I can acknowledge an opinion, especially if it is an informed one, however, I must say my reaction to this chapter is one of slight disgust at the lack of respect Zinn shows for a previous president. There are no mentions of Clinton’s healthy behavior or good deeds as president, and this is something that I think many chapters lack. As I continue to read, I find myself using more energy trying to preserve my own thoughts. I disagree with much of what Zinn says, yet I can find validity in some of it as well. I will say that even though the Clinton presidency was not the most effective presidency we have had, it is certainly not the most destructive, and at most, left the country in a passive
We joined forces with other nations in that effort, an effort that was mostly successful in Europe. Containment in East/Southeast Asia had one big success in Japan, but the war in Korea, losing China, and losing Vietnam in ’75 were major failures in containing communism. The Cold War was an era of major paranoia over a nuclear war and the spread of “red” throughout the world, and the U.S. leaders over that time period did their best to keep those bad things at
In one Eastern country after another, he created pro-Communist governments not likely to be undermined by a free election any time soon. As for Germany, he took his Soviet sector and reaped billions of dollars of reparations from it annually. The forty-five year separation of East and West Germany was finalized by the Western demand that Stalin not take reparations from their sectors. The United States became even more distrustful of Stalin because he failed to keep his promises. The division of Germany into four regions of interest and also the division of Berlin resulted in an attempt by Stalin to make the Western Allies relinquish control of their sectors.
“‘We have 30 Vietnams’, Robert Kennedy told a journalist. On the face of it he had reason to be confident,” (Harman 571). The United States had always succeeded in war thus far, with guerilla movements being defeated in Latin America and any reoccurrence of the Cuban Revolution being shut down. In the mid-1960s, the CIA pushed generals to destroy the most powerful Communist Party in the Third World in the Congo. America, as Harman describes, was seemingly invincible, until its involvement in the Vietnam War.
US History 939-943 Victory for Nixon • Vietnam proved a less crucial issue than expected. • Both candidates were committed to carrying on the war until the enemy settled for an honorable peace. • Nixon won one in 1968. • He won 301 of the electoral votes with a 43.4 % of the popular tally. • Nixon was the first president-elect since 1848 to not bring in one house of congress for his party in an initial election.
The presidency of Jimmy Carter (1977-1980) attempted to “recapture a disillusioned citizenry” but was held back by Carter’s conformity to the political boundaries of the American system. While Carter’s term seemed to dig him into a hole as well as complicate matters for everyday people, the Reagan-Bush presidency “transformed the federal judiciary, never more than moderately liberal, into a predominately conservative institution,” (Zinn 574). Corporate America quickly became the greatest beneficiary of the Reagan-Bush years, and the concern for “the economy, which was a short-hand term for corporate profit” dominated any concern for the lower and middle class. All while the quality of life was degrading and the environment rotting. While Reagan-Bush did manage to enforce several Acts for the benefit of the people, with the Gulf War and other economic/environmental calamities, their presidencies seemed to leave a bitter taste in the mouths of Americans.
Since the 1950s, the U.S. had been embroiled in a notorious "Cold War" with the communist Soviet Union, and by the time Reagan became president, Cold War tensions had reached their highest. As such, the Reagan administration was exceedingly dedicated to fighting any potential communist threats, including the Sandinista regime. Hence, Reagan authorized the U.S. government to fund, arm, and train rebels, widely known as Contras, to oppose to perceived Sandinistan communist threat. Though Congress officially ended Contran funding in 1983, Reagan showed his commitment to intervention by covertly channeling funds generated by weapon sales directly to the Contras, something which eventually generated great controversy. Thus, most people recall the militaristic aspect of U.S. intervention in Nicaragua, most notably manifest in the Contra scandals, when they think about U.S. – Nicaraguan relations.
The US never directly intervened, but helped to stir the pot. In August of 1973 the Supreme Court publicly complained about Allende and his inability to enforce the law of the land. On the 22nd, National Party members of The Chamber of of Deputies and Christian Democrats voted 81 to 47 for the resolution titled “The Declaration of the Breakdown of Chile’s Democracy” which accused Allende of setting up a totalitarian government. He was accused of refusing to enforce judicial decisions against government allies, illegally limiting emigration, illegal repression of El Tienle miner’s strike, and shutting out anti government media. On September 11, 1973 a military coupe occurred.
Containment may have of failed and been made evident with the Cuban missile crisis however it led to a growing awareness of the need to create some control over the nuclear arms race by placing restrictions on nuclear tests. The assessment is valid in saying that the missile crisis was complete evidence containment failed as more countries in Eastern Europe were becoming communist. Containment was a failure before the crisis because in 1948 Czechoslovakia was forced to accept communism. Even though in 1947 they were not fully communist there were still some communist-dominated coalition governments. Until the Czech coup, the emphasis in Washington had been on economic containment of Communism, primarily through the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan and a heavy reliance on atomic power as a shield to support it.
In fact, the 'Long threat,' as Democratic politicians described it, was probably less serious than it appeared. Long's national organization was flimsy and decentralized, and he showed no ability to form effective alliances with the many other dissident leaders of the time, whose support he would have needed for an effective national