Contemporary US History - Essay Example

Prof’s Exam Questions In 1945 Truman faced what might have been one of the hardest decisions any president has ever had to face – whether to use the newest and most powerful weapon ever created on a civilian population. It is hard to say exactly what factors Truman considered, but they were certainly more than just a quick end to the war. One thing that must be considered is the fact that true weapons of mass destruction had never really been seen prior to the bombs dropping on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and Truman likely did not fear the bomb the way people would have through the course of the Cold War and afterwards, when there were enough bombs to end all of humanity. Firebombing had already been used on civilian centers to nearly completely destroy them, so Truman likely simply saw this as a slightly more efficient and more devastating example of the same kind of bombing. This means he likely did not need a significant theoretical justification for using an atomic weapon, like world leaders today would. I believe this also means he would have been willing to sue the weapon against Germany if the opportunity presented itself. He certainly dropped the bomb to end the war quickly, and, depending on which historian one talks to, this may have saved many lives – Japanese soldiers had fought to the last man on island battles, and there is no reason to suppose less effort would have been given to defending the mainland. But he also certainly wanted to demonstrate possession of this new technology to Stalin, as demonstrated by his journal at Potsdam, in order to maintain leverage in the post-war world. It is impossible to say whether the bomb dropping was morally justified – with the hind-sight of history we find the use of any weapon of mass destruction morally reprehensible, but the fact remains it is likely that Truman’s decision saved lives. Question 2: The standard view of the 1950s is of a peaceful and largely affluent country in the United States – this is a fundamental foundational myth of our times, but retains some truth to it. There are many reasons that the United States has the perception of being a peaceful and affluent place during the 1950s. The GI bill was a large part of this – it gave many men the first chance at a college education and home ownership that their family has had in generations, which helped bolster and create a large, affluent working class. Unions were on the rise and still relatively powerful, meaning that lower-skilled jobs were still likely to pay a living wage, unlike they are now, and the tax code was much more equitable, with incredibly high rates on capital gains and high incomes – in many ways economic equity was at its height in the 1950s. This all belies, however, significant strife and social issues that were ongoing throughout the decade. The advances mentioned in the previous paragraph were almost entirely situated on white men, black people and immigrants had very little chance of actually achieving a living wage without working many hours and sometimes multiple jobs. Furthermore, the political situation in the 1950s was incredibly tumultuous, with fear reigning supreme and constant feeling of communist threat. Many innocent people, from film makers and politicians to ordinary Americans were detained and interrogated at the mere suggestion of communist sympathy or activity, and there were significant restrictions on constitutional freedoms such as free speech and freedom of association. While the overwhelming narrative of the 1950s was of a peaceful and prosperous country, there were many dark undercurrents of racism and oppression that were not represented by that view. This does not mean there was no truth to it, however, merely that we must temper our historical understanding with the sure knowledge that everything was not as it is often portrayed, and the roots of the uprising of the 1960s were all laid in the oppressions of the 1950s. Question 3: a. At the close of World War II America was posed, for the first time, as the most dominant country in the world. It had a robust developed economy that had emerged from the war completely unscathed (the only country in the world that could claim that), along with a political situation that was remarkably stable, considering that Japan, China, Russia and Germany all had significant shifts in government within the few decades before the opening or immediately after the close of World War II. It had the most powerful military and economy in the world. But did was its prominence good for the world, or bad for it? A first blush answer would be that it is hard to interpret the rise of America as good for the world. As the most powerful country in the world, it chose to use its power in several imperialist missions to spread its view of the way the world should be across the globe. It stopped largely indigenous, nationalist revolutions in several countries including Vietnam, siding with the French in their imperialist endeavours over local communist leaders, it armed mujahidin in Afghanistan which allowed the formation of a brutal repressive Taliban government, and even today it gets itself embroiled in wars that destabilize the world and create brutal regimes. What must be taken into account, however, is that the United States was not the only superpower at the close of World War II – there was also the USSR. Russia had at least as much of an imperialist agenda as America did, and probably more given their willingness to make land grabs in Eastern Europe after the close of the war. They occupied Afghanistan and propped up a vicious soviet government. They engaged in proxy wars and international intrigue to incite revolution in several countries. Furthermore, Russia was probably more repressive of its own people that the United States was, completely quashing dissent from any and all sources, banning free speech, not holding free elections, and forcing their population to live in disproportionately poor living conditions compared to the wealth of the soviet economy. So were the United States not a balancing force to counteract the Soviet Union, the world might be a much worse place today. It is impossible to make an accurate judgement of whether the United States has been good for the world or bad for the world overall, because we cannot see the alternatives. We know, however, that it made many reprehensible decisions, and could have been much, much better than it was – but the alternative might have been worse. Read More