Eisenhower, Dulles and The New Look Policy
Why Eisenhower Achieved a Landslide Victory
There is a famous quotation from Eisenhower which clearly shows one of the reasons why he achieved a landslide election in 1953. In his campaign he was quoted as saying, " we can never rest until the enslaved nations of the world have in the fullness of freedom, the right t choose their own path, for then and only then, can we say that there is a possible way of living peacefully and permanently with Communism..." Eisenhower's wording here is very important as he was able to satisfy the wants of either side of the political spectrum- the talk of freeing the "enslaved" nations suggests he wants to actively do something to liberate communist nations, which would appeal to the harshest critics of communism. However, at the end he talks of living "peacefully and permanently" with communism in the world, this would appeal to those who were more sympathetic towards communism.
Despite displaying a willingness to happily live with communism in the world, Eisenhower's campaign focused on the liberation of these countries. His foreign policy expert, John Foster Dulles, made this explicit by calling the previous policy of containment a "treadmill policy"- badly designed system which would cost too much ad eventually the US would 'drop exhausted', having not actually got anywhere. Other's viewed containment as immoral and wholly negative as they believed it ignored the people being subjected to "Godless terrorism," as Dulled put it.
The failures of Truman and the Democrats also contributed to Eisenhower's success. As stated, Truman used the policy of containment which failed (as shown in Asia), and so the Republicans presented it as an unsuccessful system. The corruption involved in Truman's government (such as the McCarthy trials) made them seem undesirable to the public. Truman was also widely viewed as a weak war time president because of his failure to properly deal with the Korean War, therefore Eisenhower promised the American people he would end the war in Korea and outwardly rejected the concept of containment. These both appealed to many.
Constraints to Republican Action
Eisenhower did not exactly hit the ground running. He quickly realised that freeing the "enslaved" people under communist rule would be very expensive and cost many lives from both sides, and so it was something he was less willing to do. Eisenhower also made government cuts to the Defence Department budget. The Republicans justified this move by stating they wanted to keep the federal budgets balanced in order to keep the distribution of money equal, and therefore, in their eyes, morally correct.
Eisenhower and Korea
In 1953, the armistice was signed in Korea officially ending the war there. Whilst this meant Eisenhower had kept his promise to end conflict in Korea, it was not what everyone had in mind as finishing the war. Many people (including MacArthur, President Rhee, and even some Republicans) were angered by this as they believed he should have taken further action and liberated Communist North Korea. They argued Eisenhower was not sticking to his previous statement about "never rest[ing]" until complete liberation was achieved. He in turn argued that the price of victory was too high and outweighed the benefits of a liberated North Korea; this was after he, once again, realised war is expensive and lots of people die and so had also rejected the idea of using atomic bombs there.
Overall, Eisenhower did nothing to liberate any communists in North Korea. This meant, however, that he had effectively kept the policy of containment- the policy the Republicans had previously disgraced in order to come into power. Dulles tried to hide the fact the government had not really done anything and so resorted to containment by stating they had done it for the greater good as they were unwilling to risk any more US lives for the fight against communism. Although, some credit can be given to Dulles as, unlike Truman's Secretary of State who failed to do the same thing despite using soldiers to do it, he was hugely under-resourced, and yet still managed to succeed where Truman failed.
The New Look Policy
This was the name for Eisenhower's new military policy which ended up being a combination of domestic, military and foreign considerations. It rejected the ideas presented by NCS68- another attempt to keep alive the idea that Truman's presidency was a failure. Expenditure on arms was to be capped at 20%, loans were no longer to be given out, and most importantly it put in place an 'all or nothing' type system. In the simplest of terms, Eisenhower's plan was that when faced with an international problem of soviet roots, no matter what size, he would retaliate with the threat of a nuclear bomb, it became known as massive retaliation. The idea was that, whilst the Soviet Union had nuclear bombs they did not and would never have them to the same extent as the US. The USA just had to have the power to destroy the USSR, they did not need to necessarily be superior. Indeed, the USSR continued to develop their nuclear weaponry. This system left the US in a very difficult situation- they were unstable and constantly on the verge of nuclear war as this was their only option in the face of any conflict.
Dulles showed the world how massive retaliation would come into play in January of 1945. He used quotations from Stalin and Lenin to show how the USSR planned to expand to the rest of the world and then destroy it. He proposed that the US could then counter attack with their atomic weapons. It was from that moment that the Eisenhower administration decided that they would primarily depend and rely on massive retaliation should the above scenario ever occur. Dulles even used the method of retaliation to support the policy of containment. The overall method Dulles used was dubbed 'brinkmanship'.
The government recognised the negative side of brinkmanship and quickly realised it could not be used in retaliation of everything. It was not a stable long term plan. In light of this, Dulles made a list of just three circumstances where massive retaliation would be acceptable. Whilst the policy did seem questionable there are three examples of it being used, the first being a conflict between USA and China over prisoners of war (successful), the second being in Vietnam to prevent the domino effect (unsuccessful), the third being with China again (successful). The third scenario was the closest the US came to nuclear war out of the three.
Eisenhower struggled with armoury because of the government cuts induced by the Republicans' intentions to balance out budgets. Three Army Chiefs of Staff resigned in response to this, the army itself were angered by the restrictions to their ability to confront a communist threat of any level. He eventually abandoned the idea of universal military training and rejected the idea of intervening in Korea again. This shows that he was not prepared to get into any conflict, instead he started using nuclear weapons tactfully, with its main role as a deterrent.
Whilst the New Look policy was a very controversial one, the cuts in the Army's Budget did leave enough money to help those in need in the US. Poverty was still a big problem in the USA at this time and the high expenditure for weaponry and conflict under Truman's government left very little in budget to help any individuals who needed aid.
Small strategic atomic weapons continued to be developed by the US, such as the Davy Crockett. They were promoted by Dulles, who tried to convince the rest of the world that the US would not hesitate to use them if provoked. He used the argument that NATO forces were not strong enough to defeat the Communists, should it come to that. Dulles tried to make these small nuclear weapons the new norm in war, replacing older, less efficient weapons such as guns and artillery.
There is a famous quotation from Eisenhower which clearly shows one of the reasons why he achieved a landslide election in 1953. In his campaign he was quoted as saying, " we can never rest until the enslaved nations of the world have in the fullness of freedom, the right t choose their own path, for then and only then, can we say that there is a possible way of living peacefully and permanently with Communism..." Eisenhower's wording here is very important as he was able to satisfy the wants of either side of the political spectrum- the talk of freeing the "enslaved" nations suggests he wants to actively do something to liberate communist nations, which would appeal to the harshest critics of communism. However, at the end he talks of living "peacefully and permanently" with communism in the world, this would appeal to those who were more sympathetic towards communism.
Despite displaying a willingness to happily live with communism in the world, Eisenhower's campaign focused on the liberation of these countries. His foreign policy expert, John Foster Dulles, made this explicit by calling the previous policy of containment a "treadmill policy"- badly designed system which would cost too much ad eventually the US would 'drop exhausted', having not actually got anywhere. Other's viewed containment as immoral and wholly negative as they believed it ignored the people being subjected to "Godless terrorism," as Dulled put it.
The failures of Truman and the Democrats also contributed to Eisenhower's success. As stated, Truman used the policy of containment which failed (as shown in Asia), and so the Republicans presented it as an unsuccessful system. The corruption involved in Truman's government (such as the McCarthy trials) made them seem undesirable to the public. Truman was also widely viewed as a weak war time president because of his failure to properly deal with the Korean War, therefore Eisenhower promised the American people he would end the war in Korea and outwardly rejected the concept of containment. These both appealed to many.
Constraints to Republican Action
Eisenhower did not exactly hit the ground running. He quickly realised that freeing the "enslaved" people under communist rule would be very expensive and cost many lives from both sides, and so it was something he was less willing to do. Eisenhower also made government cuts to the Defence Department budget. The Republicans justified this move by stating they wanted to keep the federal budgets balanced in order to keep the distribution of money equal, and therefore, in their eyes, morally correct.
Eisenhower and Korea
In 1953, the armistice was signed in Korea officially ending the war there. Whilst this meant Eisenhower had kept his promise to end conflict in Korea, it was not what everyone had in mind as finishing the war. Many people (including MacArthur, President Rhee, and even some Republicans) were angered by this as they believed he should have taken further action and liberated Communist North Korea. They argued Eisenhower was not sticking to his previous statement about "never rest[ing]" until complete liberation was achieved. He in turn argued that the price of victory was too high and outweighed the benefits of a liberated North Korea; this was after he, once again, realised war is expensive and lots of people die and so had also rejected the idea of using atomic bombs there.
Overall, Eisenhower did nothing to liberate any communists in North Korea. This meant, however, that he had effectively kept the policy of containment- the policy the Republicans had previously disgraced in order to come into power. Dulles tried to hide the fact the government had not really done anything and so resorted to containment by stating they had done it for the greater good as they were unwilling to risk any more US lives for the fight against communism. Although, some credit can be given to Dulles as, unlike Truman's Secretary of State who failed to do the same thing despite using soldiers to do it, he was hugely under-resourced, and yet still managed to succeed where Truman failed.
The New Look Policy
This was the name for Eisenhower's new military policy which ended up being a combination of domestic, military and foreign considerations. It rejected the ideas presented by NCS68- another attempt to keep alive the idea that Truman's presidency was a failure. Expenditure on arms was to be capped at 20%, loans were no longer to be given out, and most importantly it put in place an 'all or nothing' type system. In the simplest of terms, Eisenhower's plan was that when faced with an international problem of soviet roots, no matter what size, he would retaliate with the threat of a nuclear bomb, it became known as massive retaliation. The idea was that, whilst the Soviet Union had nuclear bombs they did not and would never have them to the same extent as the US. The USA just had to have the power to destroy the USSR, they did not need to necessarily be superior. Indeed, the USSR continued to develop their nuclear weaponry. This system left the US in a very difficult situation- they were unstable and constantly on the verge of nuclear war as this was their only option in the face of any conflict.
Dulles showed the world how massive retaliation would come into play in January of 1945. He used quotations from Stalin and Lenin to show how the USSR planned to expand to the rest of the world and then destroy it. He proposed that the US could then counter attack with their atomic weapons. It was from that moment that the Eisenhower administration decided that they would primarily depend and rely on massive retaliation should the above scenario ever occur. Dulles even used the method of retaliation to support the policy of containment. The overall method Dulles used was dubbed 'brinkmanship'.
The government recognised the negative side of brinkmanship and quickly realised it could not be used in retaliation of everything. It was not a stable long term plan. In light of this, Dulles made a list of just three circumstances where massive retaliation would be acceptable. Whilst the policy did seem questionable there are three examples of it being used, the first being a conflict between USA and China over prisoners of war (successful), the second being in Vietnam to prevent the domino effect (unsuccessful), the third being with China again (successful). The third scenario was the closest the US came to nuclear war out of the three.
Eisenhower struggled with armoury because of the government cuts induced by the Republicans' intentions to balance out budgets. Three Army Chiefs of Staff resigned in response to this, the army itself were angered by the restrictions to their ability to confront a communist threat of any level. He eventually abandoned the idea of universal military training and rejected the idea of intervening in Korea again. This shows that he was not prepared to get into any conflict, instead he started using nuclear weapons tactfully, with its main role as a deterrent.
Whilst the New Look policy was a very controversial one, the cuts in the Army's Budget did leave enough money to help those in need in the US. Poverty was still a big problem in the USA at this time and the high expenditure for weaponry and conflict under Truman's government left very little in budget to help any individuals who needed aid.
Small strategic atomic weapons continued to be developed by the US, such as the Davy Crockett. They were promoted by Dulles, who tried to convince the rest of the world that the US would not hesitate to use them if provoked. He used the argument that NATO forces were not strong enough to defeat the Communists, should it come to that. Dulles tried to make these small nuclear weapons the new norm in war, replacing older, less efficient weapons such as guns and artillery.
Well done Morgan - you have put loads of effort into this blog post! I hope you didn't hate reading the book and (more importantly) you felt that it added to your understanding of the topic. Very impressed!
ReplyDelete