Communism And The Cold War Essay

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.

Among the ways the United States tried to curb the spread of communism in Latin America, was interfere in the inner policies of their countries. They were involving themselves in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala. They were trying to convince Latin America that it was in their best interests to stay away from communist beliefs.

This book illustrates several key issues and social problems that Latin American politics faced and continue to struggle with to this day. The matter of insurgent movements and the counter-insurgency methods that have been throughout the

When approaching the history of the Cold War it is easy to identify the United States and the Soviet Union as the major players and that it was taking place in East Europe, Asia, and parts of Africa. However, we often overlook the fact (with the exception of Cuba) that the United States was also engaged in Cold War in Latin America. One thing is certain the U.S was not afraid to cross moral lines in order to prevent the spread of communism throughout the world and especially when U.S hegemony was under threat or perceived to be under threat. In Stephens Rabe’s book The Killing Zone, Rabe addresses the United States policies towards Latin America and the means that the U.S took in order to secure their hegemony

U.S Foreign Policy altered Latin America’s relationship to the U.S profoundly as the region became a battleground between capitalism and communism. Saul Landau, attempts to show that U.S policy since the late 18th century has seen revolution in other places as threats. According to U.S officials, the higher cause behind this was to stop communism. A word, that was confused with popular revolution in Third world countries.

There is much that the United States of America and Latin America have in common. Both are continent-size political units containing different land, with their own histories, differing political and economic outlooks. Both were colonized by small seafaring nations before gaining independence within years of each other only being 100 miles away from each other on sea. For Latin Americans, the Cuban living memory of the United States’ was destructive in the region. Decades of U.S. military intervention followed the Cuban Revolution of 1959, hoping to prevent Communist leaders somewhere else. In the process, the U.S. helped overthrow democratically elected governments and install military dictatorships.The Cuban Revolution defined the relation between the Latin American heritage and the US showing that the U.S. and Cuba sure know how to hold a grudge with each other no matter the circumstances throughout history. Causing a bad rep for the Latin American Heritage at the time with America. Relations between the two Countries devolved into bitter fights, political grandstanding and the occasional international crisis. The history of this world is

From the literature presented in a course dealing with United States relations with Latin America during the Cold War, it is interesting that political and cultural intervention in Central America, as an important and driving social construct, is not a central role in the observations and analyses of the scholars. While it would make sense that our Western understanding of the concept does not translate in the same ways in this particular context, it still seems as though studies of the political, economic, and social situation in the region’s various countries would feature this discussion in a more prominent manner. Noting this discrepancy, this paper includes historiographic works from historians who either directly or indirectly address

All those elements confirmed the natural preeminence of U.S. hegemony in the region, also amplifying the fear of Latin American countries of too much interference of the Big Brother in their internal affairs. Indeed, the Cold War atmosphere justified new concerns for the preservation of national sovereignty of Latin American states against the encroachments of the Big Brother, and the successive military coups, as an apparent materialization of these tendencies, only served to confirm those

The question of which country wields the greatest foreign influence in Latin America is multifaceted as there are influences at play that are short, medium, and long term. It could be said that Iran may be the short-term threat with its support to the Hezbollah in its many forms in the southern tri-border region Latin America, and its growing influence in Venezuela and Trinidad and Tobago over the last few years. Russia, and to some degree the Peoples Republic of China (PRC), have influenced Latin America governments and leftist movements since the 1930’s with their socialist, Marxist-Leninist, and social-democratic ideologies. Prime examples of this are Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Nicaragua. However, there is an excellent argument that

(90)Question 1: The United States began to focus on Latin American nations as a form of Cold War strategy as part of the foreign policy of the Domino Effect. President Eisenhower defined the Domino Effect as a symbolic way to define the expansion of Soviet /Communist influence over Latin American nations, which would threaten capitalistic American hegemony as a geopolitical threat to North America. President Kennedy and President Johnson also followed this course by utilizing the “containment” theory by preventing the Soviet Union from influencing too many Latin American nations towards communism. George F. Keenan of the U.S. State Department claimed after a tour of South America: “I would not want it thought that I am over-rating this sort of a "Cook's Tour" (Hanson, 2015, para.1). these are important reasons why the U.S. sought to propagandize the “civilizing” of Latin American by opposing communism and by inserting the influence of capitalist democracies in Latin America during the beginning of the Cold

(2) The effects of intervention were horrifying. (3) The roots of this intervention lie in a fixed geopolitical conception that has remained invariant over a long period and that is deeply rooted in U.S. institutions” (Chomsky 1985). This introduction characterizes the entirety of his article—blunt and censorious in regard to American foreign policy. Chomsky argues the desire to manage the “Grand Area,” which includes all regions around the globe “strategically necessary for world control” (Chomsky 1985) and economic motivations determined the entirely of 20th century American interventions. The idea of the Grand Area, which includes South America, Central America, the colonies of the former British Empire, and Southeast Asia, originated in the early 1940s from studies managed by the War-Peace Studies Group within the Council on Foreign Relations and the State Department. Chomsky further declares that inn pursuit of these goals the United States dismantled its core principles: “human rights, democratization, and the raising of living standards” in Latin American countries in pursuit of raw materials under the guise of fighting communism. In order to explain extreme U.S. actions in regions with little to no economic benefit, such as Vietnam and Laos, Chomsky uses a version of the Domino Theory—if one country defies the desired global order and experiences economic success it risks other weaker states deflecting from the United States’ wishes as well. He characterizes the Vietnam War as a success, because the total devastation inflicted on the land and the people by American bombing campaigns destroyed the possibility of any short term economic or social success, thus preventing “the rot” (Chomsky 1985) of communism from spreading. Cuba, Panama, Mexico, Honduras, Haiti, Nicaragua, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, Grenada and El Salvador all experienced

We can related this article to our class because it shows the hegemony and global relationship between the United States and Latin America. The involvement of United States throughout Latin America was to prove its power over the Soviet Union during the cold war. It was also a way of ensuring the protection of its economically and political power in Latin America. Therefore when communism started gaining massive support in El Salvador, the United States called for its US train salvadoran army to eliminate the supporters. As the author of our reading, “The Hegemony of U.S Economic Doctrines in Latin America” states “ When Latin America strayed from the path of virtue, they have been reminded to get back on the straight and narrow by the United

The United-States has always had a major impacting role in the political affairs of Latin America. Since the dawn of the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, the U.S. has taken a firm and direct stance when dealing with the continent to ensure that its [United States] interests are always upheld. This being said, the U.S. uses formal and informal manipulation and intervention to ensure that Latin American governments are compatible with U.S. interests. This dates back, as previously said, to the time of the Monroe doctrine, when the United-States wanted to protect its expansion and dominance in the two Continent form European powers. Following this was the onset of the Truman Doctrine of 1947, which sought to contain the spread of communism, especially within what they considered their own sphere of influence…i.e. Latin America. Following the collapse of the soviet block the 1990s could be considered a period of foreign policy stagnation, where the U.S attempted to seek out trade and diplomacy, rather than intervention and manipulation policies towards the countries of Latin America. Though, this seemingly came to an end with the onset of the terror attacks of September 11th, 2001, which sparked the new “War on Terror” American policy orientation back to a more interventionist approach.

During the Korean War, Russia's communist propaganda influenced people to become communist, especially Americans. During the Korean War, some Americans were becoming attracted to communism. The United States wanted to stop Russia’s ideology of a communist country and the USA wanted to prevent communism from spreading in America. Communism in the United States ended after the Korean War because of anti communist measures.

Latin America during the post WWI interwar period was in a situation of profound political instability fostered a political situation that in the eyes of international observers appeared to be greatly influences by Ideological fascism. Questions raised by historians like Ciccarelli
and Hancock pose a powerful challenge to previous assumptions made by some within the international community. The two articles refocus the debate by shedding new light on the political realities of the time, and shows that the political instability existent in Bolivia and Peru created a political reality that on the surface had some fascistic appearences, but in practicality the mass of Latin Americans were steadfast in their commitment to Liberal Democracy. Ciccarelli