Main Attributes of Containment - Case Study Example

Attributes of containment al Affiliation) In this literature, I will generally focus on the attributes of containment with reference to the sources provided. I will paragraph each point and clarify certain phrases from authors of the literatures. Containment was brought forth by a number of reasons shown in this essay. The policy helped the US and its allies to date, in a way that no threat could be posed again against them and no more fear did they have (Chase, 1998 p. 56). The essay offers clarification of why the policy of containment came into action just after the Second World War. Up-to-date, the features of containment are still felt by the concerned parties due to the effect it brought fourth (Gaddis, 2005 p. 478). Containment was a strategy of foreign policy that was followed by the US during cold war. It was first laid out in 1947 by George F. Kennan. It stated that there’s need to contain and isolate communism or it would extent to other neighboring countries (Gaddis, 2005 p. 478). The Domino Theory would be allowed to take hold in case the spread occurred which meant that if a country fell to communism then each of the adjacent countries would fall like a row of dominoes. The US intervention in Central America, Grenada as well as Vietnam was ultimately due to adherence of Domino Theory and containment (Crockatt, 1995 p.120). The policy arose the time when East Europe was controlled by the military, control of the Soviet Union, and when Western European countries appeared to be waving from their democracies for the reason that of collapsing economies and socialist agitation. The policy was extended to cover the world, effecting to US involvement in Vietnam, Korea and elsewhere (Leffler, 1994 p. 567) Containment acted as a verdict policy. Throughout the Second World War, the USSR and the United States were very reluctant allies. Germany posed a threat to these two countries and they were required to cooperate militarily. Germany had propelled a brutal invasion into the Soviet Union in the end caused twenty million deaths of the soviets. The USSR went ahead and asked the allies from the western side to attack Germany on its western front (Zakaria, 1997 p. 234). The under-resourced England and the US were unwilling to launch this attack on the Germans, and instead, on other fronts they engaged the Germans. This allowed the soviets to push the Nazis back and regain lost territory. Due to the vastly differing political philosophies between the US and the Soviet Union, their relationship became strained and finally broke apart during the war’s later part (Iriye, 1974 p. 345). Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt met at the Yalta Conference in February 1945, when a triumphant conclusion to their war with Germany seemed inevitable. They began discussing crucial issues of postwar and they made plans to defeat the Germans. Stalin considered that the Soviet Union would allow Bulgaria, Poland, and Romania to have free election after the war, of which would be democratic (Crockatt, 1995 p.120). Upon the end of the war, Stalin broke his promise quickly going ahead to install communist governments in these countries without even election pretense. Stalin’s betrayal stunned the US as well as its allies who feared that they would be an attempt to increase communism throughout Europe by the Soviets. According to Stalin, he was doing nothing wrong (Zakaria, 1997 p. 234). He claimed that this would help cover the Soviet Union against future hostilities. He claimed that he was doing this by securing the loyalty of the western neighbors of the Soviet Union. The US and the USSR regarded the other as dangerous and treacherous hence resentment continued to grow (Iriye, 1974 p. 345). Stalin also broke the promise he pledged to remove troops from Iran after the Second World War. The Soviet Union and the US were both important allies to Iran, which was rich in oil. In Iran, troops were stationed during the war top prevent attacks from the Germans. All the major allies agreed to remove their troops from Iran during the 1943 Tehran Conference (Zakaria, 1997 p. 234). However, a full whole year after the war the soviets still had their troops stationed there. Stalin even went ahead and used the military to aid a rebellion in 1946 in Iran. Stalin’s betrayal made Truman very furious. Americans became distrustful of the soviets and hence began worrying that communism will spread to the Middle East (Iriye, 1974 p. 345). Despite Winston Churchill’s defeat on recent elections he remained popular within the United States. The containment provided a solution to the Soviet threat. When delivering a controversial speech at Fulton Missouri in March 1946, he condemned the Soviet Union and Stalin as being dangerous and opportunistic to the western nations (Iriye, 1974 p. 345). He went ahead to phrase “the Iron Curtain” in referring the division between the west and the Soviets. The opinion of Americans was sharply at odds over his speech since many leaders desired cooperation with the Soviet Union. This made them so upset with Churchill’s remarks. A major population of the Americans feared the USSR expansion and Churchill’s explanations increased the weightiness of the threat by soviets in many minds of these Americans (Iriye, 1974 p. 345). The US was put in a very unfamiliar role by the Second World War. Having chosen to stay isolated, America was now cast to be as a leader of the world. The leaders of America realized faster, that they had to make a plan to address the Soviet Union. A brilliant US leader as well as an expert on the Soviet Union, George F. Kennan who was stationed in Moscow, was asked by the state department to clarify the Soviet conduct recently (Kennan, 1947 p. 457). A threat like communism was never seen by the whole world which made the West very confused about hoe these issues would be addressed. Kennan was given the task to create a policy that would be used in dealing with this threat at hand. He was one of the few western Soviet Union experts. In February 1946, Kennan in a telegram to the state department drafted a response. In an 8,000-word reply, he covered the issue significantly. This earned it the name “long telegram” (Kennan, 1947 p. 457). It thoroughly covered how the USSR had shaped current policies. The information he provided helped American leaders get a greater insight into the mentality and background of Soviets like Stalin. According to his advice, the USSR was ruthlessly expansionary but cautious too. He stated that if the Soviets were left unchecked, wherever and whenever possible, they would expand their regime (Kennan, 1947 p. 457). The plan The containment aided in covering the effects of the Second World War at fast rate. The west became desperate to cease communism spread, as the apparent Soviet Union threat continued to grow. In many parts of the war-atrophied Europe, the communist community grew faster after Second World War (Herring, 2008 p.456). Countries like Greece which were European key were being prevented from spread of communism by England. The British and the US both feared that in case Greece became communist, so would Turkey, hence the Eastern Mediterranean would be under control of the soviets (Herring, 2008 p.456). The prevention of the spread of communism to Greece was a difficult task for the British because their economy had not yet recovered from the effect of the Second World War. Therefore, they asked for assistance from the US. Truman asked the congress for support on March 12, 1947, on a new policy later referred to as the Truman doctrine. He requested $400 million allocation in preventing the fall of Turkey and Greece to communism, as he detailed. It was the philosophy of the US to support free people who tend to resist attempts of subjugation by outside pressures or armed minorities, he stated (Herring, 2008 p.456). Containment policy expanded the influence of the US abroad. The U.S foreign policy was greatly impacted by this controversial statement. Critically it was argued that the policy would make other nations exploit the US in terms of “fighting communism.” They feared that money would be elicited from the US, which would be allowable due to this doctrine. Some others argued that Truman was using this policy to earn his support domestically as well as expanding Americas influence abroad (Herring, 2008 p.456). They termed this as an exaggeration of the soviet threat. Despite the critics the Truman Doctrine still went on and was the United States official policy. The wedge between the USSR and the US got deeper hence polarizing the whole world. Other nations were placed in a position to either choose supporting the Soviet Union or the US (Herring, 2008 p.456). Contained aided fast recovery of economies. The Marshall Plan and the Soviet Threat were both to be contained, an attempt by the Truman Administration. There was little hope of recovery of the western countries from their crippled economy brought forth by the Second World War (the war had decimated the infrastructure of nations like Italy, France and Belgium) (Hogan, 2007 p. 342). Communist influences got a ripe environment due to the soaring unemployment and the widespread poverty. This environment had limited improvement potential. A program of joint economic recovery was proposed by George C. Marshall, the secretary of state, between the US and its allies from the west (Hogan, 2007 p. 342). In case the Europeans agreed to this plan, then the US would offer financial support significantly. Leaders from key democracies from the west met Marshall in Paris to discuss the plan in details. Due to their despair of most of these nations, 16 countries immediately agreed to the Marshall proposal. He also offered his plan, which was immediately rejected, to the cash-poor Soviets (Hogan, 2007 p. 342). Containment brought peace, both socially and politically, among concerned members. When Marshall returned home, the plan was immediately presented to the congress by Truman. The plan required distribution of $12.5 billion among 16 countries (Hogan, 2007 p. 342). The US had spent over $2 billion already in rebuilding Europe; hence the congress became skeptical of the huge amount needed and the Marshall plan. Then in 1978 February, a Communist Government was installed by a Soviet-backed coup in Czechoslovakia. This fast-spreading communism prompted the congress to pass the plan in April 1948. For both America and Britain, the Marshall plan was incredibly successful (Hogan, 2007 p. 342). The introduction of funding large amounts to affected countries helped strengthen the local economies greatly. Most of these countries, in a few years, were even exceeding prewar economic levels. The westward spread of communism was halted by these flourishing western European economies. The industry in America also benefited through exports of goods and equipment to Western Europe. This cooperation economic wise would aid the formation of Eventually Community (EC) - a collective treaty between these Western European nations and still exists to date (Herring, 2008 p.456). Containment allowed sustainable economic status. Germany on the other hand, 20 years from First World War, had managed rebuilding its economic status and military hence posed a threat to the weaker neighboring nations (Hogan, 2007 p. 342). After Second World War, with the blessings from their allies Britain and France, America was very determined to stop the Germany from regaining their power. This way was intended to keep Germany economically weak, impoverished and unable to pose a threat. By the month of March, 1948, the allies had already realized that their approach was self-beating (Hogan, 2007 p. 342). Oppressed citizens and widespread poverty allowed communism to grow in Germany. Great Britain, Belgium, France, Luxembourg and Netherlands agreed to help improve Germany’s economic status through an alliance to work together. This was to create a Germany that was stable economically and would be autonomous despite still remaining demilitarized. The Soviet Union saw this as being contrary to the treaty signed at Potsdam conference (Hogan, 2007 p. 342). They also were skeptical of this motivation by the allies and they believed that this was an intention to undermine the ruling of the Soviets in Berlin and East Germany. This made the Soviets to blockade all access to Berlin from the west through surface in June 1948. This was a retaliatory move that was intended to convey a message to the US as well as its allies that they did not tolerate meddling of the western in its territories (Logevall, 2004 p.480). Contained brought forth trust. The policy allowed free supply of necessity to the beleaguered countries thus the trust. This bold move shocked the US and its allies. Over two million German citizens at the west were cut off from necessary supplies including food, by this blockade. The impoverished Berlin would very soon fall in a crisis without these supplies. America as well as its allies was not sure of the reaction to take (Saull, 2007 p.234). It seemed that there would only be two outcomes, either abandon Berlin completely, or to engage the soviets troops in a fight (Casey, 2005 p.123). The USSR had the largest army throughout the world and so engaging them in combat was obviously unthinkable. Also no one was even willing to engage them in a fight. Berlin was the key city in Germany and therefore abandoning it too was also impossible. A decision was made by President Truman to provide the necessary supplies to the German people who were beleaguered, without engaging the fight with the Soviets (Saull, 2007 p.234). He called for the airlifting of the supplies to West Berlin through a proposal. It was accepted immediately and thousands of tons of food and other supplies were airlifted into Germany daily- Berlin airlift. Over the blockade period which took 11 months, over 1.5 million tons of supplies were airlifted into Germany (Casey, 2005 p.123). Containment added up to the public relations among the US and its allies. Since the Soviet Union was not expecting such actions from Truman, they faced a difficult time in trying to make a decision. It was either they lift the blockader or start a war with the west (Casey, 2005 p.123). They finally decided to lift the blockade in May 1949 hence allowing free flow of the food and other supplies into West Berlin. Due to that, the Soviet Union lost face in what essential became a public relations war. This row polarized and heightened further, the tensions and pressures between the US and the USSR (Casey, 2005 p.123). This victory in overcoming the blockade benefited the US greatly, since their respect grew with the Germans for the supply they got. Hundreds of thousands of the West Germans benefited from the food and supplies and were grateful in return. This also made greater, the fear and distrust of the soviets within the Germans conversely. Other western European countries looked on America’s action favorably and saw them as a sign of their commitment to Europe (Casey, 2005 p.123). There was straining in the relations among nations of the Western Europe. The effects of the world wars clearly showed that there was great need for security and defense. The western Europeans were brought together with the help of greatly increasing Soviet threat as well as the aftermath of the wars. Some several nations even started discussing a possibility of a mutual defense organization. Some European leaders met to discuss these ideas in a series of meetings. In 1948 a mutual defense pact was signed in Brussels, Belgium, by several representatives from France, the Great Britain, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Belgium (Casey, 2005 p.123). Containment strengthened or advanced the US foreign policy. It was considered historic since this was the first ever large-scale pact of defense among the western European nations. The United States was also invited by the alliance to join the pact. This raised some difficult questions in America. Traditionally, the US had viewed such peacetime alliances as being cumbersome and ineffective (Casey, 2005 p.123). Many Americans argued that due to their location it was excluded from enjoying the advantages unlike the nations with closer geographical proximity which gained benefits. The pact supporters claimed that if America got involved then they would benefit in terms of strengthening the defenses in north America and Europe against the soviet union and also the extend the united states containment policy (Casey, 2005 p.123). Some also thought that in joining the alliance the western Germany would be brought into the US camp eventually, and also reassure the Europeans that they won’t get back to their isolationism. This issue divided the congress deeply. In urging them to join this alliance, Truman appeared before congress personally and eventually they agreed to join. This led to signing of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on April 4 1949 (Casey, 2005 p.123). The first who signed included France, Great Britain, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Luxembourg and Portugal, while the US and Canada represented North America. Turkey and Greece were later added to the pact in 1952. In 1955, the West Germany was also admitted to this alliance. Since then the organization has moved on to expand and include 19 nations (Hogan, 2007 p. 342). The world politics and its defense were greatly impacted by the formation of NATO. NATO had helped Europe emerge to being a collective power, improved European unity dramatically and brought peace and security to the world. . NATO has encouraged other nations to think outside their borders by helping grow internationalism. It had also minimized or prevented a number of conflicts in the world through intervention, either diplomatically or militarily (Hogan, 2007 p. 342). The decision by the congress to join NATO changed the United States foreign policy significantly. The US emerged to be the leader of NATO, therefore was required in international disputes intervention. In the same way NATO strengthened US security. The US and other members now spoke with a voice that the Soviets had to take notice, as part of NATO (Hogan, 2007 p. 342). Bibliography A, Iriye. The Cold War in Asia: A Historical Introduction. Englewood: Prentice-Hall, 1974. F, Zakaria. " The Sources of Soviet Conduct, Foreign Affairs, July 1947." The American Encounter (1997). G, Herring. "Truman, The Cold War, and The Revolutiuon in U.S. Foreign Policy." From Colony to Superpower, 1945-1953. 2008. J, Chace. The Secretary of State who Created the American World. New York : Simon and Schuster, 1998. J, Gaddis. George F. Kennan and the Strategy of Containment. New York: Oxford Uiversity Press, 2005. —. We Now Know, Rethink Cold War History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Kennan, George F. "The Sources of the Soviet Conduct." Foreign Affairs 1947. Logevall, Frederik. "A Critique of Containment." Diplomatic History. 2004. 473-499. M, Hogan. The Marshall Plan: America, Britain and the Reconstruction of Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. M, Leffler. Preponderance of Power: National Security , the Truman Administration and the Cold War. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1994. R, Crockatt. The Fifty Year War: The United States and the Soviet Union in World politics. London: Routledge, 1995. S, Casey. Selling NSC-68: The Truman Administration, Public Opinion, and the Politics of Mobilization. 2005. Saull, R. "The Cold War and After. Capitalism, Revolution and Superpower Politics." Introduction: History and Theory in the Cold War (2007). The United States and the Making of the Modern World. New York: Basic Books, 1997. Read More