Origins of the Cold War Revisited

After looking back at my original thoughts on the origins of the Cold War, I realized that my first attempts at answering the question were not really an accurate appraisal of the conflict.  I was largely going off the assumption of what little I knew about the Cold War prior to investigating it further: that it was largely an atomic arms race, and the result of nuclear tensions.  I originally thought that both the Soviet Union and the United States were equally to blame.  I then shifted blame to the Soviet Union, placing fault on them for their actions prior to and after World War I, specifically their premature exit from World War I.  I began to assume that the roots of the tensions between the US and USSR could be found in the struggle between capitalism and communism.  This persuaded me that the Cold War was “fought” because of differences in economic systems.  Up until our class discussions and Kennan, Stalin, and Churchill readings, I had been looking at the war from several single events, and not really the entire picture.  I now come to the conclusion that the Cold War is rooted in Soviet paranoia.  However, this paranoia is justified to an extent by the actions taken by the United States pre World War I and post World War II.  From a Soviet point of view, it would appear that the United States and the western powers were trying to help Germany back on its feet after World War II.  This was in fact their aim, as they believed a strengthened Germany would only help Europe.  The actions taken by the United States can certainly be interpreted as acting against the best interests of the Soviet Union.  For all apparent purposes, it seems as though the US used the Soviet  Union to achieve their own aims, and to protect their own self interest.  Specific actions that justify this claim are the removal of aid from the Lend-Lease Act, the concessions agreed to at the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences, and the refusal of the United States to completely wipe out nuclear weapons.

Origins of the Cold War

I think that Soviet and U.S. tensions developed as a result of the tensions prior to the first world war.  American mistrust developed during World War I because of the Soviet Union’s premature departure, leaving the Western Allies alone against the Central Powers.  These tensions were unresolved entering World War II.  The main goal of the Soviets was to defend against a strengthened German attack, and to do this they aligned with the United States and the Allies.  These differing ideological nations were able to be unified against a common enemy.  At the end of the war with Germany defeated, the differences between these two emerging world powers were evident.  Each had different economic goals, as the United States left the war not severely affected economically but the Soviet Union needed to rebuild their economy.  The US had the goal of stopping communism, which clashed with the Soviet goal of spreading communism.  The introduction of nuclear weapons further fueled the fire between the two.  The Cold War rose out of the unresolved issues and effects of the first two world wars, and was further escalated by the arms race and technological need to be number one.  Without a common threat, the two nations were unable to work together. 

Churchill Quote Assesment

Although it seems hypocritical of us to view Nazi agression as wrong, when so often the United States has used agressive tactics in controlling their territories, I think that the two are different. Hitler's aim, and the Nazi mentality, was to complete erase, eradicate, and eliminate an entire race of people. I think that this is the critical difference between agression of Germany and the agression of other nations. Even though the United States committed atrocities in the Philippines and in their Latin American interventions, I don't think the aim was to eliminate a complete race of people, to "blot them from the map of the world", so to speak. The agressions of the United States were a result of imperialistic policies, while German agression was the result of world domination.  Even other acts of agression, such as British atrocities in India, and French control of German territory, while horrible events, are not on the same scale as the Holocaust. 

False Assumptions in Education

I feel as though the nation is tackling the problem of budget cuts, specifically budget cuts in the area of education, through false assumptions.  The false assumption is that to gain more money, areas such as education should be the first departments served budget cuts.  However, legislators have failed to consider the long term consequences of such cuts.  The nation as a whole is concerned with the issues of unemployment, and securing jobs.  Does cutting spending in education really serve to give our youth the best chance of acquiring high paying jobs? How can we expect them to gain these jobs, and be most competitive for these jobs, perhaps against foreign applicants,  if their education will has been downgraded?  Education cuts will lead to lesser educational opportunities for the youth of the nation, and will have long lasting impacts as they continue into their adult lives.  The long term solution is not to cut education, but find other areas that are overspending, and cut from those areas.  Education, as such a vital foundation of our working class society, should not be cut.  Cuts in education will lead to continued unemployment, and be detrimental to the future of America's economy.

Homework Question 10/19

My main questions after this reading were in regards to Germany.  Germany's war strategies don't really make sense, so why didn't they step back and re-evaluate, and develop a more intricate, strategic plan? Why did they insist on attacking the French when this had previously proved futile? Why did many of Germany's actions during the course of the war seem to further isolate them from the rest of the world, even their allies?

The Story of World War I

The position I most agree with would have to be that of revisionist historian Sidney Bradshaw Fay.  Although Germany did hold responsibility for the war to some extent, other European countries also share blame.  I agree with Fischer in the sense that although many nations seem to be at blame, Germany does hold a bit more blame than the other nations, but not to the extreme that Fischer argues; that Germany is largely responsible.  Germany was not the only nation that had a chance to avoid conflict that ultimately escalated.  Germany was prepared for a localized conflict with Austria-Hungary, but at the same time  realized that they were taking the risk of igniting a world war.  Austria-Hungary shares responsibility because of the retaliation they sought for the assassination of the Archduke.  Giving Serbia an ultimatum that Berchtold expected them to reject shows that Austria-Hungary was prepared to enter into a localized conflict with Serbia.  They believed that they could bring Germany into this conflict, and in the process neglected the risk of dragging the rest of Europe into war.  Germany did not have the original intent of igniting a world war, but was forced into it because of the alliance between Germany and Austria-Hungary.  Germany was not eager to be alone against the powers of France, who they had antagonized with the Agadir Crisis, or Russia, who was en route to strong military might.  However, Russia had a role in the Serbian-Hungarian conflict, as Russia pledged support for the Serbian cause.  Austria-Hungary was convinced that Russia would aid Serbia, and also at this time Russia building military might set Germany and Austria-Hungary on edge.  Ultimately, a Russian mobilization while Germany was trying to settle with AH was a major factor in edging Germany towards their own mobilization and war.  Although France and Great Britain were geographically distanced from this conflict, they still played an important role in the outbreak of war.  France supported Russia in their endeavors, and failed to check up on the secret military buildups.  Great Britain's Sir Edward Grey was in the position to severely affect the powerful alliances that grew.  If he had given Germany a strong warning that Great Britain would enter any conflict on the side of the Russia/France alliance, than perhaps Germany would have taken a much different approach to the tensions with AH.  If Grey had also warned France and Russian that GB would remain neutral, Russia might have hesitated in regards to mobilizing, and France would have taken a different approach perhaps to handling Russia.  Ultimately, it appears that no European nation specifically wanted a world war, as no country would appear to benefit politically, or economically.  However,  the blow up of localized conflict led to all European nations playing a role in the outbreak of the first war on a world scale.

The Importance of the Agadir Crisis

The Agadir crisis, like so many of the precursors to World War I, was a relatively small event that became blown out of proportion.  The sending of a small German gunboat into the port of Agadir seemed to be a unnecessary act by Germany meant to provoke Great Britain.  With an arms race already existing between Germany and Great Britain, this incident was just Germany's way of casually announcing their readiness for naval battle.  The Germans thought that this intimidation tactic would have the result of joining forces with Great Britain, but instead Great Britain turned to France for support.  This led to France and Great Britain eventually becoming allies, which was not what Germany wanted.  All because of a silly power move, Germany lost the chance to ally themselves with a significant power.  Tensions that were already high because of the Germany-Great Britain arms race were further heightened by these events, leading to a European split and divisions that were a large cause of eventually World War I.