In 1953, Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected president of the United States, and aimed to improve the country's foreign policy. During Eisenhower's presidential term, the United States government authorized a CIA-sponsored coup in Guatemala, motivated by America’s desire to contain Communism, our profit being gained from the United Fruit Company, and because of Arbenz’s refusal to join the anti-Communist movement occurring in the Western hemisphere. Firstly, the United States authorized a coup against Guatemala in 1953 as a method of containing Communism. The 1950s in America is marked by extreme fear of Communism sweeping over the world, as shown through the “Domino Theory’’. A theory stating that one country falling to Communism would cause …show more content…
Peurifoy, Telegram to the Department of State'', where concerns are expressed on Arbenz’s views on Communism. Peurifoy, an ambassador for Guatemala and anti-Communist, goes on to state “I told him that many countries had thought they were dealing with honest men in the past but awakened too late to the fact that the Communists were in control...He said this could not happen here (Guatemala).” and “If Arbenz is not a Communist, he will certainly do until one comes along.”. The following quotes show Peurifoys fear that Arbenz, even if not Communist himself, could facilitate Communist beliefs and ruin the Capitalistic ideal that America wanted. Additionally, in Source 4, a radio address given by Dulles, the Secretary of State goes on to say “If world communism captures any American State, however small, a new and perilous [dangerous] front is established which will increase the danger to the entire free world and require even greater sacrifices from the American people.”. Dulles, another American government official, added to the opinion that leaving Arbenz in control could lead to a further spread of Communism, meaning the government would need to take action against …show more content…
The United Fruit company was an organization that dominated Guatemala throughout the 1950s, giving the majority of their profits back to the USA. Arbenz, with the intention of paying the United Fruit Company $600,000, expropriated the company's unused land to low income workers and peasants. United Fruit Company, however, claimed that Arbenz had “undervalued the land in order to pay less to the Guatemalan government but faced with expropriation, declared it worth 16 million.” As stated on page 76 of the IB textbook. Due to this, America, having shares in the company, felt their company was being undervalued by Arbenz and wanted him out of control so our government could continue bringing in profits. Plus, within the textbook, on page 76, the United Fruit Company is described as having a “stranglehold over the Guatemalan economy” and the company, although in Latin America, sent all of its profits back to the USA. In source 3, a speech given by Arbenz, Arbenz claims “Communism”. The truth is elsewhere -- in the financial interests of the United Fruit Company and other US firms that have invested much in
the United States struggled for not only justice at home but abroad as well. During this period policies such as Roosevelt’s Big Stick diplomacy, William Taft’s Dollar diplomacy, and Woodrow Wilson’s Moral diplomacy were all used in foreign affairs in hopes of benefit for all involved. However, it would be appropriate to say that self-interest was the most important driving factor for American policy and can be exemplified through economic, social, and political relations. Economically speaking
about economics and what our country can gain. We have been one of the world’s greatest powers since the early 1900’s, mainly because of colonialization and domination of world economy. In World War I, we should have maintained our isolationist policy if possible. The main reason we became involved was because the new expansionist mood of the Axis Powers threatened the global empire we were apparently building. And, the war interfered with our prosperous trade system with the other countries
America should do with the Philippines. Soon, controversy ensued both in the American political arena as well as among its citizens. Throughout its history, America had always been expansionistic, but it had always limited itself to the North American continent. Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century, however, there emerged a drive to expand outside of the continent. When America expanded to the Philippines, the policy it followed was a stark break from past forms of expansionism. Despite much controversy
In his 1959 study, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, the well-known historian William Appleton Williams wrote, that in spite of its best intentions, American foreign policy was based on a one-dimensional American belief that Americans and the American government had all the answers to their problems. I strongly agree, for the most part, with that statement. The only aspect of American foreign policy that I disagreement is the firmness in which our government stands true to their decisions and re
Foreign Policy As we approach the next Presidential election the topic of American foreign policy is once again in the spotlight. In this paper, I will examine four major objectives of U.S. foreign policy that have persisted throughout the twentieth century and will discuss the effect of each on our nation’s recent history, with particular focus on key leaders who espoused each objective at various times. In addition, I will relate the effects of American foreign policy objectives, with special
United States underwent was the Vietnam war. For years this particular event has been hotly debated. Hardly anyone who was present at the time agrees on any point concerning this war, except that they regret it. It has become 'the greatest American foreign policy calamity of the century.' . Now the United States finds itself entangled in another war. A war in Iraq which is beginning to resemble more and more the events of the Vietnam war. Many analysts, and even the public have begun to wonder if the
point of American foreign policy since the acquisition of Florida in the late 1800's. Cuba continues to capture America's attention as it is the only existing communist state in the Western Hemisphere. U.S. policy has attempted to topple the communist regime in Cuba since its outset in 1961. Policies designed to incite revolution, destroy the Cuban economy, and starve the Cuban people seem to be at odds with American ideals of democracy and sovereignty. It is, in fact, the very policies that the
Woodrow Wilson and American Diplomacy “Until early in [the twentieth] century, the isolationist tendency prevailed in American foreign policy. Then, two factors projected America into world affairs: its rapidly expanding power, and the gradual collapse of the international system centered on Europe” . President Woodrow Wilson was the leader who would initiate the ideologies of American diplomacy in the twentieth century. Up until his Presidency, American foreign policy was simply to fulfill
The religious leader was so extraordinarily popular, opinionated, and vocal that indifference was the last thing that he would get from people. His most loyal admirers were confident that this rural-breed preacher was God’s mouthpiece, calling Americans to repentance. Sunday’s critics said that at best he was a well-meaning buffoon whose sermons vulgarized and trivialized the Christian message and at worst he was a disgrace to the name of Christ (Dorsett 2). There are elements of truth in both
In 1825, a group of American businesspeople announced the formation of a canal building company, with interests in constructing a canal system across the Isthmus. This project was to take place in an area now called Panama. The endeavor was filled with controversy. Though the canal itself was not built until the early 1900's every step toward the building and ownership, was saturated with difficulty. Walter LaFeber illustrates the dilemmas in a historical analysis. In his work he states five questions
American Foreign Policy in the 1890s American foreign policy during the 1890s was based on many factors that each acted as an individual justification for our country’s behavior as a whole. Racism, nationalism, commercialism, and humanitarianism each had its own role in the actions America took against other nations. Most Americans were extremely racist during this time period. The predominant culture in the country was white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestants, aka WASPs. They scorned the now free black
American Hegemony in the Twenty-First Century: Consensus and Legitimacy Abstract: Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been the world’s only unquestioned superpower. How the United States evaluates its position as global hegemon has important consequences for American foreign policy, particularly with regards to the potential for future policy constraints. Thus, this paper seeks to consider the question: How durable is American hegemony? The paper first defines the state
United States Foreign Policy DbQ During the "Roaring Twenties" people were living up to the modern standards of society. Then the Great Depression began and the joy and excitement disappeared and tension manifested. In the time period of 1920-1941 America experienced major global events that occurred in extremely short rapid intervals of time. From the end of World War I in 1918 to the Roaring Twenties, straight to the Great Depression in 1929, into the beginning of World War II in 1939, and all
DBQ Imperialism means a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force. During the turn of the 20th century, the United States used this policy when conquering and controlling countries that they helped win their independence, but then the US would turn and say they weren't ready, so they took them in. They called this the White Man’s Burden where the United States thought it was their duty to take the countries in and protect them and force them to change
the “Power of the Presidency” prepared for use in grades 7-12 (AP). Technological resources included interactive cable archives and point-to-point videoconferencing. Review of Literature The late 1980’s ushered in a period of change in the American educational context, with a major focus on integrating technology in P-12 classrooms (Dwyer, Ringstaff, & Sandholtz, 1990). Several authors credit this continued use to the belief that technology integration supports philosophies of instruction that