Yelstin Presidency

In the 1991 presidency in Russia, Boris Yelstin came into power with 57% of the votes, he was the first popularly elected president. Yelstin vowed to transform Russia from a socialist commmand economy, which is a system based on the states ownership, to a free market economy, which is an economy based on the division of labor. Yelstin's views were seen as quite reactionary, due to his anti-authoritarian views. His style and personality made him extremely popular with the Russian people. He was often seen as a political opportunist, he was able to uphold authoritarian values when needed, but heavily compromise as well.

Unfortunatetly, Yelstin lost status and led Russia through a rocky political, and economic downfall. In the year 2000, Yelstin resigned, and Vladimir Putin became the next president. Was Yelstin's resignation the failure of democracy? Many think that Yelstin was a brilliant man, and his resignation was a shock, and a big upset. Yelstin was loved by the people and his resignation was unfathomable.

Vladimir Putin on the other hand had different political views than Boris Yelstin. Although Putin was hand picked by Yelstin they could not be more different. Yelstin made Putin Prime Minister, and just a little over six months later, Putin became the next president of Russia. Putin's political views were much more authoritarian than democratic. Putin had taken command of the second Chechen war; by the year 2004, Putin had made a multitude of decisions expanding, and rejecting aspects of the Yeltsin legacy.

Many believe that Putin is returning to its Soviet past, instead of building a new Russia. So far this has not been the case, he has been reforming Russia, and is building on the Yelstin policies, not reforming them. Putin is beginning to become more well liked by the public, because he is not your ordinary politician, he understands the public.

Still, the question remains, who is more fit to rule Russia, Yeltsin or Putin? Many will say that the obvious choice is Yeltsin, because he has been so loyal and knows how to negotiate, and really rule Russia. More people find him more trustworthy than Putin. This is because Putin is authoritarian, which means there is more chance that he will turn Russia back into its Soviet past. Others will argue that Putin is the better choice, because he has proved himself reliable and loyal, and has not tried any type of a communist reform. Both men have proved themselves good rulers, but with Putin as president, there leaves much more risk to repeat the past. (527)

The French Handling Of Vietnam

The French were in control of Vietnam, but were slowly losing the land, not soon after did the United States join the war. It all started with Vietnam gaining independance, but was gradually eroded by France in a series of military conquests. The French imposed significant political and cultural changes to Vietnam. Soon after, anti-colonial movements began to challenge French authority. France unsuccessfully fought bitter wars until the early 1960's in Vietnam to keep its empire intact. It became clear to the French that they were losing the war and eventually withdrew from the country in 1954.
In fear that communism would take over, the United States began sending increasing war materials. The United States was fearful about having a communist rule. The French were not as worried about this as the United States were. United States Military advisors were authorized to fire back upon being fired upon. By the mid sixties the United States deployed 543,000 combat troops, to fight against communism. A communist government on paper sounds good,because it is a classless society which makes everyone equal. Because the ideas surrounding a communist government sounded so appealing it became increasingly popular.
Through out the fifties and sixties many countries tried out a communist government including Vietnam. The United States was so fearful that communism would take over that they made their best efforts to fight against what was happening. The United States did not want to appear soft on communism, which is why they backed up France in their battle against the communists. The United States thought of communism as a menace and a problem to be dealt with, they figured if communism was wiped out anywhere it would be wiped out everywhere.
The money spent on military, and nuclear weapons would increase, also the amount of forces to stop or contain communism. Many Americans feared that their "free world," would be threatened by "domination," and a new way of life. Although the United States wanted a non communist country, there was controversy surrounding the U.S’ involvement in Vietnam.
Many American soldiers did not understand why they were in Vietnam fighting in the first place. They understood that the French needed help to fight against the Vietnamese, to avoid a communist take over, but many believe their involvement was more than just that. Many soldiers fighting there believed that it was immoral and just plain wrong. Many civilians thought America's involvement was a waste of American blood and a conflict that did not involve the U.S. On the other hand, there were also other soldiers who believed that what they were doing was right, and it needed to be dealt with. They wanted their country to remain free, and not fall under a communist regime.
So, was the United States right to aid the French in fighting against communism? Or should the United States have stayed out of it? If the United States had not stayed out of the war then maybe things could have been a lot worse. Did America's involvement really help anything? Or did it just make the situation worse? If the United States had not gotten involved our world would probably be a communist one.
(544)

The French Resistance

After the outbreak of WWII there were many people that gave into the Nazi Regime. Meaning if the French or British found an American soldier on their land they should turn them over to the Nazi's. It all came down to the question liberty and freedom of the Nazi's, or do you give into the regime? For the French they decided liberty. The French people never knew what the Nazi's would do to the American soldiers, sometimes they would be treated well, or other times they would be tortured and killed. It was a big risk for the people of France to hide these American soldiers.
The German's would come into the homes of the French at random hours and search their homes to see if they were hiding anything or anybody. The French knew that if they were caught with American's they would be sent to a camp and be tortured and killed there; still they took the chance. They wanted to do anything to get freedom from Hitler and his regime. The French that were hiding these soldiers went to such lengths as to get them the right civilian clothes. The American's had to appear like French people traveling.
Many French people had to go to the police station's to sign their names and let the policemen or German's know anything about the American's or people against the Nazi Regime. The French ran a big risk doing this because it was more common for the German's to check the homes of those people. The French would hide the American's anywhere they could, whether it be at a farm, in apartments or homes. Many French people would try and stand up, or resist the Nazi's by holding strikes. If any German's were hurt during a strike or were injured in France, the Nazi's would pick random civilians out of a crowd and torture them, and later kill them. It was the mentality that German's were superior to everyone else. The French would hide American's from two to three days or up to two to three weeks at a time. The French offered the American's their hospitality and food, which was not much. They helped the American's to get home safely. Also to get freedom the French tried many forms of sabotage. They would blow up bridges and block off anything that would allow the German's to get into their country.
The French did everything they could to stop the German's from advancing, and getting stronger. They did this to have their freedom back and to no longer live in fear. If there were not people like the French during WWII, then today there would most likely be a world filled with German's, still under the Nazi Regime. Thanks to the French civilians there is not a world with Nazi's, instead a world filled with more peace, and more freedom. If it were not for the French wanting their freedom back, then we would not live in the world we do today.(502)

During the reign of Stalin there were many that were for Stalin and many that were against him. To weed out these bad people, police came to the doors of the people demanding names of citizens who were not for Stalin. If you could not come up with at least five people, then you were arrested and taken to the gulags to be beaten and tortured. To be Stalin's friend and not his enemy would benefit you more in society. For one, it would put you off the hook for being arrested, and two it would show how loyal you were to Stalin, and the Bolshevik Regime. If you were against Stalin ultimately you would be found and persecuted. Stalin himself once said: "Death solves all problems. No man, no problem." This belief led to the hundreds and thousands of men, women, and children dead. Stalin's secret police, the KGB, were the ones that interrogated innocent people, and charged them with false crimes, and were later executed, without andy proof at all that these crimes had been committed. To live in a Stalinist society it would be better to be a coward and give off names of innocent people instead of being heroic and a rebel, and fight the system. One night during Stalin's reign a child over heard his parents talking about how bad Stalin was as a leader and how he did more bad than good. The theory that Stalin was good and not bad was beaten into the children of the Stalinist society. So the young boy called the KGB and turned his parents in. He was worshipped and idolized for showing so much respect and loyalty to Stalin and his regime, even if that meant tearing his family apart. The modern day KGB has similiarities and differences from what it was back then. For instance, KGB will not send anyone to a gulag, but instead does what they should have done during Stalin's reign. The enforce currency violations, overseas borders, and are also guards for the Soviet Leaders. The way informants worked during the reign of Stalin was sneaky and malicious. To have been an informant during that time it meant sometimes you would have to throw your own family under the bus to protect yourself. Todays informants would not do any of that. It is still mostly kept in secret, but unlike the KGB, The CIA and FBI does not drag in innocent citizens to their problems. The KGB relied solely on what the citizens or in this case the informants could tell them. It did not matter that most of the time these people were wrong and were just trying to get themselves out of trouble. Stalin and his KGB members did not care as long as there so called traitors were gotten rid of. So, the question is still there, is it better to be an ally of Stalin of an enemy? Most people would say it is better to be on Stalin's side, because you would not get hurt and get gifts in return for your loyalty. The answer is to be for Stalin, and then you would live happier. 531