Essay On The Dulles Brothers

The end of the nineteenth century marked a significant change in the American foreign policy. Prior to the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, America had paid little attention to foreign affairs. When compared to some of the more powerful European countries, such as France, Germany, and Great Britain, the United States had a

For example, William Appleman Williams in his 1962 book, ‘The Tragedy of American Diplomacy’, argued that the U.S. considered the “open door” policy as essential to the continuous prosperity of the United States. He claimed that no post-war agreement with the

The American “way of war” can be seen politically through the evolution of military policy as political perspectives changed. Post-World War II reveals primary and consistent policies that lead American military policymakers to avoid major international conflict. Coined the Cold War, Americans began waging war

George Washington, a man of many military achievements, brought ragtag farmers to military men, and destroyed the most powerful army in the world. Washington was appointed the Commander in Chief of the Continental Army on June 14, 1775. Washington, who had military experience before serving in the Continental Army, had never commanded an army of this size. He was appointed leader of the Continental Army because John Hancock, president of the Second Continental Congress, thought of him as a man of great character who would help unite the colonies. Brilliant character and leadership help George Washington win battles over the British, and make farmers into true military men.

Washington D.C. in the summertime is constantly perspiring, a rather miserable place to be. And, although the summer of 1949 was equally as dredged, Paul Nitze, an expert economist who lacked status in the United States government, was about to receive the opportunity of a lifetime. George Kennan, longtime diplomat and Russian studies expert, was looking to retire to his quiet farm in Pennsylvania, but he needed to leave a successor for the Policy Planning Staff. He decided on Paul Nitze. However, just months later after Russia succeeded in building and testing an atomic bomb and Nitze’s appeal for an assessment of U.S. Foreign Policy, Kennan on September 30 wrote, “I face the work of these remaining months with neither enthusiasm nor hope for achievement.” Obviously, the Cold War would be a large undertaking for any Russian expert in the State Department, however, it is more than likely that he was referring to working closely with colleague whose foreign policy tactics evidently began to differ greatly from his own as time would show.

The United States entered World War Two in late 1941, and right away they were thrown into a conflict that involved making important decisions that would affect generations of people, in the United States and elsewhere, for years to come. A most notable decision by the Allies, namely the United States and Great Britain, was the combining of the American and British military chiefs of staff. This joint collaboration was appropriately titled the “Combined Chiefs of Staff”. They worked together as one body, and made war planning decisions and strategized together. This type of alliance was an innovation in war planning for the time, and the decisions made collaboratively by the two powers contributed greatly to the Allied victory in 1945. The relationships involved and the disputes that came up are worth noting, specifically the question of the Allies opening up a second front in the west, particularly titled “Operation Sledgehammer”. The relationship between President Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, as well as General George Marshall of the United States and General Sir Alan Brooke of Great Britain were the main actors involved in this undertaking, and they will be the main individuals discussed and analyzed for the purposes of this paper. Ultimately Operation Sledgehammer was delayed and no action was taken upon it. Even though it caused rifts between the USSR, for reasons that will be explained, and the Allies far into the future, in retrospect they may have been

Even though the United States emerged as a clear victor of World War I, many Americans after the war felt that their involvement in the conflict had been a mistake (Markus Schoof, “The American Experience During World War II,” slide 3). This belief, however, did not deter the country from engaging in many other international affairs in the future, most importantly the WWII and the Cold War. Right from the Manifest Destiny, which led to expand its empire at home and abroad, to the World War I, the country had come a long way from being somewhat a lonely-land to a global superpower of the 20th century. Its influence in the international arena grew unprecedently after its commitment to the World War II, and like they say, the rest is history. If the WWII was a resounding success to the American legacy, what followed, the Cold War, put many implications on the American diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union and to the world. Although the rising Fascism in Europe and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor drove the U.S. to enter the WWII, historians over the years have laid equal blames on both nations for starting the Cold War. These two events helped in shaping up many domestic and foreign policies for the U.S.

Throughout the mid to late twentieth century the United States was extremely concerned with their foreign policy due to mishaps that surfaced as a result of lazy administration when dealing with communism. As an example, one mishap was how the Truman Administration dealt with China after the KMT surfaced following WWII. Instead of immediately defending the People’s Republic of China, the United States stayed mostly secluded and independent and let China slip into the favor of the KMT. This was an example of the United States’ being too moderate in their foreign policy. However, on the other hand, there were examples where the United States was too aggressive in their foreign policy. An example of this was how the US chose to dealt with North

Until the end of the nineteenth century, American foreign policy essentially followed the guidelines laid down by George Washington, in his Farewell Address to the American people: “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is—in extending our commercial relations—to have with them as little political connection as possible.” By avoiding

When thinking about the numerous, dynamic leaders that America has had over the course of the nation’s history, it can become troublesome to fairly compare these respective heads of state. Though each American president has unquestionably left their own unique legacy from their time in office, when comparing leaders from similar times, certain consistencies can present themselves. While the Presidency is of course beholden to constructs of political normativity subjective to the era they presided in, by choosing two POTUS’ from the same era, we can more adequately synthesize comparable actions and philosophies between the two. To this end, we will analyze the terms of Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, cutting through narratives of their tenures to truly delineate their comparability. Through a comprehensive analysis of these two leaders on the subjects of foreign policy, we begin to parse out many similarities and differences between these two early 20th century leaders.

The realization, however, came with a stark reality: in order to obtain access to overseas markets, the US would need to devise clever strategies to validate and facilitate these aims. So, while power-hungry business moguls were busy conjuring up plans as to how to bring this about, government and military officials like Theodore Roosevelt, Senator Henry Lodge, President McKinley and Captain A. T. Mahan sought to extend the political and military presence of US forces around the world. The plan was to gain a foothold, and eventually be positioned to control leaders and policies of overseas nations. Naturally, it was a plan that would require the careful construction of outwardly logical

At the turn of the century, and after gaining our independence, the United States land mass more than doubled through the use of purchasing, annexing, and war. However, the foreign policy of our government took a predominately isolationist stand. This was a national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries. General Washington shaped these values by upholding and encouraging the use of these principles by warning to avoid alliances in his farewell speech. The reasoning behind these actions was that the Republic was a new nation. We did not have the resources or the means to worry about other

The sixth major point also George Washington’s Farewell Address mentions that “No Foreign Alliances”. America had some times to where we stay isolated but needed to form any policy that if we wanted to be described as the “power house”, we didn’t have to follow anybody but to be a leader and an example to

In their book American Foreign Policy since World War 2, Steven W. Hook, and John Spanier take a historical look at American foreign policy. Since its independence, all through to the start of the 20th century, the United States had a policy of detachment. This was rooted in the believe that Europe, the only other meaningful powerful in the world in the 18th and 19th century, had intrinsic issues related to feudism that kept the continent in a constant state of war (Hook & Spanier, 2015). The U.S on its part was far away from Europe and had a unique chance to chart a different course, one free from the troubles of Europe. As a democracy free from the class systems of Europe and hence maintain peace and stability (Hook & Spanier, 2015). To maintain this peace and stability, it was in the United States interests to maintain detachment from Europe. In fact, Monroe wrote that Europe and its flawed system was evil and America should strive as much as possible to stay away from it (Hook & Spanier, 2015). However, in the 20th century, this policy of detachment was put to the test when the United States was drawn into the first and second world wars by external factors. This led the United States to get more engaged in global affairs. The idea behind engagement was to promote the ideals of democracy which, the U.S believed were the pillars of peace, as well as to protect itself from aggressors like Japan in the Second World War. After the

“Until early in [the twentieth] century, the isolationist tendency prevailed in American foreign policy. Then, two factors projected America into world affairs: its rapidly expanding power, and the gradual collapse of the international system centered on Europe” . President Woodrow Wilson was the leader who would initiate the ideologies of American diplomacy in the twentieth century. Up until his Presidency, American foreign policy was simply to fulfill the course of manifest destiny, and to remain free of entanglements overseas. Although he could not convince his fellow politicians on Capitol Hill of the probable success of his ideas, he did persuade the fellow writers of the Treaty of