do you think that pst ww2 that the allied countries should have tried to lever the russians back out of europe while they had the chance? whilst they had the atomic bomb? not as a weapon of war but as a bargaining tool.
the main problem was money , after the war almost every country was brocke, so even to build more a bomb was not posible to the us
more like blackmailed? First of all, an attempt was made, but after Russians were told to literally piss off from looting Ruhr, after USA/Britain decided to separate West Berlin into which they were actually invited by Russians and made ultimatums about providing money as part of Marshall plan, Russia didn't have much choice but to go for cold war. I mean it was either becoming a satellite state living on handouts and credits from USA and following orders, or just become hostile to each other and put up iron curtain. I personally blame Churchill and his alliance of Anglo Saxon people with which he signed up British Empire to USA and sealed fate of the world in a cold war. Have USA and Britain were less hostile, everything could have been different. As for Atomic bomb. A threat to an ally is never a good thing. After defeat of Japan, A-Bomb had only 1 use, to intimidate Soviet Union and then to serve as instrument of deterrence.
but then why the soviets started to build the iron courtain? to isolate ? or to stop the mass exodus of east germans to west germany? the soviets intentions were never freiendly when they invade eastern europe,
ehh where do you come with the terms "invade"? Soviets liberated Eastern Europe. Here's what happened, Germans captured it, soviets LIBERATED it. Iron curtain as fault of Soviets? Well, if you trace it to original Berlin conflict, then you have to work double hard to make it seem that way, since Russians 1. captured Berlin by themselves and 2. invited allies there. Believe me or not, in WW2 Russians were the good guys. Yes, I know many people on this forum dont believe it, but they were.. honest.
think u find the russians were just as brutal as the germans. dont forget red army soldiers killed over 2million german women and children when they invaded easrtern germany in 1945. looted and raped in all the countries they 'liberated' even in russia itself. then set up brutal regimes in there own image totally subserviant to moscow. dont see how this makes them the good guys???
The Western Allies got control of their part of Berlin because that was the agreement at Yalta, as was the approximate stopping line for the Western Forces as they headed east. The Western Allies actually could have reached Berlin had they tried, though I doubt they could have conceivably taken Berlin before the Soviets. Why did Roosevelt agree to it? I think it was a general realization that the Soviets had shouldered the most fighting in Europe and had to be given a satisfactory piece of the "pie". The only way the Soviets were going to convinced otherwise was if the U.S. was willing to threaten nuclear war to prevent it, and in February 1945 when Yalta occurred, the A-bomb hadn't been even tested yet. The Marshall Plan was a stroke of genius. Stalin agreed to the dividing of Europe with the assumption that postwar Europe would be so devestated it would be easy to foment Communist insurrections. The Marshall Plan, and backlash to Soviet strong-arm tactics (like the Berlin Blockade) kept this from happening. The use of the nuclear threat prevented the Cold War from becoming a hot war. U.S. demobilized enormously following WW II until the Korean War reversed it. The same cannot be said for the Soviet Union following the war.
Re: ehh Only in the sense that they were fighting the Germans. That's the only thing that made them 'good guys' and the only reason why they ended up fighting the Germans was because the Soviet Union itself was attacked. Stalin was as evil as Hitler and Communism was as brutal a regime as the Nazis. Were the Soviets the good guys in 1939 when they took half of Poland? Did the Soviets offer any help to Britain in 1940? (I'm talking about the political structures here, not the people).
Re: ehh hell no, they were happy that they are 200 km closer to berlin and hell not they did not try to offer any help, they were hitlers' allied at the time
Didn't the Americans also hand over to the Soviets territory that the Yanks had captured, to comply with Yalta?
Yes, in may 1945, Patton's army stood deep in Czechoslovakia for example. Great parts of eastern Germany had also been captured by the americans.
It is worth remembering that Russia was invaded from the west twice in the first half of the 20th century. On each occasion the Russians took a terrible beating. So while it probably isn't an excuse it does give a reason for why they wanted a buffer between them and the west. As for why the western allies didn't push them out. I don't really know what the US economic position was but by 1945 Britain was like a punch drunk boxer, still on our feet but swaying, Britain needed peace at vertually any price. Poland, the country we declared war over, was among those sold out due to political necessity. As to western hostility well in places we could have done with being more hostile. After all the British handed over a jet engine that formed the basis for the early Russian jets (whose brain fart was that anyway?)
I completely see why the Soviets wanted a buffer zone. That is fine. The fact that they grabbed one in the way they did is less fine. (We've liberated you from the Germans, but now we're staying!) Economically, Britain was out. We had to give our role as 'peacekeepers' (ie: preventing a Communist revolution!) in Greece over to America, for example. America was booming after the war! However, as for forcing the Soviets out of Eastern Europe - how? No disrespect to UK/US armed forces, but even at the time Churchill (I think) was saying that the only thing between the Red Army and London was the Channel... The only possible balance was through the A-bomb, which is a deterrant, rather than an offensive weapon IMHO.
i dont think the allies could ever have removed the russians by force the red army was far too strong , as u rightly point out. the fact america was the only nation at that time with the A bomb definetly acted as a deterrent against the russians, who possibly if the A bomb wasnt around may well have decided that berlin just wasnt enuff and could have just kept on going. Having said that as the russians had already renagued on the agreements at tehran and yalta, the americans if they had the balls could have forced them into a withdraw by threating to drop a few nukes on them if they didnt comply.
Re: ehh And don't forget the massacre of thousands of Polish officers and officer cadets by Russian troops in the Katyn Forest. That was in 1940, IIRC. And I don't think Finland would agree about the Soviets being the "good guys". I do need to say this, however: Even at the height of the Cold War, when I was in the US Navy, I *never* had anything against the Russian people, despite what I thought of their political leadership. And my shipmates felt the same way.
Re: ehh Actually, it's not entirely correct to call Stalinist Russia a Communist state. Their economic system was a communist one, but their state was really a totalitarian despotism with one party out of which the wannabe-statesmen killed and bribed their way up. This is what essentially went wrong in all Communist states of the world; they became totalitarian, and then they got stuck in their own non-development and collapsed. Of course, the fact that Communism doesn't stimulate anyone really 'helped' a lot...
