Bangladesh Re-establishes Democracy in 1991

When a new country goes through many struggles with governmental problems, is it worth it to reestablish democracy when it has already been attempted and failed. When Bangladesh first gained independence in 1972 from Pakistan the original government was a parliamentary democracy. The first prime minister was Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. He made a state policy that stressed four basic principals: nationalism, secularism, socialism, and democracy. But soon Sheikh Mujibur Rahman used his voting majority to win a new constitutional amendment that limited the powers of the legislative and judicial branches. This new amendment established an executive presidency, and instituted a one-party system, the Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League (BAKSAL). During his reign nearly three million Bengalis were murdered and tortured. Around 400,000 women were also raped. Rahman and his family were eventually assassinated. His presidency helped his country’s economy, a little bit but did not significantly change the conditions of his country. The next ruler was Ziaur Rahman. Under President Ziaur Rahman, Bangladesh first experienced democracy. He began a new economic development program, emphasized family planning, and also established good relationships with the west and the oil rich countries of Islam. But it all came to an end when he was assassinated in 1981. President Ziaur transformed Bangladesh into a democratic constitutional government. Hussain Mohammed Ershad was the next president. Ershad suspended the constitution though and returned the country to a military government again. During his term a boycott broke out to destroy the election's credibility, guaranteeing further instability. It was led by President Ziaurs’s widow, Begum Khaleda Zia. Gareth Price, a leader in the boycott, said "The use of violence as a form of political negotiation seems certain to continue as polling day approaches. It is likely that whoever loses will claim the poll was rigged and protests will continue." On December 6, 1990, Hussain Mohammed Ershad resigned because he was forced to resign by a popular movement led by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the Awami League. In 1991 democracy was reestablished by Khaleda Zia. She approved changes to the constitution that would help Bangladesh and re-created a parliamentary system. Under Khaleda Zia the state of Bangladesh’s economy steadily rose and ties with the west were strengthened. Since Khaleda Zia, the government has had social reforms, especially for improving the lives of women. During a recent election in Bangladesh a women named Tashkina Yeasmin said "I've come here half an hour before the polling began…there are already 200 women standing in lines." The citizens of Bangladesh are now happier and have came a long way since the beginning of the country. Was the re-establishment of democracy worth fighting for, even though so many problems had occurred? Democracy was definitely worth going after since the citizens were being treated so poorly. The well being of the country was improved by democracy and the country’s economy grew. The people of Bangladesh got a taste of democracy briefly during the presidency of Ziaur Rahman. After experienceing what it was like to live in a democratic society, the people continued to pursue this way of life and did not let rulers maintain power. They became represented and started to enjoy living in Bangladesh. There was a definite struggle when Bangladesh first became a country but the people pulled through and became independent from Pakistan.

560

Berlin Airlift/Blockade

After World War II, the victorious allies, the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and France, decided to split Germany into separate sections which would be controlled by each ally country. Each section had its own government. The Soviets controlled the eastern half of Germany and the western half was controlled by the rest of the victors. The capital of Germany, Berlin, was also divided into four parts even though it was in the middle of Eastern Germany which was controlled by the Soviets. Each country had a different approach to rebuild Germany but the United States, France, and Great Britain had generally the same idea. The Soviets on the other hand had a totally different approach to rebuilding Germany. The allies were not in agreement with regards to Berlin, so Stalin wanted the other countries out. How would Stalin get all the other countries out of Berlin? He decided to put Soviet guards on all the possible entries into Berlin so the western powers could not drop off the necessary supplies that the Berliners needed. The Soviets goal of cutting off the supplies from the other countries was to enable them to control the whole city however the Soviets did not have enough resources and the western countries knew that. Many ideas were proposed but the one that the western countries decided on was to supply Berlin by air. This idea was thought up by British Commander Sir Brian Robertson. Many thought this plan would not work including the Soviets, but there was no other choice and President Truman stated that abandoning Berlin was out of the question. On July 1, 1948 the first airlifts took place. Everyday, tons of supplies were flown over Berlin and dropped before the Soviets could do anything. The operation became so big that they had Maj. General William H. Tunner command the airlifts. General Curtis E. LeMay, commander of USAFE called him "The transportation expert to end all transportation experts." Eventually the Soviets decided to end their blockade and let the Western powers enter Berlin easily.
The Berlin Airlift was the result of the blockade the Soviets made, so did the Soviets benefit from either the airlifts or the blockade? One thing that they benefited from these events was that since the Western powers decided to supply the Berliners with food and resources, it made the Soviets look like they were the strong supporters. The rest of the events made the Soviets seem like they were a weak country. The first thing that made the Soviets look weak is that they made a blockade but supplies were still getting brought in by air. The Berlin Airlift also showed that the Soviets were incapable to supply a city with the basic necessities one needs to live a healthy life. It also showed that the Soviets could be easily defeated because they eventually decided to stop the blockade since it was not working. The most significant thing about the Berlin Airlift and Blockade was that it signaled the beginning of the Cold War.

509

General Patton: War Hero or Not?

A general who helps command their troops through many victories of battle are always considered heroes of the war, but does that statement hold true for General George Smith Patton, Jr. who was demoted because of his actions? Did this demotion to General Patton affect the United State’s chances of victory in World War II? General Patton or “Old Blood and Guts” was a very well known general, for good and for bad. He commanded corps and armies in North Africa, Sicily, and the European Theater of Operations. General Patton was considered the most strategically trained general and the top commander of armored and infantry troops. Field Marshal Von Rundstedt simply called him “our best." On the other hand he was also considered a very tough hearted man. “Americans play to win at all times. I wouldn't give a hoot and hell for a man who lost and laughed. That's why Americans have never lost nor ever lose a war,” and “No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country,” are some of many quotes that General Patton told his troops. He had also slapped a soldier who was in the hospital from battle fatigue. Some soldiers had also confessed that they had been slapped by General Patton while he was in command. Patton once voiced his opinion that one of the Allied countries, the Soviet Union, is mistrusted and should be attacked. These actions jeopardized General Patton’s career as a general and Eisenhower demoted him of his position and rank. The former general was ordered to be part of the decoy in Operation Quicksilver instead of playing a huge role in the real Normandy landings. Would Eisenhower’s decision of demoting George Patton of general affect the outcome of the battle or even the outcome of the war? Eisenhower’s decision of demoting Patton was a bad idea, even though the Allies had won the battle of Normandy. The Allies maybe not of had lost as many soldiers during the battle if Patton was in command. His brilliant leadership could have helped the Allies win the battle easier.
Should General Patton still be considered a great war hero? While he was in command, Patton led his troops to numerous key victories and also took over many acres of land during which helped the Allies win World War II. His troops were well trained and discipline because of his strict rules. He was not the most popular general but he was one of the most effective and respected. The German generals had admitted that General Patton was the one field commander they feared the most. The soldiers under his command looked up to him and believed in him that they were going to win even if they were outnumbered or outsmarted. In my eyes any person who has such a big affect on the outcome of a war should always be considered a hero even if he was a little insensitive at times.

508

Stalin's Purges

Stalin, a great leader that helped Russia industrialize at a fast rate or one that killed millions of people during his reign? Joseph Stalin was a Russian communist who was in rule of Russia for many years. He gained control of Russia when Lenin died. At first, he was not the main guy but then he had Leon Trotsky, the other leader, exiled. He only cared about himself and wanted his country to be one communist super state. Stalin was very scared that someone was going to try to question him and over rule him. In order to not get overthrown by anyone he launched purges in Russia. Any leading communist who threatened his power was either killed or sent to the gulags (labor camps), even leaders of the recent revolution. He often tortured these people to get them to confess to crimes that they did not do. Stalin would also accuse people of being enemies of the state or anti-revolutionaries. This way Stalin had a reason to kill or enslave them, so the civilians would not question what he was doing. He also had random people killed just because he had the power to do so. Everybody was at risk of being executed by Stalin; he even killed his wife because he thought she was irritated by him killing others for no reason.

Did these purges that Stalin set up help the country though? Stalin had extremely high expectations for the Russian’s that were very unlikely. The purges were a way of terrorizing the people of the Soviet Union into obeying orders and working hard, so his goals could be reached. His psychopathic ways did help the Soviet Union become a very strong and advanced powerful country. The current Russian president said, "We understand that the whole economic potential that exists here was built by the blood and sweat of millions of our countrymen. So that is all the more reason why we do not have the right to waste what was achieved at such a high price." Joseph Stalin was what many Russian’s wanted their leader to do in advancing their country. People today still agree with Stalin’s ways, but there is still no excuse for killing millions of people to achieve this.

Even though these purges did help keep the civilians in line and working hard, there is no justification for killing millions of people because one leader is afraid of being over thrown and wanting a more advanced and powerful country. Stalin abused his people when he starved them to death and coldly murdered them. He scared the civilians of the Soviet Union by terrorizing the people and murdering them for no reason. He instilled a sense of fear that he thought was good to maintain control in his country. One gulag or labor camp survivor said, “The point of the Gulag was that there was no need for any indictment. Back then, hundreds of thousands of people were arrested, even for insignificant crimes, like minor theft. At that time, the Soviet Union was developing vast parts of its territory. And so, Stalin used all these prisoners at the labor camps. But our country paid too big a price. Russia could have had a population of over 400 million by now, if it hadn't been for that wonderful manager and his associates.” There are not many survivors from the reign of Stalin and of those survivors many see that part of history as being a very dark period of time.

560