In the 1960’s, America’s intense nationalism was shattered by the horrors brought about by two consecutive World Wars. Thousands of Americans died fighting in what they saw as another man’s war, an eastern war. America experienced the pain of war and sought to avoid experiencing it ever again. But the world feared a newer, and more dangerous threat after the great wars: communism. When America’s government again wanted to become involved in the other man’s war, many young men and their families protested vehemently. When General Douglas MacArthur received an award from Westpoint, his acceptance address, entitled “Duty, Honor, Country,” morphed into a call to arms to the students, future military leaders, a reminder of the three ideals that …show more content…
MacArthur reminds the men that they are part of a new kind of warfare, of missiles and bombs instead of ground troops, a kind of warfare which has shifted, “the primary target in war, no longer limited to the armed forces of an enemy, but instead to include his civil populations” (MacArthur). The fighting of the cadets in small wars prevents the escalation into an all out war with the Soviet Union, which would not only involve the soldiers, but every American civilian. From the size of their respective arsenals at the time, it is estimated that an all out nuclear war with the Soviet Union would have cost the United states approximately 100 million casualties, and the Soviet Union more than 100 million (Harvard-Kennedy School). Such casualties would have been unacceptable to the cadets, and would have inspired them to arms. Knowing he is speaking to military men, the General reminds the men of their position in the chain of command, and their obligation to follow orders from above. He reminds them not to question the decisions from higher up, and that, “These great national problems are not for your professional participation or military solution. Your guidepost stands out like a tenfold beacon in the night: Duty, Honor, Country” (MacArthur). MacArthur relies on the logical, orderly mind of the soldier to simply …show more content…
He knows that, with the memory of the bloodshed and loss of World War Two not far from their minds, many could be reluctant to march to war yet again. But instead of shy away from this fact, he makes this concession to the men, saying that, “The soldier, above all others, prays for peace...for he must bear the deepest wounds of war” (MacArthur). The General knows that to ignore this sentiment of the soldiers would be to lose their faith entirely. The government was far from eager to leap into conflict again, but believed that fighting against communism wherever it surfaced was crucial to stopping it, and so they played on the nascent fear of Russia in order to justify the wars in Korea and Vietnam (The Cold War Museum). MacArthur relies also on the patriotism of the American soldiers and their pride in their country to push them to fight. He tells the cadets that they, “stand as the Nation's war guardian, as its lifeguard from the raging tides of international conflict, as its gladiator in the arena of battle” (MacArthur). With American sentiments strong after World War 2, MacArthur trusts that their pride in country and sense of duty will be strong enough to push them into combat. MacArthur also knows that the men have pride not only in their country, but
On April 11th, 1951, General Douglas MacArthur was relieved from the war (History). The American five-star general and Field Marshal of the Philippines Army gave his Farewell Address to Congress on April 19th, 1951 (History). As he was speaking to the American people, MacArthur was feeling a sense of pride for his accomplishments in the numerous battles he was involved in. The purpose of the speech was to justify his actions in the Korean war (O’Neal). With a strong emphasis on pathos in which he utilizes figurative language, MacArthur appeals to his audience’s sense of duty and patriotism to realize what being in the service means.
War is a problem that seems inevitable. America was founded thanks to a war, yet many Americans such as Michael Herr and William James do not support it. They both wrote essays to show the negative effects of war and to shine a new light on the subject. The essay, “Illumination Rounds” by Michael Herr, was published in The New American Review #7 in 1969. Herr speaks of his experiences in Vietnam and shares the abundant coping methods the soldiers use to deal with PTSD. He asserts that war is not worth all of the negative effects.
Michael D. Pearlman’s, Truman & MacArthur Policy, Politics, and the Hunger for Honor and Renown, written in 2008, reflects on the relationship of President Truman and General MacArthur during the Korean War. Pearlman reexamines their public confrontation, discovering the political and military perspectives, and the decisions that were made that impacted the role of the presidential administration. Pearlman provides insight into the different ideologies and methods that were used that determined the outcome of the war. Pearlman gives an objective and comprehensive account of events that occurred with the Korean War. He reflects on the partisan competition in Washington and the political power of military officers. Pearlman makes the point
The growing perceived ineffectiveness and illegitimacy of America’s role in Vietnam was the product of what was viewed as little more than an anti-communist crusade in which neither logistical concerns nor the nationalist motivations of a people who had yearned for sovereignty over centuries carried significant weight. Less and less Americans were willing to bankroll, much less have their sons paying “any price” or bearing “any burden” for what was becoming a quagmire. Bodybag after bodybag was being filled with American boys on a daily basis, not to mention that every dollar of damage incurred by the Communist enemy in Hanoi cost the United States ten dollars , helping to quickly bring an end to an era of unprecedented American prosperity.
One of the Cold War’s most prominent is The Ugly American. Written in 1958, this book was a best seller, filled with different stories about why communism was winning and what must be done about it. The authors of the book The Ugly American used one main argument for its readers: “communism is a monolithic enemy whose fundamental values challenged those of the United States and whose ultimate goal was world domination.” (page 4) There stories were one of main forces driving people like Kennedy and Johnson to go and “save” Vietnam from
General MacArthur was the leader of the allied forces in the pacific southwest during the duration of WWII. When the Korean War broke out and North Korea invaded South Korea he was assigned commander of the United States Forces. While he was in charge during the war some say he was a genius for his defeats. “As U.S. and United Nations forces turned the tide of battle in Korea, MacArthur argued for a policy of pushing into North Korea to completely defeat the communist forces. Truman went along with this plan, but worried that the communist government of the People’s Republic of China might take the invasion as a hostile act and intervene in the conflict ("Truman Relieves MacArthur,")”. However, his victories were short lived once China entered the war, causing him to withdraw his troops from North Korea. By April 1951 the military was stable but General MacArthur could not keep his opinions to
Shorting after the United States became involve in the Vietnam Conflict, many Americans began to realize the reasons behind the U.S. entering the Vietnam Conflict was based on falsified facts. One such falsification is the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Many America’s begin to form Antiwar organization such as The Vietnam Day Committee and Vietnam Veterans Against the War, which severed to education the population on the Vietnam Conflict and the lie that lead to the U.S. involvement in conflict. In the Vietnam Day Committee’s pamphlet, I found it disturbing and unjustified that they would make a comment such as, “A growing number of GIs have already refused to fight in Vietnam and have been court-martialed. They have shown great courage.” The last
Today we hear the word war and thoughts shift to the Middle East. In the 60’s we may have thought about Vietnam, in the 40’s perhaps Pearl Harbor or Hitler and in the 20’s maybe the U Boat or the Red Barron. The supposed winner and loser in each war may have crossed the mind as well but not much more. Why did these wars happen? What was being fought for and who was making the sacrifice? In David W. Blight’s article, “The meaning or the fight: Frederick Douglass and the memory of the fifty fourth Massachusetts,” he proves that in modern American society the memory of war is that of a fight and not of what was being fought for. Media, the entertainment industry, and even our education systems paint quite a different picture for each of us.
As Bill Kreuer enjoys lunch after a hard morning of PT at boot camp, US armed forces awake to a conflict in the pacific that threatens their lives. The Vietnam War was an event that would shape the future of a country and of a man. This war, which was fought between 1964 and 1973 between the Vietcong forces in Northern Vietnam and US forces in Sothern Vietnam, ventured to check the spread of communism in East Asia. Because the war was highly politicized the United States home front, some troops returned from the conflict only to be shamed by the people they were told they were defending. Bill Kreuer., an enlisted man during the war, felt the weight of this harassment and ultimately decided that his involvement in the war was not to spoken of.
The decision to go to war is not a decision that is taken lightly. In Tim O’Brien’s The Things They Carried, Tim O’Brien faces cultural, social and political push factors that end up leading him to forgo his plan to dodge the draft, and to report as instructed, a mere yards away from his destination of Canada. In Leslie Marmon Silko’s Ceremony, Rocky and Tayo, two young Native American men, experience cultural, social and political pull factors that draw them into the Army, fighting the Second World War for a country that considers them less than human. The stories of these characters are not unique, they are stories that are representative of the stories of young American men at the time, that faced cultural, social, and political push and pull factors during both conflicts. The purpose of this inquiry essay is to determine what those push and pull factors were, and why they lead these men to willingly engage in two of the most destructive conflicts in human history.
“War at its basic level has always been about soldiers. Nations rose and fell on the strength of their armies and the men who filled the ranks.” This is a very powerful quote, especially for the yet young country of the United States, for it gives credit where credit is truly due: to the men who carried out the orders from their superiors, gave their blood, sweat and tears, and in millions of cases their lives while fighting for ideals that they believed their country or government was founded upon, and to ensure the continuation of these ideals. Up until the end of the 20th Century, they did so in the worst of conditions, and this includes not only the battle scene, but also every day life. In
‘Dear America’ is a rather sober look at the war fought in Vietnam from the point of view of the soldiers fighting in it. The book is a collection of 200 letters penned by the soldiers and their families during the war. It is through the simplicity of the writers’ language and the honesty in their words that makes Dear America a history book and not a war novel. Through these readings, the myths of the glories of war are promptly dispelled to make way for the harsh truths that accompany it. War is known to take the humanity out of many a soldier but all that is left of it shines through the pages of their candid, homebound letters.
The First World War initially called “The Great War” was a European conflict fought between 1914-1918. The war started with the assassination of Austro-Hungarian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie during a public visit to Sarajevo. The assassin, Gavrilo Princip was a Serbian insurgent who detested Austro-Hungarian rule. This assassination plunged the majority of Europe into conflict with one another due to a delicate system of alliances establish years earlier. While there is little doubt that Princip’s actions helped to initiate the conflict, growing tensions among European powers would have undoubtedly lead to war later on.
In the 1960’s American soldiers were deployed to South Vietnam to protect the democratic nation from the invasion by the communist North Vietnam. In both cases, American’s were desperately trying to stand against the rising threat of communism and tyranny. Then in the 1990’s, American soldiers were once again called upon to protect the people of the world from tyranny. American soldiers were deployed to the Middle East to fight against the rising threat of tyranny that threatened the area. In all of these conflicts, Americans were tasked with protecting the freedom of people throughout the world. The purpose of these wars would also explain the high levels of patriotism among these generations of Americans. During the Cold War, when fighting the Soviet Union, “Not only did stereotyped notions of the Soviet Union make America seem great,” it also “increased the appreciation Americans felt for their own brand of ‘freedom and democracy’” (Hirshberg 3). The American people who lived through these conflicts became more patriotic because the contradiction of values highlighted the best aspects of American society. Even for those Americans who did not care about the highlighted aspects of America, The Cold War “helped perpetuate a proud patriotism by uniting the nation against the common enemy” (Hirshberg 3). Almost every American who lived during a time of war against another state has experienced a surge of patriotism because these
The silhouettes are an inspired from Margaret Mitchell’s novel, Gone with the Wind. Walker put herself in the place of the story’s heroine Scarlett O’Hara. Interestingly enough, the title of the novel is inspired from a poem Non Sum Qualis Eram Bonae sub Regno Cynarae by Ernest Dowson. The title was chosen from the first line of the third stanza of the poem: