РефератыИностранный языкCoCold War Diplomacy Essay Research Paper This

Cold War Diplomacy Essay Research Paper This

Cold War Diplomacy Essay, Research Paper


This 187 page book by Norman Graebner covers the key American policy makers of the Eisenhower and Kennedy years. The book covers: setting the stage of American policy towards Europe from Roosevelt to Truman; the European Defense Community, Political Community and the Coal and Steel Community Loan; the sensitive Euratom agreement; European disagreements and the OECD; the Kennedy team and its inheritance; the Multi-Lateral Force failure; De Gaulle’s conflicting world view; and the Atlantic partnership, Nassau meeting and Gaullist veto. It concludes with an Epilogue on the Johnson administration.


The book is mostly based on personal interviews, access to documents and papers and of course Dr. Winand s own view that European unity was a potential element of stability and prosperity for the West and as a factor of strength for the Atlantic Alliance . She further believes that Atlantic Alliance leaders of postwar United States administrations not only supported but helped to shape European institutions. Though she was able to show a familiar or rather shared values between the American and Western leaders the question which remained in my mind was did the United States have a decisive impact on shaping post war Europe or didn t the United States essentially force Europe into the position it was in.


The jargon of terms used in this book were at times a bit confusing but what I basically gathered was that through American actions throughout the years towards European leaders America has shaped the stability of European institutions/states. I used the book to focus on how the similar the Kennedy and Eisenhower administrations were in defining American foreign policy during the Cold War. Both Presidents were driven by the policy of containment to take whatever action they saw necessary in order to prevent the spread of communism.specifically Eisenhower’s and Kennedy’s remained similiar despite the Jeremy fact


that the war was a bipartisan undertaking. The overall policy by which the


Cold War was defined was strikingly similar between both presidents. The


ways in which the Cold War was carried on between the United States and


Communism remained the same between both presidents. The handling of a


major war development was continued throughout the span of Eisenhower’s and


Kennedy’s terms. However, their aims in how to structure an offense were


not as similiar as their other policies.


The policy of containment was the overall blueprint for which the


Cold War was constructed. The policy of containment is what drove the


presidents to take whatever action they felt necessary to protect this


policy in order to stop the spread of communism. It was by this measure


that presidential actions in the Cold War were carried out. The reasons by


which we see that Eisenhower’s and Kennedy’s foreign policy were similiar


is the fact that the both felt the same toward the policy of containment,


thus the pieces fell in place once this plan was determined by both


presidents. The policy of containment was the policy of the time, it said


that our main goal was to keep communism from spreading. It would be later


seen that the focus of our efforts would be on the third world nations


which were weak and thus possible to have their governments overthrown.


Although both presidents agreed on the topic of containment, Kennedy was a


little more forceful in his approach. This was seen through his


inauguration speech in which he made clear his central opposition to


communism. He felt that the nation was not doing enough to combat it.


Nevertheless, both he and Eisenhower followed a distinct policy of


containment which would lead to further similarities in their foreign


policy.


The means in which containment was achieved, much like the policy


itself, varied little between the two presidents. Each used third world


nations to combat communism. More specifically, the United States during


this time, used its relatively new CIA to topple the governments of


communist regimes. We see this in Eisenhower’s administration during the


situation in Guatemala. In 1954, the administration ordered the CIA to


topple the government of Jacobo Guzman in Guatemala who the Eisenhower


administration argued was communist. The same began to ocurr in Cuba when


Bastista was removed and replaced by Castro. At first, the US welcomed him,


but as it seemed that he began to believe in communism, Eisenhower’s


administration ordered the CIA to begin training Cuban expatriates for an


invasion of Cuba in order to displace his government. Kennedy displayed


similiar tactics through his actions in office as well. He continued the


practice of Eisenhower’s invasion of Cuba to unseat Castro by au

thorizing


the Bay of Pigs operation. This failed miserably yet it still represented


the president’s methods of waging the Cold War and his adherance to


Eisenhower’s previous policies. Out of this operation grew evidence of


Kennedy’s green berets, a special task force used to infiltrate


governments of third world nations to protect them from communist


government influence. Another display of Kennedy’s plan of fighting the


Cold War was his dealings with the Cuban Missile Crisis. In response to


information that missiles were there he set up blockades around Cuba, a


lesser nation, rather than fully attacking the Soviet Union for this action.


Kennedy’s time in office was characterized by the Cold War being fought


through third world nations by use of the CIA, quite similiar to


Eisenhower’s practice of toppling communist regimes in third world nations


also through the use of the CIA.


The way in which a major threat was handled is also similar between


both presidents. Eisenhower and Kennedy both took a similiar approach to


the situation in Vietnam. Their approaches were both hesitant to have


direct involvement. Eisenhower was first hesitant to even get involved in


the first place by withdrawing support. In fact, he refused direct aid to


France, other than the economic aid we were already giving, in 1953 when


challanged by nationalist Ho Chi Minh. By refusing American aid, France’s


position deterioriated and the French were forced to surrender. After


Vietnam was split abd Ngo Dinh Diem took over the South, trouble arose


again. Kennedy took a similar course of action as Eisenhower previously did


at the begining of the Vietnam problem. Eventually, Kennedy withdrew aid


asa soon as trouble arose in Vietnam. The Buddhist crisis made the Kennedy


administartion look bad and made them reconsider their situation. In order


to preserve their image, and to stay out of war, the Kennedy administration


topplied the Diem. Thus, they took a removed approach to the situation


there. Thus, by withdrawing, or not extending support in the first place,


both presidents stayed far away from Vietnam. Furthermore, during this time,


both presidents stepped up the nuclear arms race in order to compete with


China as a response to the growing communist conflict. Lastly, neither of


these presidents escalated the war to the point of intervention as their


successor, Lyndon Johnson did. Thus, by contrasting their actions with


those of Johnson’s it is clear to see that they remained similar to each


other’s policies.


Despite the fact that the two presidents were nearly equal in their


foreign policy there were some fundamental differences in the way both


operated. A major difference was the disagreement in how preparations


should be made in response to a communist threat and the alleged missle


gap that both presidents felt existed. Eisenhower, and his secretary of


state, Dulles, believed in a policy of massive retaliation. This policy


outlined the use of nuclear weapons in fighting against any communist


complication in foreign affairs. Thus, Eisenhower felt that through the use


of strict nuclear weapons, the communist threat could be deterred. On the


other hand, Kennedy outlined a policy of flexible response. Different


from Eisenhower’s, this policy criticized Eisenhower for not developing


other tools with which to respond to problems that nuclear weapons could


not be used to solve. A nuclear attack on third world nation was not an


acceptable means of combat. To this extent, Kennedy formed his Special


Forces, or the green berets in order to meet the needs of combat against


a weak opponent. Common to both presidents however, was the increase in


nuclear weapon production to eliminate the missile gap. Thus, although both


presidents increased the overall production of nuclear weapons, it is seen


that through these two very different policies of attack the two presidents


felt differently toward the way containment should be maintained.


Through the handling of the Cold War crisis it can be seen that


party lines are not necessarily a definitive boundary which requires that


presidents of different parties have diffent forms of foriegn policy. The


Cold War era illustrates how Eisenhower and Kennedy followed a similiar


program which both felt would serve the common good of the nation and it


worked. The presidents successfully helped achieve the widely-acclaimed


goal of containment and contributed to the world we live in today.

Сохранить в соц. сетях:
Обсуждение:
comments powered by Disqus

Название реферата: Cold War Diplomacy Essay Research Paper This

Слов:1588
Символов:10681
Размер:20.86 Кб.