Safe for Decolonization: The Eisenhower Administration, Britain, and Singapore

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 250-252
Author(s):  
Laurent Cesari
1985 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 655
Author(s):  
James C. Duram ◽  
Robert Frederick Burk

1972 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 479
Author(s):  
Susan Hartmann ◽  
Robert L. Branyan ◽  
Lawrence H. Larsen

2005 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 79-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Marsh

It has long been argued that the Eisenhower administration pursued a more assertive policy toward Iran than the Truman administration did.This interpretative consensus, though, has recently come under challenge.In the Journal of Cold War Studies in 1999, Francis Gavin argued that U.S.policy toward Iran in 1950–1953 became progressively more assertive in response to a gradual shift in the global U.S. -USSR balance of power.This article shares, and develops further, Gavin's revisionist theme of policy continuity, but it explains the continuity by showing that Truman and Eisenhower had the same principal objectives and made the same basic assumptions when devising policy. The more assertive policy was primarily the result of the failure of U.S. policy by early 1952. The Truman administration subsequently adopted a more forceful policy, which Eisenhower simply continued until all perceived options for saving Iran from Communism were foreclosed other than that of instigating a coup to bring about a more pliable government.


Author(s):  
Eugene Ford

This chapter looks at how the comprehensive strategy for Southeast Asian Buddhism that would eventually emerge did not represent an entirely new direction for U.S. officials. Rather, it was an approach that found numerous, if fragmentary, precedents in earlier efforts to marshal faith, often through the use of religious rhetoric, against what was perceived as an atheistic Soviet menace. The Sixth Great Buddhist Synod that Burma's government held during 1954–56 coincided with intensified efforts within the Dwight D. Eisenhower administration to formulate a coherent policy toward religion. Religion's bearing on the Cold War had emerged as the main preoccupation of the president.


The Last Card ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 328-343
Author(s):  
Richard H. Immerman

This chapter argues—using the Eisenhower administration as a model of peacetime national security decision making—that the surge decision-making process displayed by the oral histories was idiosyncratic, excessively compartmentalized, and profoundly flawed. No president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has fully adopted his model, and each has tailored procedures appropriate for his needs. The Bush process had to take into account his lack of expertise in military affairs, an increasingly polarized political climate, the legacy of the Vietnam War, the proliferation of leaks of sensitive information in the new media age, the resistance of the uniformed military leadership, and most important, Rumsfeld. Administration insiders argue that for these reasons Bush jettisoned fundamental tenets of Eisenhower's system in an effort to make a virtue out of necessity. Yet the evidence suggests that Eisenhower's best practices are just that—best practices. It further suggests that their rigorous application would have benefited Bush's process by expediting the instigation of a comprehensive review, co-opting opponents of a change in strategy, mitigating politicization, facilitating the exchange of information and advice, and accelerating implementation.


Many small farmers charged that Ezra Taft Benson’s farm policies were driving them out of business. The fact that the countryside was hemorrhaging population during the 1950s seemed to support their contention. Indeed, the largest wave of farm abandonment and out-migration in the nation’s history occurred in those years. This chapter explores Benson’s agrarian polices while he was the secretary of agriculture in the Eisenhower administration. In specific, this chapter explores the following questions: What did he say over the course of his career about the moral and spiritual values and the economic costs of family farming? How did he respond to criticism of his policies by small farmers? How did he justify his policies and what advice did he offer? Did he regard the exodus of Americans from small farms as lamentable but inevitable? To what degree did he recommend educational opportunities or rural development policies to ease the transition from farm employment to non-farm work and urban lifestyles?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document