Essay
Eisenhowers foreign policy in Europe differed significantly from hid foreign policy elsewhere in the world (A* grade essay)
- Course
- Institution
History essay written in the first year of A level (AS level) (23/25)
[Show more]
3 reviews
By: lolahabiba12 • 9 months ago
By: ellacrabb03 • 3 year ago
By: zarathompson03 • 4 year ago
Seller
Follow
TatianaBel
Reviews received
Content preview
“Eisenhower’s foreign policy in Europe differed significantly from his foreign policyelsewhere in the world.” Assess the validity of this view.
Eisenhower’s foreign policy all around the world was in fact aimed at preserving peace, yet
at the same time showed a harsh stance on communism. However, unlike in Europe the CIA
backed by Eisenhower intervened in the politics of countries in both Latin America and the
Middle East, showing the undemocratic side of the USA, whereas in Europe tried to be as
helpful as they could, spreading the ideas of democracy and capitalism.
In Europe, Eisenhower’s foreign policy was aimed at improving relations and building up the
continent through financial aid to create economically strong trading partners. He continued
the Marshall plan in 1951, which was significantly greater than in any other continent. This
shows that potentially, for Eisenhower, foreign policy in Europe was aimed at achieving a
different goal- economic benefit, which he wouldn’t be able to achieve from other countries
around the world, due to their lack of economic significance to the USA- otherwise he’d also
extend the Marshall aid to a greater extent in other countries around the world. Instead of
helping other countries, the US got involved in their politics, taking part in coups in Iran in
1953 “hurting a proud nation” and in Guatemala in 1954. Indeed, similarly to Europe, these
actions would allow for the countries to remain under American control, however rather
than making allies with them, instead the US forced these countries into it, making enemies
rather than friends, which in the future would cause issues for USA. Moreover, it can be
argued that Eisenhower’s’ stance on communism was harsher outside of Europe, potentially
due to his fear of starting a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, as US action in Europe would
directly affect the Soviets in terms of their stance on Communism. Whilst completely
ignoring aggressive actions in Hungary in 1956, he increased aid to South Vietnam by
providing 1000 Americans to advise Diem’s government alongside $7 billion to create a
strong anti-communist state. Moreover, during the Chinese bombardment of islands around
Taiwan in 1954, rather than ignoring the issue like he did in Hungary, showing a willingness
to discuss the issue like he did in Hungary, or showing a willingness to discuss the issue such
as he did regarding Berlin in 1959, he hinted at using nuclear weapons, which undeniably is
a much harsher stance than he ever had in Europe. These differing responses to crises
regarding communism, were reacted upon differently by Eisenhower potentially due to his
fear of the Soviet Union and their nuclear strength- he clearly didn’t want a war, neither hot
nor nuclear, hence he allowed for the Communists to retain their power and even expand it
a bit, which in other parts of the world he didn’t. therefore, this fear of the USSR slightly
altered his foreign policy in Europe from the rest of the world, adding to the validity of this
view. Hence, validity is added to the view due to the fact that European countries had a
different importance to the US rather than countries from other parts of the world. This,
alongside the fear of starting a nuclear war prevented Eisenhower from being as harsh on
communism in Europe as he was elsewhere.
However, overall his foreign policy was aimed at achieving peace throughout the world,
which is obvious through him cutting the expenditure on armaments significantly as well as
no American troops being killed in conflicts abroad. Eisenhower as much as possible
expanded American influence throughout the world, expanding NATO into more European
countries, creating SEATO in 1954 in Asia and CENTO in the Middle East in 1955. He didn’t
specifically do this in Europe or excluded Europe from this hence decreasing the validity of
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller TatianaBel. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $3.90. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
75323 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now