Editing Superpower (section)

== During the Cold War ==
{{Further|Cold War}}
{{See also|Soviet Union–United States relations}}
{{Synthesis|section|talksection=BE sourcing|date=March 2019}}
[[File:Cold War Map 1980.svg|thumb|This map shows two global spheres during the Cold War in 1980:
{{legend|#000099|[[NATO]] member states}}
{{legend|#6666ff|Other NATO and United States allies}}
<span style="color:blue">'''×'''</span> Anti-communist guerrillas
{{legend|#ff0000|[[Warsaw Pact]] member states}}
{{legend|#ff6666|Socialist states allied with the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact}}
{{legend|#ffcccc|Other allies of the Soviet Union}}
<span style="color:red">'''×'''</span> Communist guerrillas
{{legend|#ffcc33|Socialist states not allied with the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact}}
{{legend|#ccccff|Neutral nations}}
<span style="color:green">'''×'''</span> Other conflicts]]
The 1956 [[Suez Crisis]] suggested that [[British Empire|Britain]], financially weakened by two world wars, could not then pursue its [[foreign policy]] objectives on an equal footing with the new superpowers without sacrificing [[convertibility]] of its [[reserve currency]] as a central goal of policy.<ref>Adam Klug and Gregor W. Smith, 'Suez and Sterling', ''Explorations in Economic History'', Vol. 36, No. 3 (July 1999), pp. 181–203.</ref> As the majority of World War II had been fought far from its national boundaries, the United States had not suffered the industrial destruction nor massive civilian casualties that marked the wartime situation of the countries in Europe or Asia. The war had reinforced the position of the United States as the world's largest long-term creditor nation<ref>"Getting Serious About the Twin Deficits "by Author: Menzie D. Chinn – September 2005 by Council on Foreign Relations Press [http://www.cfr.org/economics/getting-serious-twin-deficits/p8933] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120402083705/http://www.cfr.org/economics/getting-serious-twin-deficits/p8933|date=2 April 2012}}</ref> and its principal supplier of goods; moreover, it had built up a strong industrial and technological infrastructure that had greatly advanced its military strength into a primary position on the global stage.<ref>[http://www.oldenburger.us/gary/docs/TheColdWar.htm The Cold War: The Geography of Containment] Gary E. Oldenburger by Oldenburger Independent Studies; December 2002</ref> Despite attempts to create multinational coalitions or legislative bodies (such as the United Nations), it became increasingly clear that the superpowers had very different visions about what the post-war world ought to look like and after the withdrawal of British aid to [[Kingdom of Greece|Greece]] in 1947, the United States took the lead in [[Containment|containing]] [[Soviet expansion]] in the [[Cold War]].<ref>Robert Frazier, 'Did Britain Start the Cold War? Bevin and the Truman Doctrine', ''Historical Journal'', Vol. 27, No. 3 (Sep. 1984), pp. 715–727.</ref>

The two countries opposed each other ideologically, politically, militarily, and economically. The Soviet Union promoted the ideology of [[Marxism–Leninism]], [[planned economy]], and a [[one-party state]] while the United States promoted the ideologies of [[liberal democracy]] and the [[free market]] in a [[capitalist]] [[market economy]]. This was reflected in the [[Warsaw Pact]] and [[NATO]] military alliances, respectively, as most of Europe became aligned with either the United States or the Soviet Union. These alliances implied that these two nations were part of an emerging [[Polarity (international relations)|bipolar]] world, in contrast with a previously multipolar world.<ref>[https://library.fes.de/libalt/journals/swetsfulltext/15222748.pdf "Ideology and the Cold War"], by Mark Kramer 1999</ref>

The idea that the Cold War period revolved around only two blocs, or even only two nations, has been challenged by some scholars in the post–Cold War era, who have noted that the bipolar world only exists if one ignores all of the various movements and conflicts that occurred without influence from either of the two superpowers.<ref>[http://www.signalalpha.com/Cold_War.html Conflicts of Superpower] by Signal Alpha News Achieve Press 2005</ref> Additionally, much of the conflict between the superpowers was fought in [[proxy war]]s, which more often than not involved issues more complex than the standard Cold War oppositions.<ref>[https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/fordham.htm Economic Interests, Party, and Ideology in Early Cold War Era U.S. Foreign Policy] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120928145126/https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/fordham.htm |date=28 September 2012 }} Benjamin O. Fordham by World Peace Foundation; Massachusetts Institute of Technology April 1998</ref>

After the Soviet Union disintegrated in the early 1990s, the term hyperpower began to be applied to the United States as the sole remaining superpower of the Cold War era.<ref name="Nossal" /> This term, popularized by French foreign minister [[Hubert Védrine]] in the late 1990s, is controversial and the validity of classifying the United States in this way is disputed. One notable opponent to this theory is [[Samuel P. Huntington]], who rejects this theory in favor of a multipolar [[Balance of power (international relations)|balance of power]]. Other international relations theorists such as [[Henry Kissinger]] theorize that because the threat of the Soviet Union no longer exists to formerly American-dominated regions such as Western Europe and Japan, American influence is only declining since the end of the Cold War because such regions no longer need protection or have necessarily similar foreign policies as the United States.<ref>Henry Kissinger, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=HhfceQZ3pmoC Diplomacy]'', pp. 24, 26</ref>{{clear}}