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 quite large and impending. This source made it seem as if the U.S., in its current state of arms, would be unable to defend against a very probably atomic bombing by the Soviets.


2. What measures is Source 7 calling for?     
Source 7 is calling for an increase in the production of atomic bombs, air defenses, air warning systems, and a civilian defense program along with a military defense program.


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 particularly urgent and serious. For example, "...the possibility of a decisive initial attack cannot be excluded." This quote carries with it a warning to the U.S. that they must prepare for a nuclear attack from the Soviets. "Serious blow" and "seriously hamper the ability of the United States" are other examples of phrases in Source 7 where urgency can be detected, as well as seriousness in the matter. This document was basically meant to sternly persuade the U.S. government 

to make significant defensive preparations 

with its urgent and serious tone.

4. Study Source 8. What criticisms are made of Source 7?    
Source 8 claims criticizes that Source 7 is exaggerated in order to manipulate the "mind of the government." This source also claims that Source 7 was successful in this endeavor because Truman tripled the defense budget and significantly increased atomic bomb production.


5. Do you think the author of Source 7 wanted to increase tension and the risk of war? If not, what were his motives?     
I think the author of Source 7 wanted to create more tension against the Soviets so that the U.S. would take the means necessary to defend itself against a Soviet attack. I don't think the author necessarily wanted to increase the risk of war though, it seemed to be more of a way to influence the government so that more defensive measures would be taken.

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

No, the criticisms in Source 8 don't mean that Source 7 is not a useful historical source. This is because while Source 7 is exaggerated and not entirely accurate from an objective standpoint, it still shows how the United States reacted to the advancement of the Soviet Union, and provides as a good explanation for historians as to why the United States did what it did in response to the Soviets joining the nuclear power race.

Berlin Blockade Document Analysis

Document Analysis

1. What type of document is this? What is its purpose?      
This document is a memorandum, or a written message. It's purpose is to inform the President of Soviet activity. 
2. When was it written? Why is that significant?     
 It was written June 30, 1948. This is significant because it was in the midst of the Cold War, where there were extremely high tensions between Truman and the USSR. 



3. Who created the document? Who received the document?     

 The director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), R. H. Hillenkoetter, created the document. President Truman received the document. 



4. Who is Marshal Sokolovsky?     

 Marshal Sokolovsky was the head of the Russian officials in the meeting between them and German members of the German industrial committee which took place in Karlshorst on June 28, 1948.



5. How did the CIA get information of the meeting between Marshal Sokolovsky and German members of the German industrial committee?      

 The CIA got information of the meeting between Marshal Sokolovsky and the German members of the German industrial committee from a spy that they put in Berlin.

  
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 soviet alternatives as they presented themselves when this document was written were: start a war, lift the travel restrictions at Berlin, and leave all of Berlin to the West, giving them the rail  line. The policy that the Soviets pursued over the course of the next nine months was to maintain the blockade because they didn't want to lose face by lifting the blockade, they weren't able to sustain another war, and because they didn't want to just give Berlin to the West.

Homework


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 France, Britain, and the U.S. This statement enlightens the Soviet viewpoint against the United States because it shows that that the Soviets viewed the United States as almost tyrannical capitalists that were just in it for the money. Yes, the Allies were justified in canceling the shipments of German reparations to the Soviets at the end of World War II because they didn't want to repeat the Treaty of Versailles, which didn't work the first time. The Soviets relied so heavily on German for food and industry because Russia was having heavy droughts, and they were dependent on German supplies during that time of year.

The Berlin Blockade and Airlift

1. What is Source 37 (p. 75) saying about Josip Tito, leader of Yugoslavia?     
Source 37 is saying that Josip Tito was being sneaky and financially mooching off the U.S. and thus betraying the Communist part that had been set up by Stalin in eastern Europe.

2. Why do you think Stalin was so hostile to Tito?        
I think Stalin was so hostile towards Tito because he was the source of  the only internal resistance Stalin faced in eastern Europe, aside from the allies in Berlin. Tito resisted Stalin's domination in Yugoslavia his whole life.

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?     
The geographical position of Yugoslavia helps to explain why Stalin did not take any direct action (such as sending in troops) against Tito because it was on the border of the "iron curtain," meaning it was closer to western Europe which was under the control of Britain, France, and the U.S. If Stalin sent in troops there, the Allies might've mistaken it for a preparation for war, and helped support Tito in Yugoslavia, as well as attack back. 

4. Read Source 40 (p. 77). What reasons did the Soviet Union give for cutting off West Berlin?       
The reasons the Soviet Union gave for cutting off West Berlin were technical difficulties and shortage of coal.
5. Why do you think the USA did not believe these were genuine reasons?           
I think the U.S.A. did not believe these were genuine reasons because the Soviets wouldn't allow in any goods from the USA at all, and hostilities between the Soviets and the U.S. had been getting worse, as they obviously wanted Berlin to themselves.

6. How do Sources 41–43 differ in their interpretation of the blockade?            
Source 41 makes it seem as if the blockade was pointless in regards to the gains of the U.S and the USSR, while Source 42 expresses the idea that the blockade allowed for a demonstration of loyalty by the U.S. towards the people of Europe, and Source 43 basically says that there were high tensions and lots of anti-Soviet feelings going around in the U.S., thus they were on the brink of war, while the people in Berlin were being quite negatively affected by the blockade itself. Source 43 also makes it seem as if the USSR conducted itself in such a way that prevented war.

7.  Which do you think is the most useful source for a historian studying the Berlin Blockade?       
I'd say source 42, as it explains what the U.S. really achieved during the blockade.

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

Source 41, as it is the most objective out of the three sources, considering Source 42 is a speech by Truman, and Source 43 is a commentary from a Soviet.

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?        
I would say that Source 26  is a reasonable assessment of Stalin's aims based on the facts. This is because within the quote, "...not only is the Soviet Government not prepared to co-operate with any non-Communist controlled government in eastern Europe, but it is actively preparing to extend its hold over the remaining part of continental Europe...." the British Foreign Secretary is looking at what the USSR has chosen to do and is planning to do, he is looking at the facts and making a logical assumption that the Soviet Union plans to keep spreading communism over the world. He doesn't appear to hold too much prejudice, and he even admits that the USSR could potentially be successful in the quote, "The immensity of the aim should not betray us into believing that it cannot be achieved. Basically, source 26 was somewhat objective and just appeared to analyze the facts at hand rather than overreact due to prejudice. 
2. Source 26 is a British source. Does it seem likely that similar documents were being produced by the American government?      
Yes it seems likely that similar documents were being produced by the American government because both Britain and the U.S. at this point realized Stalin was in it to win it, and wasn't planning to back down against non-communist governments. So, reports such as this would most likely be being delivered often in both the United States and Britain to the cabinets. 
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.     

1. Communists adapted a left-wing coalition government and exiled a non-communist leader in Poland. This non-communist leader would help enforce communism in Poland, and the coalition government would make it seem like the Soviet communists would run for elections, but then they'd just take over. 
2. Communists rid of of the monarchy in Romania and made a communist into Prime Minister there. This was a continuation of what the USSR had been doing to other countries in eastern Europe: eradicating any other government and implementing communism. 
3. Banned other parties after election in Czechoslovakia and made it a one-party state. This was another example of how the USSR would have "elections" where the left-wing coalition would win, and then just use that to take over the country and enforce communism. One the USSR made Czechoslovakia a one-party state, elections were no more, and communism was the dominant government. 

Basically all three of these actions spread communism throughout eastern Europe and rid of any opposing governments that might've threatened their power.

Truman's Decision to Drop the A-Bomb

1. Who was Harry S. Truman's Secretary of War?      
Harry S. Truman's Secretary of War was Stimson.
2. Who was Truman's Chief of Staff?       
Truman's Chief of Staff was Admiral William D. Leahy.
3. Why did Truman believe nuclear bombs needed to be used?    
Truman believed nuclear bombs needed to be used because he wanted unconditional surrender from Japan.
4. Why did Admiral Leahy believe nuclear bombs didn't need to be used?      
Admiral Leahy believed that nuclear bombs didn't need to be used because he believed Japan was already defeated and ready to surrender due to the sea blockade and the bombing of the mainland. 
5. Why did Supreme Allied Commander and future president Dwight D. Eisenhower believe they didn't need to be used?      
Supreme Allied Commander and future president Dwight D. Eisenhower believed that they didn't need to be used because he believed Japan was already defeated and thus the bombs were completely unnecessary. 
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 the cost of the Manhattan Project was so great that the amateur Truman felt forced to carry out its goal. 
7. Key critics of Truman's use of the bomb weren't on the "historical fringe," but were who?      
Key critics of Truman's use of the bomb were Truman's Secretary of War, Stimson, and his Chief of Staff, William D. 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 success of the Trinity Test changed Truman's mind for good.
9. Besides defeating Japan what was Truman's other possible motivation for using the nuclear bombs on Japan?    
Truman's other possible motivation for using the nuclear bombs on Japan was to demonstrate the United States' power to the Soviet Union.
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.     
Conventional thinking said that the Japanese would definitely declare defeat.
11. The four-power surrender ultimatum to be presented to Japan was to be written and decided upon where?    
The Potsdam Conference, which was to be in July 1945.
12. What did the Washington Post editorialize about "unconditional surrender"?     
The Washington Post said that "unconditional surrender" was never an ideal formula, meaning it was never truly desired.
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 of the Potsdam Proclamation prior to Truman setting sail on the USS Augusta was that it indicated that the fate of the current Japanese emperor at that time would be up to Japan, while the revised version of the paragraph didn't mention the "present dynasty".
14. What changed when the Proclamation was publicly announced on July 26?       
Paragraph 12 had been revised.
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 success of the Trinity test might have changed Truman's mind to alter the wording in Paragraph 12. This is because Truman now saw this nuclear power as a way to not only end the war but to also show the USSR what the U.S. was now capable of.
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?      
The author suggests that Truman was almost excited and still planning to use the bomb even though it appeared no longer necessary in order to have Japan surrender. 
17. What does his caption on the back of the photo of Stalin and Truman suggest about the use of the bomb?      
Truman's caption on the back of the photo of Stalin and Truman suggests that Truman was eager to use the bomb and to show it off to Stalin. 
18. "From a foreign policy perspective" what two accomplishments were made by dropping the bomb?    
"From a foreign policy perspective", the two accomplishments that were made by the dropping of the bomb were: ending the war with Japan and making the first move against the Soviet Union in the Cold War.
19. To give credit to Truman, why didn't he know what FDR's intentions were with the bomb?    
Truman didn't know what FDR's intentions were with the  bomb because he was a senator and then a vice president before and was kept in the dark about the bomb preparations, and he couldn't consult FDR since it was his death that brought Truman into the presidency. 
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?           
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 affected the understanding of the bombs' use because with the 1 million estimate it seems as if the bombs would save American lives, that's why the the 1 million figure was an exaggerated estimate: it was a justification to using the bombs despite the many Japanese losses.
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?     

Based on the readings and discussion in class, President Truman's decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified only by a small amount. Unconditional surrender was desired mainly by Truman, but not by his advisors or Churchill. Even when it became known that Japan was ready to surrender, Truman was still eagerly supporting the dropping of the bombs. He claimed it was to permanently end the war with Japan, which many argued was already over thanks to blockades and mainland bombing, and then he gained even more motivation to drop the bombs due to the prospect of intimidating the Soviet Union. Truman even went ahead and approved the dropping of the atomic bombs before telling Congress, or the people. He could have shown the power of the United States by going ahead and invading Japan before the 90 days the Soviet's declared had to pass before they'd help, and forcing them to admit defeat with the U.S. military. This, while costing more American lives, would still show the Soviet Union that the U.S. was certainly not dependent on them, and that their alliance was full of suspicion. The atomic bombing cost thousands of innocent Japanese lives, and was a cruel way to model power. Truman showed almost childish characteristics while deciding what to do with the bombs; he made comments such as "I am sure they will when Manhattan appears over their homeland" which demonstrated his aggression and absurd excitement over the event. He knew how much it cost the country to make the bombs, and was not willing to let that go to waste. While the bombs certainly caused the Soviets to realize the power of the U.S, they were not the only means in which that could have been done. Basically, Truman was an inexperienced president that was overwhelmed with the information of the bombs and their expensive construction, as well as the impending USSR, and he ignorantly approved the bombing despite the obvious disagreement from most of his advisors and the immense destruction it would cause. 

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?    
No, I don't think Source 17 is what they had in mind because it's a lot more drastic. It's a beginning to imposing communism throughout eastern Europe, and Churchill and Roosevelt certainly did not want the spread of communism, in fact, that's what they were trying to prevent.
2. Would they agree with Stalin’s views expressed in Sources 17 and 18? Explain your answer.       
No, they would not agree with Stalin's views expressed in Sources 17 and 18. This is because Stalin's armies remaining in every territory they liberated in eastern Europe and taking Poland meant that communism was being spread and becoming more and more prominent. They didn't feel as if this was necessary, as Stalin did. Also, Stalin refers to an anti-communist government in  Greece as something that he doubts about whether or not it is a truly representative government, and I'm sure that's also something Churchill and Roosevelt would disagree with.


3.  Explain how each of the three developments described in the text might affect relationships at Potsdam.      

Well, Stalin's armies occupying most of eastern Europe and imposing communism there would create even more hostility between Truman and Stalin, as Truman was already quite wary and suspicious of Stalin's actions in eastern Europe. Britain was additionally suspicious of Stalin. America's new president, Truman, was more anti-communist than Roosevelt was, so relations between him and Stalin were worse than relations between Stalin and Roosevelt were. The success of the U.S. in the development of the atomic bomb would create even more tension between the three men, as the other two knew that America now had an upper hand in weaponry advancement, and both Churchill and Stalin would be skeptical of how America was going to use this new technology.