‘The concept of total war originally emerged in the ideological and political context of the interwar period. It was not designed as a precise tool of academic analysis, but as a rhetorical’ During the Interwar period, the concept developed into ideas on how to prepare for a possible new conflict, especially in Germany there was a sense of that the country had not been willing to go far enough. ‘Eric Ludendorff saw ‘total war’ as the Great War done right.’ ‘Total war’ was to Ludendorff during the interwar period becoming an ideal where Germany could succeed if followed until the hostile nation was crushed. ‘He was convinced that to succeed, the nation would need a military dictatorship, and that ‘total war’ was total mobilization of all human material resources. ’ In a more modern context ‘The notion of ‘total war’ is commonly used within military history to describe a totality of effort, meaning the full mobilization of civil, economic and military sectors for war.’ This, however, is only one of several depictions of ‘total war’.
He not only had to discuss the plan with Congress, he had to convince Americans to support his plan for containment. This process was rather complex and required the help of many people. After analyzing an article published by the Presidential Studies Quarterly by Dennis Merrill, a conclusion can be made that if Congress and the American people did not supply the money or support necessary for the implementation of the doctrine, then Truman would not have been able to save Europe from the invasion of communism. As stated in the article, after Congress supported his plan, Truman needed to “address the larger, global theater”, referring to the citizens of the United States (Merrill 2006). Therefore, due to the our government’s separation of powers and the necessary support of a nation, the president may not be considered solely the most powerful person in the
Both of these systems have their pros and cons, and as such a mix of both is preferable. The idea of the country is in the name, the United States of America, and as such we do need a central government to truly be united. This central government would need certain powers, which were granted by the Constitution. However, the world has changed a lot since then. The Constitution granted the central government the power to do whatever is, “necessary and proper,” but that vague wording has allowed the federal government to grow over the
In no small measure, our fear of an overly powerful president waging war abroad has had the unintended result that the government has to become more powerful and intrusive because America will not resolve the constitutional issue. Who will decide that the public’s demand that the president and the government act to keep them safe is now excessive? If security requires America to shape the world by its direct military efforts, how
The Myth of American Exceptionalism Godfrey Hodgson, author of “The Myth of American Exceptionalism,” critics the concept of American exceptionalism throughout the book. Hodgson’s states that his purpose is not to ‘’minimize American achievements or to demean the quality of American civilization.” (16) He says he admires the idea of a country ruled based on popular sovereignty, equal rights and the questioning of a government that was created for the people. However, he also criticizes the concept of American exceptionality through the notion that the United States’ superiority and “uniqueness” has been greatly exaggerated by misguided interpretations of American history, as well as to warn the audience, not only Americans, about the dangers of “self-praise” build around “unreal and hubristic assumptions.” (16) Geoffrey Hodgson starts off by exposing several occasion where the idea of America’s superiority has been altered and often exaggerated by misguided interpretations of the past; for example, he remarks the interpretation of the Mayflower contract by the sixth president of the United states, John Quincy Adams, who said, “perhaps the only instance in human history of that positive, original social compact, which speculative philosophers have imagined as the only legitimate source of government.” (5) To debate the radical claim made by president Adams,
- Thomas Paine wanted the colonies to receive their freedom from the British. Paine stated that when the colonies finally succeed in obtaining their freedom from Britain, America would benefit from trade with other countries. However, obtaining freedom would be difficult because many countries did not want freedom for the colonies. Many countries in Europe wanted to get a piece of America for themselves. The global significance of the American struggle for independence was human rights and freedom.
The world may not be at war collectively, but a large portion of it is at war currently, making Orwell’s points in this essay relevant to our society in this day and age. As mentioned in “Wells, Hitler and the world state” Wells discusses what he believes a Utopian world state would be in several articles that were re-printed in Wells’ book Guide to the New World. Orwell believes that this is an unnecessary thing and begs the question “What is the use of pointing out that a World State is desirable?” He answers his own question by stating “What matters is
The doctrine is generally associated with the preventive war against Iraq, but it has more than one element. Bush’s doctrine led to the foreign policy stance of interventionism because he he states, "From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime,". This doctrine caused the effect of the USA Patriot Act, NSA Domestic Surveillance, and the Department of Homeland Security. Many people were angered because of this because they felt that their freedom was taken from them and that their 4th Amendment right was violated. The Bush and Truman doctrine have caused a heated debate between the people of America for some time now.
Robert W. Merry, a political editor of The American Conservative, wrote the article “A Profound Question Behind the Immigration Debate” as well as other articles relating American History like James Polk and the Mexican War. The author claims that the immigration debate is the main reason why America is changing how it functions in the world. He provides arguments from both sides of the debate: those against and those for the immigration policies. Also, he says “definition of America” to support his claim of how immigration is changing America. The author’s intended audience is the people in America because he targets both views on the issue.
While, imperialistic dynasties in Europe struggled to hold on to their waning empires across the globe due to the rise of ideas like nationalism. America was still able to participate in this same imperial structure, and expand its borders, but also look to other social and political movements for legitimacy . The United States made sure there was a difference between its god given right of expansion versus european imperialism. “The distinction they drew between their own “empire of liberty” and contemporary weren’t always concrete.” This quote further exemplifies that the true identity behind Manifest Destiny as Americanized imperialism. Just like its European counterpart, American imperialism took a huge toll on the inhabitants in the West.