How did post war hostility develop between the united states and the solviet union?
466930
The main reason for the hostility between the USA and USSR after WWII was the division of post-war Europe.  Stalin wanted to keep the territories his armies "liberated", such as Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and part of Germany.  The US and UK wanted to give those countries the chance to elect their governments in free elections.\n\nThis, in a nutshell, is how it began.
719825
maybe something abut how they are still at war and there have been many minor skirmishes or incidence over the years, there was a great program on the history channel about that, alot of stuff I didn't know.  sorry I don't remember the name of it.
140029
America emerged as a single superpower giving rise to unipolar political world.\n\nThose fighters trained and armed by America for War against USSR were free and they turned their energies against America.\n\nEurope and China emerged more strongly on economic fronts as opposing poles to this new unipolar world.\n\nClash of Civilisation (between West & Islam) saw new dimensions with clash of ideologies
301058
well, there were two parts of it.\nthe first, of course, was nuclear technology. at first, the USA was the only one that had atomic bombs. but during the 1940s, Stalin infiltrated FDR's staff and bought the technology. when Russia had atomic bombs, they threatened to use them on us.\nthe other half was what happened to Europe.  by the time the war was over, basically every country in Europe was broke and desolate. so the two countries left standing, USA and Russia. USA and England wanted to push democracy, Russia wanted to expand communism. this lead to pretty much a global fight on how to bring back Europe. when the two sides started fighting, nuclear bombs became trump card.
68373
Serious negotiations to end the war began after U.S. President Lyndon Johnson's decision not to seek reelection in 1968. Contacts between North Vietnam and the United States in Paris in 1968 were expanded in 1969 to include South Vietnam and the NLF. The United States, under the leadership of President Richard M. Nixon, altered its tactics to combine U.S. troop withdrawals with intensified bombing and the invasion of Communist sanctuaries in Cambodia (1970).\n\nThe length of the war, the high number of U.S. casualties, and the exposure of U.S. involvement in war crimes such as the massacre at My Lai (see My Lai incident) helped to turn many in the United States against the war. Politically, the movement was led by Senators James William Fulbright, Robert F. Kennedy, Eugene J. McCarthy, and George S. McGovern; there were also huge public demonstrations in Washington, D.C., as well as in many other cities in the United States and on college campuses.\n\nEven as the war continued, peace talks in Paris progressed, with Henry Kissinger as U.S. negotiator. A break in negotiations followed by U.S. saturation bombing of North Vietnam did not derail the talks, and a peace agreement was reached, signed on Jan. 27, 1973, by the United States, North Vietnam, South Vietnam, and the NLF's provisional revolutionary government. The accord provided for the end of hostilities, the withdrawal of U.S. and allied troops (several Southeast Asia Treaty Organization countries had sent token forces), the return of prisoners of war, and the formation of a four-nation international control commission to ensure peace.
15867
America has a nasty habit of getting involved in matters that do not directly affect us.  This is a huge cause of contention with other nations.  When America is so divided (and not united as promised), they feel that we shouldn't have any right in telling them how to live.  Americans are also very self-involved.  We think of ourselves first and others last.  Americans also tend to think in terms that the world revolves around them not realizing that there are many other cultures out there.  We forget that other countries have different laws and standards than America and generally, Americans just don't care.  This is why other countries have hatred towards Americans and the government.
128087
US President Woodrow Wilson and his administration were determined not to define the U.S. as an ally. But United States declared war on Germany on the grounds of German violations of American neutrality by attacking many international carriers, and was not at war with the Ottoman Empire at all. Therefore, the U.S. entered the war as an "associated power", rather than a formal ally of France and Britain, and maintained that distance through the war and the Paris Peace Conference, 1919.
759793
I would seek open, internationaaly monitorred dialogue with those who oppose the US, to see what it is that they really want, and need. The US is now in the position to play Santa Claus to the world. While we may not give what they want, we may be able to help with what they need, and in turn get some folks off of our backs. A good portion of the problem s we see, today, come from negligence, whether intentional or not. Others come as a result of politics from before most of our times. \n\nAn invitation to a no-strings-attached summit would put the onus upon our detractors, and place the US back where it belongs. The place of a well to do neighbor, who can help their community. Of course, that comes with the understanding that in a community of nations we become symbiotic with one another. Those who want to be outside of that know where the door is.
922092
They wanted each state to be a separate country like Europe is.\nThey felt that the North didn't understand the problems associated with the south.\nHad it happened we would have later seen a war between Oklahoma and Arkansas or Texas and South Carolina.\nBy having a federal government we have someone to settle issues for us that otherwise would end in war.\nIran and Iraq and Syria and Lebanon and Israel are smaller than are smaller states.  It is the same as if Road Island went to war with new york city.
307492
It was always obnoxious.  The US wouldn't have nearly the international political problems today if it hadn't been for Israel.  It started with supporting Israelis that were throwing grenades in to family homes in order to evict the Palestinians.  For what happened to them in Germany, it seems the future Israelis learned a lot about oppressing other people, herding them off to concentration camps, etc.\n\nI don't recall any information about how the original Israelis were oppressed by the Palestinians of the 1940's or the earlier century.  Was there any?  It seems like it was about the equivalent of anyone trying to get revenge on Mongolia... what's the point?  You're only a few hundred years too late...  Are these even the same people?\n\nOf course, now that we have decades of hate between them, there is plenty of atrocity to go around now, but I find it interesting that Israel plays off their aggression with cries of "holocaust" - particularly when that's what they have done to the Palestinian's - and would do if creating death camps were not frowned upon by the international community.\n\nEven so, a great recipie for eternal religious hatred:\n\n* Take one religion convinced that they are the "chosen" of God and are only special by lineage.\n\n* Take one religion whose faith is open to all, but has over the centuries taken a "convert or die" attitude as well as a strong emphasis on "an eye for an eye."\n\n* Mix together in an environment with some resource sarcity.\n\n* Watch the wars bloom.\n\nGod has an interesting sense of humor.\n\nAs for the specialness of Israel, I believe we could baste the whole country with neutron bombs and the rest of the world would be no worse for wear, just as the US could be wiped and the rest of the world would find some way to go on.  It's the vomitous pompus stupidity that keeps the problems kindling and I have NO respect for such insolence, just as I have no respect for people that kill innocents.\n\nMy guess is that the US keeps funding Israel in order to keep jews fighting muslims to destabilize the region.
12064
Here is a summary...but I assure you there are great resources online:\n\n At the start of the war, President Wilson had declared the neutrality of the United States. Most Americans opposed US involvement in the European war. But the sinking of the Lusitania and other German actions against civilians drew America sympathies to the Allies. German military leaders believed that they could still win the war by cutting off British supplies. They expected their U-boats to starve Britain into surrendering within a few months, longer before the US had fully prepared for war. Tension between the US and Germany increased after the British intercepted and decoded a message from Germany's foreign minister, Arthur Zimmermann, the German ambassador to Mexico. The message known as the "Zimmermann note", revealed a German plot to persuade Mexico to go to war against the United States. The British gave the message to Wilson, and it was published in the US early in March. Americans were further enraged after U-boats sank several US cargo ships.
13353
None - There were a bunch, but Bush reversed about 50 years of progress by pulling the USA out. \n\nI figure <and I'm only figuring> that we will never ever ever ever reach full international agreements. If you mean only the countries that are most likely to try to bomb others, like Iran or the USA, we will have to wait for some competent leaders with competent foreign policies. \n\nDon't get me wrong, though, many countries have made agreements. But I think many people will agree with me that without the USA in peace agreements with you, there is probably no point in attempting world peace.\n\nEDIT: I hope this wasn't a question in your homework. Don't use this :P
724169
I don't get mad, I get sad....the United States has in the past been seen as the land of opportunity. During the cold war, all European nations were thrilled with our involvement and power. Now that there is no other super power, we are seen as the enemy to all...the power that made us there ally now is viewed as a negative.\n\nI personally think that America has enough problems in out own backyard with homland security and poverty within our borders that we should stop looking overseas to fight anyone else's battles. who made us the Policemen of the world? That is why wer are hated.
539868
Don't know about the U.S., was on the opposite side during the cold war. For us, the opposite side, the effects were unpleasant: because the economy was so militarized, we had deficits of consumer goods. Could have lived better but for the competition with America. Maybe indirectly it caused the disintegration of the whole country and the collapse of the whole economy. In addition, everyone was afraid of any bang - what if that was the American bomb exploding? I know that the same was happening in the West - everyone was afraid of the Soviet bombs that could have started falling any moment.
877292
I would love it if someone with a knowledge of history would answer this question in an unbiased manner.  Just of what little I remember (I'm 63), US citizens felt compassion toward the Jews after the war due to what happened to them.  They struggled for years to make it work.  Later on, the US may have kept it up for various other reasons also.  But that's the reason I remember.
949775
Your question is out of date. It's really the president that people don't like and the fact that so many voted against him has already helped dissipate anti-Americanism among most people I know
534815
FDR had been pushing the US to the brink of war with both countries. His belligerance towards both was evident in his policies. His support of Britain, the Lend-Lease and the extension of US escorts for British shipping were, basically, acts of war against Germany.\n\nWe would have eventually gone to war, but without the unity we had after having been attacked.\n\nOf course, we could have surrendered like the French, and the money spent on the war would have been better spent on poverty reduction plans at home, according to some people on this site.\n\nI guess FDR was just a warmongering elitist who kept America in a long depression for his evil pleasure and greed, until he could get into a war and kill millions of innocents with his indescriminate bombing of civilan targets. This would be an accurate description, according to the people who depict Bush this way.