1. Study Source 7. According to this source, how serious was the Soviet nuclear threat?
According to source 7, the Soviet nuclear threat was a very large threat. this source is stating things such, that the Soviet Union could easily bomb the U.S. at any time, and their nuclear bomb cabability was growing. It was threatening that the Soviet Union could bomb nuclear bases in the U.S., causing a disasterous situation.
2. What measures is Source 7 calling for?
The measures source 7 are calling for are "greatly increased air warning systems, air defences and vigorous dvelepoment and implementation of a civil defense program" Basically, source 7 is implying that greater defense mechanisms are necessary.
3. How would you describe the tone of Source 7? Use examples of words and phrases in the text to support your answer.
I would describe the tone of source 7 as scared or threatened, perhaps worried. This can be seen through the quote "seriously damaging vital centres" and "and thus seriously hamper the ability of the United States to carry out an attack" These two quotes show concern and worry to what the Soviet Union is capable of.
4. Study Source 8. What criticisms are made of Source 7?
The critisisms made of source 7 in source 8 are basically that source 7 was extremely exaggerated, that source 7 made the Soviet Union seem to be far mroe of an enemy than it really was at the time. Another critisism being that during the time the report came, the Korean War was going on, which made people, including president Truman, believe that the report was "valid"
5. Do you think the author of Source 7 wanted to increase tension and the risk of war? If not, what were his motives?
I do believe the author of source 7 wanted to increase the tension and risk of war, but not in a bad way. I believe the author just wanted to make the U.S. aware of the circumstances and perhaps just to have people on gaurd in case something really bad were to happen. i do also think another one of hi9s motives was to have the national defense increased in case something were to happen, even if the risk was less likely than he made it out to be.
6. Do the criticisms in Source 8 mean that Source 7 is not a useful historical source? Explain your answer.
I do not believe that just because source 8 has critisisms of source 7, that source 7 is not useful as a historical source. Source 7, although, exaggerated, is still useful as a historical source because it gives readers an idea of how every one felt, or what people were hearing during the time. Source 8 just proves that what they were hearing about, wasn't completely true, but that doesn't change the fact that this is the type of report people were encountering during the time.
Showing posts with label Truman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Truman. Show all posts
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Monday, May 7, 2012
Berlin Blockade Document Analysis
1. What type of document is this? What is its purpose?
These documents are memos or "Memorandum" to the president. The purpose of these memos are to inform the president of the situation in Berlin at the time.
2. When was it written? Why is that significant?
These documents were written on June 30th 1948. This is significant because this is prior to the Berlin airlift, when supplies were brought in to supply citizens of Berlin.
3. Who created the document? Who received the document?
The Document was created by the CSI, specifically Hillenkoetter and was received by the president of the united States.
4. Who is Marshal Sokolovsky?
Marshal Sokolovsky was the head of Russian officials, he also started the meeting that is being referred to in the document.
5. How did the CIA get information of the meeting between Marshal Sokolovsky and German members of the German industrial committee?
The CIA got this information from a trusted person/spy. This is known because there is no name given but the information is said to be true and reliable.
6. What were the three Soviet alternatives as they presented themselves when this document was written? What policy did the Soviets pursue over the course of the next nine months? Why?
The three Soviet alternatives as they presented themselves when this document was written were to start a war, life travel restrictions on Berlin or "leave entire Berlin to west, giving them the rail line." The policy the Soviets pursued over the course of the next nine months was to have Berlin become part of the Soviet's zone in order to keep it from the West, and the other three options, were not necessarily options that could be executed.
These documents are memos or "Memorandum" to the president. The purpose of these memos are to inform the president of the situation in Berlin at the time.
2. When was it written? Why is that significant?
These documents were written on June 30th 1948. This is significant because this is prior to the Berlin airlift, when supplies were brought in to supply citizens of Berlin.
3. Who created the document? Who received the document?
The Document was created by the CSI, specifically Hillenkoetter and was received by the president of the united States.
4. Who is Marshal Sokolovsky?
Marshal Sokolovsky was the head of Russian officials, he also started the meeting that is being referred to in the document.
5. How did the CIA get information of the meeting between Marshal Sokolovsky and German members of the German industrial committee?
The CIA got this information from a trusted person/spy. This is known because there is no name given but the information is said to be true and reliable.
6. What were the three Soviet alternatives as they presented themselves when this document was written? What policy did the Soviets pursue over the course of the next nine months? Why?
The three Soviet alternatives as they presented themselves when this document was written were to start a war, life travel restrictions on Berlin or "leave entire Berlin to west, giving them the rail line." The policy the Soviets pursued over the course of the next nine months was to have Berlin become part of the Soviet's zone in order to keep it from the West, and the other three options, were not necessarily options that could be executed.
7. Stalin stated in a speech on February 9, 1946, "he [Stalin] blamed the last war on 'capitalist monopolies' and warning that, since the same forces still operated, the USSR must treble the basic materials of national defense such as iron and steel, double coal and oil production, and to delay the manufacture of consumer goods until rearmament was complete." Who are the "capitalist monopolies?" How does this statement enlighten the Soviet viewpoint against the United States? Were the Allies justified in cancelling the shipments of German reparations to the Soviets at the end of World War II? Why did the Soviets rely so heavily on Germany for food and industry?
The capitalist monopolies were basically America and anyone who decided with along side with America. This viewpoint shows that Stalin believed we were basically taking over everything in an unfair way and that we were becoming this huge "monopoly" perhaps against the Soviets. The allies were justified in cancelling the shipments of German reparations to the soviets at the end of WWII because Stalin was trying to make all countries go communist, and he really needed Berlin in order to do so, so cutting off such things made it hard for him to take over Berlin, seeing as America was in the way. The soviets relied heavily on Germany for food and industry because of their geographic location, seeing as the Soviet Union was along side Germany, as well as other countries take over by Stalin and turned Commie.
The Berlin Blockade and Airlift
1. What is Source 37 (p. 75) saying about Josip Tito, leader of Yugoslavia?
Source 37 is implying that Tito has obviously accepted help from America in the form of money. This is implied because of the Americans dropping coins into the leader's hands. This source is also showing that Tito may have betrayed his country by accepting financial aid, because of his cloak, marking him as a betrayer.
2. Why do you think Stalin was so hostile to Tito?
I believe Stalin was very hostile to Tito because he had accepted help from America. This obviously would've angered Stalin because this was putting the country into a higher economic state, meaning the country would be less in favor of communism. This also gave America an upper hand because the Marshall Plan was working, at least with Tito.
3. Look back at the map in Source 27 on page 71. How does the geographical position of Yugoslavia help to explain why Stalin did not take any direct action (such as sending in troops) against Tito?
The geographical position of Yugoslavia is right next to a bunch of countries, whom were against The Soviet Union in WWII; therefore Stalin not sending in troops was a good idea on his part, because these surrounding countries easily could have pitched in to fight against Stalin's troops.
4. Read Source 40 (p. 77). What reasons did the Soviet Union give for cutting off West Berlin?
The Soviet Union said that there was technical difficulties, this being the reason for cutting off West Berlin. They cut off electric supply and a "shortage of coal was given as a reason for this measure"
5. Why do you think the USA did not believe these were genuine reasons?
The USA did not believe these were genuine reasons because in reality, America was in control of the west, as said by the reading, "He could do nothing about the reorganization of the western zones, or the new currency, but he felt that he could stamp his authority on Berlin" Perhaps he didn't want part of America's guidance to get supply from the Soviet Union.
6. How do Sources 41–43 differ in their interpretation of the blockade?
These sources differ in their interpretation of the blockade by the different perspectives of each of the sources. For instance, source 41 seems as though it is a mediating source, the source is neither in favor of one side or the other. However source 42 is much more on America's side, saying that we were resisting so much, but source 43 was in favor of the Soviet Union stating that America's plans had been reduced due to the USSR. All three sources give a different interpretation of the blockade.
7. Which do you think is the most useful source for a historian studying the Berlin Blockade?
I believe both source 42 and 43 are most useful for a historian studying the Berlin Blockade because these two sources are from both the perspective of America and the Soviet Union. This would give the Historian a better view of how people felt on both sides of the blockade.
8. Which source do you think gives the most reliable view of the blockade?
I think source 40 gives the most reliable view of the blockade because it is by a historian, and is not from a view which believes one side was greater than the other, therefore giving a more fair view of the blockade from both sides. This source is less likely to be exaggerated as well, so it could be more accurate in that way too.
Source 37 is implying that Tito has obviously accepted help from America in the form of money. This is implied because of the Americans dropping coins into the leader's hands. This source is also showing that Tito may have betrayed his country by accepting financial aid, because of his cloak, marking him as a betrayer.
2. Why do you think Stalin was so hostile to Tito?
I believe Stalin was very hostile to Tito because he had accepted help from America. This obviously would've angered Stalin because this was putting the country into a higher economic state, meaning the country would be less in favor of communism. This also gave America an upper hand because the Marshall Plan was working, at least with Tito.
3. Look back at the map in Source 27 on page 71. How does the geographical position of Yugoslavia help to explain why Stalin did not take any direct action (such as sending in troops) against Tito?
The geographical position of Yugoslavia is right next to a bunch of countries, whom were against The Soviet Union in WWII; therefore Stalin not sending in troops was a good idea on his part, because these surrounding countries easily could have pitched in to fight against Stalin's troops.
4. Read Source 40 (p. 77). What reasons did the Soviet Union give for cutting off West Berlin?
The Soviet Union said that there was technical difficulties, this being the reason for cutting off West Berlin. They cut off electric supply and a "shortage of coal was given as a reason for this measure"
5. Why do you think the USA did not believe these were genuine reasons?
The USA did not believe these were genuine reasons because in reality, America was in control of the west, as said by the reading, "He could do nothing about the reorganization of the western zones, or the new currency, but he felt that he could stamp his authority on Berlin" Perhaps he didn't want part of America's guidance to get supply from the Soviet Union.
6. How do Sources 41–43 differ in their interpretation of the blockade?
These sources differ in their interpretation of the blockade by the different perspectives of each of the sources. For instance, source 41 seems as though it is a mediating source, the source is neither in favor of one side or the other. However source 42 is much more on America's side, saying that we were resisting so much, but source 43 was in favor of the Soviet Union stating that America's plans had been reduced due to the USSR. All three sources give a different interpretation of the blockade.
7. Which do you think is the most useful source for a historian studying the Berlin Blockade?
I believe both source 42 and 43 are most useful for a historian studying the Berlin Blockade because these two sources are from both the perspective of America and the Soviet Union. This would give the Historian a better view of how people felt on both sides of the blockade.
8. Which source do you think gives the most reliable view of the blockade?
I think source 40 gives the most reliable view of the blockade because it is by a historian, and is not from a view which believes one side was greater than the other, therefore giving a more fair view of the blockade from both sides. This source is less likely to be exaggerated as well, so it could be more accurate in that way too.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Iron Curtain Separates Europe
1. What is your overall impression of Source 26 (p. 70) and use extracts from the source to support your view. (No fence sitting; you must choose one but not both)
• a reasonable assessment of Stalin’s aims based on the facts
• an overreaction to Stalin’s actions based on fear of and prejudice towards the USSR?
My impression of source 26 is that this is a reasonable assessment of Stalin's aims based on the facts. As the source states, "not only is the soviet government prepared to co-operate with any non- communist controlled government in eastern Europe" I find this to be an accurate statement; based on this quote, it is obvious that Stalin wouldn't let the countries in Eastern Europe just have their own government, because that's not what Stalin stands for. What Stalin would really like is for the countries to be communist like his, that way he wouldn't have to deal with other government types that he's not a fan of.
2. Source 26 is a British source. Does it seem likely that similar documents were being produced by the American government?
Seeing as America and Britain were more so on the same page and closer bonded compared to the Soviet Union with either of them, it would make sense that America was producing similar documents like source 26. In addition, there's no doubt that these types of things were discussed amongst both America and Britain, which would also imply that documents like this were being produced in America too.
3. Study Source 27 (p. 71) and make a list of three different actions that Communists took to achieve power in eastern Europe. Explain how each factor helped.
• a reasonable assessment of Stalin’s aims based on the facts
• an overreaction to Stalin’s actions based on fear of and prejudice towards the USSR?
My impression of source 26 is that this is a reasonable assessment of Stalin's aims based on the facts. As the source states, "not only is the soviet government prepared to co-operate with any non- communist controlled government in eastern Europe" I find this to be an accurate statement; based on this quote, it is obvious that Stalin wouldn't let the countries in Eastern Europe just have their own government, because that's not what Stalin stands for. What Stalin would really like is for the countries to be communist like his, that way he wouldn't have to deal with other government types that he's not a fan of.
2. Source 26 is a British source. Does it seem likely that similar documents were being produced by the American government?
Seeing as America and Britain were more so on the same page and closer bonded compared to the Soviet Union with either of them, it would make sense that America was producing similar documents like source 26. In addition, there's no doubt that these types of things were discussed amongst both America and Britain, which would also imply that documents like this were being produced in America too.
3. Study Source 27 (p. 71) and make a list of three different actions that Communists took to achieve power in eastern Europe. Explain how each factor helped.
One of three actions that Communists took to achieve power in eastern Europe was that communists became the biggest party in 1947 elections, as well as imprisoning opposition politicians. This was helpful in achieving power in eastern Europe because if communism was leading in power, then everyone would be more willing to listen to Stalin as well as his ideas. Another step the communists took in order to take control of eastern Europe was that the communists took over Albania right after the war, therefore helping them by giving them one more country and more land. Lastly, in 1945 in Romania a communist prime minister was elected and y 1947 the monarchy there was abolished. This was helpful because it turned the country into a communist country just like Soviet Russia as well as getting rid of the monarchy making the country only communist.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
Truman's Decision to Drop the A-Bomb
1. Who was Harry S. Truman's Secretary of War?
Stimson
2. Who was Truman's Chief of Staff?
Admiral William D. Leahy
3. Why did Truman believe nuclear bombs needed to be used?
Truman thought nuclear bombs needed to be used in order for "unconditional surrender" to be achieved.
4. Why did Admiral Leahy believe nuclear bombs didn't need to be used?
Admiral Leahy believed the nuclear bombs were not necessary because he believed Japan was already ready to surrender due to the sea blockade and "successful bombing on the main land."
5. Why did Supreme Allied Commander and future president Dwight D. Eisenhower believe they didn't need to be used?
He believed they didn't need to be used because he thought Japan had already been defeated as well.
6. Critics of Truman fall into two camps. One was that he acted rashly because of his "inferior foreign policy skills" when compared to FDR. What is the other major criticism?
The other major criticism was that since there was such a large amount of money spent on the Manhattan project, that he may have felt pressure to follow through with the action that had been tested.
7. Key critics of Truman's use of the bomb weren't on the "historical fringe," but were who?
The key critics were his secretary of war as well as Admiral Leahy.
8. Truman began to soften on his stance for unconditional surrender but something occurred that changed his mind for good. What was that?
The something that occurred that changed his mind for good was the successful Trinity test of the atom bomb.
9. Besides defeating Japan what was Truman's other possible motivation for using the nuclear bombs on Japan?
Truman's other possible motivation for using the nuclear bombs on Japan was that he realised how powerful and what relevance the nuclear bomb actually had in significance to the postwar relationship between the U.S. and The Soviet Union.
10. At Yalta Stalin promised to enter the war against Japan once Germany was defeated. Conventional thinking said this if the Soviets began fighting against Japan.
If the soviets began fighting against Japan then Japan would obviously be defeated.
11. The four-power surrender ultimatum to be presented to Japan was to be written and decided upon where?
The Potsdam Conference
12. What did the Washington Post editorialize about "unconditional surrender"?
The Washington Post editorialized the the unconditional surrender that the surrendering terms had been softened.
13. What is the significance of Paragraph 12 in the draft copy of the Potsdam Proclamation prior to Truman setting sail on the USS Augusta? (More detail is needed for this question)
The significance of paragraph 12 in the draft copy of the Potsdam Proclamation prior to Truman setting sail on the USS Augusta is that paragraph 12 had originally "gave the Japanese comfort with regard to the maintenance of their emperor" However, by the time Truman arrived at the conference, the paragraph had been removed and changed so that the comforting part about the Japanese Emperor had been removed. The thing that had changed all of this was said to be the success of the Trinity test.
14. What changed when the Proclamation was publicly announced on July 26?
When the proclamation was publicly announced on July 26 was that paragraph 12 had been removed and altered.
15. According to the author, what might have changed Truman's mind to alter the wording in Paragraph 12? (More detail is needed for this question)
According to the author, the thing that may have changed Truman's mind to alter the wording in Paragraph 12 was the success of the Trinity test. According to the reading, "the bomb seems to have shifted from a tool for ending the war with Japan to one that could establish America's primacy in the postwar global balance of power" This was the cause for Truman changing his mind and altering the wording of paragraph 12.
16. Regarding his diary entry of a conversation with Winston Churchill (who is call "P.M." in the entry) what does the author suggest about Truman's attitude with the bomb despite learning what he does from Churchill?
The author suggests about Truman's attitude with the bomb despite learning what he does from Churchill is that Truman had already been planning to use the bomb, even though Japan was ready to surrender.
17. What does his caption on the back of the photo of Stalin and Truman suggest about the use of the bomb?
The caption on the back of the photo suggests that Truman anticipated a great effect by the atom bomb on Japan and also that he "harbored an almost playful sense of rivalry" with Stalin.
18. "From a foreign policy perspective" what two accomplishments were made by dropping the bomb?
The two accomplishments made by dropping the bomb were ending the war with Japan as well as firing the first shot in the Cold War with the Soviet Union.
19. To give credit to Truman, why didn't he know what FDR's intentions were with the bomb?
He didn't know what FDR's intentions were with the bomb because when he was a senator and a vice president he knew very little about the Manhattan project, therefore he knew little about the bomb in general. FDR also died before Germany's surrender so he couldn't have known what FDR actually wanted.
20. How did the discrepancy between the loss of 1 million U.S. soldiers lives versus 20,000 to 40,000 if Japan's mainland would have been invaded, affect the understanding of their use?
This affected the understanding of their use because it made the general public understand why nuclear bombs were used rather than normal invasion, because more lives would've been lost.
21. Based on your readings, this reading, and discussion in class, in a paragraph or two, answer the following: To what extent was President Truman's decision to drop bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?
President Truman's decision to drop the bombs on Japan was not justified. Although there are many reasons as to why Truman dropped them, it wasn't necessary in the least. It is known that Truman didn't know what FDR wanted to do with the bombs, but this is no excuse. If Truman didn't know, he shouldn't have done anything. In addition, Truman may have done it in order to signify postwar power for the U.S. or to fire the first shot in the Cold War with , yet the Soviet Union again, stupid reasons. The last thing we needed was to go into the Cold War with the Soviet Union and to use the bombs to help signify the power of the U.S. just seems cocky. As the reading says, Japan had already been defeated and had been ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped, making the bombs being dropped, overkill. It wasn't necessary and it killed so many people. It would be one thing to have dropped the bombs if Japan had not been defeated or ready to surrender, but when they were, the bombs were still dropped, making the dropping of the bombs unjustified.
Stimson
2. Who was Truman's Chief of Staff?
Admiral William D. Leahy
3. Why did Truman believe nuclear bombs needed to be used?
Truman thought nuclear bombs needed to be used in order for "unconditional surrender" to be achieved.
4. Why did Admiral Leahy believe nuclear bombs didn't need to be used?
Admiral Leahy believed the nuclear bombs were not necessary because he believed Japan was already ready to surrender due to the sea blockade and "successful bombing on the main land."
5. Why did Supreme Allied Commander and future president Dwight D. Eisenhower believe they didn't need to be used?
He believed they didn't need to be used because he thought Japan had already been defeated as well.
6. Critics of Truman fall into two camps. One was that he acted rashly because of his "inferior foreign policy skills" when compared to FDR. What is the other major criticism?
The other major criticism was that since there was such a large amount of money spent on the Manhattan project, that he may have felt pressure to follow through with the action that had been tested.
7. Key critics of Truman's use of the bomb weren't on the "historical fringe," but were who?
The key critics were his secretary of war as well as Admiral Leahy.
8. Truman began to soften on his stance for unconditional surrender but something occurred that changed his mind for good. What was that?
The something that occurred that changed his mind for good was the successful Trinity test of the atom bomb.
9. Besides defeating Japan what was Truman's other possible motivation for using the nuclear bombs on Japan?
Truman's other possible motivation for using the nuclear bombs on Japan was that he realised how powerful and what relevance the nuclear bomb actually had in significance to the postwar relationship between the U.S. and The Soviet Union.
10. At Yalta Stalin promised to enter the war against Japan once Germany was defeated. Conventional thinking said this if the Soviets began fighting against Japan.
If the soviets began fighting against Japan then Japan would obviously be defeated.
11. The four-power surrender ultimatum to be presented to Japan was to be written and decided upon where?
The Potsdam Conference
12. What did the Washington Post editorialize about "unconditional surrender"?
The Washington Post editorialized the the unconditional surrender that the surrendering terms had been softened.
13. What is the significance of Paragraph 12 in the draft copy of the Potsdam Proclamation prior to Truman setting sail on the USS Augusta? (More detail is needed for this question)
The significance of paragraph 12 in the draft copy of the Potsdam Proclamation prior to Truman setting sail on the USS Augusta is that paragraph 12 had originally "gave the Japanese comfort with regard to the maintenance of their emperor" However, by the time Truman arrived at the conference, the paragraph had been removed and changed so that the comforting part about the Japanese Emperor had been removed. The thing that had changed all of this was said to be the success of the Trinity test.
14. What changed when the Proclamation was publicly announced on July 26?
When the proclamation was publicly announced on July 26 was that paragraph 12 had been removed and altered.
15. According to the author, what might have changed Truman's mind to alter the wording in Paragraph 12? (More detail is needed for this question)
According to the author, the thing that may have changed Truman's mind to alter the wording in Paragraph 12 was the success of the Trinity test. According to the reading, "the bomb seems to have shifted from a tool for ending the war with Japan to one that could establish America's primacy in the postwar global balance of power" This was the cause for Truman changing his mind and altering the wording of paragraph 12.
16. Regarding his diary entry of a conversation with Winston Churchill (who is call "P.M." in the entry) what does the author suggest about Truman's attitude with the bomb despite learning what he does from Churchill?
The author suggests about Truman's attitude with the bomb despite learning what he does from Churchill is that Truman had already been planning to use the bomb, even though Japan was ready to surrender.
17. What does his caption on the back of the photo of Stalin and Truman suggest about the use of the bomb?
The caption on the back of the photo suggests that Truman anticipated a great effect by the atom bomb on Japan and also that he "harbored an almost playful sense of rivalry" with Stalin.
18. "From a foreign policy perspective" what two accomplishments were made by dropping the bomb?
The two accomplishments made by dropping the bomb were ending the war with Japan as well as firing the first shot in the Cold War with the Soviet Union.
19. To give credit to Truman, why didn't he know what FDR's intentions were with the bomb?
He didn't know what FDR's intentions were with the bomb because when he was a senator and a vice president he knew very little about the Manhattan project, therefore he knew little about the bomb in general. FDR also died before Germany's surrender so he couldn't have known what FDR actually wanted.
20. How did the discrepancy between the loss of 1 million U.S. soldiers lives versus 20,000 to 40,000 if Japan's mainland would have been invaded, affect the understanding of their use?
This affected the understanding of their use because it made the general public understand why nuclear bombs were used rather than normal invasion, because more lives would've been lost.
21. Based on your readings, this reading, and discussion in class, in a paragraph or two, answer the following: To what extent was President Truman's decision to drop bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?
President Truman's decision to drop the bombs on Japan was not justified. Although there are many reasons as to why Truman dropped them, it wasn't necessary in the least. It is known that Truman didn't know what FDR wanted to do with the bombs, but this is no excuse. If Truman didn't know, he shouldn't have done anything. In addition, Truman may have done it in order to signify postwar power for the U.S. or to fire the first shot in the Cold War with , yet the Soviet Union again, stupid reasons. The last thing we needed was to go into the Cold War with the Soviet Union and to use the bombs to help signify the power of the U.S. just seems cocky. As the reading says, Japan had already been defeated and had been ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped, making the bombs being dropped, overkill. It wasn't necessary and it killed so many people. It would be one thing to have dropped the bombs if Japan had not been defeated or ready to surrender, but when they were, the bombs were still dropped, making the dropping of the bombs unjustified.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
The Potsdam Conference
1. Read Source 17 (p 68). At Yalta, Churchill and Roosevelt had agreed with Stalin that eastern Europe would be a Soviet ‘sphere of influence’. Do you think Source 17 is what they had in mind?
No, they would not agree with Stalin's views because what Stalin is basically stating in both sources that he is going to try to take charge of eastern Europe. This would not be seen as good by Churchill and Roosevelt because these two were thinking more that Stalin would be simply guiding eastern Europe, not taking it over.
3. Explain how each of the three developments described in the text might affect relationships at Potsdam.
First of all, the fact that Stalin's armies were controlling most of eastern Europe was obviously a problem. Stalin was claiming that this was a method of protection for future attacks, but in reality he was setting up a large communist government/rule all over soviet Russia as well as Easter Europe. This could affect the relationships at Potsdam because Churchill and Truman were obviously uncomfortable with this and didn't want this to be happening, making it an awkward situation. Secondly, because America had President Truman as president after Roosevelt died, it made a very uncomfortable situation for Stalin at Potsdam because Truman was much more anti-communist compared to Roosevelt. Lastly, since America had developed the atomic bomb, this could have made both Churchill as well as Stalin feel very inferior because all of a sudden America was a huge threat with this massive source of power.
"This war is not as in the past; whoever occupies a territory also imposes on it his own social
system. Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army has power to do so. It cannot
be otherwise." This obviously does not agree with the fact that the Soviet Union would solely be guiding the countries in eastern Europe, but would more so be controlling them to the greatest power that his army had power to.
2. Would they agree with Stalin’s views expressed in Sources 17 and 18? Explain your answer. No, they would not agree with Stalin's views because what Stalin is basically stating in both sources that he is going to try to take charge of eastern Europe. This would not be seen as good by Churchill and Roosevelt because these two were thinking more that Stalin would be simply guiding eastern Europe, not taking it over.
3. Explain how each of the three developments described in the text might affect relationships at Potsdam.
First of all, the fact that Stalin's armies were controlling most of eastern Europe was obviously a problem. Stalin was claiming that this was a method of protection for future attacks, but in reality he was setting up a large communist government/rule all over soviet Russia as well as Easter Europe. This could affect the relationships at Potsdam because Churchill and Truman were obviously uncomfortable with this and didn't want this to be happening, making it an awkward situation. Secondly, because America had President Truman as president after Roosevelt died, it made a very uncomfortable situation for Stalin at Potsdam because Truman was much more anti-communist compared to Roosevelt. Lastly, since America had developed the atomic bomb, this could have made both Churchill as well as Stalin feel very inferior because all of a sudden America was a huge threat with this massive source of power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)