pwf+qoutes

RIL: "...have the boys home by Christmas" - Gen Douglas MacArthur General Douglas MacArthur promised to have the boys, the soldiers fighting in the Korean War, home by Christmas. He was General of the Armies and he was in charge of the army; he was specifically talking about the Eighth Army to Japan when he made this statement in October when speaking with President Harry Truman. At the time, he had believed that the soldiers would face an easy fight and be able to come home shortly. He said this October 15th at the Wake Island Conference with President Harry Truman. Because he said this early on in the war, he had not anticipated the fight to come which was why he had believed he would be able to bring the troops home for Christmas; it was not until November 25, 1950 that the Chinese attacked the Eighth Army to Japan and up until then MacArthur had been seeing Russia as a more serious threat. Americans would originally encounter this quote as it reached the media. This statement addressed the Korean War and American success. To further understand this quote, it would be important to keep in mind that at the time China had not become a threat yet so General Douglas MacArthur was unaware of the real fight to come. Home represented not only the United States but their actual home with their families especially since he referenced a holiday. He was saying this to President Truman so it should be understood that he felt he was correct, but it should also be understood that he may have wanted to stay positive when talking about war. The intended audience was first and foremost President Truman, but it was also addressed to both the soldiers and their families as a way to reassure them. Soldiers and their families would have been likely to take notice of this statement since it was about them or those they cared about. Initially, they would have reacted positively to this statement because it promised their survival but after this promise was broken many may have felt betrayed or cheated, scared or depressed. Those who foresaw the oncoming battle could have criticized this statement for its illogical optimism. This statement was made to convey what MacArthur believed the future of the war to be; to tell Truman what he believed would happen so it should express what he truly believed at the time. It was produced at this time because the Eighth Army to Japan had fared relatively well at war and had not faced opposition from China up to that point in time; MacArthur most likely would not have made such a promise after the Chinese had attacked. The social need addressed was for soldiers to be home with their families for the holidays. It argued that the war would be quick and easy and that the Eighth Army to Japan would be home for Christmas. This statement contains the message that soldiers should be able to enjoy time at home with their families for the holidays even during a time of war. The main point of this statement was that the Eighth Army to Japan was going to be safe and that the soldiers in it would be able to return home for the holidays. This material was important since it highlighted the underestimation of the forces the United States had to face during the Korean War. This statement could have been one of the reasons General Douglas MacArthur was fired from his position by Truman later, and it could have set many soldiers and their families up for disappointment when the promise it made was not fulfilled.

AVG – “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. […] This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. […] Is there no other way the world may live? ” Dwight D. Eisenhower had previously been commander of Allied forces in Europe during World War II and had coordinated the invasions in North Africa and France. However, after becoming President, Eisenhower tried to scale down military spending by emphasizing nuclear weapons instead of conventional ones (an unsuccessful attempt to reduce the military’s cost), and his Farewell Address warned of the excessive influence of the military-industrial complex, the interconnections between defense industries and the federal government. This quote is from a speech by Eisenhower to the American Society of Newspaper editors on April 16, 1953, shortly before the end of the Korean War. The Korean War had led to a spike in defense spending (which rose to ten percent of national GDP) and resulted in a stalemate, making the war unpopular among many Americans. Eisenhower had personally visited Korea and ended the war within a few months of becoming President, and his determination to end the war matches his dislike of the military spending resulting from the war. Later in Eisenhower’s speech, he mentions “humanity hanging from a cross of iron.” The iron symbolizes the military equipment that is destroying humanity, suggesting that governments’ excessive defense spending is suicidal. Eisenhower’s speech was given to newspaper editors and would therefore have likely been conveyed to the American people or at least influenced the news they received, suggesting that Eisenhower was trying to build popular support for military reduction. While many Republicans approved of his emphasis of nuclear weapons rather than relatively expensive and ineffective conventional ones, some Americans who feared the Soviet Union, especially those convinced by McCarthy that Soviet spies controlled America’s government, would have been frightened by Eisenhower’s emphasis on disarmament. Eisenhower argues that military spending should be curbed so the government can focus on more beneficial concerns such as helping its impoverished citizens. Eisenhower was alarmed by the military spending required by the Korean War and the Cold War in general and wanted to restrain such spending, partly because he feared an arms race would lead to war but mainly because he viewed the costs as wasteful. Following the Korean War, military spending did decrease somewhat, but it still far exceeded levels before the war. Eisenhower did make some progress toward cooperation with the Soviet Union at a 1955 conference in Geneva, but the continuance of the Cold War and the U.S. NATO pacts with Europe rendered full disarmament impossible. VB- “Our policy is not directed against any country, but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Any government that is willing to assist in recovery will find full co-operation on the part of the U.S.A. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist. ” This quote, by US Secretary of State, George Marshall, was delivered as the commencement address to the graduating class of Harvard University on June 5, 1947. Marshall was a renowned military leader during World War II and originator of the Marshall Plan, which he deemed essential to European recovery. Marshall believed that all of Europe was in desperation as a result of the destruction of WWII. Marshall unveiled his idea during this speech and would later deliver this same speech to various European media organizations. An excerpt from Marshall’s speech identifies that he is addressing his audience with hope the of public support. The language utilized by Marshall identifies his audience as being well-educated and as possible proponents of his proposal. This speech was given six weeks prior to a scheduled meeting with Soviet Russia, concerning European recovery. Although Marshall’s proposal did not list specific conditions for a plan, rather it was more of an invitation to all European nations to accept American aid. Marshall makes it clear that his intention is not to support specific countries, but to help the people of afflicted countries. It is his hope to diminish the poverty and suffering occurring to people throughout Europe. Listeners would have had mixed feelings concerning this idea. After WWII, many Americans had redeveloped isolationist attitudes and were not willing to become involved in European affairs. While on the other hand, others believed that the United States needed to provide aid to war-torn countries. Supporters believed that it was important to reestablish Europe as a political and economic entity in the world platform. As a general, Marshall was not only familiar with the effects of war on a nation’s economy and infrastructure, but also on the effect it had on its citizens. Resultantly, Marshall developed a belief that Europe needed American aid. Although Marshall offered this proposal, support was necessary from the US Congress and acceptance from European leaders. Marshall continued to campaign for support in other countries until its implementation in 1947. KBM- "From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent." - Winston Churchill In 1946 Winston Churchill, previous Prime Minister of the UK, delivered a speech called "The Sinews of Peace" in Missouri at Westminster college. This most memorable quote indicates the remaining hostility and division of WWII and of the Warsaw Pact that would instigate the Cold War. In fact, this speech, to some, represents the start of the Cold War, solidifying the division. The communism of the Eastern countries initiated the Warsaw Treaty as a a group defense mechanism thus intensifying the hostilities remaining from WWII regarding the split of Germany. Churchill's statement and coined term of the "iron curtain" presented the extremity of the hostilities among the Western and Eastern European in regard to this pact. Such an involved political leader of the Allies in WWII, especially delivering the speech to Americans, had high reliability and with his expression of concern, the listeners maintained it as well. Especially since the UK was in the midst of this hostility, being a part of the non-communist Western countries of Europe. The Berlin wall itself can be considered to be a physical separation which initiated hostilities among the other countries who each held a piece of Berlin, at least for the earlier Cold War. There is irony in that the speech was probably intended to convey a finality and to express the end of World War II, while it really set the stage for the next Cold War of military tension among Europe. Churchill's speech introduced the hostile feelings that Europe would maintain for the next 43 years surrounding communism in Europe which had its ups and downs until the Cold War calmed down in the early 90s with Ronald Reagan's assistance.

J.R.C.- "There was no discussion on that point, we are going to stay, period." - Truman President Harry Truman made this statement at an emergency meeting at the Pentagon. Stalin’s blockade of Berlin took the entire world by surprise, and ultimately caused outstanding reactions in Washington, London, and Paris. Such reactions took place to Stalin’s decision, because both Lucius Clay and Robert Murphy warned the various nations’ governments about Soviet actions against Berlin. After World War II, the capital city of Germany, Berlin, was occupied and divided amongst the Allied powers. As Stalin began to blockade any support going to the citizens of Berlin, President Truman began what is known as the Berlin Airlift. Also in response to the blockade, the emergency meeting at the Pentagon was held. This meeting was held to discuss three different courses of action in response to Stalin’s blockade. Various choices were very prominent, for example, whether to withdraw from Berlin, whether to defend the US position in Berlin by any means (including force), or to maintain a firm position in Berlin. Though no concrete decisions were made, Truman made this lofty statement, indicating Truman’s intentions. Despite the fact that this statement did not ultimately stand as a final decision, it set the course of events for the future of relations between America and the Soviet Union. On June 29th 1948, Truman approved British requests for joint military planning, resulting in a military meeting the next day. This meeting ultimately led to the continuation of the Berlin Airlift, and the disregarding of any militaristic intentions. These decisions in addition to the air of hostility between the US and the Soviet Union would ultimately lead to the Cold War in 1953. AJJ- Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.-Harry S. Truman This quote, which was stated by Harry Truman in August of 1950, examines Truman’s stance on communism. Truman’s statement is relevant because the American Marshall Plan and the Soviet recovery plans were conflicting in Europe. This quote proves Truman’s belief that Europe should be democratic and that communism would take away essential freedoms from the people of Europe. It also directly attacks the Soviet Union by implying that their citizens live in fear and don’t have a voice in their government of the freedom to oppose it. There was an extremely high anti-communist sentiment in the United States in 1950 as the Cold War was beginning to brew and the democratic and communist governments began to compete with each other. That is why Truman was supported in his stance against communism and his continuation of Truman’s mentor Franklin Roosevelt’s policy of being the “Arsenal of Democracy.” Though many Americans supported this Marshall Plan already, Truman needed to emphasize that Americans should be anti-communist and should do anything to beat them in Europe by a success in this plan. By success in rebuilding Europe, the United States would retain its European democratic allies while failing could lead to the eventually fall of the United States to communism. Soviets and Europeans who opposed this plan are likely to dislike Truman’s approach to the Marshall Plan and his stance on communism. MRL - . "The atom bomb was no 'great decision.' . . . It was merely another powerful weapon in the arsenal of righteousness." - Harry S Truman . Truman said this quote after Japan had surrendered and he was applauded for making the difficult though "great" decision of releasing the atomic bomb upon Japan. Although it is debatable whether the decision was "great" or not, it is fairly certain that Truman felt he was making the correct decision, morally and otherwise, when he ordered the use of the bomb. Many consider the dropping of the bombs to be a war crime comparable to that of the Holocaust, while others praise the decision due to the countless American lives that were saved. Truman understood that the use of the bomb would have permanent negative consequences on the world, though he felt the preserving of thousands of American soldiers' lives was worth the consequences, as indicated by the quote of the renowned historian Henry Rapschfield, "H.S. Truman did not //want// to drop the bombs; he felt he //must// drop the bombs." Rapschfield also says, "It is easy to hear the argument against the validity of the of atomic bombing and agree that it was unjust, yet after talking to many men who would have been sent to Japan to surely die if the bombs had not been dropped, it is difficult to say we should have traded their lives for the lives of the bombing victims." Through the perspective of Rapschfield it is made clear that Truman's decision was extraordinarily difficult. Although many criticize Truman for using the bombs, it is possible that he may have received equal criticism if he chose not to and instead condemned many more Americans to death. Despite this, several people such as historian John Richard Stephens states, "Not only should the dropping of one atomic bomb on innocents be considered a war crime, but the dropping of TWO atomic bombs should certainly be considered a war crime." The morals of the detonation of the atomic bombs over Nagasaki and Hiroshima will forever be debated, though it is undebatable that the bombs forever changed our world.

JT- “Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist.” George Marshall made this statement at Harvard on June 5th, 1947, when describing the Marshall Plan. He was the Secretary of State and a large advocate of helping Europe recover after the devastating World War II. A supporter of the European Recovery Program (ERP), he commonly spoke out to explain why helping Europe would help the US too and how it would help to preserve the U.S. value of freedom. When Marshall delivered this speech to students and visitors at Harvard University, he exposed himself to an audience of those who had fought in WWII themselves or had been supporters. He used this to encourage them to want to continue to help Europe recover, since they had been fighting for its freedom in the first place. The US economy was soaring after WWII due to the industrialization the war required the people to put effort into. Europe, however, was completely destroyed after Hitler had bombed it repeatedly, and was in desperate need of financial assistance which Marshall believed the US was capable of doing. The Marshall Plan was designed to help Soviet Russia too, but they declined its offers. Instead, US money and supplies went towards rebuilding France and Britain, the American allies, as well as other small European nations. It was important that they be able to contribute on a global scale again, especially with the creation of the United Nations. If the US had not helped to pick up their slack, it may have been left dragging the weight of the UN instead of benefiting off the alliance. This quote spoke directly to voters who would never support denying someone freedom and advocated the passage of the Marshall Plan in order to help US allies.

MDS

“But what we have to consider here today while time remains, is the permanent prevention of war and the establishment of conditions of freedom and democracy as rapidly as possible in all countries. Our difficulties and dangers will not be removed by closing our eyes to them. They will not be removed by mere waiting to see what happens; nor will they be removed by a policy of appeasement.” This quote is an excerpt from Winston Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” speech given in 1946 shortly after the official end of World War II. It embodies the irony of the tense global climate surrounding postwar international relations. The war had been dubbed a “people’s war”, a valiant fight of democracy against fascism. Its efforts were exceptionally aided by propaganda aimed against any force which was not the Allied version of “democracy” – that is, their stereotyping and slander was directed towards fascism, communism, socialism, totalitarianism, and any other form of government or philosophy which differed from their own. Churchill, having been on close terms with Roosevelt, saw the postwar diplomacy as a chance to reestablish peace and freedom, open international negotiations along the lines of Wilson’s post-World War I policy; however, his wishes were widely misinterpreted and resulted in the hypocrisy of the United States’ almost dictatorial stance towards governing global relations. As Howard Zinn discusses in “A People’s History of the United States”, the American government established a movement of hysteria against Communism in order to justify their interventions in countries such as Greece and China, where communist revolutions were rampant. Truman’s intentions, he claimed, were to establish freedom from subjugation for those who could not aid themselves, when truly the United States was the largest source of unwanted influence and subjugation in these countries. It must be asked whether Truman truly had the right to make the militia interventions which he did, and perhaps the United States in its victory had seized excessive control and power, the very thing for which they denounced Hitler. Certainly, whether their interventions were excessive or no, they violated Roosevelt and Churchill’s intentions for postwar peace agreements and led the United States into further conflict.

2/13

checked

RIL: "It seems strangely difficult for some to realize that here in Asia is where the Communist conspirators have elected to make their play for global conquest, and that we have joined the issue thus raised on the battlefield; that here we fight Europe’s war with arms while the diplomats there still fight it with words; that if we lose the war to communism in Asia the fall of Europe is inevitable, win it and Europe most probably would avoid war and yet preserve freedom. As you pointed out, we must win. There is no substitute for victory." - General Douglas MacArthur General Douglas MacArthur said this during his hearing after he had been fired from his position of General of the Armies. He advocated more aggressive tactics in the Korean War and disagreed with the President’s decision and this was why he was fired as that was against the law. He believed that the United States military needed to involve itself more in Asia to prevent the spread of Communism. He wrote this statement in a letter to the Speaker of the House, Joseph William Martin, during his hearing March 20, 1950 and it was read to the House April 5. As it was after his dismissal and during his trial, it was meant to justify his previous actions. Joseph William Martin would have been the first to encounter this statement, and the House would have been the next people to hear it and anyone else would have found out from the media if at all. This quote addresses the importance of a United States victory over communism particularly victory in the Korean War. Some people believed the United States should act to prevent the spread of communism, but many people also believed in isolationism and many wanted to avoid a full war. Symbolically, the ‘we’ he used represented those who agreed with him and supported a more powerful war effort and also to express that Martin agreed with him as it was written to Martin. Since this was written to Joseph William Martin, General Douglas MacArthur may have felt more comfortable sharing his thoughts but at the same time he would have recognized that it would be read to the House so he still needed to write carefully to positively represent himself. Those who agreed or disagreed with him would have been likely to pay attention to this statement and also anyone involved in his hearing specifically the House representatives. Those who agreed with him would have reacted positively and those who did not would have reacted negatively and criticized his assertions. This material was produced present his thoughts to Martin and to the House and to show his rationale and thereby support his actions. It was written at this time because his hearing was taking place. The political need addressed was General Douglas MacArthur’s need to clear his name. This statement argued that the United States should be more aggressive to benefit it and other nations, and that General Douglas MacArthur was right. It also conveyed that communism was wrong. The main point was that more aggressive military action in Asia was needed and that a United States victory was also necessary. This material was important since it illustrated General Douglas MacArthur’s beliefs. The political implications were that the United States should become more aggressive in its fight against communism. This could have convinced some to agree with General Douglas MacArthur and therefore could have made some advocate increased military action in Asia.

CJD- “A very strong military posture is vitally necessary today. How long it must continue I am not prepared to estimate, but I am sure that it is too narrow a basis on which to build a dependable, long-enduring peace.” George C. Marshall made this statement while speaking in Norway on December 11, 1953, after winning the Nobel Peace Prize for the European Recovery Program and his efforts to aid post-WWII Europe. Among other things, Marshall cited a heavy military role in world affairs as a component of his “Essentials to Peace.” As Chief of Staff during World War II, Marshall had experience organizing the massive United States army, and he was familiar with the effectiveness of military presence in negotiating with and regulating control of countries. While Marshall did not say active armies were the only method of achieving peace, his words contradicted history. Concord between nations had indeed been reached in the recent past, such as after World War I, but differences in military power caused inflammation and aggression, as seen with Germany, which suffered from martial diplomacy in the Treaty of Versailles. Stationing soldiers in defeated countries creates an antipathy that leads to further conflict. The United States had seen this occur after driving Spanish forces from the Philippines. As soon as American troops took over in 1899, Filipino belligerents rebelled, and more blood was shed. Marshall’s words can be related directly to the perceived threat of communism in the United States at the time. Iron Curtain containment was key to members of the U.S. government, who feared effects of the “domino theory,” so Marshall suggested that American soldiers would protect and maintain peace. In reality, a “strong military posture” meant preparation to deal with possible threats from the Soviet Union. Korea and Vietnam proved to be examples of America’s unrelenting quest for peace. Unfortunately the millions who died as a result of Cold War conflicts were evidence that Marshall’s (and America’s) penchant for a large, pacifying army resulted in terrible wars. JRC- "Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything." -Harry Truman  SFH - “I shall make that trip. Only in that way could I learn how best to serve the American people in the cause of peace. I shall go to Korea.” Dwight D. Eisenhower 1952.

This quote is an excerpt from Dwight D. Eisenhower’s was I Shall Go to Korea speech on October 24, 1952. With other candidates (specifically Adlai Stevenson) taking the lead in October of the 1952 election, Eisenhower was looking for a dramatic finish to the campaign that would assure him the presidential position. Eisenhower and his advisors found this pivotal speech through addressing the Korean War. By 1952 America had grown weary of the war that had begun two years previously in resistance of the North Korean invasion of South Korea. American frustration only amplified with the addition of Red Chinese troops to the battle, the dismissal of General Douglas MacArthur, and the stalemate in battle and truce between the nations. Eisenhower’s ideology may not have provided the immediate answers for the complex war but at least provided an effort in changing the current stalemate; similar to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s attempts in boosting the economy. For a population of Americans weary of world war, the promise of an individual fighting for peace and maintaining peace was a strong and universal theme Eisenhower’s audience craved. A different audience would take this speech with less value than Eisenhower’s 1952 audience. The remnants of the FDR’s trusting citizens gave Eisenhower a potentially easier audience than today’s jaded audiences. The opposition was at a loss in response to such thoughts resulting in Eisenhower candidacy. Eisenhower’s speech is now known as one of the most effective campaign speeches of modern time because of its ability to sway undecided voters, resonate with Republicans, and leave Democrats speechless. Yet as a result of Eisenhower’s I Shall Go to Korea speech the once strong Truman-Eisenhower relationship ended in the bitterness of a campaign promise that Truman saw as a ‘cheap ticket.’

<span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">VB- “I do not stand here as advocate for any partisan cause, for the issues are fundamental and reach quite beyond the realm of partisan considerations. They must be resolved on the highest plane of national interest if our course is to prove sound and our future protected. I trust, therefore, that you will do me the justice of receiving that which I have to say as solely expressing the considered viewpoint of a fellow American.”-General MacArthur

This quote was give by General Douglas MacArthur in 1951. MacArthur was addressing Congress after being removed from his position as 5-Star General over ground-forces in Korea. MacArthur was known for being highly self-confident and believed that he would win his political war with Truman. MacArthur viewed Truman as inferior and insignificant, and thought that he would be able to seek diplomatic revenge on Truman. This speech is commonly referred to as “Old soldiers never die…”

An excerpt from this speech identifies that he is talking to members of Congress. This speech was also addressing all the Americans with a television set at this time. MacArthur delivered this thirty minute speech so that all in America could hear his side of the story. It was given after Truman had dismissed MacArthur in Korea, resultantly, this allowed MacArthur to present his farewell addressed in a highly publicized event. This specific quote of the speech focused on the perspective MacArthur wanted to be viewed for the character of his individual not his political ambitions. The language used by MacArthur appealed to the patriotism within all Americans. The use of personal pronouns with this specific diction indicates that MacArthur wanted to be viewed as a Patriot not a villain. MacArthur is clear in saying that he does not represent any political party when delivering this speech. Although the Republicans strongly supported MacArthur and opposed Truman’s actions, MacArthur did not want to be associated with the Republicans. When hearing this speech, listeners probably developed more respect from the already revered former General. MacArthur had never truly respected Truman and in his speech attacks the ideology of President Truman, by presenting his own beliefs on how Asia should be handled. This speech acted as a method for MacArthur to show that he was leaving the army after 52-years of service. MacArthur understood the tensions which were present in the government, since there was a Democratic President and a Republican Congress/Senate. This speech could have had further implications in the 1952 Presidential election offering increase support for the republican president. However, this was done in conceit because MacArthur did not want to be characterized as a hypocrite. <span style="color: black; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;">LM - "In the simplest terms, what we are doing in Korea is this: We are trying to prevent a third world war." President Truman, 1951

President Truman delivered this quote over a national radio boradcast April 11th, 1951. A time of rising paranoia concerning communism's spread, the early 1950s were characterized by paranoid US foreign policy towards Soviets and their sphere of influence. Truman's role as president necessitated his justification of US foreign policy. Truman was deeply subject to these fears; his statement above expressed the vast extent to which he believed Soviet power threatened US peace. Truman believed the balance of world power was at stake in Korea. If tipped away from liberal democracy toward communism, world peace hung as an open target for the Soviet Union - which vocally promoted communism's spread. It's not that Korea was an individually pivital nation; Korea represented broader spread of communism. Korea was an opportunity to show the Soviet Union US energy would not sit by a observe communism consume little countries one by one. Truman believed that cumulatively, US passivity would result in ultimate polarization, where there would only be US allies and Soviet allies - with none in between. This threatened another world war, which repeated the situation in WWII which had the fascists and the non-fascists. Once the world had polarize, it was thought that only two ways of moving forward would present themselves: US democracy or Soviet communism. Both sides were haunted with incompatibility, and thus Truman and other pervied WWIII was at stake if Soviet expansion went ultimately unckecked.

In this broadcast, Truman sought to secure support and understanding for US military activities in Korea. US citizens were weary of war and conflict, and thus were disinclined to readily lend their support for new war efforts. Truman appealed to America's sense of acute disgust for communism by linking the Korean crisis to world peace. A third world war proved terrifying to the public, and thus Truman's point carried great poignancy. His audience was vulnerable to red scare sentiments, so his strategy of referencing WWII resurgence and linkage to communism proved effective at justi fying the war. SW- “The safety of the world, ladies and gentlemen, requires a unity in Europe, from which no nation should be permanently outcast.” This quote was said by Winston Churchill in his Iron Curtain Speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri. It was said on March 5, 1946 and marks the onset of the Cold War. Churchill had come to visit America after World War I to see how the glorious America really was. While there he gave his speech to show his response to the Soviets. He knew that the Soviet Union was only trying to get as much power and land as they possibly could and that they did not want war. He told these college students about his idea to shut out the Soviet Union by means of a figurative Iron Curtain. The Russians were communist and under their leader Stalin were spreading communism to adjoining territory. Churchill knew that the democratic powers had to shut them out or else they would gain more power or risk a war. He wanted to treat the Soviet Union as one world while the rest of the countries were another world of their own. He knew that he could not do this alone and that the whole world needed to join together in order to do this and keep the world safe. Those near the Soviet Union would have to know that they have to resist communism and those that were not near the problem would have to help those dealing with the problem. After having a president like Franklin Delano Roosevelt the people in the United States trusted their government and did not think that the government would lie to them. Churchill’s speech was supported by Truman and the other world leaders. When Churchill made his statement about Russia the American citizens supported him because they supported the government’s word. They knew that communism was not safe and that there was an Iron Curtain between them and the Soviet Union. This quote and this speech in general was told in order to gain the support of the public because the government could not go on without it. Having the support of the public is why the Cold War lasted and why the US and the rest of the democratic powers proceeded to have a Cold War. This speech was the first sign of the Cold War. ADB - “Мы вас похороним!” (In literal English, “We will bury you!”) This statement was uttered by Nikita Khrushchev in November 1956 while addressing Western ambassadors at the Polish embassy in Moscow. The meeting took place during the Cold War era, denoting an ideological and political struggle, rather than a military one, between the United States and the Soviet Union. In the speech from which the quotation is drawn, Khrushchev is calling the United States (as well as Britain, France, and, to a lesser extent, Israel) out on a double standard regarding termination of uprisings: when the USSR squelched the Hungarian revolt earlier that month, the West exclaimed that the Soviets were interfering in the nation’s internal affairs, but when Britain, France, and Israel were attacking Egypt, partially due to heightened tensions between the nations over Nasser’s move to nationalize the Suez Canal, as well as his desire to annex the Sudan, it was dubbed merely a “police action” to restore peace. Khrushchev went on to say that, over time, the Communist way of life would show itself to be naturally more successful, and that Capitalism would fail, or “be buried”. This goes along with Khrushchev’s radically different mindset for governing the USSR; the previous February, he had denounced Stalin’s policies, and believed that the USSR could best the United States without open warfare. The main idea behind this quote (in context) is that Khrushchev believed that the Soviet system could best the United States’ democratic system in terms of technology, economy, and “winning the hearts and minds” of the lesser-developed nations. The quotation not only conveys Khrushchev’s desire for a non-militaristic/ideological victory over the USA, but also the fact that despite this desire, he could still speak with somewhat inflammatory diction towards the West in the promotion of the USSR. The significance of this statement is not only how it epitomizes the US and Soviet struggle that was the Cold War, but also how the language difference between the two nations could enflame an already antagonistic relationship. In Russian, “We will bury you” was interpreted as “We will //best// you” (the phrase itself was slang). However, the United States took its English translation literally, seeing the statement as more violent (or at least potentially violent) that it was intended to be. Khrushchev’s primary audience was the Western, democratic nations who were so overtly opposed to Communism, promising that Communism would prevail over capitalism in the long run.