Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 3:11 am Post subject: homework for 6/8/2010
Actively read both packets.
Please choose an "option" from the packet that begins on page 25 with "Option 1" that you think is the best choice for American foreign policy after WWII. Write at least a paragraph explaining why you think this is the best option (on the forum). Use the background information in the packet that begins with page 20 to back up your opinion.
I will start with the choices that I would unoquivocally not choose. I would never choose options 1 or 4. Option 1, yes it avoids agression on part of the soviets and does try to force them into peace, but we would then become the agressors that we wanted to stop in tohe first place, so definately NO. To option 4, Basically the US just wants to remain within itself. In this situation everyone who needs help will want to wage war on the US for not supporting them when they had already agreed in WWII and before. Although it would take us out of foreign affairs people would be so far against us for not doing anything (And we might fall into a depression if we aren't supplying others). Now picking which one I am for is difficult. I really like option 2 and 3. To Option 2. I really like this because It talks about war being inevitable anyways, so we have to do something. And instead of being full force against the soviets we are just opposing them from further expanding. This makes sense, but we want to avoid war as the US, so that is why I picked Option 3. (In order to make one the most believable I had to argue against the others in some way or another)
Option 3
I think Option 3 is the best option because it avoids war altogether. It puts us in a position where we can get along with the Soviet Union, who are also world leaders. We worked with them in WWII, why not allign with them? It doesn't seem fair that we impose our beliefs on them, why shouldn't they be communists? If we become friends maybe they will figure out our ways and realize ours are better, but they should find that out for themselves rather than have someone impose our beliefs on them. A problem that led to WWII was that nobody helped rebuild Germany and they were put into great debt. If we put the USSR into suchj a financial situation they will think we are against them, and they will become more agressive. We must see this from their point of view. They are probably scared of us due to our lack of honesty in the war. Therefor dismantleing any atomic warfare or alliances that may seem threatening can deter a hatred of the US withing russia. This is a peaceful solution and thats what was really needed. Also by giving russia so much we could make a good economy without waging war. If this solution doesn't work however and the USSR still wishes to expand and dominate the US can move to option two, but I feel that Peaceful solutions should be tried before violence.
Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:10 am Post subject: Follow up on my thing, I forgot something
Another thing I forgot to add. There are many countries in support of the USSR so if we can make peace with all of them by utilizing option 3, we won't have to wage war. These countries include Poland, czechoslovakia and many others of eastern Europe. Also the Soviet Union lost Millions of people, many more than the US or Britain or France: 10,000,000 military and 15,000,000 civilian deaths while the US and french and british only lost somewhere in the hundreds of thousands in total. Obviously Russia needed help and if we help them rebuild, it might deter them from necesitating another war. Its like what happened to germany
To me, the option 2, ‘Contain Soviet Communism’ seems the ideal choice for American foreign policy after WWII. It is simply to set up barrier with other capitalist nations against the Soviet Union. It would prevent communism from spreading over free nations in Europe. From the historical record excerpted from a telegram sent by George Kennan from the U.S. Moscow embassy, it says ‘USSR still lives in antagonistic ‘capitalistic encirclement’ with which in the long run there can be peaceful coexistence.’ This sentence indicates the impossibility of peaceful coexistence in different two ideologies as well as the inevitability of American confrontation with the Soviet Union. If the war is necessary, US would better convince free nations of its idea which is capitalism than isolate itself from foreign entanglements. Using the packet, I am giving a supportive material to the option 2; 14.5 billion dollars (the defense budget of United States) 15.5 billion dollars (the defense budget of Soviet Union)/ 5,000,000 (the armed forces that US has), 5,000,000(the armed forces that the Soviet Union has). Comparing to two statics, I think that the Soviet Union would be willing to fight against US because it is pretty similar with US in terms of military support. What if Great Britain and France, two democratic nations form alliance with US and support capitalist, the Soviet Union would be afraid to expand its power. "Soviet power, unlike that of hitlerite Germany, is neither schematic nor adventuristic. For this reason, it can easily withdraw-and usually does- when strong resistance is encountered at any point."
I don't like all the options, but if i ought to choose one i think i would choose option three because it is the closest to the policy of the world that we are living. I agree with the statement saying "peace is only achieve able when the whole world same goal." I totaly agree with that statement because comflict happens whenever there are more than one different opinions (goal). Although it might seems like U.S dominating, but it is true that we need some that who can actually lead the world (Option 3). I definately don't want to see the world led by soviet. It will make everything different.
I agree with Option 3 because it is the option that would avoid another war the best. This option states, " while we reject the Soviets' economic and political system, we share a mutual desire for peace", which is what everyone wants in the world. Nobody enjoys a war unless its the people manufacturing weapons, because then they would get money. I agree that "economic assistance for the Soviet Union and those countries within orbit" would help rebuild peace in the world. The Soviets feel "insecure" with their place in the world and the US (currently being the strongest nation) must help to show the Soviet Union that there is nothing to fear. Then peace can be worked on to be restored to its fullest.
I think that Option 3 is the best becuase it keeps peaceful relations between the United States and the Soviet Union. However, I don't agree with the part of this argument that says "after losing more than twenty million people in the last war, the Soviets are naturally fearful of outside threats. This explains the actions of the Soviet Union in Europe". There was no doubt that Stalin was greedy for more power and land and fought aggressively against vulnerable nations like Poland. I believe, however, that America should not boss other countries around and try to turn them into democracies. This will only lead to further conflict between America and the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union will definitely not become a democracy or free captured nations under these cirumstances. America and the Soviet Union should trade helping each other economically instead of competing until the end seperately. Nations can get more done when they are unified. I also disagree with number 4 which says that America is overseas from Europe and therefore has no impact on it. America and Europe depend on each other in various ways like helping each other if one nation was aggressive to another. In this case, America can fight, but generally it should try to stay neutral and not overly bossy.
I don't really like any of the options, but if I had to choose I would go with Option 2. Option 2 was to contain Soviet Communism. I believe that the U.S. couldn't ignore the soviets desire to expand communism because i think there was a relatively high chance they would achieve this goal if they had no opposition. However, if there was opposition there is evidence to believe that the soviets would stop expanding. For example, " The Iran crisis of early 1946 showed that the Soviets will back down when faced with determined opposition."(29) I also believe that the economic part of this option is accurate. It would actually be saving money because if there were to be a war, then it would cost much more than option 2 would. I approve of opposing communism but not to the extreme of option 1 because " Hitler taught us that appeasing aggressors does not achieve lasting peace. It only postpones the confrontation and makes it more costly." (26) So I don't want to completely ruin the Soviets but I also don't want to postpone the confrontation. I believe option 2 to be a pretty good medium between the two.
Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 7:33 am Post subject: Eli 6/7
Caution: Political Views. I didn't do much research, this might be skewed. I do have a book called "The Wall: Growing Up Behind the Iron Curtain" by Peter Sis that talks about life in the U.S.S.R. I also skimmed some books in the Library about the Soviet Union.
This seems like a classic example of "pick your poison." I don't think that any of these options are ideal, but perhaps some are better than others. I would be in favor of option three, except that I don't believe it is possible. What may be important to mention is the actual state of affairs in the U.S.S.R. There were too many fundamental differences in society which put the Soviet Union and the United States at odds. It seems as if their public majority was dissatisfied with the government, but unable to act, or seek help.
Their society was formed on the basis of Marxism-Leninism, which suggests that the ideal environment, the worker's paradise, is achievable if the government controls all property, and distributes wealth among the citizens. This sounds really cool, and it took root in a number of countries in the 20th century, including China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and other satellite states of the U.S.S.R. The problem, however, was that the Bolsheviks overlooked human desire. They instituted a system where all wealth passed through the government before being redistributed. This provided constant temptation for the government to skim funds off of the national revenue, because the government controlled the economic environment. Corruption was inevitable, and soon government officials held a disproportionate amount of money. Much of this was put into military spending. In an attempt to uphold their power, the government enforced many restrictions on things that we take for granted as rights in America. For citizens, poverty was rampant, supplies and food were short. The only way to survive was to buy and sell favors and contraband in the black market. Stalin's Secret Police, the NKVD monitored the public; silencing, arresting, deporting, and executing anyone who was deemed "counter-revolutionary". It was a mess, to say the least.
Having said all this, I would have to choose option two, which closely fits the Truman Doctrine and the US's course of action. "The policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." This cemented the US's role as an interventionist; protecting its interests, and those of its allies. Although this option caused many proxy-conflicts, it avoided all-out War between Nuclear Superpowers. It is difficult for me to choose any other option, because the ramifications would be too numerous to count.
Last edited by edalven on Wed Jun 09, 2010 1:33 am; edited 1 time in total
Like Eli said, none of the options seem good enough. It seems that either way a war will break out. I was going to pick option 4 which would leave America out of battels and disagreements with other nations all together but then I read Zacks post I realized that the decision could be deadly for the United States. Yes we would be out of the dispute all together but what happens when the US needs help, and if they dont get involved then what happens to their prosperity. the United States has often increased economicly due to their influnce on the war (ie. supplying weapons to Britan). What if everyone else is growing/ helping out other nations through loans, where will the USA be as far as the world powers?
Option 3 as tempting as it seems is IMPOSSIBLE FOR USA & option 1 is classic America; I would choos option 2 which basically says keep things the way they are at any cost...there should really be some better options.
None of the options are exactly ideal but option 3 seems to make the most sense. The idea of focusing on the things the soviets and Americans have in common and agreeing to disagree as much as possible seems as closer to a peaceful solution than any of the other options get. It proposes to co-exist and that seems like the fairest way to go about this issue. The second more ‘desirable’ option seems to be option number 2, to contain the soviet communism and not let it spread. Although seeming more violent it seems in the interest of the world at the time if the soviets are really that bad of an influence….
Posted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:41 am Post subject: Re: homework for 6/8/2010
Is the ‘foreign policy’ means political relationship with foreign country? Hmm…
None of four opinions is reasonable option for American Foreign policy. Basically, US fears spreading of communism. We need to focus on encumbering the growth of communism, which also means we should be aware of the development and reaction of Soviet Union on opinion of America.
Option 1, 2, and 3 are rather aggressive, and has high possibility to oppress Soviet Union much and become a cause of another war. Opinion 4 is isolationism. This has lower possibility of causing war, but also not a solution of the problem.
If I must choose one, I’ll pick option 3 as the solution. Compromise is one of best way to solve problem. The success of this opinion is depending on neighboring countries’ reaction on communism and capitalism. To minimize the expansion of communism toward middle-Asian country, America should keep Greece and Turkey, two countries in boundary of communism and capitalism as we can clearly see in the map on second page, secure, providing both financial and military support in order to encourage not choosing communism.
None of the options seem ideal, to me. Option 4 seems like the best choice. Avoiding foreign entanglements seems like the best option because often, America acts before it thinks. They make relations and then soon afterwards they become obsolete. America's ideals are not shared by the rest of the world. Trying to force others to believe your ideals ultimately leads to disaster. Especially after a major war, America should just leave everyone lese alone and focus on improving themselves first.
Option 2
The Soviet Union is trying to take a sphere of influence around its border to make it more secure and prestigious. The problem with this is they are forcing country’s that do not want to be communist into communism. The Soviet Union is comparable to a dictator at the moment, trying to force their rule onto others. By strengthening democratic countries on the border of the Soviet Union with our military, they have the ability to go against the invading Soviets. Also, we help prevent financial add, for example we helped Greece’s government from collapsing. Our military is strong eunuch to protect others as well as our selves. It is believe that we will retain our superiority with atomic weapons for at least five to ten years. The Soviets will have little to do with the fear of being bombed by a nuclear weapon. If we educate America and eastern Europe then the will allow them to understand that the Soviet Union is trying to destroy our way of life.
I would rather choose option2 than other options. The reason why i choose option2 is that, in my opinion, compromise with communism would cause troubles in the future. US needs to prevent the Soviet Union's expansion. If Soviet Union(SU) expands the communism time goes by, it harder for US to stop it. The reason why SU could expands the communism strongly is that that time was right after the WW2, so many countries had poor economy. Therefore, they have not much choice but communism. By choosing option2, US could prevent communism effectively such as aid the eastern Mediterranean and Japan to enable them to resist against the communism. This aid could discourage the exapansion of communism. Also, i think that showing the millitary force to SU is a good idea. Showing the millitary force means 'Do not challenge our country.' It effective because we can avoid the war.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
