Why Couldn't the United States Bomb Its Way to Victory in Vietnam?

Even though the U.S. dropped more bombs in the Vietnam War, than in World War II, it didn’t result in victory. Some military officials believed this was because the U.S. gradually escalated the number of bombs they dropped rather than going all-out until the North Vietnamese surrendered. President Johnson limited bombing because he feared Chinese intervention, didn’t want Soviet involvement, was aware of domestic antiwar sentiment, and wanted to avoid international criticism. President Johnson also wanted to avoid bombing areas with a high civilian count, and focused on destroying North Vietnam’s industry and transportation. To counter this North Vietnamese used lots of manpower to transport goods and got replacement supplies from China and the Soviet Union. They also had less military needs as they had fewer soldiers and waged guerrilla warfare. In the end it seemed that the tactics used against industrialized nations, in World War II, weren’t as effect in Vietnam.

What were some crucial reasons the U.S.A. didn’t drop a nuke on North Vietnam?

Do you think not beginning Operation Rolling Thunder with an all-out massive bombing was a bad idea?

Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

1. What is the author arguing?

In his farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower argues that we must keep the Military-Industrial Complex in check. He states that the newly formed and costly armaments industry is necessary in the new day and age, to ward off any attempts to harm the USA, but if that kind of power was to fall under the wrong influence the results could be disastrous and damaging to democracy.

To prevent this he says that we the citizens need to be alert and knowledgeable. We need to make sure military power does not dictate our nation or another and that we can all negotiate democratically without fear, no matter how small they may be militarily.

2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument?

President Dwight D. Eisenhower appeals to pathos in the beginning by starting his speech in a way that will appeal to most Americans. He wishes the next President Godspeed, says he prays for good times, talks about his experiences with congress and stating that, even though America was in 3 out of the 4 major wars, it is the strongest, most productive, and most influential nation in the world.

He continues to appeal to pathos throughout the speech by using phrases and words that resonate with the US’s founding principles and what is thought of as morally right. A few examples are when he says “our basic purposes have been to keep the peace, to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations”, “we must never let the weight of this combination endangers our liberties or democratic processes, and “You and I –my fellow citizens—need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace and justice”. By doing this he reinforces the idea that what he is suggesting is the right thing to do; keeping the Military-Industrial Complex in check is the right thing to do.

He appeals to logos through his logical reasons for his arguments. At first he states why having a military establishment vital to keeping the peace. It detours aggressors. Then he goes on to say why it needs to be kept in check. If unchecked it can becomes a tool for tyrannical force by threatening less powerful nations and thereby threatening the democratic process. He also has a logical solution. Have the citizens say alert and knowledgeable so they can step in when there seems to be unwarranted influence.

President Eisenhower uses ethos throughout his speech to appeal to his fellow countrymen. Throughout the speech he says that he values peace, prosperity, and democracy. He says that he wants these values for all people and nations. This shows how much he values those values and it gives people more reason to think that the intent of his warning was good. His logical reasons for his arguments show that he had thought what he is saying and he shows that he cares emotionally for his nation. This gives him a pretty creditable character so many people will probably heed his warning about the Military-Industrial Complex. 

3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?

Not only was President Eisenhower’s speech important because it was his farewell address to American people, but it also probably made people more aware of the dangers that a large Military-Industrial Complex posed toward their democratic process. It also may have been part the reason why so many people are against big military spending and invading other nations.

4. Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or Why not?

I find President Eisenhower’s speech convincing because it makes sense. I see it like this: 

If a nation isn’t armed and it runs into some other nation that it doesn’t agree with, it will more likely use diplomatic communication to solve its differences since it takes time to make an army. If a nation had an enormous amount of weapons and it runs into some other nation that it doesn’t agree with it may just use force right away. The people of that nation can object to using force if they stay alert and knowledgeable. If they do not, they can easily be caught up and mislead by propaganda and hype. They can end up in a situation where they themselves, citizens of the nation, don’t even know all the places their own military is running around, let alone for what purpose.

Fascism: Adolf Hitler and National Socialism

                Many economies were damaged during the Great Depression, and, over in Europe, people were beginning to lose faith in capitalism. As a result other parties started gaining control. Arguably the most influential was the Nazis in Germany, under Adolf Hitler. The people of Germany were upset with the Versailles peace treaty. Hitler used this opportunity to start a conspiracy against communists and financers. As conditions worsened for the Germans, the support for the Nazis increased. To insure total control Hitler’s Nazis murdered and prisoned those who opposed him. The Gestapo, Nazis police, routinely terrorized Germany’s people. Hitler began blaming Jews and painting them as well as, gypsies, homosexuals, the chronically ill, and the disabled, as enemies. These “undesirables” were rounded up, forced to work in concentration camps, and killed. Hitler continued trying to expand Nazis control, building weapons and military vehicles, violating the Versailles treaty. The Nazis were able to reduce unemployment and by forcing the citizens to sacrifice the Nazis were able to build up a massive military. Using propaganda they mislead their people and portrayed Hitler as almost superhuman.

How important was controlling the flow of information, for Nazis Germany?

What were the most influential reasons why the German people were so quick to turn on the “undesirables”?

Defense of the League of Nations, Woodrow Wilson, September 1919

1. What is the author arguing?

In his speech, the author, Woodrow Wilson, urges that the United States join the League of Nations. He goes on to clear misconceptions about the League of Nations, explain the benefits and securities that it provides, and he finishes off by invoking the image of fallen soldiers, reminding his fellow countrymen of the purpose for which so many of them laid down their lives. He argues that joining the League of Nations will help prevent feature wars and thus that is what the United States should do.

2. How does the author appeal to logos (logic), pathos (emotional quality), and ethos (the writer’s perceived character) with their argument?

President Wilson often used emotional qualities (pathos) to make his message more powerful. He strategically began his speech by praising his countrymen before going on to correct their misconceptions about the League of Nations. People are often more willing to listen and agree after being complimented.

As he explains the treaties that had been made with Germany and other countries, he states that their purpose was to put the governments in the hands of its people, to bring about justice and liberation. He calls it a “people’s treaty”. These words and phrases are reminiscent of the core ideas that the United States was founded on so they were a great way to win his countrymen’s favor.  

Later in his speech he mentions weeping mothers, who had lost their sons in the war, telling him “God bless you, Mr. President.” He responds to this message by being confused about why they would say that to him, and stating ways that he was at fault. Then he explains the reason; he intended to make the most out of the sacrifice their sons made. By initially responding to praise by pointing out his mistakes he shows how he was humble. By stating that the mothers of fallen soldiers were on his side, he gave his opposition the sense that they were not only arguing with the president, but also with the sad mothers of their country’s brave soldiers. Many people also may have wanted to take the mothers’ side out of sympathy for their loss.

President Wilson mentioned his visit to France and how some of the women there had “adopted” some of the fallen soldiers and put flowers on their graves every day. He said they were “mothers of those dear ghosts”. This showed that the people of the countries the U.S. helped were grateful and they also understood the sacrifice. It made the foreigners seem more like the American people and the similarities gave more reason to support one another by joining the League of Nations. I’m guessing that some of the U.S. citizens may have been against the League of Nations because they didn’t want foreigners pushing their different ways of doing things onto them. By showing the similarities it may have reduced some of those fears.

                The president also used logic (logos) to support his arguments. He explains the ways that the League would regulate its members to minimize violence.  One way was that before starting a war, members would be required to let the League of Nations’ council first consider the facts. This could take 6 months.  If they still wanted to war, they would be required to wait an additional 3 months. This gave 9 months to “cool down” and resolve tensions.

                The League of Nations would also prevent wars by being a jury that would detour wrong doing. They would be setting a moral example. If a nation knew what they were doing would be perceived as wrong, they would be less likely to do it in front of the League of Nations.

                President Wilson used ethos (his perceived character) throughout his speech to appeal to his fellow countrymen. He made it clear that he was for the people by mentioning ways that people would be liberated and governments would be put into their hands. He showed that he was the kind of person who cared about the masses. When mentioning the weeping mothers he even took the fault for the war, which showed his willingness to take responsibility. He mentioned what the fallen soldiers fought for and showed that he shared the same goals. Overall, he painted himself in a favorable light.

3. What is the historical significance/relevance of this document?

Even though the United States never joined the League of Nations, this speech surely must have impacted some to think about making stronger alliances, to prevent conflicts. This speech also elaborated on some of the benefits of the League of Nations, and may have cleared up some misconceptions. It is significant because of how passionate it was.

4. Do you find the author’s argument convincing? Why or why not?

                I found Woodrow Wilson’s argument very convincing because of all the emotion that was in it. It brought up powerful subjects like justice, liberty, weeping mothers, and fallen soldiers. He had logical reasons why and how the League of Nations would reduce wars. He used subjects that a lot of people would agree on, like putting the governments in the peoples’ hands, to help them board his train of thought. The speech may not have covered many of the reasons why people were against joining the League of Nations, but it gave powerful reasons for joining it.

“Why, my fellow citizens, should they pray God to bless me? I advised the Congress of the United States to create the situation that lead to the death of their sons. I ordered their sons overseas. I consented to their sons being put in the most difficult part of the battle line, where death was certain…” Defense of the League of Nations, 1919 pg. 333

In his speech, President Wilson mentioned that he was at fault for the death of the mothers’ sons. Did this hurt his image more then it may have helped it, admitting fault and taking responsibility?

“The most certain way that you can prove that a man is mistaken is by letting all his neighbors know what he thinks, by letting all his neighbors discuss what he thinks, and if he is in the wrong you will notice that he will stay at home, he will not walk on the street. He will be afraid of the eyes of his neighbors.” Defense of the League of Nations, 1919 pg. 331

Does this idea suppress the ideas of the minority; say for example a smaller country with slightly different ideas? Will they be too afraid to state their opinions and will they thus loose some of their liberty?