Final Blog...sniff, sniff!

I look at the Cold War caused by both military technology and political idealogy. When the US became the super power of the west after WWII, most everyone was waiting too see the next step, dealing with Russia. Each political power was differnt on all levels...economically, socially but were the same in world thinking that THIER way was right and should be spread. Military wise the Americans had the hydrogen bomb, but only time would give them that advantage. They each wanted control, and each knew the other was in the way. With Russias developement of the bomb giving them equal standing with the US, Europe was stuck in the middle. With the European countries being land-locked with Russia, experiences and ways of life during the Cold War were greatly influenced on how thier veiwpoint of this time was compared to US feelings and thinking.

Second to Last Blog

Khrushchev needed away to not only seperate himself from Stalin and his memeory, but to align himself with the person who is considered the greatest Russian since...well, since Lenin. Using this letter that Lenin had wrote about Stalin showing not only his disproval of him as a leader but as a Russian as well helped Krushchev make his own name to the Russian people as not only thier leader, but someone who allies themself with Lenin. By having Stalins body removed from the being placed next to Lenin not only solidified his role and power to the people, but weakend the allies of Stalin still hanging around. Lenin is considered a great man, aleader among leaders, and having his body displayed like it is to the people continued to show them how great he was still in the 50's.

Blog for Week Kyu

It's great to play armchair quarterback on the mondays following an NFL weekend, I do all the time; much like parents always telling me I should have done this or that in a game the night before (usually having to deal with how thier daughter should have played more). Werent the Brits always telling Generals Marshall and Eisenhower that an invasion in Europe in '42 and '43 was not only foolish, but showed how the Americans were new to a World War event...and they were right. But they (British High COmmand Generals)were wrong in wanting to back up Churchills plans in attacking the soft underbelly of the Germans through Italy. When things turn out the way you say they are going too after the fact, anyone can look like a prophet or someone who should have been listened to more. Churchill you can say was in the right place at the right time, and I think that is what the author is saying. This Grand Alliance in '41 came because the circumstances were different than in '38 when appeasement probably saved more lives than not. No one trusted the Russians, the Americans really had no reason to join in an effort to go to war in Europe, and France was confused; The Brits stood alone in '38, and Chamberlain knew it. You can write hitory books after the fact, like Churchill did, and make it sound like you knew what you were talking about before the fact; but like I've always said, history is written by the victors, and the author is pointing out the Churchill did exactly that.

Blog for Week Sechs

Countries felt they needed something better. People felt betrayed and disallusioned. Europe wasnt sure how the war really made anything other than a huge economic mess and feelings of resentment and bitterness towards other countries. I look at it in my terms of coaching basketball; I tell my girls there is always one point in a game that either the team we are playing is going to take it away and blow us out, or we can strike quickly and get back into the game and compete. The '20s in Europe is this moment. People needed something everywhere, a leader or a reason or anything for themsleves to beleive in...this was a Time of Possibilities.

Blog for Week Quatre

President Bush's gamble on bringing democracy to the middle east to most people a ploy for other things. Im not going to discuss politics on that level. So lets say that the main goal is a democracy, does might equal right? Do we, as a democratic state, feel that we need to push our agenda on other nations because we feel we are right? But it is for world peace, to bring harmony and peace to a troubled area; yeah that sounds good, but is it what we are really doing? We need them to be able to work with us on an economic level and that is not going to heppen peacefully once you bring religion into the discussion. You cannot bring democracy and peace to an area that hates you for no other reason than their God tells them so. This isnt all of the middle east, but the area we are trying to change had those people in it, and its easier to change a tigers stripes than a religious fanatic who has devoted followers and a God.
For Bush, Wilson or any other Prez to think that they would be able to enforce or push their ideoligical values on other people is hubris and will eventually fail until the people of that region, the ENTIRE population want a change for their betterment, not the west.

Week Dos Blog

WWI quickly became a stalemate for alot of reasons, mostly that no one was prepared for the type of war that was going to happen. The "quick" war that everyone expeceted did not happen, and fighting quickly turned into front line positions and neither side gaining any advantage towards the other. This is where the stalemate comes.
Fighting for the soldier was intense, especialy with the amount of casualties that happened. Though the 3 week rotation was good for the troops, 7000 KIA, wounded or missing a day did not help your odds. With the addition of chemical warfare and new heavy artillery going around, the term "war is hell" brings on a whole new meaning for the fighting man.
Also, not having adiquate medical support could have easily messed with the soldiers mind and death being eminate with any type of disease or wound.

Also...

Forgot...this is for my 20th Century European History Class with Dr Guy on MWF from 11-1150am...just an FYI