The US was in a position where it had to preserve trade with foreign countries, especially China, and gain some territory before it was all conquered by other countries. The United States was not capable of keeping any sort of productive market for their goods. Another change from the initial expansionism was in the category of politics, in the justification for expansion. Before, they believed in Manifest Destiny, the right that god gave them to conquer foreign land, few had been against this. Now, they expanded on that notion to encompass the world, saying that it was their "duty" to help lower nations.
Arguably, he had wanted to limit the influence of them due to his distrust of their background and knowledge gained through being educated in foreign institutions. On the contrary, Source B claims that “Mao was unsure” about what negative consequences the campaign might bring about. According to the second source, Mao genuinely wanted the intellectuals to “join the revolution of their own free will rather than being forced to do” rather than accuse them for being a threat to the Communist regime. It seems to be a reasonable explanation of his intentions as he was very much concerned with the CPC becoming more bureaucratic, which was highlighted by the Three-Antis Campaign of 1951, and therefore he wanted to find a solution to this problem through hearing what the educated part of society had to say. Moreover, Mao’s famous saying “unity, criticism, unity” suggests that the campaign indeed had good intentions, not implying any “trap”.
Laos was threatened by Communist insurgents and Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia had renounced aid from the US and demanded neutrality in any further conflicts. Left-wing insurgents were threatening Thailand and the British were having similar issues in dealing with threats in Malaysia and Borneo. Sukarno. Leader of Indonesia, had started to show an interest in the Indonesian communist party, much to the ire of America. While the more sophisticated of the US advisers realised that the domino theory was too simplistic in an increasingly non-linear world, split not just by ideology but also historically through ethnic and nationalist conflict, this didn't mean that the USSR and China would exploit any weakness shown by the USA.
But to analyze the whole paper, in some cases I think Dr. King didn’t go far enough about his theses. In the letter he disapproved the statement of white clergymen with an almost appeasing tone. Dr. King noted that he was addressing them in part because the criticism of clergymen was sincere and added that they were men of real good will. However, in the paragraphs that follow, King changes to a language that can depart no doubt about the firm commitment that he introduced to the battle against racial injustice. For this transition Dr. King made a fuzzy statement to persuade them with the ideas of the justice and equality.
Not because of the morality of it all but because he didn’t want the south to maintain more power. Tallmadge came up with an Amendment called, “The Tallmadge Amendment”in which it stated no slavery allowed to incoming states. This was quickly refuted by Thomas’ plan. Thomas had a different idea for what to do about Missouri. Instead of abolitioing slavery and ultimately giving the north more power, he made a compromise.
Stalin’s view is supported by Admiral D Leahy, who in his memoirs writes ‘we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages’ This quote holds a substantial amount of weight to my argument due to Admiral D Leahy’s position as Roosevelt and Truman’s chief of staff, it would be expected for a man of such status to hold a view in support of America’s actions. Nevertheless, it is apparent that while Leahy may have condoned the dropping of the bomb to shorten the war, he would make no attempt to justify his country’s and his President’s actions. The moral implications were made apparent on the British mission to Hiroshima. Not only did the bombs claim the lives of over 200,000 civilians, the
The two men have very similar views on the subject of just laws and unjust laws, but each goes about dealing with the problem of injustice differently. "On The Duty of Civil Disobedience" is a writing by Thoreau where he expresses his belief that the less the government does to govern, the better it is. He preferred less involvement from the government, referring to the government as a machine. He felt it was only necessary because the American people needed to feel its presence and hear its din. He believed that his first obligation was not to the government, but to do what he felt was right.
During this entire conflict, the European powers (Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia) had carved up China and Africa into “spheres of influence” for themselves to keep. Although the US had just received many ports to trade with, it didn’t completely satisfy the American economy. So, naturally, the US wanted to be able to access these Asian ports, especially Hong Kong. Secretary of State John Hay dispatched his famous Open Door note, which urged the European nations to keep fair competition open to all nations willing and wanting to participate. This became the “Open Door Policy.” All the powers
As you can see, everyone has their own thoughts and speculations on this decree. But before forming your own opinion on this policy, we must first take a look at the history of isolationism, and the impact it had on certain countries around the world. The United States policy for isolationism, or non-interventionism, was maintained throughout most of the nineteenth century. George Washington laid the foundation for non-interventionism in his Farewell Address saying, "The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation.
I could blame the defeat which would have been the result of my action on him and come out as Peacemaker…But I had a greater obligation than to think only of the years of my administration and of the next election. I had to think of the effect of my decision on the next generation and on the future of peace and freedom in America and in the world.” However, this idealistic standpoint was mere propaganda. In private, President Nixon would favour a more militant and aggressive approach. This contradictory position not only exposed Nixon’s vulnerability to public opinion, but also his disillusion and misunderstanding of the complexities of such a war. It is imperative to understand the factors which influenced President Nixon’s strategies and decision making during the Vietnam War.