The topics and questions are on a first come first serve order. Please be sure to not repeat answers, so check the blog before completing the assignment to make sure your topic has not been selected already. This activity is a prep for Document analysis which you will need for the DBQ. Be sure to research the history behind the document as to best gain the meaning and perspective of the writing. Your overall answers should reflect both your document analysis as well as provide historical evidence to support. Posts should be a minimum of 1 paragraph and maximum of 2 paragraphs in length. Blog posts will be
due by 11:59pm April 10th.
due by 11:59pm April 10th.
The readings are as follows.
1.“Opposing Viewpoints: Who Started
the Cold War? American and Soviet Perspectives”(p. 869)
2. “The Cuban Missile Crisis from
Khrushchev’s Perspective” (p. 875)
3. “Khrushchev Denounces Stalin” (p. 883)
4. “Soviet Repression in Eastern Europe: Hungary, 1956”: (p. 885)
5. “The Voice of the Women’s Liberation Movement”:
I want to do #2. Please don't take it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI call #1
ReplyDeleteOpposing Viewpoints: Who Started the Cold War? American and Soviet Perspectives” (p. 869)
I'll be doing #5
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete#1
ReplyDeleteLogically, George Kennan would perceive the increasing aggression between the United States and the Soviet Union to be the fault of the latter belligerent. As an American diplomat, Kennan believed that the Soviet Union had historically been opposed to the influences of any outside force due to its own inherent insecurity. He argues that this insecurity arose initially from a fear of “fierce nomadic peoples” invading their passive agrarian society. This was amplified as Russia faced the newer threat of a civilized and advanced Western world impeding on their relatively uncivilized culture. As a result of this insecurity, Kennan argued that the Soviet Union developed a dislike for any kind of compromise and instead favored the “total destruction of rival power.” In this way, Kennan describes Soviet Union policy towards the United States as an amalgamation of both history and ideology. In addition to his analysis as to why Russia is aggressive, Kennan also provides a guideline for a possible solution to the cold war. He feels that if America does not stray from our own ideologies and beliefs, then we can “approach calmly and with good heart the problem of how to deal with Russia.” It seems that Kennan paints Russia as the hostile belligerent and the United States as the reasonable and righteous opponent.
In contrast, Nikolai Novikov fosters a radically different view of the conflict between Russia and America. Novikov felt strongly that America should be labeled as the aggressor not only in its relationship with the Soviet Union, but also with the rest of the world. The United States, in his eyes, sought world domination with the aid of Great Britain. Novikov provides the example of America trying to gain control of China’s economic and political policies in favor of “American monopolistic capital.” In this way, Novikov exemplifies America’s so-called agenda for complete supremacy. He also believes that the United States should be held responsible for the armament of military on both sides. According to Novikov, it was the United States that began the preparations for a possible “hot” or active war with Russia. This strongly implies that America was the sole aggressor and that the Soviet Union was in the process of armament only as a valid reaction to the United States’ antagonistic actions. Immediately following the war, the Soviet Union and America lost that sense of necessity to work together to defeat Germany. Differences in opinion of how to deal with post-war Europe quickly developed. While Great Britain and America wanted the policy of self-determination to reside in the liberated nations of Eastern Europe, Stalin staunchly opposed this. This disagreement in fundamental values is probably what made the Cold War inevitable. It seems that both Kennan and Novikov were both partially right in their perceptions. The Soviet Union was severely distrusting of the Western World and all that it stood for and America did want democracy and its values to be instituted in the rest of Europe without exception. Both nations created a sense of competition and therefore both should be held responsible for the initiation of the Cold War.
http://astro.temple.edu/~rimmerma/novikov_telegram.htm
#4
ReplyDeleteBased on this selection it would appear that Soviet policy towards its satellites at this time was very aggressive. The Soviets had forced their way into these nations and they had become their source of power, they did not want to lose control of their satellites. If they lost control they would be at risk of becoming irrelevant as the fear that communism caused would die. These satellites feared the Soviets; they knew what they were capable of and didn’t want to get onto their bad side. However, they some also refused to be under their thumb, like Hungary and Yugoslavia; they fought back while others were too afraid to do so. The Soviets justified their intervention by pretty much trying to say that they were saving Hungary from themselves. They made the argument that Hungary had improved so much under Soviet control, and that if this rebellion succeeded Hungary would ultimately fail.
#5 –“The Voice of The Women’s Liberation Movement” : Page 894-895
ReplyDeleteDue to the definition of women by their differences from men, Simone de Beauvoir pushed for a new history of women. Since society was dominated by males, history often surrounded the accomplishments of men, only briefly mentioning women. When she refers to “the other,” Beauvoir implies that women were treated as second-class citizens, due to the dominance of males. The author is outraged by the neglect of women throughout history, as women played an important role in society. During the war, women assumed jobs held by men, and worked efficiently. However, they were removed from these positions to create jobs for males upon their return from war. Overall, Beauvoir believed that she lived a “liberated” lifestyle for women of that time period. However, she still felt that women faced certain restrictions that men did not face.
3. “Khrushchev Denounces Stalin” (p. 883)
ReplyDeleteNikita Khrushchev, in February 1956, accused Joseph Stalin of being the leader of a cult. He also claimed that Stalin did not accept any opposition or collegiality in any aspect of his reign. If there was such opposition, Stalin committed the crime of meeting it with violence and force. The mass arrests and deportations of thousands was also seen as a crime by Khrushchev. The execution without trial of another several thousand was yet another crime. And to make the crime worse, it was mostly committed against the innocent, those that were loyal to the Soviet government. Stalin was intolerant, brutal, and abused his power. Khrushchev linked these hideous crimes to the fact that Stalin lived in fear of being overthrown. He saw everyone as enemies even if they weren’t. This led him to continue mass terror even when threats were liquidated. He also didn’t want to be seen as a weak man, as so many previous Russian leaders had been and failed because of it. This was the opposite of what Lenin wanted. Vladimir Lenin wanted equality for all with a single leader to rule for all the people fairly. But Stalin instead oppressed the people.
In this address to the Party Congress, Khrushchev was simply hoping to expose Stalin’s atrocious crimes. Even though these crimes were fairly obvious, the people were too afraid to see it or think about it, so having it written for them forced them to realize exactly what Stalin had committed against them and their state. And for this reason, Khrushchev was not actually talking to just the people, but in fact the entire population of Soviet Russia. The reason this is addressed to the Party Congress is probably because it’s more secretive that way so Khrushchev would more easily get away with writing it, as opposed to displaying it for the public and therefore the government to see. Nonetheless, this article was written in hopes to open the people’s eyes.
“The Cuban Missile Crisis from Khrushchev’s Perspective” (p. 875)
ReplyDeleteThe Cuban Missile Crisis signified the peak of the Cold War confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union. In order to protect the newly colonized Cuba by the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev decided to install nuclear missiles in Cuba in hope to prevent future American invasion attacks. In doing so, Khrushchev also hope to prevent the United States from releasing their nuclear weapons in Turkey. In the end though, President Kennedy and Khrushchev managed to find a peaceful solution, where the United States agreed to not invade Cuba and remove its missiles from Turkey if Khrushchev called back the fleets carrying the missiles. This is satisfactory for Khrushchev because he originally wanted to install the missiles in Cuba because he needed a sense of security. Before the crisis, American missiles posed as a direct threat to the Soviet Union, while Soviet weapons could not reach the United States. In Krushchev’s account, he wrote, “I want to make one thing absolutely clear: when we put our ballistic missiles in Cuba we had no desire to start a war. On the contrary, our principal aim was only to deter America from starting a war…” It was different from the American views of the missile as a direct show of threat to the United States, as in the Soviets would actually launch the missiles. From Khrushchev’s view, the reason behind the missile can be justified because previously, Americans had a weapon so closed to the Soviet Union, while the Soviet Union had nothing against America.
If the two nations did not reach a peaceful resolution, the loss of citizens on each side was estimated to be up to 200 million, not counting those who would be affected by radioactivity. Just the fact that the high number of deaths was avoided was a victory on both sides. In addition to this, Krushchev was also victorious in that his foreign policy managed to keep the Americans from the Cuban door. He was able to spread communist influence to the Western sphere. Another benefit that came out of the crisis for President Kennedy was that the United States gained honor by following through with its promises. On the downside, however, the United States loss their immediate influence in Europe with the removal of the missiles in Turkey and this Caribbean crisis proved the weakness of the containment policy. For Krushchev, the public viewed his decision to call back the fleets carrying the missiles as a show of cowardice, as the public did not realize the link between the removal of the Turkey missiles and the return of the fleets. This influenced Khrushchev’s removal from office two years later. From this, it is argued that Khrushchev’s victory from the Cuban Missile Crisis is only a later rationalization because at the time, others only viewed this as a sign of weakness of the Soviets’ part.