How far was the Korean war a political and military success for the USA? USA’s involvement in within Korea did have both successes and failures but in the end they agreed upon a cease fire so they didn’t win or lose and Korea stayed separate as north and south. The military successes for the USA during the Korean War were high in the rankings. Macarthur masterminded the Inchon Landings which was seen to be virtually impossible as the harbour was easy to defend. But on September the 15th 1950, the US troops recaptured Seoul (SK Capital) and broke out of Pusan.
Communists or the KDP also saw the opportunity that Hitler saw but with the democracy on its way out there was only room for one government, and Hitler new this. The ploy had so many advantages to Hitler that it would be hard to see how Hitler could not have been involved. This one event allowed him too effectively dishevel his main adversary, the foremost blockade that stopped Hitler’s dictatorship. How he went about “blaming” the communist for the event and thus eliminating them, was also a catalyst for all the events to come. By convincing Hindenburg that there was a large communist threat the country was put into a state of emergency and, with Hindenburg’s backing, Hitler was allowed to pass decrees to govern Germany anyway he liked, with the financial backing of krupp and bosch etc, which in this case is fortunate for the question at hand.
From a militant point of view it may be said that the war was a success and at the same time unsuccessful. The USA’s military objective in June 1950 was to expel North Korean forces from the South. The USA was successful in "restoring the Republic of Korea to its status prior to the invasion from the North! (Dean Acheson!s statement on US objectives, July 1950) but this was due toa differentiation of things. General MacArthur, who was appointed by President Truman as Commander of UN forces in Korea in 1950, is said to be the one saving the war from being completely lost by the Americans.
A focus of the American foreign policy during the Cold War, the containment policy was largely a success. The containment policy was a political success due to the Truman Doctrine. US President Harry S. Truman decided that America must stop communism from spreading. In 1947 he announced the Truman Doctrine, which turned America into a "world policeman". America would aid any country threatened by communism.
The main reason I think the negative side won the debate is because the atomic bombs saved lives through preventing the invasion and conventional bombing of Japan. Also, by not allowing a conditional surrender, the United States helped Japan keep a stable society with their emperor without ruining national identity. An additional bonus to the success of the bombs was that the atomic bombs also asserted the United States as the dominant hegemonic power in the world. During the debate, the affirmative side argued that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not necessary to end the war because the United States used the bombs only to assert its global hegemonic dominance, and there were alternative options to ending the war such as negotiating with Japan to establish a conditional surrender, which Japan wanted, and using conventional bombs to invade Japan if the surrender failed. They stated that the United States only used the atomic bomb to show its power to the USSR.
This took the Chinese by surprise which were unprepared but still managed to send them back to the 38th parallel therefore the achievements of the under-equipped Chinese troops forcing the USA and South Koreans forces back to the northern border indicates that the Korean war was not a victory for the USA, this was very humiliating for the USA and especially Truman as he was in charge of MacArthur. On the other hand USA safeguarded Japan, the most important economy in Asia, and ensured that it was a loyal US ally. Japan had benefited massively from the Korean War and
Reagan detested the oppression of Marxism-Leninism and in 1982 he gave a speech at the British parliament during which he expressed the hope that it would end up “on the ash heap of history”. On March 8th 1983, he gave his “Evil empire speech” referring to communism as “the focus of evil in the modern world”. He also though had a very positive and optimistic view about the strength of democracy and the weakness of communism. After the death of three different Soviet leaders, Reagan finally found Gorbachev someone he could do business with. He was respectful with this new soviet leader and led more or less peaceful relations with him.
Additionally the conflict in Korea allowed the USA to demonstrate its military capabilities to the world, as Kennedy said, he wanted to prove America’s credibility and Vietnam was the perfect place to illustrate this and, in the bigger picture, help to increase UN credibility. However, despite US concession to accept containment as an accomplishment, North Korea remaining communist can be seen as an American failure. In 1950, the US made the decision to invade North Korea. This switch to rollback policy shows that their goals were higher than just containment. They were defeated by Chinese ‘dragon’ attacks, which in December 1950 caused the most humiliating retreat in US history, totalling 300 miles.
, highlighting that he believed without the use of atomic weapons, the Cold War was not an inevitability. Despite the pre-existing tensions between East and West, the use of atomic weaponry amplified the Soviet’s paranoia causing Stalin to authorise ‘a crash Soviet program to catch up’ , signifying the start of the Cold War which would shape the course of the twentieth century. A key significance of the use of atomic weapons in 1945 was the ethical implications that using such weaponry held. As Stalin stated ‘war is barbaric, but using the A-bomb is superbarbarity’ . 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.
In this essay it will be argued that indeed the Cuban Missile Crisis was the point of highest tension during the Cold War and also that Kennedy benefited the most from the outcome as opposed to Khrushchev who was the leader of the USSR. Firstly the Cuban Missile Crisis began on the 16th October 1962 when an American U2 spy plane photographed Soviet missiles sites in Cuba. The fact that the USSR had responded to appeals for help from Cuba following the Bay of Pigs invasion was a large problem for the USA and straight away increased the tensions of the Cold War. It was an issue because Cuba was lead by Castro, a communist who had already overthrown the pro- American government in 1961 and so he was motivated to possibly harm the United States of America and working with Khrushchev gave him the means to do so. Furthermore Cuba was only 90 miles off the coast of America, which meant these missiles, particularly the long-ranged weapons could reach major American cities.