Skip to main content

In post-WWII Europe, what was the Soviet Union doing that angered other countries?

In post-WWII Europe, many countries (including countries like the US that were not in Europe) were angry at the Soviet Union because the Soviets were trying to control as much territory as they possibly could.  Some people within the countries they controlled were angry because they did not want to be communist and/or dominated by the USSR.  Other countries were angry because they did not want communism to spread across Europe.


After WWII, the Soviet Union wanted to control as much of Europe (and particularly Eastern Europe) as they could.  They wanted this for two reasons.  First, they felt that it was important to spread communism across the globe because they believed communism was the right ideology for all people.  Second, they wanted to have a large buffer zone of countries they controlled between them and any enemy powers.  They did not want an enemy right on their borders the way Germany had been in WWII so they wanted “satellite nations” between them and the West so that it would be much harder for any country to invade them.


When the Soviets started to try to dominate other countries, many countries became angry.  The people within some of the countries that got dominated were angry.  Many did not want to be forced to live under communist rule.  Millions of people like this ended up fleeing to Western Europe.  Others (notably in Yugoslavia) liked communism but did not want the Soviet Union to control them.  Finally, the countries of the West were angry.  They did not like communism and did not want it to spread.  They wanted the Soviets to allow people in every country to vote for their own form of government, but the USSR refused.  The countries of the West feared that the Soviets were trying, in essence, to take over the world and that made them angry.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more