amstud notes

Alfred Thayer Mahan claimed what?

Sea power is the most important part of a war, and that whoever controls the water controls the battle

The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783 page 1

What’s the significance of George Kennan’s “Sources of Soviet Conduct” (aka The Long Telegram)(1947)?

George Kennan’s “The Long Telegram” was important because it was one of the first mentioning of this idea of “containment” and how the US needed to contain the spread of communism in order to win the Cold War.

Many people speculated that he was wrong but when the Soviet Union eventually collapsed on itself he was praised for his intuition.

The Long Telegram, Ashbrook Cold War page 1-7

Is the Truman Doctrine compatible with Kennan’s view of the Soviet Union?

Yes, the Truman Doctrine aligns with Kennan’s containment strategy, as both aimed to limit Soviet expansion. While Kennan preferred economic and diplomatic pressure over military action, the Truman Doctrine extended containment to include military support for nations at risk of Soviet influence, like Greece and Turkey. Both approaches agreed that U.S. involvement was crucial to counter Soviet threats, though Kennan was cautious about extensive military commitments.

The Long Telegram, Ashbrook Cold War page 1-7

Truman Doctrine, Ashbrook Cold War Page 8-12

What factors brought the United States into Vietnam? Was this American involvement a betrayal of the Atlantic Charter? Explain.

The overtaking of capitalism in Vietnam meant that communism would now rule Vietnam. Because America wanted to limit the spread of communism (containment), America sent troops into Vietnam to contain communism. The American involvement was a betrayal of the Atlantic Charter. In the Atlantic Charter, the US and Britain agree to let all countries choose their own forms of government. However, through the invasion of Vietnam, America is directly saying “we are not letting you choose your own form of government.”

Report of President Kennedy on South Vietnam, Ashbrook Cold War, Page 85-87

The end of the Cold War was an opportunity for the United States to de-escalate and perhaps shrink its military. What actually happened?

The United States continued to expand their military. The Cold War meant an increase in weapons production, which meant that more civilians had more jobs. If the United States were to shrink its military, that meant that countless people would lose their jobs, so the United States continued to build up their military.

The United States ended up still building up their military even after the Cold War. Dwight D. Eisenhower in his Farewell Address claims that all the US wants is peace, but because of global conflict they weren’t able to have that. He reaches the conclusion that the only way for the US to be peaceful is to build a military that no one wants to mess with.

We looked at five Cold War cases (Iran, Guatemala, Cuba, Brazil, Chile). Offering at least one case as an example, explain why the CIA was involved there.

The CIA was involved in Cuba because of Fidel Castro. Cuba’s close proximity to the US (90 miles) meant that they didn’t want Castro to turn Communist once he took control of Cuba. However, he started portraying traits of just that. So in order to prevent Communism from potentially spreading to the US, the CIA decided to train Cuban exiles to cause an uprising in Cuba and topple Fidel Castro.

In Guatemala, the UFC (United Fruit Company) incorporated the CIA into a coup to overthrow the democratically elected president Jacobo Arbenz, due to two major reasons: they were afraid that under Arbenz’s leadership, Guatemala would turn towards communism, and also simply because of economic interests. The CIA launched operation PBSuccess to overthrow Arbenz.

If the Tet Offensive was a victory for American Forces, why didn’t it seem like one? Referring to the Tet Offensive news broadcast and the Tet Offensive Briefing for President Johnson explain.

Widespread media like the Tet Offensive news broadcast displayed America’s offensive in a negative light and misconstrued the battle to make it seem like America was the side who lost. Not only this, but large parts of the population in America were heavily against the war in Vietnam, and another offensive only put more gas in the fire.

Offer two reasons that the war in Afghanistan is a lot like the war in Vietnam.

The war in Afghanistan was a fight against terrorism, similar to the war in Vietnam, which was a fight against communism. Both battles were also drawn out a lot longer than they needed to, and were generally frowned upon by the general US public because of this. Much of the US population believed that both the Vietnam war and conflict in Afghanistan did not need to go on as much as they did.

Why does the U.S. go to war in Iraq?

The US had belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

What was al-qaeda?

Terrorist group that perpetuated the attacks on 9/11. 

A pan-Islamist militant organization who self-identifies as a vanguard spearheading a global Islamist revolution to unite the Muslim world

Based in Afghanistan

Later went to Pakistan where they found Osama eventually and then they raided Pakistan because he was hiding there

Founder + Leader: Osama bin Laden (killed on May 2, 2011 by U.S. Navy Seals)

According to your 9/11 history reading, why does Afghanistan have to do with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001?

Afghanistan was suspected of harboring the extremist group al-Qaeda, which was supposedly responsible for the attacks on the Twin Towers on September 11.

What does the current situation in Ukraine have to do with the end of the Cold War?

Due to NATO expansions at the end of the Cold War from countries gradually transitioning from communism to capitalism, people began to anticipate that Russia would feel antagonized and would do something to assert their power, which is exactly what they did. Russia ended up invading Ukraine to take the entirety of Ukraine and show the world Russia’s power, but Russia was unaware of how incapable they were of taking over Ukraine.

How did the Vietnam War build on the assumptions that the United States had made in the early Cold War Documents? These would include Containment(George Kennan’s “Long Telegram,” Truman Doctrine, NSC-68), the Domino Theory.

In documents like Geroge Kennan’s “Long Telegram”, it is shown that the US wants to contain the Soviet Union and the idea of communism from spreading, as the isolation of communism would allow its faulty ideals to collapse in on itself. When Vietnam’s government was overthrown and communism began to take control, the US was afraid that the spread of communism to Vietnam meant other nearby countries would also begin to topple and fall to communism (domino theory). The Vietnam War built on the assumptions in the way that the United States acted on the idea of containment and the domino theory. They wanted to stop the spread of communism, which is exactly why America decided to enter the conflict in Vietnam.

How does Vietnam represent the same problem the US had created with the Atlantic Charter and had played out in other countries?

The problem the US created with the Atlantic Charter was that they claimed that any country could be under whatever government they chose, but when countries like Korea (before the split) had their government overthrown and decided to be communist, the US intervened and didn’t allow that. In Vietnam, a very similar story was told. When the viet government was overthrown and turned into a communist regime, the US said that couldn’t happen and sent in troops in order to convert Vietnam back into a capitalist country. 

How does NSD-23 compare to NSC-68?

NSC-68 is a call to action for the US government, paints the USSR in a very negative light, and is very alarmist.

NSD-23 is a series of demands, congratulates Moscow (a little bit), and is less alarmist.

They both still have a little bit of aggression towards the USSR and want to see change.

Does NSD-23 desire a continuation of US behaviors during the Cold War or a retreat from them? Offer evidence for your position.

NSD-23 (National Security Directive 23) marked a significant shift in U.S. foreign policy, as it acknowledged Soviet influence in certain strategic areas and suggested a retreat from aggressive containment strategies. The directive reflected a willingness by the U.S. to accept a balance of power with the USSR, with the aim of integrating the Soviet Union into the existing international system rather than isolating it. As it stated, "We may be able to move beyond containment to a U.S. policy that actively promotes the integration of the Soviet Union into the existing international system," highlighting a pragmatic stance that moved away from direct confrontation.

What should Eisenhower’s warning have meant for any post-Cold War system?

Eisenhower’s warning about the "military-industrial complex" should have guided any post-Cold War system toward a more restrained and balanced approach to defense and international relations. With the Cold War over and the Soviet threat diminished, his caution suggested that the U.S. might reduce its military spending and avoid overextending its influence through force. A post-Cold War system inspired by his warning would ideally prioritize diplomacy, global cooperation, and investment in domestic priorities, like education and infrastructure, rather than expanding military commitments. Additionally, Eisenhower’s cautionary message encouraged skepticism of unchecked military influence, which could help prevent conflicts driven by the interests of defense industries rather than national security, fostering a more sustainable and peaceful international order.

Does Eisenhower’s warning have any place in NSD-23?

Eisenhower’s warning about the "military-industrial complex," given in his 1961 farewell address, does resonate with aspects of NSD-23, albeit indirectly. Eisenhower cautioned against excessive reliance on military solutions and the unchecked influence of defense interests, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach to national security. NSD-23 reflects a similar pragmatic turn, as it seeks to reduce direct confrontation with the USSR and instead focuses on diplomacy and the potential integration of the Soviet Union into the international system. This move away from purely militaristic strategies aligns with Eisenhower’s concerns by acknowledging that strategic power might be more effectively managed through integration and balanced diplomacy, rather than an arms race or aggressive containment alone.