Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 2/14/2006 12:10:57 PM EDT
1500-1800 words, at least 4 different historical interpretations... 'to what extent was the cold war inevitable?'

...due by 9am tomorrow.
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 12:12:18 PM EDT
What do you have so far?
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 12:12:25 PM EDT
When was it assigned? As one of my professor's says:

"Procrastination is like masturbation. It may seem like a good idea at the time, but in the end you're just fucking yourself!"
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 12:13:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/14/2006 12:18:30 PM EDT by MagKnightX]

Originally Posted By Coop_K:
What do you have so far?



'Arguably, it could be said that there are no inevitable wars of any type, and wars are caused by a series of preventable actions by countries and their representatives, and by a failure to accept certain ideological differences between the two parties involved.'

...and that's it.

ETA: don't get me wrong, I'm great at writing papers at the last moment. I've written a 2000 word essay, including all necessary research, in six hours, and gotten an 'A,' more than once. But this topic is just... incredibly vague.

ETAA: It seems I can actually choose any of the following:

1. Examine the conflicting aims and policies of rival powers which caused the Cold War.

2. Analyze the role of Germany in the origin and development of the Cold War.

3. “The Cold War was caused by fear, not aggression.” To what extent does this view explain how the Cold War developed between 1945 and 1949?

4. “Ideological differences played little part in the origin of the Cold War.” How far do you agree with this judgement?

5. To what extent was the Cold War inevitable?



Any history buffs want to tell me which I'm most likely to find easiest to expand on?
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 12:15:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MagKnightX:

Originally Posted By Coop_K:
What do you have so far?



'Arguably, it could be said that there are no inevitable wars of any type, and wars are caused by a series of preventable actions by countries and their representatives, and by a failure to accept certain ideological differences between the two parties involved.'

...and that's it.



Holy comma splice Batman!
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 1:11:01 PM EDT
Question: is 'Chicom' a proper term to use in an essay, like 'Comintern?'
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 2:04:37 PM EDT
Also, a citation question: If I'm doing a footnote citation for a writing in a collection, do I cite by the author of the writing or by the editors of the collection? Like, if it were a letter written by SecStat Acheson, would I cite it "Acheson page no." or "Editors page no.?"
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 2:06:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MagKnightX:
1500-1800 words, at least 4 different historical interpretations... 'to what extent was the cold war inevitable?'

...due by 9am tomorrow.



"If we had listen to patton, it wouldn't have happened!"
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 2:13:31 PM EDT
so you waste your time posting it here, finish, I can do that for breakfeast.
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 2:52:55 PM EDT
"Cold war inevitable" would be easy to go on about. It's practically all the diplomatic history guys were talking about from 1950-1992. If you want to argue the lefty side there's a mass of stuff to crib from; see NSC-68 and google. John Lewis Gaddis is the go-to guy on the whole cold war subject. He had a sort of hedged "fault of the US" position for years, but after the fall of the Soviet Union he came around to the idea that the CW was inevitable because of Soviet instangience. He's considered the dean on the subject, and quoting him would give you bonus points with the prof, who would be tricked into thinking that you had at least done some cursory review of the literature.
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 3:00:44 PM EDT
inevitable? b/c stalin and commie russia (who the free world did not like, even before the war) had taken over E EU and half of Ger

introduce old resentment (capitalism/democracy vs marxism/communism), nuclear arms, psycho dictators, old-school hard liners, and noobies (like truman), and you got yourself a cold war

heck, the US knew that as soon as the axis powers of WWII were defeated, the USSR and US would be at ends...

and ike was not that great--massive retaliation --does NOT work when your enemy can respond in kind

now, if we had massive retailiation policy NOW--NO ONE would be F-ing w/ us b/c we would pressure every non-nuke power country to keep thier radicals in check
if not, we nuke em
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 4:27:12 PM EDT
Finished it, with the exception of annotating my bibliography... which means evaluating the sources I used. BLEAH!

Anyway, I chose to go with #3, '“The Cold War was caused by fear, not aggression.” To what extent does this view explain how the Cold War developed between 1945 and 1949?'

Anybody want to take a look at it and tell me what you think, just ask and I'll try posting it.
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 4:39:44 PM EDT


Four?

Good luck.

Free world/COMBLOCK

Two views.

Win or not.

We won.

Essay over.
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 6:05:36 PM EDT
I like the sound of "massive retaliation." Really gets the point across.
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 9:31:11 PM EDT
3. “The Cold War was caused by fear, not aggression.” To what extent does this view explain how the Cold War developed between 1945 and 1949?



Since the USA and the USSR were both brought into WWII by suprise attacks this topic would practically write itself.


Steve
Link Posted: 2/14/2006 9:59:28 PM EDT
Number 4, depending on how much you know of Smith, Marx, and Enlightenment philosophy. The short version is that capitalism and communism are mutually exclusive because of the man's inherent rights. If you know what I'm talking about, you can run with it.

With the exception of number 2, they are all the same topic rephrased anyway.
Top Top