NSC-68 and the Arms Race

1. Study Source 7. According to this source, how serious was the Soviet nuclear threat?      
  According to Source 7, the Soviet nuclear threat was very serious.  This was because the Soviet Union would gain even more atom bombs and drop the bombs on US bombs to hurt the USA even more.  Also, there was little chance that America would be able to hurt the USSR back because Britain was not a stable enough place to send atoms bombs out from.


2. What measures is Source 7 calling for?     
  In order to save America from the atom bombs of the USSR, Source 7 is calling for air warning systems to be improved and put into place.  It also calls for a intense civilian defense group that would be trained very well and easily used with the military.  According to the source, these are th eonly things that could save the USA.


3. How would you describe the tone of Source 7? Use examples of words and phrases in the text to support your answer.     
  The tone of Source 7 is pessimistic.  According to the source, the Soviet Union is capable of anything and any way they could hurt the USA is possible. This is shown by how it ends with the statement that the "atomic capability of the USSR can be expected to grow to a point where [...] the possibility of a decisive initial attack cannot be excluded".  The fact that it could not be excluded supports the pessimistic state of mind surrounding the source in which anything bad that can be imagined could happen, even if it would be excluded as an idea if the writer was thinking realistically.  Also, the statement that "it is doubted whether such a blow, even if it resulted in the complete destruction of the contemplated target systems, would cause the USSR to sue for terms or prevent Soviet forces from occupying western Europe".  This blow is referring to how the USA could hurt the USSR with their bombs.   The way the source dismisses any hope from an attack by the USA shows that there is a pessimistic view because, basically, no matter what anyone does, the USSR's takeover of other countries cannot be stopped.  The third statement that shows how pessimistic the source is is the view that "Britain with its present inadequate air defense" could never be enough to stop the USSR.  This is, again, showing the view that the USA could just never stop the USSR.  Clearly, Source 7 has a very pessimistic tone.


4. Study Source 8. What criticisms are made of Source 7?    
  Source 8 criticizes Source 7.  Source 8 states that Source 7 exaggerated facts in order to make the USSR's power seem limitless and like the USA could never defeat them without more weapons.  Source 8 states that the report only said this so that more money would be given to defense and unnecessary weapons would be made.  Those are the criticisms Source 8 made of Source 7.


5. Do you think the author of Source 7 wanted to increase tension and the risk of war? If not, what were his motives?     
  Source 7 did want to increase tension and the risk of war.  The increase tension would come from the fear of the USSR that the source creates and this fear is create by telling people that it would be very difficult to beat the USSR.  The call for civilian defense is alo almost like a call for a draft or preparation for a domestic military and both of those indicate war.  Also, if the USA implemented that or made more weapons, the USSR might feel threatened and start a war.  The author of Source 7 might have wanted to create this tension and rick of war because the document was created by the American National Security Council, which is a defense organization that would have its budget increased if there was a risk of war.  That is why the author wanted to increase tension and risk of war.

6. Do the criticisms in Source 8 mean that Source 7 is not a useful historical source? Explain your answer.

  The criticisms in Source 8 do not mean that Source 7 is not a useful historical source.  One value of Source 7 is that is shows what the government thought the USSR was possible during the 1950s and that could be useful in understanding why the USA made decisions after this report because it was created in 1950.  Also, this source is valuable because it shows the tone in which the US government presented the USSR and issues with nuclear weapons, which shows what type of reaction they wished to receive from Americans reading the report.  Therefore, Source 7 is valuable because of its exaggeration and incorrect statements because those can be used to evaluate the American reaction to the nuclear threat.

Berlin Blockade Document Analysis

1. What type of document is this? What is its purpose?      
  Both documents are reports and memorandums from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).  The purpose of these documents is to report on the decisions being made by the Soviet Union regarding Berlin and West Germany.


2. When was it written? Why is that significant?     
 They were written on June 30, 1948 and that is significant because they are events that had just happened and were probably events that the Soviet Union did not want the rest of the war knowing about.


3. Who created the document? Who received the document?     
 They were written by R.H. Hillenkoetter in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) created the document for President Truman.


4. Who is Marshal Sokolovsky?     
 Marshal Sokolovsky is an official from the Soviet Union who met with German officials about how the Berlin Blockade would affect East Germany and how to solve this issue. He decides to let the West feed their own parts of Berlin (West Berlin).


5. How did the CIA get information of the meeting between Marshal Sokolovsky and German members of the German industrial committee?      
   The CIA had a spy or imformant at the conference who supplied them with information.
  

6. What were the three Soviet alternatives as they presented themselves when this document was written? What policy did the Soviets pursue over the course of the next nine months? Why?     

 The three alternative were to start a war with the USA, Britain, and France, stop the blockade, or just let the three western countries take care of feeding the people in West Berlin.  They felt that they were not in a good position to start a war because they did not have the supplies to do so and that if they lifted the blockade they would look weak.  Therefore, having the West feed their people was the best option and would create a challenge for those countries and Soviet wanted to create hardships for them.

7. Stalin stated in a speech on February 9, 1946, "he [Stalin] blamed the last war on 'capitalist monopolies' and warning that, since the same forces still operated, the USSR must treble the basic materials of national defense such as iron and steel, double coal and oil production, and to delay the manufacture of consumer goods until rearmament was complete." Who are the "capitalist monopolies?" How does this statement enlighten the Soviet viewpoint against the United States? Were the Allies justified in canceling the shipments of German reparations to the Soviets at the end of World War II? Why did the Soviets rely so heavily on Germany for food and industry?        
  The capitalist monopolies are American and British companies.  This statement enlightens the Soviet viewpoint against the US.  That is because Stalin is saying that companies of the US and Britain are responsible for starving people and the lack of goods for the people in the country.  This would make the Soviets seem like the victims and the US seem like an attacker out to kill innocent people.  Also, although it does not seem fair, the Allies were justified in stopping the Soviets from taking such a large amount of money from Germany.  Even though the Soviet Union lost many men in the war, punishing Germany too harshly would risk another war and, with the discovery of the atomic bomb, they might actually have been able to take over the world in World War III.  The lack of money was especially unfortunate for the Soviet Union because they desperately relied on Germany for food and industry because the rest of the Soviet Union, mainly Russia, was in a drought.  This meant that the rest of the Soviet Union could not grow food, so they needed German food.

The Berlin Blockade and Airlift

1. What is Source 37 (p. 75) saying about Josip Tito, leader of Yugoslavia?     
  Source 37 states that Josip Tito is not loyal to the Soviet Union and is greedy.  The Source shows that he is not loyal by making him wear a cloak that says "Judas" and Judas is the ultimate betrayer in history, having been the one who betrayed Jesus.  So he is a betrayer because he is interacting with the United States by accepting their money and the USSR, whose government he was part of, hated the USA.  Tito is also shown as being greedy because he will do anything, even beg America, to obtain money.  That is what Source 37 shows about Josip Titio.


2. Why do you think Stalin was so hostile to Tito?        
  Stalin was so hostile to Tito because he was afraid of losing control of Yugoslavia.  Originally, Yugoslavia was only country to resist being taken over by the USSR, thus already being a threat to the government.  Then when Tito was contemplating taking the Marshall Aid money, he was even more fo a threat to Stalin because he was not following Stalin's orders.  Therefore, Stalin was hostile to Tito because Tito was threatening his power.


3. Look back at the map in Source 27 on page 71. How does the geographical position of Yugoslavia help to explain why Stalin did not take any direct action (such as sending in troops) against Tito?     
 Stalin did not take any direct action, such as sending troops against Tito, because of the geographical position of Yugoslavia.  Yugoslavia is surrounded by two countries that were not part of the USSR.  As part of the Truman Doctrine, the USA might have tried to help Yugoslavia through Austria and Greece to resist Stalin.  This might have also started a war and Stalin did not want a war so he did not take direct action aginst Yugoslavia.


4. Read Source 40 (p. 77). What reasons did the Soviet Union give for cutting off West Berlin?       
  The Soviet Union cut off West Berlin.  They stated that they were not allowing traffic and barges in because of technical difficulties and they did not have enough coal to give West Berlin electricity.  thos were the reason the Soviet Union gave.


5. Why do you think the USA did not believe these were genuine reasons?           

  The USA did not believe these were genuine reasons because they knew the true plan of the Soviet Union.  The Soviet Union wanted to take over all of Europe and probably the world.  Taking Berlin by cutting off the rest of the world so that Berlin would be poor was a perfect plan for the USSR.  Communist appealed to the poor, so cutting off Berlin was taking one little bit of Europe at a time.  Also, taking Berlin was like a test to the USA.  It was seeing how much the USSR could do before the USA would start a war and is equivalent to a little child testing the rules.  The third reason the USA did not believe that the USSR gave genuine reasons is that there is a small chance that all of these technical problems would happen at the same time.  Therefore, the USA did not believe the USSR's reasons.

6. How do Sources 41–43 differ in their interpretation of the blockade?            
  Source 41, 42, and 43 differ in their interpretation of the blockade.  Source 41 reports the Berlin Blockade to be a tie.  Neither side won and the whole situation just increased the tension between the USA and USSR.  Source 42 states that the USA "won" by showing the USSR how strong they are.  Source 43 states that the USSR had nothing to do with the Berlin Blockade and the USA is full of liars who imagined it.  Those are how the Sources differ because they all blame different sides and state that different sides won.


7.  Which do you think is the most useful source for a historian studying the Berlin Blockade?       
  Out fo Sources 41, 42, and 43, the most useful source for a historian studying the Berlin Blockade is Source 43.  That is because this source shows the views published by the Soviet Union about the Berlin Blockade almost forty years later.  This may not be the most accurate depiction of the event, but it shows the views the USSR wished to publicly announce and how they looked back on the event after the fact.  Therefore, this is the most interesting and useful source for a historian studying attitudes towards the Berlin Blockade.



8.  Which source do you think gives the most reliable view of the blockade?      

  The most factual and reliable view fo the blockade is Source 41 because it was written by a historian who was not swayed by emotions present at the time of the blockade because it was written about thirty five years after the blockade.

Iron Curtain Separates Europe

1. What is your overall impression of Source 26 (p. 70) and use extracts from the source to support your view. (No fence sitting; you must choose one but not both)      

• a reasonable assessment of Stalin’s aims based on the facts
• an overreaction to Stalin’s actions based on fear of and prejudice towards the USSR?        

  Source 26 is a reasonable assessment of Stalin's aims.  At the time it was made, Stalin had taken the "Soviet influence" to mean that they could control other countries, so the source was correct in stating that the Soviet Unions is "not prepared to co-operate with any non-Communist controlled government in eastern Europe".  The source is accurate because the Soviet Union was not allowing the countries under its influence to hold elections for the type of government they want, but just directly controlling and implementing governments for the Soviet Union.  The other reason this is a reasonable assessment is because it states that Stalin is planning to take over the world and "the immensity of the aim should not betray [others] into believing that it cannot be achieved".  This was a good assessment of the facts at the time because a weapon had been developed, the atom bomb, and people believe that, once a country obtained it, it could be used to take over other countries very easily, therefore a country with the bomb could take over the world.  So it was accurate when the source states that the Soviet Union might be able to take over the world. Clearly the source was a reasonable assessment of the facts.

  
2. Source 26 is a British source. Does it seem likely that similar documents were being produced by the American government?      
  It seems likely that similar documents were being produced by the American government.  This is because Britain and America usually agreed on how to handle the Soviet Union.  Also, the government could win over the public and convince them that funding the Cold War was a good thing by producing documents like this that are meant to scare people into fighting the Soviet Union.  Such documents were most likely produced by the American government.



3. Study Source 27 (p. 71) and make a list of three different actions that Communists took to achieve power in eastern Europe. Explain how each factor helped.     

•   The Communists disbanded the monarchy of Romania in 1947 after a Communist was elected president in 1945.  This was making sure that there was no other important person in the country besides a Communist.  Without the monarchy, there was not important group to criticize the Communists or threaten their power.
• The Soviet Union set up the German Democratic Republic in 1949 in its part of germany and used its army to control it. This "Democratic Republic" gives the illusion of being free, but can still be controlled by the Communists and, with the help of the military, no one would be brave enough and strong enough to rebel against them.
• In Czechoslovakia, the Communists one the election in 1945 and then became the biggest political party.  In 1948, other parties were banned.  This helped the Communists take power in Eastern Europe by making their party strong and then making sure no other party would ever threaten its strength because they would not exist.  This would also make people accustomed to Communism.

Truman's Decision to Drop the A-Bomb

1. Who was Harry S. Truman's Secretary of War?      
Henry L. Stimson

2. Who was Truman's Chief of Staff?       
Admiral William D. Leahy

3. Why did Truman believe nuclear bombs needed to be used?    
Truman believe that nuclear bombs needed to be used in order to force the Japanese to surrender unconditionally, therefore ending all fighting.

4. Why did Admiral Leahy believe nuclear bombs didn't need to be used?      
Leahy did not believe nuclear bombs should be used because he thought that the sea blockade and normal bombing of Japan was enough to defeat them and that they have would surrendered.

5. Why did Supreme Allied Commander and future president Dwight D. Eisenhower believe they didn't need to be used?      
Eisenhower thought that Japan was already defeated, so there was no reason to use the bomb.

6. Critics of Truman fall into two camps. One was that he acted rashly because of his "inferior foreign policy skills" when compared to FDR. What is the other major criticism?     
The other major criticism is that, since America had spent a lot of money to create the bomb, Truman was just using it so that the money would not have been spent in vain.  The criticism is that so many people should not be killed so that America can get the value out of their money.

7. Key critics of Truman's use of the bomb weren't on the "historical fringe," but were who?      
Stimson and Admiral Leahy

8. Truman began to soften on his stance for unconditional surrender but something occurred that changed his mind for good. What was that?     
The Trinity test of the atom bomb, because it was successful and, therefore, offered an alternative of how to end the war.

9. Besides defeating Japan what was Truman's other possible motivation for using the nuclear bombs on Japan?    
 The Soviet Union was going to fight against Japan 90 days after Germany was defeated.

10. At Yalta Stalin promised to enter the war against Japan once Germany was defeated. Conventional thinking said this if the Soviets began fighting against Japan.     
  That the Japanese would be defeated and surrender.

11. The four-power surrender ultimatum to be presented to Japan was to be written and decided upon where?    
  The Potsdam Conference

12. What did the Washington Post editorialize about "unconditional surrender"?     
  The Washington Post stated that unconditional surrender would never actually work.

13. What is the significance of Paragraph 12 in the draft copy of the Potsdam Proclamation prior to Truman setting sail on the USS Augusta? (More detail is needed for this question)     
  The significance of Paragraph 12 in the draft copy is that it was a bit of conditional surrender.  This paragraph was promising to not harm the emperor and even give him power in the new form of government.  This promise to protect the emperor would not have been there if the proclamation was calling for unconditional surrender.  Therefore, this shows that Truman was planning on calling for conditional surrender when he left for the Potsdam Conference.



14. What changed when the Proclamation was publicly announced on July 26?       
  When the Proclamation was publicly announced, Paragraph 12 no longer promised to protect the emperor and include him in the new government.

15. According to the author, what might have changed Truman's mind to alter the wording in Paragraph 12? (More detail is needed for this question)      
  According to the author, the change in Paragraph 12 was partially due to the success of the Trinity test.  Since America now had the atom bomb, which could easily make Japan surrender, there was no need to protect the emperor under conditional surrender.  The atom bomb could hurt Japan so much that they would surrender under unconditional surrender and America would look very powerful.


16. Regarding his diary entry of a conversation with Winston Churchill (who is call "P.M." in the entry) what does the author suggest about Truman's attitude with the bomb despite learning what he does from Churchill?      
Truman wants to do more than make Japan surrender, he wants to use the bomb to prove that America is superior.

17. What does his caption on the back of the photo of Stalin and Truman suggest about the use of the bomb?      
This caption suggests that Truman was using the bomb to show off the power of America and boast to other countries.

18. "From a foreign policy perspective" what two accomplishments were made by dropping the bomb?    
  The first accomplishment was defeating Japan and the second was displaying to power of America to the Soviet Union, thus starting the Cold War.

19. To give credit to Truman, why didn't he know what FDR's intentions were with the bomb?    
  He did not know what FDR's intention were with the bomb because he was not told about the bomb when he was senator or vice-president, so he did not know it existed until after FDR died.

20. How did the discrepancy between the loss of 1 million U.S. soldiers lives versus 20,000 to 40,000 if Japan's mainland would have been invaded, affect the understanding of their use?           
    When Americans thought one soldiers would be lost, they understood that the bomb should be used, but since twenty to forty thousand is a much smaller number, they may not have been understanding about the use of the bomb.


21. Based on your readings, this reading, and discussion in class, in a paragraph or two, answer the following: To what extent was President Truman's decision to drop bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?     
  President Truman's decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was mostly justified.  IT was justified for many reason.  Since Truman never knew about the bomb when FDR was alive, he could have only assumed that, since FDR had wanted such a weapon produced, he had also wanted to use it.  Therefore, Truman would have thought that he was doing what FDR wanted.  Also, although the estimation that one million America soldiers would be lost was later proven wrong, Truman only knew the figure of one million men.  Since he had a weapon that could end the war and spare all of those lives, how would the American people feel if they found out that one million lives could have been saved, but the government chose not to save them.  Another reason the usage of the bomb was justified was how it prevented Japan from getting their way.  Unconditional surrender was guaranteed with the use of the atom bomb.  This meant that the people who had killed so many Americans would not be walking away unaffected.  However, there is one major reason the atom bomb was not justified.

  There were many civilian lives taken by the usage of the atom bombs.  This alone is a major point that does not justify the use of the atom bombs.  Yet if the atom bomb had not been used, a land war might have taken place that would have also killed civilians. Either way, the civilian deaths is the one point that makes Truman's decision not completely justified.

The Potsdam Conference

1. Read Source 17 (p 68). At Yalta, Churchill and Roosevelt had agreed with Stalin that eastern Europe would be a Soviet ‘sphere of influence’. Do you think Source 17 is what they had in mind?    
  Source 17 is not what Churchill and Roosevelt had in mind when they agreed that the eastern part of Europe would be a soviet "sphere of influence".  Roosevelt and Churchill had only wanted the USSR to watch over this area with troops or other government people.  However, Source 17, Stalin, is stating that any region where a country has their troops is a region it controls.  This would mean that the USSR would have direct control over eastern Europe since its troops were there.  Since this control was not what Roosevelt and Churchill had in mind, Source 17 is not what they had in mind.




2. Would they agree with Stalin’s views expressed in Sources 17 and 18? Explain your answer.       
  Roosevelt and Churchill would nto agree with Stalin's views in Source 17 and 18.  Source 17 states Stalin's view that any country that has troops in a region controls this region.  Since this would mean that the Soviet Union would have direct control over eastern Europe and this was not what they wanted, they would not agree with Source 17.  Source 18 states that Great Britain relies on Greece for its security and the Soviet Union does not, so the Soviet Union stayed out of the discussion about the type of government that was to be established there.  It also states that the Soviet Union relies on Poland for its security and America and Great Britain do not.  This is Stalin inferring that Great Britain and America should not interfere with the discussion about what type of government should be set up in Poland.  Since this would mean that only the Soviet Union would be in the discussion, Poland would become Communist.  Roosevelt and Churchill did not want a Communist Poland, so they would not agree with Stalin's views expressed in Sources 18 either.  




3.  Explain how each of the three developments described in the text might affect relationships at Potsdam.      
  The facts that Stalin had troops in most of eastern Europe, America had a new president, and an atomic bomb had been developed.  The fact that Stalin had troops in most of eastern Europe was threatening to Truman and Britain because they did not want communist governments being set up in countries that had just been freed.  This was, however, what Stalin wanted and was pushing for.  Therefore, there was tension between the two and Stalin.  The new president, Harry Truman, also added to the tension between America and the Soviet Union because he hated communism and was suspicious of Stalin.  He thought that all Stalin wanted to do was make eastern European countries communism and was very against this.  This made Stalin feel mistrusted and Truman not trust Stalin.  The third development, the atomic bomb that America possessed, made both Britain and the Soviet Union not trust America.  This is because America was supposed to be their ally, but was the only one that possessed such a weapon.  This also might have made America feel superior to the other two.  This is how the three developments affected relationships at Potsdam.