NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
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 Gaulles 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. Wind 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 Kennedys 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 Kennedys 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 Kennedys 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 Jacob Guzman in Guatemala who the Eisenhower administration argued was communist. The same began to our in Cuba when Baptist 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 authorizing the Bay of Pigs operation. This failed miserably yet it still represented the presidents methods of waging the Cold War and his adherence to Eisenhower's previous policies. Out of this operation grew evidence of Kennedys green berets, a special task force used to infiltrate governments of third world nations to protect them from communist government influence.
Another display of Kennedys 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. Kennedys 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 challenged by nationalist Ho Chi Minh. By refusing American aid, Frances position deteriorated 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 administration look bad and made them reconsider their situation. In order to preserve their image, and to stay out of war, the Kennedy administration toppled 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 Johnsons it is clear to see that they remained similar to each others 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 different 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.
Free research essays on topics related to: third world nations, policy of containment, communist regimes, invasion of cuba, spread of communism
Research essay sample on Third World Nations Policy Of Containment
