History 291
Superpower America
Fall 2004
Richard H. Immerman
Mid-Term Study Guide
In reality, what follows
below is more than a study guide. As I explained at the semester's start, one of
these exercises in thoughtful and painstaking analysis will
appear—verbatim—on the mid-term examination.
I heartily recommend that you study them all, nevertheless;
I pride myself on my inscrutability, and the selection will be mine. Or maybe
I’ll allow my dog to make the choice. I certainly won’t
designate you. Sorry.
Some words to the wise:
Read each question several times. Determine what fundamental issues each
question addresses, and formulate a thesis--or hypothesis--that responds
directly to these issues. Never forget that
historians do not “merely” tell a story (though we often do tell some
whoppers). We aim to interpret and argue. Thus organize your essay
appropriately. Your introduction should explicitly
articulate your
interpretation, point of view, thesis, or whatever you want to call your
argument. Then in the body of the essay cite—early and often—robust
evidence to support what in the introduction you indicate that you
intend to argue. By the time you reach the end, consequently, you should not
need a conclusion. If you feel one is required, or worse, fear that you
have not proven your case, or worse still, have contradicted yourself, start the
process all over. Assume the role of an attorney preparing for a devastating
cross-examination. And stay on point!
Not to rain on your
parade, but I must remind you that your essays will not constitute the totality
of your effort. I will expect you to identify and explain the historical
significance of
five out of seven names/terms/concepts/places. Your responses should be succinct and to the
point,* but they will take some time. Plan on a
minute or two for each—no more. At least five (if not all) of the identifications will be
drawn from the list of terms that follow the lecture outlines.
If the spirit does move me to
challenge you with a name/term/concept/place that cannot be found on the
lecture assure, rest assured that it is conspicuous in the readings.
1. When teaching the
introductory survey of the History of the United States
since Reconstruction (e.g., Temple's History C068),
an instructor may choose to periodize in a way that emphasizes conceptual
themes and “change over time” at the expense of more chronological,
event-based periodization. Indeed, one instructor of U.S. history, who will
remain anonymous, at one prestigious U.S. university, which will likewise
remain anonymous, presented both the Second Front controversy during
World War II and the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
as critical watersheds in the evolution of
the Cold War. Using both evidence and logic, provide an informed
opinion as to whether this instructor's periodization is a violation of the
fundamental “narrative” of U.S. history
following the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. In other words, did he
essentially mislead his students (most of whom had only the elementary
knowledge of U.S. history acquired at the secondary-school level) by situating
events that preceded the surrender of Germany and Japan within the framework
of events that succeeded that surrender?
2. Compare, contrast, and
evaluate the fundamental strategies of Presidents Harry S. Truman and Dwight
D. Eisenhower and the premises underlying them.
Emphasize both the continuities and the changes, and evaluate the
appropriateness of the label “New Look.” Paying particular attention to
Pickett's pamphlet on George Kennan and the origins of the
New Look, make sure you address explicitly the dichotomy between
containment and roll-back/liberation. Conclude your essay by
assessing the extent to which
in your opinion Kennedy's strategy, conventionally labeled
"Flexible
Response" resembled Truman's strategy, Eisenhower's strategy, neither, or
both. Do you see it as an improvement over its predecessors?
3. Responding to a question at a Press Conference in 1982, Ronald Reagan
provided the following history of the escalation of
America's commitment to Vietnam:
"If I recall correctly, when
France gave up Indochina as a colony, the leading nations of the world met in Geneva in regard to helping those colonies become independent nations. And
since North and South Vietnam had been previous to colonization two
separate countries, provisions were made that these two countries could by a
vote of all their people together decide whether they wanted to be one country
or not. . . .
"And there wasn't anything
surreptitious about it, but when Ho Chi Minh refused to participate in such an election and there was provision that the peoples of both countries could
cross the border and live in the other country if they wanted to,
and when they began leaving by the thousands and thousands from North
Vietnam to live in South Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh closed the border and again
violated that part of the agreement
. . . .
"And openly, our country sent military advisors there
to help a country which had been a colony have such things as a national security force, an army you might say, or a
military, to defend itself. And they were doing this, if I recall correctly, also in civilian clothes, no weapons,
until they began being blown up where they lived, in walking down the street by people riding by on bicycles
and throwing pipe bombs at them. and then they
were permitted to carry side arms or wear
uniforms . . .
"But it was totally a program until John F.
Kennedy, when these attacks and forays became so great that
John F. Kennedy authorized the sending in of a division of marines. That
was the first move toward combat moves
in Vietnam."
Gathering as much intelligence as you can from the
lectures and especially the readings, please provide the former
president with the correct history of the evolution of America's military intervention
in Vietnam. Further, in concluding this lesson in history,
explicity answer the question Fred Logevall explicitly asks, "So might the War
have been avoided?" And don't just answer yes or no. Support your answer.
4. In a foreign service
dispatch dated September 8, 1952, then U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union
George Kennan wrote, "In the United States . . . opinion rapidly coalesced to the
effect that the North Korean attack was only the opening gambit in an
elaborate program of Soviet armed aggression against the free world. The
attack was subsequently freely cited in American official utterances as an
example of new Soviet 'aggressiveness.'" How would you explain the
"rapid" coalescence of U.S. opinion and the frequent citation of the
attack as illustrating new Soviet "aggressiveness." Weigh the extent
to which "internal" as opposed to "external phenomena"
(for example domestic politics as opposed to threat assessments) influenced
the U.S. response. Conclude by
providing your evaluation of the U.S. response.
*Harry
Truman: Former senator whom Democrats chose as their vice presidential
candidate in 1944 because he was not considered a serious presidential
contender in 1948 but who nevertheless accidentally became president upon the
death of Franklin Roosevelt in 1945. Highly uninformed when he initially took
office and predisposed to speaking loudly and carrying a big stick, Truman
presided over the United States during the evolution and intensification of
the Cold War.