As we continue our study of the Cold War, we will be moving beyond the policies of Truman and Stalin and on to the policies of Eisenhower and Khrushchev. Please read below and comment to answer the 3 questions to the best of your ability.
Eisenhower extended Truman's policy of containment, particularly to the Middle East with the Eisenhower Doctrine. In this sense, Truman and Eisenhower were in agreement over foreign policy goals. Their methods, however, were largely different. Truman de-emphasized the use of atomic weapons in order to enforce containment and instead relied heavily on the use of conventional military force. Eisenhower viewed this as too costly and too timid, so he utilized the policy of massive retaliation. In your opinion, based on the short-term and long-term interests of the United States, which president had the better policy?
Stalin supported an expansionist foreign policy as a means of protecting the USSR from foreign invasion, but did so in a confrontational and forceful way. He provoked anti-Western attitudes in order to generate hostility and thus weaken the West, and was used to use brutality in crushing any opposition. Khrushchev's policy of peaceful coexistence encouraged non-aggressive competition between the two systems, and he believed that this competition would result in the spread of communism without generating conflict. His break from Stalin, however, gave the Soviet satellite states the impression that they could break away from Soviet control and resulted in a number of Soviet crackdowns, particularly in Eastern Europe. In your opinion but based on the short-term and long-term interests of the Soviet Union, which leader had the better policy?
Historians are divided over this next question, but give it your best shot. Did Khrushchev's policy of peaceful coexistence help reduce or expand the tensions of the Cold War?
I believe that Truman's policy was used because it was all he knew, so therefore it was better in that the US was more comfortable with that policy. Eisenhower's policy on the other hand, while it was much more aggressive and did increase tension, proved to be more effective. During Eisenhower's presidency there was no major war such as Korea or Vietnam so it obviously was effective in preventing military clashes, although he didn't end Cold War completely so it wasn't completely effective, I think it beat Truman's policy.
ReplyDeleteAs far as USSR foreign policy goes I think Khrushchev's policy was more effective, it allowed for a more open and less aggressive relationship with the US
I agree with Tess in that Truman did what he knew to have a policy, but then Eisenhower learned from Truman's successes and fails and created a more effective policy. So, Eisenhower's policy was better because it was less costly and it was able to have more peace between disagreeing nations.
ReplyDeleteWith the USSR's policy, I think Khrushchev's policy was better because it was much less hostile than Stalin's. Stalin's greatly increased tension with the West, but Khrushchev's was much more relaxed and helped to lessen the hostilities between the USSR and the US.
I think Khrushchev's policy was able to lessen tensions in the Cold War. It was much calmer between the USSR and the US during the time of Khrushchev's policy.
Having the knowledge of how this all turned out, I think Eisenhower had the better policy becuase of the lack of wars and major conflicts during his term. But I don't look down upon Truman's policiy, its idea of less aggressive was in the best interest. I just think the timing was off. I think that if Krushchev had been in power while Truman held office it would have worked out differently and I think Truman would have been more effective.
ReplyDeleteAs for the USSR, I have to say Stalin's policy more paralleled that of the nation's interest than that of Krushchev. I definitely think Krushchev's policy was much better than Stalin's, but in terms of USSR interests, Stalin wins out for me. He wanted an all out marxist revolution and to take down capitalism, and his people wanted that too. I think Krushchev's policy was better for the world; it was trying to find some middle ground for these two contrasting ideals to coexist the best they could.
So, its obvious that I think Krushchev's policy helped to reduce Cold War tensions. I think a reason why it didn't resolve it is simply because the world was all hyped up on war adrenaline and prejudices and wasn't ready to settle on compromise.
As weird, as it will sound I have a huge hatred of atomic weaponry. On that note, I think Truman's policy was much superior. Just look at the world now a days, Iran (?), Israel, Syria, and other nations are building or have nuclear and that scares me. While I do not think that Eisenhower was the direct cause of all the weaponry I still feel that the US's idea of massive retaliation spread to which I blame Eisenhower.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to USSR, I think that the policy of Stalin was more beneficial to the USSR. Stalin had clear goals and made significant gains on them. He wanted border/buffer states and he got them. He wanted a communist revolution and he helped cause many revolutions. While Khrushchev's policy was very general and caused uprisings and crackdowns.
I think that the policy's of Khrushchev did cause an increase in tension in the Cold War. It was not the tension of Stalin, where his was from him bluntly planning and saying he was going to get you, and that scared people. Khrushchev's caused tension in that it made people think that the USSR was going to be kinder but then once states started to rebel he stopped that, violently, quite violently. That scared people and caused the increase in tension.
At first I thought that Truman had a more succesful policy. It seemed to me that Eisenhower's policy of massive retaliation just added to the tensions at the time. However, after reading Tess's post, I think she has a point. Espescially the part about there being no big wars like Korea or Vietnam. While Eisenhower's policy was more aggressive it did get results.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to USSR foriegn policy I think Stalin was more effective, even though he was kind of horrible. I think that people want to believe Krushchev's policy was better because it emphasizes things that we consider nice and right. However, I don't believe his policy got the results that Stalin's did. Eventually it just led to nations rebelling against Soviet control and didn't really make any big advancements for the USSR. That said, I believe Krushchev's policy caused an increase in tensions. While it seemed to be extending a more friendly hand to the US I think people questioned his motives. And like AJ said, when states rebelled he responded violently.
I think Eisenhower's policy was better just because of the lack of war and i think it turned us away from just mass arms build up which i view as a good thing. Hence i also think Khrushchev's policy was better because it was less hostile than Stalin's. Basically in my opinion anything getting us away from bombing the world is better. And i agree with anna on the last question Khrushchev's policy was able to lessen tensions in the Cold War more than Eisenhower's was. Khrushev's policy seemed to make the tension less intence.
ReplyDeleteI think that Eisenhower's policy of massive retaliation was more effective. Because of the possibility of absolute devastation, the USSR was less likely to act impulsively against the US. This meant that there were fewer confrontations while Eisenhower's policy was in effect.
ReplyDeleteStalin's policy was probably better for the Soviet Union itself. While it was brutal, it kept the states together. They didn't think that breaking away was an option, as they did once Khrushchev denounced Stalin.
However, I do think that Khrushchev's policy helped reduce the tensions of the Cold War. By backing off a little, it gave both sides a polite facade to hide behind while they interacted.
I believe that for both short term and long term goals trumans policy would be more effective. I think that the emphasis on conventional millitary tactics worked in the short term and would hlep lessen tensions and create friends in the long term, where as Eisenhowes policy of massive retaliation could be more effective in the short term long term effects probably not as favorable. I think that Krushchev's policies would be more effective in the long term but stalins was more effective in the short term. Stalin really pushed countries to their breaking limit and while they all agreed to go along with stalin they were not happy about it and eventually that was going to back fire and those countries were going to turn on him. Khrushchev's policy didnt really work for the short term but i feel like in the long term it would be more effective just because countries would have better relations with Soviets.
ReplyDeleteExpand. when Eastern European contreies started to break away it created a lot more tension.
I think that, at least in the long run, Truman's policy would have been more effective, or at least had a happier outcome. Eisenhower rather started the whole potential nuclear war thing, and that ended up quite badly, as I think we can all agree. Truman avoided that with his reliance on more conventinal military tactics.
ReplyDeleteForigen policy is all about relations with other countries, and i think that Kruzchev's attitude better fostered those relations with the entire world. He was seen as less of a giant threat than Stalin was, and at least tried to minimized tensions. Of course, this led to revolts in Eastern Europe, which didn't really go with his plan, and caused major retaliation on the USSR's part. This sort of thing is why I think he increased cold war tensions. He didn't have a clear plan, or a clear doctrine that other countries could judge him by. This ambiguity caused heightened tensions.
I think it's interesting that Truman dropped the first atomic bomb, yet he "de-emphasized" atomic weapons as a means of winning the war. Anyway, I think Truman's policy was better in the longrun. In class we all say how the aggression and nosiness of the US is partly why so many countries resent us; Truman, however, had a more conventional, traditional approach that didn't have as immediate of affects, but would've in the longrun gained more respect for the United States. Eisenhower's policy would have more immediate results, but perhaps not better results, and in the longrun there would be a loss of respect for the US because of such aggressive methods. I apply the same idea to the Stalin-vs.-Kruschev policy idea - Kruschev had a much more peaceful, less antagonistic approach, which would gain more respect for the USSR in the longrun and probably have fewer enemies as well. As for the last question, I believe Kruschev's policy was definitely an improvement on Stalin's. The US is far too proud to back down when facing an enemy, particularly communism. Stalin-like policies would've eventually caused the US to increase their efforts even more, which would further increase tensions.
ReplyDeleteI think Truman had the better policy. He recognized that although nuclear weapons came with power, they could never be used. He knew that if the U.S. openly used atomic weaponry on other countries, eventually we would get hit ourselves. Therefore it was best to claim that nuclear weapons would not be used, to dissipate that chances of nuclear warfare in the future. In the short term, Stalin had the better policy for the USSR. without brutal tactics, the countries of Eastern Europe never would have fallen into line with the Soviets. His aggressive policies were needed to keep Soviet satellites in check. However, in the long run Stalin created a lot of hatred toward himself and the Soviet Union, which would hurt Soviet chances of winning the Cold War. So, Krushchev's peaceful policies were more beneficial for the Soviets in the long run. I believe Krushchev's policies increased Cold War tensions because he did not come off as a bad guy. Stalin was easy to portray as a villain and the U.S. used this to its advantage. Krushchev however, did not come off as villainous and this scared the U.S. who relied heavily on their appearance as the good guy in the conflict.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Truman's containment policy was more effective in the long run. Even though Tess said that there was no major wars during Eisenhower's time it was probably most likely due to the fact nothing really bad happened during his time I mean Eisenhower's aggressive policy would most likely have escalated the Vietnam and Korean War, and you didn't have those crazy North Koreans attack South Korea during the time of Eisenhower so one could argue that having no major wars during Eisenhower's time was due to luck. Kennedy wanted a more containment policy and it worked out pretty good like with the Cuban Missile crisis, If Eisenhower during that time would have taken an aggressive action there most likely would have been a nuclear war. Most likely agreeing with everyone that Kruschev's had the more peaceful policy since it did release some tension from the cold war.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I actually think Eisenhower's policy proved more effective. Everybody is saying how Truman had it right because he knew that nukes couldn't be used and Eisenhower was too aggressive, but look at what actually happened. Eisenhower didn't use nuclear bombs, and the US was not involved in war. I think this clearly proves which was better in terms of both the long and short run.
ReplyDeleteAs for the East, I think Stalin had the better strategy. Well we may not like or agree with his violent tactics, they were highly effective. The Soviet Union grew, expanded, and became an incredible superpower. It's impossible to say he was not successful, so that puts him ahead of Krushchev in my mind.
I agree with Kaylan (and others) that Eisenhower's policy proved more effective, though in reality both policies were clearly fairly effective, they both mananged to avoid a major war with the Soviet Union but as far as having the US avoid war and save the most face and resources Eisenhower was much more effective. We had the weapons to intimidate people and clearly they were strong enough to prove effective.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the Soviet Union is concerned, I feel like Stalin was the most "effective" at keeping the Soviet Union ahead. Although Kruschev's policy was more friendly and diplomatic, it was unwise of him to assume that communism would win out naturally, why not assure victory by putting something besides luck in the mix? As Mr. Geary said, this caused lots of trouble for the Soviet Union, between uprisings and the lack of support from their leader to oppose the US containing communism. Although Stalin was violent, unpredictable and just outright bad, he was much more effective at keeping the Soviet Union in power and with solid control over it's vast amount of territory.
1.) I think that Eisenhower had the better policy because of his long-term goals. By saving money, the people in the U.S. would provide more popular support while at the same time, he could use more force to combat the Soviets. Although it stirred on the arms race even more, his policy would have worked much sooner at bringing a Soviet reaction, causing the Soviets to do more research and work towards furthering her military technology.
ReplyDelete2.) Based on the short-term expansion of the Soviet Union, I think that Stalin had a much better policy because the of United States' policy of a more peaceful containment. The U.S. could not actually attack the Soviets, or the war would break out from the conflict.
3.) I think that because of the change in leadership, where Eisenhower had the "offensive" foreign policy and Kruschev had the peaceful policy the tide of the war was changed towards U.S.' favor.
I think Eisenhower had a better policy. Truman's relied on the threat of nuclear warfare which really escalated the arms race and increased the possibility of nuclear warfare.
ReplyDeleteI personally like Kruschev's policy better, but because of the tensions of the time I think It's obvious that Stalin accomplished more of what he wanted to. He expanded and china fell to communism. In Kruschev's rule the world nearly fell to nuclear war.
I don't think the policy of coexsistance increased tensions, but I do think that tensions escalated dramatically during his rule. I don't have exact details but I'm sure there were actions that Kruschev took that undermined the ideals of his policy.
I think that, in terms of short term gain (preventing immediate Soviet expansion) and long term gain (destabilizing the Soviet Union), Eisenhower's policy was superior to that of Truman's. However, I also believe the part of the reason why Eisenhower was so successful with his policy was because he had such a non-combative political opponent (Kruschev) at the head of the Soviet Union. If Stalin had been leading at the same time as Eisenhower, the world could have entered nuclear war.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Stalin had a better policy for short-term and long-term gain of the Soviet Union. Kruschev's peaceful coexistence plan didn't really work out: the only major country to switch to communism during this time was Cuba, and other communist countries began to rebel against Soviet Russia.
I think that Kruschev's policies did help in winding down the Cold War. Because Kruschev didn't actually fight with the United States, the war didn't escalate- and with Eisenhower at the head of the United States, escalated war could mean nuclear war.
To start with the first question:
ReplyDeleteI think that Truman was a very good president. His policies for the time and what was happening in the World, he handled the trials of the Cold War well and keep the countries best interests first. So with that in mind I would have to say I think his policies were in my opinion better during the Cold War. In particular I think his policies towards China and his ability to admit to losing China in order to save W. Europe. If he had lost W. Europe the US would have lost many allies and they would have been in great trouble for the future.
2. I think in terms of short term and long term success for the USSR I think Kruschev had better policies. I think he looked at things from a more diplomatic POV which allied rational and well though decisions to be made, he was not so much a "hot head" that Stalin was. Also his ability to go against Stalin after his rule for so long andhave a completely different stance I think is something to be respected.
3. I think that tensions during his rule although not dramatically did increase a bit. Although he had an idea of peaceful coexistence Eisenhower had a policy of massive retaliation. These two did not mix and I think that it caused tensions to rise.