Please write about a 5-to 6 page paper, double-spaced responding to some of the
Please write about a 5-to 6 page paper, double-spaced responding to some of the prompts below. I’ve offered a brief summary here to help you get started and think about what you might want to write about. Think about the general questions: Why am I studying this material? And why should I care?
After reading excerpts from Jeffrey Sachs, Daniel Immerwahr, Walter LaFeber, William Polk, and Stephen Kinzer, we’ve examined some of the underlying causes of the world wars, the rise of the United States as a superpower, the nuclear arms race, and the early actions of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, which included covert operations. At a time when the U.S. enjoyed overwhelming economic and military power and security globally this period still managed to become best known for its widespread fear bordering on panic regarding the rising “communist threat.” Kinzer’s description and analysis of U.S. policy toward Iran and Guatemala in the early 1950s, (along with the other readings), have given us a glimpse into the paradigmatic central organizing principles of U.S. foreign policy in the post-World War Two period. We also discussed in class U.S. relations with governments in Haiti, Cuba, and Chile.
Please draw upon the readings and lectures to write a coherent, detailed response (with citations to the course readings) to any of the following questions:
Prompt: The foreign policy planner, Paul Nitze, argues in his influential secret memorandum, “NSC-68”:
“We must, by means of rapid and sustained build-up of the political, economic, and military of the free world, and by means of an affirmative program intended to wrest the initiative from the Soviet Union, confront it with convincing evidence of the determination and ability of the free world to frustrate the Kremlin design of a world dominated by its will.”
Following World War Two, the United States was instrumental in establishing the United Nations (1945), the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals (1946-1951), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Yet the U.S. also recruited German scientists and intelligence officials (“Operation Paperclip”); took the first steps toward an aggressive and dangerous nuclear arms race (“Operation Crossroads”); and began using covert operations routinely to intervene in the internal affairs of nations all over the world, including Italy (1948), Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Haiti (1957), the Congo (1960), Cuba (1961), Brazil (1964), the Dominican Republic (1965), Indonesia (1965), and Vietnam (1955-75).
It would seem that the stated Wilsonian goals during World War One of “democratization, raising of living standards, and human rights” often took a back seat in U.S. foreign policy circles to fighting the Soviet Union and “international communism” by any means necessary. There was the added goal of U.S. policy planners that must not be ignored, namely, the role played by multinational corporations and U.S. financial and commercial interests.
It is not necessary to try to respond to each and every one of these prompts. These are just suggestions to help you think about what YOU want to write about; it’s your choice. Use this exam as a vehicle to learn more about a topic that interests YOU. Choose the prompts that interest you the most. You may write about any of the events we’ve covered in class so far or about the wider policies and strategies. But please do not be repetitious or summarize and be sure to use citations to the book(s) and/or lectures: e.g. (LaFeber, p. 68); (Lecture 9-21-23). In the back of your mind ask yourself: “Why should I care?”
Why did American foreign policy planners and most members of Congress believe it was necessary for the U.S. to pass the National Security Act of 1947? What was included in this legislation and how did it enhance the power of the Executive Branch? How did the Bretton Woods framework of international finance and the founding of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank fit into this new world order? Why were NATO, SEATO, CENTO, and the Rio Treaty established? What role did the nuclear arms race play in this new world order?
What did U.S. policy in Iran, Guatemala, Haiti, the Congo, and Cuba accomplish toward Paul Nitze’s ends he describes in NSC-68? What was the role of the CIA and the Department of Defense? Was U.S. foreign policy always simply “reacting” to Soviet aggression (or to Soviet “will” in Nitze’s words) on the world stage? What were some of the problems with using “anti-communism” as the central organizing principle for U.S. foreign policy? What is U.S. “imperialism?” Does the end justify the means? And why is there sometimes a dramatic disconnect between the publicly-stated goals from U.S. foreign policy elites and the actual policies themselves? (What “values” (if any) did the United States share with the regimes headed by Shah Reza Pahlavi, Castillo Armas, Papa Doc Duvalier, Mobutu Sese Seko, Fulgencio Batista, and Augusto Pinochet?)
[Note: You can approach this assignment in any way that makes sense to you; you can focus on one or two events or institutions, or write about the wider global strategy, covert actions, the nuclear arms race, or anything else, but try to keep it within the 1945-1973 period; and shoot for 5-to 6 double-spaced pages. Don’t just summarize historical “information” but show us your historical “knowledge.”]. Be creative. Stay calm.]
Please write about a 5-to 6 page paper, double-spaced responding to some of the prompts below. I’ve offered a brief summary here to help you get started and think about what you might want to write about. Think about the general questions: Why am I studying this material? And why should I care?
After reading excerpts from Jeffrey Sachs, Daniel Immerwahr, Walter LaFeber, William Polk, and Stephen Kinzer, we’ve examined some of the underlying causes of the world wars, the rise of the United States as a superpower, the nuclear arms race, and the early actions of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, which included covert operations. At a time when the U.S. enjoyed overwhelming economic and military power and security globally this period still managed to become best known for its widespread fear bordering on panic regarding the rising “communist threat.” Kinzer’s description and analysis of U.S. policy toward Iran and Guatemala in the early 1950s, (along with the other readings), have given us a glimpse into the paradigmatic central organizing principles of U.S. foreign policy in the post-World War Two period. We also discussed in class U.S. relations with governments in Haiti, Cuba, and Chile.
Please draw upon the readings and lectures to write a coherent, detailed response (with citations to the course readings) to any of the following questions:
Prompt: The foreign policy planner, Paul Nitze, argues in his influential secret memorandum, “NSC-68”:
“We must, by means of rapid and sustained build-up of the political, economic, and military of the free world, and by means of an affirmative program intended to wrest the initiative from the Soviet Union, confront it with convincing evidence of the determination and ability of the free world to frustrate the Kremlin design of a world dominated by its will.”
Following World War Two, the United States was instrumental in establishing the United Nations (1945), the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals (1946-1951), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Yet the U.S. also recruited German scientists and intelligence officials (“Operation Paperclip”); took the first steps toward an aggressive and dangerous nuclear arms race (“Operation Crossroads”); and began using covert operations routinely to intervene in the internal affairs of nations all over the world, including Italy (1948), Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Haiti (1957), the Congo (1960), Cuba (1961), Brazil (1964), the Dominican Republic (1965), Indonesia (1965), and Vietnam (1955-75).
It would seem that the stated Wilsonian goals during World War One of “democratization, raising of living standards, and human rights” often took a back seat in U.S. foreign policy circles to fighting the Soviet Union and “international communism” by any means necessary. There was the added goal of U.S. policy planners that must not be ignored, namely, the role played by multinational corporations and U.S. financial and commercial interests.
It is not necessary to try to respond to each and every one of these prompts. These are just suggestions to help you think about what YOU want to write about; it’s your choice. Use this exam as a vehicle to learn more about a topic that interests YOU. Choose the prompts that interest you the most. You may write about any of the events we’ve covered in class so far or about the wider policies and strategies. But please do not be repetitious or summarize and be sure to use citations to the book(s) and/or lectures: e.g. (LaFeber, p. 68); (Lecture 9-21-23). In the back of your mind ask yourself: “Why should I care?”
Why did American foreign policy planners and most members of Congress believe it was necessary for the U.S. to pass the National Security Act of 1947? What was included in this legislation and how did it enhance the power of the Executive Branch? How did the Bretton Woods framework of international finance and the founding of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank fit into this new world order? Why were NATO, SEATO, CENTO, and the Rio Treaty established? What role did the nuclear arms race play in this new world order?
What did U.S. policy in Iran, Guatemala, Haiti, the Congo, and Cuba accomplish toward Paul Nitze’s ends he describes in NSC-68? What was the role of the CIA and the Department of Defense? Was U.S. foreign policy always simply “reacting” to Soviet aggression (or to Soviet “will” in Nitze’s words) on the world stage? What were some of the problems with using “anti-communism” as the central organizing principle for U.S. foreign policy? What is U.S. “imperialism?” Does the end justify the means? And why is there sometimes a dramatic disconnect between the publicly-stated goals from U.S. foreign policy elites and the actual policies themselves? (What “values” (if any) did the United States share with the regimes headed by Shah Reza Pahlavi, Castillo Armas, Papa Doc Duvalier, Mobutu Sese Seko, Fulgencio Batista, and Augusto Pinochet?)
[Note: You can approach this assignment in any way that makes sense to you; you can focus on one or two events or institutions, or write about the wider global strategy, covert actions, the nuclear arms race, or anything else, but try to keep it within the 1945-1973 period; and shoot for 5-to 6 double-spaced pages. Don’t just summarize historical “information” but show us your historical “knowledge.”]. Be creative. Stay calm.]
