Cold Doesn't Mean Freezing

At the close of World War 2 and the years following it, one would think that the world would be 'war-ed out.' The two most powerful and influential nations at the end of the war were the US and USSR, they were the First World Countries. 

Slowly, tension between the Democratic United States and the Communist USSR began to grow. The tension steamed from contrasting ideologies, geographical locations, and national history, yet the tension never escalated into a physical, "hot" war.

There could be very many reasons the two power nations never duked it out, including the fact that they both had new technology to literally blow each other into smithereens. As these two countries continued to differ on nearly every account, the small coal was beginning to burn as both America and the Soviet Union attempted to spread their political ideologies. Nearly every other nation in the world had to choose whether they would adopt Communist or Democratic ideologies themselves.

I find it hard to believe that with the power, technology, and support that the US and USSR never actually fought. But at the same time, the mass tension and drawn out conflict caused by the Cold War had nearly the same effects as if they had actually gone to war. Countries were divided, ideas were practically being forced down, one as trying to outdo or be better than the other, people were victimized- every one of these aspects would hold true to countries at war, so at what point can a cold war be better than a hot war?  Sure there is less physical loss and damage, and I’m not saying hot war is necessarily better but that the pettiness and un-authoritative route of a cold war isn’t a better solution.

It’s like when two of your friends are fighting, and instead of talking about the situation, they sit in silence while you play middle man and try to see the real problem. Never fun for anybody.

 

Force? Choice? Equality?

While studying for our midterm exam this week, something struck me that wasn't covered in yellow highlighter or underlined and circled ten times. 

Some of the main topics we covered: reconstruction, black rights, Native American discrimination, women's suffrage- all seem unrelated, individually, but when looking at them together its very easy to see a common theme: force, not choice. All these topics represent people forcefully being put down or discriminated by others that believe it's right or beneficial. For the most part these judgmental decisions were not based on any meaningful reason or precedent- they just were. 

In the case of the Native Americans, the U.S. forced them into Reservation schools and took the land they lived on so that they could be "productive people" (aka: American farmers). However, never was any such idea what the Natives wanted nor did they ask for it...or have a choice in it.

To the women who were constantly denied the right to vote, I don't think it was the physical act of voting that was so unsettling, but rather the fact that others had the choice to vote or not vote while women were simply told "no."

The same holds true today. Not everyone wants to go to the moon, or become a CEO, or a YouTube celebrity- but if one person is allowed to choose, how can another person be denied that right? 

I make choices every day: do I sleep in or go to class? Spend money or save money? Captain crunch or Fruit Loops (which is always a hard one) At the time I didn't think these choices matter or were important, but I also was not told (or legally prohibited) from making a choice.

I can not imagine how these groups were constantly put down, discriminated against, and told they could not something. We all know what happened when mom told us to not go into the cookie jar...

Infamy or Admiration

I am a rather curious person - I like to learn why things are the way they are, how they work, what something means, and I was always fascinated with the fact that there are some things you just know, even without explicitly learning something. I mean everyone (at least the majority) knows the Titanic sunk, or knows who Frank Sinatra is, or that in "1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue." For me, the attack on Pearl Harbor the lead to the U.S. involvement of WWII has been one of those things I just knew. Obviously not to the extent and/or context of what I know now, but I always knew of its significance.
After discussing the topic in some depth, it is very easy to picture young American men pumped up to protect their fellow countrymen and fight to the death to defend their honor. However, in reading the letters sent from American soldiers  to their families, that perspective shifted a little bit.
Had America been blindly attacked? Yes. Were the soldiers proud to help defend our country? Surely, but without ever being in battle, on the lines,etc, nobody can put just exactly what war is really like better than those who fought.

 Arlington Cemetery for American Soldiers

David Mark Olds letter to his family (the last in the readings) exemplifies how life in battle actually is, he didn't paint a pretty picture for anybody. His statement, "...leave it to the next fellow or politicians to worry about the world. I want to go home and get some small measure of happiness out of life. We [soldiers] feel that not much good will be done with these noble efforts." To me, these are the words of a soldier. He continued "it's too hard to talk about concentration camps...there are kids outside playing, people going about their lives, and a death camps within walking distance from them." The horror and terror that was resounding during WWII, especially to American soldiers, like Olds who were in Germany,
must have made it nearly impossible to imagine that "good" even existed.
I can not fathom how soldiers could put their lives on the line daily, but were fighting/ surrounded by people- civilians, politicians, soldiers- who were so unaffected by such treacherous acts.
I'm in no place to judge any man or woman who bravely stands up to defend my life, my country, and my freedom (nor am I trying to); however, I don't feel those involved in WWII can be compared to any other group of heroes- they had to go and see above and beyond what could ever be expected of someone. I so admire the bravery, courage, and valiant efforts and feel they should remain in a heroic light always.

Week Six

America was and still remains to be a torn country. At less than 300 years young we have super hardcore Republicans, but also democrats. Extremists and liberals. A and B. One of our nations biggest flaws is its indecision, and un-unified peace perspectives. We want money, but we don't want taxes, We want jobs, but only desirable ones, etc. Such is the case with our country's involvement with the Holocaust.
At first, we shot down that Hitler's disgusting power and control even existed; then we proposed moving Jews and other prisoners out, but wouldn't take them into our own country; we considered bombing large concentration camps to eliminate the problem- really? To me, that almost makes America out to look/sound like Hitler. We wanted to be the war hero and get a purple heart without doing any work.
No matter what side of American politics one falls on, this should have been a unified relief front. No questions. Had Hitler been terrorizing Americans, we'd surely hope someone would intervene, not just come up with ideas and strategies to "float around and the next meeting."

In no way am I trying to downplay the United States' efforts in liberating prisoners, I just feel like they were trying to talk the talk- to look like the heros.