Source 2 And 3 Essay
With reference to Sources 2 and 3 and your understanding of the historical context, which of these two sources is more valuable in explaining why the Soviet Union wanted to establish control over Eastern European States?
Source 3 by Stalin is more valuable than Source 2 by Churchill in explaining why the Soviet Union wanted to establish control over Eastern European States. Churchill does not ‘directly’ state any reasons why the Soviet Union wanted to establish control over Eastern European States. Stalin’s speech’s topic is basically explaining this. In order to come to a conclusion, it is important to analyse the historical context of the sources, whilst also considering who it is addressed to and what the emphasis of the Sources is.
I …show more content…
think that Source 3 answers the question why better than Source 2. In Source 3 Stalin says “(…) in a desire to ensure its [Soviet Union] security for the future, tries to achieve that these countries should have governments whose relations with the Soviet Union are loyal.” Stalin explains that the Soviet Union merely wants to ensure that the countries close to them are on their side for the Soviet Union’s own security. For example, Poland was largely influenced by the US instead of the USSR, it could pose a large threat [Poland was one of the bigger countries very lose to the USSR. So it was important for the USSR to have Poland be communist or at least not on the side of the Americans] to them if it ever came to a war. It explains states some of the reasons why the Soviet Union is expanding so rapidly after the Second World War. In Source 2, Churchill says “I do not believe Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their powers and doctrines.” He says that the USSR simply wants to extend its powers through mainly communism. The bit ‘the fruits of war’ says that the Soviet Union wants to benefit from the weak situation many Eastern-European countries are in by turning them to communism. This does however more explain what the Soviets do, rather than why. We know that the Soviet Union wants to establish control over Eastern-European states, and Source 3 goes deeper [by actually explaining and going in more specific into the reasons why they did it. While the Iron Curtain speech gives a more general view] into why they want that than Source 2, which is why Source 2 is more valuable in explaining the Soviet expansion.
I think Churchill has an anti-communist tone and Stalin a more sympathetic tone and how this tie in to the main question. In Source 2, Churchill says the following “(…) all [Countries in Eastern/Central-Europe] are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a high measure of control from Moscow.” It is immediately evident that he portrays Soviet influence as something ‘bad’ and he implies that it wasn’t by choice [the choice to become communist. The USSR rigged elections to make sure communist leaders and parties would win and that they would appear ‘legitimate’] , but they were forced to and makes sure he puts the emphasis on this. This was true, for example in Poland, Stalin he appeared to allow free multi-party elections but with a clear intent to have a communist eventually emerge as the victor. He did similar things like this in many other Eastern-European countries. In Source 3 Stalin says “It may be that some quarters are trying to push into oblivion the sacrifices of the Soviet people, which ensured the liberation of Europe from the Hitlerite yoke. But the Soviet Union cannot forget them.” Stalin takes a very emotional stance here, trying to create sympathy for the Soviet people. He accuses Churchill and other leaders for deliberately forgetting the Soviet blood that has been spilled. Millions of Soviet people had been killed in contrast to the UK and US, who collectively don’t reach the one million. Stalin believes that the Soviet Union did not get enough compensation for this from the meetings and felt it was necessary to ‘compensate’ it on their own, by establishing control over Eastern European states. This is strengthened by what Stalin said at the end “How can one qualify these peaceful aspirations of the Soviet Union as ‘expansionist tendencies’ of our government?” This is referring back to the point mentioned in the first paragraph about the USSR trying to ensure its security through seeking nearby allies. Churchill does not see forcing communism on nations as peaceful, but Stalin thinks that this could have been prevented if he got compensated fairly in his eyes. This is a major reason for Stalin to expand the Soviet Union.
The provenance of Source 3 in answering the question.
Source 2 is an extract from the Iron Curtain Speech from Churchill given by him in the US to the American people including President Truman in March 1946. The content was basically him warning them for the aggressive Soviet expansion as much of the people still believed the Soviet Union to be an ally after defeating Nazi-Germany together. He said the following “(…) an Iron Curtain has descended across the Continent [Europe]. Behind the line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe.” He believes that what the Soviets are doing at that moment divides Europe in to spheres, and wants to convince the Americans that they have to stop them. Source 3 itself is an extract from Stalin’s interview that was a response to the Iron Curtain Speech. It was published in the controversial [It was controlled by the Soviet government. So it would never be critical about the government and not objective at all. You could say the government used this newspaper to bring out political news and propaganda.] Soviet newspaper, Pravda. It was a very reliable source for official government views, but the content never stated something critical of the Soviet government. Stalin said the following “Mr Churchill now stands as a firebrand of war.” The Iron Curtain Speech made him believe Churchill was plotting with the Americans against the Soviet Union and implies that Churchill would be responsible if it came to a war. They are both valuable in this aspect, but Churchill was negative of the Soviet Union in his words, while Stalin somewhat explained what and why the Soviet Union did what they
did.
Overall, both Sources are valuable in explaining why the Soviet Union wanted to establish control over Eastern European states. But Source 3 is deemed more valuable because of numerous factors. Source 3 explains the question itself much more than Source 2, which would be the better option into explaining what the Soviet Union was doing. While Churchill in Source 2 did give an opinion [he gave a vague, if any at all, opinion on why the USSR did that] Stalin in Source 2 goes into much more detail and is therefore alongside with the other points the more valuable one into explaining why the Soviet Union wanted to establish control over Eastern European States.
Source 3 by Stalin is more valuable than Source 2 by Churchill in explaining why the Soviet Union wanted to establish control over Eastern European States. Churchill does not ‘directly’ state any reasons why the Soviet Union wanted to establish control over Eastern European States. Stalin’s speech’s topic is basically explaining this. In order to come to a conclusion, it is important to analyse the historical context of the sources, whilst also considering who it is addressed to and what the emphasis of the Sources is.
I …show more content…
think that Source 3 answers the question why better than Source 2. In Source 3 Stalin says “(…) in a desire to ensure its [Soviet Union] security for the future, tries to achieve that these countries should have governments whose relations with the Soviet Union are loyal.” Stalin explains that the Soviet Union merely wants to ensure that the countries close to them are on their side for the Soviet Union’s own security. For example, Poland was largely influenced by the US instead of the USSR, it could pose a large threat [Poland was one of the bigger countries very lose to the USSR. So it was important for the USSR to have Poland be communist or at least not on the side of the Americans] to them if it ever came to a war. It explains states some of the reasons why the Soviet Union is expanding so rapidly after the Second World War. In Source 2, Churchill says “I do not believe Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their powers and doctrines.” He says that the USSR simply wants to extend its powers through mainly communism. The bit ‘the fruits of war’ says that the Soviet Union wants to benefit from the weak situation many Eastern-European countries are in by turning them to communism. This does however more explain what the Soviets do, rather than why. We know that the Soviet Union wants to establish control over Eastern-European states, and Source 3 goes deeper [by actually explaining and going in more specific into the reasons why they did it. While the Iron Curtain speech gives a more general view] into why they want that than Source 2, which is why Source 2 is more valuable in explaining the Soviet expansion.
I think Churchill has an anti-communist tone and Stalin a more sympathetic tone and how this tie in to the main question. In Source 2, Churchill says the following “(…) all [Countries in Eastern/Central-Europe] are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a high measure of control from Moscow.” It is immediately evident that he portrays Soviet influence as something ‘bad’ and he implies that it wasn’t by choice [the choice to become communist. The USSR rigged elections to make sure communist leaders and parties would win and that they would appear ‘legitimate’] , but they were forced to and makes sure he puts the emphasis on this. This was true, for example in Poland, Stalin he appeared to allow free multi-party elections but with a clear intent to have a communist eventually emerge as the victor. He did similar things like this in many other Eastern-European countries. In Source 3 Stalin says “It may be that some quarters are trying to push into oblivion the sacrifices of the Soviet people, which ensured the liberation of Europe from the Hitlerite yoke. But the Soviet Union cannot forget them.” Stalin takes a very emotional stance here, trying to create sympathy for the Soviet people. He accuses Churchill and other leaders for deliberately forgetting the Soviet blood that has been spilled. Millions of Soviet people had been killed in contrast to the UK and US, who collectively don’t reach the one million. Stalin believes that the Soviet Union did not get enough compensation for this from the meetings and felt it was necessary to ‘compensate’ it on their own, by establishing control over Eastern European states. This is strengthened by what Stalin said at the end “How can one qualify these peaceful aspirations of the Soviet Union as ‘expansionist tendencies’ of our government?” This is referring back to the point mentioned in the first paragraph about the USSR trying to ensure its security through seeking nearby allies. Churchill does not see forcing communism on nations as peaceful, but Stalin thinks that this could have been prevented if he got compensated fairly in his eyes. This is a major reason for Stalin to expand the Soviet Union.
The provenance of Source 3 in answering the question.
Source 2 is an extract from the Iron Curtain Speech from Churchill given by him in the US to the American people including President Truman in March 1946. The content was basically him warning them for the aggressive Soviet expansion as much of the people still believed the Soviet Union to be an ally after defeating Nazi-Germany together. He said the following “(…) an Iron Curtain has descended across the Continent [Europe]. Behind the line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe.” He believes that what the Soviets are doing at that moment divides Europe in to spheres, and wants to convince the Americans that they have to stop them. Source 3 itself is an extract from Stalin’s interview that was a response to the Iron Curtain Speech. It was published in the controversial [It was controlled by the Soviet government. So it would never be critical about the government and not objective at all. You could say the government used this newspaper to bring out political news and propaganda.] Soviet newspaper, Pravda. It was a very reliable source for official government views, but the content never stated something critical of the Soviet government. Stalin said the following “Mr Churchill now stands as a firebrand of war.” The Iron Curtain Speech made him believe Churchill was plotting with the Americans against the Soviet Union and implies that Churchill would be responsible if it came to a war. They are both valuable in this aspect, but Churchill was negative of the Soviet Union in his words, while Stalin somewhat explained what and why the Soviet Union did what they
did.
Overall, both Sources are valuable in explaining why the Soviet Union wanted to establish control over Eastern European states. But Source 3 is deemed more valuable because of numerous factors. Source 3 explains the question itself much more than Source 2, which would be the better option into explaining what the Soviet Union was doing. While Churchill in Source 2 did give an opinion [he gave a vague, if any at all, opinion on why the USSR did that] Stalin in Source 2 goes into much more detail and is therefore alongside with the other points the more valuable one into explaining why the Soviet Union wanted to establish control over Eastern European States.