UNIV 3539 Blog

A GROUP WEBLOG FOR THE PEOPLE'S CENTURY I UNIV 3539.

November 3, 2007

Brave New World

With a blinding flash the world entered the nuclear age in 1945, bringing to an end the greatest calamity in human history. In the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the speculation grew (and continues today) that the A-bombs had been used?at least in part?to demonstrate American strength and resolution to the Soviet Union. The devil?s bargain of alliance with Stalin had rapidly degenerated as Nazi defenses collapsed. The seeds of the Cold War were sown well before VE-Day.

The postwar division of Europe was inevitable given the fact of Soviet military occupation. Unless the U.S. (and other Allies) went to war with the U.S.S.R. to liberate eastern Europe, Soviet control was a fait accompli. Postwar tensions (e.g. the communist revolution in Greece) quickly led to the development of the Truman Doctrine?the U.S. would seek to ?contain? the expansion of the Soviet empire by all means short of total war.

In Europe, the Iron Curtain (in Churchill?s eloquent description) would be the trip line for total war?hostilities between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. would rapidly escalate beyond diplomacy unless cool heads prevailed. When the Berlin crisis occurred in 1948, the U.S. monopoly on nuclear weapons undoubtedly deterred further Soviet aggression. Within a year, the monopoly ended and the nuclear arms race began. The arsenal of megadeath still stands poised for World War III.

Should (could) the western allies have freed eastern Europe from communism in 1945? Was Cold War a better choice (more cost effective, less deadly, etc.)?

Posted by

William M. at 7:34 AM CDT

Comments:

Brooke W.

says:

While the Western Allies did win World War II, they were devastated from the war just like their opposition. They did not have the money, stability, or man-power to pursue communism in eastern Europe in 1945. It may have been slightly more convenient seeing how the troops were already mobilized and there, but it was not a time to continue with what would have been a very violent affair. The Cold War, I feel, was a much better choice than all-out "hot war." People, infrastructure, and an entire nation wasn't destroyed to stomp out communism. The turn around came about slowly and in a less destructive way. While it did cost a great deal to be in the nuclear arms race, it probably would have cost alot more in a military campaign--not to mention the rebuilding costs. The two nations did chose a more indirect way to act through Third World countries, however; but a total war between the West and the Soviet Union would have been far more explosive than any other "secondary" war used by the two superpowers. The conflict was already there between the capitalist West and the communist East. The Cold War allowed those frustrations to be worked out without total war, especially another immediate total war if they would have pursued in 1945.

Posted on Sat, 3 Nov 2007 3:03 PM CDT by Brooke W.

Bessie J.

says:

It would have been a good time to free Eastern Europe from communism because Russia was at there weakest point, however, the US economy was in financial trouble. The US had already lost lots of people in WWII, every one was tired of war and the US would have probably been on their own--having no support from other allies. I don?t think they would have been very successful. At that particular time the Cold war was a better choice than WWIII. The Cold war was more cost effective and less deadly than WWIII would have been because again the US was already in financial trouble.

Posted on Sun, 4 Nov 2007 7:56 PM CST by Bessie J.

Lisette W.

says:

I don't think the western allies could have freed eastern Europe from Communism if they wanted to. Everyone was financially distressed after World War II, so they didn't have the resources to be able to do so. I also believe the Cold War was indeed the better choice. All out war between the two superpowers of the world at the time would have been devestating, both financially and in the way the countries would have been destroyed. Nuclear weapons would have been the weapon of choice, and we could not afford to do this.

Posted on Sun, 4 Nov 2007 7:59 PM CST by Lisette W.

Melanie L.

says:

I do not think the western allies could have freed Eastern Europe from Communism. All of this was going at a time when everyone was financially strapped. Not only was it a financially issue but it was also an issue of man power. So many had lost their lives during WWI. The western forced needed the opportunity to rebuild emotionally, financially, and militarily. The Cold War was a better idea than having WWIII. With both of the superpowers in possession of nuclear power the world we know today may not be. The cold war helped to save lives and money. Had there been a WWIII the world may have never recovered.

Posted on Mon, 5 Nov 2007 2:52 PM CST by Melanie L.

demia f.

says:

I think that it would have been impossible to recover from another world war, especially with all the nuclear weapons that were being produced by the superpowers. These new technological advances would have destroyed the world. The Aftermath of WWII left everyone in a destitute state, so yes I do feel that the cold war was a better choice. Yes, lots of people were lost, however, it wasn't comparable to WWII or the casualties that WWIII would have cost. I'm not sure that it would have been a wise thing to try to free Eastern Europe from Communism at this time due to the fact that there were internal as well as external factors prohibiting the U.S. and their allies to do this even though it was clearly aware that Europe needed to be rescued. The cost of another world war would have been overwhelming.

Posted on Tue, 6 Nov 2007 11:54 AM CST by demia f.

Amy C.

says:

I believe, like General Patton, the western Allies should have taken Russia immediately after WWII. If you remember, Russia did not get the Atom Bomb until Sept 1949. You know Stalin would have gotten it earlier if he could have. The bomb was devastating, but it worked with Japan. We didn?t even put troops on the ground. I?m not sure the U.S. could stomach dropping another bomb at that point. I didn?t believe we will ever truly know how much the Cold War cost monetarily and in human life. Many Russian lives would have been lost but also consider the thousands of lives the government murdered as traitors and the million they put in prison camps. NATO goes into countries now which treat their citizens like Russia did during the Cold War. Yes, everyone was tired of war and I?m sure we didn?t invade for fear of not getting and keeping support of Allies and the American people. I believe the Russian people needed to be liberated.

Posted on Tue, 6 Nov 2007 9:45 PM CST by Amy C.

Lafonda B.

says:

The Cold War did have a huge impact on the world's economy, but I don't think that it was anything compared to what the world would have faced if there had been another war. I really don't think that anyone was truly prepared for another war so soon. I really believe that the Cold War was the best and eventually it accoplished what needed to be accomplished with a lot fewer lives lost.

Posted on Fri, 9 Nov 2007 9:08 PM CST by Lafonda B.

Adam N.

says:

I think the Cold War was the better choice with a global war being the other option. As many others have stated, the United States needed to take advantage of the weakness of Russia at that time. The consequences of another war would be devastating to the entire world, which was still recovering from WWII, both mentally and economically.

Posted on Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:00 AM CST by Adam N.

Lindsey C.

says:

I think the US made a great chose on the Cold War instead of an all out war. During this time the US was already trying to rebuild its economy from WWII. Even though we had to pay a lot more for the cold war, at least our families weren't shipped over seas agian and being killled. I don't think we could have mentally been able to fight another war.

Posted on Thu, 15 Nov 2007 5:13 PM CST by Lindsey C.

Cordelia G.

says:

The western allies could not have freed eastern Europe from communism at all. The United States had already lost so much during World War II. Since the advancement to nuclear weapons, it would have been devastating to engage in another world war. Therefore, I feel that it was very beneficial that the United States and the Soviet Union did not engage in a global war. We would probably still be recovering as we speak. The Cold War was very expensive, but it may have cost a lot more in the global war.

Posted on Sun, 25 Nov 2007 10:03 PM CST by Cordelia G.

Allison S.

says:

Ideally, the western Allies should have intervened more than they did. The United States represents a freedom, and in this case, that freedom would be for those countries to be able to select their own forms of governments. The way it went, communism was forced on the people in much the same way that Hitler forced his ideas on the people of Poland and the other countries he invaded.
However, it can be seen why the western nations did not speak up. The costs, both in terms of finances and human lives, of another World War could not be risked. The world would never recover from it, and that is probably a main reason the western countries did nothing.

Posted on Sun, 2 Dec 2007 4:49 PM CST by Allison S.

Want to post a comment? Please Log in or Create an Account.