The American people were willing to use arm forces if that meant stopping the spread of communism. Other than arm forces, the American people were willing to give economic and military aid to those countries who faced threats of communism (76). About 80 percent of American people favored the aid to stop communist aggression (76). The Cold War consensus had influenced foreign policy during that time. Foreign Policy would be focused on the Soviet Union and the containment of communism.
Contextualization and introduction The Vietnam War served as a major turning point of the Cold War, during which the American public split in its support of the conflict. As a proxy in the superpower conflict between the United States (US) and the Soviet Union (USSR), the US entered to support the South Vietnamese who were at war against the communist North. To support the South and its Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN), the United States sent military advisory, conducted airstrikes, and committed ground forces with the hope of curbing the growth of communist ideology in the Asian sphere of influence through a communist defeat. However, the American military ultimately did not apply full force against the Northern combatants under the People’s Army of Vietnam (PAVN/NVA) and Viet Cong (VC). Despite investing considerable quantities of human and material resources to support the South’s fight over control of Vietnam, the focus often diverted to concurrent threats such as West Germany.
The states that joined NATO were willing to put their personal state goals aside to cooperate and achieve a goal for the common good; in the case of the Cold War defeating the Soviet threat based on its communist ideologies (Walt, 1998). During the Cold War NATO strengthened the trans-Atlantic relations between the countries while simultaneously deterring the Soviet threat through its various institutions (Webber, 2009). Many of NATO’s members had common economic, political and social values thus the connection between the countries was strong, and I believe that this was a driving factor in the outcome of the Cold War. In the late 1980’s, toward the end of the Cold War, Gorbechuv realized that the Soviet Union’s economy was failing and was unable to keep up with NATO so he created liberal policies that were inline with NATO’s policies and ideologies (Doyle, 1996). These new policies led to even further weakening of the Soviet Union, economically and politically and as a result there were revolutions against the communist governments of many of the Warsaw Pact alliance member (Doyle, 1996).
U.S. foreign policy in Latin America did not take into account that countries would want to opt out of monolithic block set up by U.S. corporations and the U.S. government. In Nicaragua, the “Marxist regime allied to the Soviet Union and Cuba” was a constant danger. Nicaragua had previously been a U.S. ally under President Somoza, who like U.S.-backed Chilean Eduardo Frei, held American ideals, but the U.S. lost its influence in the country. The U.S. saw itself as the protector of the Western Hemisphere and intended to keep its influence over Latin America. Partly because of the Monroe Doctrine, in which the U.S. could intervene in American countries that were in danger of European invasion, the U.S. was able to exercise much authority over weak Latin American states.
In consequence to this threatening attack of the U.S. Castro approached Khrushchev for economic and military support to stand up against Kennedy. Khrushchev and Castro thought that the Soviet missiles landing in Cuba would be the perfect recipe to get to an advantage in the war against Capitalism, and secure Socialist Cuba at the same time. In this manner, Castro and the Cubans were being defensive in their action of seeking help from the Soviet Union and merely placing nuclear missiles in Cuba; it cannot be termed to be aggression against the United States of America if it was a measure undertaken to secure a nation. It is safe to start by turning the tables and looking back to the time when the US was in the shoes of USSR. Was there anything wrong about the British becoming allies, and seeking for the help from the
Another reason why America was aggressive is because for example, when there was a meeting on what action the US should take against Cuba and USSR, three out of the four proposals were ones that could probably cause another war. One of the proposals was to destroy the Soviet missiles in Cuba by an airstrike, which is a very intense act. Furthermore, another reason why I agree with Cuba’s point of view, is because America was unfair with its ‘regulations’ with Cuba. Castro was not allowed to keep Soviet missiles in his land, because Kennedy stated that it was a threat to the security of the US. While on the other hand, the US had all the nuclear power to fire at Cuba at any time without any conditions.
The realization of nuclear war, in many ways, was a wake up call for America, the Soviets and the world. Certainly, both countries contributed to the causes of the Cuban Missile crisis, but it is hard to argue that both superpowers anticipated such a crisis. The nationalization of American Companies, the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the discovery of suspected missiles in Cuba by US spy planes were the main contributors to the Cuban Missile crisis. Luckily for the two superpowers, they were able to come to an agreement in which Khrushchev proposed to destroy his nuclear capabilities if America withdrew their missiles from Turkey. If this had not been reached, the picture today would be bleak.
Although the U.S. and South Vietnamese forces inflicted heavy losses, Westmoreland had a different view on the situation and even saw it as the start of their victory in his war. He justified it as defeat on the enemy side as they could not possibly replace the men they had lost. But the ambitious Tet Offensive, a coordinated series of fierce attacks on more than 100 cities and towns in South Vietnam that in 31, 1968 disproved Westmoreland’s claims of triumph. Though U.S. and South Vietnamese forces were able to repel the Tet attacks, it was a very clear indication that the Victory for the American was far from
The U.S domination and large influence in Cuba during Batista 's rule influenced young lawyer Fidel Castro to overthrow the unjust, corrupt ruling system to replace it with a socialist Soviet Union supported government (David G. Williamson). Castro 's guerrilla fighters sought to overthrow the old system of injustice and poverty towards the Cubans through the Cuban Revolution in 1953-1959. Once in power, Castro removed American influence in Cuba and nationalized the economy, which in effect raised tensions in the US towards Castro 's rule. These tensions towards the Cubans were in the form of many conflicts and overthrow attempts to Castro 's government by the U.S., which eventually lead to what is known as The Cuban Missile Crisis. From the lines of investigation, causes such as the Cuban revolution, American aggression and the Soviet involvement appear to have contributed to the origin of the crisis.
This core concern led to other apparent reasons such as the national security against the Soviet expansion. “the Cold War was no more than a mixture of religious crusades in favour of one ideology or the other, and of the most ruthless power politics, striking out for advantage or expansion not only in Europe but all over the world” (Larkin, P132). Therefore, if we consider the time line at that period, the great powers structure and international relations, we can conclude that the actions following to World War II such as the deviations in the global centers of power, the arms industry, the role of political authority inside and amongst states, the unstable economy, and relations between the developed and developing nations, unavoidably led to the Cold War. So, the elements for a Cold War occurred long before 1945. To condense my answer, there is not single certain cause or era of the Cold War, thus the inescapability of the Cold War shows a multifaceted argument.