Vietnam5, Miscellaneous, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - Miscellaneous

Vietnam5

Vietnam5 Vietnam was a poor country and very passive except in the north where a leader known as Ho Chi Mihn converted and taught his people about communism. So upon seeing this action the United States intervened to keep the South Vietnamese from the persecution from the North Vietnamese, and to keep them from communism. Was this the right answer yes or no! Dolan, Edward. MIA: Missing in Action. Franklin Watts. Peace talks filled the room in Paris, France. The United States and the North Vietnamese sat their deliberating talks trying to come to a peaceful negotiation, but these talks would always end up in a shouting match, and the issue at hand would not come to a close (Dolan 27). Richard Nixon went along a different road then the peacekeepers he wanted to end the United States involvement in the war with a policy that he called “Vietnamization” (Dolan 28). Vietnamization was a policy that would allow the United States to build up the South Vietnamese Army to the point where if they had to that they could sit there and defend themselves from the North Vietnamese Army (Dolan 28). This was a slow process but in time United State soldiers were pulled away from this conflict, and the South Vietnamese took over most of the ground fight. The United States still provided air support and economic aid (Dolan 28). This book demonstrates a good grasp of the peace talks that failed in Paris that ultimately resulted in the beginning of the conflict. It showed that there was an effort and an attempt to get our soldiers out of this drastic predicament. This reference is different from the other books in respect to the in depth look at the “Vietnamization” policy constructed by President Richard Nixon. Esper, George. The Eyewitness History of the Vietnam War 1961-1975. Two million seven hundred thousand Americans were deployed to Vietnam, and out of all those people more than fifty thousand plus men and women came back to the states as walking wounded (Esper 5). Everyone that went to this far off land came back a little different from when they left (Esper 5). The involvement in Vietnam began during World War II with the OSS teams (Office of Strategic Services) they were the beginning force that battled with the Vietnamese against the Japanese invaders (Esper 5). The person leading the Vietnamese revolutionaries was a man known as Nguyen Ai Quoc more widely known as Ho Chi Minh (Esper 5). After the second world war the United States and other ally countries were concerned in what the French were going to do with the Vietnamese area if in fact they were going to reestablish their colonies there or not (Esper 6). Roosevelt had a theory that he implied to the allies. “Liberated by American aid, and American troops…And simply should not be handed back to the French so they may milk the imperialists” (Esper 6). This book is great it starts from the very beginning of the war to the end. It also demonstrates a quick blur of knowledge. This reference does not show useless points to discuss, it gets straight to the point and does not deviate from the main points of interest. If it were up to myself I would use this book for not only a reliable source but also as a teaching instrument to show the policies that were in placed. It is quick over view for a student to focus on a certain part of the book so it can have a reference then if need be can look at another book to get an in depth view of a certain situation. Hosmer, Stephen. The Fall of South Vietnam. Crane, Russak & Company, Inc. New York, 1980. South Vietnam was viewed as a semi dictatorship according to Bu Diem (Hosmer 49). There were also a lot of political forces that were established in South Vietnam that would have given the South Vietnamese a fighting chance to instill a democracy into their nation. To the dismal they received a great political push from the North Vietnamese, and their political leader Ho Chi Mihn (Hosmer 49). Because of South Vietnams will to be free they did not want to be the contributing force to go to war (Hosmer 51). The people of the south were more into going to work getting higher paying jobs to support their families in these hard times (Hosmer 53). This was one contributing factor of why the South Vietnamese needed to get assistance from the United States of America to help them protect their semi-freedom, which they were holding on to desperately. The loss of Phuoc Long was also a huge turning point in the Vietnam era. Phuoc Long was one of the best cities that the south had (Hosmer 159). After its loss the ranks were weakened and it took a great psychological toll on the South Vietnamese the loss of this city marked the disintegration of the South Vietnamese (Hosmer 160). This book is strong in the political criteria that it shows the falls and the reasons for United States intervention into this conflict. This reference also gives the reader insight on why the South Vietnamese needed help because of their views, and their current political affiliation, which was that of a semi-dictatorship. Isaacs, Arnold. Vietnam Shadows: The War, Its Ghosts, and Its Legacy. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Baltimore 1997. President Johnson gives the reason why the United States is in Vietnam. His answer that he gives is always the same if you asked him once twice or even three times, “We must do what we are doing to honor our commitments we have made to the Vietnamese people ever since 1954” (Isaacs 33). The committing of over 250,000 American soldiers was the first step to show the North Vietnamese that America was there ready to lay the law down to prove that we were a force to be reckoned with (Isaacs 33). President Johnson based his theory on two fronts. The first was a letter written by President Eisenhower to President Diem on October 23, 1954. The other was the Southeast Asia Collective Defense treaty and protocol ratified in February 1955 (Isaacs 34). This reference was very good it demonstrated the political reasons why the United States got involved in the conflict in Vietnam. Also, it demonstrated the change in the presidency when the letter of President Eisenhower, affected the decision making process of President Johnson. Luckily the two played out for the better of the president in his diplomatic tendencies. In comparison to the other books this book Vietnam Shadows, gets deep into the pre-war era before the negotiations ever took place in Paris, France. Also it showed the transition between the presidents and the diplomacy that stayed virtually the same. Maitland, Terrence. The Vietnam Experience: Raising the Stakes. Boston Publishing Company, Boston 1980. Vietnam officials did not know how to take the new President Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson concerned his focus on winning the people over for their support in this infamous conflict (Maitland 94). President Johnson had a concept of a great foreign policy. It was some what like that of Hitler at Munich (Maitland 95). He also liked the domino theory that was stated to be one of his most unpopular plans in congress because it would also make the United States fight more than one enemy at a time (Maitland 97). President’s Domino theory was simply this if we go after the root cause of the problem. Then we can over all eliminate the current progressive issue (Maitland 95). What the problem was here that the root cause was China one of the most powerful armies in the world. Johnson after being advised by his council came to the worst decision he ever had to make and that was to commit troops to Vietnam (Maitland 96). President Johnson was quoted to saying. “I did everything I could to avoid taking the steps that would escalate our commitment” (Maitland 95). Awesome political issues in this book it was some what like being in the oval office as the President was faced with the issues of either folding or raising the annie of this conflict. All though he was forced to play his hand it is still a very credible source, and should be viewed as such. I would most likely to use this book to document some of the political roles that were played in the decision making process of this conflicting era. This book differs from some of the other sources in the respect that it deals with more politics of why we were going, and how we could avoid getting into this type of mess. Unlike the other books that gave you a quick overview then got right into the battles. Scheer, Robert. How the United States Got Involved in Vietnam. Santa Barbara, CA: Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, 1970. The Vietnam War is very interesting because many people have wondered how and why the United States got involved in a war that really didn’t seem to concern them. American involvement officially began in 1950 when the US government recognized the Bao Dai government and began sending the French aid to fight off the communist backed Viet Minh led by Ho Chi Minh (Scheer 10). The French lost the war because it was not fully committed to a “win” policy (Scheer 10). The Bao Dai, anti-Communist nationalist alternative, whom the Truman and Eisenhower Administrations had supported, had failed to undercut the appeal of the Viet Minh (Scheer 11). The price of peace involved the surrendering of some portion of the country to the Communists, and the United States could not oppose since it had not become deeply involved (Scheer 12). The United States instead placed its hopes on a new anti-Communist nationalist alternative his name was Ngo Dinh Diem. Diem accepted the offer and his government were formally organized. This started a new phase of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Senator John F. Kennedy recommended, in order to prevent the further spread of communism in Southeast Asia, that the French grant independence to South Vietnam, support the government’s army, and “whenever necessary make some commitment of our manpower” (Scheer 15). The settlement at Geneva did three things: 1st it ended the war; 2nd divided Vietnam in half temporarily; and 3rd called for peace and reunification of the country (Scheer 16). Diem’s government believed in tight central control to divert the nationalist revolution from Communist objectives (Scheer 21). During the first year of the new government, Diem crushed all sources of opposition left over from the Viet Minh (Scheer 21). By 1959, in the North, the Viet Minh had written off the possibility of the elections that they were supposed to get and turned to military means. This ended the illusory stability of the Diem regime (Scheer 46). Diem was aware that his government could not survive without the massive aid from the United States so he based his whole appeal on anti-communism (Scheer 56). But then, with the “Communist danger” the basis for assuring continued American aid, the secure countryside suddenly was overrun with communist terrorists (Scheer 56). This book was very detailed as well as fascinating to glance through. It gave political spectrum from the South Vietnamese side, and offered a great perception of somewhat a total picture on the root causes and reasons for United States involvement. Using this book was a major step in this paper it has defined the other half of the political spectrum. Summers, Harry. On Strategy: The Vietnam War in Context. US Army War College, Pennsylvania 1982. An ongoing argument about the Vietnam War was this. If Congress declared the Vietnam conflict a war would the public perspective of this drastic turn of events be viewed in a difference context (Summers 13). It was viewed if the United States declared war on the North Vietnamese it would have been made clear then the nation would focus all of their attention towards the enemy and would have probably done anything to help support their troops over seas (Summers 13). On the counter of that though because the United States did not formally declare war the whole Vietnam conflict was viewed as an anachronism (Summers 13). It was not over looked as the conflict arose that people were very dissatisfied with the actions that were being taken. The leaders of the United States knew the importance of keeping the people closely connected to their troops. They also knew that this form of cohesive bond was what was going to make our nations moral strength (Summers 13). This reference was good in displaying the emotions of the people before the war it gave a good socio-economic representation of what the feelings were before during and after the soldier’s efforts in this Far East land. I would consider this book if I were righting on the emotions of the people before the war, and their views on whether or not that we as a country should be in Vietnam. Because this is Department of the Army source it does give other representations of the war, but the other key points dealt with battle tactics of the conflict that were not pertaining to the project. Terry, Wallace. Bloods: An Oral History of the Vietnam War by Black Veterans. The basic concept of the new isolationism is that the united States of America has over extended its role in trying to isolate communism around the world, and has engaged in a battle that is being fought not just on one front, but a bunch of fronts (Terry 27). Also they have committed to the defense of the whole world, and have committed themselves to a no win situation in other theaters (Terry 27). It is battled that the United States has not over extended their boundaries, and have nothing to worry about because they are now a major world power and they can handle the task of the worlds police force (Terry 28). The United States has a great industrial complex, great wealth, and an outstanding agriculture out put. Who is to say that we as Americans can not complete a task as much as a police action in another country (Terry 28)? Countering this great reprisal was a man who was believed to say. “The basic fact of our world is that of the Western Hemisphere. We inside of it are torn by two things our melting pot of both political and philosophically. When you throw these people into a situation where they come from different back grounds they will object…I believe to win a war in another country we need to be able take care of our selves here in America first (Terry 29). This book was ok the credibility is a little sketchy, but I believe it to be true coming from a very credible writer and publishing company. This showed an in depth look at the stance the American people showed towards the beginning of the war, and as time went on more and more people thought the way the anonymous writer did in the views of why are our boys over there. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/68apr/vietnam.htm by James C. Thompson, Jr. April 1968. From the beginning of John Kennedy's Administration into this fifth year of Lyndon Johnson's presidency, substantially the same small group of men have presided over the destiny of the United States (Thompson). Yet a first and central ingredient in these years of Vietnam decisions does involve history. The ingredient was the legacy of the 1950s -- by which I mean the so-called "loss of China," the Korean War, and the Far East policy of Secretary of State Dulles (Thompson). What Thompson is talking about is the different policies that we had with the different countries in the Far East. Meaning we tried to become an ally with these countries, even though they were combating with each other. So the American politicians tried to make deals with the countries while at the same time trying not to step on their own toes with the deals of the other countries that are warring. I did not really like this as a source I found it to be a personal tale told by Mr. Thompson. He played a roll in the article about how he was the one looking over the shoulder of the president and would find problems with what he saw. Then would state his theory to the situation making it look like he was the one that was right. After doing this he would publish it and continue on deceiving the Americans there for making it an unpopular war. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Publishers, 1968. The United States continued the policy of supplying, training, and advising the Army of the Republic of Vietnam on an increasing scale (Trager 179). On August 2 and 4, North Vietnamese boats attacked the warships U.S.S. Maddox and U.S.S. C. Turner Joy in international waters in the Gulf of Tonkin. Johnson ordered an immediate reply, and on August 4, United States aircraft began bombing Vietnam. This operation became known as Rolling Thunder (Trager 180). North Vietnam had deliberately made war on the South, though it had bound itself to refrain from war. The United States had become an ally of the South at the time when no further war between the two states had been expected (Trager 182). Eventually, after this unprovoked war had begun, the United States recognized its obligation to its ally and slowly, and with many misgivings, assumed a responsible role in this alliance, a role which was defined, until as late as February, 1965, as one of assistance and advice only (Trager 183). This book was very good in detail of the coming to terms and reasons of the efforts put into why the United States entered the conflict. Part was that of guilt and the other an obligation made to its allies. We the people and of course the political leaders of our nation were so relentless to commit that it almost hurt them after doing so. I would use this book again to also show the political scheme of the nation behind the scenes before the committing of troops just to show that not the whole truth has been told and will still probably never be told. In ones own personal opinion I think that some of these sources are right on while others are just fabrications of the truth. In all actuality I believe that if we ever had to do this again that the first thing we do is declaring a full-fledged war on whatever country was starting the confrontation. Then second make it quick and easy decision for the American people to take either pro or con it makes no difference. No matter what you do as a President or a senator in congress you are always going to ruffle feathers but the feathers that you would want to ruffle would be that of the minority. If actions like these are taken then we will have a successful campaign like that of Desert Storm where we had the nation in arms supporting our troops, and later when they came home they would walk into open arms of loved ones and family members. Vietnam was a great learning experience in what not to do. We have learned from our mistakes and we have moved on. Bibliography:

Word Count: 3292