Although they agreed to work for democracy, but they have different interpretation of democratic. USSR believe democratic government should be a communist one, as communists truly represent the people; but USA think it should involve different political parties competing to win people's support in free election. Disagreement had change their relations. The success of this conference were mainly based on Stalin's relation with Roosevelt, but the situation in the next conference change when Roosevelt died and Truman became the new USA president. Their relations were worsen during Potsdam conference.
These views are expressed in his two key works, A Concise History of the Russian Revolution (published in 1995) and Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime 1919-1924 (published in 1994). Pipe’s believes that Lenin was primarily responsible for the success of the uprising, even though Pipe’s recognizes Lenin’s role as the most important, he still hypocritically called Lenin’s April Theses “totally out of touch with reality, if not positively mad” despite the fact that this theses played a huge role in the Lenin and Bolshevik uprising. Pipe’s also believes that Trotsky just carried out Lenin’s commands. However the role or Trotsky and his actions before the October revolution were very evidently done on his own accord, with Lenin accompanying Trotsky in his decisions. In early October, 1917, Trotsky was elected
How far do you agree that communists and Tsars ruled Russia in the same way? The February Revolution of 1917 that brought down the Tsarist regime and led to the ascension of the Provisional Government, had much potential to bring about significant change from the autocratic regime of the Tsars. However, the totalitarian government of the communists seized power in the October Revolution and continued to maintain many aspects of Tsarist rule including the top-down approach to rule, their ideology in policy making and their repressive methods. Although the communists and Tsars appeared to rule differently in their theory, in practice their methods were to a very large extent the same. The top-down approach the rulers of Russia had in the period 1855-1964 were superficially different as the communists claimed to represent the people by giving power to the proletariat where as the Tsars were heavily elitist in their ideology.
political (defeat of the right –Bukharin), • Ideological (NEP hated by communists; class war against the kulaks; socialism in one country), • Strategic (i.e. defence of Russia)? Conclusion– Economic reasons provided one set of motives –but there were others. Were they connected? Which motives were most decisive?
The main reason that Stalin was able to rise to power was his ingenious defeats of both the left and right wings of the Party. The key figure Stalin had to take down from the left wing was Leon Trotsky. Trotsky was important because in effect, it was his leadership of the Red Army during the Civil War that had won the war for the Reds. If it hadn’t been for Trotsky, the Bolsheviks may not have been in the position they were by 1924. The first step Stalin took towards removing the threat of Trotsky was to lie to him about the date of Lenin’s funeral.
The first took place earlier and referred to the fear that a Bolshevik revolution would take place in America. The second "Red Scare" was also known as "McCarthyism" due to its most famous supporter, a man named Senator Joseph McCarthy. After World War II, many people feared communism. Then, things like Soviet Union spying, the Berlin blockade, the Iron Curtain, and the Chinese cultural revolution increased this fear. In the 1930's, communism seemed good to some people in the United States.
The responsibility of the origins of the Cold War often triggers questions among historians yet both powers should be blamed for taking part in it and how the fear from unpaid reparations from Russia, Stalin’s fear of the nuclear weapon and Stalin’s fear of the Truman Doctrine. Through most analyses, the fault was often given to Stalin’s ambitions to expand communism in Europe, a conventional idea of the Orthodox school. Other historians revised this idea therefore blame the United States’ actions for the origins of the Cold War, which were analyses of the Revisionists. Though Later, the Post-Revisionist school was adopted; its goal was not to blame any side but focused on examining “what” caused the start of it. Even though, both sides have claimed responsibility for their actions, Stalin’s intentions should be seen as defense actions from the West therefore, the United States is mostly responsible for the start of the Cold War.
Modern History Assignment International Studies in Peace and Conflict: The Cold War “Evaluate the view that the ideologies of capitalism and communism influenced policies and strategies in the Cold War.” While the Cold War has come to be defined as "a clash of ideologies" by a majority of historians, the principles of capitalism and communism were exaggerated in political rhetoric by both the United States and the Soviet Union. Although the conflicting ideologies had a formative influence on the early strategies of the two superpowers – establishing a framework that would shape future policy - national and economic interests had a more significant impact on overall Cold War foreign response. However, an assessment of influences on policy making must be more complex than simply ‘ideological’ or ‘economic’. As Martin McCauley writes, "the weaknesses of the orthodox and revisionist analyses are evident: the former pays little attention to the legitimate security needs of the USSR, while the latter ignores Soviet behaviour which gave rise to shifts in American policy." In examining the factors that shaped the various strategies of the struggle, a more balanced post-revisionist approach must be taken.
position on communism. I was a believer that the Cold War was a stalemate between the two superpowers Russia and the U.S. in nuclear arms. The book is well written and help fills some gap in my American history. The book explains how the conflict between U.S. and Russia affected other nations. The strength of the book is how it goes in details about communism showing how it influenced America’s decision in the past, present, and the future.
"I look forward to the time when Mr. Mills hands back his prophet's robes and settles down to being a sociologist again," Arthur Schlesinger Jr. wrote in The New York Post. Adolf Berle, writing in the Book Review, said that while the book contained "an uncomfortable degree of truth," Mills presented "an angry cartoon, not a serious picture." Liberals could not believe a book about power in America said so little about the Supreme Court, while conservatives attacked it as leftist psychopathology ("sociological mumbo jumbo," Time said). The Soviets translated it in 1959, but decided it was pro-American. "Although Mills expresses a skeptical and critical attitude toward bourgeois liberalism and its society of power," said the introduction to