Evolution of Cold War opinions

My opinions about the Cold War have definitely evolved as I have become more informed. Originally I put most emphasis on the ideological aspect. Now I can see the role of ideological differences, however I can acknowledge that there were other factors contributing to the Cold War, especially the leaders, irrational fears ( this expands on ideological difference, diplomatic and very importantly the atomic bomb.
        Starting with the rulers, I understand that Stalin was more or less crazy around the time of the Cold War, if we consider the Cold War to begin around the end of World War II. This is evident in his paranoia about the people closest to him assuming his power, and the steps he took to ensure that he would remain in power, his large scale surveillance operations and "Great Purge" of the Communist Party. Stalin expressed some irrational thinking, in my opinion, which contributed to Cold War tension, particularly in his beliefs that Germany was likely to rise to power, aided by the United States, and threaten the Soviet Union once again. If Stalin had considered the actualities of the German State he would have seen that  postwar Germany should not have elicited such a profound suspicious response by Soviets. His decisions were often fear based, and not based as much in factual reality.
      Looking at the United States leaders, I think that both Roosevelt and Truman could have been more delicate in dealing with Soviet affairs. I think that if they had maintained a strong diplomatic relationship before the defeat of Japan ( They United States could reconsidered the use of the atomic bomb) and reached a common ground, perhaps in economic ( I'm thinking of a relationship that might resemble current China- U.S ties). The United States could have made their relationship with the Soviets invaluable with the Soviets by offering aid in return for certain conditions such as a limit to expansion. We could have taken things into our own hands by  agreeing to offering up certain territories to Soviet control, if the Soviets would be willing to keep these territories open to U.S. trade and intentions.
          However, this sort of peaceful cohabitation would not have been possible in the times of a nuclear arms race. I personally denounce the dropping of that atomic bomb as beneficial, I think that it was dropped not only to end the war in Japan, with the excuse of  "saving" American lives, but also it had a purpose to demonstrate a show of power to the Soviets, to reinforce the idea that we are the major world power. Obviously the dropping of the bomb cannot be undone, and its to complicated for me to think hypothetically about what it would be like if the atomic bomb had never been invented because that would lead to a different story to the war in Japan, although no doubt the same result, I don't think that Japan really had a chance to defeat Americans, even without the atomic bomb. However, after the atomic bomb was dropped, to find some common ground with Russia I think we needed to give them some peace of mind by signing some sort of agreement saying that we would not use atomic weapons to harm the Soviets or any other country, while still leaving the door open for us to manipulate this power for other purposes. That was clearly a place that we went wrong, and left the Soviets open to interpret our rejection of their atomic plan as a threat.
   In summation I think that our diplomatic failures escalated the war, and this was partially a result of our leaders, and the irrational thinking. In my new evolved opinions of  the Cold War, I place less emphasis on mutual fear and suspicion, and more on conflict resolution following  World War II and the dropping of the atiomic bomb, as well as the spread of communism which led to a rush to control expansion.
       

Cold War Occurance

I think that the Cold War was a result of different ideological ideals between the United States and the Soviet Union, which caused the two to be rooted against each other, even when they were working together. The ideological differences later amounted to political difference because both countries rejected each other because of "opposing" economic and political systems, communism vs. capitalism/democracy.
The earliest evidence of the Cold War tensions was with the emergence of Marxism later the United States reaction to the Russian Revolution. I believe that these tensions existed long before the second world war, but I believe that both world wars proved to intensify these tensions, especially because the United States was forced to align itself with the Soviet Union in order to defeat Nazi Germany. Post WWII actions such as the United States suspension of the Lend Lease act, and certain parts of the Marshall Plan did little to help solve tensions, these post war plans would not allow Soviets to rebuild with American money, which angered Soviets. Then a sort of unspoken race to spread each ideology in order to prevent isolationism and create influence in a fragil post war world. Overal I would have to say that the cause of the the Cold War was the rejection of ideologies, which was intensified when neither country chose to reconcile.

War with Japan

Tensions between Japan and the United States were rising in the prewar era. Due to Japn's actions in China and Machuria, FDR has frozen all Japanese assets. He knew if he made some sort of embargo that entirely restricted oil to Japan. But an embargo was devasting to Japan they were reliant on the nited States for about 80% of their oil. After failed  diplomatic discussions, Japan took action against the U.S. through an attack on Pearl Harbor setting off US conflict with Japan. Therefore, it is plausable that even without conflict in Germany, Teh United States would have engaged in war in Japan.

Immigration- Current Issue

A current event that I feel is handled based on assumptions is immigration, from Mexico to United States, especially illegal immigration. Many politicains have toyed with the proposition of giving amnesty to illegal immigrants, and many have assumed that is a faulty plan because people assume that giving any sort of rights to illegal aliens will simply spure a rise in illegal immigration because it will give people hope of a better life in America. I don't jump to this conclusion because I believe that many of the people living in America without citizenship are hard working, tax paynig citizens who have made their way in the United States. I believe that this sort of amnesty needs to be accompanied by an immigration reform, giving people an oppurtunity to apply for a green card in the short term, instead of making it expensive and virtually unattainable for people to recieve. I think that our country cannot overlook the benficial economic effect of immigrants in our country, and they make up the equivalent of the population of Pennsylvania. I don't think we can overlook their contribution to our country.

Martin Gilbert (80-98)

Russia eventually abandoned the war cause because of political instability, why do you think they waited so lonog and lost so many soliders before they opted to pull out of the war?

The Technology contibuting to the outcome of World War 1

The new technologies created before and during the first World war had a signigficant impact on the outcome of the war. They also lead up to the atrocities of the second world war.
        Most of the new technologies made were weapons. These weapons had a logical idea, but were not maniuplated to be as effective as they could have been. Also, many of these new inventions were new and not widely available of renewable. An example would be gas. Gas use was introduced early on in the war, during trench warfare, and was used on both sides of the war. Types of gas such as chorene gas and phosgene, which could paralyze and kill soliders and wipe out mass amounts of tropps in a matter of minutes.
 Gas was definately a game changer, the downside was  that neither sides had enough resources to keep up with gas attacks, so they would lose the ground that they gained.
Transportation technologies such as airplanes, tanks and armored ships gained prominance. The German- Uboat use aslo influenced the United States decision on entering the war. Airplanes were intially used as a way of spying, and later manipulated to drop bombs, setting the stage for the airplane warfare which would define the combat of World War 2. Tanks were new and not used to their full capability.

The new technology especially effected the war by increasing the causality numbers monumentally, bu also contributed to the stalemate, when both sides were equally equpit with the same about of new type of technology.

Historiography of World War l

Sideney Bradshaw Fay, The Origins of the World War (1928)

Fay made his interpretation of the World War in the 1920's, a time when the revisionalist perspective was popular. The Revisionalist perspective reevaluated the Orthodox perspective of looking at how blame was distributed after the first world war. So, with WWl, the Orthodox interpretation originally placed the most blame on Germany, and served as a sort of justification for the Treaty of Versaille. Fay's revisionalist view contradicted the Orthodox view and asserted that Germany was not the primary country to blame, infact other countries, or to an extent most all European countries, shared responsibilty, as a result of actions that failed to take, that could have prevented war. I agree most with this perspective, despite the fact that it rests alot upon hypothetic situations.

Germany was not the sole country to blame for the First World War. Germany did not want a World War, but evidence does support that Germany wanted a localized conflict between Serbia and Austira Hungary. However, other countries such as Great Britatin, could have had a large role in preventing war. Britain could have threatened Germany, or told France they would not intevene, so that France would stop Russia, inorder to produce a localized conflict, and not a war on a world scale. France's responsibility on stopping the war could have consisted of asking Russia to not get involved, instead of doing everything to just strenghten their alliance. Russia was also ambigous, they had supported Serbian unity in the end. They had convinced Austria-Hungary that they may intervene, which wouldn't have produced a localized conflict. Austrian-Hungarian leaders, influenced by Germany did not make a distinction between Serbia as a country, versus Serbian nationalists. Germany supported them, to support their own alliance, and they did not want to be alone and isolated. This is why I believe that many countries shared responsiblity.