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 infamous Vietnam war cast serious doubt on Westmoreland’s claims of progress in the war effort. Even after the war, Westmoreland fought off criticisms of his conduct of the war in Vietnam. The United States began developing ground forces to Vietnam under Westmoreland who had decided to conduct a war based on Attrition. His strategy of attrition aimed to inflict heavy losses on North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces using search and destroy operations tactics and superior U.S. firepower. Westmoreland largely ignored other key responsibilities most importantly in dealing with their counterparts in the South Vietnam’s Armed Forces.
They were torn by the level of involvement chosen by the United States from the beginning. One of the lessons learned from this war was that resourcefulness and determination of the Vietnamese could defeat technology. The American leaders thought they could defeat the war through guns and bombs but it was clear they underestimated the extent to which the will of the Vietnamese could make victory so difficult. The military leaders and the government could have studied the Vietnam culture before they planned the war. The Vietnam people, both military and civilian population, were prepared to die for their country which they loved.
However, the Tet Offensive also showed another side of the war to Americans, which shocked the American public, which had been led to believe by its political and military leaders that the communists were incapable of launching such a massive effort. Faced with dismayed American public and further eroded support for the war effort, President Johnson decided to end the intensification of American involvement in Vietnam. Despite heavy casualties, North Vietnam managed to achieve a strategic victory with the Tet Offensive, marking a turning point in the Vietnam War and the beginning of the slow and painful American withdrawal from the
troop from South Vietnam during the Vietnam war and having the Vietnamese government be responsible for their own country and war resolution. Nixon then had to face many problems and used detente in order to ease relations with foreign countries. For example, Nixon visited China because he wanted to improve relations with China over the Cold War and the administration wanted to have strategic and diplomatic rapprochement with the country. Moreover, he also dealt with the Mutual Assured Doctrine, which was a policy that spoke on nuclear weapons being able to wipe out both the attacker and defender. On May 1972, Nixon and Brezhnev from Moscow, limited anti-ballistic missiles into two departments with the SALT I agreement.
Throughout the first paragraph of King’s speech, he used emotional diction with words such as struggle, poverty, and poor to prove that the war in Vietnam was bringing down the American’s and their families fighting overseas. King proved this partly with the quote, “America would never invest the necessary funds… in the rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued…” (King, Beyond, 9). King was establishing his point that America was more troubled about healing and adjusting other countries, but would never invest the same in their own country. He was in the process of proving that it wasn 't a money issue in America, but an equality issue. Along with, “...and the almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam
The reason why realism can only really be used as an explanation for war is that the growth of another state’s power can only be perceived as threatening, even if it is done so defensively. States in this international system bound by the constructs of realism are unable to take a passive approach towards the balance of power, and are therefore encouraged to seize opportunistically what they can when the opportunity arises. Moreover, in the climate of the Cold War this system created powerful incentives for aggression . In 1951 Morgenthau stated that the United States and Russia were at a point where they “Can advance and meet in what is likely to be combat, or they can retreat and allow the other side to advance into what to them is precious ground.” Indeed this is what happened in Europe during the Cold War, deadlock and a status quo maintained a peace whereby war was avoided at all costs. However in the Middle East wars between the US and Soviet Union were fought by proxy and influence was to be gained via alliances.
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.
This was the result of an agreement between France, Russia and Great Britain against Nazi-Germany which had as its main objective the protection of the european 'collective security '. If the Soviet Union would have supported anti-colonial/anti-French activities in Vietnam, it would have been perceived as a threat towards the european 'collective security ' and would have ended the relationship between France and Great Britain. For Ho Chi Minh this was proof enough that the Soviet Union 's interest were not Vietnam and its independence but its own foreign policy to which, as he believed, the
In leftist perspectives, by participating in universal establishments, it can be conceivable to improve instability, and security issues. Association and exchange would be too unreasonable for every performing artist, particularly with atomic war contribution. Since they both look for security and riches, they can go up against one another in an obliging way, in light of the fact that neither Iran nor US have sound premiums, because of both nations look for