Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Chinese influence on Korea
Us foreign policy cold war
Chinese influence on Korea
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Chinese influence on Korea
Robert Jervis’s article The Impact of the Korean War on the Cold War asserts that the Korean war resolved the incoherence that characterized U.S. foreign policy and its defense efforts between 1946-1950. This established important new lines of policy. In addition, if the Korean War did not happen, then other events could not have happened. Moreover, the author analyzes these theories to outline the cold war and its deeply rooted factors that contribute to a bipolar American economic system (563-564). Jervis analyses U.S. policy during the cold war that included conflict with the USSR, a perceived threat of war, high defense budgets, large armies in Europe, perceptions of the Sino-Soviet bloc, perceptions that limited wars that could serve as a danger, and anti-communist commitments globally (564). According to Jervis, the elements that were associated with the cold war were high defense budgets, a militarized NATO, the perceptions of a Sino-Soviet bloc, and perceptions that the world as interconnected and Communist victories that would threaten American interests (584).
Bruce Cummings article called Japan and the Asian Periphery states that the development of the cold war involves reconstruction and integration of Japan into an American left orbit and rapid economic growth in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore (216). The author studies these developments through a historical and geographical context. The author states that East Asia is the center of world economic dynamism (216). Cummings also mentions that the concept of a product cycle helps historians understand changes and mobility among the nations (218). Cummings concludes that a hegemonic system is essential for the functioning of this regional economy ...
... middle of paper ...
...so, he believes that the syngman Rhee and Kim II Sung used the circumstances of war to help strengthen their own power (6). CHEN, Gardner, and Weathersby believe that the conflicts that existed among the Korean’s before Japan’s defeat were influenced by the decisions of the great powers (5). Weatherby and CHEN demonstrate the limits of Kim’s influences with his patron (6). In Weatherby’s article, The Soviet Role in the Korean War, he discusses Stalin’s decision in regards to invading South Korea. The key to this decision was whether it would prompt Americans to intervene in the war (68). CHEN’s article, In the Name of Revolution, discusses Beijing’s decision on intervening, which resulted in a response to the threat to China’s security interests that were caused by the U.S. /U.N. forces aggressive advance toward the Yalu River in the wake of Indochon landing (93).
The Cold War was a period of dark and melancholic times when the entire world lived in fear that the boiling pot may spill. The protectionist measures taken by Eisenhower kept the communists in check to suspend the progression of USSR’s radical ambitions and programs. From the suspenseful delirium from the Cold War, the United States often engaged in a dangerous policy of brinksmanship through the mid-1950s. Fortunately, these actions did not lead to a global nuclear disaster as both the US and USSR fully understood what the weapons of mass destruction were capable of.
The alliance formed between the US and USSR during the second world war was not strong enough to overcome the decades of uneasiness which existed between the two ideologically polar opposite countries. With their German enemy defeated, the two emerging nuclear superpowers no longer had any common ground on which to base a political, economical, or any other type of relationship. Tensions ran high as the USSR sought to expand Soviet influence throughout Europe while the US and other Western European nations made their opposition to such actions well known. The Eastern countries already under Soviet rule yearned for their independence, while the Western countries were willing to go to great lengths to limit Soviet expansion. "Containment of 'world revolution' became the watchword of American foreign policy throughout the 1950s a...
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.
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
During the late 1940's and the 1950's, the Cold War became increasingly tense. Each side accused the other of wanting to rule the world (Walker 388). Each side believed its political and economic systems were better than the other's. Each strengthened its armed forces. Both sides viewed the Cold War as a dispute between right and wron...
Odd Arne Westad, Director of the Cold War Studies Centre at the London School of Economics and Political Science, explains how the Cold War “shaped the world we live in today — its politics, economics, and military affairs“ (Westad, The Global Cold War, 1). Furthermore, Westad continues, “ the globalization of the Cold War during the last century created foundations” for most of the historic conflicts we see today. The Cold War, asserts Westad, centers on how the Third World policies of the two twentieth-century superpowers — the United States and the Soviet Union — escalates to antipathy and conflict that in the end helped oust one world power while challenging the other. This supplies a universal understanding on the Cold War (Westad, The Global Cold War, 1). After World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union opposed each other over the expansion of their power.
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)....
The Soviet Union and the United States served as Allies during World War II. At the end of the war however each side wanted to deal with the aftermath differently. The United States was in favor of a peaceful and cooperative relationship with Germany and their Allies. The Soviet Union wanted revenge on the crimes and atrocities that were committed against them. The United States wanted to push democracy in Eastern Europe yet the Soviets countered this by saying the United States was hypocritical, since at that time the United States supported the Latin countries that were governed by dictatorships. The Soviets were under the impression that this was an effort to boost the UNITED STATES economy.
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.
After World War II America and Russia became superpowers. Even thought they fought together against the Nazis they soon became hostile rivals. Between 1945 and
The end of the Cold War was one of the most unexpected and important events in geopolitics in the 20th century. The end of the Cold War can be defined as the end of the bipolar power struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union, which had existed since the end of the World War II. The conclusion of the Cold War can be attributed to Gorbachev’s series of liberalizations in the 1980s, which exposed the underlying economic problems in the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc states that had developed in the 1960s and 70s and prevented the USSR from being able to compete with the US as a superpower. Nevertheless, Reagan’s policies of a renewed offensive against communism, Gorbachev’s rejection of the Brezhnev doctrine and the many nationalities
Once, there was a girl, her name was Robin, and she lived in Canada deep in the woods.
So, if Japan does not “belong” to Asia, does it belong to some other amorphous collection of nations, namely Europe or the West? Certainly in the modern post-WWII era Japan has seen phenomenal economic growth, even to the point of threatening the US as the primary global economic power during the height of the “bubble economy.” Some credit this success to the changes implemented during the US occupation. Undoubtedly without US assistan...