Vietnam War Essay Thesis Example For Students

Vietnam War Essay Thesis I think that the Vietnam War was justified as the Americans were trying tohelp Vietnam becoming communist country and they though that communism wasa bad thing not realizing that the Vietnamese had it rough to start with. It was just some of the thing that the Americans did that mad the warunjustified. The war never just started the US just bleed more supplies in to the Frenchthen some CIA to do some work then by 1961 he sent some Green Berets in andby August 1964, he secured from Congress a functional (not actual)declaration of war: the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. Then, in February and March1965, Johnson authorized the sustained bombing, by U.S. aircraft, oftargets north of the 17th parallel, and on 8 March dispatched 3,500 Marinesto South Vietnam. Legal declaration or not, the United States was now atwar. We will write a custom essay on Vietnam War Thesis specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now The multiple starting dates for the war complicate efforts to describe thecauses of U.S. entry. The United States became involved in the war for anumber of reasons, and these evolved and shifted over time. Primarily,every American president regarded the enemy in Vietnamthe Vietminh; its1960s successor, the National Liberation Front (NLF); and the government ofNorth Vietnam, led by Ho Chi Min as agents of global communism. U.S. policymakers, and most Americans, regarded communism as the antithesis ofall they held dear. Communists scorned democracy, violated human rights,pursued military aggression, and created closed state economies that barelytraded with capitalist countries. Americans compared communism to acontagious disease. If it took hold in one nation, U.S. policymakersexpected contiguous nations to fall to communism, too, as if nations weredominoes lined up on end. In 1949, when the Communist Party came to powerin China, Washington feared that Vietnam would become the next Asiandomino. That was one reason for Trumans 1950 decision to give aid to theFrench who were fighting the Vietminh. Truman also hoped that assisting the French in Vietnam would help to shoreup the developed, non-Communist nations, whose fates were in surprisingways tied to the preservation of Vietnam and, given the domino theory, allof Southeast Asia. Free world dominion over the region would providemarkets for Japan, rebuilding with American help after the Pacific War. U.S. involvement in Vietnam reassured the British, who linked their postwar recovery to the revival of the rubber and tin industries in theircolony of Malaya, one of Vietnams neighbours. And with U.S. aid, theFrench could concentrate on economic recovery at home, and could hopeultimately to recall their Indochina officer corps to oversee therearmament of West Germany, a Cold War measure deemed essential by theAmericans. These ambitions formed a second set of reasons why the UnitedStates became involved in Vietnam. As presidents committed the United States to conflict bit by bit, many ofthese ambitions were forgotten. Instead, inertia developed againstwithdrawing from Vietnam. Washington believed that U.S. withdrawal wouldresult in a Communist victoryEisenhower acknowledged that, had electionsbeen held as scheduled in Vietnam in 1956, Ho Chi Minh would have won 80%of the voteand no U.S. president wanted to lose a country to communism. Democrats in particular, like Kennedy and Johnson, feared a right-wingbacklash should they give up the fight; they remembered vividly theaccusatory tone of the Republicans 1950 question, Who lost China? Thecommitment to Vietnam itself, passed from administration to administration,took on validity aside from any rational basis it might once have had. Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy all gave their word that the United Stateswould stand by its South Vietnamese allies. If the United States abandonedthe South Vietnamese, its word would be regarded as unreliable by othergovernments, friendly or not. So U.S. credibility seemed at stake. .ue20169d4d0fcfe7877b48cf498de8d19 , .ue20169d4d0fcfe7877b48cf498de8d19 .postImageUrl , .ue20169d4d0fcfe7877b48cf498de8d19 .centered-text-area { min-height: 80px; position: relative; } .ue20169d4d0fcfe7877b48cf498de8d19 , .ue20169d4d0fcfe7877b48cf498de8d19:hover , .ue20169d4d0fcfe7877b48cf498de8d19:visited , .ue20169d4d0fcfe7877b48cf498de8d19:active { border:0!important; } .ue20169d4d0fcfe7877b48cf498de8d19 .clearfix:after { content: ""; display: table; clear: both; } .ue20169d4d0fcfe7877b48cf498de8d19 { display: block; transition: background-color 250ms; webkit-transition: background-color 250ms; width: 100%; opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #95A5A6; } .ue20169d4d0fcfe7877b48cf498de8d19:active , .ue20169d4d0fcfe7877b48cf498de8d19:hover { opacity: 1; transition: opacity 250ms; webkit-transition: opacity 250ms; background-color: #2C3E50; } .ue20169d4d0fcfe7877b48cf498de8d19 .centered-text-area { width: 100%; position: relative ; } .ue20169d4d0fcfe7877b48cf498de8d19 .ctaText { border-bottom: 0 solid #fff; color: #2980B9; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; margin: 0; padding: 0; text-decoration: underline; } .ue20169d4d0fcfe7877b48cf498de8d19 .postTitle { color: #FFFFFF; font-size: 16px; font-weight: 600; margin: 0; padding: 0; width: 100%; } .ue20169d4d0fcfe7877b48cf498de8d19 .ctaButton { background-color: #7F8C8D!important; color: #2980B9; border: none; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: none; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 26px; moz-border-radius: 3px; text-align: center; text-decoration: none; text-shadow: none; width: 80px; min-height: 80px; background: url(https://artscolumbia.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts/assets/images/simple-arrow.png)no-repeat; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0; } .ue20169d4d0fcfe7877b48cf498de8d19:hover .ctaButton { background-color: #34495E!important; } .ue20169d4d0fcfe7877b48cf498de8d19 .centered-text { display: table; height: 80px; padding-left : 18px; top: 0; } .ue20169d4d0fcfe7877b48cf498de8d19 .ue20169d4d0fcfe7877b48cf498de8d19-content { display: table-cell; margin: 0; padding: 0; padding-right: 108px; position: relative; vertical-align: middle; width: 100%; } .ue20169d4d0fcfe7877b48cf498de8d19:after { content: ""; display: block; clear: both; } READ: Rising Tide EssayAlong with the larger structural and ideological causes of the war inVietnam, the experience, personality, and temperament of each presidentplayed a role in deepening the U.S. commitment. Dwight Eisenhowerrestrained U.S. involvement because, having commanded troops in battle, hedoubted the United States could fight a land war in Southeast Asia. Theyouthful John Kennedy, on the other hand, felt he had to prove his resolveto the American people and his Communist adversaries, especially in theaftermath of several foreign policy blunders early in his administration. Lyndon Johnson saw the Vietnam War as a test of his mettle, as a Southernerand as a man. He exhorted his soldiers to nail the coonskin to the wallin Vietnam, likening victory to a successful hunting expedition. When Johnson began bombing North Vietnam and sent the Marines to SouthVietnam in early 1965, he had every intention of fighting a limited war. Heand his advisers worried that too lavish a use of U.S. firepower mightprompt the Chinese to enter the conflict. It was not expected that theNorth Vietnamese and the NLF would hold out long against the Americanmilitary. And yet U.S. policymakers never managed to fit military strategyto U.S. goals in Vietnam. Massive bombing had little effect against adecentralized economy like North Vietnams. The Vietnam War was just as justified as the First World War; they didnthave to do anything about it, but they did. People thought that war was aromantic and heroic thing to be involved in. It wasnt until TV brought thewar into the lounge rooms of the Families that they started to see howhorrible war is.

History of General Motors

History of General Motors General Motors (GM) is a multinational corporation with its headquarters situated in Detroit Michigan. The companys history dates back a couple of decades and entails a broad range of industrial activities worldwide.Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on History of General Motors specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More General Motors history delves in motorized transportation, engineering and manufacturing (Barnhoorn, 2012, p. 45). The company was established in 1908 as a holding corporation. By 2012, General Motors had employed over 202,000 people. Today, the company has created employment for over 324,000 people worldwide. Besides, it has sold over 8.35 million cars globally (Chowdhury, 2014). The company sells its cars under different brands. The current brands include Vauxhall, Cadillac, Buick, and Chevrolet. Apart from selling cars, General Motors also distributes numerous non-automotive brands like Terex and Euclid . In 1930, General Motors ventured into the aeronautical industry. It purchased Fokker Aircraft Corp, which was an American company. Later, it bought Berliner-Joyce Aircraft. General Motors merged the two companies to establish General Aviation Manufacturing Corporation. Barnhoorn (2012) alleged, â€Å"Through a stock exchange, General Motors took controlling interests in North American Aviation and merged it with its General Aviation division in 1933† (p. 47). In 1948, General Motors pulled out of North American Aviation, and since then, it has never invested in the aircraft industry again. The company purchased both Electro-Motive Corporation and Winton Engine in 1930, changing their names to General Motors Electro-Motive Division (Barnhoorn, 2012). General Motors embarked on manufacturing diesel-propelled locomotives, which dominated the American railroads. The locomotives played an important role during World War II. General Motors got rid of the Electro-Motive division i n 2005. In 1932, General Motors established an ancillary company dubbed United Cities Motor Transport.Advertising Looking for research paper on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The company helped GM to â€Å"transform streetcar systems to buses in small cities† (Chowdhury, 2014, p. 129). Chowdhury (2014) alleged that in 1936, General Motors participated in a conspiracy aimed at eradicating streetcar system. According to Ready (2004), General Motors played a significant role in World War II. The corporation manufactured enormous quantities of aircrafts, cars, and armaments that the United States used during the war. Nevertheless, the war adversely affected General Motors global interests. The American, British, and Canadian branches were divided with each branch supporting the local government. Ready (2004) alleged that it became hard for the United States government to manage GM-owned compa nies in Germany. The German government took control of the companies and used them to manufacture weapons and vehicles. Chowdhury (2014) argued, â€Å"General Motors ranked first among the United States corporations in the value of wartime production contracts† (p. 130). The company’s William Knudsen helped President Roosevelt to manufacture and supply cars and weapons. On the other hand, the companys subsidiary in Britain contributed to making the Churchill tank. The tanks were helpful in the United Kingdoms operations in North Africa. General Motors participation in the World War II made it famous across the globe. The post-war period saw the company become the largest automobile enterprise in the United States (Galster, 2012). Additionally, the company’s revenue went high and significantly contributed to the United States’ gross domestic production. In 1953, Eisenhower appointed General Motors’ president (Charles Wilson) as Secretary of Defense. Charles Wilson declared that he was ready to protect the United States without considering if his decisions could affect General Motors (Galster, 2012).Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on History of General Motors specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More However, Charles confirmed that he did not envisage a situation where his decisions could affect General Motors. He believed that both the United States and General Motors shared common interests. Later, his sentiments were misinterpreted with some people arguing that Charles meant that the General Motors interests coincided with those of the country. In 1955, General Motors became the first company to remit the highest levies in the United States (Galster, 2012). In 1958, the branch differences within General Motors started to fade away as the company developed high-performance engines. The company introduced higher trim replicas like Pontiac Bonneville and Chevrole t Impala (Galster, 2012). The replicas were sold together concurrently other models, making it hard for customers to distinguish them. In 1961, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, and Buick came up with engines that were similar to Pontiac Bonneville and Chevrolet Impala. Hence, the models eliminated the differences that existed among the General Motors’ divisions across the globe. In 1960s, GM encountered stiff competition from other car companies. Therefore, it was forced to manufacture superior cars to remain competitive (Barnhoorn, 2012). For example, General Motors built Chevrolet Corvair to counter Volkswagen Beetle. Besides, after Ford Company made Falcon, General Motors responded by making Chevy II. In 1977, General Motors launched Chevrolet Vega to curtail import of cars from foreign companies. However, Chevrolet Vega’s inventive aluminum engine encountered numerous problems (Barnhoorn, 2012). General Motors stopped manufacturing Chevrolet Vega after realizing that the car w as not doing well in the market.Advertising Looking for research paper on business economics? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Even though General Motors continued to grow its market share from 1960s to 1980s, it suffered from product disagreement. Barnhoorn (2012) posited, It seemed that, in every decade, an important mass-production product line was launched with defects of one type or another showing up early in their life cycle (p. 61). Therefore, the company always had to make some adjustments to improve its products. However, it was hard to convince customers to purchase the improved products. For instance, General Motors launched Chevrolet Corvair in 1960s. At first, the car was received well (Rattner, 2010). Later, its unusual handling made customers to consider it unsafe. Later, General Motors improved the cars suspension system and made a number of improvements to make it safe. However, Chevrolet Corvairs reputation had been adequately ruined such that customers were not ready to purchase it. The 1970s was the era of the Vega. It started as a famous car, but the fame did not last for long. General Motors was affected by labor strife in its Ohio’s production plants. Hence, many customers felt that the company could not guarantee the safety of its cars (Rattner, 2010). In 1977, General Motors stopped manufacturing the Vega model since it was not doing well in the market. According to Rattner (2010), Oldsmobile’s turnover went up between 1970s and 1980s. It received affirmative reviews from customers. Besides, people had faith in its Rocket V8 engine. Rattner (2010) posited that Olds dislodged Plymouth and Pontiac as the third best selling trademark in the United States. The first two brands were Chevrolet and Ford. Increased recognition of Oldsmobile’s cars led to a significant challenge in 1977. Oldsmobile could no longer satisfy the market since the demand for V8 engine was higher than production capability. Hence, it started to equip its car models with Chevrolet 350 engines to meet the demand (Rattner, 2010). The majority of customers did not realize w hat Oldsmobile had done. However, many customers learnt that they had been short-changed when they took their cars for maintenance. They filed lawsuits, which crippled the General Motors’ reputation. People published disclaimers alleging that Oldsmobile was using engines manufactured by other General Motors divisions to assemble its cars. The disclaimers adversely affected GM status forcing the corporation to come up with a single unit for making car engines. Today, all its engines are built by GM Powertrain (Rattner, 2010). The history of General Motors is characterized by ups and downs. The company has encountered one crisis after the other. However, the management has always found ways to salvage the company. In 2010, the administration helped the company to overcome bankruptcy that saw it close the majority of its branches. The management restructured General Motors’ brand portfolio to help it compete with other established brands (Chowdhury, 2014). The company abo lished a number of nameplates like Saturn, Pontiac, Goodwrench, and Hummer. Besides, it removed the culture of embossing its mark of excellence on all its cars. According to Chowdhury (2014), General Motors has moved from a corporate-endorsed hybrid brand architecture structure, where GM underpinned every brand to a multiple brands corporate (p. 133). Indeed, it is hard for one to identify General Motors brand in the market. The majority of its brands do not bear a trademark. Moreover, the United States branch has purged the famous blue badge from its website. However, the Canadian branch still reveres the blue â€Å"badge†. Nowadays, General Motors has two superior brands that control its global development. They are Chevrolet and Cadillac. The Cadillac brand develops lavish cars that are aggressive and dominant (Chowdhury, 2014). Besides, General Motors is in the process of reviving other brands like Buick, Holden, Opel, Baojun, and Vauxhall to help it reach a wide customer base. References Barnhoorn, J. (2012). Recognize sustained competitive advantage: A comparison in the automotive industry out of an investors’ perspective. Delft: Delft University of Technology. Chowdhury, S. (2014). Strategic roads that diverge or converge: GM and Toyota in the battle for the top. Business Horizons, 57(1), 127-136. Galster, G. (2012). Driving Detroit: The quest for respect in the motor city. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press. Rattner, S. (2010). Overhaul: An insider’s account of the Obama administration’s emergency rescue of the auto industry. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Ready, D. (2004). The characteristics of great leader-builder companies. Business Strategy Review, 15(3), 36-40.