-
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
Indochina, Help Please? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Colecole
- Start date
yosemite sam
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2006
- Messages
- 356
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2007
its an old thread but im bumping it cos i have the same question...help!
ive got the change in us leadership and political viewpoints, the domino theory and how they didnt get that ho chi minh wanted to get to democracy via communism, but i dont get how the cold war influenced us decision making.
ive got the change in us leadership and political viewpoints, the domino theory and how they didnt get that ho chi minh wanted to get to democracy via communism, but i dont get how the cold war influenced us decision making.
US foreign policy stood adamentally, in opposition to Communism. It threatened their capitalist way of life, opposition with nuclear arms race, space race, what have you.
US, specifically enunciated by Eisenhower, stated (oversimplification) that once one country sways, there would be a contagion as other countries begin to fall to the "Reds". Russia -> China -> Indochina, then SE Asia, then Australia, New Zealand. So half the world would fall and threaten Western Democracy.
Interprutations by most historians see Ho not as a pure hearted communist, rather an opportunist who saw aspects of communism he could use in his nationalistic objective to free Vietnam from foreign rule (starting back with China in pre-Modern times, then French). In addition, Communism was willing to give Ho a hand in his aims where the US did not (minor point - he wasn't well known when he approached the US in any case, and when he was known, it was past the point of no return - i.e., he was a commie).
But American saw him as Red. Therefore, him wanting to unify Vietnam is equivalent to another domino falling to the infection of communism. And in an effort to stop the contagion, they decided on an active policy, meddled with France-Indochina politics, supported/funded an unpopular regime, sent in over half a million troops, then pulled out.
Long story short, they oversimplified, didn't see the complexities of Ho's situation.
US, specifically enunciated by Eisenhower, stated (oversimplification) that once one country sways, there would be a contagion as other countries begin to fall to the "Reds". Russia -> China -> Indochina, then SE Asia, then Australia, New Zealand. So half the world would fall and threaten Western Democracy.
Interprutations by most historians see Ho not as a pure hearted communist, rather an opportunist who saw aspects of communism he could use in his nationalistic objective to free Vietnam from foreign rule (starting back with China in pre-Modern times, then French). In addition, Communism was willing to give Ho a hand in his aims where the US did not (minor point - he wasn't well known when he approached the US in any case, and when he was known, it was past the point of no return - i.e., he was a commie).
But American saw him as Red. Therefore, him wanting to unify Vietnam is equivalent to another domino falling to the infection of communism. And in an effort to stop the contagion, they decided on an active policy, meddled with France-Indochina politics, supported/funded an unpopular regime, sent in over half a million troops, then pulled out.
Long story short, they oversimplified, didn't see the complexities of Ho's situation.
Does anyone actually have the real/sample answer for:
Evaluate the view that an inability to seperate nationalism from communism dominated US policy towards indochina in the period 1954-1979
Ive been trying to find the sample answers in past paper exams. but i cant
Evaluate the view that an inability to seperate nationalism from communism dominated US policy towards indochina in the period 1954-1979
Ive been trying to find the sample answers in past paper exams. but i cant
allyoop
Member
K so I've actually replied to this question in a separate thread posted by gaaay, however I will post it here as well.
Ok, I may be just a tad late in posting lol. And I don't think I can type you up a sample essay but instead a plan?
Basically the question is asking you why the americans could not separate Nationalism from communism.
Reasons:
Pride/prestige- Pentagon Papers released in 67 (i think) revealed they DID NOT want to lose another war to some stupid asian country like they did to N. Korea
Communism- They say that they are preventing the spread of communism (containment, truman doctrine, etc, which they are) however they also wanted to preserve American interests. For example if S. Vietnam were to become Communist then no more trading would happen between Vietnam and America. And the US love their rice, rubber, etc, as it guarantees them a more prosperous economy, (the greedy bastards that they are)
The two reasons are so intertwined together that they can not be separated in this way.
I can clearly see that this would be a 15-25 mark response as it uses one of those hard words at the start of the sentence- not 'explain', 'discuss', 'analyse', etc, but a 'to what extent' and in this case, 'evaluate' question. I personally love 'evaluate' questions because it is asking you specifically to make a judgement, on whether the statement is correct or not. You would also need supporting sources and/or quotes to support this argument.
Hope my advice helps! (and it's not too late)
Ok, I may be just a tad late in posting lol. And I don't think I can type you up a sample essay but instead a plan?
Basically the question is asking you why the americans could not separate Nationalism from communism.
Reasons:
Pride/prestige- Pentagon Papers released in 67 (i think) revealed they DID NOT want to lose another war to some stupid asian country like they did to N. Korea
Communism- They say that they are preventing the spread of communism (containment, truman doctrine, etc, which they are) however they also wanted to preserve American interests. For example if S. Vietnam were to become Communist then no more trading would happen between Vietnam and America. And the US love their rice, rubber, etc, as it guarantees them a more prosperous economy, (the greedy bastards that they are)
The two reasons are so intertwined together that they can not be separated in this way.
I can clearly see that this would be a 15-25 mark response as it uses one of those hard words at the start of the sentence- not 'explain', 'discuss', 'analyse', etc, but a 'to what extent' and in this case, 'evaluate' question. I personally love 'evaluate' questions because it is asking you specifically to make a judgement, on whether the statement is correct or not. You would also need supporting sources and/or quotes to support this argument.
Hope my advice helps! (and it's not too late)
Q2C-ME
2SUS
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Messages
- 262
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
kno a hsc marker...person that got full marks had to realli go beyond and say....
HO CHI MINH ACTUALLY SOUGHT AND SENT LETTERS TO THE USA REFLECTING HIS PREFERENCE BEFORE HIS COMMUNIST ALLYS!!...WHO IGNORED AND DIDNT REPLY...yet this is debateable...and hence ur historiography argument
use this as ur starting point and build upon it....many other examples of how nationalism was developing...such as e.g. women mobilising, peasents assiting in food supply, indoctrination, america seen as foreing imperalism, another colonial war, western resentment...basicalli yellow people were sick of white people.
note: didnt bother mentioning the us policy side and their obsession with communism and e.t.c, cause honestly that stuff is all policy and elementary...although the pentagon papers are crucial btw
HO CHI MINH ACTUALLY SOUGHT AND SENT LETTERS TO THE USA REFLECTING HIS PREFERENCE BEFORE HIS COMMUNIST ALLYS!!...WHO IGNORED AND DIDNT REPLY...yet this is debateable...and hence ur historiography argument
use this as ur starting point and build upon it....many other examples of how nationalism was developing...such as e.g. women mobilising, peasents assiting in food supply, indoctrination, america seen as foreing imperalism, another colonial war, western resentment...basicalli yellow people were sick of white people.
note: didnt bother mentioning the us policy side and their obsession with communism and e.t.c, cause honestly that stuff is all policy and elementary...although the pentagon papers are crucial btw