The Truth about the U.S. Involvement in the Vietnam War Research Paper

The Truth about the U.S. Involvement in the Vietnam War - Research Paper Example The ideologies of Marxism-Leninism provided Mao Zedong, Brezhnev, Khrushchev, Stalin, Ho a shared goal in pursuing revolutionary changes all over the world. Hence, the Cold War was â€Å"a world war†¦ in which the future governance of the international system was at stake, and in which the great powers opposing the United States and its allies were the moral equivalent of Nazi Germany† (Moore & Turner 2002, 440). The war in Vietnam actually started because the USSR did not attempt to provoke the United States. Yet, in the less developed countries (LDCs), Moscow could hide its operations and still carry out its plans. The fame of Ho as a fervent supporter of independence, alongside Mao’s eagerness to support him, established Vietnam as an especially advantageous chance (Moore & Turner 2002). Therefore, this was a conflict that the Americans could barely have prevented, that is, to have stayed detached would have created a major pro-USSR repositioning in global polit ics. It is the argument of this paper that the Vietnam War is justified, yet it was dealt with in wrongly. Lyndon Johnson relied greatly on military commanders whose tactic of finding out and annihilating adversaries, rather than guaranteeing the safety of civilians, generated more fatalities than outcomes. As an obvious result, support from the Congress and the general public has weakened. Broadening the disagreement would simply have made everything more unpleasant, as, current Chinese documents reveal, Mao planned to get involved (Capps 1991). The sole possible option was for the Americans to give up the war, as stated by Jennings (2010), so as to sustain the American national political agreement in support of the Cold War. Triumph was not the issue. What was required was an attempt to prove that the Americans would protect and support its allies in the developing world, to guarantee prospective targets of the expansionist mission of Moscow that the U.S. would not leave them. However by persisting with the conflict until a total disintegration of national determination and a mortifying departure, the governments of Nixon and Ford promoted Soviet antagonism throughout the latter part of the 1970s (Neu 2005), a development repealed when Reagan reinstated the nation to a policy of rendering its dedications trustworthy once more. It is a well-known fact today that Ho, Mao, and Stalin rendezvous in 1950 in Moscow to formulate the line of attack for an ultimate occupation of Indochina (Jennings 2010). It is known that North Vietnam has better or larger support from China and USSR than assumed beforehand: the anti-aircraft squads of Russia in fact attacked American soldiers in Vietnam, and it was documented that there were roughly 170,000 combatants of China on its area (Moore & Turner 2002). It is known that the North Vietnamese were not at all actually solemn about an agreed resolution, and that their allegedly independent Viet Cong friends were actually their dummie s. It has been recounted that South Vietnamese and Americans had no control over the exercise of bloodshed (Jennings 2010): The North Vietnamese were simply as awful, and the Khmer Rouge were obviously much more dreadful. Nevertheless, some historians failed to explain why the integrity of the United States