1. Describe the Good Neighbor Policy and its objectives. How was dominance over South America reconciled with “American Values” such as self-determination?

From the past, U.S. had been governed by policies which people strictly adhered to. The introduction of Good neighbor policy did not get people unaware nor surprised since it was seen as a combination of the previous policies compressed into one.  Similar to other previous policies, the policy intended to protect the economic interests of US and provide the vital geographical strategic interests of the state (Smith, & Burns, 1983). It advocated for United States to be a good neighbor and engage in significant helpful exchange with other Latin American countries rather than involving in the seemingly endless wars. The state was not to get involved in any issues arising internally in the neighboring countries. The policy went at hand with treaties signed to stop military wars in Nicaragua and Haiti. In fact, it led to interdependence between the nations and also promoted peace.

            To improve international affairs, security and good governance, the latter operated under stated objectives. The U.S. government was to support development through interstate trade. Not only was the development to take only at “home” but also it would be extended into the neighboring states. Unlike the previous years that the state was seeking international dominance, it would seek to participate in global leadership and partnership. It also advocated for any dispute that would arise in the states, rather than using military forces, peaceful nonmilitary operations would be used. One of the main objectives that drove the policy was that being a good neighbor, one should stop being a bad neighbor and with that most the states had to curb any deeds they would affect fellow neighbors. The states’ foreign policy agenda was to be tied to broad U.S. interests. This was to make it effective and to win public support. Therefore the new foreign policy agenda was to work with domestic policies, raise the level of security, quality of life, and make the basic rights of the US (Smith & Burns, 1983; Forrest & Kearns, 2001).

By 19thcentuary, conflict wars prevailed in South America. Mainly the wars were for national liberation and some were civil wars. The wars aimed at regional dominance and trade issues. The principle of self determination came into occurrence in the twentieth century. It was defined as a right of people to associate freely with an independent existing free state. The latter led to states owning their own territories to protect. An example was Hawaii received small islands territories and was to also benefit from the whites help. South America embraced this principle which helped them liberate themselves from Spain. By 1939, South America had signed treaties such that no more wars would be experienced either internal or external. With this, South America which before seemed to be left behind by other American states was reconciled with values that ran other states. Self determination led to the state having their own distinct territories to protect and peace prevailed once more in the state (Forrest & Kearns, 2001).

1. Describe “Conservative Internationalism”.

Internationalism refers to the willingness and urge of a state to spread freedom into other states. It can also be defined as the state of nations supporting each other in terms of economy and politics. Conservative internationalism embraces a strategy of advancing freedom and advocating for no use of weapons to solve disputes in countries neighboring a free state. By this, it helps develop peace freedom and correlations between the countries. Internationalism opts for war as the last option in solving disputes. Its main method is to create peace by letting freedom to reign in the states involved in disputes. It should start creating freedom along the borders of the countries even in the free  states before venturing into  distance far countries prevailed by wars for a long time (Sempa, 2013).

Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk, Harry S. Truman and Ronald Reagan are among the presidents who use conservative internationalism to make their states conducive for the dwelling of the country people. They achieved this by having their states combine power and together maintained freedom states making interstates conflicts never to occur in their political eras. Most of leaders who used this method to ensure political stability and peace in their states had to engage in dialogues with their opponents peacefully and come up with a solution favorable to all and that which would put a stop to the previous wars. Little force was used in conservative internationalism but in cases of rebel minds a little military activity would be engaged to make the enemies surrender and be imparted into the country’s freedom state. An example of such is President Jefferson who wanted to engage in a combat with Barbary pirates who were reluctant to hide to the peaceful negotiations (Sempa, 2013).

• What was the purpose and significance of the Washington Naval Treaties?

When world war one was over, most of the states neighboring the Atlantic Ocean started to build strong war ships. Each state wanted to come up with the best fleet in case of a war, to emerge as superior. Each state had fear for what the other states were making since no one could fathom what the neighbors were preparing. This led to the nations coming up with dangerous naval weapons and fleets that could make many lives to succumb in time of war. It became everyone’s concern that a great war would occur and devastate the lives of many; something had to be done to control this. In 1921, President Warren G. Harding called the Washington Naval Conference which aimed at addressing the manufacturing of all naval weapons. Among the feared states that were aimed to sign the treaty were; United States, Great Britain, Japan, France, and Italy. (Kennedy 1994)

The treaty entailed coming up with regulations to be adhered to when building naval ships so that no country would be too much superior to pose a threat of causing mass deaths.  Weights of ships to be built were addressed. As per the treaty, no ship’s gun was to exceed sixteen inches. To ensure peace and no conflicts in the boundaries, no naval base of the countries involved in the treaties would be extended to small islands or coast territories of neighboring countries. The treaty managed to drive the nations away from wars since building of the battleships ceased for some time (Hogarth 1983).

            Washington naval treaties were significant in reducing the number of most war ships that would in any case lead to external wars uprising since each nation thought it was superior against the neighbor. Most of the big most feared ships were converted into aircraft landing sites. Although the treaties seemed helpful at first, some of the states such as Japan had to withdraw since they thought the treaty was not fairing them as it favored other western countries. They saw the treaty as a way to strip off the war superiority. In the second treaty signed, Japan and Italy were not present thus it was not of much use. This led to fear of another war rising. In fact, world war two began and competition of building more dangerous wars ships commenced again (Hogarth 1983).

4. How did the Depression affect international relations?

Characterized by a sustained decline in economic productivity and growth, the great depression of 1929 impacted negatively on the entire world. The interwar period was a period of recuperation and the depression did little to help the situation. The need for an economically advanced nation was dire. Needless to say, the international and regional relations were influenced greatly to the effect of the Depression as is seen with the case of debts owed to the U.S on its crash in 1929 (Wade & Veneroso, 1998).

The First World War had left a desolate wasteland and all the countries were rushing in to save their economies from total disaster. During this period, United States emerged as the savior to these desolate nations offering them large loans for their economic re-establishments. However, with the Great Depression having hit Wall Street, the entire world was sent in frenzy (Bernstein, & Bernstein, 1989). Now, all the nations were concerned with their affairs alone and none other, not even the sworn allies or colonies. Britain in this period completely ignored the colonies and did not venture to intervene when Japan took over Manchuria.

For Some nations however, this was a chance to reap from the world what they wanted without interference from international peace makers like the U.S. Every nation was alone. It is during this period that Italy broke the League by attacking and capturing Abyssinia, thus weakening it further (Walters, 1965; Baer, 1973). Japan took this opportunity to start on their territory expansion agenda as is seen inn the case of Manchuria (Wheeler, 1961).

 The League of Nations was probably the only organization that would have come up with a solution for the crises brought about by the Great Depression. However, all the major shareholders were busy sorting their own crises at home to mind the international wellbeing. Therefore, the League failed terribly. The great depression only served to severe the ties that the nations had with each other with friend turning to foe and the creation of new enemies, such as Adolf Hitler.

The crises of the Depression came on poorly timed and completely ravaged the international relations by being the key inciter to the Second World War.

5.         The Japanese / U.S relations in the interwar period.

Up until the surprise attack of the US by the Japanese, the two countries had had a tough and confused relation. The resultant war and chaos that ensued in the WWII, started with this strained relationship. Japan in the WWI had played a crucial role in aiding the allied side that the US was siding with, therefore, maintaining a friendly relation. However, the 21 demands that the Empire of Japan had made on recovered Chinese territories previously ruled by the German influence caused fallout of the Legion.

            The case of Japan joining the war in the beginning was made clear with the demand that they keep fallen German territories that they recovered in the Asian and Pacific region. Britain was aware of the demands, but requested the aid of Japan anyway. US playing the role of the neutral partner sought to justify China to regain their lands after the Germans were disbanded. Japanese influence over the said Chinese territories remained even after the plan plotted by the US to award them sovereign power over their own land (Hsu & Zhang, 1972).

            Escalation of the sore relationship between the US and Japan reached crucial limits when Japan refused to head the Western Council about their continued seizure of Chinese territories. The Manchurian take-over was the icing on the cake which permanently damaged any possibilities of Japan being viewed as a lost Ally (Frankel & Kahler, 2007). As such, Japan has turned from friend to foe. The strained relationship ensued until the Japanese made a fatal move into Indochina. Henceforth, US alongside Dutch and Britain boycotted Japan and cut-off the most crucial of its import commodity, oil. The Empire was crippled by the move and later on resulted into the attack on the American Pearl Harbor Naval base (Hoyt, 2008).

The evaluation of the relationship between the US and Japan in the interwar period is a contested subject among scholars, mostly concerned about the true and accurate accounts of the allegations leveled against Japan. For Instance, the number casualties of the Nanking Massacre is yet to be clarified (Boyle, 1972). The cited case is among the many conflicts that saw to the demise of the possible alliance of Japan and US during the interwar period. The study of this relationship has shed light on the preceding events to the Second World War The relations of nations is therefore of crucial importance in maintaining international a, regional and national peace.

6.         The spread of U.S economic and cultural influence between the wars.

During the First World War, many of the involved nations abandoned the previous economic standards and practices in order to mandate currency adjustments. The target of the anomaly was to influence the currency rating in order to facilitate the production of military equipment and to further the war agendas (Eichengreen & Temin, 2000). It is after the W WI that the nations realized the sorry state their respective countries were in. Some adapted back to the golden economic standards, the United States were among them (Eichengreen, 1995). In the wake of the new problems presented by the war, five new presidents were elected, the list being concluded by Franklin D. Roosevelt. The presidents undertook major reforms in the economy formulating and passing bills that saw the growth of the economy back to health. For instance, President Roosevelt engineered famous “New Deal” which restructured the banking system and other economic factions successfully between 1933 and 1938.

The American cultural influence to a large extend was spread through the upcoming media sector in the world. Jessica C.E. Gienow-Hecht (2008) notes that the American government knowingly influenced the radical spread of their culture across the globe by initializing programs such as the Fulbright exchange program. Media also played a major role in the spread of the American culture into the world. In a sense, the Americans can be thought of as “cultural imperialists” because the resultant effect of cultural interaction is possible erosion of the predominant culture (Bochner, 2013). The media also played a major role in the spread of the American cultural influence in the world. Hollywood is the classic example of a tool that has, through the media, created global awareness of the American culture and lifestyle (Trumpbour, 2007).

Through the evaluation made above, it is a clear consequent of the weak state of the international economic and cultural state that American influence spread as so fast. America was fast in recuperating therefore dominated the economic front which subsequently popularized their culture.

7.         Discuss the Atlantic Charter.

The charter is a policy statement that was created by the then president and prime minister of United States and Britain respectively. The charter was initially just a declaration of alliance but later adopted the name, ‘Atlantic Charter,’ from popular media reference. The meeting was held almost secretively, but the product and the sole purpose of the meeting was made clear to the public (Churchill & Roosevelt, 1941). Prime Minister Winston Churchill coined the policy in hopes of getting the United States commitment in the war efforts or to increase their military aid. President Franklin D. Roosevelt of the U.S on the other hand hoped to peg Britain on compensation for the assistance during the war and to publicly denounce any involvement in secret treaties. In the post World War I scenario, the allies to Britain such as Japan had laid claims to sharing recaptured enemy territories. This was a major concern for America (Dulles & Ridinger, 1955).

The charter captured all concerns ranging from; no territorial gains were to be sought by the United States or the United Kingdom; territorial adjustments, self determination in context of ruling, trade barriers to the victor and the loser, economic and social development, sea ownership, and disarmament of the involved nations (Brinkley & Facey-Crowther, 1994).

Both parties were unsatisfied with the resultant implications to agreeing to the charter, but were obliged to do so due to their prevailing circumstances (Borgwardt, 2005). For instance, the ‘self-determination clause would arouse issues with the British colonies as exemplified by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi’s letter to president Roosevelt (Datta-Ray, 2007). He wrote declaring the hollowness of the charter given that Britain maintained her colonies. Despite America’s reluctance to join into the war, by means of popular opinion, they were forced into it by the unexpected surprise attack on the Pearl Harbor Naval Base. America declared war on Japan and Japan and her allies complied by replicating the declaration on U.S.

8.         Pick any WWII conference and explain also, you could discuss a series of conferences on war strategy or post-war planning.

 Cairo Conference (1943) by Chang Kai-shek, Churchill and FDR. The objective of the conference was that Chinese territories grabbed by Japan to be reinstated as well as the forceful reinstatement of all other territories wrongfully gained post-World War I. an addition clause pointed at the eventual acquisition of Korea’s freedom and independence (Sainsbury, 1986). The concept that was driven at during the conference was that Japan was to be stripped of grabbed territories as well as be punished repeatedly until her unconditional surrender.

All the goals of the conference were communicated later on in public radio airing the leaders’ purpose of meeting. The present leaders also confirmed that they would not be involved in any territorial struggles after the ordeal of the Second World War was over. The conference acted as a platform from which the present allied nations could reaffirm their commitment to the Atlantic Charter especially concerning territorial issues (Churchill & Roosevelt, 1941). China’s presence in the conference also indicated the rising of a powerful nation to be recognized internationally.

The conference of Cairo served a great purpose during the WWII period signaling that the allied nations could perceive a possible and near end of the war. Conclusively, all conferences that were created served as a chance for the leaders to have the ground view of their accomplishments in the war. The conference of Cairo discussed the expectations of the post-war Asia, an optimistic perspective.

9.         Explain the U.S. occupation of the Dominican Republic, Haiti and Nicaragua.

All the exemplified occupations by the U.S through military action on the countries were forceful and uncalled by the governments of the respective nations. The occupations were motivated by the need to protect American lives and property, treating economic and territorial threats as well as maintaining a peaceful region.

The Nicaragua incident of occupation (1912) was closely related to America’s fears of the bombardment of the rebels on American legation as well as the well being of the American citizens. This was a national responsibility act that translates to the U.S Safeguarding the lives of its citizens where they are. However, in 1927, the then designado of Nicaragua requested the intervention of the U.S in the feud against Sandino’s rebels. Later losses by the government against the rebels effected the occupation of the U.S marines in Managua setting up a base (Sola, 2005).

 the occupation case of the U.S in Haiti, the American government was acting on the sole purpose of self satisfaction. America grew fearful of the implication of the harmony with which the Haitians were integrating with Germans. Germans in Haiti were economically and thus politically powerful figures. Some of them kept in strong contact with the military and their homelands leading America to suspect a possible foul play. Therefore, America injected their investors who acquired and maintained economic dominance over Haiti. After the rise and fall of Jean Vilbrun Guillaume Sam, anti-American revolts ensued prompting U.S to protect its, economic interest by sending in marines in 1915, this marked the beginning of the occupation. America, however, had the intentions of limiting and cutting off the possibilities of any other nation from controlling the Panama Canal (Berman, 1990).

Occupation of the U.S in the Dominican Republic was endorsed tom protect the interests of the interests of the region. This is clear from the willing participation of the Inter-American Peace Force in the fight against rebels in the republic. After the clashes were over, the president of the United States acting on advisement by the then ambassador of Dominican Republic, W. Tapley Bennett, called for the military to stay and reinstate order (Atkins & Wilson, 1998).

The cases of the U.S occupation cited above have spun about the cause of the moves. It is through their evaluation and analysis that the motives of any occupation are discovered. Occupation of another land by a state is considered a generous move when the circumstances are demanding and that of aggression when it is not called for.

10.       Atomic bombs on Japan at the end of WWII. Was it Atomic Diplomacy?

The WWII ended with the surrender of Japan. The surrender came shortly after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings (Feis, 2015). The administration of Japan had initially been unbelieving considering they had been unable to create an atomic bomb themselves. However, the second bombing confirmed the United States had managed to create them and in good supply. In addition to the twin bombing, the Soviet Union decided to join in the war by declaring war on Japan, a clear shock for Japan (Bellamy, 2008). The use of the atomic bomb was purely to conclude the war that had reigned on for six years (Walker, 1990).

The production of the atomic bomb was greatly hastened to beat the Germans and Japan in creating one. The implication of an atomic bomb in either of the countries hands would have great consequences for the United States and her allies. The war would not have concluded and thousands of lives would have been lost as Japan was focused on territory expansion. The deaths that would have accumulated then would be far greater than those that Japan felt. It was almost necessary to bomb the nation (Takaki, 1996).

Despite the good results that the atomic bombs had on the war with Japan, the international sanctions were not observed, though it is arguable that they weren’t in place yet. Therefore, the United States used Atomic Diplomacy to end the war of Japan. It is clear that the message went across clearly that without the declaration of surrender; more atomic bombs would be dropped in Japan. Two were enough to threaten the existence of Japan, they complied (Ellis, 1980).

11.       Outline issues for the immediate post-war U.S. economy and Truman’s response.

Similar to the First World War, the nations that were involved in the war exhausted most of their economic resources while trying to maximize on military equipment production. Therefore, the post-war effect is hardest on the economic sector which has been modified to suit the war scenario and not a development mode for a country. The United States was not an exception tot the rest of the nations that allied and those that fought against them. Therefore, in the post-war scenario, the economic state of the nations was not good. Congress in their agenda set the following goals on the table; achievement of full employment, return to full economic production as well as stable commodity prices (Cantor & Land, 1985). These indicate that the major factions of the economy that required much attention were the one s outlined here.

It is important to note that after the creation of the atomic bomb, United States emerged out of the World War as the world leading economy. It is following this effect that the Vice President turn President, Truman signed the Marshall Plan (Warner, 1974). Thereby, Truman established the United Sates as an economic power by offering over 40 billion dollars loans to rebuild the European nations (Gaddis, 1974). The nations of Europe were in the blink of disaster economically, politically and socially after the war wounds were exposed (Hogan, 1987).

He pushed for the employment act which was passed by Congress and managed to reconvert the military production industries and personnel back to civilian based within a very short time, thereby returning the nation to its productive state (Higgs, n.a). Truman employed a tactic that saw his opposition party take-up the challenge to save the economy by trying to win over his ideas. Therefore, all he did was asses and pass bills.

Perhaps, the most important achievement that President Truman achieved was to place U.S at the foreground of international economic development (Freeland, 1972). This was necessary given that its role in the international forum had been boosted during the play out of the Second World War.

12.       Describe the Truman Doctrine. What were its long-term implications?

The doctrine ensued after Britain dropped all responsibilities to aiding foreign nations in their internal affairs, withdrawing military and economic support. Congress obliged to the Presidents request to take up responsibility to aid the now weak and defenseless Greece and Turkey (Warner, 1974). However, America was not to be involved in a military manner, rather, they offered financial tokens that saw the refurbishment and strengthening of the said countries’ military power to resist their internal wars (De Long & Eichengreen, 1991).

The Doctrine encompasses all nations of democratic rule that experience threat from internal or external repressive forces (Spalding, 2012). Thereby, including the two nations that was in desperate need of aid; Turkey and Greece. At the moment, the action was directed at trying to fight off the possible corruption the nations by interventions by the Soviet Union who had a running cold war with the United States (Caute, 1978). However, the United States unknowingly committed their resources to the service of the entire world intervening in conflicts that are not her own (Merrill, 2006). The ideology is a contrast from her previous stand point of evasion from other regional conflicts that does not affect her.

Therefore, the Truman Doctrine served a greater purpose than just helping out Greece. In the long Run, all similarly afflicted nations have an assured source of military and economic aid.

13. World War II

The World War 2 was a war fought in the years between 1939 and 1945 in the European Continent and 1930s to 1940s in part of Asia and the Pacific. WWII started on 1^st of September 1939 and lasted until 2^ND September of 1945. Nazi Germany started the global conflict upon invading Germany and forcing it to surrender to its conquest. The end of the war was concluded when Japan, the last Axis nation surrendered. Nazi Germany had surrendered earlier to the Allied forces in 8^th May, 1945 (Dear, 1995). 

The war was not limited to the Eurasia region alone as it spilled to some parts of Africa and the Americas and involved a succession of major marine battles. The WWII was the largest armed conflict to ever occur in history spanning across the whole world and engrossing more nations than any other previous wars over and above involving powerful novel weapons and terminating in the first use of atomic weapons.  It is vital to note that not all nations in the world were directly involved in the war and some countries were actually neutral in the conflict. However a majority of the ‘neutral’ countries acted as spies for the blocs that they secretly supported. For instance, the date for the D-Day was transmitted through Ireland, Switzerland and Sweden through Atlantic weather (Dear, 1995).

The war devastated civilians more brutally than any other that had been seen before and acted as a milieu for genocides committed by Nazi Germany toward Gypsies, Romanies, Mulattos, Jews, Jehovah Witnesses, and Poles. Other mass killings were undertaken by Japan in China and Korea while internal murders tool place inside Russia. Civilian targets were also heavily bombed in Germany and Japan by the Allies. The War took over 6million lives of Poles and 11 million of Jews. Intoto, WWII claimed over 50million lives in the world (Dear, 1995). 

14. Nazi Rise to Power

Hitler and his Nazi party rose to power in 1933 by employing various tactics: use of political crusades and campaigns, use of direct coercion and action, and the role of the SA. All these factors contributed usually unequally in the rise of a powerful relentless political/ ideological party (Fischer, 1995). After WWI, there were social and political chaos in Germany and many extreme and violent groups took root in the country. Among the parties was NSDAP, a weak political party which Hitler had joined in 1919 before becoming the chairman in 1920. Due to army and military background, NSDAP which he later renamed National Socialist Party (NAZI) became more and more of a military party. The party meetings resembled army parades and Hitler spoke to the members with deep emotions. Within the party was a gang called ‘storm troopers’ whom the party would use to physically assault rival politicians. In fact Hitler was briefly sent to jail in 1921 for a part in a planned attack on a rival politician (Fischer, 1995). 

Hitler used the SA to disrupt rival’s meetings and protect himself frequently. H e went on highly emotional sprees across Germany inciting hatred against Jews, and other supporters to the Allies. Violence became rampant against the communists and socialists. For the Jews, harassment became normal (Fischer, 1995). 

After serving 9months at Landsberg prison, Hitler left the jail to find a Germany that was improved and devoid of disruption. In 1925 he has decided that it was prudent to have his party NSDAP participate in election as opposed to using force to affect them. In December 1924, Nazi got about 3% of total votes while the rival SDP garnered 26%. Moreover, Hitler knew how to spread propaganda and ideologies to listens to a point that the citizens believed it (Fischer, 1995). 

References

Atkins, G. P., & Wilson, L. C. (1998). The Dominican Republic and the United States: from imperialism to transnationalism. University of Georgia Press.

Baer, G. W. (1973). Sanctions and security: The League of Nations and the Italian–Ethiopian war, 1935–1936. International Organization, 27(02), 165-179.

Bellamy, C. (2008). Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the Second World War. Vintage.

Berman, A. (1990). In Mitigation of Illegality: The US Invasion of Panama. Ky. LJ, 79, 735.

Bernstein, M. A., & Bernstein, M. A. (1989). The Great Depression: delayed recovery and economic change in America, 1929-1939. Cambridge University Press.

Bochner, S. (Ed.). (2013). Cultures in contact: Studies in cross-cultural interaction (Vol. 1). Elsevier.

Borgwardt, E. (2005). When You State a Moral Principle, You Are Stuck with It: The 1941 Atlantic Charter as a Human Rights Instrument. Va. J. Int’l L., 46, 501.

Boyle, J. H. (1972). China and Japan at war, 1937-1945: the politics of collaboration. Stanford University Press.

Brinkley, D., & Facey-Crowther, D. R. (1994). The Atlantic Charter (Vol. 8). Macmillan.

Cantor, D., & Land, K. C. (1985). Unemployment and crime rates in the post-World War II United States: A theoretical and empirical analysis. American Sociological Review, 317-332.

Caute, D. (1978). The great fear (pp. 361-88). NY: Simon & Schuster.

Churchill, W., & Roosevelt, F. (1941). Atlantic Charter (Vol. 14). August.

Churchill, W., & Roosevelt, F. (1941). Atlantic Charter (Vol. 14). August.

Datta-Ray, S. K. (2007). World War II Legacies for India. Legacies of World War II in South and East Asia, 183.

De Long, J. B., & Eichengreen, B. (1991). The Marshall Plan: History’s most successful structural adjustment program (No. w3899). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Dear, I. (1995). The Oxford companion to World War II (p. 468). New York: Oxford University Press.

Dulles, F. R., & Ridinger, G. E. (1955). The Anti-Colonial Policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Political Science Quarterly, 1-18.

Eichengreen, B. (1995). Central bank co-operation and exchange rate commitments: the classical and interwar gold standards compared. Financial History Review, 2(02), 99-117.

Eichengreen, B., & Temin, P. (2000). The gold standard and the great depression. Contemporary European History, 9(02), 183-207.

Ellis, J. (1980). The sharp end of war: the fighting man in World War II. David & Charles.

Feis, H. (2015). The atomic bomb and the end of World War II. Princeton University Press.

Fischer, K. P. (1995). Nazi Germany: a new history (Vol. 1). Burns & Oates.

Forrest, R., & Kearns, A. (2001). Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood. Urban studies, 38(12), 2125-2143.

Frankel, J. A., & Kahler, M. (Eds.). (2007). Regionalism and Rivalry: Japan and the US in Pacific Asia. University of Chicago Press.

Freeland, R. M. (1972). The Truman Doctrine and the Origins of McCarthyism: Foreign Policy, Domestic Politics, and Internal Security, 1946-1948. New York: Knopf, 1972 [c1971].

Gaddis, J. L. (1974). Was the Truman Doctrine a real turning point?. Foreign Affairs, 386-402.

Higgs, R. (n.a) The American Transition, 1945-1947. Communications, 202, 725-7722.

Hogan, M. J. (1987). The Marshall Plan: America, Britain and the Reconstruction of Western Europe, 1947-1952. Cambridge University Press.

Howarth, Stephen (1983), the Fighting Ships of the Rising Sun, Athenaeum

Hoyt, E. P. (2008). Pearl Harbor Attack. Sterling Publishing Company, Inc..

Hsu, L. H., & Zhang, M. (Eds.). (1972). History of the Sino-Japanese war (1937-1945). Chung Wu Pub. Co..

Kennedy, Paul (1983), the Rise and fall of British Naval Mastery, London: Macmillan

Merrill, D. (2006). The Truman Doctrine: Containing Communism and Modernity. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 36(1), 27-37.

Pease, D. E. (1993). Cultures of United States Imperialism. Duke University Press.

Sainsbury, K. (1986). The Turning Point: Roosevelt, Stalin, Churchill, and Chiang-Kai-Shek, 1943: the Moscow, Cairo, and Teheran Conferences. Oxford University Press, USA.

Sempa, F. P. (2013). Conservative Internationalism. American Diplomacy, 1.

Smith, J. C., & Burns, P. (1983). Good Neighbour on Trial: Good Neighbours Make Bad Law, The. U. Brit. Colum. L. Rev., 17, 93.

Sola, M. (2005). US Intervention and regime change in Nicaragua. U of Nebraska Press.

Spalding, E. E. (2012). The Truman Doctrine. A Companion to Harry S. Truman, 327-346.

Takaki, R. T. (1996). Hiroshima: Why America dropped the atomic bomb. Back Bay Books.

Trumpbour, J. (2007). Selling Hollywood to the world: US and European struggles for mastery of the global film industry, 1920-1950. Cambridge University Press.

Walker, J. S. (1990). The decision to use the Bomb: A Historiographical Update. Diplomatic History, 14(1), 97-114.

Walters, F. P. (1965). A History of the League of Nations. Oxford University Press.

Warner, G. (1974). The Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan.

Warner, G. (1974). The Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan.

Wheeler, G. E. (1961). Isolated Japan: Anglo-American Diplomatic Co-operation, 1927-1936. The Pacific Historical Review, 165-178.