During this unstable period of time, the developing notion of nationalism and specifically the ideology of self-determination, when implemented, created implications. How the principle of national self-determination was understood during World War I developed according to contributing pressures that threatened existing state boundaries at that time. The prevalence of war created the desire to maintain state borders and deny access to foreign powers, thus emphasising the principle of self-determination. To allow nations to be ruled by a foreign power would have been considered as “an obvious injustice” (Pavkovic 2007: 19). Consciously, the notion that the people should be able “to determine their own fate” (Pomerantz 1976: 17) became a prominent belief during World War I.
In my opinion, the Monroe Doctrine is not still used in the United States. The possibility of remaining isolationists was lost when America became a superpower. Now it is inevitable that other nations will look up to America for assistance. The United States also needs to be involved to help so that if they need help, other nations would be willing to help in return. The Truman Doctrine of 1947 changed America’s view on the subject.
One reason Eisenhower shouldn’t be blamed for America’s involvement in Vietnam is that his advisors were too focused on how to win the war in Vietnam rather than if winning the war in Vietnam would actually be beneficial at all. So if his advisors only spoke of strategies to win in Vietnam, this may have lead Eisenhower to believe there weren’t any other options and that continued involvement in Vietnam was the wisest choice. Therefore it could have been the fault of Eisenhower’s advisors and not Eisenhower’s fault himself that America continued its involvement in Vietnam. A second reason that means Eisenhower shouldn’t be blamed was because of the Quagmire theory. By the point of Eisenhower’s presidency, President Truman had already gotten America deeply involved in Vietnam, therefore it would have been difficult for Eisenhower to become uninvolved and it also would appear wasteful of resources, so the only
Lend-Lease allowed the United States to supply military hardware to its allies. This was done, in theory, as a way to protect US neutrality. By strengthening the European powers and China, those countries could stop the spread of armed conflict, preventing it from involving the United States. If you are supporting one side of a conflict, especially by providing war materials, you are no longer a neutral party. Roosevelt had no intention of remaining neutral.
Gena Cooke CHA3UI-01 Mr. Pellerin Sept. 14th, 2012 Isolationism vs. Interventionism: An Ongoing Debate The debate between isolationism vs. interventionism is an ongoing and current debate in the United States. Isolationism is a policy of remaining separate from the affairs or interests of other nations, especially the political affairs of other countries. Interventionism on the other hand, is a policy of intervening in the affairs or interests of other nations using government and military power. The debate between these two policies is a difficult topic to side with and it has been a policy that many presidents have had different views on. Isolationism sounds like the right choice, staying out of other countries business’ and protecting its own country but on the other hand, seeing as America is superpower and has a powerful military, why should it not help out other countries in need of political reinforcement and aid?
In many ways Kennedy did increase US involvement in Vietnam to benefit and protect the south, one of the reasons being Kennedy’s awareness of the limitations and weaknesses of the South Vietnamese Army. The instability of a demoralised army would lead to further political problems and make it very difficult for the south to defend its self from the north. However the USA still needed to protect its own vital national interests. The spread of communism was still a growing concern and a massive threat to the USA which argues that the reason USA became involved with the south was to protect USA from the spread of communism rather than to help the people of South Vietnam. Kennedy and the USA was committed to containment meaning the US foreign policy was predicated by the commitment to protect freedom wherever it was under threat which was applied perfectly to South Vietnams situation.
If the United States cannot respond to a threat near our own borders, why should Europeans or Asians believe that we're seriously concerned about threats to them? If the Soviets can assume that nothing short of an actual attack on the United States will provoke an American response, which ally, which friend will trust us then? (Reagan, 2012). This statement had to do with his concern over the events that were happening in Central America, which during this time had the Pro Soviet Sandinista government running Nicaragua which in had just ridded itself a previous dictatorship in 1979. This was also problematic because in 1981, Sandinista-supported Marxist guerrillas launched an offensive against the government of El Salvador, which was pro-American (Russell, 2010).
Through sharing his personal experiences in Vietnam, Heinemann states that he does not believe the country has learned anything from the war. Although many hoped that the war could be remembered as a nostalgic and positive experience, unfortunately it is not remembered in that way. In my opinion, I believe that wars should be remembered and learned from. Most of the time, wars will be viewed in a negative light inevitably however that does not mean that our country should not still learn from past mistakes and move forward. Another main idea Heinemann points out is the idea that Vietnam felt everything had to go their way.
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.
Besides that Cheddi Jagan was a communist, John F. Kennedy did not have a valid reason to overthrow the British Guiana government. Kennedy was resolute in his decision and sought to deny Jagan and the PPP any power. Cheddi Jagan won the 1961 elections against the socialist Forbes Burnham, who Kennedy supported. Jagan’s victory made Kennedy believe that the country would allow for the growth of communism in the Western Hemisphere. Despite the United States’ concerns for the creation of a communist country, the British were unwilling to interfere.