engine of souls | forum 2

mre · Senior Member

Assignment #22: US/Soviet Options for Truman

piracine · Veteran Member

Pam's here

Dear President Truman;
I know you have had many questions on the future relations with the Soviet Union in the 1950s and beyond. You have asked about four different options; America using its military force to assert more freedom and democracy, the U.S negotiating peace, the US attempting to contain communism as it spreads, and the US withdrawing completely under a policy of isolation. All of these are viable options but since you only have a short amount of time to decide upon one I will give you my opinion on which option will work best in hope that it will help you with your final decision.
My choice, the option that I think will work the best is to take all steps necessary to prevent another world war. To achieve this the U.S must understand that large nations will dominate their smaller neighbors, and that every nation has the right to self-determination. These mean that the U.S should not step into the affairs of another country unless that countries citizens, or the citizens of a smaller country that has been dominated, have lost their right to self-determination. Since the Soviet Union has not denied their citizens this we must give them peace. The US must cooperate with the Soviet Union along with the other Great Powers because to exclude the Soviet Union would equal no world peace. Also, very important, the advent of atomic weapons means that it would be dangerous to go to war or threaten war. To prevent this war the U.S must negotiate peace with the Soviet Union by co-existence and compromise. This is the best course of action for the U.S right now regarding Americas security interests, benefit to Americas allies, and the stability of the world.
We cannot have the U.S use military force to assert more freedom and democracy over the Soviets. As General Patton said to Sec. of the Army Robert Patterson in May of 1945 We did not come over here to acquire jurisdiction over either the people or their countries. We came to give them back the right to govern themselves. If the U.S were to attempt to give the people under the Soviet rule a right to govern themselves we would essentially be starting another world war. The Soviets would not allow the US to step in and interfere with their affairs; they would fight to keep the US out. With the atomic weapon monopoly being fought over by the Soviets and the US it would be suicide to attack because it would present a perfect opportunity for the atomic weapons to be put into use. This we could not have and so we cannot use military force to assert more freedom and democracy because as Sec. of Commerce Henry Wallace said in July 1946 a peace maintained by a predominance of force is no longer possible
Another option we should not consider is to contain the Soviet communism as it spreads. To do so we would need to use military power as is shown in this memorandum to President Truman prepared by Clark Gifford in September of 1946. The language of military power is the only language which disciples of power politics understand. The United States must use that language in order that Soviet leaders will realize that our government is determined to uphold the interests of its citizens and the rights of small nations. This option may indeed help the citizens of the nations controlled by the Soviet Union but to do so would require the use of the atomic bomb, to maintain our strength at a level which will be effective in restraining the Soviet Union, the United States must be prepared to wage biological and atomic warfare. If the US were forced to resort to atomic warfare so to would the Soviets, and then total destruction of one country or the other would be imminent, whether economically or environmentally. This would be required to contain communism, and so is not an option we can consider.
The last option that we cannot consider is to avoid foreign entanglements or withdraw under policy of isolationism. If we were to take this option we would only attract negative attention from the Soviet Union. This is because we would have to increase our military establishment to protect our dependence on overseas markets and resources. An increase in military power would alarm the Soviets and cause them to increase their own military power in response. Implications would be made on the grounds of both nations preparing for war and fighting would ensue. So trying to instill a policy of isolationism would only create feelings of mistrust between the US and the Soviet Union.
So the only option available is co-exist and compromise. This will be the best option because it could essentially lead to peace. Regarding Americans security interests the security of the Soviet Union must be established. To do that the US should provide economic assistance to the Soviet Union and its neighbors. This would allow the U.S to establish a strong trade with the Soviet Union that would raise the living standards in the Soviet Union as well as open up access to natural resources. This is vital to the health of the American economy and will increase trade throughout all of Europe. Not to mention that just lending money to these countries under the Soviet rule would create discord within the U.S and problems with repayment. As stated by Senator Robert Taft in different speeches in May and August of 1943 and in January of 1946 lending money would only repeat the problems from after the first world war, money loaned to governments is not likely to be repaid if loaned in such tremendous amounts. That was our experience after the last war Also doing this will help lead to the rebuilding of Europe in regards to the damage created by WWII.
To ensure the stability of the world their must be a halt on the monopoly of atomic weapons. As General Eisenhower said before the House of Representatives in November of 1945 There is no one thing, I believe, that guides the policy of Russia more today that to keep friendship with the United States. I believe he said this in regard to a few things but mostly to the tension created between the US and the Soviets in regard to this monopoly. Sec. of War Henry Stimson had his own opinion of this in September of 1945, if we fail to approach them now and merely continue to negotiate with them, their suspicions and their distrust of our purposes and motives will increase. There should be an effective international control over the development of atomic power, not a monopoly in one country. If all of the countries were equal in even this one aspect then there could be stability in the world.
In closing I leave you these words from Sec. of commerce Henry Wallace in July of 1946, [We should] allay any reasonable Russian grounds for fear.... And he was right. If we tried to co-exist with the Soviet Union and compromise instead of rule over them or try to control them we could have peace.
Sincerely;

Pamela Racine

James · Senior Member

This was actually pretty fun to write(plus I found out my dad thought we should've nuked them from the start)

Spoiler

Dear President Harry S. Truman,

The best course of action pertaining the communist threat would be one of cooperation with the Soviet Union in the effort for global piece. Any other course could have disastrous effects and could result in wars and devastation. If we try to force peace on the world through a Pax Americana, we would create a war with one of the strongest enemies we would ever have faced, a power that has the same nuclear power that we ourselves possess. A war with them would be brutal and merciless. Neither side would emerge the victor from a war that would escalate to a third World War.

But that scenario does not have to be the conclusion to our cold war.We can create an atmosphere of peace and cooperation by working alongside the Soviets, regardless of our opinions about their government. Does the United States not stand for self determination? For every countrys right to decide its own fate? Do we not stand on the principle of overthrowing a government that does not cater to the people in exchange for one that can? That is what the Soviets did. Even if we do not like the end result, we can not oppose them without opposing ourselves. To oppose them would be to oppose the very political freedom that those who favor conflict with the Soviet Union are advocating.

Now, there are those who will not support war with the Soviet Union, instead supporting the containment of the communist ideas that they have shaped into a functioning government. This too is against our principles as Americans. Does our Bill of Rights not protect the peoples rights to speech and print without the government silencing them? Was this not a principle we all defend? How can we contain an idea when we are built on freedom of the mind? By becoming hypocritical and losing respect on a global scale, that is how.

Now if we cant attack the Soviet Union, and we cant contain communism, why interfere in the world arena at all? There are those who say that the best path for our country to take is one of isolation. Isolation is no longer an option. Isolation harms the economy, and creates uneasy feelings in other countries just as surely as making bad choices in the world political arena would. The difference is that if we are active in world politics, we can also gain trust and respect. This is not possible if we keep to ourselves like children scared of going outside because the neighbors are strangers. How can we promote our ideas if we hide behind the waters separating us from the rest of the world?

My plan is to create a pact, an economic and military pact, pledging cooperation between our two nations. Our country has already pledged to support the democratic countries of Western Europe; this pledge should extent to the Allied Power who sacrificed the most in the war. The Soviet Union. The Soviet Union had 50 times the casualties the other Allies had combined. To deny them the help that we gave the less devastated countries is foolish considering everything they had done during the war. They fought the eastern front single-handedly; they deserve our respect and our assistance, not our hate and our distrust.

President Eisenhower himself stressed the importance of friendship with America on the Soviet agenda. So why do we seek to war monger? Fear. We fear what we do not understand. As a whole, our country does not understand communism. So I suggest we stop outlawing communism within our country and let it do what we do with everything else that immigrates in. Let it melt into American government and influence it for the better. That is the American principle, the flexibility of our government is one of our greatest strengths. To reject such an obvious source of new ideas is insisting that our government is perfect, and even you, our President, especially you, know that is not so.

We need to end the production of nuclear weapons, as well as the research into even greater weapons, and we need to shrink our military. The Soviet Union has everything right to mistrust us when we possess the power we do. So lets rid ourselves of that power and lead the world into an age beyond nuclear warfare. Lets rid ourselves of this war before it starts. We need to stand together for the benefit of our planet and our race. This dispute of capitalism and communism need not have any effect outside the economies of the individual countries. Our government is not capitalism, but a Republic. We are not here to serve business, but the people. So we need to serve the people, we need to prevent the loss of life before the lives are in danger. We need to ally ourselves with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. That is my plan for our country, a military and economic alliance with our greatest enemy, for our mutual protection and benefit.

Our standing allies, France, Great Britain, and any other country who stands for democracy, all of them can also join with us in this endeavor. They too will benefit from the protection from nuclear war and the economic potential of the peacetime economies. There is no reason why they too cannot become the manufacturing and economic giants that the United States are. With the loss of focus on a war against Communism, they can nurture their damaged countries and rebuild better than ever before.

But we must avoid doing anything that could upset the balance of power. We must not form alliances that can be seem as anti-communist or anti-Soviet. We must not help Eastern Europe resist communism, it is their choice to make, their destiny to carve in the annals of history not ours. We must use our vast resources to help rebuild all of Europe, East and West, democratic and communist, and work together for our mutual goals. Only through a spirit of cooperation can we hope to overcome the challenges ahead and prevent the worst catastrophes we as a world would ever face. Atomic war.

Sincerely,
James Racine

(for formatting issues sake, i moved the closing to the left)

-- Edited by James at 04:16, 2009-03-03

Tyler W. · Veteran Member

Truman Letter

Dear President Truman,

I would like to advise you on a way of dealing with the Soviet Union. The method I see working, is to first use option one and if that doesnt work, option two. The basic outline of option one is to create peace in the world by enforcing our demands onto the Soviets by making them live up to their agreements and option two focuses on George Kennans policy on containment. There are many reasons for my plan.

First of all, compared to the Soviets, the Americans have not received a blow to its population, after World War 2. The Americans lost less than one percent of its people, while the Soviets lost about thirteen percent of its population. These are incredible numbers that have to be taken account of in this post-war era.

We need to have Stalin and the Soviets live up to their agreements at Yalta about free democratic elections in territories that they have conquered. Everyone had to live up to the agreements that they made during the war and not just the losing side either. With our dearly departed past president FDR and his lend-lease policy, the British had to give back the weapons we lent them. The Nazis had to comply and stood during the Nuremburg Trials. Now it is time to impose the Pax Americana. We have many advantages over the Soviets, politically and economically. We have many allies who are our economic and political allies which could be an upper hand for us in negotiations with the Soviets. The ties that we have with other countries are much stronger than what the Soviet Union can bring up, and by our allies joining with us; we could enforce and usher in a new order of world peace.

This of course would be vital to national security, because the welfare of our people wouldnt be at stake, because about 2/3 of the world is on our side of democracy and of a free people. Also, if the Soviets tried to make such a move, then they would face nuclear retaliation by us, which would result in massive death tools for them. This policy would benefit our allies a lot, for we would be creating free trade internationally, while instilling the principles of self-determination, democracy, and economic freedom. Our democratic allies would like to see that democracy is still spreading, and not being undermined by communist activities. They would also like the free markets to help themselves economically, because their economies were devastated due to the destruction of World War 2. In the end all these principles are the foundation of democracy, which is the foundation of a stable government. With more and more stable governments in the world, the world could become stable and balanced.

The principle that we fought for in World War 2 is freedom. Freedom is what American ideals are based upon. I believe that General Patton even stated, We did not come over here to acquire jurisdiction over either the people or their countries. We came to give them back the right to govern themselves. This is the insight and message you want to stick to, Mr. President.

The only problem with this is that, the United States cant seem like the blackmailers in this area. The Soviets have to agree, and if they dont free the people from their rule, we cant attack the Soviets, because they would use it as propaganda for further communist insurgents in different countries, that Americans were aggressors.

This is another reason why we have to spread democracy, because it would counter the communists ideals that have been spreading around the world. Communism, as you know, creates rebellion and uprisings, which does not equal a safe and stable world. But the main point is to not be the aggressors, because if we do, we will not be living up to the principles that you stated on, righteousness and justice.

Though the main problem why the Americans cant attack directly on Soviet soil, is that we could face massive retaliation by them, and by communists forces in other countries. There are communists close by in the countries of Greece and Turkey. There are also communists not too far off, in China where they seem to be winning the war against our ally, Chiang Kai Sheik. But they could be thwarted with our allies also. This is very unlikely though, because after World War 2, Im pretty sure that the Soviets would like to start another war testing the principles of communism and democracy.

It is important to put an end to the Soviets as soon as possible though. Right now the two superpowers in this world are the United States and the Soviet Union. We have the upper hand on them technologically and economically. Though eventually in a few years, the Soviets will have recovered their economy, and will have developed a nuclear bomb or its prototype. This would eventually lead to a building up of nuclear devices, and eventually a nuclear war, which will result with the death of the human race.

Now we are back to the problem in the beginning. If the Soviets dont except the Pax Americana, then we have to undermine them somehow, without a direct assault, because if we did, it would create retaliation on all sides. The answer to freeing the people is quite simple, and it is option number two. We need to contain Soviet communism, and to stop it from expanding its spheres of influence. The Americans have to block communist expansion, by undermining communist insurgents, by supplying democratic idealists in different countries with money and supplies, as purposed in the Marshall plan. Since there is now more democratic influence, then communist influence, we can start immediately to undermine the communists, which we would assuredly win, because our allies and our financial standing is much better than the depleted Soviets and the fledgling Chinese.

All in all, option one is the best decision, for it shows that America wont back down against aggression of any sorts at all. Though we cant use unconditional military might, because then we wouldnt be promoting democracy, but a military dictatorship. If the Soviets dont comply, and Im sure they will though, we will start a covert campaign against Soviet communism, to eventually free the oppressed people of Eastern Europe. God Bless America!!!

Rachel · Veteran Member

Dear Mr. President,

The Soviet Union is a threat to both national security, and economic stability within our country and throughout the world. America has always been a symbol of peace, freedom, and justice. We must ensure these policies in other countries in order to contain the Soviet Union and their communist ideas. Communism seeks to expand, and control more land and more countries. It is a potential threat, to not only democratic America, but also to other democratic nations around the world. Because the Soviet Union rejects our ideas of democracy and freedom, their form of government must be contained so that it does not become an even larger threat. In a era of atomic bombs and nuclear weapons, being able to control Communism is essential in keeping the peace throughout the nations of this earth.

First we must aid our allies so that they are not vulnerable to Soviet take over. The end of World War II left Japan and Germany vulnerable to the communist form of government. this is very common after the war which made the threat of communism so great throughout Europe and Asis. one country that is not politcally stable is Israel. this country is needed to remain strong during these times, because they hold the key to Arabian oil, which we can not let fall into the hands of the Soviets. George Kennan even refers to communism as a "malignant parasite which feeds on only diseased tissue." Communism will not stand up to a strong force itself and that is exactly why America needs to enhance these countries, and fill voids throughout Europe and Asia so that they can have a strong barrier to contain this parasite. It is proven that Communism feeds on countries that are recovering from war, and are economically and politically unstable, yet has little effects on secure governments. Western Europe is very vulnerable to the communist party, because they are still broken and suffering from the war. Communism is taking them over from the inside out. Clark Clifford even agrees saying, We must seek to prevent additional soviet aggression. In obtaining these vulnerable countries, the Soviet Union becomes stronger. That is why we need to enrich Europe and help them to thrive again to keep their democratic parties alive and maintain their economic stability so that they will not revert to Communism as a last resort.

Also if necessary military force can and will be used to contain communism. Clark Cliffords believes the language of military power is the only language that communism understands, and we must use that language to get across to the Soviets that we are determined to uphold democracy and we will use biological and nuclear warfare to enforce that if they compel us to. The Soviet Union is weak and will only prey on the weak, but when there is massive resistance, the communist part has backed out, which is what happened in the Iran Crisis of 1946. Because America is strong in itself, we should support our democratic allies who also are vulnerable to soviets with military force if we have to. We have used the atomic bomb once, and if they attack, we can and will use it again if necessary. not only is this strategy effective, but also this use of small military retaliation is economically beneficial to American society. Protecting and ensuring democracys safety throughout the world, will cost much less money and lives than a full out war with the Soviet Union. America needs to be strong in their stand and can not be uncertain of their policies. The Soviet Union needs to know that we mean business and we will not tolerate their expansion into democratic lands.

Mr. President, the U.S. government not only needs to protect its people, but they also needs to educate its people of the horrors and misconception of the Soviet Union in order to prevent the expansion of communism in America. The soviet union is sometimes perceived as being a society of equals, how everyone is the same and no one is better than any one else. The Communist party is a strict ruthless dictator-like party. They do not believe in personal freedoms such as here in America, and we must let the people know of this. The record of Soviet evasion, misrepresentation, aggression, and militarism should be made public says Clark Clifford. Communism is a stern society controlled only by the government. Any and all retaliation is dealt with, and the people are afraid of their government, when government should be afraid of their people. U.S.America citizens need to be aware of the dangers and misinterpretation of this communist society. The American way of life is endangered by this new form of government, and should not watch as their country is eaten alive by this parasite.

Therefore Mr. President, the option of to containing the Communist party is the most logical. The threat of military force against the Soviet Union will most likely cause them to with draw from any land that we claim because they have seen the potential of the atomic bomb. Also they have backed down from other retaliations in the Middle East such as the Iran Crisis. This plan will also not weaken the economy or moral of the country, because we are not spending massive amounts of money for a full out war, and we are not breaking apart families once again because we are still recovering from the war. Containing communism protects the American way of life without American casualties, war debts, or U.S. civilian retaliation. We can control the problem, so that it does not get any stronger than it already is. Also educating our people of the communist ways of life, we can prevent any more conversions to the communist party, and keep the democratic government as strong as it has always been. America will live on, and the weak once again can and will be controlled. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Rachel M. Acevedo

-- Edited by Rachel at 03:21, 2009-03-05

mre · Senior Member

Grades Updated 3/8/09

Walter · Veteran Member

Spoiler

Walter's Advice

Dear President Truman,

It has come to my attention that you are seeking some council on the matter of what to do with the USSR. Well my suggestion would be to pursue a policy of containment. If the United States could successfully contain the communist government of the USSR then perhaps it will die out, and no longer be a threat to Democratic nations of the world. Although a policy of containment runs the slight risk of a possible war with the USSR, it is far more effective than a Pax Americana policy, a co-exist and compromise policy, or an isolationist policy. Think of communism as a disease in your body. You cannot sit around and just hope the disease will go away. No you must combat the spread of the disease by containing it. If the disease is not allowed to spread it will simply die. The same is true of communism. You cannot see an end to this Cold War coming if we simply sit around and hope it goes away. No America and its NATO allies must do something to combat the tide of Communism around the world. There are several things America and its NATO allies need to do to help contain Communism.

The first step America and the members of the NATO alliance need to take is to send financial aid to countries in Eastern Mediterranean, Europe, and Asia to help free countries resist Soviet influences, and communist takeover. We could send aid to financially weak countries such as Japan, Western Germany, Italy, and others around the world. Financial aid can be used to promote Democratic parties and government. It can be used to finance armies to defend a country from hostile pro-communist forces. This aid can also be used to boost the economy of these nations, which will help make the people of that country happy and the social fabric of the nation intact. It is a proven fact that the USSR, and communism only move into countries that have weak social fabrics, and even weaker economies. Sending aid can also make America and its allies protectorates of these countries. We could take on a big brother role with some of these weak countries to help contain communism within the borders of the USSR.

The next step America and the members of the NATO alliance need to take are to start a mass build up of both nuclear and biological weapons. If we can stockpile more nuclear and biological weapons than the Soviets, then they will be much less likely to provoke an attack by America, or its allies. This action coincides with the belief of the best defense is a good offense. This tactic will not only keep America and its allies safe, but also keep Soviet civilians in the USSR safe. The stronger your military and your allys military, the less likely a nation will want to go to war with you. This is also true with the USSR Mr. President. The USSR knows that if it were to attack the U.S., or one of its allies, then it would face total annihilation. Therefore the USSR is very unlikely to attack our allies, or countries that we are protectorates. This fear of advancement will contain communism, which is the overall goal of my plan.

The next step America and members of the NATO alliance should take is to run a propaganda campaign, exposing the faults of communism, and hardships people face living in a communist country. Once people see that living under communism isnt all fine and dandy then they wont want to become a communist nation. Communisms best weapon is using the unknown against their people. Without knowledge a group can manipulate another group to do whatever they want. If the people being manipulated dont know any better then they wont do anything about it. For example; in America in the early 1800s, it was illegal for slaves to be educated. This came from fear of southern whites that once slaves were educated they would revolt against their masters. The same goes for communism. People whose countries become communist dont really know what communism is about. The Soviet Union has done a terrific job of keeping the lives of the Soviet people a secret from the world. If they didnt, and people saw how terrible life really was then no country would ever want to become communist. This propaganda campaign would still comply with my overall goal of containing communism, by greatly depleting the number of countries that are considering communism as one of their options, by exposing the bad side of communism.

The final step America and its NATO allies should take part in is to cooperate militarily with non-communist countries. If we supply these borderline countries with military aid to battle communist forces. This support will prevent communist rebel forces from taking over any countries, and therefore spreading communism. If we can prevent these rebel forces from taking over then we are succeeding in containing communism, by preventing its spread. Also we need to keep the military aid to those countries continuously as to make certain the countries maintain the ability to keep communist forces out of power in their countries. This continuous flow of military aid is also fulfilling my plan of containing communism. A possible indirect benefit of this military aid and this repulsion of communism is that countries that are currently under oppression by communists may incite revolutions within their own borders because of hope that is inspired by the defeat of communism in other countries. Although the United States will have no direct hand in these rebellions it would be a benefit. Of course we wouldnt be directly involved because that would go against our containment policy towards communism. We also need to give more military aid to our weaker current allies as to deter communist forces from trying to take control of those areas.

In conclusion Mr. President the only way to deal with the USSR, and communism is to contain it. If you can prevent it from spreading then eventually it will go away and in order to contain such a threat like communism America and its NATO allies need to follow the steps I listed above if we are to be successful in our attempts to stem the tide of communism.

-- Edited by Walter at 23:39, 2009-03-09

mre · Senior Member

Grades Updated 3/15/09 Jessica, Robert, Leslie, Joel, Monica and Zach missing.

joel the not so brave · Veteran Member

Dear Mr. President,

I believe the best advise I can give to you in this time of crisis is to remain peaceful and un-entangled by compromising and trying not to get tangled into other countries affairs. I feel that America should look strongly into avoiding war at all cost, and remaining peaceful is an almost sure way of doing this. The last war accounted for hundreds of thousands of dead American soldiers, with the population of about 150,000,000 citizens. Being blunt about it, the Soviet Union had more citizens and soldiers to throw into the war and at our guns to continue producing weapons. Trying to force the Soviets into a peace treaty would cause friction and aggravation on the Soviets part, and they would feel as though we were trying to control them. We need to basically stay out of other peoples business and only intervene if it affects an aspect of our life, i.e. the Reds trying to overthrow American or any of our allies governments and unwillingly turning it to Communism. Especially now, dealing with two of the worlds largest powers and with the added threat of the atomic bomb, any conflict between the US and Soviet would just mount to a catastrophic WWIII. The only way to deal with Russian Communism is to co-exist and compromise.
If we dont meddle in Soviets affairs, then they should have no reason to attack us or do any harm to our nation and/or people. By having peace, compromise and co-existence, there should be no reason for spat or bickering. The Cold War will be over virtually before it began, and it will not spread out for, what I fear it will, decades to come. The united states is one of the most powerful nations in the world. Why should we use our might for war and destruction, when we could use it for peace and tranquility, as well as equality?
The United States should use its power to promote political and economic freedom abroad, not to try and promote and expand its army and artillery. If we wish to encourage a peaceful world, then the nuclear arms race should be ended. I believe that war in general is not the best way to solve anything, if anything it creates more problems. What is done is done, and there is no going back. However if he stop while we are ahead we may prevent any major conflict that could destroy an entire nation if not our entire planet. We must seek not only to prevent any wars, must we must put foremost our intensions of friendship and unity in the world.
Just because were should decide to compromise, does not mean we give up. Isolation does not mean to completely cut ourselves off from other nations, but just to tell other countries up front Look, we recognize and understand your form of government. We do not agree with it, but we see that you want this for your own nation. We will not interfere with it unless we feel threatened by you or that we feel you will try to overwhelm our democracy with your government. If you try this, then and only then will be forced to retaliate. Keep out. We do not want their government to mix with ours, and we will not try to force them out of Communism.
Honestly, I believe that we as a country would be way in over our heads if we tried to contain Communism. It would be like trying to hold a gallon on water in ones cupped hands. Adding that to trying to wage war with our equal in nuclear arms, it would seem like a horrible idea from the start. Why not just try to co-exist with them? It would be like being in a classroom, and there was a big bully sitting next to you. If you try to start a fight with him just because you dont like the color of his shirt, what would be the point? Unless he was smaller than you, he would pummel you, get pummeled himself, or both of you would be equally bruised up. In any case, you both would be sent to the principals office and get in trouble with the rest of the classroom. But, if you accept the color of his shirt, and maybe even try to be friendly with him, things will be much more peaceful and it would be a more pleasant place to live.
In order for the government to promote friendship, we must first show it in the government that we want friendship. Many government officials emphasized friendship with the Soviet Union, one of them being President Eisenhower. He believed strongly that in order for peace to prevail, every country must be friendly and not at each others throat. And if this means recognizing another form of government besides democracy, so be it.
My plan is to create some sort of mutual agreement, both an economic and military deal, between our two nations. More or less drawing a line in the dirt, separating us from them. Not necessarily being best buddies, but being allies and just trying to do what is best for our country. Our country is firm in its believe about the wonderful ideals of democracy and trying to promote it across the Western Powers. We mean not push or change their governments; we mean only to show other alternatives that we feel may be better than their government. We do not wish to take over, more to open others minds to other alternatives. Perhaps if a country is having a hard time with their government, democracy may be the way to go. But, if they wish to remain with their own government, then that is fine. If we try to force anyone to change we would be just as bad as those to whom we oppose. We will offer the Soviet Union democracy in a friendly, helping manner. But if they refuse, then we will back off.

Sincerely yours,
Joelhead Spinale

PS How is your wife doing? I hope she is alright. And how is Margaret, your daughter, doing? I hope they both are well.

-- Edited by joel the not so brave on Tuesday 17th of March 2009 12:14:09 AM

-- Edited by joel the not so brave on Tuesday 17th of March 2009 12:14:32 AM

mfloyd24 · Veteran Member

Dear President Truman,

I have been informed that there is a serious issue at hand concerning American policy towards Soviet Russia. It appears as though you have four choices : peace, containment, co-existence, and isolation. Each of these options may be beneficiary in some way, but I do believe that peace will be the best route to take. I believe that peace with the Soviet Union, even if achieved by force, will solve problems that the other three methods will not, as well as set an example for that world that, if followed, may well benefit many inter-country relations.
It is absolutely necessary that we push for a peaceful environment and foreign policy for many reasons. First and foremost, there is the simple issue of the effects of war to consider. In the end there may be a positive repercussion for one side, or both, but what was done along the way is generally not worth the victory. War may be good for American economy, due to its creation of ample amounts of paid work during a time of war. However, war generally creates as many downfalls as there are benefits. One obvious example would be the number of families torn apart due to war casualties. Wives are left to deal with jobs usually tended to by husbands, such as finances; and children are left fatherless. Even the veterans who do return from battle are often changed, and withdrawn due to the atrocities they have witnessed overseas. The more troops we keep over there to enforce, say, the policy of containment, the more lives we ruin here in our own country.
It is pertinent that we take this course of action. If we do not then it is possible that we will never rid ourselves of the brutality that is another war, possibly even another World War. By setting the example of peace now, we may be leading the way towards complete peace and unity between all countries, no matter how far in the future we may see this. Also, by getting rid of our nuclear weapons other countries may do the same. By setting the example that nuclear weapons like that are not needed, we may succeeded in creating an epidemic of peace throughout the world, by motivating other countries to rid themselves of their nuclear weapons as well. Even if it is necessary to use military power to force the Soviet Union to rid itself of its Communistic ways, if we achieve this then peace will be achieved as well. Countries under the rule of the Soviet Union will then be able to experience true and ultimate freedom.
It is with the coming of peace that we will be able to achieve stability in our world. There is no true way to remain stable without having peace throughout. Even compromise offers its own problems. With a compromise, each side gives up something in order to attain peace. Over time, a country may try and achieve whatever it may be that they had given up, possibly resulting in another war. Complete peace will destroy chances of this happening. It will allow countries to interact economically with one another which will in turn benefit the economy of the United States. A peaceful world will produce peaceful and flourishing trade. It will also ensure that countries will be able to pursue political freedom as well. President Roosevelt even stated in a speech at the Atlantic Charter with British Prime Minister Churchill, . . .;will endeavor with due respect for existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all states, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for economic prosperity. . .. By this, Roosevelt is proving the necessity of peace in order to have flourishing trade throughout the world.
This method will also protect our allies from Communist rule. By obtaining peace with Russia, we will basically confirm that they will not attempt to take over other countries, including our allies as well as others. We will be protecting all, not just neighboring countries. However, removing the threat of Soviet rule from controlling American allies is added bonus to this option. President Wilson even stated in his speech on the Fourteen Points that , It is the principle of justice to all peoples and nationalities, and their right to live on equal terms of liberty and safety with one another. . .. He understands the concept that citizens of the world basically deserve to live in a world united by peace. We need to bring this peace to them by stopping the rule of Soviet Russia.
The other three options that were presented to you simply will not produce the kind of results necessary to fix the inter-country relationships and get the world back on track. Containing Communism will do nothing to change the fact that it is an unacceptable form of government that no human being should be subject to. People need to have the right to decide for themselves what they believe is right for them. While stopping the spread of Communism is a good things, allowing it to still exist is not. As I stated previously, co-existing and compromise also may have its downfalls. Even though we and the Soviets may want peace, it still does not change the fact that their form of ruling is not acceptable to most peoples standards. Compromise may leave many demands unanswered and lead to further arguments. There will be many people who will not agree with this option, seeing as they are completely against the existence of Communism in the first place. If America allows it to continue to exist then we will not be doing out God given duty to spread democracy, peace, and liberty to countries in need such as Soviet Russia. Avoiding this issue altogether will solve absolutely nothing. Even though our first president, George Washington warned us of the danger of foreign entanglement, it is too late for us to back out now. We have already gotten ourselves involved overseas, and we now have almost a responsibility to fix what we have taken into our hands as our responsibility. Ignoring Communism and allowing its existence falls along the same lines as containment and co-existing. We cannot sit by and allow this government to exist or expand, but must make sure that it is stopped.
Instilling peace in Soviet Russia is the only way to solve this issue. It will benefit us and the rest of the world greatly. World peace is an image many of us dream about, and it is possible if we set the example and do what is right. I ask you to take great consideration in what I have said, as I do believe it is the right path to take. You know that I would not be writing this letter if I did not believe that what I advise would not benefit my country greatly, as well as the rest of the world.

Take Care,
M. Vasconcelos

-- Edited by mfloyd24 on Tuesday 17th of March 2009 12:29:13 AM

-- Edited by mfloyd24 on Tuesday 17th of March 2009 12:30:08 AM

R. Krupa · Veteran Member

Mr President,

Sir I strongly advise you, after much consideration, that you should consider your possibilities for the future. I stress this point in regard to affairs with the Soviets especially. At this point I strongly believe that the best advice I can give you, my personal opinions aside, would be keeping a relatively isolationist policy and steering clear of other countries problems. As we have seen from this war we have just finished, the Soviets were far superior to us in manpower and were not at all hesitant in sending millions of their own men to their deaths. They did not flinch at the staggering death tolls throughout the war, and continued to fight until the very end. This is just a glimpse as to what the Soviets would be willing to do if they are provoked. And provoking them would be exactly what we would be doing by trying to control them. I feel that, unless the safety of this country and its citizens are at stake, we should try to avoid conflict with the soviets as much as possible. The only peaceful way to deal with Russian Communism is to try to co-exist with them.

If we were to provoke a confrontation with the Soviets, we must first think of the consequences. So soon after ending a worldwide conflict, the people are war weary and are ready for peace. The soldiers themselves are tired and deserve time to rest. Going into another full blown conflict would be catastrophic. Also, with the introduction of the atomic bomb, who knows what kind of damage will be inflicted upon us. At this point, the world is not ready for a nuclear war, and I pray it never will be.

The best thing for our country right now is to stay out of Russias affairs, even if it means the minimal spread of Communism. I understand your probable disapproval of the idea, but if we stay out of their way, they will have no reason to cause us any harm. With the entire world on such shaky terms right now, the last thing any country needs right now is another global conflict.
With such power associated with the United States, I see no reason as to why we can not use it for peace rather than intimidation.

While I recommend peace, I do not recommend that we let the Communists take complete control. I am looking more toward a reasonable compromise. By using a form of isolationist policy, we would be keeping ourselves from dealing with communism unnecessarily. We would, however deal with it if it presented itself as a major threat.

I feel that it would be far too difficult to try to deal with our own internal affairs as well as try to completely contain Communism around the world, especially now that nuclear weapons are in play. I feel that it would be easier as well as more practical to stop existing fights instead of starting new ones. As long as the Communists are not directly affecting us, I believe it would be better to simply let them be, at least for now.
My plan is to create some sort of mutual agreement, regarding both economic and military aspects, between our two nations. I feel that this agreement would be beneficial in separating us from them. We would not necessarily be cooperating with them and allowing Communism to spread, but we would work alongside them and simply try to do what is best for our country. While I agree that Democracy should be spread and Communism put down, I do not believe that now is the time for action. If we were to simply suggest other alternatives and see if they catch on in the Soviet Union and around the World for now, it would be a more peaceful way to go about doing that. Rather than trying to take over, we would give them the chance to reform If we try to force anyone to change we would be just as bad as the Soviets, no? We may try to influence Democracy around the globe, but in a peaceful manner. By forcing other countries, we are only going to cause problems that we as a country may not be able to handle. Lets get this country up to par before trying to change the world shall we?

Leslie · Veteran Member

Spoiler: To the Honorable President of the United States Harold Truman,
Mr. President, I am writing this letter to you to address the current issue that the United States is facing with the Soviet Union. The course of action that we take with the Soviets now will define the foreign policy manners of the United States for years to come, and can ultimately prevent this conflict from escalating into an entire war. This is the main reason I have written to you. I know that you have the best interest of the country at mind, and. I believe I have found a path we can take to resolve this problem in a nondestructive way.
I believe that we now have to make peace at this time by compromising with the Soviets. This can benefit our country in many matters. As of the end of this war , with the defeat of Japan and Germany, we are in an excellent position to, with the help of our allies, create an international order of peace. This could be an opportunity for the United States to create a free trade system throughout the world. By using more aggressive methods with the Soviets, we could jeopardize this opportunity.
It cannot be denied that the Soviet Union is a great power in the world at the moment. In the aftermath of the Great War we learned the trouble that can be caused when the strongest powers in the world are not cooperating. The abilities of the strongest world powers were proven when we were able to put differences with the Soviets aside and work together toward a common goal. We have worked with them in the past, and we can work together with them now. President Truman, the problem with the idea of pursuing a taking more aggressive actions against the Soviets is ultimately that the security interest of America would be threatened severely if the country's relationship with the Soviets was to become hostile.
This is not the time to pursue imperialistic goals. We have just stepped out of a war where we suffered many losses and now we must move forward as a country. Negotiations with the Soviets will help us with our Democratic goals for the world without forcing us to become deeply involved with the affairs of other countries. The peace treaty of 1940 shows that the Soviets are willing to let their colonial possessions retain their independence. It would not do us any harm to assure that a path similar to this one is followed, whereas if we were to demand this from the Soviets there could be many harsh consequences.
The benefits of avoiding hostilities with the Soviets will extend beyond our country to others including our allies. The Soviets already have a distrust for America. If we do not maintain a peaceful relationship with them during times such as these war could be imminent. Our allies would be obligated to join us in a war against the Soviets. Europe was destroyed in the years following the Great War. Subjecting them to this position again will cause us to weaken our alliances. In addition, our economy will be threatened if the markets of our trading partners are threatened.
This plan of compromise will be more beneficial than the other options. If we pursue this level of peace with the Soviets we will have access to natural resources that would not otherwise be available. We cannot force the Soviets to follow a path that they do not believe in. One of the founding ideals behind this nation has always been the right to self-determination, and an entire country cannot be told what is superior until they have decided themselves that they would like to pursue that path. Negotiating settlements in a peaceful way is better than just pursuing a policy of threats and actions of violence. We are the example for future political leaders to follow. This is an opportunity to create a world of peace, where there is no violent conflict but rational reasoning and compromise between countries who have the rights to have different opinions. President Truman, our future depends on what kind of relationship we establish with other countries. If we create the image that the United States is out to destroy anyone with different beliefs then we will be left alone as a country. We will be isolated from the other countries of the world. It is best to pursue this policy to ensure that we can be a driving force in creating a strong, peace filled world for our children and families.
Best Wishes to you and your family,
Leslie Reis

-- Edited by Leslie on Monday 30th of March 2009 10:10:00 PM

mre · Senior Member

Grades Updated 3/31/09

aaaaa · Member

The NPC and CPPCC in 2012 is held in Beijing, monster turbine pro copper people.com.cn and people's daily political culture beats by dre pro is the focus of attention of the public questions had launched a web survey. Survey involving twenty hot issues, some of them monster turbine pro gold reached eight or nine approval rate, should be said to reflect the vast majority diddy beats pink of netizens comments (; idea; ), but the; idea; in the official there is much value? Can induce officials think over seriously, take measures to solve the problem? Officials are active against the; idea; on diddy beats white publish corresponding corresponding measure, continue to rely on more than a netizen ;intelligent; and ; noble; monster beats solo hd product red and not; idea;? It also can make nothing of it.