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.
No comments:
Post a Comment