The Marshall Plan and the Post World War II Era Essay

3006 Words 13 Pages
World War II was, quite simply, the most deadly and destructive conflict in human history. In fact, E.B. "Sledgehammer" Sledge, a renowned U.S. Marine who fought on the Pacific Front during the war, gave a first account of the atrocities he experienced in his 1981 memoir, “With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa.” He said, "It was so savage. We were savages. We had all become hardened. We were out there, human beings, the most highly developed form of life on earth, fighting each other like wild animals” (Sledge). Why, then, is World War II referred to as "The Good War" and why is it still significant today (Terkel 387)? Regardless of the pulverization, demise, and decimation, the war helped introduce a new world, one in which …show more content…
1945 denoted the minute when the world broke from its past and moved to another era. To understand the decades following the conclusion of World War II, we need to first understand the divergent aims and commitments that motivated Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Joseph Stalin. Churchill sought the traditional British goal of a balance of power in Europe as well as the continuity of British Empire interests that Britain no longer had the power to sustain (Neumann 17). Roosevelt, impacted by Wilson's disappointment, looked for concession to general standards and goals yet was apparently oblivious to the way that particular national hobbies instead of dynamic thoughts overwhelm national approaches (Neumann 52). Stalin, maybe the most sensible of the Big Three, was intrigued by one thing- security for Russia, which had accepted and assimilated the significant load of the war (Neumann 27). World War II diplomacy was a stalemate, yet in numerous regards it was a pointless activity and disappointment very nearly as striking as the Treaty of Versailles. The identities and characters of the Big Three were as different as their perspectives -Roosevelt's hesitation about particular issues and his unbounded idealism in his individual tact and his capacity to "handle" Stalin; Churchill's vital fixations and longs for Empire; Stalin's savage authenticity. Every deliberately and unwittingly reflected his nation's past and his

Related Documents