Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Describe how the US failed to contain the spread of communism during the Cold War
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Containing Communism: Did It Work? Victorious in the previous World Wars of the twentieth century, America became a new superpower. The American economy became a dominant force during this century, featuring a major shift from its industrial roots near the end of the century. Throughout the mid-1900s, however, there was a challenge to this seemingly unstoppable American force—communism. Americans feared the prospect of a world ruled by idealistic zealots whose existence threatened the wealth accumulated through American capitalism; therefore, in a bid that exemplified American hubris, the United States attempted to stave off communism and prevent the disease from infecting other countries across the world. In perspective, the directive of …show more content…
the American government during this communist era, from 1945-1975, proved to be futile.
A lack of American commitment to combating communism across the world planted the seeds for failure, especially when other factors, ranging from misappropriation of funding to the extraordinary willpower of communist insurgencies, resulted in the creation of a major communist power centered in Asia. Initially, the United States was dedicated to controlling communism. It was the policy of America, as stated by President Harry Truman in 1947, that communism will not be tolerated; rather, America would dedicate her resources to promoting the freedom of peoples who are fighting for their independence across the globe (Document B). The express dedication of Americans may have defeated communism, had it not been for a decline for that sentiment as time passed. Only two decades later, with the war against communism raging, Richard Nixon announced his intention to change American policy …show more content…
towards communism. President Nixon indicated that America will no longer provide unwavering support for anti-communist nations struggling to defend themselves from communism (Document K). Such a drastic shift in U.S. foreign policy must have precipitated from an already existing belief; consequently, American efforts to combat communism were doomed to failure from the beginning. Without the express commitment of Americans to fight communism, the country could not fight this worldwide epidemic. Moreover, the change in policy demonstrated that American power extended only as far as her citizens would tolerate. This idea would have provided an effective strategy throughout the war. Communist nations could prolong this Cold War, resulting in stifling discord among the people in order to foster a less combative policy against communism. The United States strategy was, most simply, not effective because of the whimsical nature of her people. Used to a quick solution to wars, instead of a decades long battle, America was not in a position of power to deflect the threats of communism indefinitely—dooming their effort from the start. During the dawn of the Cold War, despite a strong American dedication to the effort, the efforts proved fruitless because of misappropriation of vital funding.
President Truman distinguished his policy of dismantling communism, not through military means, but through the form of economic aid to countries under communist threat (Document B). However, while Truman may have preached universal funding for nations in need, American financial commitments exemplify otherwise. Between 1948- 1952, American provided billions in assistance to traditional allies, including the United Kingdom and France; conversely, many weaker nations received a fraction of the funding allocated to America’s closest allies (Document C). The hypocrisy of the United States, coupled with underfunding, were indicative of a failed strategy to contain the future spread of communism. First, the basic issue here is the lack of funding provided to countries who desperately needed U.S. aid. By providing minuscule amounts of funding, democratic countries were destined for failure. Without the economic aid of the United States, countries would continue to fall to the sheer enormity of the communist movement. Therefore, the misallocation of funds was a fundamental misstep of the government in their efforts to combat communism. Secondly, the United States was portrayed as a betrayer across the globe. Publically, the leader of the United States promised money to countries combatting communist insurgencies; however,
privately, the country did not provide the funds promised, rather, they provided enormous aid to close allies who were not under dire threat from communism. The United States’ portrayal as a country who has different positions depending on the audience would have undoubtedly spurred many bystanders to action; however, these bystanders likely would have contributed to the communist insurgencies. The people would be motivated to combat the continuance of a government that mirrored the United States, instead preferring a new form of government with the promising allure of equality for all and a government that works for the small. A lack of basic funding to deter the communist ideology and the new generation of insurrectionists undoubtedly proved that the United States’ effectiveness in combatting communism was waning. While the United States government committed troops and money to the war effort against communism, analysts overlooked an important factor—the sheer will of the people. An apt depiction of this situation can be found in a British Political Cartoon in 1956. In this cartoon, a dead body lie on the ground, with an inscribed message of “Help for Hungary: A Resolution from the U.N.O” attached to a wreath. Moving on from the runner, a communist insurgent can be seen charging forward (Document G). The political cartoon exemplifies the ineffectiveness of not only the United States, but the worldwide organization they helped to create, the United Nations. While politicians debated strategies to combat communism, the insurgents in these countries had no such issues. Bureaucracy did not bog down many of the revolutionists fighting within embattled countries. Many times, the United States and worldwide political leaders attempted to stymie the spread of communism by repeated commitments of money and soldiers, however, this could not overcome the pure commitment that communist insurgents gave to their cause—their souls. The emboldened nature of communists is captured perfectly by the words of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, where he responded to a U.S. blockade of the island with the unifying declaration, “…we will resist” (Document H). In this statement, Castro defined Cuban-American relations for decades. He dared to resist the might of the American military, a path many American wartime analysts would not have dared to resist. As American convictions relating to communist determent policies wane, nations around the world would surely fall under the iron grip of communism. Therefore, the United States may have been the most powerful nation on Earth, but they cannot overcome the pure devotion of pro-communist fighters. Finally, the attempt to halt the spread of communism was hindered from the beginning because of where the world’s communist superpowers resided. The large majority, from the Soviet Union to China were located on the Asian continent and Eastern Europe. As a result, these countries had strategic positions in terms of mutual defense, as evidenced by former Secretary of State John Dulles’ statement that described how arms constructed in Eastern Europe were transported across Asia’s communist countries with ease to supply North Vietnam during the Vietnam War (Document F). In the end, the United States’ mission to immediately halt the spread of communism was fundamentally flawed because the communist nations had the strategic advantage. With the United States located on the opposite side of the world and the communist nations being located in a large group, the United States could not possibly sustain any prolonged anti-communist campaign. If any resistance to communist’s insurgencies arose, these nations could quickly send aid, militarily or financially, to the ailing country and prop up the regime. The United States, as long as communists remained in absolute power over the continent of Asia, could not overcome the sheer supremacy of communism in Asia—slating the American effort of absolute containment of communism for failure. During the twentieth century, America became the most powerful nation on the face of the Earth; her military and financial power were second to none, except one nation. This nation, the Soviet Union, spawned a worldwide revolution that spawned the formation of communist nation, an ideology reviled by all Americans. The American government attempted to choke the life out of the communist movement; however, the attempt ultimately failed. An increasingly hostile public, as well as deficits in American strategy, doomed any American attempt to stop a movement catapulted forward by passionate revolutionists.
The alliance formed between the US and USSR during the second world war was not strong enough to overcome the decades of uneasiness which existed between the two ideologically polar opposite countries. With their German enemy defeated, the two emerging nuclear superpowers no longer had any common ground on which to base a political, economical, or any other type of relationship. Tensions ran high as the USSR sought to expand Soviet influence throughout Europe while the US and other Western European nations made their opposition to such actions well known. The Eastern countries already under Soviet rule yearned for their independence, while the Western countries were willing to go to great lengths to limit Soviet expansion. "Containment of 'world revolution' became the watchword of American foreign policy throughout the 1950s a...
All of the history of the United States, foreign policy has caused many disputes over the proper role in international affairs. The views, morals and beliefs of democracy in Americans, makes them feel the need to take leadership of the world and help those countries whom are in need. The foreign policies of President Eisenhower will eventually led to the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War. President Eisenhower’s role with these policies were based on his military type strategies to safeguard a victory in the Global Cold War. President Eisenhower’s foreign policies led to an effective involvement in the Cold War and enviably the Vietnam War from an American perspective. President Eisenhower’s foreign policies when implemented would facilitate the goal of containing communism, and also
One of the biggest fears of the American people is that the concept of communism contrasts drastically from the concept of capitalism, which the United States was essentially founded upon. The United States, as the public believed, was not a land of perfect communal equality, but rather a land of equal opportunity. However, what made communism so dangerous can be succinctly described by Eisenhower who compared the spread of communism as the domino effect. As his secretary of state, Dulles, put it, the propagation of communism “would constitute a threat to the sovereignty and independence” of America (Doc B). In addition, the Cold War also planted the seeds of rational fear of a global nuclear war. As Russia caught up to the United States in terms of technological advancements, they successfully developed the atomic bomb as well as the hydrogen bomb, which caused Americans to believe that the USSR would use these weapons of mass destruction to forcefully extend their ideologies to the USA. In fact, Americans were so frantic about a potential nuclear disaster that it...
During the cold war, the United States engaged in many aggressive policies both at home and abroad, in which to fight communism and the spread of communist ideas. Faced with a new challenge and new global responsibilities the U.S. needed to retain what it had fought so strongly for in World War II. It needed to contain the communist ideas pouring from the Soviet Union while preventing communist influence at home, without triggering World War III. With the policies of containment, McCarthyism, and brinkmanship, the United States hoped to effectively stop the spread of communism and their newest threat, the Soviet Union.
...he globe to halt its spread. From initial fear to hatred, the United States gradually adopted its cold warrior mentality championing capitalism and free government for the world as the victors of the Cold War.
“In the wake of the Cold War, Americans felt it was their patriotic duty to buy consumer goods to help the economy grow. In turn, the U.S. became the world’s dominant economic power” ("Cold War Influences on American Culture, Politics, and Economics").
Discussions of the causes of the Cold War are often divisive, creating disparate ideological camps that focus the blame in different directions depending on the academic’s political disposition. One popular argument places the blame largely on the American people, whose emphasis on “strength over compromise” and their deployment of the atomic bomb in the Second World War’s Pacific theatre apparently functioned as two key catalysts to the conflict between US and Soviet powers. This revisionist approach minimizes Stalin’s forceful approach and history of violent leadership throughout World War 2, and focuses instead on President Harry Truman’s apparent insensitivity to “reasonable Soviet security anxieties” in his quest to impose “American interests on the world.” Revisionist historians depict President Truman as a “Cold War monger,” whose unjustified political use of the atomic bomb and ornery diplomatic style forced Russia into the Cold War to oppose the spread of a looming capitalist democratic monopoly. In reality, Truman’s responsibility for the Cold War and the atomic bomb drop should be minimized.
The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe became the East nations, and the United States, centered on NATO formed the West nations, dividing the world in two. Belonging to neither the East nor the West, developing countries were called Third World nations and became a stand-in for wars between the East and West (Gaddis, The Strategies of Containment 70-78). The end of WWII and the beginning of the C... ... middle of paper ... ... a, from containment to rollback in Korea; welcoming European integration because it portended the creation of an economic unit that encouraged technological innovation; building a configuration of power in the international system, nurturing free markets while safeguarding American interests, a constant in Washington for more than 35 years; and, free political economy at home were just a few of the strategic methods used to change, influence, and shape American domestic policy (Leffler, The Specter of Communism,100-129).
The Soviet Union began to view the United States as a threat to communism, and the United States began to view the Soviet Union as a threat to democracy. On March 12, 1947, Truman gave a speech in which he argued that the United States should support nations trying to resist Soviet imperialism. Truman and his advisors created a foreign policy that consisted of giving reconstruction aid to Europe, and preventing Russian expansionism. These foreign policy decisions, as well as his involvement in the usage of the atomic bomb, raise the question of whether or not the Cold War can be blamed on Truman. Supporting the view that Truman was responsible for the Cold War, Arnold Offner argues that Truman’s parochialism and nationalism caused him to make contrary foreign policy decisions without regard to other nations, which caused the intense standoff between the Soviet Union and America that became the Cold War (Offner 291)....
The pattern of US action was impressively consistent. Washington’s perception of “communist” dangers and tendencies rested upon exceedingly broad, loose, and often-irresponsible criteria. Most so called “communists” were civilian reformers, more akin to European social democrat than to Soviet KGB operatives. More over, even those who declared opposition to the United States did so only after Washington adopted blatantly hostile policies. Much of what happened was the result of exaggeration, misperception, and misunderstanding between countries.
On March 12, 1947, President Harry S. Truman defined United States foreign policy in the context of its new role as a world superpower. Many historians consider his speech to Congress as the words that officially started the Cold War. The Truman Doctrine was a major break from U.S. historical trends of isolationist foreign policy. His speech led to the Cold War policy of containment. Moreover, it served as a precedent for future U.S. policy of interventionism. According to Stephen Ambrose, an important quote from Truman’s speech, "I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures," stands as "all encompassing" and would "define American policy for the next generation and beyond."1 Faced with strong opposition, Truman was still able to achieve a consensus in Congress aimed at quelling the communist threat through active foreign policy and involvement. The Truman Doctrine not only demonstrated the new foreign policy of the U.S., but also helps to explain American foreign policy since the Doctrine’s inception.
...e fight against communism placed a great responsibility on United States and its European allies. In order to back their beliefs, they were responsible to help in the fight against communism. Each country believed strongly in their individual views concerning communism and they were willing to do anything to stop the advancement of this particular form of government. This eventually led to the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops in a war that was being fought for controversial reasons.
There is always at least one odd duck, which stands out from the crowd. The same is true when it comes to politics. One of the most controversial political ideas to ever come to power, is communism. Branching from the socialist party, in 1848, extremist Karl Marx expressed his theories in The Communist Manifesto. This is a text that is still debated today. In an article in the Journal of Social Society, William Niemi wrote about Marx’s ideas still present today. “The rethinking about Karl Marx and Marxism continues some 20 years after the fall of the Soviet dictatorship and its satellites.” (Niemi). Within this volume of ideas, Marx expressed many highly debated topics, the most controversial of course, being communism itself. Though many of
For a historian, the 20th century and all the historic events that it encompasses represents a utopia with endless sources of inspiration for the analysis of political figures, events and their consequences. Political figures such as Benito Mussolini of Italy, Adolf Hitler of Germany, Mao Zedong of China and Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union are all names we are familiar with due to the time period that they influenced; this time period after the trauma and atrocities of World War I and the Great Depression led to completely new forms of government in Europe and beyond. These “manifestations of political evil”, commonly known as totalitarian states, should not be considered as mere extensions of already existing political systems, but rather as completely new forms of government built upon terror and ideological fiction. Therefore, this was also a time in which political philosophers such as Hannah Arendt, the author of the standard work on totalitarianism, “Origins of Totalitarianism”, could thrive. When looking at totalitarianism as a political philosophy, two initial questions have to be dealt with: what is totalitarianism and what kind of effect it had on countries ruled by totalitarian regimes. The reasons for its occurrence have briefly been mentioned above, although there are much deeper ideological, social and economic reasons including imperialism and anti-Semitism. In order to fully understand it, we must also contrast it to other political systems like authoritarianism and dictatorship, which are similar to a certain extent, but lack crucial elements that are in the core of totalitarian ideology. Out of the many examples of totalitarian regimes in the 20th century, Nazi Germany, Communist China and the Soviet Union stan...
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ The Communist Manifesto explores class struggles and their resulting revolutions. They first present their theory of class struggle by explaining that “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles” (Marx 14), meaning that history is a repeated class struggle that only ends with a revolution. Marx and Engels’ message in The Communist Manifesto is that it is inevitable for class struggles to result in revolutions, ultimately these revolutions will result in society’s transition to communism.