But was it a "just war," an "unjust war" or some combination of both? This paper will try to answer that question. Before we can apply the principles of just or unjust war to the struggle in America in the 1860s, we have to find out what the terms mean. They are philosophical, and people have been wrestling with them since ancient times. War itself has a very specific definition, which it is useful to mention here because we have to know what war is before we can determine whether or not it is just.
This too was against the advice of knowledgeable people such as Stimson. Decisions such as this one created a greater distance between the United States and Russia; giving Russia substantial reason to enter a war against the US. Truman continued in a downward spiral, setting himself and the United States up for a war with each action he took. The Truman Doctrine served as Truman’s declaration for war, after Stalin and Churchill already issued theirs. Aside from the general aspects of the doctrine, Truman used it as a platform to validate a large economic aid program.
In Why Nations Go to War, Dr.John G Stoessinger talks about the role of individuals in starting wars. He is of the view that factors like economics, nationalism, alliance networks and even fate are often put forward as the primary reasons for the outbreak of a war, but the human element, the personalities, the hopes and fears and the particular worldview of the individual leaders of the country are not given nearly as much importance. The writer points out that wars are after all, started by people and to a large extent, the book deals with the lead up to the moment when people finally decide to go to war. The author holds a Ph.D. from Harvard and has taught at Harvard, M.I.T, Columbia and Princeton. He won the Bancroft Prize for his book, The Might of Nations and he has served as acting director for the political affairs division at the United Nations.
According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, war is described as “a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism; a state of usual open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations; a struggle between opposing forces or for a particular end.” This is a logical explanation, but it brings up a question. Is war all bad? Can’t war have good points as well as bad ones? There are good things, too. You don’t believe me?
Modern History Assignment International Studies in Peace and Conflict: The Cold War “Evaluate the view that the ideologies of capitalism and communism influenced policies and strategies in the Cold War.” While the Cold War has come to be defined as "a clash of ideologies" by a majority of historians, the principles of capitalism and communism were exaggerated in political rhetoric by both the United States and the Soviet Union. Although the conflicting ideologies had a formative influence on the early strategies of the two superpowers – establishing a framework that would shape future policy - national and economic interests had a more significant impact on overall Cold War foreign response. However, an assessment of influences on policy making must be more complex than simply ‘ideological’ or ‘economic’. As Martin McCauley writes, "the weaknesses of the orthodox and revisionist analyses are evident: the former pays little attention to the legitimate security needs of the USSR, while the latter ignores Soviet behaviour which gave rise to shifts in American policy." In examining the factors that shaped the various strategies of the struggle, a more balanced post-revisionist approach must be taken.
This was as Hall rightly says in C, a “Rude awakening to the realities of the war that prompted a re-evaluation of the nation’s commitment.” This is similar to Source A in the way that it refuses to focus on the statistics of the offensive, but look at the consequences of the assault, with the privilege of hindsight. This is what defines this source, what makes it right, that it does not take into account solitary and meaningless numbers but looks at the opinion of the people affected, be it in the public or government officials. It clearly presents the Tet for what it was, a larger reverse for the USA. It contradicts D as well, but C is right, the Americans had been exposed and this decreased the credibility of themselves, the South Vietnamese government and made people question the capitalist system. General Giap sums it up best when he states
Chapter 31 Essay In the destructive nature of World War I where the great powers of the world were locked in an armed struggle for survival. America lay on the sidelines, sticking to her policy of neutrality. But as the war progressed and the rules of war broken, America found herself getting sucked into this new global war. When America finally did declare war it was inspired by German naval policy, Woodrow Wilson's idealism, and America's claim to world power. All motivated the U.S. to declare war on Germany and help the war torn Allies and defeat the Central Powers.
Author PJ Larkin can be quoted saying that this war "was a mixture of religious crusade in favour of one idealogy or the other... striking out for advantage or expansion not only in Europe but all over the world." As tensions in the war became more and more tense, President Dwight D. Eisenhower had appointed John Foster Dulles as secretary of the state, whom created new foreign policies in which fought Communism aggressively and effectively. The United States and the Soviet Union's relations helped create tensions between the two largest superpowers in the world, and the race for dominance had soon
The treaty demanded that Germany, Austria, and Hungary accept responsibility for causing the war. Under the treaty’s provisions they were to repay heavy reparations to certain countries, disarm their armies, and concede territorial claims. The treaty however, did not pacify Germany as it was thought to do. The treaty inevitably leads into WWII. Along with the treaty America, Britain, and France tried to put into place Wilson’s 14 point system.
Many American citizens in 1959 viewed the Vietnam War as a righteous battle against communism, similar to the Iraq War today however now many view this war as a necessary battle against terrorism. Looking at America's overall goal in Vietnam, it is evident that we did not come close to keeping South Vietnam from collapsing, who fell to communist rule in 1975 (Frankum 210). America's involvement in the conflicts of Vietnam and Iraq were so discordant that our government, people, and military were constricted. Yet both wars were fought with the knowledge that America may change the invaded nation, which brings a precarious question; what makes the government believe that they have the right to go into a country and change it to the way they