History

Introduction

The Cold War was a great event in global history. The opposition of two leading superstates was crucial for that period as almost all countries were involved in the conflict and were affected by the blistering deterioration of relations between the USA and the USSR. The scale of the conflict and the threat of the nuclear war preconditioned the way the world evolved. For this reason, numerous researchers tried to investigate this issue and present their vision of the conflict. For instance, the book Nixon, Kissinger, and the Shah, by Roham Alvandi could be considered one of these attempts. In the book, the author discusses the influence of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on the USA during the Cold War. Despite the depiction of the Shah as a puppet by some writers, Alvandi provides a more detailed and less black-and-white picture of the Shah and also addresses and examines events that transformed U.S.-Iranian relationships during the Cold War. In general, the book provides a comprehensive investigation of one of the aspects of this conflict and the way it contributed to outcomes we were able to observe.

The Cold War

The author suggests several arguments to justify his perspective on the issue and the way it impacted the conflict. As the author states at the beginning of the book, his aim was not to address U.S.-Iranian relations in the 1970s per se, but to focus on three historical episodes that can characterize the “rise and fall of the Nixon-Kissinger-Pahlavi partnership.”¹ The author also offers the idea that the Cold War should be considered a complex issue that was impacted not only by the US and Soviet policies; however, numerous unknown factors resulted in the appearance of different global processes. For this reason, his investigation of Rezas contribution to the opposition could be considered an attempt to demonstrate another point of view and that background of the US-Iranian relations. Therefore, there is another important argument Alvandi uses to demonstrate the increased importance of his arguments. The fact is that the US administration was the first to fill the political vacuum that appeared since the British Empire left this land. For this reason, states of the Persian Gulf looked for new allies and America suggested its help.

Comparing the book with other readings that delve into the same issue, several aspects should be mentioned. First, unlike other authors, Alvandi does not pay much attention to oil prices and their impact on U.S. foreign policy. In this case, Alvandi’s approach is rather different from that of Melani McAlister, who researched the impact of the 1973 oil crisis on the USA in detail.² McAlister emphasizes the importance of the oil embargo, focusing on the U.S. response toward it, which was “a sense of crisis and anger.”³ Alvandi, in contrast, focuses on the Nixon-Kissinger-Pahlavi partnership that reached its zenith in 1972, paying little attention to oil prices and their influence on international relationships; instead, Alvandi views them as an enabler of the Shah’s ambitions and as the means that helped Iran increase its wealth.

Alvandi addresses the origins of Iranian support for the Iraqi Kurds, focusing on the United States’ involvement in the Iranian operation in Iraqi Kurdistan. McAlister’s discussion is focused on the internal (American) perceptions of the oil crisis and U.S. access to oil, whereas the secret operation and U.S. support for the guerrilla war in Kurdistan are not only not addressed at length, these actions are not even mentioned. Nevertheless, McAlister brings up an interesting aspect of American influence on the Middle East and American policymakers’ perception of it. As the author notes, even though both the USA and the Soviet Union co-sponsored a UN cease-fire resolution, the USA was ready to send troops to the region only when the Soviet Union stated it might intervene to enforce a cease-fire.⁴ McAlister points out that such a reaction indicates how the Middle East was seen as an area of American influence by American policymakers, whereas the Soviet Union, according to the U.S. view, should not have had this region within its sphere of influence.

Alvandi provides extensive documentation and a detailed description of how the USA was drawn into the conflict, indicating that it was not easy for Iran to ensure American involvement, as the USA refused to participate in Iraq’s civil war for more than two decades.⁵ Despite the Soviet Union’s influence in Iraq, the USA did not perceive Iraq as a major threat to its influence in the Middle East; neither was it interested in participating in a distant conflict between Iraq and the Kurds. The Kurds, however, approached the U.S. embassy, attempting to ensure American backing, but were rejected several times.

Even after a failed assassination attempt on Mustafa Barzani, a Kurdish national leader, the USA still refused to participate in high-level discussions with the Kurds.⁶ The only person who was able to change the U.S. perception of the conflict and ensure its participation was the Shah. As Nixon gave a high priority to the relationship with the Shah, the Shah’s request for American assistance for the Kurds could not be ignored, as Kurdish envoys had been. Nevertheless, American involvement in the conflict was not achieved quickly. Barzani’s requests for meetings were again rejected, as Kissinger was afraid that U.S. support of the Kurds would adversely influence the planned summit in Moscow where Nixon would meet Brezhnev. Only after the Shah met with Kissinger and Nixon in Tehran on May 30 and 31 did the USA begin to consider the necessity of support for the Kurds and eventually agreed to provide it.

By this example, Alvandi shows how far-reaching the influence of the Shah on the Nixon administration was. Furthermore, the request made by the Shah relied, in the Shah’s view, on a specific perspective on the Kurdish conflict. Instead of presenting it as a long-standing conflict between Iran and Iraq over possible supremacy in the region, the Shah presented it as a Cold War struggle whose aim was to hinder Soviet penetration into the Persian Gulf.⁷ As for the USA, possible outcomes were obvious. There were the two choices: either to participate in the conflict and provide the USSR with the right to suggest military help to Iraq; or not to enter the war but observe the Kurds collapse and predominance of the Bath party along with the shifted balance of power. Both of these options were not appropriate.

As can be seen, the Shah’s ability to act quickly, present information, and frame the conflict in a way that could benefit Iran and his attention to opportunities provided by his ties to the Nixon administration eventually helped him ensure American support for Iran in the Kurdish conflict. Alvandi’s attention to this factor is what makes the contributions of his book highly valuable to scholarly debates. As Klein notices in her speech, the process of “othering,” i.e. disregarding and denying the humanity of another culture or geographical region, is what allows first-world countries “the writing off of entire nations and ancient cultures.”⁸

A similar, although the possibly not as violent and bloody process is happening in scholarly debates over the role of the Shah and Iran in the Cold War. Some researchers see the American interventions as steps taken to fulfill American interests in the Middle East, and not as the Shah’s lobbying for Iranian objectives in the Kurdish conflict. For example, Toby Jones views the intervention of the USA in the conflict as “a sign of its superpower status and a demonstration of its limits.”⁹ The author describes American actions in the Gulf in the 1970s as an attempt to build up and empower surrogates that eventually transformed into the gateway for more direct projections of U.S. military power.¹⁰ The role of the “surrogates” is observed only about the USA, with no regard to the aims and objectives these surrogates could have as well.

The perception of the USA as a country that influences others but cannot be influenced by them is also addressed in the book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. The book has sparked significant controversies among scholars, researchers, policymakers, and historians because it depicts Israel as a state that deliberately lobbies for specific policies and actions, using its image as an isolated state in its favor (i.e., to receive American military and financial support).¹¹ That being said, it does not mean that the Israel lobby (which consists of a variety of organizations and individuals) aims to benefit Israel only. As Mearsheimer and Walt point out, those Americans who lobby the U.S. on foreign policy matters to benefit Israel also believe that their actions will benefit the USA as well.¹²

Although it cannot be denied that the USA is a powerful state that has conducted several successful military operations after 1989 (e.g., enforcing a ceasefire in the Yugoslav Wars and preventing a more violent conflict), the American intervention in Iraq was not “war for oil,” as it has often been called in research papers and the press, but rather an action at least partly motivated by the “desire to make Israel more secure.”¹³ As can be seen, Alvandi was not the only author who believed that the USA’s decisions to take part in conflicts were not only rooted in the state’s objectives. Instead, as in the 1970s, the USA participated in the conflict due to serious lobbying from powerful individuals who represented the interests of Israel, as Mearsheimer and Walt argue.¹⁴ Contrary to what was commonly believed, Saddam Hussein was not a major threat to the USA; however, he did pose a danger to Israel. Therefore, the Iraq war is yet another example of how another country was able to influence the USA and draw it into a conflict to support its (in this case Israel’s) interests.

Conclusion

As can be seen, the contribution to the scholarly debate of the books by Alvandi and by Mearsheimer and Walt is significant, as they provide a new perspective on the involvement of the USA in different local conflicts. Even though the USA is often perceived as the major player in a conflict, there are other powers and lobbyists often omitted from research. Alvandi’s book is an excellent example of how an author can significantly transform a perspective rarely debated in historical research.

Footnotes

1. Roham Alvandi, Nixon, Kissinger, and the Shah: The United States and Iran in the Cold War (New York: OUP USA, 2014), 5.
2. Melani McAlister, Epic Encounters: Culture, Media, and U.S. Interests in the Middle East since 1945 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), 125-154.
3. McAlister, Epic Encounters, 135.
4. Ibid., 134.
5. Roham Alvandi, Nixon, Kissinger, and the Shah: The United States and Iran in the Cold War (New York: OUP USA, 2014), 76.
6. Ibid., 79
7. Ibid., 90
8. Naomi Klein, “Let Them Drown: The Violence of Othering in a Warming World,” London Review of Books 38, no. 11 (2016): 12.
9. Toby C. Jones, “America, Oil, and War in the Middle East,” The Journal of American History 99, no. 1 (2012): 210.
10. Jones, “America, Oil, and War…,” 210.
11. John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007), 8.
12. Mearsheimer and Walt, The Israel Lobby, 147.
13. Ibid., 230.
14. Ibid., 231.

Introduction

The American Civil War lasted for four years but left on its trail devastating destruction of property and life that will later take decades to rebuild. While there are other reasons for the start of the war, the main reason that led the southern states to call for secession from the union was the expansion of slavery. Abraham Lincoln and congressional Republicans opposed expansion of slavery to the entire union, irking the southerners who crucially depended on slave labor for their agricultural activities.

The differences between the southern states and the Lincoln administration together with republicans in general sparked the start of a four-year armed campaign that claimed over 600,000 soldiers and thousands of civilians¹. The war had many actors with the most significant being President Lincoln. Union troops squared off with confederacy troops with the guidance of generals whose contribution to the end of the conflict is well documented. Tens of commissioned generals were involved in guiding their respective armies in the battle field.

While both the Union and Confederate armies achieved mixed success before the win by the Union army, the most compelling and divisive issue among historians and civil war enthusiasts is on who was the best general of the Civil War. There is no doubt both sides had outstanding generals who were experienced and displayed articulate planning and execution of the war strategy. Despite the Union army’s win at the end of the war, there is consensus that when it comes to deciding the best general of the civil war, names from both the Union and the Confederacy armies must be included².

When deciding on the most outstanding general of the Civil War, it is important to take into consideration a few crucial factors that every top soldier must display. As such, a number of historians agree that Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee were the best generals of the Civil War because of their leadership, strategies, experience and intelligence. The two generals’ exploits eventually led to the end of the civil war and the readmission of the southern states into the union.

Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee

As mentioned earlier, analysis on what makes the above two to stand out depends on aspects such as leadership, strategies, experience and intelligence. One important and obvious observation made on the two is the fact that they belonged to two opposing sides. In effect therefore, it is prudent for one to make the assumption that both generals represented the best of all generals in their respective sides³.

Early Careers

Closer analysis of both men’s early careers will identify similarities that are of historical significance. Both Grant and Lee initially served in the US army with long spells in the Mexican-American war.

After graduation from West Point in 1843, General Grant served as regimental quartermaster in the Mexican War where he was mainly involved with delivering supplies to the front line. General Lee on the other hand graduated much earlier in 1829 from West Point and joined the Engineering Corps of the U.S Army. Lee, while serving under Major-General Winfield Scott participated in the invasion and capture of Veracruz and the eventual capture of Mexico City. His experience as an engineer was particularly useful in the war as he creatively sought ways of capturing Mexican strong points. Though Grant resigned from the army after the Mexican war, he would later return to the army to face Lee in the civil war⁴.

Judging by their early careers, it is correct to assert that both men’s exploits prepared then for the eventual showdown during the civil war. Though Grant would emerge victorious, Lee’s military brilliance is unmistakable especially in leading an army on the backdrop of limited resources.

Early Live

Ulysses S. Grant was born April 27, 1822, in Point Pleasant, Ohio to Jesse Root Grant and Hannah Grant. His father was a business person involved in the leather production business. The Grant family was Methodist but Ulysses rarely followed the core demands of the Methodist faith⁵. He had an outstanding ability in working and controlling horses, skills which later proved important when he was providing transport as a vocation and also in the battle field. There is little literature on Grants early education. However, he was enrolled to West Point Academy at age 17 where he graduated from in 1843⁶. Grant graduated as an expert horseman who was naturally suited for cavalry though his assigned duties immediately after graduation were those of quartermaster, a position he held all through including the spell during the Mexican War⁷.

General Lee was born Robert Edward Lee, the fifth child of once Virginia Governor Henry Lee.⁸ General Lee’s father was absent throughout his life having left when general Lee was only six years old. He was raised by his single mother Ann Carter Lee who instilled a strong sense of duty and responsibility till he enrolled at West Point in 1825⁹. He graduated from West Point and entered the army’s Engineering Corps where served in different posts including Georgia and New York¹⁰.

Though both men had different upbringing, there is no doubt it prepared them for their future roles as battle generals. One of the most striking similarities of their upbringing is the influence of their families in their youth that had a ripple effect on their later life¹¹. Grant was more independent minded and had both his parents throughout his youth while Lee was raised by a single mother. Both however displayed strong character, a value that was evident in their war time decisions.

Role of Grant and Lee in the Civil War

As mentioned early, both men represent success of the two sides that were in conflict during the civil war. Grant led the Union forces that defeated the Confederacy troops forcing them to surrender while under Lee. Lee on the other hand inflicted a number of defeats on Union troops and though he surrendered to Grant, the Union leadership acknowledged his effectiveness and skill in organizing and leading a large army.

It is important to note that there were many generals involved in the Civil War and they commandeered thousands of troops at different times to different battles. However, some of the defining moments of the war involved these two generals hence the view that they were the best generals of the war¹². Both men’s actions ended the civil war and none came down easily. However, before the end of the war, both Lee and Grant were involved in major field battles that would determine the course of the war. To better understand their importance in the Civil War, the following section will highlight their most crucial battles and how they contributed to the advancement and end of the war.

Grant and Lee Civil War Battles

Lee joined the Confederacy after turning down an offer from his former commander Winfield Scott to lead a regiment of army volunteers¹³. Though he did not support secession, Lee did not envision fighting against his native state of Virginia hence the decision to join the rebels in the south. In a short while, the confederacy congress appointed him the commander of confederacy troops in the entire state of Virginia¹⁴. Lee was initially involved in devising war plans and supervising the construction of defenses owing to his engineering background. However, after the death of Gen. Joseph Johnston in the Battle of Seven Pines, Lee assumed control of the confederate army, effectively putting him on a collision course with Grant. His very first acts was the initiation of an offensive commonly referred to as the Seven Days Battle where he helped to successfully repulse the federal army and unsuccessfully attempted to take the Malvern Hill¹⁵.

After successfully defending Richmond, Lee had demonstrated to both enemy and friend of his capabilities in military maneuvers and willingness to attack the enemy where necessary. Lee then moved North with the help of two lieutenants Lt. Gen. James Longstreet, and Lt. Gen. Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson to begin a series of victories against the Union Army¹⁶. Lee defeated Maj. Gen. John Pope in the Battle of Second Bull Run and crossed the Potomac where he engaged in a bloody Battle of Antietam with Union Commander George McClellan. Lee defeated Maj. Gen. Ambrose Burnside when he and the Union army attempted to cross the Rappahannock River before achieving what is arguably his most famous win of the war; his victory at the Battle of Chancellorsville¹⁷.

Grant on the other hand went back to the army after President Lincoln called for troops to help suppress the rebellion from the southern confederate States. In February 1862, Grant captured Fort Henry and forced the surrender of Confederate brigadier-general Simon Bolivar while commanding the joint army-navy operations¹⁸. On April 6, 1862, Grants army came under a surprise attack from the confederate in Tennessee but he managed to retaliate and push back the confederate attackers, an event that showed his military resolve not to surrender even in the grimmest of all situations. It is important to note that at this point Grant was one of the few Union generals registering victory against the confederate army led by Lee. George B. McClellan, Nathaniel P. Banks, John Pope had all been defeated by Lee with McClellan and Pope retreating in the West¹⁹.

Grant was also involved in battle of Vicksburg where initially he encountered fierce resistance from confederate troops. As in Shiloh, Grant finally recorded victories in Raymond, Jackson, Champion’s Hill and Big Black River Bridge²⁰. Grant proceeded to lay siege of the Vicksburg for many weeks eventually forcing surrender of the confederate Lt. Gen. John Pemberton²¹. One of the defining moments in Grant’s military career is the battle of Chattanooga where he was able to break a siege mounted by confederate troops²². This action led to his promotion by congress to the rank of Lieutenant general of the Union Army. Finally, it is in the Overland Campaign where Grant and Lee’s armies squared directly leading to the defeat and surrender of Lee and the confederate army.

Following Grant and Lee’s exploits at the battlefield, it is not difficult to see why historians refer both generals as the best generals of the Civil War. Though vastly different from their backgrounds and in their leadership styles, they were the ultimate leaders of their armies and the only generals with capacity to organize significant troop moments and achieve remarkable victories over their enemies.

Compared to Grant, Lee had far less resources than the Union army but he clearly displayed an innate ability to get the most out his troops. In fact he was able to defend Richmond with less than 40,000 men on the face on onslaught from hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers. He is also credited with issuing orders to his men that in a way gave them leeway in deciding what was best for them. Grant led Union forces into victory against the southern confederate troops largely through persistence and skill.

Some scholars argue and rightly so that success of in any field is defined by different factors. In this case, both generals displayed leadership, shrewd execution of strategies, experience and intelligence in the course of their duties. No other general during the civil war showed the level of leadership that the two displayed in their quest to organize their respective groups and score important victories.

Aftermath of the Civil War

Naturally, the victor in any conflict situation goes ahead to succeed barring any unseen obstacles. Many scholars are of the opinion that that is what exactly happened to generals Lee and Grant. After his surrender to Union forces led by general grant, Lee was pardoned by President Lincoln but faced difficulty in adjusting to normal life after the war. His property had been confiscated and he still seemed bitter at the defeat he suffered in the Civil War. Lee later on became a professor in Washington College where he taught up to his death in 1870.²³

Grant on the other hand built on his success in the battlefield to become president of the United States. Grant was promoted to the US’s first four-star general and subsequently ventured into politics. He was appointed to President Andrew Johnson’s cabinet as Secretary of War replacing the president’s critic Edwin Stanton²⁴.

Grant won the presidency on a Republican ticket and assumed duties during the reconstruction era. Grant is especially noted with steering the country forward through fostering unity between the North and the South, and helping championing constitutional amendments that enabled African-Americans to vote²⁵. He also actively protected the rights of freed men by suppressing white supremacist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan whose violence against black people is well documented. Grant was reelected but did not seek a third term instead choosing to travel around the world with his family. He was later diagnosed with throat cancer and died on July 23, 1885²⁶.

Conclusion

Concisely, it is correct to assert that both men sharpened their skills at the West Point Academy and their subsequent service in the United States army. It is also important to acknowledge that they succeeded because they had loyal followers who believed in their respective visions and beliefs. Ultimately however, it is their ability to lead and excel that distinguishes them from the rest of the generals that participated in the Civil War.

Bibliography

Axelrod, Alan. Generals South, Generals North: The Commanders of the Civil War. New York: Sage Publications, 2011.

Brands, W. The Man Who Saved the Union: Ulysses Grant in War and Peace. New York: Routledge, 2012.

Davis, Burke. Gray Fox Robert Lee and the Civil War. London: Sage Publications, 2011.

Katcher, Phillip. American Civil War Commanders: Union Leaders in the West. New York: Routledge, 2003.

Longacre, Edward. General Ulysses S. Grant: The Soldier and the Man. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Ollhoff, Jim. Civil War: Leaders and Generals. Berlin: Springer, 2012.

Footnotes

1. Alan Axelrod, Generals South, Generals North: The Commanders of the Civil War (New York: Sage Publications, 2011) 245.
2. Alan Axelrod, Generals South, Generals North: The Commanders of the Civil War (New York: Sage Publications, 2011) 245.
3. Phillip Katcher, American Civil War Commanders: Union Leaders in the West (New York: Routledge, 2003) 97.
4. Jim Ollhoff, Civil War: Leaders and Generals (Berlin: Springer, 2012) 92.
5. Edward Longacre, General Ulysses S. Grant: The Soldier and the Man (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 64.
6. Edward Longacre, General Ulysses S. Grant: The Soldier and the Man (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 64.
7. Edward Longacre, General Ulysses S. Grant: The Soldier and the Man (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 66.
8. Burke Davis, Gray Fox Robert Lee and the Civil War (London: Sage Publications, 2011) 72.
9. Burke Davis, Gray Fox Robert Lee and the Civil War (London: Sage Publications, 2011) 72.
10. Burke Davis, Gray Fox Robert Lee and the Civil War (London: Sage Publications, 2011) 73.
11. Jim Ollhoff, Civil War: Leaders and Generals (Berlin: Springer, 2012) 94.
12. Wallace, Brands, The Man Who Saved the Union: Ulysses Grant in War and Peace (New York: Routledge, 2012) 45.
13. Phillip Katcher, American Civil War Commanders: Union Leaders in the West (New York: Routledge, 2003) 98.
14. Phillip Katcher, American Civil War Commanders: Union Leaders in the West (New York: Routledge, 2003) 100.
15. Phillip Katcher, American Civil War Commanders: Union Leaders in the West (New York: Routledge, 2003) 102.
16. Burke Davis, Gray Fox Robert Lee and the Civil War (London: Sage Publications, 2011) 75.
17. Burke Davis, Gray Fox Robert Lee and the Civil War (London: Sage Publications, 2011) 78.
18. Wallace, Brands, The Man Who Saved the Union: Ulysses Grant in War and Peace (New York: Routledge, 2012) 47.
19. Edward Longacre, General Ulysses S. Grant: The Soldier and the Man (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 67.
20. Phillip Katcher, American Civil War Commanders: Union Leaders in the West (New York: Routledge, 2003) 97.
21. Wallace, Brands, The Man Who Saved the Union: Ulysses Grant in War and Peace (New York: Routledge, 2012) 44.
22. Phillip Katcher, American Civil War Commanders: Union Leaders in the West (New York: Routledge, 2003) 90.
23. Wallace, Brands, The Man Who Saved the Union: Ulysses Grant in War and Peace (New York: Routledge, 2012) 40.
24. Edward Longacre, General Ulysses S. Grant: The Soldier and the Man (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 64.
25. Edward Longacre, General Ulysses S. Grant: The Soldier and the Man (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) 70.
26. Wallace, Brands, The Man Who Saved the Union: Ulysses Grant in War and Peace (New York: Routledge, 2012) 55.

Introduction

Women are important individuals in our societies since they contribute in promoting the execution of social and economic activities. Their roles cannot be ignored in any setting since their input in various facets of operation is significant towards performance enhancement. Indeed, any nation that aspires to record exemplary performance should consider investing in women without racial or any form of discrimination. As such, nations should develop favorable policies that can enable women to venture into various activities such as business ventures because they have proved to be successful in various things that they undertake. Despite their promising nature in various fields of operation such as business and corporate setting, they have been facing several challenges. The challenges that are instigated socially, economically and culturally, compromise their performance ability. They also affect them psychologically, morally, and mentally (Verklan 1). These challenges influence women’s productivity since they impede their self-confidence and esteem that are important in achieving meaningful development. Some of the challenges that they have been facing include stigmatization, gender identity complications, and discrimination based on race and class. They have also fallen key victims of negative perception in various settings especially those that have deep-rooted cultural practices.

Thesis statement

There has been lack of proper information about the major causes of gender violence especially among women and such violence affects their performance levels. Similarly, there has been lack of adequate information pertaining to how women’s experiences in regard to race, class, and sexual orientation issues affect their lives (Verklan 1). This explains the imperativeness of the study that focuses on creating awareness between key stakeholders about the effects of violence among women in various societies. The study is to deliver on how women’s experiences affect their decisions and performance. It also focuses on establishing the responsibility of men in ensuring holistic mitigation of violence against women that is in the increasing end.

Relevance and purpose of the study

This study provides credible information that appertains to how women’s lives depend on their experiences. It stresses how various factors like race, class, gender identity, and discrimination affect women’s productivity levels. This is essential in creating awareness on how the factors affect their ability to integrate and record high performance socially and economically. It also focuses on key issues that relate to women and violence including the role and responsibility of men in ensuring that violence against women is eradicated. Further, it covers self-reflection on the effects of violence in a family setting. It is purposely set with an aim of enabling various stakeholders to understand the effects of violence and its impact on women’s performance. In addition, it is also aimed at equipping various stakeholders with the modalities that can be used to mitigate gender violence in diverse settings. Clearly, this study seeks to benefit both men and women who are highly affected with gender related issues by enabling them to find lasting solutions to emerging complications.

How women’s experiences of race, class, sexuality and other axes of identity impact their lives

Despite women’s capacity to facilitate good performance in various areas of operation, they have been facing diverse challenges that affect their lives among which discrimination, racism, class, and identity issues could be named (DeSouza 1). In particular, the experiences erode their self-confidence thereby reduce their chances of exploring various opportunities. The experiences also influence their esteem levels compared to men. This fact exposes them to inferiority complexities that are detrimental in fostering social and economic integration. Notably, women have been forced to feel inferior through discriminatory actions and sentiments that they receive from various individuals especially male chauvinists. This is evident since in most settings women have been blocked by cultural connotations from making or participating in decision-making. The cultural connotations and inferior perception of women have blocked them from participating actively in various activities. Even though the situation is currently changing, most societies still believe that women’s responsibility is only limited to undertaking house duties.

Individuals in the societies have not come to terms with the idea of elevating women through gender equality programs. They cite that women should never be perceived at the same level as men since men have many responsibilities as compared to women. Although the reasoning is relevant for some people, authorities in most nations are keen in ensuring that women are given their rights and that they are subjected to fair treatment (DeSouza 1). The authorities seek to ensure that women are treated equally to men and enable them to explore their full potential. They affirm that times have changed and the days of oppression when individuals were discriminated are over. Their actions are informed with the need to foster fairness and gender equality in all areas of activity such as employment, management, and supervision of duties. Race, class and sexual orientation also form key factors that impact on women’s lifestyle.

Particularly, categorization of individuals based on social and economic status or class differences make most women feel inferior to others who are well established. Indeed, women who hold low profile and status in the society in terms of academic levels, financial capability, and physical outlook always perform dismally when they are among colleagues who boost of great achievements in life. Such women end up without exploring their full potential and without full actualization of their dreams (Brenner 1). They also fail to meet their heart desires that require psychological and mental stability.

Women and violence

Most empirical studies depict women as violent characters who stop at nothing to achieve their goals. Violence is one of the feminine features that they hold. Really, finding a non-violent woman is very difficult in most settings under normal circumstances. This is apparent since over 90% of women are categorized as violent characters that are very hostile when exposed to extreme circumstances (Brenner 1). Notably, women become violent when they are provoked or underestimated. They use it as a weapon to fight back in case of any attack from strong personalities especially men. That is violence is their weapon for survival.

Secondly, they use violence when they are offended, abused or beaten by anybody including their spouses. This has been a major issue especially in the family settings where women always engage their spouses in continuous fights over petty things of life. Conversely, women use violence to express their hunger on certain phenomena in life and disappointment. On the other hand, some women use violence to achieve their goals. For instance, a woman may turn extremely violent when she feels that she is facing gross discrimination at work especially when she is overworked or not promoted as required. They also use violence at times to compel their spouses to give in to their demands, i.e. they use violence as a tool of influencing decisions in their homes.

Men’s roles and responsibilities in ending violence against women

According to Holvino (1), men play a critical role in shaping women’s lifestyle. This is evident since women tend to listen to men more than their pears or fellow women. They also tend to take in advices from men on diverse issues that contribute in their wellbeing. Firstly, they play a critical role in determining their cause of action hence they have a responsibility to ensure that violence against them is eradicated. They can achieve this through systematic approaches that include execution of effective sensitization programs on the effects of gender violence. They can promote eradication of violence against women by educating or creating awareness on women’s weaknesses and how they should be treated in various settings (Holvino 1).

They can make people understand a varying mood of women and times when they are likely to be more violent. This is important in ensuring that gender violence against them is reduced. Secondly, men can contribute in eradicating violence against women by promoting gender equality. They need to create a favorable environment and recognize women as equal partners or individuals whose rights must be respected. Thus, they should desist from discriminating women, abusing them, harassing them and hindering them from participating in decision-making based on cultural ideals (Cheng 1). Variably, men can promote eradication of violence against women by promoting peaceful coexistence in homes and fulfilling their home duties promptly.

Self-reflection on how violence affected my family

Violence in any setting does not foster social integration and economic progress because it leads to acute disagreements including gross mistrust between individuals, thus hinders them from sharing quality ideas and engaging in meaningful activities. As cited by Cheng (1), home violence has been a major cause of family break-ups since it leads to misunderstanding between couples. It creates an atmosphere that does not foster peace and unity. Notably, violence has greatly affected my family socially and economically. Firstly, it has made my family lose out greatly on key economic activities that my parents have been running. The reason for that was that the emerging cultural and social differences have made their relationship detrimental and in turn has diminished their ability to focus on economic activities. Variably, violence nearly disintegrated my family. It almost led to the separation of my parents. However, the intervention measures that were adopted by their peers helped in averting the hostility or negative perception between them. Indeed, violence of any nature is detrimental since it cannot allow any development to take place. This calls for every individual to promote peace.

Conclusion

Indeed, women are individuals who resort to violence to protect their interest and dignity against any person who provokes them. They use it as a weapon to fight back insults from various individuals including men. However, their violent nature can be mitigated if proper modalities that contribute in building social and cultural cohesion are put in place. Such modalities are important in promoting sanity and understanding among family members or in the society. They should be embraced by individuals of both genders especially men who hold the capacity of influencing women to stop violence.

Works Cited

Brenner, Johanna. Women and the Politics of Class. 1998. Web.

Cheng, Ada. Teaching Resources on Racecism, Ehite Privileges and Anti-White Supremacy. 2003. Web.

DeSouza, Daphne. Gender, Class and Generation: A Comparative Study of Working and Middle Class Indian Women’s Household and Work Experiences in Ekurhuleni. 2001. Web.

Holvino, Edy. Complicating Gender: The Simultaneity of Race, Gender, and Class in Organization Change. 1997. Web.

Verklan, Lendy. Gender and Women’s Studies. 2000. Web.

The results of the World War II and the termination of the Cold War made the United States of America the world’s superpower. Foreign policy played a crucial role in gaining the stable leading position in the world and establishing the dominance in many areas. Post World War II Presidents employed both idealistic and realistic approaches to foreign policies; this fact demonstrates that America’s priorities include both national interest and global values such protection of human rights and democracy.

Idealism with Realism

Political realism is based on the belief that humans have a competitive and self-centered nature. Such approach to foreign policy suggests that war between nations is permanent and expected, and the aim of state’s foreign policy is to ensure its favorable position protecting the national interests (Strohmer par.16).

According to this approach, the state should give the primary importance to its security when arranging its international relations and consider the interest of other nations and international organizations the secondary ones. Political idealism is based on the belief that human nature is good. Such approach puts the interests of the world community into the center of priorities of the state’s foreign policies (Strohmer par. 25).

Political idealists consider effective coexistence of states and world peace the most important goals of establishing foreign policies. Idealist policymakers tend to value international organizations and laws highly.

Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy

Roosevelt’s foreign policy while being the President of the United States is considered to be based on political realism. Though Roosevelt’s decision to enter the war can be seen as the manifestation of the idealistic foreign policy aimed at establishing world peace, his argumentations for America’s entry into the war had realistic nature.

Roosevelt considered German’s victory to have serious negative effects on American interests due to the change of historic European balance of power, which was crucial to ensuring the security of the U.S. Besides, Roosevelt understood that America’s passivity during the war could result in the little opportunities it would have during the rearrangement of world powers after the defeat of Hitler’s allies. Therefore, Roosevelt’s foreign policy during and after the World War II can be defined as a realistic one, as it was focused on defending the national interests of the state.

Truman presents an example of the President whose foreign policy was influenced by the idealistic approach. He highly valued the international role of the United States and focused on the contribution of the country to the world peace. His work in the Senate aimed at gaining support for the emergent United Nations illustrates his determination to international interests (McCormick 38).

The financial aid provided by the United States to Greece and Turkey confronted by the Soviet Union also reveals Truman’s dedication to idealistic foreign policy. However, the creation of NATO, as the ultimate result of Truman’s policy, can be considered as the contributor to the protection of American national interests. Therefore, Truman’s dedication to international interests was interrelated with the achievement of the national goals.

Eisenhower continued America’s confrontation with the Soviet Union started by Truman but used the approach to foreign policy that was more realistic. He used the threat of nuclear weapons to end the Korean War and refused to send American soldiers to help France in Vietnam (U. S. Department of State par. 4). He pursued purely self-centered objectives in American foreign policy, including ordering coups in Iran and Guatemala and preventing Lebanon pro-American government from falling after the revolution.

The aggressive, realistic strategy of Eisenhower was followed by the idealistic strategy of John Kennedy. He, as well as Truman, was dedicated to opposing the world’s tyrants and advancing freedom and peace. However, some of his actions aimed at confronting dictators led to Cuban Missile Crisis that put a serious threat to the world peace. Kennedy signed Partial Nuclear Ban Treaty, issued the Peace Corps, and enforced the participation of the U.S. in the Vietnam War.

The analysis of the approach to foreign policy employed by the first four post-World War II Presidents reveals that both realistic and idealistic approaches were employed. The idealists, such as Truman and Kennedy justified their approach by stressing the global role of the United States in confronting the dictators’ regimes and bringing democracy and freedom to the countries of the world.

The realists, such as Roosevelt and Eisenhower justified their approach by stressing the importance of correspondence between foreign policy and the national interests. They participated in international confrontations only in the case it was necessary for ensuring America’s safety.

Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter

Johnson is considered the successor of Kennedy’s idealistic approach to foreign policy. He sent half a million American soldiers to Vietnam and nearly twenty-five thousand troops to the Dominican Republic (Staten par. 8). Johnson’s dedication to preventing the aggression towards foreign states resulted in America’s declining ability to exercise power. The nation’s resources were exhausted by interventions in foreign states, which caused the shift from the idealistic approach to the realistic one.

Johnson’s successors Nixon and Ford employed the realistic approach to foreign policy justified by the need to rehabilitate the state’s power after exhaustive war operations. The Nixon’s administration policy was “closer to the realist tradition than that of earlier postwar Presidents” (McCormick 86).

It was based on the principles of balance of power and fostered American interests. Though his administration encouraged the signing of such agreements as Interim Agreement on Strategic Arms and Anti-Ballistic Treaty, its aim was to ensure the security of the United States. Nixon was reluctant in opposing the human rights issues related to other countries, as did not consider them the part of national interests (McCormick 92).

Ford continued employing Nixon’s approach to foreign policy. The years of his presidency were marked by final withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam. Ford put much effort in continuing the thaw in the relation with the Soviet Union and positioned U.S. as the country that is less interested in being involved in foreign conflicts that it had been during the past decades. The President signed Helsinki Accords, which positively affected the relations with Soviet leaders.

The election of Carter as a President of the Unites States became the beginning of the new shift in American foreign policy. Carter believed that the foreign policy of the United States should reflect the country’s highest moral values and serve for such idealistic purposes as propagating democracy all over the world and participating in dealing with the issues related to the establishment of peace and freedom throughout the international community. Carter enforced America’s participation in dealing with problems in South Korea, Iran, Argentina, South Africa, etc., and proclaimed America’s commitment to serving mankind.

The analysis of the approaches to foreign policies employed by such post-World War II Presidents as Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter, reveals that their governments occupied different positions during the Cold War. Johnson and Carter justified their idealistic approach by emphasizing the America’s opportunities to become the cause of global change due to the wealth and military power it possesses. Nixon and Ford justified their realistic approach by exhaustion of resources caused by America’s active position in the international community.

Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush

The years of Reagan’s presidency were marked by an abundance of events affected by America’s activity in the international arena. Though Reagan mostly appealed to idealistic ideas of America’s global role in his speeches to American citizens, the actual actions made by his government reflected his purely realistic approach to foreign policy.

Reagan put much effort in confronting the foreign rivals of the U.S. by using the methods that were greatly criticized by the world community due to the support provided by Reagan to various terrorist groups acting for the profit of the United States in foreign states.

Reagan’s approach to foreign policy was proactive and aggressive, as he proclaimed the Soviet Union an Evil Empire and managed to defeat it by ending the Cold War with the America’s victory. Though Reagan’s methods were far from idealistic, he managed to use the idealistic framework for justifying his actions in front of the American society effectively.

George H. W. Bush was the example of the President using realistic approach to foreign policy. He strived for ensuring the protection of national interests much more than the protection of the global values. The bright example illustrating his approach to foreign policy is the restrained position of the United States related to the Chinese military suppressing a pro-democracy movement demonstrating and killing hundreds of protestors in 1989. George H.W. Bush strived for restraining America from actions that can put any threat to its security. However, he wisely participated in Gulf Wars to ensure the protection of America’s interests.

Clinton’s presidency was marked by the new shift to idealism in America’s approach to foreign policy. Clinton proclaimed national conscience one of the main priorities of his administration. Clinton’s administration is famous for the participation of the U.S. in conflicts in the Middle East, Africa, the Balkans, etc. Clinton launched intervention in Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia. Though the initial goals of that interventions were not achieved, Clinton deserved much appraise of the American public and was considered one of the most successful Presidents of the United States during the XX century.

George W. Bush proclaimed the course on the realistic approach to foreign policy. He criticized Clinton’s dedication to nation-building and promised to focus on protecting the national interests. However, the events of September 11^th in 2001 forced Bush to make America an active player in the foreign arena. America’s invasion of Iraq became the ultimate demonstration of Bush’s determination to the protection of national interests. Bush justified the war in Iraq by the potential threat Iraq put to the security of the U.S. Bush’s presidency was also marked by warm relations with Russia.

Reagan justified his realistic approach to foreign policy by idealistic ideas about America’s global role. George H. W. Bush continued with employing the realistic approach by pointing to the importance of protecting the national interest. Clinton’s dedication to enlarging America’s role in international relations was shifted by the realistic position of George W. Bush who justified it by the urgent need to protect the country’s national security.

The constant shifts between idealistic and realistic approaches to foreign policies among the post-World War II Presidents reveal that America faces a continuous dilemma related to considering, what is more important – protection of national interests or active participation in the embodiment of such values as world peace and democracy.

Works Cited

McCormick, James. American Foreign Policy & Process, Boston, Massachusetts: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2014. Print.

Staten, Cliff. U.S. Foreign Policy since World War II. 2005. Web.

Strohmer, Charles. Realism and Idealism in International Relations. n.d. Web. 2015.

U. S. Department of State. Foreign Policy under President Eisenhower. n.d. Web. 2015.

Introduction

Racial discrimination has remained a controversial issue throughout the evolution of America’s history. Inequality, prejudice, and racial disparities have developed across a number of areas such as family formation, employment levels, ethnic violence, housing, health, schooling, judicial rulings, and incarceration rates. The United States is a nation of immigrants. Most individuals who have African roots in America are a product of African slaves. The coexistence of people from different backgrounds, races, and ethnicities has powered the American society to establish on brutal dominancy, oppression, and inequality. As the study shows, racism has profoundly affected the lives of African-Americans and other racially oppressed groups in the United States.

Race Relations: Then and Now

America has come a long way in terms of improvement of race relations. A lot has changed since the 1960s in terms of race relations. The demise of the legalized racial segregation led to the reduction of blatant racism that was based on skin color. Over the last 60 years, surveys to study the perceptions of the whites towards the blacks show a steady trend of positive attitudes towards racial equality and integration (Levin 2). However, human nature remains the same since old vices have only traded in for new ones. Despite the fact that most Americans support the idea of racial equality, not everyone believes that the country has overcome poor racial relations. A survey carried out in a 1995 Washington post opinion poll revealed how 67 percent of the blacks and 38 percent of the whites stated that racism was still a big problem (Williams 14).

As a result, many whites felt that racial discrimination was the drawback behind socioeconomic problems. The survey also revealed that African-Americans strongly believed that discrimination remained the major reason for their unsuccessfulness. According to Williams, voting for the rights of African-American against racial discrimination is still a reality in the United States. It is true that most white Americans regard private acts of racial discrimination as unattractive and outdated. According to them, such acts do not constitute any form of oppression that can require public elimination policies. On the contrary, studies disclose that incompleteness of social transformation of racial inequality, prejudice, and oppression remains a stalemate in the American society in nearly half a century after the abolishment of racial segregation. Nevertheless, significant progress has been done in terms of ending racial injustice despite the evident disparities between Native Americans and African-Americans, which remain substantial.

Extend of Equality between Blacks and Whites

There is still a lot of work left undone regarding equality between the blacks and whites. Nevertheless, it will be wrong to conclude that the situation is just as bad as it was before the civil rights movement. The 2008 election of President Barrack Obama as the first black president is a reflection of how racial alignment has changed over time. However, racial disproportionality was still evident from the reactions of the Republican presidential rallies. Use of phrases such as “Kill Him!” or “Terrorist!” was a sign of the existing political prejudice between the whites and blacks (Levin 6). For many Americans, the United States remains a land of unequal opportunity. Today, many black families still reside in secluded highlands of poverty. Massive numbers of children from the black families attend schools in racially and economically segregated vicinities (Levin 9).

Government Policies

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

The civil rights Act of 1964 aimed at ending racial segregation and discrimination in America, thus creating unparalleled political power and economic mobility opportunities for the blacks. In addition, it added a non-tolerant social norm that did not condone bigotry and blatant discrimination (Williams 28). The civil rights Act of 1964 overwhelmed many African-Americans since it enforced their constitutional rights to vote while at the same time providing them with injunctive relief against discrimination in accommodation, education, and health facilities. In addition, the law commissioned a provision for equal employment opportunities for all Americans.

The Act not only enhanced programs such as affirmative action, but also paved way for the voting rights Act of 1965. However, the commissioning of the Act did not mark the end of racial segregation. Whites from the south used both lawful and unlawful means to deny the black southerners their constitutional rights. African-Americans in the north lived in the worst urban vicinities as their children attended the poorest urban schools (Williams 29).

Race Relations Act 2000

Race relations Act 2000 is a recent policy document that was formulated by the United States government. It came into work on 1 October 2010. To strengthen the legal framework that was meant to promote equality and racial integration, the Act consolidated 116 pieces of legislation into a single act. The equality Act protects American citizens against sexual, racial, and religious discrimination. The Act also captures legislation that is concerned with discrimination of disabled or physically handicapped people (Dichter, Hitchins, and Howse 5). The Act allows an employer to demonstrate proportionate measures in the process of hiring employees, irrespective of their racial backgrounds. It also requires employers to ensure that employees meet minimum requirements for particular positions. This law enforcement has so far presented a powerful step towards a foreseeable equality and economic stability for the United States (Dichter, Hitchins and Howse 6).

Contemporary versus Old Civil Right Leaders in the American Society

Civil rights leaders of today compare to those of the past in that both champion for the rights of people, democratic leadership, and racial equality. The evolution of civil rights in the American politics is due to inherent desires of American leaders to fight for democracy. Americans of the white color origin had developed a strong sense of disempowerment, blatant discrimination, and oppression of the black-skin Americans (Jones 2). Discrimination and oppression together with deprivation of power forced African-Americans to seek independence and full participation in the American political arena. During the 1920s and 1930s, American W.E.B. Du Bois, a black prolific scholar and political thinker, and Booker T. Washington who is an educator, reformer, and the most influential black leader of his time became accountable for the civil rights of the black people (Karson 13).

On 28 August 1963, Martin Luther King, an activist and a champion of great principles, summoned all his supporters to the greatest mass-protest demonstration in the history of the United States. He addressed them to think anew about the heritage and the future of the United States. This move resulted in the adoption of a revolutionary stance by the blacks, especially from the North. Presently, African-Americans can freely exercise their rights to vote and present themselves as electoral candidates. Decades after King Luther’s assassination, racial divisions and oppression persist (Jones 3). Successive civil and human rights activist including Philip Randolph who bolstered the economic and political rights continued to fight for the freedom of African-Americans. Philip Randolph used mass action campaigns that helped dominate the civil rights movement. Later, John F. Kennedy used federal legislation to strengthen civil rights as a means to racial equality (Karson 121).

In the present-day America, civilization has changed the face of fighting for racial integration. The blacks belong to the elite society, contrary to the 1960s situation. The fight for freedom is more civilized. Leaders, including the blacks or whites, no longer use flagrant means to align people with race (Karson 21). African-Americans have learned to seek freedom through self-liberation and legal actions, with less stigmatization. The present-day president of the United States still fights for the equality of American citizens. His historic stand for equality is a succession of most of the former leaders of America.

Conclusion

The United States is a nation in which people live with dominant philosophies that embrace dogmas of widespread opportunity, personal accountability, and principles of equity. Although the United Stated is dedicated to writing to demonstrate racial equality and integration, there is a long way towards the implementation of these ideas. Nevertheless, the American civil rights movement left a legacy on the American society since the blatant forms of racial discrimination and oppression ended. Similarly, racial violence and the unsubstantiated denial of rights declined over the years. However, the civil rights movement failed to account on many aspects. Therefore, racial inequality persists. Therefore, America remains in dire need for more research on racial dynamics.

Works Cited

Dichter, Mark, Christopher Hitchins, and Matthew Howse. “The Equality Act 2010: What’s All the Fuss About?” Connecting Knowledge and People 33.1(2010): 5-8. Print.

Jones, Bernie. “Critical Race Theory: New Strategies for Civil Rights in the New Millennium?” Harvard Black Letter Law Journal 18.1(2002): 2-5. Print.

Karson, Jill. Opposing Viewpoints In World’s History: The Civil Rights Movement, 2004. Web.

Levin, Shana. Compelling Interest: Social Psychological Evidence on Race and Racism. 2014. Web.

Williams, Mary. Race Relations: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego, California: Relations Front Matter, 2001. Print.

Introduction

Historians regard 1949 as the most significant year in Modern Chinese history. In this year, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was able to defeat the ruling Kuomintang (KMT) and successfully establish the People’s Republic of China (PRC) under Chairman Mao. This victory had resounding repercussions on the lives of the Chinese people. Meisner asserts that the revolution that led to this victory had a positive and lasting effect on the lives of millions of Chinese (3).

Since then, the PRC has grown to become a great world power and the most successful Communist state in the world. Considering the importance of the 1949 victory by the CCP, it would be worthwhile to analyze the reasons behind the success of the CCP after a protracted and bloody civil war with the KMT for over two decades.

This paper will set out to discuss the various factors that contributed to the success of the CCP and the different tactics they employed to achieve eventual victory in 1949. It will then provide explanations for why the ruling KMT suffered defeat.

Brief Historical Overview

China was established as a republic in 1911 following the Manchu Revolution that overthrew the Manchu dynasty. Dr. Sun Yat Sen, who was the leader of the Manchu Revolution, established the Kuomintang (KMT) as a political party in 1912. The part was dissolved in 1913 when it attempted to stage a second revolution in China and it was only able to return to the Chinese political scene in 1919.

The new reformed KMT had great influence, as it became the national party. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was formed in 1921 and it initially had a good working relationship with the ruling KMT. With Mao as one of the CCP’s founding leaders, the party was able to liaison with the KMT on matters of nation building.

However, this changed after 1925 as the KMT started viewing the Communist Party as a threat to its political power. To curb this perceived threat, the CCP was banned and its leaders imprisoned or exiled (Preston 208). With the banning of the Communist Party, the KMT became an authoritarian party that was intolerant to any political opposition.

This marked the beginning of the struggle by the CCP to overthrow the dictatorial KMT therefore bringing a Communist Revolution to China. This goal was achieved in 1949 as the CCP drove the KMT to Taiwan in defeat and Mao Zedong stood in Beijing to announce the founding of the People’s Republic of China.

Reason for CCP’s Success

A great factor in the success of the CCP was the excellent leadership demonstrated by the party. To begin with, the party had a strong and charismatic leader in the form of Mao Zedong. This revolutionary leader of the Communist Party was not only admired by the members of the party but he also received their undivided support. His policies and strategies were obeyed and diligently implemented by his subordinates leading to great success. In addition to this, the CCP leadership sought to solicit the support of the citizens at all levels.

The party encouraged political participation by the individual members of the party and grassroots activities were encouraged in all the village levels. At the higher levels, leadership was based on the ability of the individual. People who possessed the necessary capabilities to best serve the party therefore filled the positions of power. In the military, promotions were made based on the experience and abilities of individual officers.

Liu notes that individual army generals were given authorities to make what they considered the most suitable decisions (143). This led to prompt military action being taken in response to KMT activities leading to great efficiency. The effective leadership practices employed by the CCP contributed to the eventual victory against the KMT.

Another reason for the success of the CCP was that it appealed to the interests of the vast peasant population in China. The Communists sought to enlist the support of the peasantry and create a popular mass uprising against the government. At the onset, the Chinese rural population was apathetic to the cause of either the CCP or the KMT. To this population, the battle for political supremacy between the two parties did not concern them. The communists engaged in action aimed at providing the rural poor with a reason to join their side.

The CCP came up with land reforms that would take land from the oppressive landlords who controlled land in China and give it to the peasant (Meisner 3). For centuries, China had used a feudal system that had a small and powerful land owning class controlling all the land in the country. This land owning class exploited the landless peasants who were forced to provide labor for their landlords in exchange for permission to live on the land.

The communists promised to destroy the landlord class and give their land to the peasants. According to Guoli, the CCP land reform policies were very popular among the peasants who formed the majority of china’s population (27). The peasant population in its large numbers therefore supported the Communists leading to a popular uprising against the KMT.

The large size of the Chinese nation contributed to the success of the CCP. China is a very large country and effectively administering the entire territory was a challenging task for the KMT government. Preston documents that the government lacked the manpower to establish effective control over its entire citizenry (208). Most of the remote areas in rural China were inaccessible to the government.

The CCP was able to establish bases in the remote regions and instigate uprisings without government interference. Once the government decided to respond to an uprising, it would take significant amounts of time to travel to the area and quell the rebellion In addition to this, the enormous size of the country allowed the CCP to retreat into remote regions and recover after facing defeats in battle.

The CCP’s exploitation of the country’s vastness to achieve victory was best demonstrated in 1934 during the famous Long March (Liu 42). In this instance, the Communist forces faced imminent destruction by the KMT forces. To avoid this, they retreated into the isolated regions of North West China and they were able to reorganize themselves and recover from what would have been an absolute defeat.

The invasion of China by Japanese forces contributed to the success of the Communist Revolution in 1949. By invading and occupying parts of Chinese territory, the Japanese destroyed established authority in many regions all over the country. It left huge portions of rural China without administration and this created a power vacuum.

Townsend notes that this Japanese incursion aroused peasant resistance and created a demand for anti-Japanese political leadership (53). The governing KMT was unable to capitalize on these nationalistic sentiments of its rural population.

The CCP met this demand by implementing a program of armed resistance against the occupying forces. The CCP aroused nationalistic sentiments by declaring that China belonged to the Chinese people and the Japanese invaders had to be dealt with immediately and using all available resources. This strong rhetoric by the communists won the allegiance of the population in areas threatened or occupied by Japanese armies.

The CCP employed battle strategies that enabled them to defeat the powerful KMT government forces. From the onset of the battle between the two parties, the KMT held a great military advantage. The KMT forces were not only greater in numbers but these troops also possessed modern weaponry and training from the West. The Communist Party forces would have sustained devastating losses if they engaged in conventional battles against the KMT forces.

To make up for their inadequacies, the CCP carried out guerilla warfare attacks. Under the command of Mao Zedong, the initially small communist army moved to the hostile countryside from where they carried out sporadic attacks against the KMT (Guoli 28). The guerrilla units were small and highly mobile enabling them to make fast attacks and retreats.

The guerrilla warfare tactics were effective in drawing the national army into areas where they could not take advantage of their superior weaponry. Here, the KMT forces were divided and destroyed by the weaker CCP forces.

Finally, the superior organization of the CCP troops after the end of the WWII contributed to the success of the communists. Preston notes that in post WWII China, the CCP were better organized and led while the KMT were incompetent and corrupt (210). Guoli notes that the CCP had learned the importance of military after the initial defeat in its early years (27). Under the leadership of Mao, who had developed into a great military strategist, the communists were able to build up a disciplined military.

As a result, the CCP were able to sweep away the nationalists during the 1947 large-scale fighting in Manchuria and East Central China. The Communist forces waged large-scale offensives against KMT troops in 1948 leading to devastating defeats against the government troops. The KMT elite together with several millions of their supporters fled to Taiwan following the devastating defeat by the communists (Preston 210).

Why the KMT Failed

One cause for the defeat of the KMT was that it depended heavily on the urban areas and relied on the support of the middle class and landlords in China. The government put much emphasis on the control of urban areas, which were the economic centers of the country. It was assumed that by controlling these regions, the government would have influence over the rest of the nation.

Townsend states that the government did not realize that “in a predominantly rural society the sphere of influence of cities was much more severely circumscribed” (73). The unban-centered strategies adopted by the government left rural areas untouched. Since the party failed to influence the rural peasants or address their needs, they became open to Communist ideas and subsequently supported the CCP therefore contributing to the eventual failure of the KMT.

The need to counter Japanese invasion of China contributed to the failure of the KMT. Since the banning of the Communist Party, the KMT had engaged in military operations aimed at completely destroying this party. By the end of 1934, the KMT had engaged in successive military campaigns against the CCP. These campaigns were successful and the KMT troops were on the verge of achieving absolute victory over the communists.

However, the increasing threat from Japan forced the KMT to divert its military resources to tackling the Japanese threat. The ruling party had to ignore its internal enemy, the CCP, for a while and concentrate on the Japanese aggressors. Guoli declares that the war of resistance against Japan “gave the CCP breathing room from the KMT’s obsessive efforts to eliminate it” (27).

To make matters worse, Liu documents that the outbreak of the War of Resistance against Japan forced the KMT to form an alliance with the CCP (232). This cooperation against the Imperial Japanese forces eased the pressure against the CCP and allowed them to build up their numbers. As such, the ongoing war against Japan weakened the ability of the KMT to tackle the CCP threat in the country.

The rampant corruption within the KMT government contributed to the defeat of the KMT forces. During the KMT rule, graft and corruption prevailed in China as soldiers and government officials alike set out to benefit themselves from the country’s resources. Guoli observes that the KMT government was corrupt and it was not able to maintain order and mitigate inflation in its controlled areas (27). Looting was widespread in KMT administered areas as government officials sought to enrich themselves.

The living condition for ordinary Chinese citizens became dire as they faced poverty and unhealthy sanitary conditions. This led to disillusion with the KMT regime by many of its previous supporters. The population had little sympathy for the KMT who were using the resources of the country for personal gain and ignoring the needs of the people.

To the average Chinese, the government was a tool that only served the interests of the rich and powerful in China while the masses were left out. The Chinese became curious about the ability of the CCP to provide better leadership. The perceived weaknesses of the governing KMT made the people ready and willing to experiment with the communist party.

Another reason for the failure of the KMT was the low morale among its soldiers. To carry out a sustained and aggressive military campaign against the communists, the government needed a large and well-armed army. In the early 1930s, the government was able to recruit and properly train up to 3 million soldiers. These soldiers were provided with proper equipment enabling them to defeat the CCP in many battles.

However, by the early 1940s, the government lacked the ability to properly cater to its troops needs. Due to the rampant corruption by KMT officials and military figures, the government suffered from reduced resources. Jurgen reveals that the government troops were often poorly paid and they suffered from low morale (27). The training provided to the troops was poor and discipline was not well enforced. The Morale of the soldiers was further reduced as they constantly suffered heavy losses due to the poor training and equipment.

Liu notes that in the years following the end of the Second World War, there was widespread discontentment among the KMT soldiers (132). All these conditions contributed to hundreds of thousands of KMT soldiers defecting to the CCP side (Jurgen 27). As such, the ability of the KMT to defeat the CCP forces, which were growing in numbers and strength, in battle was greatly diminished.

Conclusion

This paper set out to discuss why the CCP was able to win the civil war against the KMT and the manner in which the communists achieved this incredible feat. The paper also provided some of the reasons for why the KMT lost the war. It began by noting the significance of the communist victory in 1949 to modern China. It then traced the beginning of the conflict between the two parties to the banning of the CCP by the KMT government.

This sparked a civil war that lasted until 4 years after the end of the Second World War. The CCP was able to win this war due to its effective leadership, its utilization of the massive peasant population as a support base, the large size of the country, the invasion of the country by the Japanese.

The communists used guerrilla war tactics and a superior organization of their military to achieve military victory. A review of the reasons behind the failure of the KMT has also been made. The paper has shown that the ignorance of the rural peasants by the government, the Japanese invasion, rampant corruption, poor leadership, and low morale among its soldiers caused the failure of the KMT. The Chinese Communist Party was therefore able to gain victory and take leadership over the country in 1949.

Works Cited

Guoli, Liu. Politics and Government in China Understanding China Today. Boston: ABC-CLIO, 2011. Print.

Jurgen, Domes. Peng Te-huai: The Man and the Image. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1985. Print.

Liu, Chang. Peasants and Revolution in Rural China: Rural political change in the North China plain and the Yangzi delta, 1850-1949. Boston: Routledge, 1995. Print.

Meisner, Maurice. The significance of the Chinese Revolution in world history. Working Paper. Asia Research Center. London: London School of Economics and Political Science, 1999. Print.

Preston, Peter. National Pasts in Europe and East Asia. NY: Routledge, 2010. Print.

Townsend, James. Political Participation in Communist China. California: University of California Press, 1969.

Introduction

The Second World War was the most devastating and extensive war ever carried out by mankind. This war, which took place from 1939 to 1945, involved almost all nations in the world, and it led to the loss of millions of civilian and troop lives. The major outcome of WWII was the defeat of Nazi Germany and its partners by the Allied forces. The war also saw the United States and the Soviet Union emerge as the two military and economic world powers.

While these two countries had fought together against Nazi Germany and its allies during the war, they had major ideological differences that saw them pitted against each other in the years after the war. These important outcomes of the war had far-reaching consequences on various regions in the world. One region that experienced major changes in the postwar years was East Asia.

The futures of the countries in this region were greatly affected by the Second World War and the emerging Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. This paper will set out to show how the political and social realities of various East Asian countries underwent major changes in the years immediately following World War II. Four particular East Asian countries, China, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam, will be used to demonstrate the particular postwar changes.

China

The political landscape in China changed as the Western-backed Nationalists lost power to the Soviet-backed Communists. Since the early 1920s, the nationalistic Kuomintang (KMT) party had ruled over China (Guoli 27). This party was against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and is engaged in various efforts to rid China of the communists. However, the nationalists failed in these attempts, and the CCP grew in strength over the years. During WWII, the communists had engaged in a major recruitment campaign, especially in rural China.

Ebrey and Walthall reveals that party propagandists had glorified the Soviet Union and conveyed the message that the Communist Party could build a better and more egalitarian future for the Chinese (451). This message was well received by the majority peasant population who joined the communist party in large numbers. After the end of the Second World War, the KMT and the CCP engaged each other in numerous battles as each party sought to gain control of the country.

The CCP was supported by the Soviets, who provided it with finances and military equipment. On the other hand, the US offered military assistance to the KMT. However, the KMT suffered from poor administration and lack of support from the population (Guoli 27). It was therefore overwhelmed by the Soviet-backed CCP forcing its leaders and some of its followers to flee to Taiwan. In 1949, China became a communist state under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party.

The economic and social structure of China underwent major changes in the post-war years. By the end of WWII, China was an impoverished state that had suffered from decades of poor planning by the corrupt KMT government (Ebrey and Walthall 450). In the years following the end of the war, the CCP began to take over territory and impose some reforms. Once the communist party took over, industrialization programs were implemented. This improved the economic well being of the average Chinese.

The postwar years also led to the end of the centuries-old landlord system. Under this system, the powerful landlord class exploited the peasants who were forced to work on the land in exchange for being allowed to subsist on it.

The communist regime abolished the landlord system, and the available land was redistribution to the peasants (Guoli 27). By destroying this exploitative system, the economic well-being of millions of peasant farmers was enhanced. The social order in China also changed as the powerful landowning class was eliminated, leading to a more egalitarian society.

Korea

At the start of the twentieth century, Korea emerged as the weaker East Asian state when compared to China and Japanese. This weakness led to the imperialistic Japanese government conquering the state and ruling it as a colony from 1910. The most important change after the end of the Second World War was, therefore, the freeing of Korea. Following its defeat during WWII, Japan was forced to relinquish control of its colony.

Ebrey and Walthall (475) observe that after WWII, Korea had hoped to enjoy its new status as a free country. The idea of granting Korea postwar independence was agreed upon by all the Allied powers, including the US and the Soviet Union. However, the struggle for ideological dominance in the country between the US and the Soviet Union led to conflict in the country.

Following the withdrawal of Japan from Korea, Soviet troops moved in to fill in the power void from the north while the US took control from the south of the country. The two liberating forces failed to agree on the future direction the country would take.

As a temporal solution, it was decided that the country should be demarcated into North and South Korea until a more concrete agreement on the future of the country could be implemented. The first major change was, therefore, the splitting of the previously unified Korea into South Korea and North Korea.

Under Japanese rule, the Korean masses had suffered from political and economic disenfranchisement. Andrain asserts that by the end of WWII, the Korean masses were ready for sociopolitical changes (37). The two Koreas started their post-war years under two different political and economic models. South Korea became a democratic capitalistic state under the protection of the US.

Andrain observes that American military personnel were able to enact land redistribution policies that led to the acquisition of land by many peasants in South Vietnam (38). Private ownership was encouraged, and wide-scale industrialization efforts implemented. Socially, the educational opportunities of the Koreans were increased after WWII. US officials enacted policies that were aimed at promoting education in the country. The expanded educational opportunities led to increased literacy among the South Koreans.

North Korea became a communist state under the guidance of the Soviet Union, leading to the adoption of a markedly different political and social course to that of South Korea. Politically, North Korea blended Korean nationalism with elements of Marxism-Leninism with stress on party dominance and state socialism. The state wielded central authority and sought to control the activities of the citizens.

North Korea encouraged rapid economic development by promoting industrialization and the building of human capital. Policymakers came up with plans aimed at ensuring that the nation had a well-educated labor force. Theodore admits that because the two Koreas started from two extreme ideological poles, they evolved along very different paths with North Korea becoming a monolithic society while South Korea became a pluralistic society (1049).

Japan

Japan emerged as a devastating nation following its defeat by the Allied forces during the Second World War. Theodore documents that for the Japanese, World War II marked the end of one era and the beginning of another (953).

After Japan’s unconditional surrender, US forces moved in to occupy the country. The United States hoped to implement radical changes that would have far-reaching consequences on the future of Japan. The US began by replacing the Emperor based political system in Japan with a democracy. A new constitution was drafted, which among other things, introduced the doctrine of popular sovereignty, separated state, and religion and reduced the Emperor to a symbolic leader (Caprio and Suguta 9).

A significant change in postwar Japan was the reduction of military spending and the focus on economic reconstruction. Japan had been one of the main aggressors in the Second World War due to the military might of the nation. After the way, the Japanese Prime Minister held the position that military adventurism was harmful to the country (Tellis 70). Proposals by the US for Japan to rearm were therefore rejected.

Japan’s postwar constitution renounced war and led to the depreciation of the country’s military capabilities. The United States promised to provide for the security needs of the country, and Japan only needed to maintain a small army that would provide a domestic defense against foreign invasion.

Without having to worry about its security, Japan could fully concentrate on reintegrating itself into the world economy. Tellis notes that the nation came up with a grand strategy that focused on economic reconstruction (70). The country pursued an economic strategy that optimized access to export markets, national resource supplies, and frontier technologies. The nation was, therefore, able to achieve economic growth leading to the improvement of standards of living for all Japan citizens.

The consumption patterns of Japanese society underwent a dramatic change in the years following the Second World War. Owing to the influence of the Western nations, the people’s attitudes on consumption changed, and Japan embraced consumerism. Theodore explains that before WWII, Japan could be described as a country that valued frugality in everyday life (843). People were focused on diligently saving as much money as they could and engaging in restrained consumption.

World War II led to the defeat of Japan and the subsequent occupation of the country by US forces. This exposed the Japanese people to European and American living patterns. The post-war values of frugality and restrained consumption were abandoned in favor of enjoying life (Caprio and Suguta 9). The lifestyles of the Japanese changed as the nation became westernized, and consumerism became a major feature characterizing the nation.

Vietnam

Vietnam emerged from the Second World War, an independent nation after the unconditional surrender of Japan. A major change in the country was the abolition of the monarchy rule in the country. For centuries, emperors had ruled over Vietnam. These emperors had immense power, and they controlled the wealth of the nation. Ebrey and Walthall reveals that society was divided into classes, and there was great socioeconomic inequality (438). The people also lacked adequate participation in the political affairs of the nation.

After the Second World War, the communists ignited uprisings all over the country and called for political changes. This led to the demise of the monarchy and the establishment of the Vietnam republic. The new communist rulers hoped to implement various land reforms and engage in industrialization efforts in the country.

Ebrey and Walthall notes that it is impossible to implement these plans as France refused to leave Vietnam (438). Following the end of the Second World War, France requested permission to reestablish its old colonial rule in the country, and this request was granted.

The French presence in Vietnam threw the country into chaos in the years after the Second World War. After Japan had given up its rights in Vietnam, the former French colonial administrators hoped to reestablish their rule in the country. To maintain their hold on the country, French forces carried out a deadly rampage in South Vietnam re-established French rule there (Fajardo 6). The communist government was able to maintain hold of the Northern part of the country.

As a result, Vietnam was split into a communist North, and a French-administered Capitalist South. A year after the end of WWII, Vietnam was engaged in the First Indochina War as the country sought to resist French rule. Both the communist and non-communist leaders in the country desired to defeat the French and establish a free Vietnam. Before the war, the Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh tried to gather international support for his country’s independence from France.

Fajardo notes that this leader appealed to US President Harry Truman and even asked Soviet, Chinese, and Great Britain leaders to intervene (6). However, his plea was ignored, and the US went on to side with the French during the Indochina War. During the war, the French made use of local Vietnamese recruits in the South and troops from its African colonies.

The economic development of Vietnam was hampered by the Indochina War, which made it impossible for the government to embark on industrialization projects. The war increased communist influence in Vietnam, as the Communist leaders were able to receive support from China.

Ebrey and Walthall notes that before the war, Vietnam leaders had some working relationship with Western powers (438). However, following the war, the Vietnam government embraced communism since the US supported the ambitions of the French to colonize the country. This led to increased fear by the US about expanding Soviet influence in East Asia.

Conclusion

This paper set out to demonstrate how the political, social, and economic landscape of countries in East Asia changed dramatically in the years immediately following World War II. To make this point, the paper embarked on a brief yet informative analysis of China, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam. It began by acknowledging the significance of the Second World War and its major outcomes. The emergence of the Soviet Union and the US as the two world powers had major consequences on the rest of the world.

The paper has documented the political and economic institutions in the East Asian countries changed after World War II. It has shown that most of these changes were influenced by either the Soviet Union or the US. The paper has also recognized the major role that nationalism played in promoting changes in the region. The people in each nation were eager to achieve self-governance and realize economic development, regardless of the political ideologies followed.

Works Cited

Andrain, Charles. Comparative Political Systems: Policy Performance and Social Change. Boston: M.E. Sharpe, 1994. Print.

Caprio, Mark, and Sugita Yoneyuki. Democracy in occupied Japan: the U.S. occupation and Japanese politics and society. London: Taylor & Francis, 2007. Print.

Ebrey, Patricia and Anne Walthall. East Asia: A Cultural, Social, and Political History, Volume II: From 1600. NY: Cengage Learning, 2013. Print.

Fajardo, Margaret. Comparing War Stories: Literature by Vietnamese Americans, United States-Guatemalans, and Filipino Americans. NY: ProQuest, 2007. Print.

Guoli, Liu. Politics and Government in China Understanding China Today. Boston: ABC-CLIO, 2011. Print.

Tellis, Ashley. Domestic Political Change and Grand Strategy. Canberra: NBR, 2007. Print.

Theodore, William. Sources of East Asian Tradition: The modern period, Volume 2. Columbia: Columbia University Press, 2008. Print.