how would you compare the postwar aims of roosevelt churchill, and stalin?
357860
Stalin's post-war aims was to secure the immediate security needs of the USSR and to establish a base for recovery after the terrible damages of World War II. The war had cost over 20 million Soviet lives and destroyed a large proportion of Soviet industry and Stalin was determined that the Soviet Union be repaid in strategic influence and territory what his country had given in blood. He was especially keen to create a buffer zone of friendly states in Eastern Europe to protect the USSR from further attack from the West. This was to include the Baltic States, Poland, Hungery, Yugoslavia and Romania.\n\nChurchill's main strategy was to ensure the continuation of British-American wartime cooperation which he viewed as vital to mainting British influence on the world. As a keen colonialist, he was also concerned with keeping possesion of British overseas territories, despite increasing stirrings for independence in the immediate post-war period. He was keen to counter the rise of the USSR, particularly it's growing influence in Eastern Europe.\n\nRoosevelt wanted to adopt a modified form of Woodrow Wilson's idealist international vision. He acted early towards creating a United Nations to guarentee collective security, but one that was based on the principles of power politics (in the form of a Security Council). He was keen to try and maintain the wartime alliance as he viewed this as the main avenue for peace being preserved, but scholars differed over how much he trusted Stalin and was willing to accomodate him.
675845
The Marshall Plan didn't really do much more than display that the west, capitalism, and democracy were a better choice than communism, and live under Soviet Unions control. They showered the countries that were in financial need, reconstruction, and that were being influenced by communism with whatever they could. Stalin of course chose not accept western aid even if he desperately need help for reconstruction as well, as it would have been a slap in a face for him to accept any western help, with the iron curtain about to fall. Which is what happened. As when he refused western aid for the Soviet Union he also spoke for all the Eastern Bloc under Soviet control. So yes, the Marshall Plan did basically determine their future.\n\nEdit: German occupied countries were mostly liberated and returned to their original borders, or status qou positions, however there was some shift in borders despite nationalities occupying particular territories. I know Soviet Union gained land at the expense of Germany, Finland, Poland and later Japan, as they did agree to enter the war with it, despite the fact that their troops never really saw combat as a result of the atomic bombs.
54704
"Capitalism is the unequal sharing of fortunes; Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."\n\n-- Winston Churchill
573419
I would say Lennin. \n\nUnder his leadership the Russian Revolution too place and started the great communist experiment. He did not rule like Stalin, but he did know what he wanted for his beloved Russia.
868141
i think Winston Churchilll
203033
Victors in wars always get to write the history books.  \n\nWhy did we ally ouselves to a know butcher in Joe Stalin? Nations face similar dilemmas. The Roosevelt administration formed a strategic alliance with Joe Stalin, a known butcher of millions of his own people, to fight Adolf Hitler, a man they considered to be a greater threat. That difficult decision determined the survival of the free world.\n\nSome people call us liberators, others conquerors, martyrs, fanatics, heroes, or just plain nut cases....its' all relative.  Write the history and call them what you like.
344065
I would choose either Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy to try to deal with today's problems, particularly Iraq. Both were very bright. Both were wide ranging and imaginative in the consideration of problems, without some limitations we see today. Both knew human behavior very well, of their own advisers as well as of foreign powers and enemies. Both were not afraid of doing something drastic if necessary and were articulate enough to explain why to the American people. Both loved their country and were devoted to it at any cost to themselves. Both knew how to inspire and lead the American people and the world.\n\nYou say they had some peccadillo's? Don't we all.
1178672
~Worked well for the Third Reich.  They just didn't use it enough.  Neither did Pol Pot.  Joe Stalin made a good run at it though.  Kill for Peace and Justice, I say.  PTL
137426
Cold War: Postwar Estrangement\n1.The Western democracies and the Soviet Union discussed the progress of World War II and the nature of the postwar settlement at conferences in Tehran (1943), Yalta (February 1945), and Potsdam (July-August 1945). After the war, disputes between the Soviet Union and the Western democracies, particularly over the Soviet takeover of East European states, led Winston Churchill to warn in 1946 that an "iron curtain" was descending through the middle of Europe. For his part, Joseph Stalin deepened the estrangement between the United States and the Soviet Union when he asserted in 1946 that World War II was an unavoidable and inevitable consequence of "capitalist imperialism" and implied that such a war might reoccur. \n\nThe Cold War was a period of East-West competition, tension, and conflict short of full-scale war, characterized by mutual perceptions of hostile intention between military-political alliances or blocs. There were real wars, sometimes called "proxy wars" because they were fought by Soviet allies rather than the USSR itself -- along with competition for influence in the Third World, and a major superpower arms race. \n\nAfter Stalin's death, East-West relations went through phases of alternating relaxation and confrontation, including a cooperative phase during the 1960s and another, termed dtente, during the 1970s. A final phase during the late 1980s and early 1990s was hailed by President Mikhail Gorbachev, and especially by the president of the new post-Communist Russian republic, Boris Yeltsin, as well as by President George Bush, as beginning a partnership between the two states that could address many global problems. \n\n\n\nCold War: Soviet Perspectives\n2.After World War II, Joseph Stalin saw the world as divided into two camps: imperialist and capitalist regimes on the one hand, and the Communist and progressive world on the other. In 1947, President Harry Truman also spoke of two diametrically opposed systems: one free, and the other bent on subjugating other nations. \n\nAfter Stalin's death, Nikita Khrushchev stated in 1956 that imperialism and capitalism could coexist without war because the Communist system had become stronger. The Geneva Summit of 1955 among Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and the United States, and the Camp David Summit of 1959 between Eisenhower and Khrushchev raised hopes of a more cooperative spirit between East and West. In 1963 the United States and the Soviet Union signed some confidence-building agreements, and in 1967 President Lyndon Johnson met with Soviet Prime Minister Aleksei Kosygin in Glassboro, New Jersey. Interspersed with such moves toward cooperation, however, were hostile acts that threatened broader conflict, such as the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962 and the Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia of 1968. \n\nThe long rule of Leonid Brezhnev (1964-1982) is now referred to in Russia as the "period of stagnation." But the Soviet stance toward the United States became less overtly hostile in the early 1970s. Negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union resulted in summit meetings and the signing of strategic arms limitation agreements. Brezhnev proclaimed in 1973 that peaceful coexistence was the normal, permanent, and irreversible state of relations between imperialist and Communist countries, although he warned that conflict might continue in the Third World. In the late 1970s, growing internal repression and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan led to a renewal of Cold War hostility. \n\nSoviet views of the United States changed once again after Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in early 1985. Arms control negotiations were renewed, and President Reagan undertook a new series of summit meetings with Gorbachev that led to arms reductions and facilitated a growing sympathy even among Communist leaders for more cooperation and the rejection of a class-based, conflic
308022
I would say that the biggest similarity is that they were all presidents of the US during a domestic crisis. Hoover had to try to fix the great depression if memory serves me well, and Carter had to deal with the backlash of Watergate and backlash from the Iran Hostage issue. Finally, Reagan had to deal with the economic depression with his major government spending and Reaganomics. One could also argue that all of them were similar because of there materialism and failure of their social programs.
268802
That was a meeting during the war with Stalin, FDR, and Churchill.\n\nThe Yalta Conference, sometimes called the Crimea Conference and codenamed the Argonaut Conference, was the wartime meeting from February 4 to 11, 1945 between the heads of government of the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union. The delegations were headed by Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin, respectively.\n\n\nWinston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin at Yalta in 1945.\nContents\n [hide]\n1 The meeting\n2 Major points\n3 Aftermath\n4 See also\n5 References\n6 External links\n[edit]\nThe meeting\n\nThe conference was held in Yalta, a resort town on the Crimean peninsula in the Soviet Union (now in Ukraine). The American delegation was housed in the Tsar's former palace, while President Roosevelt stayed at the Livadia Palace where the meetings took place. The British delegation was installed in Prince Vorontsov's castle of Alupka. Key members of the delegations were Edward Stettinius, Averell Harriman, Anthony Eden, Alexander Cadogan, and Vyacheslav Molotov. According to Anthony Beevor, all the rooms were bugged by the NKVD. Stalin arrived by train on February 4. The meeting started with an official dinner on the evening of that day.
482531
Interesting query. Our prime minister, Winston Churchill, and your President Roosevelt had a few things in common. Roosevelt was born in New York. Churchills grandfather (Leonard Jerome) was also born there. \nThey shared some aspirations for the future of their countries, and they both played a substantial role in the creation of the welfare state that has become the nanny state. I hasten to add I can only comment on the british benefits system regarding the nanny state.\n\nWinston Churchill procrastinated a great deal whereas Roosevelt was a little more concise and to the point. Take these two quotes for example -\n\nChurchill: 'Every day you may make progress. Every step may be fruitful. Yet there will stretch out before you an ever-ascending, ever-improving path. You know you will never get to the end ofthe journey. But this, sofar from discouraging, only adds to the joy and glory of the climb'\n\nRoosevelt: 'It is common sense to take a method and try it: if it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.\n\nAnd -\n\nChurchill: It's not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what's required.\n\nRoosevelt: Be sincere; be brief; be seated.\n\nI have digressed from your question however. On the whole I don'r agree with Churchill's statement, at least not if it is applied to today's society. It nay have been more fitting during the war when America was drawn closer (perhaps reluctantly) to Europe and a certain comradeship was a way of life. Sometimes a little more than comradeship between the G.I's and our land girls!!\nI feel that the main difference between our homelands is our pride in our respective coumtries and the reasons for it.\nI don't feel proud to be british any more. The days of 'pulling together' are long gone. It's 'all for one and one for all' nowadays. There has been a mass migration going on in the UK for a few years. Anyone that is selling a property is moving out to France, Spain, etc. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. There are people being murdered in villages for a few pence from their purses. Yob culture rules and teenagers with hoods are to be avoided. Sure, this kind of behaviour has always gone on, but mainly prevalent in big towns in the past. \nOur taxes are crippling. People who've worked hard all their lives are living well below the poverty line. They have saved for their pension only to be told that it doesn't exist. And as I mentioned earlier, too many citizens sit back and accept the ample hand-outs the government provides in exchange for votes.\n\nBritain has also lost it's sense of humour.To quote Roosevelt again -\n\n'I sometimes think that the saving grace of America lies in the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans are possessed of two great qualities - a sense of humour and a sense of proportion'\n\nI cannot comment on the differences in the American way of life as I've not lived there but I get the feeling you're all still proud of your origins and wouldn't swap your nationality for all the tea in China. I'd like to hear your views on that.\n\nWhen I joined the march in London against the war I saw an amusing placard being held up by a young girl proclaiming 'The only Bush I trust is my own. That tickled me but also reminded we're probably not the only country with a corrupt government. \n\nI feel there will always be a bond between the States and the United Kingdom - I hope so. But I also feel that America looks after it's countrymenin a more constructive way than our government. You are encouraged to study, work, and save towqrds a better future. And if you live your life that way you get results. We don't.\n\nThat said, I will finish on a quote by Franklin D. Roosevelt in a letter to Winston Churchill.\n\n'It is fun to be in the same decade with you'\n\nAh. comradeship!
1138346
I would have to say Nixon becuase he got us out of vietnam and he got relations back with china.  \n\nI know some might say FDR but he was partially responsible for the Cold War becuase before he died, him churchill and Stalin all got together and FDR decided that the USSR should get most of eastern Europe. What a punk.
407159
Churchill says it best:\n\nThe statesman who yields to war fever...is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.\n\n~Sir Winston Churchill
457251
check the bibliography of this page \n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill\n\none of those books will have what you are looking for.
173188
Did you mean JOSEPH Stalin ?
998905
Stalin was definitely worse than Hitler. I think he killed around 20 - 30 million people.