Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
World War II political effects
World War II political effects
Reasons why did united states lose over vietnam
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: World War II political effects
Statesmen versus Warlords Perhaps no event in recent history has so profoundly affected the political, sociological, and philosophical outlook of the American people as the Vietnam War. George Bell, Undersecretary of State from 1961 through 1966, called Vietnam the “greatest single error that America has made in its national history” (Legacies). As the first war the United States had ever lost, Vietnam shattered American confidence in its military supremacy and engendered a new wave of isolationist sentiment in the country. Mistrusting their government and retreating into a state of general disillusionment, the public demanded to know what went wrong. The people needed a scapegoat. Some groups blamed the military commanders for failing to adapt to Vietnam’s unique circumstances; some condemned politicians for not fully supporting the military effort; while still others upheld that victory was never possible in the first place. Now, years after the last Marine left Vietnamese soil, the debate continues, but evidence places the majority of the blame at the feet of America’s foreign policy makers. Because, as Paul Elliott writes in his book Vietnam: Conflict and Controversy, “Everything in Vietnam was being viewed through the distorting lens of the Cold War, and against the fear of atomic holocaust” (92), Congress and the President refused to make a total commitment to victory in Indochina. That lack of commitment led directly to American defeat. But, considering the social and political situation of the late 1960s and early 1970s, was such commitment feasible? Total victory would have required a complete mobilization of American armed forces, an invasion of North Vietnam, and the possible utilization of nuclear weaponry... ... middle of paper ... ...d. Without Honor: Defeat in Vietnam and Cambodia. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1983. 488-506. Legacies. Part 13 of Vietnam: A Television History. Richard Ellison, Producer. WGBH Educational Foundation. Millis, Walter, ed. American Military Thought. New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966. 480- 95. Schloming, Gordon. American Foreign policy and the Nuclear Dilemma. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1987. 14-16. Sharp, Ulysses. Strategy For Defeat: Vietnam in Retrospect. San Rafael: Presidio, 1978. 267-71. Schechter, Danny. “Introduction: The Fall of Washington.” How We Won the War. Vo Nguyen Giap. Philadelphia: RECON, 1976. 13-14. Summers, Harold, G. On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War. Novato: Presidio, 1982. 63-9. “Vietnam War.” Microsoft Encarta 1999 Multimedia Encyclopedia. CD-ROM. Redmond: Microsoft Corporation, 1998.
The leadership styles, experience, personality, and temperament of Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy played a role in deepening the U.S. involvement and commitment to Vietnam. Both presidents vowed to stop the spread of communism, which was viewed as a direct assault to democracy, human rights, and capitalism. (Tucker, 1999) Both presidents also subscribed to the domino theory, or the belief that if one key country should fall to communism, then it would have a cascading effect on other countries turning to communism. (Divine, 1981) This theory was used by many presidents as the reason for ongoing support to the effort in Indochina.
Chris Appy’s s American Reckoning is a book-length essay on the Vietnam War and how it changed the way Americans think of ourselves and our foreign policy. This is required reading for anyone interested in foreign policy and America’s place in the world, showing how events influence attitudes, which turn to influence events.
Lawrence’s purpose in writing this book was concise and to the point. In recent history, due to the fall of the Soviet bloc, new information has been made available for use in Vietnam. As stated in the introduction, “This book aims to take account of this new scholarship in a brief, accessible narrative of the Vietnam War… It places the war within the long flow of Vietnamese history and then captures the goals and experiences of various governments that became deeply embroiled in the country during the second half of the twentieth century” (Lawrence, 3.) This study is not only about the American government and how they were involved in the Vietnam conflict, but highlights other such countries as France, China, and the Soviet Union. Lawrence goes on to say that one of his major goals in writing this book is to examine the American role in Vietnam within an international context (Lawrence, 4.) Again, this goes to show that the major purpose of Lawrence’s study included not only ...
Tim O’Brien’s book, The Things They Carried, portrays stories of the Vietnam War. Though not one hundred percent accurate, the stories portray important historical events. The Things They Carried recovers Vietnam War history and portrays situations the American soldiers faced. The United States government represents a political power effect during the Vietnam War. The U. S. enters the war to prevent a communist takeover of South Vietnam. The U.S. government felt if communism spreads to South Vietnam, then it will spread elsewhere. Many Americans disapproved of their country’s involvement. Men traveled across the border to avoid the draft. The powerful United States government made the decision to enter the war, despite many Americans’ opposition. O’Brien’s The Things They Carried applies New Historicism elements, including Vietnam history recovery and the political power of the United States that affected history.
Only in the Vietnam War was the United States’ participation criticized. This is such a gigantic change from prior wars that it bears study as to why it happened, and better yet, should have it happened. This paper will discuss the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War, by asking the simple question, Should have the United States’ gotten involved in the first place? This paper will prove that, in fact, America should not have gotten involved in the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War took place between 1947- 1975.
Vietnam was a highly debated war among citizens of the United States. This war was like no other with regards to how it affected people on the home front. In past war’s, the population of the United States mainly supported the war and admired soldiers for their courage. During the Vietnam War, citizens of the U.S. had a contradictory view than in the past. This dilemma of not having the support of the people originates from the culture and the time period.
In his speech, Eugene McCarthy describes why fighting the Vietnam War was a poor decision to make. First, he mentions how John F. Kennedy gave hope and courage to America and its people in 1963; on the other hand, in 1967, America was in a period of frustration and distrust due to the escalation of the Vietnam War. McCarthy states that America is not the world police and should not be giving promises that they could not follow through with. Moreover, the United States was fighting a pointless war where there are no changes being seen. “I see little evidence that the administration has set any limits on the price which it will pay for a military victory which becomes less and less sure and more hollow and empty in promise” (McCarthy). Throughout the duration of the war, the United States made very little progress, even though they had p...
Vietnam War (1954-1975) is considered as one of those big wars of the modern world that has been acknowledged and studied by countries in the world. Especially, in regard to the United States, starting and ending war in Vietnam was an unforgettable experience that has left a priceless lesson in its foreign policy, and of course a lot of loss, physically, mentally, and property. “The Legacy of Vietnam” article of George Herring basically summarizes how the Vietnam War led to an end in failure of America and what consequences it left behind.
President Lyndon Johnson had several issues he considered as he developed the rules of engagement for Vietnam. One of which was how he maintained tight control over the selection of targets for the air war, for fear that the bombing provoke the Chinese and the Soviets into a confrontation with the United States. (Moss 163). The other was how he counted on a reasonably quick and easy victory over the NLF and Hanoi. As a result President Johnson “did not confront the crucial question of what would be required to achieve its goals until it was bogged down in a bloody stalemate.” (Moss 162).
The Vietnam War was the longest and most expensive war in American History. The toll we paid wasn't just financial, it cost the people involved greatly, physically and mentally. This war caused great distress and sadness, as well as national confusion. Everyone had that one burning question being why? Why were we even there? The other question being why did America withdrawal from Vietnam. The purpose of this paper is to answer these two burning questions, and perhaps add some clarity to the confusion American was experiencing.
The battle over reconstructing the collective memory of the Vietnam War is a battle over reinterpreting America, and it started even before the end of the war, and continues to the present day. George Orwell summarized the significance of such struggles in his novel 1984: “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” Since national leaders invariably assume a leading role in the development of an official memory of traumatic events in a nation’s history, the article begins with Nixon’s efforts in redefining and reconstructing the war.
So many things influenced our involvement in the Vietnam War, and Lawrence examines the decisions we made in a greater context than just our own. He argues that international pressures controlled the attitudes and ideas of the United States, for the most part.
This book details the discussion of government policy in the stages of the Vietnam crisis from 1961-July 1965. It examines the main characters of President Lyndon B. Johnson, Robert McNamara, in addition to the military, which included the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It began in the Kennedy era amidst the Bay of Pigs incident and how that led to mistrust of the military planning by advisors and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It continues with Johnson and his administration making decisions over and over that continued to commit more and more involve...
“In July 1965, Lyndon Johnson chose to Americanize the war in Vietnam.” Although Johnson chose to enter America into the war, there were events previous that caused America to enter and take over the war. The South Vietnamese were losing the war against Communism – giving Johnson all the more reason to enter the war, and allowing strong American forces to help stop communism. There were other contributing factors leading up to the entrance of the war; America helped assist the French in the war, Johnson’s politics, the Tonkin Gulf Incident, and the 1954 Geneva Conference. President Johnson stated, “For 10 years three American Presidents-President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, and your present President--and the American people have been actively concerned with threats to the peace and security of the peoples of southeast Asia from the Communist government of North Viet-Nam.”
The Vietnam War is known to be one of America’s toughest wars, starting in November of 1955 and ending with the “Fall of Saigon” in March of 1975. In 1973 all American combatant troops had departed Vietnam due to a peace treaty which only left a couple thousand Americans for humanitarian aid with only a handful of Marines for their protection. The North Vietnamese knew that with American military forces withdrawn, taking over South Vietnam would no longer be a challenge. As the North Vietnamese Army started migrating south the remaining Americans relied on the U.S. Government to develop a plan to safely extract the remaining personnel without involving U.S. combatant forces.