However, the USA in the 1950s believed that if South Vietnam (which was not controlled by Ho) fell to Ho, this would mean communist expansion. This was because the American administration believed in the domino theory, i.e. once a country falls to communism, this will mean that Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, etc will start to fall to communism. In turn, the USA under Eisenhower drew a line in Vietnam to stop Ho reunification attempt. At the same time they tried to create a strong non-communist South Vietnam under the leadership of Diem.
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.
The United States got involved in the Vietnam War from 1954 -1964 to prevent and contain communism. In Vietnam, an independence movement under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh rose to challenge French rule. The United States helped France by giving financial and military aid. The US had moral and ethical reasons to stand up and face unethical leaders that oppressed other weaker people and to contain the spread of communism. Communism is horrible because the government controls every move you make and you have no say in what happens in your life.
To what extent can Eisenhower be blamed for US involvement in Vietnam? In this essay I will explain reasons that Eisenhower both could and couldn’t be blamed For America’s involvement. For example, Eisenhower could be blamed because he gave the French billions of dollars in aid. But Eisenhower also couldn’t be blamed because his advisors weren’t didn’t assess whether or not Vietnam was important to winning the Cold War, just on how to win the war in Vietnam. These are two of the several arguments I will cover.
McNamara’s advice to withdraw military personnel prior the coup was no longer an option as instability in Vietnam posed a threat to national security. Although McNamara concedes the conflict was a civil war, he presses the importance of understanding the conflict as an element of the Cold War. Out of fear for further spread of communist interest, the US began to unilaterally support South Vietnam militarily. McNamara however argues that had the US been more able to empathize with and to better understand the Vietnamese, large-scale military intervention could have been avoided. America’s duty to act where others can not or will not stems from McNamara’s belief that there’s something beyond oneself.
This shows a reluctance to fight another war – a reluctance that would have undoubtedly been heightened by Churchill’s speech which looked to provoke hostilities. The US secretary of Commerce, Henry Wallace, was appalled by Churchill’s speech and subsequently claimed that Russia was a “force that cannot be handled successfully by a ‘get tough with Russia’ policy” because he advocated the need for peace and
It is imperative to understand the factors which influenced President Nixon’s strategies and decision making during the Vietnam War. Nixon operated in a political context in which the policy-making establishment and the public were pessimistic towards a favourable outcome in Vietnam. Kimball (1998), argues that Nixon’s strategies were born out of restraint, rather than authoritative freedom. Nixon was walking a political tightrope to maintain the status quo between the ‘hawk’ advocates and the ‘dove’ pacifists. “Nixon realised there was both an influential right-wing alliance in favour of the war and a heterogeneous liberal, pacifist, and leftist coalition in opposition…He looked at American national
Both Ebert and the Army simply wanted to ensure that there would be no Left Wing Revolution. After the Kaiser had been abducted a new government was created under Prince Max. This meant that a new (civilian) government would have to surrender to the allies. This led to them being tainted and blamed for the defeat-‘Stab in the Back myth’- this was significant change that amounted to a revolution. On the 29th October a mutiny among some sailors who refused to obey orders disputed.
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.
If the sole reason for war was to capture Sadaam and his officials, this would then be unjust. At the time of the war, the war met another requirement of the doctrine; it had legitimate authority, George W. Bush. As long as a legit source declares the war, approval from the UN is unnecessary. Therefore there was an official declaration of war, showing