EXPLAIN: Why did the conflict occur?
When the reach of Communism expanded into Asia in the late 1940s, antiCommunist paranoia grew at an exponential rate. This was especially the case
in Capitalist USA, where the Truman Doctrine and the policy of Communist
“containment” dictated all foreign affairs. Thus with the spread of Communism,
the arena of the Cold War broadened, with proxy wars and tension ensuing in
countries across Asia where the USA reacted in opposition to the presence of
Communism. With their Capitalist foundations, the USA felt that their beliefs
and values were being challenged by the Communist sphere of influence and
this fear was central to the development of the Vietnam War.
Although the USA had accepted the inevitability of the Soviet sphere of
influence in Europe, they were unwilling to accept the possibility of it
expanding into Asia and third world countries where the superpowers
competed to spread their own ideologies. They both had a strong desire for
economic and ideological imperialism within the region. As said by American
historian Walter LeFeber, “By the Mid-1950s each superpower believed that
the future vitality of its ideological, economic and strategic systems depended
upon ‘winning’ the Third World”. The Cold War was consequently forced into
Asia. With the added impact of American intervention, the conflict in Vietnam
was a critical event in the course of the entire Cold War. Although it didn’t
directly involve both superpowers, it was a reflection of the tension between
them.
The US had failed to understand the true nature of the Vietnam War: that it was
a nationalistic conflict between South and North Vietnam, with the latter
endeavouring to forcibly unite the country as a Communist Nation after
independence from France. America responded by interpreting the civil clashes
as an indicator of the global threat of an expanding Communist force, fuelled by
Soviet and Chinese influences. British historian, Michael O’Malley underlines
this, saying “America thought that there could be no communist nation which
was not also a pawn of their rivals: the Soviets. This would have inspired them
to take the initiative in Vietnam”.
Undoubtedly the Soviets had aimed to spread their financial and political
influences in Asia, but it was the reaction by the US that would be the final step
in the development of the infamous war. O’Malley later says that ironically, “Ho
Chi Minh was friendly to the US, admired much of American politics, and
preferred the US to the Soviets as an ally”. Nevertheless, the US was very fearful
of Minh’s forces and represented the threat of Communism to the public as the
“Domino Theory”. Under this theory, it was believed that each Southeast Asian
nation would systematically fall under the force of Communism, like a set of
Domino pieces, with the Soviets acting as a trigger. Under the Eisenhower
administration, the USA was able to create a damaging image of the Soviets as a
plaguing force, through the use of propaganda. They were frequently portrayed
by the Westerners in political cartoons as an all encompassing and dangerous
octopus. This helped unite the USA and their allies against Communism,
promoting the idea of American interventionism in Asia.
Ultimately, the war was a result of the expansion of Communism into Asia. This
had been a huge threat to the USA, who endeavoured to spread their Capitalist
ideologies and concurrently eradicate any growth in the Soviet sphere of
influence. Although the Soviets were not significantly involved, the Vietnam
War was symbolic of the wider Cold War and the fierce rivalry between the
two superpowers and their conflicting ideologies. What had originated as
nationalistic conflicts would be moulded into an emblem of a global clash, as a
result of America’s misunderstandings, hasty intervention and a failed war
strategy.
ASSESS: What was the impact of the conflict on US – Soviet relations?
The Vietnam War has forever been entrenched into history as one of the USA’s
most devastating mistakes, as it had the effect of moulding the subsequent
structure of the Cold War: particularly the relationship between the two
superpowers. Over the course of the Vietnam War, both superpowers had
gained new insights and experiences, and this would change the nature of their
responses to one another. With their failure to stop Communism in Vietnam,
came USA’s realisation that their ideological conflict with Russia during the
Cold War was lacking a potential solution. The devastation of Vietnam led them
to encourage the notion of peaceful coexistence. However in the Soviet, nuclear
parity was finally achieved and this new aggression would counteract the
proposals of peace made by the US. Thus it can be seen that as a symbol of the
ideological conflict between the superpowers and as a harsh reminder of USA’s
failure, the Vietnam War would have the effect of dictating both positive and
negative aspects of the future relations between the two superpowers.
America’s involvement in the Vietnam War had the effect of altering the
country’s stance on foreign affairs and particularly their relationship with the
USSR. Their unsuccessful efforts in Asia developed into a setback in the overall
Cold War as it pushed them into considering the idea of peaceful coexistence
with their adversaries. Here, the US was forced to abandon their policy of
containment, which had initially set the foundations of the entire Cold War.
During the potentially catastrophic Cuban Missile Crisis, there had first been a
reconsideration of foreign policy by both superpowers. Détente was
encouraged as the leaders realised the true capacity of the threat of nuclear
devastation. Unlike in Cuba, where there were only hypothetical scenarios
presented, in Vietnam, the USA had actually physically experienced the
damaging implications of their attempts to contain the Communist sphere of
influence. This was an experience, which would trigger the move towards
Détente for America, after the Cuban Crisis had earlier “sown the seeds”. Thus
the Vietnam War had the effect of forcing the USA to desert their commitment
of opposing the “Domino Effect” and take a more peaceful approach to relations
with Communism and the Soviets.
In 1953, Khrushchev had first introduced the notion of peaceful coexistence,
which at the time was shunned by his American counterparts. However in two
decades, with new leaders, national mindsets and experiences, the concept
resurfaced in the USA, as popularity peaked with the devastating events in
Vietnam. However, on this occasion when the USA made proposals of peaceful
coexistence at the Paris Peace Conference, there was not a reciprocated level of
enthusiasm from the Soviets, who were now revelling in an aggressive state of
nuclear parity. The USA deduced that they needed to change their relationship
with Asia and thus the USA’s Truman Doctrine was moulded into the Nixon
Doctrine, which promoted a move away from Vietnam. Coupled with the Nixon
Doctrine was the policy of “Vietnamization”, which shifted more responsibility
onto the South Vietnamese army, as the USA began the process of abandoning
their self-appointed role in Asia. American historian David Kaiser says, “Nixon
hoped that his doctrine would have the effect of distancing the USA from future
conflict” which they would undoubtedly have been desperate to avoid after the
devastation of Vietnam. It can be seen that the USA’s failure in Vietnam further
revealed to them the inefficiency of their ideological conflicts with Russia, and
encouraged them to consider peace. Although there was still a covert and
indirectly fierce rivalry between the Soviets and USA, the notion of Détente
gained prominence.
However historians question if the USA had truly altruistic motives in their
proposals of peace and repaired relations. Historian, Raymond L. Garthoff, says
“The American leaders saw [détente], in Kissinger’s words, as a way of
‘managing the emergence of Soviet power’ into world politics in an age of
nuclear parity”. Here, it can be seen that the US wanted to avoid Soviet
dominance, while they themselves were in a position of weakness, by
encouraging ideals of peace. After WWII, the US had developed an image as an
unstoppable force, however this was significantly diminished by their failure in
Vietnam. There was a loss of faith in the national military force within the US,
after it had exhibited its weaknesses in Vietnam. Both the US people and
government were unwilling to utilise their apparently inefficient armies, and
the nation avoided contact with any from of conflict. The Soviets, who were
meanwhile left relatively untouched by the war, were thus able to achieve
nuclear parity, as their military cabinet expanded with rapid force and potency.
They consequently appeared to have the upper hand in the Cold War as their
rivals were militaristically battered by their fifteen year long war effort and
were unwilling to enter any other form of conflict soon after. Many historians
say there was subsequently a renewed sense of rivalry within the Soviet
administration under Leonid Brezhnev, who ignited fear in the USA by
flaunting his new military and nuclear forces. Here, it is evinced that the course
of the Vietnam War and the USA’s simultaneous failures gave the Soviets an
unfounded level of confidence. It would have refuelled tensions and strained
relationships between the rivals, as America attempted to encourage the idea
of Détente.
The Vietnam War was a reflection of the ideological clash between the two
superpowers in the Cold War, and thus had the capacity to dictate the affairs
between them. The Post-War period was characterised by a clash of foreign
policy between the two superpowers, as the US sought peace while the Soviets
paraded their militaristic dominance. In this post-war time frame within the
Cold War, there were dramatic changes in the relationship between the two
superpowers, which would come to structure the subsequent events of the
Cold War, like Détente and the age of nuclear parity.