madrid, which is also the birthplace of the Films director. Another reason is the production; the director, Pedro Almodovar, the producers, Agustin Almodovar, Esther Garcia and Toni Novella are all Spanish, The music was scored originally by Alberto Iglesias, and the editing, casting, cinematography were Spaniards. Another example is the title of the film its self, Volver, which is Spanish for ‘Return’ or ‘To come back’, is a theme in the film, the characters begin by returning to a village in memory of the mother who died in a house fire years previously. This mother then later, through a series of events, returns to reveal that she was never in fact diseased. Finally, the language, the main language of the film is Spanish. All these things are examples then when used together show that Volver is an example of Spanish National cinema and not a product of Hollywood or any other national cinema made to look Spanish.

The Orphanage (2007) is the debut film of Spanish film maker Jaun Antionio Bayona, and was written eleven years previously by Sergio Sanchez. It is a Spanish/Mexican co-production but it has a primary Spanish influence, with its Director, writer, actors and language being Spanish. The Orphanage once again deals with death as a revoling theme, the dissaperance and eventual death of the character Simon, the search by and eventual death of Laura, as well as dealing with the deaths of Thomas and the other orphans. Another theme is also childhood, with the movie revolving around a game created by Simon and the ghost, or memory, or Thomas. These two main themes eventually mix, with the Game leading to the discovery of the deseased orphans in the furnace.

We can read The Orphanage as an example of spanish national cinema because of the heavy Spanish influence. The three main actors in the film are Spanish, giving the film a feel and look of a Spanish production, the effect of doing this familiarizes the viewer with the nation, it clearly identifies the protagonist’s as Spanish as they look more natural and the accents are natural. Also the setting of this movie was set in the Asturias region of Spain, as Bayona felt that this gave the best representation of his vision of Spain and how well it would work for the film (New Line Cinema). However, there were certain restrictions to this area, aspects of filming that Bayona wanted to achieve could not be achieved in the house its self so filming of these took place in sound stages in Barcelona. Jaun Antionio took inspiration from other Spanish films La residencia and The Innocents and showed both to the Director of Photography, as he wanted to re-create or imitate the scope lensing used in these films (New Line Cinema). However, the producers behind it, including Guillermo Del Toro, are a mix of Spaniards and Mexican’s, which can lead to questions about the films nationality, however, the primary reason for turning to the Mexican producers was to double the budget and the filming duration, as to create the movie how the directer wanted.

El laberinto del fauno (2006), the Spanish title of the Mexican/Spanish co-production ‘Pans Labyrinth’ is an example at how a film can be a co-production with a setting in a country different to that of it’s production unit. Written, directed and produced by Mexican, Guillermo del Toro, Pans Labyrinth is set 5 years after the Spanish civil war (1944) and follows one girl, Ofelia’s, travels into a mystical world with the aid of a Faun, who helps her challenge her identity as human and get released into the mystical world as Princess Moanna. This film can be read as a product of Spanish national cinema because of its setting, 1940’s war torn Spain, its language, Spanish, and its primary actors, with the exception of one, being of Spanish origin. However, its producers range from Spanish and Mexican origin, leading to question as to what National cinema this film represents. The Music production was also created and Scored by Javier Navarrete, who originates from the Spanish region of Teruel. However the Cinematography and editing was done by Mexicans. This Once again calls into question the nationality of the film.

In both The Orphanage and Pans Labyrinth there is continued used of blue, the use of this, at times, highlights the sadness of the characters. All three movies highly feature Children, and also death as themes. While these things are not unique to Spanish cinema, with film makers from all over the world using them, they are useful in these films to help portray the message of the film across to the viewer.By seeing this color it helps veiwers to come to terms with what they are seeing on the screen, as they are seeing a familiar color in a time of emotion. When mixed with other cinematography techniques and the films score it can create a representation to the viewer of their own country (Insdorf). As in Volver, the soundtrack for the Orphanage was composed and scored by a Spanish man, Fernando Velazquez. This is another way we can read this text as a product of Spanish national cinema. Having a person of Spanish origin score the movie allowed for a more personalized background for the movie, in doing this the composer can use unique sounds that would be relevant for Spanish viewers in turn representing their own country back to them. Part of how we can view a film as national cinema is the way it is created for example, the production unit behind it.

The differences in nationality of the production unit involved in creating a film doesn’t nessacarialy show that the film is a product of that national cinema. As the term national cinema is hard to define, it is open to interpretation. Movies like Pans Labyrinth which is a co-production between two nations, but is so heavily set in and features one particular nation, can be perceived as national cinema. Movies like Volver, which is not a co-production can be percived to be Spanish national cinema because of the heavy involvement of Spain, in setting, directing, casting, acting and language. Movies that clearly are not Spanish national cinema but still have a spanish influence in some respect, for example Vantage Point and The Boy Who Stole a Million, are examples of big budget corporations taking advantage of the pituresque Spanish area.

All three of these movies first premiered at Film festivals, Pans Labyrinth at the 2006 Cannes film festival Volver also premiered at this festival, and won two awards, One for best screenplay, and the other for best actress. The Orphanage opened a year later at Cannes in 2007, where it received a 10 minute standing ovation (thinkSPAIN). However, their Spanish Debut’s came later, with Pan’s Labyrinth being released in October of 2006, Volver’s premier being in March 2006 in Puertollano, where it was filmed. The Orphanage opened the Sitges Film Festival, and had its Spanish release in October of 2007. Together the box office receipts from these movies total $245,155,439 (USD) (Box office Mojo), with $57,037,080 (USD) being domestic. What this shows is that through these movies Spanish cinema is starting to crack the international market, while there is still the art house productions for the Spanish audiences, more and more productions are being created with the international viewership in mind.

With these major influences from outside markets and the Spanish influence on outside markets, some actors, actresses, directors and other players in Spanish cinema have gained international recognition. Such actors being Antonio Banderas, who had previously worked on a number of Spanish productions, including many with Pedro Almodovar, before gaining international success in American blockbusters. Penelope Cruz is another example, having worked on numerous Spanish productions before international Success. Directors have become international stars thanks to their work on Spanish cinema, Pedro Almodovar has gained worldwide recognition for his Film making, as well as many of the pioneers of Spanish cinema, Segundo de Chomon and Luis Bunuel are other examples. This international success has also highlighted Spain as an attractive destination for American blockbusters and in part tourism, much like Lord of the Rings did for New Zealand. With many Big budget American movies being shot in Spain since the late 1960’s. Jaun Antonio Bayona’s movie, The Orphanage, which is currently undergoing a rewrite for an American remake, has stated that while a remake of his movie is an honour, Americans have money to produce and make anything they want, but, as with his own movie, they choose to mostly re-create successful movies (Sitges Film Festival). 

Although the first Spanish films are argued, it is believed that they were released in 1897, two years after the first Spanish film exhibition, the early term for film festival, these movies were among the first of motion picture, but were still silent. Over the years Spain has created many great silent films, which reached international success. However, the Civil war in 1936 caused a divide in the way people viewed and thought about Spanish cinema, it began to contain heavy Political messages, either for or against Francisco Franco. However, by the 1950’s the emergence of neo-realism and co-productions with France and Italy revitalized the Spanish national cinema, and moved it away from the heavily political fuelled industry it had been since the outbreak of Civil war (Hopewell). However, it can be in turn argued that today’s National cinema in Spain isn’t solely of Spanish influence, the artistic outlook of the French and Italian cinema’s during the times of Co-production lead to many directors starting to use more artistic elements of cinematography. Also around this time, the emergence of big American financed productions in Spain began to arrive, leading to yet more influence on the Spanish cinema. However, with these productions came work, giving the local cinema industry workers to practice their skills and become better allowed them to then transfer their skills back to the national cinema.

National cinema can be shown in a text by the way it is presented and produced, if the production unit, acting base, music, language and setting are all of one nation it is much easier to determine what is national cinema, the example given, Volver, is evidence of this. This is also true for when there is a mixed base for the production unit but still hase a primary influence with all other aspects of the film, as in the example The Orphanage. It becomes more difficult to determine what is national cinema when the production unit is od a different nationiaity than that of the actors, setting, language and music as in Pans Labryinth. While the definition of national cinema is still difficult to define, the way it is shown in a text is much easier, which also makes spotting imitations, and location filming as not national cinema. The exapmle given, Spanish national cinema, as well as all other major national cinemas, is influenced by others, no one nation can simple say that their cinema is unique.

Bibliography

 

Almodóvar, Pedro. Pedro Almodóvar, Official Site. 1st January 2006. 25th October 2011 <http://www.clubcultura.com/clubcine/clubcineastas/almodovar/eng/diario01.htm>.

Anderson, B. “Introduction.” Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London & new York: Verso, 1983. 1-8.

Babington, B. “Introduction: The New Zealand Fiction Feature Film: History, Theory, Practice.” A History of the New Zealand Fiction Feature Film. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2009. 1-12.

Box office Mojo. Foreign Language. 25th October 2011. 25th October 2011 <http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=foreign.htm>.

Hopewell, John. Out Of the Past: Spanish Cinema After Franco. London: BFI Books, 1986.

Insdorf, A. “Three Colors: White.” Double Life, Second Chances (1999): 153-164.

New Line Cinema. The Orphanage. 1st January 2007. 23rd October 2011 <http://newline.com/cm_downloads/pr/orphanagethe_productionnotes_1.pdf>.

O'Regan, T. “A National Cinema.” Australian National Cinema (1996): 45-76.

Pavlovic, Tatjana, Inmaculada Inmaculada and Rasana Blanc. 100 Years of Spanish Cinema. John Wiley and Sons Ltd: Blackwell, 2008.

Sitges Film Festival. J.A. Bayona: 'The important things are emotions, not awards' . 9th October 2008. 26th October 2011 <http://sitgesfilmfestival.com/eng/noticies/?id=1002893>.

thinkSPAIN. 'El Orfanato' left off Oscar shortlist . 16th January 2008. 26th October 2011 <http://www.thinkspain.com/news-spain/13815/el-orfanato-left-off-oscar-shortlist>.

Triana-Toribio, Nuria. Spanish National Cinema. London: Taylor Francis Ltd, 2002.

New Zealand History Paper.

Nineteenth-century settlers were attracted to settle in New Zealand for many reasons. It’s resource pool that had remained untouched. It’s ability to provide a new start far from the reaches of Europe’s problems. Over the course of the Nineteenth-century there were many different types of settlers, the rich and the poor, the opportunists and the families they all came to New Zealand with the hopes of starting up a great New Country.

The first settlers to arrive in New Zealand were mostly whalers and sealers in the late 1790s. Settlers searching for flax and timber and wood came later towards the beginning of the 1800’s.[1] The majority of the timber that was produced in the early years of New Zealand settlement was being exported to Sydney. By 1839 a third of all males were involved in the timber trade, with the whalers and sealers moving on soon after coming to New Zealand as this was a seasonal trade. It was a common trend for the whalers to move on again until the mid-1820s when shore based whaling began. There were around 770 men employed in these whaling stations in 1843 with numbers in each reaching up to 80.[2]

Many of these settlers were men who came from whaling ships which they had either deserted or been discharged from there were also some convicts who had been given their tickets of leave or had been put there on purpose, these men arrived at the beginning of the nineteenth century. [3]It was because of this that early New Zealand became very popular with escaped or released convicts as well as ship deserters; it was not known how many of these men were in New Zealand however as they were constantly moving around trying to evade the law. Many sealing gangs, a prominent trade in early nineteenth century New Zealand were made up of these and ex-convicts.[4] Many of these convicts hailed from Australia; however they had been convicted and originally sent from parts or England and Ireland.[5]

One settler, Joel Polack, noticed that a lot of settlers from Western Australia were unsatisfied with the dry, arid landscape of Western Australia for New Zealand.[6] Many of these ‘unsatisfied’ arrivals came to set up in the newer colonies of Wellington or Nelson. This led to an attempt in the early nineteenth century to attract settlers directly from the United Kingdom, this led to the formation of the New Zealand company in London in 1825, the aim of this company was to attract British settlers to the Thames and Hokianga regions of New Zealand, however when the first batch of settlers arrived in 1826, they met fierce Maori opposition and the project was abandoned.[7]

In 1940, when New Zealand became part of the British Empire, these sealers, whalers and the slow but steady stream of arrivals, turned into waves of immigrants. By 1845, a steady stream of government officials, merchants and other independent arrivals had been joined by land purchasers and the re-vamped New Zealand Company and its affiliates. Many had decided to emigrate from Europe, mainly the United Kingdom because of uncertain economic times, with the “benefits of industrialisation to the mass of the people” still unknown. [8] While the farmers were the most sought after as their numbers were heavily outweighed by all other forms of industry, repeated attempts to lure them to New Zealand had only drew small numbers and while some did emigrate they were still heavily outnumbered.[9] In 1842, a number of around 350 immigrants hailing from the Paisley region of Scotland immigrated to New Zealand, upon arrival they made up a large section of the new settlement of ‘Auckland’ population.

The discovery of Copper in 1844 attracted immigrants from Southern Australia, who had emigrated there from the Cornish regions of England to mine the Copper for a fresh start from the overcrowded mining towns in these regions. [10] The copper was first discovered on Kawau Island, an island off the coast of Auckland. This copper mine also drew many miners straight from the United Kingdom directly, with its population swelling to around 300. It was these miners who opened and ran the Auckland copper mines until they ran into problems with the mines flooding and shipping. [11] Once the mines closed many of the Cornish miner’s moved onto the Manukau, Franklin and Raglan districts to open farms.[12]

Colonization of New Zealand was achieved by obtaining land from the local Maori or through the British crown then selling it onto the investors and speculators. This was largely done by the re-vamped ‘New Zealand Company’ in their “Systematic colonization” effort. [13] However, the company never stated that to buy land in New Zealand you had to have an intention on actually settling there, with many areas of land being sold to speculators who had no intention on settling.[14] However, due to reports of local Maori hostility and legal issues with the land the company later suspended its activities.[15] The Treaty of Waitangi rendered the New Zealand Company’s actions useless as it stated that Maori could no longer sell land to anyone aside from the British Crown.[16] Shortly after all its land sales were frozen and its previous sales were put under investigation. This freezing of land led to a shortage of land for the arrivals that were arriving by the boat load. However, these restrictions were slowly relaxed once an agreement that the Company bought land from the crown as a lower price and all transactions were given under the supervision of the crown. [17] The money that the government made from these sales was directed back into drawing migrants out to New Zealand.

The early settlement of Wellington was in the area of what it now the Hutt Valley, but due to constant flooding and a harbour area that was very shallow forcing ships to berth around 1500 meters out to sea the settlement was moved into what is now Thorndon.[18] However the settlers encountered problems with the local Maori in the Te Aro region, the land that they were surveying was owned and inhabited by the local tribes. It had been bought off them for use by the settlers at the price of items such as guns, iron pots, shark teeth and pencils.[19] Although it was soon discovered that this land had been sold by a young Chief who only owned a small proportion of the land as he wanted to assert dominance over the other local tribes, the remaining tribes had not been consulted or paid for their land and put up a fight when the settlers began to work the land in preparation for building and farming. [20] The Maori eventually received land, that was originally theirs, back but only equal to around one tenth of the size it had been and was integrated with the European settlers.

In order for the British crown to keep control over New Zealand it created the Treaty of Waitangi, which superseded the Declaration of Independence of New Zealand that was signed in 1835.[21] However, this document wasn’t received well by the crown and work began on drafting up a new document to counter it. On February 5^th copies of the treaty in both Maori and English were put forward for debate. With debate over it lasting many hours, some tribes came out in support and some were strongly against it. The treaty established a British rule over New Zealand and its native people the Maori. However the Maori translation read it differently and they believed that they had given right to sovereignty in return for protection. It was eventually signed by the Maori and English on the 6^th of February. The treaty also allowed Maori to sell their land directly to the Crown, allowing for more settlers to arrive in New Zealand. It was also hastily drafted and signed to avoid the French, who were attempting to settle as well, from doing the same.

New settlers left Europe, in search of a new life with better resources and a more plentiful land. They saw New Zealand as having these traits, as it was so far away from any other land mass it had been one of the last countries settled and thus it had remained untouched by civilization, and its resources had remained with only the local Maori utilizing them. At first the Maori were welcoming, however, the confusion over the Treaty of Waitangi and the subsequent disagreement as to what it meant caused the New Zealand Wars. A Group of Maori who was opposed to the sale of land to Settlers or the Crown began taking actions against those settlers and the Maori who gave up their land. This led to the crown protecting their citizens as the Maori had been declared citizens by the Treaty of Waitangi. This unease and tension went against the picturesque New Zealand that the settlers and the crown had been trying to achieve as a punishment land was seized from Maori. [22]

The departing expectations of the European settlers in the Nineteenth Century were that a new life could be started away from all the hassles of Europe. There was plenty of land to start their own farms and make some money from them. It was also seen by the early settlers as having a vast resource pool, for instance, the miners saw that there was plenty to be mined as the Maori were incapable of doing so. The whalers and sealers saw the opportunity to have a base in the south pacific for the whaling season before moving on to the next area. These expectations were realised, however the later settlers not so much, the Treaty of Waitangi left many without land that had been promised to them by the New Zealand Company. The local Maori became hostile and thought that they had been cheated out of their land however once an agreement was reached between all parties New Zealand thrived into the country it is now.

  

---

[1]A.Earle, A narrative of nine months’ residence in New Zealand in 1827. London, 1832 

[2] Statistics of New Munster, New Zealand, from 1841 to 1848. Wellington, 1849. 

[3] Jack Lee, ‘I have Named It the Bay Of Islands, Auckland. Hodder and Stoughton. 1983.

[4] Thomas Dunbabin, ‘Whalers, sealers, and buccaneers,’ Journal and proceedings of the Royal Australian Historical society XI, Part 1, 1925, pp.1-32; 

[5] James Jupp, general editor, The Australian people: an encyclopaedia of the nation, its people and their origins. North Ryde, 1988, pp.326-334, 

[6] J.S.Polack, Manners and customs of the New Zealanders with notes corroborative of their habits, usages, etc., and remarks to intending emigrants. Two volumes, London, 1840, Volume 1, p.2. 

[7] Jock Phillips and Terry Hearn, Settlers: New Zealand immigrants from England, Ireland & Scotland, 1800-1945, Auckland, 2008. http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/files/documents/peopling1.pdf.

[8] Eric Richards, Britannia’s Children: Emigration from England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland since 1600, London, 2004.

[9] Rollo Arnold, The Farthest promised land, Wellington, 1981.

[10] G.F.Angas, Savage life and scenes in Australia and New Zealand: being an artist’s impressions of countries and peoples at the Antipodes. London, 1847, Volume 1, pp.285-286. 

[11] "The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, Part 2". Inset to The New Zealand Herald: pp. 12. 3 March 2010.

[12] Joanne Robinson, Werrington to Waiuku: a history of the Barriballs of Waiuku. Auckland, 1997. 

[13] James Belich, Making peoples; a history of the New Zealanders from Polynesian settlement to the end of the nineteenth century. Auckland, 1996, 

[14] Ruth Allan, Nelson: a history of early settlement. Wellington, 1965, 

[15] Patricia Barnes, Fatal Success: A History of The New Zealand Company, Heinemann Reed. Auckland. 1989.

[16] NZ History, Treaty of Waitangi: ‘The Treaty in Brief,’ 16^th June, 2011 Accessed on 26^th September 2011.

[17] Patricia Barnes. Ibid.

[18] Edward Jerningham Whakefield. Adventure in New Zealand: ‘From 1839 to 1844: With some account of the Beginning of the British Colonization of these Islands’. Volume, 1. John Murray, London. 1849

[19] Patricia Barnes. Ibid.

[20] Angela Caughey, The Interpreter: Biography of Richard Dicky Barett. Auckland. David Bateman. 1998.

[21] Caroline Fitzgerald. Te Wiremu- Henry Williams: Early years in the North. Huia Press. 2011.

[22] James Belich. The New Zealand Wars. 1988. Penguin. 

American History, Nuclear Weapons and The Cold War

The Atomic bomb project, also known as the Manhattan Project, was undertaken between 1941 and 1945 and created jobs for 120,00 people.[1] The first test of these Atomic bombs was in New Mexico; once this test had proven successful two bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ultimately ending the Second World War. These Japanese targets were chosen because of their immediate proximity to war depots or other military outposts. It was also determined that the strike on these targets should be done as soon as possible and without warning to create the maximum amount of shock. This action created unease between the American’s and the Soviet Union which then in turn ultimately led to a nuclear arms race and the eventual development and testing of the Hydrogen Bomb.

The reasons for developing the Atomic bomb, under the codename The Manhattan Project’ was to beat the opposing forces of Germany, Italy and Japan into developing their own, as many émigré scientists from these nations had commented on how close each nation had been to making the discoveries that would allow them to do so. Although by 1944, it was discovered that these nations had given up the hunt for such a powerful bomb, the Americans continued to develop the bomb. Once the war in Europe had ended, attentions were directed to the war in the Far East with Japan. The goal of creating the Atomic bomb was to force the Japanese into surrender and thus ending the Second World War.[2] This goal was achieved after dropping the Atomic bombs on the two Japanese cities. The deployment of these bombs and the surrender of the Japanese also halted any Soviet invasion on the Japanese Isles, as they had declared war on Japan in the same month.[3] This stopped the Soviets from claiming and occupying any land in the Far East, which the Americans believed would increase their global presence, it also left the Soviets with some catching up to do in the nuclear arms race. This began the beginning of a long strain on the Soviet-American relations. The soviets began building and testing an Atomic bomb of their own, this lead to the American’s designing the much more powerful Hydrogen Bomb, to assert their dominance over Nuclear Weaponry two events which sparked the beginning of the cold war.

After developing the Atomic Bomb America looked for a way of stalling the development and production of the Atomic Bomb in other nations, namely the Soviet Union, as it wanted to avoid an Arms race and the threat of nuclear war. The United States had an Advisor, Bernard Baruch create a plan which, with the support of President Truman, called for  the creation of an International Atomic board which would have the power to regulate the development of Nuclear Weapons as well as having the power to Inspect and license all Nuclear Activity. The Russians, who saw this as an attempt to stall their progress and open their development plants for inspection and investigation on their progress had Andrei Gromyko, draft a treaty. This treaty called for a total ban on developing, manufacturing and deployment of Atomic Weapons, and all current stockpiles be dismantled and destroyed. However, due to the vast differences in each plan, and the lack of an agreement between Nations both plans failed to be put into action and an eventual Nuclear Arms race took place. [4] The failure of each nation’s plans highlighted the vast differences between the two nations and their approaches to nuclear armament at a time when the Cold War was already straining relations and trust issues between the two nations.

The relation between the nations was further strained after Winston Churchill’s Iron Curtain Speech.[5] The former British prime minister criticized the Soviet plan for Eastern Europe, and attacked its communist ideology and how it was expanding across Europe. Stalin then retaliated by claiming that they needed to exert a strong force in order to protect Europe from slipping back into the uneasy state it had been in, appropriately named ‘Soviet Security’, and insisted that there was a strong democratic form of government wherever they were providing this security. While on a diplomatic trip to the Soviet Union in 1947, George Marshall learnt that the Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin was certain that the war torn nations of France and Italy were on the verge of economic collapse, leading to his belief that the nation’s communist parties, which were much like his own, would win the respective 1948 elections. [6] In a speech given at Harvard University Marshall told the audience that many countries the confidence in the economy was ruined. He proposed that America should aid with the revival of the economies, to avoid poverty in these war torn nations. The acceptance of this plan, which became known as the Marshall Plan, came easily because of the growing fears of communism. The differences between Stalin’s response to Churchill’s speech and the information learnt by Marshall heightened the unease between the two Nations, as they were simply a year apart. In this year he had gone from firmly insisting that there was a Democratic government to believing that there would be communist rule in the near future.

America believed that the threat alone, of having nuclear weapons would be enough to deter the threat of war against them.[7] However, once it learnt that Britain, France, India, Pakistan and the more importantly the Soviet Union all being at different stages of development of their own atomic bombs,[8] The Hydrogen bomb’s development was given greater urgency, by President Truman. It had discovered the Russians had gained some success of their own in developing a form of Atomic bomb with a successful detonation in 1949.[9] The threat of nuclear war during the Cold War, with both the Americans and Soviets having access to Atomic and then Hydrogen bombs, led to a race to see which Nation had the most powerful and the largest stockpile of these weapons, as to impose a dominance.[10] The NSC-68 report estimated that the Soviet Union had approximately 200 Atomic bombs by 1954 with the capability of using aircraft to deploy them on United States Soil. It also pondered the implications of an attack on British Soil and other Western powers in Europe rendering it useless as a base in Europe for American forces. This document also recommended an increase in defense spending, as well as strengthening the Allegiance with other nations and it also embarked on a large propaganda campaign against the cold war. The Soviet Union also attempted to distill fear in America by installing Medium and Long range missiles in Cuba.[11] This was a response to the nuclear warheads that America had placed in Turkey previously. This armament race, placing of weapons and stockpiling was to attempt to instill fear and to gain the upper hand in the Cold War.

The use of Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki signaled the beginning of American nuclear dominance, and left other nations, such as the Soviets playing catch up. The actions also lead to a strain on the relations between the nations that ultimately led to the cold war and the threat of nuclear war. A threat that spawned documents like the American NSC-68, which called for the Americans to build a bigger defense, The Marshall Plan which aimed to stop the flow of Communism in war torn Europe and the American Baruch and Soviet Gromyko plans to stem the development and manufacturing of Atomic and Hydrogen weapons. The bombing of Japan signaled the end of World War two, but also signaled the start of the Cold War, which bought with it the impending threat of constant nuclear war, distrust and the deterioration of Soviet-American relations.

---

[1] James W. Davidson and Mark Hamilton Lytle, ‘The decision to Drop the Bomb’, After the Fact: The Art of Historical Detection, New York, 2005, pp.317-45.

[2] Richard Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the H-Bomb, 1995, New York, Simon and Schuster.

[3] Edward H. Judge and John W. Langdon (eds.), Cold War Documents, The Cold War: A History through Documents, New Jersey, 1999, pp.10-12. The Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima, August 1945

[4] Edward H. Judge and John W. Langdon (eds.), Cold War Documents, The Cold War: A History through Documents, New Jersey, 1999, pp. 20-22 The baruch and Gromyko Pans for Control of Atmic Weapons, 1946.

[5] Edward H. Judge and John W. Langdon (eds.), Cold War Documents, The Cold War: A History through Documents, New Jersey, 1999, pp. 14-17. Churchill’s Iron Curtain Speech, March 1946.

[6] Edward H. Judge and John W. Langdon (eds.), Cold War Documents, The Cold War: A History through Documents, New Jersey, 1999, pp. 26-28. The Marshall Plan, 1947.

[7] Johnson, N, M. Interview held during a meeting with William T, Golden.  Washington, D.C. 1989.

[8] McKinzie, R, D. Interview held during a meeting with Major General Kenner F. Hertford. Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1974.

[9] Rear Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, Handwritten letter. 1949, Florence, Italy.

[10] NSC 68; United States objectives and programs for national Security’ (Sections); Available from http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsc-hst/index.html; accessed 21^st September 2001.

[11] Charles S. Maier, ‘Frontiers and forces in the Cold War’, Among Empires: American ascendary and its predessors, Cambridge, 2006, pp.155-190, 325-32.