Communism; To Fear? Or Not To Fear? The Consequences Of Neutrality Abroad?

Saturday, November 12th, 2011
BK3's essay series on Communism; Part 1.5

Post World War 2 and The "Domino Theory." What Consequences, If Any, Would The United States and The World Have Been Exposed to If Neutrality Dominated Foreign Policy In The Decades Following World War 2?

This Portion Has Been Added and Given Critical Thought to Thanks To BK3 and IC3's Only Documented Follower; Stacy.

Section #1- Motivating a Super Power; The United States Ideology Struggle with Communism and the Reason('s) For Involvement In Such a Non-Threatening and Unstable Country.

1945-1954 The Fight For Vietnamese Independence From French and Japanese Control, The Truman Doctrine and Containment layered with The Soviet Union's rising influence. For this portion, the French presence in Vietnam is most important and from 1880 until 1954, France had been convinced and strongly motivated on controlling the territory we call Vietnam.(The reasons aren't relevant for this point) From 1946 until 1954, The United States funded an attempt by France to re-establish dominance in the country. It was a common strategy used by The U.S. to use money as a way to help other countries fight wars that America found necessary, but did not feel that using American men to fight was justified. It is EXTREMELY important when we're trying to understand U.S. behavior and rationalize strategy during this time period by repeatedly referencing the GOAL of Communism and The U.S. strategy against it beginning in 1947. The ultimate goal of Communism is to overthrow the STATE and create a Global worker's paradise. The United States (traditionally Isolationist) obviously recognized an alarming threat that this posed to the basic reason of existence; The AMERICAN STATE. Everything this Country stood for was being challenged by a new system and the implementation of this system in a Country as large and relevant as the Soviet Union made sense to Policy makers to watch very carefully the behavior of the Soviet Union in the coming days, months, and years. After Independence was won by the Vietnamese from both France and Japan, President Truman made it very clear that alliances with countries rely solely on the controlling/developing Government in that country. Communism was becoming a very appealing and realistic next step for now Independent Vietnam. Not surprisingly; oppressed, suffering, starving and underdeveloped nations that have dealt with a negative experience with Imperialism were the very nations Communism seemed to attract. Just North of Vietnam was Mother Russia and a very popular system of Government that promised success and growth to nations where every citizen was part of the working class in some way.

It isn't very hard to predict the possibilities that seem inevitable for the future of Vietnam. Shortly after Truman denies support to Ho Chi Minh that would eliminate Frances' continued attempts at establishing dominance in the region, The Truman Doctrine is adopted by The United States. Scholars and Historians agree that ignoring cries for help from Minh and further funding French Imperialism, while assuming Vietnam's future as a Communist Country instead of preventing an outright invasion that was clearly poorly justified may have been 1 of few crucial mistakes in Foreign Policy that destroyed support from many nations and helped build tension among Super Powers. The Truman Doctrine stated that Democratic Nations like The U.S. would now stop at NOTHING to contain the spread of this "disease" called Communism by ANY MEANS NECESSARY. *Worth noting is the United States message that spreading Democracy was not the goal. One small, but crucial aspect of the Truman Doctrine must be understood; providing assistance to MINORITY countries was part of containment. However, what is accomplished and what can we derive from the following; If an Independent nation has been ignored and humiliated after attempts to become an ally with the U.S. are completely disregarded, what gives The United States the right to forcefully become a presence in the region with interests not intended to help the MINORITY country and its' people, (like the Truman Doctrine states)but with behavior that replicates the very nation and system of Government that it is trying to prevent in the first place?

Section #2- Remaining Neutral. Would the years from 1961-175 that saw 58,000 American soldiers dead, millions of Vietnamese wiped out, and a world that saw The United States completely contradict itself been averted had President Truman relied on morals and judgment that favored Humanity over ideology that assumed evil intentions and world domination misinterpreted as "Hitler" mentality? Ho Chi Minh may have explained it best; "It was Patriotism, not Communism that inspires me." As Scholars try to expose the hypocrisy of American actions overseas, the words of the Vietnamese leader must be taken seriously and met with if nothing else, skepticism. To explore the very different world this would be if America had responded to Ho Chi Minh's letter for support against Imperialist France by convincing France that by using Diplomacy and showing the advantages of Democracy to build a strong relationship with the new Country, the strategy might have been even more effective for containing the spread of Communism than history shows. Neutrality has been the popular strategy in American history when it comes to being met with entering into both WW1 and WW2. It was not until a direct attack on The U.S. was carried out or the grim reality that diplomacy was failing to prove effective in preventing American involvement in conflicts that we've seen our Military used to such a degree seen in Vietnam. To this student of History, the option of neutrality should have been given an extensive amount of thought or at least far more than it was. If involvement in affairs with Ho Chi Minh and Vietnam was absolutely crucial for protecting Democracy abroad, Harry Truman and his large group of diplomats and fellow leaders of The United States of America should have displayed a level of logical and intelligent behavior that eliminates selfish interests and protects the defenseless,(Truman Doctrine/HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY) but extremely patriotic nation of Vietnam from ANY nation trying to exploit resources, people, land, or weakness. It seems as if the term "DUH" is relevant when choosing to aid a MINORITY country that would instantly become allies with America after negotiations end in success(eliminating ALL worries and scenarios that suggest Vietnam falling to Communism!) or allowing both FEAR, paranoia, and eventual unforgivable actions that show the true interests of the U.S. which clearly don't include the protection and support of nations who would embrace American help with immense gratitude.


Good points are brought to attention in this section, but there is definite possibility that important things worth mentioning may have been left out. What happens if neutrality becomes the strategy and Communism spreads like wild fire? I personally don't believe Communism would have survived long if its' policies that saw famine, death, and crimes against humanity were kept in tact during each of it's moments of growth around the globe. Like all governments that begin with very optimistic and attractive promises, there is one common theme. The weak, vulnerable and lost countries that it swallows have no real option and while it may only be short term "protection" or growth, the people soon realize the injustices and crimes against itself and R3volution finds itself lingering in the future waiting for Independence and the leadership of a truly great and just Country to help the people develop their own growing and successful nation. If anything should be deemed as a success during this sad time in American History, Communism was eventually overcome and contained to only those nations that somehow allow it to remain the governing system.


Part 2 topics include modern warfare, and possibly a look back in time to WW2.


-BK3-