NSC-68 and the Arms Race

1. Study Source 7. According to this source, how serious was the Soviet nuclear threat?      
Source 7 says that the Soviet nuclear threat was extremely serious. According to the source, the Soviets would be able to deal heavy damage to many Americans and make a first strike within only a few years.


2. What measures is Source 7 calling for?     
Source 7 calls for increased air defenses, air warning systems, and a more developed civilian defense program. The source states that if they did not take these measures, the Soviets would have the upper hand in the arms race.


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 exaggerated. All the statements regarding crippling America's "superiority in economic potential" and "decisive initial attacks" were followed by a clause that basically said "if we do nothing." This clause added onto almost everything described in the document make it seem like the threat level was heavily exaggerated.


4. Study Source 8. What criticisms are made of Source 7?    
Source 8 says that Source 7 willfully exaggerated the actual threat of Soviet power in the report. It also states that the report completely exaggerated how unprepared America actually was. 


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's motives were to intimidate the Soviet Union so that they wouldn't make an attack. He knew that we were already much more armed than they were, but with this report the defense budget was quadrupled. Hence our arsenal of bombs was much larger than the Soviet Unions, providing for an effective intimidation method.

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

No, Source 7 is still very useful as a historical source. It shows evidence of what strategies were taken for the pure purpose of intimidation. It also shows the extent to which the U.S. government was concerned about the U.S.S.R. attacking purely based of the fact that they believed this.

Berlin Blockade Document Analysis

1. What type of document is this? What is its purpose?      
These documents are formerly classified memorandums written for President Truman. They are meant to inform him on the Soviets' reaction to events in Berlin and possible Soviet plans.


2. When was it written? Why is that significant?     
 They were written in 1948 just after the Berlin Blockade began. This means all of the plans and actions that are being written about are probably taking place in response to the Blockade and its consequences. 


3. Who created the document? Who received the document?     
 Rear Admiral Hillenkoetter, the Director of Central Intelligence, created the document. President Truman, General Walsh, Mr. Murphy, the Army, and the State Department received the document.


4. Who is Marshal Sokolovsky?     
 Marshal Sokolovsky was a Russian official involved in figuring out the consequences from the Berlin blockade on East Berlin. He discovered that East Berlin was more reliant on the Western zone than they had originally thought. 


5. How did the CIA get information of the meeting between Marshal Sokolovsky and German members of the German industrial committee?      
 The CIA got this information most likely from a spy at the meeting. It was definitely a source they believed they could rely on, as stated in the last sentence in parenthesis. 
  

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 alternatives presented were going to war, ending the blockade, or handing over control of all of Berlin to the West. They ended up choosing none of these options and continued the blockade. All of these alternatives were either too dangerous or would make the Soviets lose too much face. 

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 cancelling 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" were the allies who created the Treaty of Versailles. This statement shows that the Soviets didn't agree with anything the United States was doing and that they wanted to be ready for any possible attacks from the West. I think the allies were justified. Clearly the Soviet Union was planning on arming themselves for a possible war. The Soviets relied on Germany for food and industry because the West was supplying West Germany and they, without knowing it, received many supplies and industry in East Berlin from West Berlin.

The Berlin Blockade and Airlift

1. What is Source 37 (p. 75) saying about Josip Tito, leader of Yugoslavia?     
Source 37 is saying that Tito is a traitor, hence the "Judas" on his blanket, by taking money from the Marshall plan. The Soviet Union wanted to portray him as an enemy and a weakling, which they did by having him on his knee appearing to be a beggar. This cartoon was likely made around the time that Yugoslavia was expelled from Cominform.


2. Why do you think Stalin was so hostile to Tito?        
Stalin believed that Tito set a bad example for the other Communist states. He believed that America was trying to make Eastern European countires dependent on them so they could enter into his Communist controlled area. With Tito being the only Communist leader who did take Marshall Aid, Stalin believed he was making the USSR seem weak to the west and to other nations in Cominform. He had to show everyone that they still had 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?     
Yugoslavia is just east of the Iron Curtain. This means if Stalin had sent troops, it would have been an easy target for the Allies to defend, as it is also reasonably close to West Germany. Stalin had no way of knowing if Truman had some of his fancy new Atomic bombs in West Germany either, so he didn't take that risk.

4. Read Source 40 (p. 77). What reasons did the Soviet Union give for cutting off West Berlin?       
The Soviet Union claimed there were technical difficulties that made it impossible for the trucks of supplies to get through. They also claimed they had coal shortages to explain why they had cut off some electricity to parts of Western Germany. 


5. Why do you think the USA did not believe these were genuine reasons?           
It seems unlikely that all of these difficulties would just happen to occur when there were very high tensions between the two nations. Stalin was feeling less powerful due to the Marshall Aid money going to Yugoslavia. Getting rid of all supplies and electricity into West Berlin was a perfect chance to get back at the U.S., and the U.S. knew it.


6. How do Sources 41–43 differ in their interpretation of the blockade?            
Source 41 claimed that neither side gained anything but a prolonged conflict due to the blockade and subsequent airlift. Source 42, on the other hand, as it was a speech by Truman, made the air lift seem like a fight for freedom that America was unquestionable winning. Source 43 says that the USSR never even blockaded Berlin in the first place, and that it was all a scheme by America to make the Soviet Union look bad. 


7.  Which do you think is the most useful source for a historian studying the Berlin Blockade?       
Source 40 is the most useful. It shows a genuine government document that contains pure facts. The facts are that the Soviet Union was not letting supplies into Berlin supposedly because of technical difficulties and shortages. These facts are left up to interpretation by the historian. 



8.  Which source do you think gives the most reliable view of the blockade?      
Source 41 gives the most reliable view of the blockade. It was made by a historian looking in hindsight rather than an official on either side of the government writing during the blockade, when they constantly have to think about the reaction of the Soviet Union. This way the historian can weigh the benefits and detriments of the blockade without worrying about anyone's reaction.


          

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)      


I believe it is exactly what Stalin was planning to do. The evidence of his actions in Eastern Europe show that he's willing to be aggressive in order to spread Communism. His unwillingness to accept non-communist governments bordering the Soviet Union was evident and he made it clear that he wanted to spread Communism around the world. 


  
2. Source 26 is a British source. Does it seem likely that similar documents were being produced by the American government?      
Most likely similar documents were being produced. We were close allies with Britain and probably had similar views. Not to mention Truman was very anti-communist and anti-communism was a popular ideal at this time in America.



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.) Imprisoning opposition leaders and Church leaders in Hungary. - This ensured that the Communist party was the only one in the "free" elections so they would definitely come to power.

2.) Banning all other parties in Czechoslovakia. - This way Czechoslovakia became a one party state run totally and completely by the Communist.

3.) Executing the other members of a left wing coalition in Bulgaria. - By executing the other leaders, the Communists were able to ride them to power then keep power after their death since the coalition had been elected as a whole. 

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?    
He believed it was the only way that America could get Japan to unconditionally surrender

4. Why did Admiral Leahy believe nuclear bombs didn't need to be used?      
He said that they had already effectively won with conventional bombing and a successful blockade.

5. Why did Supreme Allied Commander and future president Dwight D. Eisenhower believe they didn't need to be used?      
He too believed that Japan at this point was pretty much defeated.

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?     
That since so much money had been spent on making the bomb Truman just wanted to use it so it wouldn't be a waste.

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

8. Truman began to soften on his stance for unconditional surrender but something occurred that changed his mind for good. What was that?     
The successful Trinity test of the bomb.

9. Besides defeating Japan what was Truman's other possible motivation for using the nuclear bombs on Japan?    
Showing the Soviet Union that we were very powerful.

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.     
The Japanese would surely surrender.

11. The four-power surrender ultimatum to be presented to Japan was to be written and decided upon where?    
Postdam conference, July 1945.

12. What did the Washington Post editorialize about "unconditional surrender"?     
It was never a good idea in the first place.

13. What is the significance of Paragraph 12 in the draft copy of the Potsdam Proclamation prior to Truman setting sail on the USSAugusta? (More detail is needed for this question)     
Paragraph 12 made it clear to the Japanese people that their emperor would still be safe. It also was more on the side of conditional surrender and the softening that Truman's advisers had suggested. The language used put the power to end the war in Japanese hands, giving them the power to stop the killing. 



14. What changed when the Proclamation was publicly announced on July 26?       
The portion regarding a constitutional monarchy with the present dynasty is removed.

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)      
The successful testing of the Trinity bomb was a large reason for the changing of the word. An uncertain test suddenly became a powerful weapon of war for Truman. He was now certain he could make the Japanese surrender. He also didn't want to seem soft to the Soviet Union since he knew he would have to deal with them after the war, and being merciless with Japan would show Stalin that he wasn't afraid.


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 learns from Churchill that the Japanese were planning to surrender, and nevertheless decides to use the bomb. The author suggests this shows that he had decided to use it regardless of what happened.

17. What does his caption on the back of the photo of Stalin and Truman suggest about the use of the bomb?      
It might be used by Truman almost as bragging rights over Stalin.

18. "From a foreign policy perspective" what two accomplishments were made by dropping the bomb?    
Ending the war with Japan and being the first to "attack" in the Cold War against the Soviet Union.

19. To give credit to Truman, why didn't he know what FDR's intentions were with the bomb?    
Before becoming president he was kept in total secrecy, and really no one knew what FDR's intention was in regards to the atomic bomb.

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?           
This discrepancy was used to help Truman give the American public a bigger reason to support the bombing. He knew that if that many American lives were at stake no one would publicly disagree with it.

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 justified in the context of the Cold War but not World War II. This means that the reasoning that it was justified because there was no other way to make Japan surrender is not correct. The emperor of Japan was planning to surrender by the time that Truman decided to drop the bomb. However, if Truman had not dropped the bomb, we would not have asserted our power over the Soviet Union to set the stage for the Cold War. Hence, it was the right decision for the Cold War. 

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 think the "sphere of influence" that Churchill and Roosevelt had in mind was much less militarily oriented. Based on Source 17, Stalin planned on keeping a firm grip on these nations with his powerful troops. Churchill and Roosevelt merely agreed to let him set up governments there, essentially Communist puppet governments. The fact that he felt the need to control them with his army as well shows some distrust he felt for the other two leaders. 

2. Would they agree with Stalin’s views expressed in Sources 17 and 18? Explain your answer.
No, Stalin expresses rather anti-U.S.A. and Great Britain sentiments in source 18. The tone sounds almost annoyed at the two countries for interfering, as he thinks he didn't interfere with Greece. He believes they should return the favor. I believe Churchill and Roosevelt would think that Stalin was thinking of mounting a conquest of all of Europe through Poland, where as Greece was crucial for Great Britain's security. I think they would agree to some extent with source 17. Although they would not think it was the ideal method of imposing ideology, I think the two leaders would acknowledge that a large army certainly helps.




3.  Explain how each of the three developments described in the text might affect relationships at Potsdam.
The fact that Stalin was keeping his troops in eastern Europe was very threatening to the other leaders at the conference. Although he claimed it was to prevent further attacks, the war in Europe was over, so naturally the leaders were dubious. Truman's anti-communist tendencies certainly didn't help Stalin's image in his eyes either. Truman, with the newfound power of the atomic bomb under his belt, felt like he could genuinely go toe to toe with Stalin if need be. The three developments probably made for a tense conference.