http://updates2009.com/blogs/2009/11/23/can-both-the-usa-and-ussr-justify-their-actions-in-europe-during-the-period-of-1945-1949/ Popular topics Q&A, Reviews, Daily Trends, Tech buzz and updates Tue, 02 Mar 2010 22:30:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://updates2009.com/blogs/2009/11/23/can-both-the-usa-and-ussr-justify-their-actions-in-europe-during-the-period-of-1945-1949/comment-page-1/#comment-277 Wordpress Autoblogging Plugin Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:05:45 +0000 http://updates2009.com/blogs/2009/11/23/can-both-the-usa-and-ussr-justify-their-actions-in-europe-during-the-period-of-1945-1949/#comment-277 Obviously the russkies took over most of eastern Europe much to Gen. Patton's chagrin. What post war actions did we take in post-war Europe "The Marshall Plan"??? Obviously the russkies took over most of eastern Europe much to Gen. Patton’s chagrin. What post war actions did we take in post-war Europe “The Marshall Plan”???

]]> http://updates2009.com/blogs/2009/11/23/can-both-the-usa-and-ussr-justify-their-actions-in-europe-during-the-period-of-1945-1949/comment-page-1/#comment-276 Andrew Walker Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:36:37 +0000 http://updates2009.com/blogs/2009/11/23/can-both-the-usa-and-ussr-justify-their-actions-in-europe-during-the-period-of-1945-1949/#comment-276 Justify their actions to whom? History is a matter of interpretation. Both countries saw their actions as in their best interest. You can't go back and change history, why try to assign blame now? Justify their actions to whom? History is a matter of interpretation. Both countries saw their actions as in their best interest. You can’t go back and change history, why try to assign blame now?

]]> http://updates2009.com/blogs/2009/11/23/can-both-the-usa-and-ussr-justify-their-actions-in-europe-during-the-period-of-1945-1949/comment-page-1/#comment-275 Jason B Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:59:49 +0000 http://updates2009.com/blogs/2009/11/23/can-both-the-usa-and-ussr-justify-their-actions-in-europe-during-the-period-of-1945-1949/#comment-275 It depends what you mean by "justified". From the point of view of its own strategic interests, the Soviet Union's actions in Eastern Europe may have made sense. In other words they were rational. Whether that makes them "justified" depends on your moral perspective. Ask the Poles, the Czechs or the Hungarians whether the USSR was justified in creating one-party dictatorships in their countries and of course they will say "no". Today no one would tolerate this kind of international behaviour. The US can certainly justify its actions, which included the Marshall Plan, the Berlin Airlift, and the creation of NATO. These made sense from the US's strategic interests and were also generally welcomed by the West Europeans. However, some criticize the US for over-reacting to the Communist threat. Given the realities of the time, it was probably inevitable that the Soviets would behave as they did in Eastern Europe and Germany. As far as the second question is concerned, I would say that both sides played a role in beginning the Cold War. However, what was the alternative? Should the US have simply made friends with Stalin and ignored what the Soviets were doing? I don't think we would regard that as morally justified. The Cold War was very costly, but it wasn't the worst alternative. In Europe it was a time of peace and (in the West) prosperity, and it ultimately ended with the liberation of Eastern Europe. If the US had acted differently, the long-term outcome might not have been so positive. It depends what you mean by “justified”.
From the point of view of its own strategic interests, the Soviet Union’s actions in Eastern Europe may have made sense. In other words they were rational. Whether that makes them “justified” depends on your moral perspective.
Ask the Poles, the Czechs or the Hungarians whether the USSR was justified in creating one-party dictatorships in their countries and of course they will say “no”. Today no one would tolerate this kind of international behaviour.
The US can certainly justify its actions, which included the Marshall Plan, the Berlin Airlift, and the creation of NATO. These made sense from the US’s strategic interests and were also generally welcomed by the West Europeans.
However, some criticize the US for over-reacting to the Communist threat. Given the realities of the time, it was probably inevitable that the Soviets would behave as they did in Eastern Europe and Germany.
As far as the second question is concerned, I would say that both sides played a role in beginning the Cold War. However, what was the alternative? Should the US have simply made friends with Stalin and ignored what the Soviets were doing? I don’t think we would regard that as morally justified.
The Cold War was very costly, but it wasn’t the worst alternative. In Europe it was a time of peace and (in the West) prosperity, and it ultimately ended with the liberation of Eastern Europe. If the US had acted differently, the long-term outcome might not have been so positive.

]]>