why did Truman decide on doing the containment policy?
610039
Look at George Keennan article on the soviet union, \n\nBasicly \n\nthought communism was in the long run gonna die, \n\nDidn't want to start a world war, as communism thought would go carzy if near death\n\nTHought in long run us, stronger than soviets,
1123039
Well I don't think it is right to drop nukes on anyone. However I also acknowledge that President Truman was facing at least 5 more years of war in the Pacific. Many more American and Japanese servicemen would have died. It is hard to say whether those death tolls would have topped Japanese casualties from the bombs. What always bothered me about Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that after seeing the power of the fist bomb the Emperor didn't surrender immediately, thus incurring a second attack. Understand this though, if it hadn't been for Japan those bombs might have been used some time later with much more staggering death tolls. So if nothing else it told us dropping nukes was something that shouldn't be taken lightly.\n\nOk EDINA we get it you don't like US Foriegn Policy. However you should really save that for the current Iraq debates, because whether you like it or not Japan attacked us, thus drawing us into WWII.  Oh and here's a clue for ya, they did it because they wanted grab up resources on all the pacific islands.
373642
The Truman Doctrine planted the seeds of our involvement in Vietnam. These seeds grew so that by the end of Eisenhower's presidency he placed it as one of the most important issues to face the incoming Kennedy Administration. An assasination and two presidents later we would know how accurate that was. \n\nOne of the cores of the Truman Doctrine was the domino theory, or the idea that as nations fell to communism, the border nations surrounding would as well. Therefore, it was of vital national importance to prevent the spread of communism by any means necessary. \n\nOur decision to back continued French control over South Vietnam was guided by the Truman Doctrine and the logic that any government was preferable to the pro-communist north assuming control. This self-serving support of a colonial power and subjugation of the indigenous power rightfully angered the vietnamese, an anger the north willfully stoked vis a vis the Viet Cong.  \n\nThis of course doesnt do Harry or the theory justice, of course.
872763
Yes.  The US adopted a "policy of containment" in the 1950's that became the basis of America's Cold War Strategy.  It was published in Foreign Policy magazine by a young writer, George Foster Kennan.   The policy of containment is also known as an "international embargo" which prevents other countries from trading with that country, thereby depressing the economy of a country.  The two-pronged strategy was quite public.\n\nAside from the Embargo, here's the second part:\n\nThe US would build dangerous weapons and a formidable military and then threaten certain countries it it -- USSR, N. Korea, Cuba and others-- to the point that those countries would spend all of it's money to do the same thing and threaten the US back.\n\nKennan knew that smaller countries with not a lot of capital would eventually fall if they spent so much money on weapons.  They knew the people would starve, then become angry and rebel against those governments.  \n\nIt worked like a charm for decades.  Everyone was kept at bay, but a lot of destruction and deaths happened because of this policy.\n\nA year before he died, George Foster Kennan said he regretted the day he published the article after seeing what the US had inflicted upon the world.\n\nNow that George Bush has been in power, he changed the strategy and became open about aggression.  He used 9/11 to openly attack 2 nations-- one that probably was not involved in 9/11 and another everyone knows for sure was not involved.\n\nAfghanistan for years could not be utilized by Bush's oil companies to build a pipeline to the other "stan" countries that were oil rich-- because of an international embargo against the Taliban leaders after the war that USSR lost.  (The US had given the Taliban the weapons)\n\nIraq was drenched in oil but also had an international embargo placed against it by George Bush's father.  So the Bush cabal decided that the only way to get around it was to commit wars and place in 2 new governments to be able to say -- Hey, Lookie, there's no need for embargos anymore!\n\nThe whole thing was a Stupid Ruse against the world and so it didn't work. The world was wise to it and turned its back on the US and a kind of "policy of containment" began to work AGAINST the US as the world found other ways to operate without the US. The US was spending too much money on the military, weapons, war and killing, and became for the first time, a Hated US government,. not much different from Israel.  \n\nAlso, hundreds of thousands of people in those two countries died, including the poor US soldiers, many of whom joined because they had no other options in America.  The curious part there is the US government didn't seem to care.\n\nNow the NEW US government will reconsider all of these faulty decisions and to get the country out of these problems, the Senators and leaders need to hear from people like you-- no matter your age-- who are asking questions.  This is a new "Consensus" government that wants to include the People.  Get involved by writing and going to your town meetings
586134
The ANNOUNCEMENT was related to end of WWII.  The ENFORCEMENT was related to Korea.  Truman misspoke his doctrine - or was ambiguous - and the Russians and Chinese misjudged his wording, leading to conflagration on the Korean peninsula.  I just don't remember what his misstatement was, precisely.
583181
Nuclear strategy implemented by John F. Kennedy in 1961 to supersede previous policy of Massive Retaliation. Flexible Response was implemented to develop several options, other than the nuclear option, for quickly dealing with enemy aggression. \n\nThe strategy sought to target an enemy's military force first, not its civilian population. The strategy was conceived by Robert McNamara and many view it as key to France's exiting of NATO's integrated forces.
47373
To me it looks like it took the work and foresight of two Presidents.  Truman got the ball originally rolling, but was unable to get the legislative support behind it.  However, Johnso came along 20 years later, breathing new life into the idea and was able to get it passed as part of a plan for the greater good of society in his.\n\n\n1945            Harry Truman sends a message to Congress asking for legislation establishing a national health insurance plan.  Two decades of debate ensue, with opponents warning of the dangers of "socialized medicine."\n\nBy the end of Truman's administration, he had backed off\nfrom a plan for universal coverage, but administrators in\nthe Social Security system and others had begun to focus\non the idea of a program aimed at insuring Social Security\nbeneficiaries.\n\nJuly 30, 1965   Medicare and its companion program Medicaid,            (which insures indigent recipients), are signed into law by\nPresident Lyndon Johnson as part of his "Great Society."
1063824
Hi, I've learned in History that President Wilson came up with a plan- the fourteen points to prevent another war from occurring however congress did not approve of Wilson's idea of the US joining the League of Nation. Without the peace keeping organization US got involved and fought in WW2.
623948
It was already decided to fight the war......how long can americans simply sit back supplying weapons to the allies and watch the war....so they decided tat it was time to show their power....also soviet union was rising in power and they had to control the spread of communism....
267308
No. It could seem that way because of Truman's policy of communist containment. Actually Kim Il Sung song-and-danced Uncle Joe Stalin into believing that an invasion of South Korea from the north would be a pushover, and only take a couple of months to prosecute. He also convinced Stalin that the USA would not retaliate to save South Korea.
691612
The whole speech was a metaphorical comparison of the "cold war" to Bush's "war on terror".  His point was that by America's being able to claim victory in the cold war Truman was vindicated, and by extension his "war on terror" would be vindicated by its eventual success.  However, that is probably unlikely, whoever gets elected Dem. or Rep. is probably going to drop Iraq like a hot potato (with no e).  So, its just Bush trying to make himself feel better because he knows he isn't really popular in the polls.  Whether he really has oil interests in the region or represents them is another question entirely, and one I personally cannot answer with any definitive evidence either way, but then, Cheney does have well known ties to Haliburton.
911888
Truman and he was a democrat.  That was a long time ago, before Vietnam.  It's interesting how times have changed things.  Most conservatives today would be considered left wing fanatics by Turmans standards.  Liberals today would seem to be from a different planet all together.
604107
Why are you so interested in the Truman show right now? It's an old movie.  \n\nBut yes, I would say its like taking away someones free will.
585817
Basically to take Europe out of the equation in case of Nuclear war.\n\nReally though the Soviet Union was in such deep financial chaos that they could no longer afford the development and upkeep of targeting nukes on Europe.  \n\nSo taking them off the table was mostly a financial decision.\n\nI should add that there was also a growing emphasis on Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles.  They were easier to hide and defend.
1027906
President Roosevelt was warning against the isolationist movement  who wanted to avoid America taking a leadership role in the world despite the obvious dangers of the threat from the Nazis. He was warning that those wishing to avoid taking a stand against the Nazis and Japanese in the end would not remain free nor safe. America and all those who treasure liberty are today facing a similar threat from terrorists.  Unfortunately, while leaders such as George W. Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard are prepared to take a strong stance in defence of liberty, there are others including many in Roosevelt's party, the United States Democratic Party, who are making similar arguments to the isolationists.
1083384
1945 Harry Truman had the Atomic Bomb dropped on Japan.You don`t need any frequency with that action,that was up there with the holocaust,but the world seems to separate the two acts of carnage.
511061
...because Truman's life wasn't really based upon privacy and free-will.