The Korean War was only a 3 year war, but gosh was it bloody. The war was mainly fought because there was a fear of communism spreading and North Korea’s invasion of South Korea only made things heightened these fears. This paper will show the political, social, and economic effects of the war, along with why communism needed to be contained and the causes that lead up to the war. It will also show how the war ended, especially since there is no real treaty ending the war.
1-1 The Cold War was an important influence on the Korean War. Friendship and relations between the two superpowers were bad (The Soviet Union and the U.S.), and when China became communist in October 1949, the President of the USA, Harry Truman, was very worried that other
…show more content…
In 1949, the Soviet Union tested a nuclear bomb and communist forces led by Mao Zedong, took control of China. The advances of communism around the world convinced many U.S. citizens that there was a real danger of “Commies” taking over their own country” (History.com “Red”). With the fear of communism spreading through the east rapidly and rising anxiety from Americans everywhere, President Harry Truman made his decision on containing and stopping the harshly, poorly designed political belief. “The Truman Doctrine was an effective declaration of the Cold War. Truman’s address outlined the broad parameters of U.S. Cold War foreign policy” (“Truman”). It said the Soviet Union was the main center of all communist activity and movements throughout the world. It also stated communism could attack through outside invasion or internal subversion (corruption of communism from the inside out, like). Finally, it had said that the United States needed to provide military and economic assistance to protect nations from communist influence, so they do not later turn their ideologies against our …show more content…
Due to constant bombing, emigration, disease, and famine, North Korea’s economic and agricultural infrastructures were devastated. With major famine came starvation for the citizens of North Korea. At first in South Korea, the war was a defensive one, a war to get the communists out of South Korea, and it went badly for the Allies. The North Korean army was very disciplined, mostly trained and well equipped; Rhee’s forces, were frightened, confused, and seemed inclined to flee the battlefield at any pressure. To make things worse, “It was one of the hottest and driest summers on record, and desperately thirsty American soldiers were often forced to drink water from rice paddies that had been fertilized with human waste. As a result, dangerous diseases and other illnesses were a constant threat”
One of the biggest fears of the American people is that the concept of communism contrasts drastically from the concept of capitalism, which the United States was essentially founded upon. The United States, as the public believed, was not a land of perfect communal equality, but rather a land of equal opportunity. However, what made communism so dangerous can be succinctly described by Eisenhower who compared the spread of communism as the domino effect. As his secretary of state, Dulles, put it, the propagation of communism “would constitute a threat to the sovereignty and independence” of America (Doc B). In addition, the Cold War also planted the seeds of rational fear of a global nuclear war. As Russia caught up to the United States in terms of technological advancements, they successfully developed the atomic bomb as well as the hydrogen bomb, which caused Americans to believe that the USSR would use these weapons of mass destruction to forcefully extend their ideologies to the USA. In fact, Americans were so frantic about a potential nuclear disaster that it...
Tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union had started since the early conference in World War Two and increased further at the War’s conclusion. These tensions developed further during the Berlin Blockade and Airlift during 1948 and 1949, China becoming communist in 1949, and the Korean War between 1950 and 1953. The events, have been labelled as the early crisis of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, and greatly increased tensions between the two superpowers and further led the countries into a Cold War.
The Korean War changed the face of American Cold War diplomacy forever. In the midst of all the political conflict and speculation worldwide, the nation had to choose between two proposed solutions, each one hoping to ensure that communism didn?t sweep across the globe and destroy American ideals of capitalism and democracy. General Douglas MacArthur takes the pro-active stance and says that, assuming it has the capability, the U.S. should attack communism everywhere. President Harry Truman, on the other hand, believed that containing the Soviet communists from Western Europe was the best and most important course of action, and that eliminating communism in Asia was not a priority.
During the Cold War, the United States engaged in many aggressive policies both at home and abroad, in which to fight communism and the spread of communist ideas. Faced with a new challenge and new global responsibilities, the U.S. needed to retain what it had fought so strongly for in World War II. It needed to contain the communist ideas pouring from the Soviet Union while preventing communist influence at home, without triggering World War III. With the policies of containment, McCarthyism, and brinkmanship, the United States hoped to effectively stop the spread of communism and their newest threat, the Soviet Union. After the war, the United States and the Soviet Union had very different ideas on how to rebuild.
“Was Truman Responsible for the Cold War”, well, according to author Arnold A. Offner, his simplistic answer is an obvious “yes.” “Taking Sides” is a controversial aspect of the author’s interpretation for justifying his position and perception of “Truman’s” actions. This political approach is situated around the “Cold War” era in which the author scrutinizes, delineates, and ridicules his opponents by claiming “I have an ace in the hole and one showing” (SoRelle 313). Both authors provide the readers with intuitive perceptions for their argumentative approaches in justifying whether or not “Truman” contributed to the onset of the “Cold War.” Thus far, it would be hard-pressed to blame one single individual, President or not, for the “Cold War” initiation/s. Information presented shows the implications centered on the issues leading up to the Cold War”, presents different ideologies of two Presidents involving policy making, and a national relationship strained by uncooperative governments.
Tucker, Spencer C., Jinwung Kim, Michael R, Nichols, Paul G. Pierpaoli, Priscilla Roberst, and Norman R. Zehr, eds. Encyclopedia of the Korean War: A Political, Social, and Military History. Vol. I. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2000. Print. 89-90.
Discussions of the causes of the Cold War are often divisive, creating disparate ideological camps that focus the blame in different directions depending on the academic’s political disposition. One popular argument places the blame largely on the American people, whose emphasis on “strength over compromise” and their deployment of the atomic bomb in the Second World War’s Pacific theatre apparently functioned as two key catalysts to the conflict between US and Soviet powers. This revisionist approach minimizes Stalin’s forceful approach and history of violent leadership throughout World War 2, and focuses instead on President Harry Truman’s apparent insensitivity to “reasonable Soviet security anxieties” in his quest to impose “American interests on the world.” Revisionist historians depict President Truman as a “Cold War monger,” whose unjustified political use of the atomic bomb and ornery diplomatic style forced Russia into the Cold War to oppose the spread of a looming capitalist democratic monopoly. In reality, Truman’s responsibility for the Cold War and the atomic bomb drop should be minimized.
The political ideologies of the USA and of the Soviet Union were of profound significance in the development of the Cold War. Problems between the two power nations arose when America refused to accept the Soviet Union in the international community. The relationship between the USA and the Soviet Union was filled with mutual distrust and hostility. Many historians believe the cold war was “inevitable” between a democratic, capitalist nation and a communist Union. Winston Churchill called the cold war “The balance of terror” (1). Cold war anxieties began to build up with America and the Soviet Union advancing in the arms race for world dominance and supremacy. America feared the spread of Communism
The Soviet Union began to view the United States as a threat to communism, and the United States began to view the Soviet Union as a threat to democracy. On March 12, 1947, Truman gave a speech in which he argued that the United States should support nations trying to resist Soviet imperialism. Truman and his advisors created a foreign policy that consisted of giving reconstruction aid to Europe, and preventing Russian expansionism. These foreign policy decisions, as well as his involvement in the usage of the atomic bomb, raise the question of whether or not the Cold War can be blamed on Truman. Supporting the view that Truman was responsible for the Cold War, Arnold Offner argues that Truman’s parochialism and nationalism caused him to make contrary foreign policy decisions without regard to other nations, which caused the intense standoff between the Soviet Union and America that became the Cold War (Offner 291)....
On March 12, 1947, President Harry S. Truman defined United States foreign policy in the context of its new role as a world superpower. Many historians consider his speech to Congress as the words that officially started the Cold War. The Truman Doctrine was a major break from U.S. historical trends of isolationist foreign policy. His speech led to the Cold War policy of containment. Moreover, it served as a precedent for future U.S. policy of interventionism. According to Stephen Ambrose, an important quote from Truman’s speech, "I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures," stands as "all encompassing" and would "define American policy for the next generation and beyond."1 Faced with strong opposition, Truman was still able to achieve a consensus in Congress aimed at quelling the communist threat through active foreign policy and involvement. The Truman Doctrine not only demonstrated the new foreign policy of the U.S., but also helps to explain American foreign policy since the Doctrine’s inception.
In addition to the prevention of communism, President Truman’s decision was also influenced by the apprehensive environment during the Cold War. The Soviet Union was able to ruin the United States as the monopoly of nuclear bombs in 1949 when they successfully detonated their first atomic bomb (“The Cold War Museum”).... ... middle of paper ... ...
With this book, a major element of American history was analyzed. The Cold War is rampant with American foreign policy and influential in shaping the modern world. Strategies of Containment outlines American policy from the end of World War II until present day. Gaddis outlines the policies of presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, including policies influenced by others such as George Kennan, John Dulles, and Henry Kissinger. The author, John Lewis Gaddis has written many books on the Cold War and is an avid researcher in the field.
In 1947, the Truman Doctrine announced that the United States needs to take responsibility for defending people throughout the world from communist aggression. The battle between communism and capitalism affected Americans for decades. Known as the Cold War, this conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, the two dominant world powers after World War II, never actually resulted in a battle. However, the tension itself led to a change in the social, political, and economic aspects of society in America.
This book is pieced together in two different efforts, one which is to understand the latter history of the post-1945 era with its political liberalization and rapid industrialization period, while at the same time centering its entire text on the question of Korean nationalism and the struggle against the countless foreign invasions Korea had to face. The purpose of this book was composed to provide detailed treatment of how modern Korea has developed with the converged efforts of top eastern and western scholars who wanted to construct a fair overview of Korea's complicated history. Also, the writers wanted to create an updated version of Korea's history by covering the contemporary arena up to the 1990's. The ...
On June 25th, 1950 at 4 a.m. the North Korean People’s Army (KPA) attacked across the 38th parallel, implementing a well-developed invasion plan (Lewis p.1). The KPA had a huge number of military men compare to the South Koreans. It had about 135,000 soldiers in 10 divisions, five separate infantry brigades, and one armor brigade with 120 soviet-made-T-34 tanks (Lewis p.1). The Republic of Korea (ROK) was taken by surprise and was not fully equipped with weapons like the KPA (Lewis p.1). So for that matter the ROK could not halt the invasion. But if the South Koreans would have had heavy artillery like the KPA then maybe the KPA’s invasion plan would had been a failure. The United Nations Security Council approved a US sponsored resolution that called fo...