What were the Cold War fears of the American people following WW2? How well did Eisenhower adress these fears?
353792
Following the Cold War, I believe many Americans were afraid of nuclear threat. As a result, U.S. would sign the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) which would conform the countires into a military alliance if any one of them were threatened.\n\nI don't know if this also includes the 'arms race,' in which U.S. would compete with the Soviets to build the H-Bomb (organzied in the secret Manhatten Project) while the Soviets were attempting to build their first Atomic Bomb.
722024
Threatening to kick their butts if they didn't move thier missles from Cuba was one way.  Building our military was another by U.S. nuclear advantage.  U.S. missile sites in Turkey helped as well.
941374
Things changed after 9/11 and can you honestly blame people for the fear they have?
263637
World War II was a BIG factor in the USA becoming a power house. Also the 40's produced one of the biggest baby booms in US history for the 50's.
927053
There was a hugh fear of communism in the '50s and you could write about McCarthyism and the blaclisting of actors in Hollywood during this period.  The movie about Edward Murrow "Good Night and Good Luck" would explain more on this subject.\n\nAlso, in the fifties the nuclear family was the "norm" and people tried to be like "Ozzie and Harriet" - the perfect family.  That could be another essay.\n\nOr the economic advantages of the generation in the 50s, where homes and cars were affordable, and these families went up within the middle class.\n\nBest wishes.
516005
most people in the US really didn't want another war, especially after having gone through the first world war. there were a series of protests and demonstrations. nevertheless, most political people wanted to stop communism from taking over and deemed it a necessary step. the eastern allies didn't have much of a choice and had to support it, since it was so near their ground O.o
327262
Because no one else would.  Everyone knew how bad Hitler was, and they were powerless to stop him.  Since the discovery of nuclear bombs, the US has actively been trying to prevent WWIII, by stopping every country that could use them, or in the case of Viet Nam, stop a twisted ideology from taking hold.\nSometimes we're wrong.  But no one ever said we were perfect, least of all us regular Joes and Janes.
1181080
There is no doubt that a nuclear detonation over America would be terrible.  But it is just as unlikely as it is horrible.\n\nI fear what is not quite as devastating or brutal, but far more likely to happen.  I fear not what an external country or terrorist might do to the US, but what the US is doing to itself.\n\nWith every act of legislation, the government gains more power, and the individuals lose some freedom.  I fear the totalitarian state that will arise because of peoples' irrational fear of external threats.\n\nOur strength has always been our freedom, and as our freedom diminishes, so too does our strength.  When we allow Congress to pass the Patriot Act, for example, we make ourselves weaker by diminishing our Constitution, our rights, and our American way of life.
1029911
You're the kind of naive moron that thinks a person can only fully understand something if he's been through it-- bull$h!t.  But you've never lived in an isolationist country that's sat by passively while other nations plotted to take them out/over.  I wish you had, though, because you'd then realize that our failure to engage in WWII led to an attack on US soil in Pearl Harbor, and the reason global communism, Russia's stated goal during the Cold War, isn't in effect is because we were ready and willing to nuke, even though we knew it might lead to WWIII.\n\nYou see, we don't exist in a vaccuum like that sandbox you play in, toy.  We have to deal with reality, not the quixotic notions a high school debate team.  And for you to wish harm on another so that you might save others from war is precisely the premise nations go to war on-- sacrificing some so that the rest might reap the benefits.\n\nYou're a f--king toy.  I didn't want to dignify your question with a response, but you're too much of a coward to leave contact info on your Avatar screen.  So go back to the swingset, Johnny, the grown-ups are talking.  Okay, bye-bye.
719860
In world war 2 Germany had already conqured most of Europe and showed no signs of stopping. If we had not saved their rears the map might look totally different now. Even if they stopped to secure Europe and recoup once finished with Europe (the smart thing to do) it was feared and likely they would push into the Americas, as I think they would have. Thus, we had to stop them or be conqured. Holocaust plays no role as it was not public knowledge until after. \n\nAlso, Pearl Harbour was a direct attack by another nations military. We were at war, like it or not. Japan also invaded Alaska and was dug in on land, something that you don't hear much about. Japan was allied with Germany although Germany told them to focus on Russia and meet in Moscow. Why a relatively tiny island would attack the US when it wasn't finished with China is absurd. WWII made us what we are and perhaps we didn't have the rep we have now and they thought they could frighten us. \n\nTerrorists are not attempting to invade or occupy America and do not come from any particular country. The goals of terrorists are uncertain at best. \n\nAlso Viet Nam changed things and created a more sensitive culture. We got to see war first hand in full color unedited by military journalists. Nam was the first war where civilian journalists were brought along and at the time everyone was excited to be on TV. The journalists went where they pleased and hopped on any chopper that had room. The blood and guts went straight to your living room at the independent news producers discretion at 5:30 each evening as famalies sat around and watched during diner. A mistake that the military will not repeat. The civilian media today is lead by the hand 'for thier own protection.' Nam also gave rise to the peace and love culture. In other ways it is a much different world today. \n(I can stop here but... some other thoughts)\n\nSometimes it seems like the terrorists just want us to leave the middle east alone. I'm curious as to what you think or are told that the terrorists agenda is. Yes they want to terrorize and kill Americans but what for. In Ireland the terrorists wanted independence from Britain, lack the ability for a military victory so, they hope to scare them into a concession. The definition of terrorist is one that attacks civillian targets in order to pressure a govt into something. What do the muslim terrorists want (not that we should give it or accept it)? Death to the infidels? Bombs every five years won't kill us all. There is a political motivation for these high profile bombings. Don't support Israel is an obvious one. Many in Iraq just want to drive us out of Iraq (seems fair). \n\nIraq seems more like a gurilla war than terrorists as well. Civillians may be harmed but the intended targets are usually military, local police, and the coalition govt. All of which are legitimate military targets so it's not terrorism. Trying to frighten us by bombings is not a good thing but not an imminent threat either. Protecting our home from terrorists is a job for police, FBI and CIA not soldiers in the middle east. I find it hard to even think of the war on terror as a war at all. It theoretically includes all terrorists not just muslim ones. They occupy no territory and don't have much unity. Remember Timothy McVay was a solo terrorist. Also certain militant Nazi groups in the mid west are classified as terrorists. \n\nThe mid east has fought for a long time and even if Iraq is stabilized our actions have not made us many friends there. Thus does not lessen terrorism but increases the number those who wish to do us harm. Although I'm just now starting to think the plan was to fix Iraq and show them how nice it can be and other nations may want it. Iraq was chosen because it's easiest and nobody really liked Saddam anyway, even there. If that's the plan it doesn't seem to be working.\n\nSomeone mentions 9/11 and Iraq. The t
1180656
US is afraid. Basically, the US is a big bully that likes to butt into other people's buisness. They ensure that no one in the world has the same nuclear weapons as they do. If they suspect that you may be attempting to invent weapons... they will attack you. Simple as that. They are afraid that someone will get a bigger military...or have better weapons and defeat them. \n\nThey like to keep people scared so that they can get better deals. If you had an oil well and the US set a military base right outside it and woudln't let your oil pass unless you agreed with all their terms and conditions...what would they be??? This is ACTUALLY happening.
444960
In November 1983, a NATO manoeuvre code-named Able Archer 83, which simulated a NATO nuclear release, caused panic in the Kremlin. Soviet leadership, led by ailing General Secretary Yuri Andropov became concerned that US President Ronald Reagan may have been intending to launch a genuine first strike. In response, Soviet nuclear forces were readied and air units in Eastern Germany and Poland were placed on alert. Though at the time written off by US intelligence as a propaganda effort, many historians now believe Soviet fear of a NATO first strike was genuine.
441180
It was the Religion of a Republican Congress at the time of Harry Truman, and America really regrets these genocide actions that were taken. America had Japan surrounded already with the American Navy. It would have taken longer, and America was afraid Hitler was going to over take Britain at this point so they did it, and did it twice.
290464
Ok.....a full answer to this would take 200 pages minimum.  This is the stuff graduate thesis are made of....but to summarize.........\n\nYou have to change how you view what WW2 was.  It was essentially a late and last ditch effort for a newly resurgant Russian and German empire to expand territory.  Both countries have always had flexible borders (borders that often change) over their histories.  And Russia in particiular has always sought expansion for warm water ports.  If you look at the geography of it......Germany and Russia are natural rivals.  This is why Russia so distrusted any form of a unified Germany following ww2....Russia has always seen invasions from German territory...even before there was a Germany.  In the early-mid-late 30's both countries were already expanding.....but the Germans were bogged down with Yugoslavia and Poland, and the Russian expansion was bogged down in Finland.  Both leaders also distrusted their militaries....and had to consolidate domestic power at various times.  The alliance/non-agression pact was always meant to be a temporary measure.  Hitler rose to power screaming about communism and socialism.  He was always a direct rival of Stalin.  Stalin and the communist party in Russia saw Hitler as an enemy of the proletariat...and historically feared Germany.  In other words both Stalin and Hitler knew that they were going to be fighting at some point.  The non-agression pact was a mutual agreement to take care of other concerns before this happened.  Germany over came it's problems/obstacles before the Soviets did (they had a 70 year advantage on industrialization, and a more centralized/homogenous population) and broke the Warsaw Pact first.  Stalin's reaction was simple disbelief....and when he did find out the invasion was real he hid for days inside of a bunker and Russia was in chaos.  He finally emerged...and ww2 was fought on the the plains of Russia.  To say that ww2 was a land war between Germany and The Soviet Union would not be too far off the mark.  Both sides benefited from the non-agression pact....but Germany was quicker to take advantage.  As far as appeasement.....the initial German expansion was more bluff than anything else.  THe german war machine could quickly have been stopped in places like Czeck.  To understand appeasement you have to understand the Versailles treaty (the treaty/surrender that ended ww1).  The German State lost territory, had to make reparations, etc.  They had limited military production.  The French (who suffered the worst of ww1) were the primary driving force behind the humiliating (to German thinking) Treaty of Versailles.  The English always felt the sanctions on Germany were unfair and unenforcable.  Because of this....when the Germans entered areas like the Sudatland......the British saw it as fair.  The french lacked the strength or will to fight...especially without international support.  By the time that Germany entered Poland (a mutual invasion with Russia actually), their war machine and industry was far greater...and Hitler's domestic power was far more consolidated.  The Germans already had a huge buffer zone.  Appeasement lead to the inevitable and eventual war with a stronger Germany.
865655
Rumsfeld, along with Ashcroft and Cheney, were among the architects of the cold war scares decades ago. They use the same rhetoric, just changing the "enemies." I, for one, will be glad to see him go. During the cold war we talked about a thing called the military industrial complex. It has resurrected at the hands of these men and others of their ilk. Try to go to a screening of the movie Iraq for Sale.
4745
The closest feeling you could identify with would be how the US felt after the terrorist acts of 9/11.\n\nThe country was angry and looking for their target in Afghanistan.
870086
Probably the worst thing Eisenhower did was not to publically rebuke Joe McCarthy when he accused General George Marshall (Ike's old boss) of being a communist sympathizer.  This was right before the 1952 election and Ike was afraid to get into a spat with Crazy Joe.  \n\nMarshall was a great American.  One of the finest.  The Marshall Plan which rebuilt war torn Europe was an inspired piece of work.\n\nBut generally, Eisenhower was a clean guy.  So if you have to argue this (and it's always good thinking practice to argue for the opposite way you feel - it often gives greater insight) good luck.  Eisenhower was by far the better president.