Читать книгу From Containment to Americanism - Ellias Aghili Dehnavi - Страница 7

2. Harry S. Truman National Security Strategy (April 12, 1945 - January 20, 1953)

Harry S. Truman was the 33rd President of the United States and a member of the Democratic Party. Truman, who began working as Franklin Roosevelt's deputy chief executive in 1944, took over the presidency after his sudden death. In 1948, he defeated the Republican candidate, Thomas Dieu, to become President of the United States for the second time.

The new national security strategy was based on the confrontation between the two opposing ideologies of imperialism and communism, and relied on the enormous potential of the United States during the war. In fact, World War II served as a powerful catalyst for the potential abilites of the United States to become de facto ability, so that from now on we will have to use new words to describe the United States: the superpower!

In fact, internal (internal) integration was the new and external (international) competitiveness that changed the US behavioral, strategic, and diplomatic patterns in global interactions. Upon careful study, we find that these causes and factors are all rooted in World War II, its evolution, and end.

From the beginning of the war, the United States has made military and security goals as its priorities. Thus, the United States began its power in the Pacific Ocean in 1941 and gradually expanded to the Atlantic Ocean. Then it was the turn for the Mediterranean.

He first deployed some troops in North Africa in 1942 and then went to Southern Europe in 1943. Finally, when the defeat of Germany was certain, and following

the opening of the Second Front in 1944, the United States succeeded in mobilizing 17 million troops and sending 10 million troops to the battlefields (p. Braillard Am, 1992: 39-33).

In addition, the abundance of "advanced" American equipment, even for the Soviet Union, was usefull in winning the war. Finally, the success of the Mantan project in fissioning the atomic nucleus (uranium and plutonium) and testing the first atomic bomb on July 16 at the Los Alamos Research Center in New Mexico made the United States extremely capable. (Kissinger, 1279) The criminal act of atomic bombing of the cities of Hiroshima (August 6) and Nagasaki (August 9) leaves no doubt about the military use of this destructive weapon and its use for political and security purposes.

Following the entry of the United States into the war, a law was enacted on December 20, 1941, requiring all males between the ages of 20 and 24 to serve under the flag. One year later, on November 18, 1942, the age of military service was reduced to 18 years, according to an amendment to the Draft Act.

With the entry of the United States into the war, the government gradually took on the role of political leader of the Allies. Relying on economic and military capabilities, it enabled the United States to impose its political views on European friends from the very beginning of the war by concluding the Atlantic Charter. Even with regard to the leadership of the war, Washington managed to appoint its own candidate, General Eisenhower, under the command of Allied forces (other than the Soviet Union), contrary to the wishes of London.

In addition, United state played a leading role in all political consultations and multilateral conferences, and in terms of a disagreement, Washington's vote would take precedence over others. It also had a global approach from the beginning of the US foreign policy war. January 1942 is a good implication to the fusion of traditional continental politics and modern world politics; On that date, the United States was able to force 21 countries on the continent to sever ties with the central governments, on the one hand, and 26 countries on the other, to sign the United Nations Declaration.

From the beginning of the war, the United States, using past war experience, has made the necessary arrangements for the post-war world and its hegemonic role. Finally, with the surrender of Germany in April and Japan in August 1945, the United States, as a dormant giant that woke up, no longer wanted to leave the arena of world due to new interests and commitments. But this giant was not alone, but another counterpart in the East, claiming to be the real winner of the war.

With the conquest of Eurasia, half of Europe and, most importantly, the capital of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union sought to expand socialist views and ideas around the world. Meanwhile, Europe, which had previously shaped the international system through its interactions, was recognized as the biggest loser in the war and suffered devastation, distress, poverty and misery. These issues were cuases of a good platform for the growth of looting votes and ideas.

Thus, during the post-war era, the united enemies’ ranks of Nazism were torn apart. Interestingly, the fate of defeated Germany was the first cornerstone of a new animosity between former conquerors (R.P. PARINGAUX, 1994: 191-192). After that, Europe became another factor in heightening the conflict between the two new enemies. In his famous Fulton speech in 1946, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Churchill, mentioned the creation of the Iron Curtain from the Baltic to the Adriatic, which divided Europe in two part. In contrast, the great Soviet theorist John, in 1947, mentioned the creation of two hostile camps of imperialism, with the aim of world domination and anti-imperialism, with the intention of overthrowing imperialism (S. PACTEAU et F- C. MOUGEL, 1993: 91).

With the creation of a new competition and the emergence of two superpowers that were the main actors in the international relations scene, a new system was formed based on the balance of bipolar powers. In this new world order, the United States, as the leader of the capitalist world, considered it as its duty to prevent the expansion of the Soviet-led socialist camp on the basis of modern foreign policy, which had previously been the responsibility of Britain and France.

Therefore, in the post-World War II era, there was a strong will to consider a new role for the United States on world politics: to share the collaborative efforts of the United States and Britain! In fact, Great Britain, with the dream of resuming its lost global sovereignty after the Reconstruction period, enjoyed many influential capabilities in the new direction of US foreign policy. On the one hand, it magnified the Soviet threat, and on the other hand, it hoped that the United Kingdom and the United States could work together to prevent the threat.

In this situation in the United States, governments such as Canan, Acheson, Marshall, Eisenhower, and even Truman, in order to justify the continued presence of the United States in Europe and elsewhere, magnified the presence of Soviet threat too much and and by intimidating, they created a hysterical atmosphere against communism. The era of McCarthyism and the grabbing whatever which was left like, were the consequences of this programming flow (L. Marcou, 1987: 237).

In the end, Britain's dream of reclaiming the world did not come true, and the old colonizer was forced to leave the international arena for the new imperialist actor. Following the continuation of Soviet influence in sensitive areas such as Iran, Turkey, and Greece, the British government explicitly denounced the declaration and sought US assistance. On February 12, 1947, in secret notes from the London government, he declared his inability to counter the spread of communism. Thus, with the removal of the United Kingdom, a bipolar system based on American and Soviet acting theory was formed from this date.

In this situation, the US government, more purposeful than ever, decided to take a permanent place in its former ally at the top of the capitalist world. Finally, on March 12, 1945, Harry Truman announced the new US foreign policy (Truman's doctrine). Considering its nuclear power, the new diplomatic and strategic principles of US, confrontation with the Soviet Union and the spread of communism were not within specific limits, but throughout the globe (Tabatabai, 2002: 11).

Thus, US global policy was based on deterrence or a barrier to Soviet expansion beyond the 1945 borders. However, a few years later, some extremist factions were interpreting the doctrine of a policy of going backwards which meant pushing back the Soviets, even to the pre-1945 borders.

In the end, it is worth mentioning that, with the exception of Truman, almost all US presidents have presented their doctrines since World War II! But all of them are derived from Truman's doctrine of deterrence and global politics, and their interpretation and modern analysis within their particular place and time, which have been based on the developments of the international system.