History Reaction Paper: The Cold War

Throughout the centuries, the world has thrived by the symbiotic relationships of nations. One nation helped another in its time of greatest need sacrificing some of its own resources for the protection and survival of that other nation. One nation preferred global dominance over mutual, unhindered peace, conquering and being conquered. One nation needed recourses and, in an attempt to maintain global peace, formed a relationship of trade and mutual trust with the other nations. Ultimately, the history of the world has been determined by these actions and reactions of peoples. Even some of the smallest decisions of individuals have been influenced by the international circumstances of that particular time.

During the late twentieth century, there was a great tension between two nations, Russia (USSR) and America (US). Both were considered great world powers. They had amassed a large amount of weapons and had even created the devastating atomic bomb.

The tension, however, was not great enough to cause a war. Though there were times when war seemed inevitable, always a period of calm would rebuild a temporary equilibrium between the two knocking heads. After only a short time, however, something else would surface causing the fear and tension to rise once more.

This sort of international fluctuation continued tearing at the nations and eventually provoked an interesting assortment of responses from different politicians.

Henry A. Wallace sympathized with the USSR and felt that Russia’s so called “hostility” was only retaliation to former abuse. In a letter he wrote to President Truman, Wallace related several different historical confrontations between Russia and other nations. He believed that Russia was a mistreated nation being tossed here and there amongst the many different world powers. It only seemed fair to Wallace that Russia should feel the need to build weapons like the atomic bomb and begin to form a large defensive force.

Though Henry A Wallace sympathized with the USSR, he did not condone the use of Atomic warfare. He believed such weaponry could only result in a bruised and battered land. According to him, atomic war would not address the problem of international conflict but would only make it worse.

Hitting at the heart of the issue, Wallace believed that world peace could only be achieved through America’s acceptance of the USSR, a mutual laying-down of certain weapons, and other forms of peaceful compromise. Once people understood that the world could thrive with coexisting, different political thought processes without the use of weapons of mass destruction; then international interaction could become a tranquil, functioning environment.

Wallace was making an important point that, at first, seems reasonable and effective. It would be wonderful if the world consisted of rational thinking, peaceful-minded people. International trade would be such a smoother process and so many devastating wars could be avoided.

But such a mindset would never pass the realm of theory. Humans are imperfect. They are not robots who, when commanded to do certain things, will always obey or listen. In an attempt to show a desire for peace, one nation could very easily lay down its weapons and take away the defenses it built. But another nation, full of humans that desire power and money, may just as easily utilize that opportunity to obliterate its enemy.

I tend to agree with an opposing view of this Cold War standoff between the US and USSR. Clark Clifford believed that Russia and its communist philosophy was a great danger to the United States and needed to be warily watched. The USSR was a large world power. It had men and weapons at its disposal and, as it made seeming compromises with other nations, was growing more powerful and more dangerous.

The Russians rationalized this massive armament and gaining of power by passing the blame to America. According to circulating “Kremlin propaganda” in Russia, Monopoly Capitalism threatened the world with war. In essence, this propaganda labeled America’s Ideology as an intimidation to the western hemisphere. In Clifford’s view, however, the USSR’s retaliation was a far greater threat than the so called dangerous Monopoly Capitalism of America. Russia’s foreign policy essentially prepared it for war against such main capitalist nations as America. This policy allowed for a great increase in its previous military strength which incorporated developing atomic weapons and guided missiles, gaining materials for biological warfare, training a strategic air force, and building submarines of great cruising range.

Clifford saw this threat and knew that it was only a matter of time before Russia used its recourses against America. He was adamantly against America laying down its defenses. The US could not just sit on its thumbs and let dogma like communism continue existing in the world. Ultimately, he knew, the USSR doctrine would either destroy or be destroyed. No amount of peace on America’s part would stop the damage.

I agree that America should have been well prepared for such a force as the USSR. Laying down weapons and living at peace with Russia would have been nice. But such an action was neither pliable nor logical. In a world of real hostility and little mercy where power, money, and paranoia overruled all rational action, being prepared for war and being wary of the enemy was the only way to survive. In theory, Wallace had a great idea, but, in practicality, Clifford had the best course of action.