Communism After Ww2

1542 Words7 Pages
After World War II, the Soviet Union had been established as the United States’ main world rival, a rivalry that would become known as the Cold War. This period of harsh tensions would last all the way till the end of the 20th century. Right from the beginning, the United States had been adamant on stopping the spread of Communism through the strategy of Containment. Successful tactics were used through the Marshall plan, Truman Doctrine, and the Korean conflict which actually saw U.S troops in combat trying to stop Communism. The Korean conflict set a precedent for the United States as they were so dedicated to stopping Marxism’s spread, they would physically fight for it. Never had United States intervention been more controversial domestically…show more content…
Berman is unrelenting in his blame for Nixon and his administration with their lack of “Peace with Honor” in Vietnam. In my opinion, this excerpt from Professor Berman’s No Peace, No Honor: Nixon and Kissinger, and Betrayal in Vietnam provides strong supportive evidence as to why there was no honor with America’s withdrawal from the Vietnam conflict. Nixon and Kissinger were ceaseless in saying that Congress cost them victory in Vietnam. They use Congress as a scapegoat basically. They both reinforced their beliefs in the Paris Peace Accords time and time again. While this is the image that they portrayed to the American people, who wanted no part in Vietnam to begin with, Nixon and Kissinger could be seen as men who only wanted to satisfy Americans but not intend to keep their promises of peace. Behind the scenes, it is ultimately realized that Nixon and Kissinger knew full well that the Paris Peace Accords were destined for failure and its sole purpose was to appease Americans domestically and remove POW’s from behind enemy lines (Madaras Pg. 378). As soon as North Vietnam violated the agreements of the Accords, which was all but a guarantee, Nixon would fulfill his promise to South Vietnamese President…show more content…
Nixon’s main argument is that he won the war in Vietnam but Congress lost it by cutting off aid to South Vietnam. Nixon says his plan all along was to give South Vietnam the tools to their own victory because American combat troops could not win the conflict for them. This would also enable the withdrawal of American troops already stationed in Vietnam. Soon afterwards once the Paris Peace Accords were signed and all troops were out of Vietnam, Nixon felt confident in his strategy. Soon enough though, the North broke its agreement and the U.S had to determine whether or not to start helping the South once again. Ultimately Congress decided against that and the South fell in 1975. Nixon is adamant in the fact that if Congress had not cut off aid, the U.S and South could have won the conflict (Madaras Pg. 370-371). Nixon uses the propaganda technique of assertion. He continually states how Congress was at fault for the loss of Vietnam and that is that. Such assertion is used to show how decisive Nixon was and show his leadership abilities. There are many problems with Nixon’s story of Vietnam however. He just cannot be seen as credible in defending himself. He had tried many times with the Watergate scandal and clearly he had ethical issues and did not always tell the truth. Also due to the resources used by Professor Berman, Nixon is clearly lying when he says how much he
Open Document