Although American history books tend to focus on the role of the United States in defeating the Nazis, the Soviet Union played a far more significant role in the destruction of the Nazi state and had every reason to be fearful of American intentions. From the Soviet (and Russian) perspective, the Americans and British were dawdling around in the African and Italian campaigns in 1942 and 1943 while the Soviets were fighting for national survival. It was not unreasonable for them to suspect that the Americans were waiting for the Soviet Union to fall to Germany before negotiating a peace deal with Hitler. Given this, do you think that Stalin’s post-world war tactics (of hanging onto the Eastern European territories they took back from the Nazis) should be considered to have been reasonable? What evidence can you suggest to support your argument? Use evidence from this week’s reading assignment to support your response.
Post your initial response 11:55 Wednesday of week two (October 9) and reply substantively to at least three other students’ posts by October 13.. The response should be at least 200 words in length. Your opinion matters a great deal, but support your thinking with evidence from the book. Remember that rational behavior is not always wise or good behavior. It is okay to consider Stalin a criminal and still acknowledge that his strategy was effective.