Cold War Diplomacy Essay Research Paper This

Free Essay Database Online

Cold War Diplomacy Essay Research Paper This

Cold War Diplomacy Essay, Research Paper

This 187 page book by Norman Graebner covers the cardinal American policy shapers of the Eisenhower and Kennedy old ages. The book covers: puting the phase 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 understanding ; European dissensions and the OECD ; the Kennedy squad and its heritage ; the Multi-Lateral Force failure ; De Gaulle & # 8217 ; s conflicting universe position ; and the Atlantic partnership, Nassau meeting and Gaullist veto. It concludes with an Epilogue on the Johnson disposal.

The book is largely based on personal interviews, entree to paperss and documents and of class Dr. Winand s ain position that European integrity was a possible component of stableness and prosperity for the West and as a factor of strength for the Atlantic Alliance. She farther believes that Atlantic Alliance leaders of postwar United States disposals non merely supported but helped to determine European establishments. Though she was able to demo a familiar or instead shared values between the American and Western leaders the inquiry which remained in my head was did the United States have a decisive impact on determining station war Europe or didn t the United States basically force Europe into the place it was in.

The slang of footings used in this book were at times a spot confounding but what I fundamentally gathered was that through American actions throughout the old ages towards European leaders America has shaped the stableness of European institutions/states. I used the book to concentrate on how the similar the Kennedy and Eisenhower disposals were in specifying 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 forestall the spread of communism.specifically Eisenhower & # 8217 ; s and Kennedy & # 8217 ; s remained similiar despite the Jeremy fact

that the war was a bipartizan project. 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 & # 8217 ; s and

Kennedy & # 8217 ; s footings. However, their purposes in how to construction an discourtesy were

non every bit similiar as their other policies.

The policy of containment was the overall design 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 halt the spread of communism. It was by this step

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

which we see that Eisenhower & # 8217 ; s and Kennedy & # 8217 ; s foreign policy were similiar

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

therefore the pieces fell in topographic point one time this program was determined by both

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

that our chief end was to maintain communism from distributing. It would be subsequently

seen that the focal point of our attempts would be on the 3rd universe states

which were weak and therefore possible to hold their authoritiess overthrown.

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

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

startup address in which he made clear his cardinal resistance to

communism. He felt that the state was non making plenty to battle it.

However, both he and Eisenhower followed a distinguishable policy of

containment which would take to farther similarities in their foreign

policy.

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

itself, varied small between the two presidents. Each used 3rd universe

states to battle communism. More specifically, the United States during

this clip, used its comparatively new CIA to tumble the authoritiess of

communist governments. We see this in Eisenhower & # 8217 ; s disposal during the

state of affairs in Guatemala. In 1954, the disposal ordered the CIA to

topple the authorities of Jacobo Guzman in Guatemala who the Eisenhower

disposal 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 & # 8217 ; s

disposal ordered the CIA to get down developing Cuban exiles for an

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

similiar tactics through his actions in office every bit good. He continued the

pattern of Eisenhower & # 8217 ; s invasion of Cuba to unseat Castro by gold

thorizing

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

the president & # 8217 ; s methods of engaging the Cold War and his adherance to

Eisenhower & # 8217 ; s old policies. Out of this operation grew grounds of

Kennedy & # 8217 ; s green berets, a particular undertaking force used to infiltrate

authoritiess of 3rd universe states to protect them from Communist

authorities influence. Another show of Kennedy & # 8217 ; s program of contending the

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

information that missiles were at that place he set up encirclements around Cuba, a

lesser state, instead than to the full assailing the Soviet Union for this action.

Kennedy & # 8217 ; s clip in office was characterized by the Cold War being fought

through 3rd universe states by usage of the CIA, rather similiar to

Eisenhower & # 8217 ; s pattern of tumbling communist governments in 3rd universe states

besides through the usage of the CIA.

The manner in which a major menace was handled is besides similar between

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

the state of affairs in Vietnam. Their attacks were both hesitating to hold

direct engagement. Eisenhower was first hesitant to even acquire involved in

the first topographic point by retreating support. In fact, he refused direct assistance to

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

challanged by nationalist Ho Chi Minh. By declining American assistance, France & # 8217 ; s

place deterioriated and the Gallic were forced to give up. After

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

once more. Kennedy took a similar class of action as Eisenhower antecedently did

at the begining of the Vietnam job. Finally, Kennedy withdrew assistance

asa shortly as problem arose in Vietnam. The Buddhist crisis made the Kennedy

administartion expression bad and made them reconsider their state of affairs. In order

to continue their image, and to remain out of war, the Kennedy disposal

topplied the Diem. Therefore, they took a removed attack to the state of affairs

at that place. Therefore, by retreating, or non widening support in the first topographic point,

both presidents stayed far off from Vietnam. Furthermore, during this clip,

both presidents stepped up the atomic weaponries race in order to vie with

China as a response to the turning communist struggle. Last, neither of

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

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

those of Johnson & # 8217 ; s it is clear to see that they remained similar to each

other & # 8217 ; s policies.

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

foreign policy there were some cardinal differences in the manner both

operated. A major difference was the dissension in how readyings

should be made in response to a Communist menace and the alleged missle

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

province, Dulles, believed in a policy of monolithic revenge. This policy

outlined the usage of atomic arms in contending against any Communist

complication in foreign personal businesss. Therefore, Eisenhower felt that through the usage

of rigorous atomic arms, the Communist menace could be deterred. On the

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

from Eisenhower & # 8217 ; s, this policy criticized Eisenhower for non developing

other tools with which to react to jobs that atomic arms could

non be used to work out. A atomic onslaught on 3rd universe state was non an

acceptable agencies of combat. To this extent, Kennedy formed his Particular

Forces, or the green berets in order to run into the demands of combat against

a weak opposition. Park to both presidents nevertheless, was the addition in

atomic arm production to extinguish the missile spread. Therefore, although both

presidents increased the overall production of atomic arms, it is seen

that through these two really different policies of onslaught the two presidents

felt otherwise toward the manner containment should be maintained.

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

party lines are non needfully a unequivocal boundary which requires that

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

Cold War epoch illustrates how Eisenhower and Kennedy followed a similiar

plan which both felt would function the common good of the state and it

worked. The presidents successfully helped accomplish the widely-acclaimed

end of containment and contributed to the universe we live in today.