| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "WWII U S FOREIGN POLICY": |
|
|
U.S. Foreign Policy After WWII, 2008.
A discussion of the impact of the end of the Second World War on US foreign policy and its international conduct.
1,309 words (approx. 5.2 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper shows how the effects of the war determined consequences for the United States that would mark its history for the next fifty years. The paper discusses how the end of the war represented an identification of the two enemies: the capitalist and the communist systems of government. The paper further discusses the creation of the United Nations and the American acceptance of the role of the leader of the free world. The paper also looks at America's engagement in the European affairs and in the nuclear race for the next half a century.
From the Paper
"After the end of the war and once the establishment of the communist rule across the Eastern part of Europe and large parts of the world in general, it came apparent that an eventual clash of doctrines and political system would emerge (Kissinger, 1995). From this point of view, it can be said that the start of the Cold War determined the way in which foreign relations and internal structures would be shaped. More precisely, once the Yalta discussions had taken place it was rather obvious for the US Administration as well as for the rest of the Western bloc that Stalin would try to impose the communist rule over most of the European continent in a quest for supremacy."
| |
|
WWII and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1999.
Argues that WWII had more impact on shaping the U.S. policy in the 20th Century than WWI, the Cold War or the Vietnam War.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 2 sources, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
"This study will argue that, in terms of shaping United States foreign policy in the twentieth century, World War II was more influential than World War I, the Cold War, or the Vietnam War.
From the Paper
"This study will argue that, in terms of shaping United States foreign policy in the twentieth century, World War II was more influential than World War I, the Cold War, or the Vietnam War. The involvement of the United States in World War I was certainly a significant event in the history of the United States, but World War I simply did not have the lasting effect which World War II had in terms of uniting the destinies of the United States and Europe. The United States essentially adopted an isolationist attitude after World War I, and this isolationism intensified during the 1930s and the Depression years.
On the other hand, the Cold War and the Vietnam War were among the direct and indirect results of World War II. Both the Cold War and the Vietnam War would not have even come into existence had not World War II taken place and created the ..."
| |
|
U.S. Immigration Policy for Jews In WWII, 1994.
This paper discusses the immigration policy of the United States prior to and during the Second World War with regard to Jewish persons living in Europe: Background, anti-Semitism in U.S., economic fears, attitudes of Roosevelt administration and refusa
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 13 sources, $ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"This paper will discuss the immigration policy of the United States prior to and during the Second World War with regard to Jewish persons living in Europe. The thesis of this paper is that the U.S. government refused to liberalize immigration laws in response to the Nazi policies in Europe because of a combination of traditional anti-semitism, economic fears stemming from the Depression, and government responses to public opinion, both actual and perceived. The first part of the paper will provide a brief background to U.S. immigration policy during the Twentieth Century and show how this policy remained the same throughout the Second World War. The second part of the paper will examine anti-semitism in the U.S. during this period and discuss how it affected immigration policy. The third part of the ... "
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy, 2004.
Compares U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East with U.S. foreign policy in Latin America.
956 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 4 sources, APA, $ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay discusses the U.S. foreign policy towards Middle Eastern and Latin American countries before 9/11 and post 9/11. The foreign policy is analyzed, its inherent problems are highlighted, and a comparison of U.S. foreign policy towards the Middle East with U.S. foreign policy towards Latin America is made.
From the Paper
"With all eyes turned toward Iraq and the Middle East, South America rarely makes the headlines in the United States. Except for perhaps tighter controls and security on U.S. borders and waterways since September 11th , it seems Latin foreign policies are not top priorities for Washington. However, recent events in October in Bolivia led to ?a massive mobilization of Indians and peasants?military crackdowns that left as many as 70 people dead?and led to the demise of the conservative Gonzalo S?nchez de Lozada government on Oct."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy During the Vietnam War, 2000.
A look at how pre-Vietnam War U.S .foreign policy had strong links to the foreign policy in the Vietnam War.
2,105 words (approx. 8.4 pages), 9 sources, $ 66.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses American foreign policy before Vietnam and foreign policy in Vietnam, and shows how a number of the elements that led to these policies were present in governmental perspectives for decades.
From the Paper
"Though the foreign policies decisions that were instrumental in the Vietnam War were different from the policies that supported other international actions during the 20th century, including World War II and the Korean War, a number of the elements that led to these policies were present in governmental perspectives for decades. One of the most significant influencing factors in the policy developments of the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations was the perceived threat of communism and the necessity of action to prevent its spread. This factor had been present in the development of foreign policy since before the First World War, and led to the perception of the necessity of force to stomp out its proliferation."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy, 2005.
This paper discusses U.S. foreign policy from 1900 to the present.
1,680 words (approx. 6.7 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 54.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the military activities in the Philippines and Mexico signaled a change in the attitude of U.S. foreign policy from isolationism to imperialism. The author points out that the Second World War and the Cold War caused all of U.S. life to be filtered through the lens of foreign policy such as (1) the facilitation of grant programs such as the National Defense Student loans, (2) reliance on state and local governments for local infrastructure financing because federal monies were committed to Cold War foreign purposes and (3) the more rapid integration of the races at home due to the necessity of integration in the military to have enough troops to conduct overseas operations such as Korea, Vietnam and assorted smaller wars. The paper concludes that, today, there is no foreign policy agenda per se; Bush II is a tabula rasa, straddling two wings of the same party, like a feckless cowboy on two horses.
Table of Contents
U.S. National Foreign Policy Style, 1900 to the Present
U.S. Foreign Policy Domestic Context 1950
Changes over the Last Ten Years
From the Paper
"It would seem this attitude of foreign policy was written in stone. However, one of its early ardent supporters, Theodore Roosevelt, was among those who began to see that U.S. imperialism was not working. In the end, it was Wilson who noted that the drive for colonies contributed mainly to savage warfare. He concluded, in another sea-change manner that would influence U.S. foreign policy at least until another Roosevelt (Franklin Delano) entered the White House, that it would be best to "dismantle the colonial structure itself. His plan included self-determination for former colonies, international arms reduction, an open trading system to discourage economic imperialism, and a commitment to collective security through international organizations, what is now sometimes referred to as multilateralism." That drive, culminating in such bodies as the League of Nations and reluctant entry into further wars, would be the dominant attitude until the start of World War II."
| |
|
Is U.S. Foreign Policy Moral?, 2008.
This paper discusses whether considerations of morality have a substantial role in U.S. foreign policy strategy.
1,127 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 6 sources, APA, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper looks at America's past foreign policy regarding the Soviet Union and Communism. The paper also discusses the war against terrorism today and reveals that the true incentive behind the war in Iraq may have been financial, although there were moral victories attained as a result. The paper concludes that while morality should certainly have a substantial role in U.S. foreign policy strategy, in recent years, the financial goals of the United States seem to outweigh the altruistic ones.
Outline:
Introduction
The Past and U.S. Foreign Policy
Foreign Policy and Communism
Morality, Foreign Policy, and Terrorism
Moral Victories May be the Outcome of Financial Gain
Conclusion
From the Paper
"United States foreign policy has always been about political relationships for financial gain combined with moral idealism (Fox 2000). Therefore, morality has played a substantial role in U.S. foreign policy strategy, and should continue to do so. Whether this "morality" is genuine is questionable, and lately the U.S. has appeared to many to be the equivalent of a greedy bully, seeking financial benefits with no care for assisting the impoverished, oppressed, and/or those who may benefit from a morality driven U.S. foreign policy. These U.S. foreign endeavors are done under the guise of morality, which often result in more harm than good for the citizens of nations that such U.S. foreign policy is choosing to target, which is immoral in its very nature."
| |
|
Shift in U.S. Foreign Policy, 2003.
Discusses reasons behind America's shift in foreign policy towards Iraq and North Korea.
1,514 words (approx. 6.1 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 49.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
U.S. foreign policy is continuously evolving with each new president. However, for the most part, U.S. foreign policy has been based on the idea of containment. This idea of containment was quickly altered after the horrific attacks of 9/11. It appears the U.S. position on foreign policy was forced to change due to the revived ?hot spots? in the Middle East and Korea. This paper discusses U.S. foreign policy towards Iraq and North Korea; however, the main focus of this paper examines why U.S. foreign policy has shifted to preemption from containment. The paper includes quotes by President Bush and Colin Powell.
From the Paper
"Even with all these tensions, the U.S. continues to hold out that diplomacy will resolve the crisis on the Korean peninsula. The U.S wants open dialogue to be multilateral, involving South Korea, North Korea, Japan, and the Chinese. However, North Korea wants the talks to be unilateral between Pyongyang and Washington. The Chinese believe they are being rebuffed, and also believe that the peninsula ought to be nuclear weapons free. Chinese officials stated, ?This will give us an opportunity to say to the North Koreans and world we?re not going to be threatened? (Bush, 4)."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy Decisions, 2004.
An examination of whether U.S. foreign policy decisions are more beneficial to the United States itself or to the world it is aiming to 'protect'.
2,451 words (approx. 9.8 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 74.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the question, "Is the U.S. seeking to protect its own national security or simply to secure its own national interests throughout the world by having a unilateral approach to foreign policy decisions?" The paper uses two main sources as the basis for the analysis of this question: "Logic of American Foreign Policy" by Patrick Callahan, published in 2004; and the fifth edition of "American Foreign Policy" by Glenn Hastedt, published in 2003/4. These two main sources are introduced, in depth, and the frameworks that arise from these books are then used to frame an analysis of the question posed in this paper; supplementary examples are taken from recent political involvements of the U.S. in Bosnia, Iraq, Kosovo, and China. The final section of the paper, therefore, looks at the question from the viewpoint of the book reviews, with supplementary information where necessary.
From the Paper
"Essentially, Callahan?s book looks, in depth, at six facets (or ?logics?) of the role the United States plays on the world stage: hegemonism, liberalism, realism, isolationism, liberal internationalism, and anti-imperialism. The book looks at each of these logics, and essentially traces the development of these logics through the study of the relevant policy documents and historical responses to these policies; a critical summary is then given for each logic. Three case studies are then presented at the end of the main body of the text: the debate following US intervention in Kosovo; the debate surrounding the 1990 Chinese trade debate, and the events following the events of September 11th 2001. These issues will be discussed, when relevant, in the present paper."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy Regarding Israel, 2004.
Questions whether the U.S. foreign policy regarding Israel is an extension of domestic politics.
1,218 words (approx. 4.9 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 41.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The United States' foreign policy to Israel is and always has been highly influenced by domestic politics, particularly by presidential elections. This paper begins by describing the effect of electoral politics upon the foreign policy of American presidents. It then outlines the power of the Jewish vote, the Jewish lobby, and the growing power of the fundamentalist Christian vote. The paper then notes that, although policy toward Israel is strongly influenced by domestic policy, it is virtually nonpartisan. The paper discusses the limits of domestic political influence on foreign policy and the strategic basis for presidential decisions concerning the region. It concludes by looking towards the future of domestic special interest groups.
From the Paper
"In Heroic Diplomacy, Kenneth Stein calls US policy in the Middle East "remarkably non-partisan." The major parties may put forth candidates with consistently opposed domestic agendas, but with regard to Israeli policy, disagreements about aid, intervention, and peace do not happen down party lines. An early example of this was in the leadership of the American Zionist Emergency Council, which was co-led by the strong Democrat Rabbi Stephen Wise and the ardent Republican Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver. A present-day nonpartisan issue is whether or not Bush should be more involved in the peace process."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East, 2006.
An overview of the objectives of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and whether it can be considered morally justifiable.
2,462 words (approx. 9.8 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 75.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the quagmire of Middle East politics and how the U.S. has conducted its foreign policy in that region of the world. The paper discusses whether U.S. objectives and its foreign policy in the Middle East are morally justifiable and concludes that they are because the goal of the U.S. is primarily one of helping people of the third world countries, while at the same time protecting her own interests.
From the Paper
"As far as the scourge of terrorism is concerned, it is a sad but true fact that no leader has managed to succeed in getting to the very root of the problem and thereby finding an appropriate solution to it. There may be a satisfactory explanation for this fact; it may be that the very nature of terrorism being what it is: quite unpredictable and also very asymmetrical, it is virtually impossible to find an adequate solution to the problem, and the underlying issues are so many and so widespread that it is an unattainable goal to hope to find an ideal solution to combat 'terrorism'. In fact, it can be safely stated that the West has actually and virtually outstayed its welcome in most parts of the world, especially in the Middle East, rich in oil as it is, and the leaders in those parts of the world, fuelled by their innate greed, grew from being mere allies of the West to real and true despots, and this because of the one thing that all the world needs: Oil. In fact, Osama bin Laden, as well as Saddam Hussein were allies of the USA in both the US war against Afghanistan as well as in the US war against Iraq respectively. (Going Tactical)"
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy, 2003.
Three separate essays on U.S. foreign policy.
2,300 words (approx. 9.2 pages), 6 sources, APA, $ 79.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents three separate essays on U.S. foreign policy, dealing with nuclear arms reduction; unilateralism versus multilateralism and the role of multilateralism to serve American interests; and presidential power in making foreign policy.
| |
|
Books about U.S. Foreign Policy, 2005.
This paper compares two non-fiction books about past U.S. foreign policy: Loren Baritz's "Back Fire" and Stephen E. Ambrose's "Rise to Globalism".
1,170 words (approx. 4.7 pages), 0 sources, $ 40.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Stephen E. Ambrose and Loren Baritz, both respected history professors and decorated authors, present their insights into the history of foreign policy to help readers get a taste of what really happens before and during war and what the government does afterwards to repair itself. The author points out that the underlying theme in Baritz's "Back Fire" about the Vietnam war is the problem of not only not understanding the Vietnamese culture but also not understanding the change in the American culture of that period. The paper relates that Ambrose, in his book "Rise to Globalism", introduces a broader look on the history of foreign policy from World War II through the first term of the Clinton administration; he uses more statistics and facts and a lot less opinions then Baritz.
From the Paper
"This reflects back on American culture. People try to look good, it's a given. No one wants to look bad in front of someone else, so they say the right things and do what is right. When someone does something bad, they deny it, or turn their back on it. War is a necessity, not all things can be reconciled by negotiations. So even though people know this and it's proven throughout history, they try to look good by saying war is evil and nothing good comes from it. This ties in with Baritz' saying about war and culture."
| |
|
Analysis of U.S. Foreign Policy in Southern Africa, 2006.
This paper looks at the U.S. foreign policy towards Southern Africa.
2,007 words (approx. 8.0 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer claims that the United States' foreign policy towards Southern Africa has long been couched between the Cold War paradigm and hasty decisions of self-service. The writer discusses how while ostensibly the African prospect - replete with brewing racial concerns and potential economic value - was left to European guise, the United States had already witnessed a long history of being drawn into the continent. This paper looks at the U.S. policies regarding South Africa from the 1960s and through the Reagan regime.
From the Paper
"Since the middle of the last century, the United States has parroted a secondary role in the international aspects of the African political process, stepping aside for Mother England and her European peers to address their former colonies while they pushed through their final stages of independence. While actual attainment of the freedoms for which they fought lay far on the horizon, the bloody warfare that burned the nebulous concept of 'liberty' into the African South was hot on the minds of political leaders far beyond the confines of local tensions. Real conversation about the developing 'African Problem' began in Washington during Eisenhower's second term (1957-1961), when the National Security Council developed a proposal for the division of labor in the developing world - notably, the United States would gain umbrella control for the Latin American region, while Europe would serve as the satellite leader for post-colonial Africa."
| |
|
U.S. Foreign Policy?s Influence on Terrorism, 2002.
The paper discusses the influence that United States foreign policy has had on creating terrorism throughout the world.
4,405 words (approx. 17.6 pages), 24 sources, MLA, $ 115.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper argues that U.S. foreign policy within the last thirty years has had a significant influence in the rise of terrorism throughout the world. The writer cites U.S. involvement in domestic politics in many countries, military interventions, and pursing national interests in other countries regardless of the consequences of pursing those interests, as influential in enabling terrorist organizations. The paper claims that in order to stop the wave of terrorism throughout the world, the United States must stay clear from interfering with domestic political problems in many regions around the world and must stay away from pursuing military operations that are not in the national interests of United States.
Table of Contents:
U.S. Foreign Policy?s Influence with Terrorism
Defense against Terrorism
The Roots of Terrorism
State Support of Terrorism
War on Terrorism
Solutions to Terrorism
From the Paper
"As Ahid Aslam concentrated on the foreign policy priorities of the Bush Administration in his article, Robert Cutter from the institute for foreign policy in focus wrote an article titled ?The Anti-Terrorist Coalition: A New World Order Redux.? This article focuses on the possibility that the anti-terrorist coalition may incite terrorist groups to ruse up and take action against the coalition in order to break it up. The author concentrates on the possible negative effects of placing together an anti-terrorist coalition and having being lead by the United States. The author determines that as long as the United States continues to lead the anti-terrorist coalition, the coalition will only be serving U.S. interests on terrorism and not international interests. The author suggests that it should be the United Nations that should be leading the coalition and not the United States."
|
|
|
