Did Truman and Churchill intentionally deceive Stalin?

History

1 answer:

luda_lava [24]2 years ago

3 0

Yes

Truman told Stalin that his diplomatic style was frank and to the point, an admission that Truman realized had visibly pleased Stalin. The US president said he hoped the Soviet Union would join the US in the war against Japan. For his part, Stalin wants to impose Soviet control over certain territories annexed by Germany and Japan at the beginning of the war.

Truman hinted that although Stalin's agenda was "dynamite" or aggressive, the US had ammunition to counteract the Soviet leader. Truman did not inform the Soviet Union head of state about the Manhattan Project that had just successfully tested the first atomic bomb, but he knew that the new weapon strengthened its deterrent power. Truman referred to this secret in his diary as "an unexploded dynamite."

You might be interested in

Wich statement about WW2 is false?

shtirl [24]

Answer:

Explanation:

7 0

3 years ago

Which best describes the location of the famous ceiling that Michelangelo painted?

abruzzese [7]

Michelangelo's famous ceiling painting was in the Sistine Chapel.
Thus, the answer is Inside the Sistine Chapel.

3 0

2 years ago

How has the urbanization changed in the last 12000 years

Pachacha [2.7K]

Answer:

New buildings and construction sites have developed a great deal. A lot of range of operating places have developed. Cities have additionally enlarged as increasing numbers migrate to cities and cities in search of economic chance. Population residing in urban areas has additionally increased.

4 0

2 years ago

what was on the differences between the birtish and american forces at the beginning of the revlountiary war ?

Basile [38]

<u>The differences between the British and American forces at the beginning of the revolutionary war: </u>

The British Forces were seasoned army regulars while the American forces were a guerrilla force. The British had more experience in fighting the Indian Wars and the Anglo-French wars and were better prepared.

The British wore formal uniforms and were battle-ready while the Americans predominantly comprised of peasants, labourers in ragged clothes and hid behind trees or concealed positions. They primarily had the home advantage. They were led by retired servicemen of the British Army who had revolted against the empire.

6 0

2 years ago

What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of these methods of direct democracy: Initiative, Referendum, and Recall?

Marina86 [1]

In the United States, where there is no direct democracy at the federal level, more than half of the states (and many municipalities) allow citizens to vote on initiatives, and the vast majority of states have mechanisms to promote initiatives or referendums. There are also community meetings (town meetings) and various institutions at the municipal level where citizens can interact with those responsible for administration in decision-making. The disadvantages of the initiatives is that any citizen could present it at any time and it should be analyzed and taken into account, which could take a long time.

Referendums are elections in which voters do not elect representatives but participate in taking direct participation on some important issue of the country. As advantages, it is highlighted that the Referendum can be used to solve problems of a political nature, or the improvement of the governmental image, when it is too deteriorated in front of the popular collective. Another aspect that touches a possible disadvantage, has to do with the circumstance that can be used as a strategy or political weapon to satisfy political interests or ambitions of power. It has also been argued that this figure has a meaning called "zero sum", that is, where the majority wins everything and the minority loses everything, originating a tyranny of majorities, that have answered one or several questions about a specific issue and that in the case at hand, has to do with the end of the armed conflict, questions that are closed and must be answered with the yes or no.
Revocation of mandate, revocation of mandate or recall referendum (in English, recall election), is a procedure by which citizens can cease their public office to an elected official, before the end of their respective period, by direct vote or by collection of signatures, depending on the geographic or population dimensions. Those who propose a revocation mechanism argue that these have a disciplinary effect on elected officials, in which elected representatives will make fewer unpopular decisions if this may cause them to be more likely to be subject to a recall campaign. However, the same argument is also used against the recall: opponents argue that the recall completely undermines representative government as it causes elected officials fear to make unpopular but necessary decisions. Another argument in favor of direct democracy is that it provides voters with a continuous opportunity to make a democratic decision about who governs them, since they not only have the opportunity to elect the people who represent them every two to six years, but also to maintain a degree of control over the decision of its duration in the position. However, its opponents maintain that the mechanism of revocation could be used irresponsibly, and that this could be used by the political parties as a political weapon against the rival of the holders. The assertion that the revocation mechanism is being used as a political instrument was made by many Democrats against activists of Republican parties in connection with the recall in California in 2003.

6 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers