Research. For each turning point, I’ve selected several web
pages that provide a deeper understanding of the relevant issues to
be considered. Note that some of these contain present day
opinions, informed by a much-broader and more detailed knowledge of
all the events then and since. In other words, no American leader
at that time may have been privy to what you are about to learn.
Another difference is that our sensibilities have changed since
these events unfolded. Most importantly, the Cold War is over and
America “won;” try not to let the historical error of "presentism"
color your judgments. Find your assigned topic below. Using the
links provided, further study the background of your assigned
turning point, the relevant conflicts and issues surrounding it, and
the possible solutions. Take notes on what arguments can be made
for each choice. Remember that you’ll need to anticipate the
arguments of your opponents.
The Simulation. On the day of your turning point simulation,
you’ll be part of a panel addressing the President of the United
States. Depending on the turning point, your panel may be composed
of Congressional leaders, Cabinet members, and/or other presidential
advisors. The President and his other advisors may question or
criticize your proposal. Be prepared to respond using your notes
(but not directly reading from them). It’s also critical that you
know and understand all of the options available to the United
States at this moment in history. Have your notes ready (and those
of your team where applicable). The President or his assistant will
present the problem. Each of you will present your ideas and, in
turn, question and criticize those of your colleagues. At the end of
each simulation, the class will vote for the option that was most
convincingly presented and defended.
Follow up. You’ll turn in the following for scoring purposes.
Critiques of other options.
Notes on the Options.
Memo to the President.
Self-Evaluation (form provided).
The Turning Points
Harry S Truman, 1945: Should the U.S. emphasize its superiority in
atomic weaponry on the one hand, or the control of atomic weaponry?
Alternate question: Should we share atomic bomb technology with the
The U.S. and the Soviet Union were uneasy allies during the Second
World War. What would there relationship be after the war? The
answer to this question hinged partly on the United States’ decision
regarding atomic weaponry. Should we monopolize this awesome power
as a deterrent against future threats, but risk a potential nuclear
arms race? Or should we share it with the world – including the
Soviets – and destroy our small stockpile to prevent further uses of
this destructive force? In short, should the
pursue the former: a unilateral approach of nuclear monopoly; or an
internationalist approach of banning “the bomb?”
B. Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953: Power struggle in Iran. Dwight D.
Eisenhower inherited the Cold War containment policy and continued
to implement it. In fact, Secretary of State Dulles took
containment to a new, more aggressive level: “rollback.” The
Rollback policy asserted that the United States would not only
contain Soviet aggression, but “roll it back” from its present
boundaries. In the early 1950s, Muhammad Mossadegh, the nationalist
prime minister of
began to resist the growing domination of Western corporations.
This was perceived as a threat to business interests. In 1953, the
CIA, along with Iran’s military leadership, developed plans for a
coup to overthrow Mossadegh and replace him with Muhammad Reza
Pahlavi a constitutional monarch who might be friendlier to Western
corporations and other U.S. interests. Should the United States
implement this plan, intervening in the internal affairs of a
C. John F. Kennedy, 1962: The Cuban Missile Crisis. In October 1962,
U.S. reconnaissance photographs indicated that nuclear missile silos
were being built in Cuba, a major threat to U.S. security.
President Kennedy sought to take swift action before these missiles
were in place. Here are his choices:
Option A: Negotiate with the Soviets.
This is the safest course to take. Given the nature of nuclear
brinkmanship, we must tread carefully on this ground.
U.S. reactions might escalate tensions and unintentionally bring on
World War III. What is there to lose by taking the time to conduct
talks? The United States should take the high road
island of Cuba is clearly called for in the current missile crisis.
To do nothing would be foolhardy. The Soviets put the missiles into
Cuba secretly, and then lied to us in saying that they did not put
missiles there. Firm action must be taken against these aggressive
Soviet policies. Because naval blockades are considered an act of
war, and could escalate to retaliatory Soviet naval action, we’ll
call it a “quarantine,” suggesting the offensive threat of the Cuban
missiles, and the defensive nature of this U.S. action. Should he
attempt to take out the missiles with a preemptive air strike or
should the United States implement a unilateral blockade the
Option C: Launch an air strike to take
out the missiles under construction in
Cuba. The missiles under construction in Cuba are a direct threat
to U.S. security. They have sufficient range to take out any major
city in the continental United States, and given Cuba’s proximity, a
launch would provide precious little time for a retaliatory strike.
What’s more, the Soviet’s placement of missiles in
is a violation of the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary.
We cannot do nothing in the face of such an obvious challenge to
D. Lyndon Baines Johnson, 1963 (Vietnam: pull out or engage?)
E. Richard Milhous Nixon, 1972? (Soviet Union: