The U.S. Containment Policy - Part II
What?
Summary
Eisenhower
Doctrine
Cuban
Revolution
Bay of Pigs
Invasion
Berlin Wall
Cuban
Missile Crisis
Domino
Theory
Vietnam War
®SAISD Social Studies Department
Reproduction rights granted only if copyright information remains intact.
Page 1
What Did Eisenhower Want?
What Was It?
Eisenhower Doctrine (1957)
The Middle East has abruptly reached a new and critical stage in its long and
important history. In past decades many of the countries in that area were not fully
self-governing. Other nations exercised considerable authority in the area and the
security of the region was largely built around their power. But since the First World
War there has been a steady evolution toward self-government and independence.
This development the United States has welcomed and has encouraged. Our country
supports without reservation the full sovereignty and independence of each and every
nation of the Middle East.
The evolution to independence has in the main been a peaceful process. But the
area has been often troubled. Persistent cross-currents of distrust and fear with raids
back and forth across national boundaries have brought about a high degree of
instability in much of the Mid East. just recently there have been hostilities involving
Western European nations that once exercised much influence in the area. Also the
relatively large attack by Israel in October has intensified the basic differences
between that nation and its Arab neighbors. All this instability has been heightened
and, at times, manipulated by International Communism.
The action which I propose would have the following features.
It would, first of all, authorize the United States to cooperate with and assist
any nation or group of nations in the general area of the Middle East in the
development of economic strength dedicated to the maintenance of national
independence.
It would, in the second place, authorize the Executive to undertake in the same
region programs of military assistance and cooperation with any nation or group of
nations which desires such aid.
It would, in the third place, authorize such assistance and cooperation to
include the employment of the armed forces of the United States to secure and
protect the territorial integrity and political independence of such nations, requesting
such aid, against overt armed aggression from any nation controlled by International
Communism.
These measures would have to be consonant with the treaty obligations of the United
States, including the Charter of the United Nations and with any action or
recommendations of the United Nations. They would also, if armed attack occurs, be
subject to the overriding authority of the United Nations Security Council in
accordance with the Charter.
The present proposal would, in the fourth place, authorize the President to
employ, for economic and defensive military purposes, sums available under the
Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended, without regard to existing limitations.
®SAISD Social Studies Department
Reproduction rights granted only if copyright information remains intact.
Page 2
Bay of Pigs Crisis (1961)
Within three months of becoming President of the United States,
President John F. Kennedy was facing a diplomatic crisis and a political
embarrassment centering around the Caribbean nation of Cuba. To
understand how the events of April 1961 unfolded, one must look at what
happened before.
In 1959, Fidel Castro led an armed revolt in Cuba to oust the dictator,
Fulgencio Batista. President Eisenhower attempted to extend diplomatic
courtesy towards the new Cuban leader soon after the revolution. However,
Castro decided to form an alliance with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev.
and soon declared Cuba to be a Communist nation with close ties with the
Soviet Union. The main concern with the Soviet-Cuban alliance is Cuba is
located 90 miles from Florida. Also, the the development of IRBMs
(Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles) and MRBMs (Medium Range
Ballistic Missiles), the Soviet Union could possible install nuclear missile ranges on Cuba that could
quickly reach the United States.
Before taking office, President Kennedy was briefed on a plan
developed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the
Eisenhower administration to train a small group of anti-Castro
Cuban refugees to invade Cuba and overthrow Castro. If successful,
the sponsored leader of the Cuban Revolutionary Council, José Miró
Cardona, would become the new leader of Cuba. Although all plans
for this invasion were supposed to be done in complete secrecy, Fidel
Castro received information on the training grounds that were located
in Guatemala.
A few weeks after taking office, President Kennedy authorized the
planned invasion of Cuba but made it clear he did not want evidence
of U.S. support in the revolution. On the day of the invasion, mistake
after mistake occurred that would lead to the ultimate failure of the
planned invasion. Also, due to the CIA using outdated American B-26
bombers and painted them black, photographs of the plans exposed
American involvement.
The invading force did land along the Bay of Pigs in
Cuba, but they quickly were met with heavy
resistance. The Cuban Air Force was able to heavily
damage the invading force’s ships and air support.
Finally, Castro raised approximately 20,000 troops and
the conflict ended within 24 hours with the invasion
force surrendering.
Source: NY Regents Test - U.S. History and Government / Kennedy Library
®SAISD Social Studies Department
Reproduction rights granted only if copyright information remains intact.
Page 3
Bay of Pigs Crisis (1961)
http://www.jfklibrary.org/~/media/assets/Foundation/Best%20of%20JFK/JFKKhruschevNSF183418612pages.pdf
®SAISD Social Studies Department
Reproduction rights granted only if copyright information remains intact.
Page 4
Bay of Pigs Crisis (1961)
http://www.jfklibrary.org/~/media/assets/Foundation/Best%20of%20JFK/JFKKhruschevNSF183418612pages.pdf
®SAISD Social Studies Department
Reproduction rights granted only if copyright information remains intact.
Page 5
Bay of Pigs Crisis (1961)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Robert_F._Kennedy_Statement_on_Cuba_and_Neutrality_Laws_April_20%2C_1961.png
®SAISD Social Studies Department
Reproduction rights granted only if copyright information remains intact.
Page 6
Berlin Wall (1961)
In June 1961, President John F. Kennedy
traveled to Vienna, Austria, for a summit with
Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. Not only was
the summit unsuccessful in its goal of building
trust, but it also increased tensions between the
two superpowers—particularly in discussions
regarding the divided city of Berlin.
During the summit, Khrushchev
threatened to cut off Allied access to West
Berlin. Kennedy was startled by Khrushchev's
combative style and tone and unsettled by the threat. President Kennedy ordered
substantial increases in American intercontinental ballistic missile forces, added five new
army divisions, and increased the nation's air power and military reserves.
In the early morning hours of August 13, 1961, the people of East Berlin were
awakened by the rumbling of heavy machinery barreling down their streets toward the
line that divided the eastern and western parts of the city.
Groggy citizens looked on as work details began digging holes and jackhammering
sidewalks, clearing the way for the barbed wire that would eventually be strung across
the dividing line. Armed troops manned the crossing points between the two sides and,
by morning, a ring of Soviet troops surrounded the city. Overnight, the freedom to pass
between the two sections of Berlin ended.
Running across cemeteries and along canals, zigzagging through the city streets,
the Berlin Wall was a chilling symbol of the Iron Curtain that divided all of Europe
between communism and democracy. Berlin was at the heart of the Cold War.
In 1962, the Soviets and East Germans added a second barrier, about 100 yards behind
the original wall, creating a tightly policed no man's land between the walls. After the
wall went up, more than 260 people died attempting to flee to the West.
Though Kennedy chose not to challenge
directly the Soviet Union's building of the
Berlin Wall, he reluctantly resumed testing
nuclear weapons in early 1962, following the
lead of the Soviet Union.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/The-Cold-War-in-Berlin.aspx
®SAISD Social Studies Department
Reproduction rights granted only if copyright information remains intact.
Page 7
Cuban Missile Crisis (1962)
Document 2
Cuban Missile Crisis
. . . But this secret, swift, and extraordinary buildup
of Communist missiles—in an area well known to
have a special and historical relationship to the
United States and the nations of the Western
Hemisphere, in violation of Soviet assurances, and
in defiance of American and hemispheric policy—
this sudden, clandestine [secret] decision to station
strategic weapons for the first time outside of
Soviet soil—is a deliberately provocative and
unjustified change in the status quo which cannot
be accepted by this country, if our courage and our
commitments are ever to be trusted again by either
friend or foe. . . .
— President John F. Kennedy, October 22, 1962
2 Based on this map, state one action ordered by President John F. Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis.
[1]
Document 8
_____________________________________________________________________________________
In October 1962, an American U-2 spy plane
secretly photographed nuclear missile sites being
Score built
by the Soviet Union on the island of Cuba. President
Kennedy did not want the Soviet Union and Cuba to
know that he had discovered the missiles. He met in
secret with his advisors for several days to discuss the
problem.
Ranges of Offensive Missiles in Cuba
_____________________________________________________________________________________
After many long and difficult meetings, Kennedy
decided to place a naval
[12]blockade, or a ring of ships,
around Cuba. The aim of this "quarantine," as he called
it, was to prevent the Soviets from bringing in more
military supplies. He demanded the removal of the
missiles already there and the destruction of the sites.
On October 22, President Kennedy spoke to the nation
about the crisis in a televised address.
U.S. Hist. & Gov’t.–Jan. ’11
U N I T E D S TAT E S
IR
BM
Washington,
D.C.
San
Francisco
Dallas
MRBM
Key
CUBA
IRBM IntermediateRange Ballistic
Missiles
MRBM Medium-Range
Ballistic Missiles
Missile range
Source: James H. Hansen, “Soviet Deception in the Cuban Missile Crisis,”
Studies in Intelligence: Journal of the American Intelligence Professional,
2002 (adapted)
8 According to this map, what was the role of geography in the Cuban missile crisis? [1]
No one was sure how Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev would respond to the naval blockade
and U.S. demands. But the leaders of both superpowers
recognized the devastating possibility of a
________________________________________________________________________
nuclear war and publicly agreed to a deal in which the Soviets would dismantle the weapon sites in
________________________________________________________________________
exchange for a pledge from the United States not to invade Cuba. In a separate deal, which
remained secret for more than twenty-five years, the United States also agreed to remove its nuclear
missiles from Turkey. Although the Soviets removed their missiles from Cuba, they escalated the
building of their military arsenal; the missile crisis was over, the arms race was not.
Source: NY Regents Test - U.S. History and Government / Kennedy Library
®SAISD Social Studies Department
Reproduction rights granted only if copyright information remains intact.
Page 8
Cuban Missile Crisis (1962)
Good evening, my fellow citizens:
This Government, as promised, has maintained the closest surveillance of
the Soviet military buildup on the island of Cuba. Within the past week,
unmistakable evidence has established the fact that a series of offensive
missile sites is now in preparation on that imprisoned island. The purpose
of these bases can be none other than to provide a nuclear strike capability
against the Western Hemisphere.
Upon receiving the first preliminary hard information of this nature last
Tuesday morning at 9 A.M., I directed that our surveillance be stepped up.
And having now confirmed and completed our evaluation of the evidence
and our decision on a course of action, this Government feels obliged to
report this new crisis to you in fullest detail.
The characteristics of these new missile sites indicate two distinct types of
installations. Several of them include medium range ballistic missiles,
capable of carrying a nuclear warhead for a distance of more than 1,000
nautical miles. Each of these missiles, in short, is capable of striking
Washington, D. C., the Panama Canal, Cape Canaveral, Mexico City, or any
other city in the southeastern part of the United States, in Central America,
or in the Caribbean area.
Acting, therefore, in the defense of our own security and of the entire Western
Hemisphere, and under the authority entrusted to me by the Constitution as
endorsed by the Resolution of the Congress, I have directed that the following
initial steps be taken immediately:
First: To halt this offensive buildup a strict quarantine on all offensive military
equipment under shipment to Cuba is being initiated. All ships of any kind bound
for Cuba from whatever nation or port will, if found to contain cargoes of
offensive weapons, be turned back. This quarantine will be extended, if needed,
to other types of cargo and carriers...
Third: It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched
from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the
Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the
Soviet Union...
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkcubanmissilecrisis.html
®SAISD Social Studies Department
Reproduction rights granted only if copyright information remains intact.
Page 9
Kennedy’s Berlin Wall Speech (1963)
...There are many people in the world who really
don't understand, or say they don't, what is the
great issue between the free world and the
Communist world. Let them come to Berlin. There
are some who say that communism is the wave of
the future. Let them come to Berlin. And there are
some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can
work with the Communists. Let them come to
Berlin. And there are even a few who say that it is
true that communism is an evil system, but it
permits us to make economic progress. Lass' sic
nach Berlin kommen. Let them come to Berlin...
...While the wall is the most obvious and vivid
demonstration of the failures of. the Communist
system, for all the world to see, we take no
satisfaction in it, for it is, as your Mayor has said,
an offense not only against history but an offense
against humanity, separating families, dividing
husbands and wives and brothers and sisters, and
dividing a people who wish to be joined together...
®SAISD Social Studies Department
Reproduction rights granted only if copyright information remains intact.
Page 10
Kennedy and the Cold War
#
Evidence I Found
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
®SAISD Social Studies Department
Reproduction rights granted only if copyright information remains intact.
Page 11
Vietnam War - Quick Look
THE VIETNAM WAR (1954-1975) - QUICK LOOK
WHAT?
FOREIGN ISSUES
DOMESTIC ISSUES
• Vietnam was once a
colony under French
control
• After the end of World
War II, the French tried
to reestablish control but
were faced with
resistance led by Ho Chi
Minh
• The French eventually
pulled out from Vietnam
and the nation was
divided on the 17th
Parallel forming two
separate nations
• In 1957, a communist
rebellion began in South
Vietnam with the main
aim of unifying the nation
under one government
• In 1959, North Vietnam
invaded Laos and
Cambodia to create
invasion routes into
South Vietnam
• U.S. Involvement in
Vietnam began under the
Kennedy administration
• The Tet Offensive on
January 31, 1968 (Lunar
New Year) occurred when
85,000 Viet Cong troops
and sympathizers
attacked over 100 cities
• After American troops
had withdrawn from the
conflict, South Vietnam
fell to the North in 1975
with the fall of Saigon
• North Vietnam gained
support from China and
the Soviet Union
• Western nations including
the U.S. supported South
Vietnam
• The United States used
the “Domino Theory” to
explain the effects of the
spread of Communism in
the Indochinese region
• The Gulf of Tonkin
incident and Resolution
increased U.S.
involvement in the
conflict
• American involvement,
including troops and
funding, drastically
increased during
Johnson’s administration
• By 1969, President
Johnson issued his policy
of Vietnamization and
U.S. troops began to
slowly withdraw
• In 1970, President Nixon
escalated the air war in
the region and invaded
Cambodia
• By 1973, all American
troops had left Vietnam
• Post-Vietnam, the U.S.
government and public
became more wary about
getting involved in
foreign affairs
• At the beginning of the
conflict, most Americans
and the American media
supported the
“containment” policy in
Vietnam
• The Vietnam War was the
first televised conflict by
American media
• Many of the soldiers were
conscripted (drafted) by
the government to fight
• Funding for the war
funneled funding away
from domestic programs
including the Great
Society
• The Tet Offensive is
considered the turning
point in public and media
support (credibility gap)
• Protests against the war
occurred on college
campuses and was
contributed to the
counter-culture
movement
• The draft was suspended
in 1973
• The U.S. Congress passed
the War Powers Act in
1973
• 3.3 Million Americans
served during the
Vietnam War
• 58,000 Americans were
killed in the conflict and
365,000 were wounded
®SAISD Social Studies Department
Reproduction rights granted only if copyright information remains intact.
Page 12
The Domino Theory
The domino theory existed from the 1950s to the 1980s. It was promoted at times by the United
States government and speculated that if one state in a region came under the influence of
communism, then the surrounding countries would follow in a domino effect. The domino theory
was used by successive United States administrations during the Cold War to justify the need for
American intervention around the world.
Referring to communism in Indochina, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower put the theory into
words during an April 7, 1954 news conference:
Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you would
call the "falling domino" principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you
knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the
certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of
a disintegration that would have the most profound influences.
Supporting Argument
Non-Supporting Argument
Some supporters of the domino theory note the
history of communist governments supplying
aid to communist revolutionaries in neighboring
countries. For instance, China supplied the
Vietminh, the North Vietnamese army, with
troops and supplies, and the Soviet Union
supplied them with tanks and heavy weapons.
The fact that the Pathet Lao and Khmer Rouge
were both originally part of the Vietminh, not to
mention Hanoi's support for both in conjunction
with the Viet Cong, also give credence to the
theory. The Soviet Union also heavily supplied
Sukarno with military supplies and advisors
from the time of the Guided Democracy in
Indonesia, especially during and after the 1958
civil war in Sumatra.
The primary evidence against the domino
theory is the failure of Communism to take hold
in Thailand, Indonesia, and other large
Southeast Asian countries after the end of the
Vietnam War, as Eisenhower's speech warned it
could. However, proponents of this policy argue
that this was due in part to the effects of both
the Korean and Vietnam Wars.
Critics of the theory charged that the
Indochinese wars were largely indigenous or
nationalist in nature (such as the Vietnamese
driving out the French), and that no such
monolithic force as "world communism" existed.
There was already fracturing of communist
states at the time, the most serious of which
was the rivalry between the Soviet Union and
China, known as the Sino-Soviet split, which
began in the 1950s.
Other Applications
To some historians, there was a global wave, as communist or Marxist-Leninist regimes came to power in
Benin, Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Angola, Afghanistan, Grenada, and
Nicaragua during the 1970s.
®SAISD Social Studies Department
Reproduction rights granted only if copyright information remains intact.
Page 13
Conflict in Southeast Asia: Vietnam
Vietnam
Who Were
Involved?
What Were
the
Causes of
the
Conflict?
What Was
the End
Result?
®SAISD Social Studies Department
Reproduction rights granted only if copyright information remains intact.
Page 14
The Vietnam War - Quick Look
Vietnam War - Statistics and Information
Bombs Dropped
Comparing Two Wars
American Casualties By Age
Vietnam War
8
7
30
6
5
Killed (In Thousands)
22.5
4
3
15
7.5
2
0
1
Under 21 21-25
26-29
30+
Age of Death
World War II
®SAISD Social Studies Department
Vietnam War
Reproduction rights granted only if copyright information remains intact.
Page 15
The Vietnam War - Silent Majority Speech
You may have heard of the Silent Majority speech, but what was it? Why is it important?
Nixon won the 1968 election with his campaign for ending the Vietnam War with an honorable
peace. The pace of the administration's end of the war continued to spur demonstrations including the
Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam in October of 1969.
Nixon delivered an address to the nation now referred to as "The Silent Majority Speech" on
November 3, 1969. Nixon laid out a plan for the end of the war through the process of diplomatic
negotiation and Vietnamization. At the close of the speech, he requested the support of the "great
silent majority" for his plans. By “silent majority”, Nixon was referring to those who were not part of
the anti-war protests or the counter-culture movement. In Nixon’s opinion, he believed that the
majority of Americans supported the end of the conflict, but were not being as vocal.
And so tonight—to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans—I
ask for your support. I pledged in my campaign for the Presidency to end the
war in a way that we could win the peace. I have initiated a plan of action
which will enable me to keep that pledge.
The more support I can have from the American people, the sooner that
pledge can be redeemed; for the more divided we are at home, the less likely
the enemy is to negotiate in Paris.
Let us be united for peace. Let us also be united against defeat. Because let
us understand: North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States.
Only Americans can do that.
Fifty years ago, in this room and at this very desk, President Woodrow
Wilson spoke words which caught the imagination of a war-weary world. He
said: “This is the war to end war.” His dream for peace after World War I was
shattered on the hard realities of great power politics and Woodrow Wilson
died a broken man.
Tonight I do not tell you that the war in Vietnam is the war to end war. But I
do say this: I have initiated a plan which will end this war in a way that will
bring us closer to that great goal to which Woodrow Wilson and every American
President in our history has been dedicated—the goal of a just and lasting
peace.
Nixon's speech was enormously successful resulting in tens of thousands of letters and
telegrams of support. Not only did the speech affect the war and Nixon presidency but also it
promoted a political opportunity in the Republican Party to amass a New Majority and promote
conservative policies. Others disagreed with the president, and voiced their opposition in letters and
further demonstrations including another Moratorium later in November 1969.
®SAISD Social Studies Department
Reproduction rights granted only if copyright information remains intact.
Page 16
The Vietnam War - Points of View
Reflections from Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara
Above all else, the criteria governing intervention should recognize that . . . military
force has only a limited capacity to facilitate the process of nation building. Military
force, by itself, cannot build a “failed state” . . .
At times U.S. military intervention will be justified . . . on the basis of national security.
Clearly, if a direct threat to this nation emerges, we should and will act unilaterally . . .
If the threat is less direct but still potentially serious . . . how should we respond? I
strongly urge that we act only in a multilateral decision-making and burden-sharing
context . . .
The wars we fight in the post–Cold War world are likely more often than not to be
“limited wars,” like Vietnam . . . Certainly Vietnam taught us how immensely difficult it
is to fight limited wars leading to U.S. casualties over long periods of time. But
circumstances will arise where limited war is far preferable to unlimited war. Before
engaging in such conflicts, the American people must understand the difficulties we will
face; the American military must know and accept the constraints under which they will
operate; and our leaders—and our people—must be prepared to cut our losses and
withdraw if it appears our limited objectives cannot be achieved at acceptable risks or
costs . . .
Finally, we must recognize that the consequences of large-scale military operations . . .
are inherently difficult to predict and to control . . . They must be avoided, excepting
only when our nation’s security is clearly and directly threatened. These are the lessons
of Vietnam. Pray God we learn them.
—Robert S. McNamara, In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam, 1995
Reflections from General Westmoreland
(Former Commander of the U.S. Forces in Vietnam)
We overextended ourselves in the post–World War II period economically, militarily,
psychologically, and politically. A day of reckoning was inevitable. Our foreign policy
should be given a nonpartisan review at least every two years. We must develop a
bipartisan foreign policy, free of politics as far as possible.
When there is a threat of war, our military leaders deserve a stronger voice in
policymaking. When our political leaders commit us to war, the military voice should be
given priority consideration.
It is unfair and fatal to send our troops to the battlefield if they are not going to be
supported by the nation . . .
When our national reputation and men’s lives are at stake, the news media must show
a more convincing sense of responsibility. We must be leery as a nation of our
adversaries manipulating again the vulnerability of our political system and our open
society.
—William C. Westmoreland, Military Review, Vol. 50, 1979
®SAISD Social Studies Department
Reproduction rights granted only if copyright information remains intact.
Page 17