While the general strategy of Nixon and Kissinger was certainly similar to that of Kennan, it is worth examining the implementation of their strategy in terms of actual foreign policy. One of the most notable changes in foreign policy as a result of Nixon and Kissinger was in the United States’ relationship with the Soviet Union. Clearly, the Soviet Union had consistently antagonized and posed a threat to the United States, both directly and indirectly. However, Nixon and Kissinger believed that past tensions needed to be set-aside in hopes of a more peaceful future, and began implementing a new policy towards the Soviet Union known as “Détente”. Instead of holding a grudge against the Soviet Union for its actions and ideology, the Nixon-Kissinger …show more content…
Realizing the Soviet Union wanted to expand its economic relationship with the West, Nixon and Kissinger began allowing the Soviets to purchase grain off credit, and even gave them Most Favored Nation status. However, this economic relationship was not established due to genuine concern or kindness. Forming an economic relationship was merely another aspect of the Nixon-Kissinger containment strategy. In reality, Nixon and Kissinger’s desire for an economic relationship was concerned more with making Soviets dependent on the United States than with helping them develop as a country. Nixon and Kissinger believed that by creating this economic relationship, the Soviet Union would eventually become reliant on the United States’ economic support, which could then be used as leverage against the Soviets. This leverage could then help the United States manage crises with the Soviet Union, create bargaining chips, induce negotiations, and to secure Soviet cooperation (Gaddis 291-92). However, the most important effect of obtaining this leverage would give the U.S. the ability to change Soviet behavior and how they acted within the international system. Here, the similarities between the strategies of Nixon-Kissinger and Kennan are evident. Like Kennan had encouraged many years prior, Nixon and Kennan attempted to use economic rather than military pressure to influence Soviet behavior. As …show more content…
Essentially, Nixon and Kissinger hoped to create a triangular relationship including the United States, Soviet Union, and China. The goal of this relationship was to allow the U.S. to tilt towards one side of the triangle (the Soviet Union or China) in order to balance the power if one were to become too aggressive. Discussing this tactic, Gaddis wrote that, “the idea was to walk a fine line; to refrain from tempting either side into retaliation or blackmail by giving it the impression that the United States was ‘using’ it against the other”(Gaddis 295). Again, Nixon and Kissinger used one of Kennan’s policies of applying political pressure rather than take military action or isolate the U.S. further by refusing to establish any relationship. Instead of focusing on the regime and internal politics of China, the U.S. focused on how China could serve their goal of establishing a stable world order by helping constrain the behavior of and accelerate negotiations with the Soviet
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...
In the history of the United States, foreign policy has caused many disputes over the proper role in international affairs. The views, morals and beliefs of Americans, makes them feel the need to take leadership of the world and help those countries who are in need. The foreign policies of President Eisenhower will eventually lead to the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War. President Eisenhower’s role in these policies was based on his military-type strategies to safeguard a victory in the Global Cold War. President Eisenhower’s foreign policies led to an effective involvement in the Cold War and enviably the Vietnam War from an American perspective.
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.
Reagan rose into power after years of turmoil and the American pride was dipping. About a decade before he became president, the war in Viet-Nam was winding down and the troops were returning home to negative demonstrations towards their duty. Then, during the Carter years, America transitioned into a détente policy, which meant that the United States would try to ease the tensions with the Soviet Union by not expanding the military, but not doing anything to acting ease the tension. The idea behind this became known as MAD, mutually assured destruction, (Hannaford) which meant that both the United States and Soviet Union would maintain and even number of nuclear weapons so that if one would fire, the other would be able to fire back equally. Reagan completely disagreed with this philosophy and created a whole new policy when he became president. The foreign policy he established was to create the Reagan Doctrine. According to a speech by Peter Hannaford, the Reagan Doctrine was that America would support democratic movements in any Communist country until that country could enjoy the fruits of freedom (Hannaford). This meant that the United States would help any country who wanted to leave the influence of the Soviet Union and create their own democracy. Also, to counter the Soviet Union and end the Cold War, a race between the United State and Soviet Union to create the best technology and become the world powerhouse, Reagan increased military spending. Ronald Reagan knew that the Soviet Union was unable to keep up the United States in military spending and still having enough funds to fund their own economy to keep it stable. Reagan used this knowledge to convince Congress to increase military budget to build up technology, causing the Soviets decide on what to do. The United States had the funds to continue, but the Soviet Union could not keep up. The breaking point
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 of “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 focusing 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. Criticisms of Truman’s actions fail to consider that he entered a leadership position set on an ideological collision course, being forced to further an established plan for an atomic monopoly, and deal with a legacy of US-Russian tensions mobilized by Roosevelt prior to his death, all while being influenced by an alarmist and aggressive cabinet. Upon reviewing criticisms of Truman’s negotiations with Soviet diplomat Vyacheslav Molotov and his involvement in the atomic bomb drop, the influence of Roosevelt’s legacy and Truman’s cabinet will be discussed in order to minimize his blame for starting the Cold War.
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)....
One must wonder; what was Kissinger’s motive? Being pushed by “his boss” President Nixon to prevent communism in Chile at all costs is apparent, as is his friendly relationship with Pinochet that he developed. “I want to see our relations and friendship improve,” Kissinger states in a memoir to Pinochet during his trip to Chile that was intended to speak about human rights concerns (Kornbluh 1999; page 5). But what was truly the underlining motivation that caused Kissinger to risk his job and reputation to keep Pinochet in power? Could it simply be a lack of sympathy? Or was Kissinger just overly fanatical about stopping the spread of Communism?
The relationships of the United States and the Soviet Union were driven by a complex interplay of ideological, political, and economic factors, which led to shifts between cautious cooperation and often bitter superpower rivalry over the years. The distinct differences in the political systems of the two countries often prevented them from reaching a mutual understanding on key policy issues and even, as in the case of the Cuban missile crisis, brought them to the brink of war.
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. Some of his other works include: The United States and the Origins of the Cold War, 1941-1947, The Long Peace: Inquiries into the History of the Cold War, We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History, The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past, Surprise, Security, and the American Experience, and The Cold War: A New History. Dr. Gaddis received his PhD from the University of Texas in 1968; he currently is on a leave of absence, but he is a professor at Yale . At the University, his focus is Cold War history. Gaddis is one of the few men who have actually done a complete biography of George Kennan, and Gaddis even won a Pulitzer Prize in 2012.
(1993), The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations, Volume Four, America in the Age of Soviet Power, 1945 – 1991, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press · Froman, M.B. (1991) The Development of the Détente, Coming to Terms, London, Macmillan Academic and Professional LTD · Kent, J. and Young, J.W. (2004) International Relations Since 1945, Oxford, Oxford University Press · www.oed.com (Oxford English Dictionary online)
The leadership styles, experience, personality, and temperament of Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy played a role in deepening the U.S. involvement and commitment to Vietnam. Both presidents vowed to stop the spread of communism, which was viewed as a direct assault to democracy, human rights, and capitalism. (Tucker, 1999) Both presidents also subscribed to the domino theory, or the belief that if one key country should fall to communism, then it would have a cascading effect on other countries turning to communism. (Divine, 1981) This theory was used by many presidents as the reason for ongoing support to the effort in Indochina.
Eisenhower’s dynamic conservatism now known as Modern Republicanism labeled him as a nonpartisan leader, who was fiscally conservative in reducing federal spending and socially moderate in maintaining existing social and economic legislation of the New Deal. With the policy shift of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, foreign policy in dealing with Communism went from containing it, to rolling it back. The Strategic Air Command was established as a fleet of super bombers that were equipped with nukes that would allow for massive retaliation in the place of a large standing army or navy, and the threat of massive retaliation was used to get the Soviets to surrender, and issued the Mutual Assured Destruction, where both sides knew that neither nation would declare nuclear war because it would result in total annihilation ...
Lafeber, W. (2002), America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945-2000. 9th edn. New-York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
In 1945 the United States saw the Soviet Union as its principal ally. By 1947, it saw the Soviet Union as its principal opponent. The United States misunderstood the Soviet regime. .Despite much pretence, national security had not been a major concern of US planners and elected officials. historical records reveal this clearly. Few serious analysts took issue with George Kennan's position that "it is not Russian military power which is threatening us, it is Russian political power" ; or with President Eisenhower's consistent view that the Russians intended no military conquest of Western Europe and that the major role of NATO was to "convey a feeling of confidence to exposed populations, which was suposed to make them sturdier, politically, in their opposition to Communist inroads."