# data[].attributes.body
This link will define fascism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
fas·​cism | \ ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi- \

often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Spring Words Quiz

Budtime is defined as:

Test your knowledge - and maybe learn something along the way.

TAKE THE QUIZ

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible... See the full definition

# data[].attributes.body
Japanese takes over Manchuria.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Empire of Japan's Kwantung Army invaded Manchuria on 18 September 1931, immediately following the Mukden Incident. At the war's end in February 1932, the Japanese established the puppet state of Manchukuo. Their occupation lasted until the success of the Soviet Union and Mongolia with the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation in mid-August 1945, towards the end of the Second World War.

The South Manchuria Railway Zone and the Korean Peninsula had been under the control of the Japanese Empire since the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. Japan's ongoing industrialization and militarization ensured their growing dependence on oil and metal imports from the US. The US sanctions which prevented trade with the United States (which had occupied the Philippines around the same time) resulted in Japan furthering its expansion in the territory of China and Southeast Asia. The invasion of Manchuria, or the Marco Polo Bridge Incident of 7 July 1937, are sometimes cited as alternative starting dates for World War II, in contrast with the more commonly accepted date of September 1, 1939.

With the invasion having attracted great international attention, the League of Nations produced the Lytton Commission (headed by British politician Victor Bulwer-Lytton) to evaluate the situation, with the organization delivering its findings in October 1932. Its findings and recommendations that the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo not be recognized and the return of Manchuria to Chinese sovereignty prompted the Japanese government to withdraw from the League entirely.

A minor dispute known as the Wanpaoshan incident between Chinese and Korean farmers occurred on July 1, 1931. The issue was highly sensationalized in the Imperial Japanese and Korean press, and used for considerable propaganda effect to increase anti-Chinese sentiment in the Empire of Japan.

Believing that a conflict in Manchuria would be in the best interests of Japan, and acting in the spirit of the Japanese concept of , Kwantung Army Colonel Seishirō Itagaki and Lieutenant Colonel Kanji Ishiwara independently devised a plan to provoke Japan into invading Manchuria by setting up a false flag incident for the pretext of invasion.

The operation was originally planned to be executed on 28 September, but the date was changed to September 18[citation needed ]. When 1st Lieutenant Suemori Komoto of the Independent Garrison Unit (独立守備隊) of the 29th Infantry Regiment (which guarded the South Manchuria Railway) placed explosives near the tracks, but far enough away to do no real damage. At around 10:20 pm (22:20) on September 18, the explosives were detonated. However, the explosion was minor and only a 1.5-meter section on one side of the rail was damaged. In fact, a train from Changchun passed by the site on this damaged track without difficulty and arrived at Shenyang at 10:30 pm (22:30).

On the morning of September 19, two artillery pieces installed at the Mukden officers' club opened fire on the Chinese garrison nearby, in response to the alleged Chinese attack on the railway. Zhang Xueliang's small air force was destroyed, and his soldiers fled their destroyed Beidaying barracks, as five hundred Japanese troops attacked the Chinese garrison of around seven thousand. The Chinese troops were no match for the experienced Japanese troops. By the evening, the fighting was over, and the Japanese had occupied Mukden at the cost of five hundred Chinese lives and only two Japanese lives, thus starting the greater invasion of Manchuria.

On September 18, 1931, the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, which had decided upon a policy of localizing the incident, communicated its decision to the Kwantung Army command. However, Kwantung Army commander-in-chief General Shigeru Honjō instead ordered his forces to proceed to expand operations all along the South Manchuria Railway. Under orders from Lieutenant General Jirō Tamon, troops of the 2nd Division moved up the rail line and captured virtually every city along its 1,170-kilometre (730-mile) length in a matter of days.

Likewise on September 19, in response to General Honjō's request, the Joseon army in Korea under General Senjūrō Hayashi ordered the 20th Infantry Division to split its force, forming the 39th Mixed Brigade, which departed on that day for Manchuria without authorization from the Emperor. On September 19, the Japanese occupied Yingkou, Liaoyang, Shenyang, Fushun, Dandong, Siping (Jilin Province), and Changchun. On September 21, the Japanese captured Jilin City. On 23 September, the Japanese took Jiaohe (Jilin) Province) and Dunhua. On 1 October, Zhang Haipeng surrendered the Taonan area. Sometime in October, Ji Xing (吉興) surrendered the Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture area and on 17 October, Yu Zhishan surrendered Eastern Liaoning to the Japanese.

Tokyo was shocked by the news of the Army acting without orders from the central government. The Japanese civilian government was thrown into disarray by this act of "gekokujō" insubordination, but as reports of one quick victory after another began to arrive, it felt powerless to oppose the Army, and its decision was to immediately send three more infantry divisions from Japan, beginning with the 14th Mixed Brigade of the IJA 7th Division.[when? ] During this era, the elected government could be held hostage by the Army and Navy, since Army and Navy members were constitutionally necessary for the formation of cabinets. Without their support, the government would collapse.

After the Liaoning Provincial government fled Mukden, it was replaced by a "Peoples Preservation Committee" which declared the secession of Liaoning province from the Republic of China. Other secessionist movements were organized in Japanese-occupied Kirin by General Xi Qia head of the "New Kirin" Army, and at Harbin, by General Chang Ching-hui. In early October, at Taonan in northwest Liaoning province, General Zhang Haipeng declared his district independent of China, in return for a shipment of a large number of military supplies by the Japanese Army.

On October 13, General Chang Hai-peng ordered three regiments of the Hsingan Reclamation Army under General Xu Jinglong north to take the capital of Heilongjiang province at Qiqihar. Some elements in the city offered to peacefully surrender the old walled town, and Chang advanced cautiously to accept. However his advance guard was attacked by General Dou Lianfang's troops, and in a savage fight with an engineering company defending the north bank, were sent fleeing with heavy losses. During this fight, the Nenjiang railroad bridge was dynamited by troops loyal to General Ma Zhanshan to prevent its use.

Using the repair of the Nen River Bridge as the pretext, the Japanese sent a repair party in early November under the protection of Japanese troops. Fighting erupted between the Japanese forces and troops loyal to the acting governor of Heilongjiang province Muslim General Ma Zhanshan, who chose to disobey the Kuomintang government's ban on further resistance to the Japanese invasion.

Despite his failure to hold the bridge, General Ma Zhanshan became a national hero in China for his resistance at Nenjiang Bridge, which was widely reported in the Chinese and international press. The publicity inspired more volunteers to enlist in the Anti-Japanese Volunteer Armies.

The repaired bridge made possible the further advance of Japanese forces and their armored trains. Additional troops from Japan, notably the 4th Mixed Brigade from the 8th Division, were sent in November.

On November 15, 1931, despite having lost more than 400 men and 300 left wounded since 5 November, General Ma declined a Japanese ultimatum to surrender Qiqihar. On 17 November, in subzero weather, 3,500 Japanese troops, under the command of General Jirō Tamon, mounted an attack, forcing General Ma from Qiqihar by 19 November.

In late November 1931, General Honjō dispatched 10,000 soldiers in 13 armored trains, escorted by a squadron of bombers, in an advance on Chinchow from Mukden. This force had advanced to within 30 kilometres (19 mi) of Chinchow when it received an order to withdraw. The operation was cancelled by Japanese War Minister General Jirō Minami, due to the acceptance of modified form of a League of Nations proposal for a "neutral zone" to be established as a buffer zone between China proper and Manchuria pending a future Chinese-Japanese peace conference by the civilian government of Prime Minister Baron Wakatsuki in Tokyo.

However, the two sides failed to reach a lasting agreement. The Wakatsuki government soon fell and was replaced by a new cabinet led by Prime Minister Inukai Tsuyoshi. Further negotiations with the Kuomintang government failed, the Japanese government authorized the reinforcement of troops in Manchuria. In December, the rest of 20th Infantry Division, along with the 38th Mixed Brigade from the 19th Infantry Division were sent into Manchuria from Korea while the 8th Mixed Brigade from the 10th Infantry Division was sent from Japan. The total strength of the Kwantung Army was thus increased to around 60,450 men.[citation needed ]

With this stronger force, the Japanese Army announced on December 21, the beginning of large-scale anti-bandit operations in Manchuria to quell a growing resistance movement by the local Chinese population in Liaoning and Kirin provinces.

On December 28, a new government was formed in China after all members of the old Nanjing government resigned. This threw the military command into turmoil, and the Chinese army retreated to the south of the Great Wall into Hebei province, a humiliating move which lowered China's international image. Japanese forces occupied Chinchow on January 3, 1932, after the Chinese defenders retreated without giving combat.

With southern Manchuria secure, the Japanese turned north to complete the occupation of Manchuria. As negotiations with Generals Ma Zhanshan and Ting Chao to defect to the pro-Japanese side had failed, in early January Colonel Kenji Doihara requested collaborationist General Qia Xi to advance his forces and take Harbin.

The last major Chinese regular force in northern Manchuria was led by General Ting Chao who organized the defense of Harbin successfully against General Xi until the arrival of the IJA 2nd Division under General Jirō Tamon. Japanese forces took Harbin on February 4, 1932.

By the end of February Ma had sought terms and joined the newly formed Manchukuo government as governor of Heilongjiang province and Minister of War.

On February 27, 1932, Ting offered to cease hostilities, ending official Chinese resistance in Manchuria, although combat by guerrilla and irregular forces continued as Japan spent many years in their campaign to pacify Manchukuo.

The conquest of Manchuria, a land rich in natural resources, was widely seen as an economic "lifeline" to save Japan from the effects of the Great Depression, generating much public support. The American historian Louise Young described Japan from September 1931 to the spring of 1933 as gripped by "war fever" as the conquest of Manchuria proved to be an extremely popular war. The metaphor of a "lifeline" suggested that Manchuria was crucial to the functioning of the Japanese economy, which explains why the conquest of Manchuria was so popular and why afterwards Japanese public opinion was so hostile towards any suggestion of letting Manchuria go.

At the time, censorship in Japan was nowhere near as stringent as it later became, and Young noted: "Had they wished, it would have been possible in 1931 and 1932 for journalists and editors to express anti-war sentiments". The liberal journal criticized the war with the journalist Gotō Shinobu in the November 1931 edition accusing the Kwangtung Army of a "two-fold coup d'état" against both the government in Tokyo and against the government of China. Voices like Kaizō were a minority as mainstream newspapers like the soon discovered that an anti-war editorial position hurt sales, and so switched over to an aggressively militaristic editorial position as the best way to increase sales. Japan's most famous pacifist, the poet Akiko Yosano had caused a sensation in 1904 with her anti-war poem "Brother Do Not Give Your Life", addressed to her younger brother serving in the Imperial Army that called the war with Russia stupid and senseless. Such was the extent of "war fever" in Japan in 1931 that even Akiko succumbed, writing a poem in 1932 praising , urging the Kwantung Army to "smash the sissified dreams of compromise" and declared that to die for the Emperor in battle was the "purest" act a Japanese man could perform.

The Western media reported on the events with accounts of atrocities such as bombing civilians or firing upon shell-shocked survivors. It aroused considerable antipathy to Japan, which lasted until the end of World War II.

When the Lytton Commission issued a report on the invasion, despite its statements that China had to a certain extent provoked Japan, and China's sovereignty over Manchuria was not absolute, Japan took it as an unacceptable rebuke and withdrew from the already declining League of Nations, which also helped create international isolation.

The Manchurian Crisis had a significant negative effect on the moral strength and influence of the League of Nations. As critics had predicted, the League was powerless if a strong nation decided to pursue an aggressive policy against other countries, allowing a country such as Japan to commit blatant aggression without serious consequences. Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini were also aware of this, and ultimately both followed Japan's example in aggression against their neighbors: in the case of Italy, against Abyssinia; and Germany, against Czechoslovakia and Poland.

Thorne, Christopher. "Viscount Cecil, the Government and the Far Eastern Crisis of 1931." Historical Journal 14, no. 4 (1971): 805-26. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2638108 online].

Sun, Fengyun. 《東北抗日聯軍鬥爭史》

Coogan, Anthony (1994). Northeast China and the Origins of the Anti-Japanese United Front. Modern China, Vol. 20, No. 3 (July 1994), pp. 282-314: Sage Publications.

Matsusaka, Yoshihisa Tak (2003). The Making of Japanese Manchuria, 1904-1932. Harvard University Asia Center. ISBN 978-0-674-01206-6.

Guo, Rugui (2005-07-01). Huang Yuzhang (ed.). 中国抗日战争正面战场作战记 [China's Anti-Japanese War Combat Operations]. Jiangsu People's Publishing House. ISBN 7-214-03034-9.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Japanese invasion of Manchuria - Wikipedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Empire of Japan's Kwantung Army invaded Manchuria on 18 September 1931, immediately following the Mukden Incident. At the war's end in February 1932, the Japanese established the puppet state of Manchukuo. Their occupation lasted until the success of the Soviet Union and Mongolia with the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation in mid-August 1945, towards the end of the Second World War.

# data[].attributes.body
Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.

# data[].attributes.body
This link will tell you about the Foreign Policy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Selected alliance, adversarial, and other relationships of the United States

Other NATO defense pact allies

Non-NATO EU members allied indirectly via the EU CSDP

Primary adversaries identified in The Final Report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States (October 2023)

The officially stated goals of the foreign policy of the United States of America, including all the bureaus and offices in the United States Department of State, as mentioned in the Foreign Policy Agenda of the Department of State, are "to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community". Liberalism has been a key component of US foreign policy since its independence from Britain. Since the end of World War II, the United States has had a grand strategy which has been characterized as being oriented around primacy, "deep engagement", and/or liberal hegemony. This strategy entails that the United States maintains military predominance; builds and maintains an extensive network of allies (exemplified by NATO, bilateral alliances and foreign US military bases); integrates other states into US-designed international institutions (such as the IMF, WTO/GATT and World Bank); and limits the spread of nuclear weapons.

The United States House Committee on Foreign Affairs states as some of its jurisdictional goals: "export controls, including nonproliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear hardware; measures to foster commercial interaction with foreign nations and to safeguard American business abroad; international commodity agreements; international education; protection of American citizens abroad; and expulsion". U.S. foreign policy and foreign aid have been the subject of much debate, praise, and criticism, both domestically and abroad.

Article Two of the United States Constitution grants power of foreign policy to the President of the United States, including powers to command the military, negotiate treaties, and appoint ambassadors. The Department of State carries out the president's foreign policy. The State Department is usually pulled between the wishes of Congress, and the wishes of the residing president. The Department of Defense carries out the president's military policy. The Central Intelligence Agency is an independent agency responsible for gathering intelligence on foreign activity. Some checks and balances are applied to the president's powers of foreign policy. Treaties negotiated by the president require ratification by the Senate to take force as United States law. The president's ambassadorial nominations also require Senate approval before taking office. Military actions must first be approved by both chambers of Congress.

The Constitution grants Congress the power to approve the president's picks for ambassadors and the power to declare war. The president is commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces. He appoints a Secretary of State and ambassadors with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Secretary acts similarly to a foreign minister, because they are the primary conductor of foreign affairs. While foreign policy has varied slightly from president to president, there have generally been consistently similar goals throughout different administrations.

Generally speaking there are 4 schools of thought regarding foreign policy. First is Neo-Isolationists, who believe the United States should maintain a very narrow focus and avoid all involvement in the rest of the world. Second is selective-engagement which avoids all conflicts with other nations, and is semi-restrictive on its foreign policy. Third is cooperative security, which requires more involvement throughout the world, occasionally countering threats to the country. Finally is the idea of primacy which seeks to advance the United States well beyond all other nations of the world, placing it first in all matters.

Much of American foreign policy consists of international agreements made with other countries. Treaties are governed by the Treaty Clause of the United States Constitution. This clause dictates that the president negotiates treaties with other countries or political entities, and signs them. For a treaty to be ratified, it must be approved by the Committee on Foreign Relations and then be approved by at least two-thirds of the United States Senate in a floor vote. If approved, the United States exchanges the instruments of ratification with the relevant foreign states. In Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to make treaties under the U.S. Constitution is a power separate from the other enumerated powers of the federal government, and hence the federal government can use treaties to legislate in areas which would otherwise fall within the exclusive authority of the states. Between 1789 and 1990, the Senate approved more than 1,500 treaties, rejected 21 and withdrew 85 without further action. As of 2019, 37 treaties were pending Senate approval.

In addition to treaties, the president can also make executive agreements. These agreements are made under the president's power of setting foreign policy, but they are not ratified by the Senate and as a result are not legally binding. In contrast to most other nations, the United States regards treaties and executive agreements as legally distinct. Congress may pass a resolution to enshrine an executive agreement into law, but the constitutionality of this action has been questioned.

The State Department has taken the position that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties represents established law. Following ratification, the United States incorporates treaty law into the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties after they are ratified. This can overrule an agreed-upon treaty obligation even if that is seen as a violation of the treaty under international law. Several U.S. court rulings confirmed this understanding, including Supreme Court decisions in Paquete Habana v. the United States (1900), and Reid v. Covert (1957), as well as a lower court ruling in Garcia-Mir v. Meese (1986). As a result of the Reid v. Covert decision, the United States adds a reservation to the text of every treaty that says in effect that the United States intends to abide by the treaty but that if the treaty is found to be in violation of the Constitution, the United States legally is then unable to abide by the treaty since the American signature would be ultra vires.

The main trend regarding the history of U.S. foreign policy since the American Revolution is the shift from non-interventionism before and after World War I, to its growth as a world power and global hegemon during World War II and throughout the Cold War in the 20th century. Since the 19th century, U.S. foreign policy also has been characterized by a shift from the realist school to the idealistic or Wilsonian school of international relations. Over time, other themes, key goals, attitudes, or stances have been variously expressed by presidential 'doctrines'.

Foreign policy themes were expressed considerably in George Washington's farewell address; these included, among other things, observing good faith and justice towards all nations and cultivating peace and harmony with all, excluding both "inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others", "steer[ing] clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world", and advocating trade with all nations. Foreign policy in the first years of American independence constituted the balancing of relations with Great Britain and France. The Federalist Party supported Washington's foreign policy and sought close ties with Britain, but the Democratic-Republican Party favored France. Under the Federalist government of John Adams, the United States engaged in conflict with France in the Quasi-War, but the rival Jeffersonians feared Britain and favored France in the 1790s, declaring the War of 1812 on Britain. Jeffersonians vigorously opposed a large standing army and any navy until attacks against American shipping by Barbary corsairs spurred the country into developing a navy, resulting in the First Barbary War in 1801.

American foreign policy was mostly peaceful and marked by steady expansion of its foreign trade during the 19th century. As the Jeffersonians took power in the 1800s, they opposed a large standing army and any navy until attacks against American shipping by Barbary corsairs spurred the country into developing a naval force projection capability, resulting in the First Barbary War in 1801. The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 doubled the nation's geographical area. The American policy of neutrality had caused tensions to rise with Britain in the Atlantic and with Native American nations in the frontier. This led to the War of 1812 and helped cement American foreign policy as independent of Europe. After the War of 1812, there were diagreements between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton as to whether the United States should be isolated or be more involved in global activities.

In the 1820s, the Monroe Doctrine was established as the primary foreign policy doctrine of the United States, establishing Latin America as an American sphere of influence and rejecting European colonization in the region. The 1830s and 1840s were marked by increasing conflict with Mexico, exacerbated by the Texas annexation and culminating in the Mexican-American War in 1846. Following the war, the United States claimed much of what is now the Southwestern United States, and the Gadsden Purchase further expanded this territory. Relations with Britain continued to be strained as a result of border conflicts until they were resolved by the Webster-Ashburton Treaty in 1842. The Perry Expedition of 1853 led to Japan establishing relations with the United States.

The Diplomacy of the American Civil War emphasized preventing European involvement in the war. During the Civil War, Spain and France defied the Monroe Doctrine and expanded their colonial influence in the Dominican Republic and Mexico, respectively. The Alaska Purchase was negotiated with Russia in 1867 and the Newlands Resolution annexed Hawaii in 1898. The Spanish-American War took place during 1898, resulting in the United States claiming Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, and causing Spain to retract claims upon Cuba. Generally speaking the Foreign Policy of the United States during this era was anchored in a policy of wealth building for the nation.

Following the Spanish-American War, the United States entered the 20th century as an emerging great power with colonies in the Caribbean and the Pacific. Under Theodore Roosevelt, the United States adopted the Roosevelt Corollary, which indicated American willingness to use its military strength to end conflicts and wrongdoings in Latin America. Following the independence of Panama, the United States and Panama negotiated the construction of the Panama Canal, during which time the Panama Canal Zone was placed under American jurisdiction. The United States established the Open Door Policy with China during this time as well. The 20th century was marked by two world wars in which Allied powers, along with the United States, defeated their enemies, and through this participation the United States increased its international reputation.

Entry into the First World War was a hotly debated issue in the 1916 presidential election.

In response to the Russian revolutions,

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it.

President Wilson's Fourteen Points was developed from his idealistic Wilsonianism program of spreading democracy and fighting militarism to prevent future wars. It became the basis of the German Armistice (which amounted to a military surrender) and the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. The resulting Treaty of Versailles, due to European allies' punitive and territorial designs, showed insufficient conformity with these points, and the U.S. signed separate treaties with each of its adversaries; due to Senate objections also, the U.S. never joined the League of Nations, which was established as a result of Wilson's initiative. In the 1920s, the United States followed an independent course, and succeeded in a program of naval disarmament, and refunding the German economy. Operating outside the League it became a dominant player in diplomatic affairs. New York became the financial capital of the world, but the Wall Street Crash of 1929 hurled the Western industrialized world into the Great Depression. American trade policy relied on high tariffs under the Republicans, and reciprocal trade agreements under the Democrats, but in any case exports were at very low levels in the 1930s. Post WWI, the United States entered back into isolation from world events. This was largely due to the Great Depression of 1929.

Allies of World War II at the Yalta Conference: Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin

The United States adopted an isolationist foreign policy from 1932 to 1938, but this position was challenged by the outbreak of World War II in 1939. Franklin D. Roosevelt advocated strong support of the allies, establishing the United States as the Arsenal of Democracy by providing military equipment without entering the war. Following the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States joined the allies as combatants in World War II.

United States provided Lend-Lease grants of $50,000,000,000. Working closely with Winston Churchill of Britain, and Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union, Roosevelt sent his forces into the Pacific against Japan, then into North Africa against Italy and Germany, and finally into Europe starting with France and Italy in 1944 against the Germans. The American economy roared forward, doubling industrial production, and building vast quantities of airplanes, ships, tanks, munitions, and, finally, the atomic bomb. The culmination of World War II ended in the defeat of Nazi Germany, and the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The post World War II era saw the rise of the United States as the global leader, which necessitated an effort by the United States to instill liberal democracy around the world.

After the war, the U.S. rose to become the dominant economic power with broad influence in much of the world, with the key policies of the Marshall Plan and the Truman Doctrine. Almost immediately, two broad camps formed during the Cold War; one side was led by the U.S. and the other by the Soviet Union, but this situation also led to the establishment of the Non-Aligned Movement. This period lasted until almost the end of the 20th century and is thought to be both an ideological and power struggle between the two superpowers. The United States extended its influence in the years after World War II, enacting the Marshall Plan to support the reconstruction process in European countries and seeking to combat Communism through containment. This strategy of containment resulted in the Korean War and the Vietnam War. The Vietnam War in particular was highly controversial, and its perceived failures reduced popularity for foreign intervention in the United States. The invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union contributed directly to fueling tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union. This began with President Carter announcing the United States interests in maintaining the status quo within the Persian Gulf region, resulting in the Carter Doctrine. The Regan administration escalated the tensions by supporting freedom fighters around the world, most notably in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion. The Soviet Union and the United States did not engage in

direct conflict, but rather supported small proxies that opposed the other. In 1991, the Soviet Union dissolved into separate nations, and the Cold War formally ended as the United States gave separate diplomatic recognition to the Russian Federation and other former Soviet states.

In domestic politics, foreign policy was not usually a central issue. In 1945-1970, the Democratic Party took a strong anti-Communist line and supported wars in Korea and Vietnam. Then the party split with a strong, "dovish", pacifist element (typified by 1972 presidential candidate George McGovern). Many "hawks", advocates for war, joined the neoconservative movement and started supporting the Republicans-especially Reagan-based on foreign policy. Meanwhile, down to 1952 the Republican Party was split between an isolationist wing, based in the Midwest and led by Senator Robert A. Taft, and an internationalist wing based in the East and led by Dwight D. Eisenhower. Eisenhower defeated Taft for the 1952 nomination largely on foreign policy grounds. Since then the Republicans have been characterized by American nationalism, strong opposition to Communism, and strong support for Israel.

Following the end of the Cold War, the United States entered the 21st century as the sole superpower, though this status has been challenged by China, India, Russia, and the European Union. Substantial problems remain, such as climate change, nuclear proliferation, and the specter of international terrorism.

The September 11 attacks in 2001 caused a policy shift, in which America declared a " war on terror". The United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and invaded Iraq in 2003, emphasizing nation-building and the neutralization of terrorist threats in the Middle East. During the war on terror, the United States significantly expanded its military and intelligence capacities while also pursuing economic methods of targeting opposing governments. After a phased withdrawal from Iraq, In 2014, the Islamic State emerged as a major hostile power in the Middle East, and the United States led a military intervention in Iraq and Syria to combat it. The extended nature of American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has resulted in support for isolationism and reduced involvement in foreign conflicts.

In 2017, diplomats from other countries developed new tactics to engage with President Donald Trump's brand of American nationalism. Peter Baker of The New York Times reported on the eve of his first foreign trip as president that the global diplomatic community had devised a strategy of keeping interactions brief, complimenting him, and giving him something he can consider a victory. Before the Trump presidency, foreign policy in the U.S. was the result of bipartisan consensus on an agenda of strengthening its position as the number one power. That consensus has since fractured, with Republican and Democratic politicians increasingly calling for a more restrained approach. Foreign policy under the Trump administration involved heightened tensions with Iran, a trade war through increased tariffs, and a reduced role in international organizations.

Advancing a " Free and Open Indo-Pacific" has become the core of the U.S. national security strategy and has been embraced by both Democratic and Republican administrations. The United States ended its wars in the Greater Middle East with the withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. Unlike the Trump administration, which is more concerned with containing China's influence, foreign policy of the Biden-Harris administration shifted to an increased focus on Russia following the attempted Russian election interference in 2016 and developments in the Russo-Ukrainian War. With the rise of Russia and China as co-superpowers, the United States has had to shift its relations to more cooperation rather than coercion, with Russia and China pursuing a more self serving global system.

In early 2023, when China brokered the long-awaited reconciliation of Saudi-Arabia Iran relations, the U.S. found itself on the sidelines of political developments in the Middle East. The JCPOA, which attempted to control the nuclear capabilities of Iran, was not fully reinstated after the Trump administration abandoned the international agreement supported by European powers in 2018. As China attempted to fill this vacuum, the 2022 Russian invasion of the Ukraine further tested the international alliances with the U.S. Iran and other larger powers such as India as well as Arab nations did not adopt any of the economic sanctions imposed on Russia but to the contrary, increased their economic and strategic alliances with Russia or China. As China is focussing primarily on the global expansion of its economy, Russia was able to maintain its military and energy-related influence not only in Asia but also in Africa and South America. With regard to the Middle East, trade from these nations with China is three times greater than the trade with the U.S. As China is extending its mid-East reach, Russia despite its battered economy from sanctions still remains influential in South America with trade relations that are difficult to deconstruct through U.S. American influence. While China's influence in the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Africa is still hindered by commercial and currency-related U.S. trade policies, it is perceived more and more as a peace negotiator than a communist aggressor, particularly outside of Europe and North America. While the U.S. still upholds its moral dominance by advocating liberal democracies, its foreign policies are increasingly marked by a perceived inability to defend its image as an exporter of peace and prosperity.

The diplomatic policy of the United States is created by the president and carried out by the Department of State. The department's stated mission is to "protect and promote U.S. security, prosperity, and democratic values and shape an international environment in which all Americans can thrive." Its objectives during the 2022-2026 period include renewing U.S. leadership, promoting global prosperity, strengthening democratic institutions, revitalizing the diplomatic workforce and institutions, and serving U.S. citizens abroad. As of 2022, the United States has bilateral relations with all but four United Nations members.

The United States government emphasizes human rights in foreign policy. Annual reports produced by the Department of State, such as "Advancing Freedom and Democracy" and the " Country Reports on Human Rights Practices", track the status of human rights around the world. The National Endowment for Democracy provides financial aid to promote democracy internationally.

The United States is party to thousands of international agreements with other countries, territories, and international organizations. These include arms control agreements, human rights treaties, environmental protocols, and free trade agreements. Under the Compact of Free Association, the United States also maintains a relationship of free association with the countries of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau, grants the United States military access to the countries in exchange for military protection, foreign aid, and access domestic American agencies.

The United States is a member of many international organizations. It is a founding member of the United Nations and holds a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. The United States is also a member of other global organizations, including the World Trade Organization. Regional organizations in which the United States is a member include NATO, Organization of American States, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation. As the largest economy in the world, the United States is also a member of organizations for the most developed nations, including the OECD, the Group of Seven, and the G20.

The United States notably does not participate in various international agreements adhered to by almost all other industrialized countries, by almost all the countries of the Americas, or by almost all other countries in the world. With a large population and economy, on a practical level this can undermine the effect of certain agreements, or give other countries a precedent to cite for non-participation in various agreements.

In some cases the arguments against participation include that the United States should maximize its sovereignty and freedom of action, or that ratification would create a basis for lawsuits that would treat American citizens unfairly. In other cases, the debate became involved in domestic political issues, such as gun control, climate change, and the death penalty.

Examples include:

Versailles Treaty and the League of Nations covenant (in force 1920-45, signed but not ratified)

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (took effect in 1976, ratified with substantial reservations)

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (took effect in 1976, signed but not ratified)

American Convention on Human Rights (took effect in 1978)

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (took effect in 1981, signed but not ratified)

Convention on the Rights of the Child (took effect in 1990, signed but not ratified)

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (took effect in 1994)

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (signed in 1996 but never ratified and never took effect)

Mine Ban Treaty (took effect in 1999)

International Criminal Court (took effect in 2002)

Kyoto Protocol (in force 2005-12, signed but not ratified)

Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (took effect in 2006)

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (took effect in 2008, signed but not ratified)

Convention on Cluster Munitions (took effect in 2010)

International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (took effect in 2010)

Arms Trade Treaty (took effect in 2014)

Other human rights treaties

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (took effect in 2016 as part of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231. Signed by the U.S., France, Germany, European Union, UK, Russia, China and Iran, but abandoned by the U.S. in 2018)

Foreign assistance is a core component of the State Department's international affairs budget, and aid is considered an essential instrument of U.S. foreign policy. There are four major categories of non-military foreign assistance: bilateral development aid, economic assistance supporting U.S. political and security goals, humanitarian aid, and multilateral economic contributions (for example, contributions to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund). In absolute dollar terms, the United States government is the largest international aid donor. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) manages the bulk of bilateral economic assistance, while the Treasury Department handles most multilateral aid. Foreign aid is a highly partisan issue in the United States, with liberals, on average, supporting foreign aid much more than conservatives do.

The United States first began distributing regular foreign aid in the aftermath of World War II and the onset of the Cold War. Foreign aid has been used to foster closer relations with foreign nations, strengthen countries that could potentially become future allies and trading partners, and provide assistance for people of countries most in need. American foreign aid contributed to the Green Revolution in the 1960s and the democratization of Taiwan and Colombia. Since the 1970s, issues of human rights have become increasingly important in American foreign policy, and several acts of Congress served to restrict foreign aid from governments that "engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights". In 2011, President Obama instructed agencies to consider LGBT rights when issuing financial aid to foreign countries. In the 2019 fiscal year, the United States spent $39.2 billion in foreign aid, constituting less than one percent of the federal budget.

United States foreign policy is influenced by the efforts of the U.S. government to control imports of illicit drugs, including cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and cannabis. This is especially true in Latin America, a focus for the U.S. War on Drugs. These foreign policy efforts date back to at least the 1900s, when the U.S. banned the importation of non-medical opium and participated in the 1909 International Opium Commission, one of the first international drug conferences.

Over a century later, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act requires the President to identify the major drug transit or major illicit drug-producing countries. In September 2005, the following countries were identified: Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Jamaica, Laos, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela. Two of these, Burma and Venezuela are countries that the U.S. considers to have failed to adhere to their obligations under international counternarcotics agreements during the previous 12 months. Notably absent from the 2005 list were Afghanistan, the People's Republic of China and Vietnam; Canada was also omitted in spite of evidence that criminal groups there are increasingly involved in the production of MDMA destined for the United States and that large-scale cross-border trafficking of Canadian-grown cannabis continues. The U.S. believes that the Netherlands are successfully countering the production and flow of MDMA to the U.S.

In 2011, overdose deaths in the U.S. were on a decline mostly due to interdiction efforts and international cooperation to reduce the production of illicit drugs. Since about 2014, a reversal of this trend could be clearly seen as legal semi-synthetic opioids and cocaine stimulants were replaced by the fully synthetic fentanyl and methamphetamine. By 2022, overdose deaths caused by illicit fentanyl led to the worst drug crisis the U.S. has ever experienced in its history, with 1,500 people dying every week of overdose-related cases. By 2022, deaths caused by fentanyl significantly reduced the life expectancy in the U.S. and were also seen as a major drag on the U.S. economy. Despite efforts to control the trade of chemicals used in the synthesis of fentanyl, the tide of fentanyl-related deaths continues to be a major threat to U.S. national security.

This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it.

American involvement with Africa has historically been limited. During the war on terror, the United States increased its activities in Africa to fight terrorism in conjunction with African countries as well as to support democracy in Africa through the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Africa has also been the subject of competition between American and Chinese investment strategies. In 2007 the U.S. was Sub-Saharan Africa's largest single export market accounting for 28% of exports (second in total to the EU at 31%). 81% of U.S. imports from this region were petroleum products.

America's relations with Asia have tended to be based on a "hub and spoke" model instead of multilateral relations, using a series of bilateral relationships where states coordinate with the United States instead of through a unified bloc. On May 30, 2009, at the Shangri-La Dialogue, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates urged the nations of Asia to build on this hub and spoke model as they established and grew multilateral institutions such as ASEAN, APEC and the ad hoc arrangements in the area. In 2011, Gates said the United States must serve as the "indispensable nation", for building multilateral cooperation. As of 2022, the Department of Defense considers China to be the greatest threat to the policy goals of the United States.

Canada has historically been a close ally to the United States, and their foreign policies often work in conjunction. The armed forces of Canada and the United States have a high level of interoperability, and domestic air force operations have been fully integrated between the two countries through NORAD. Almost all of Canada's energy exports go to the United States, making it the largest foreign source of U.S. energy imports; Canada is consistently among the top sources for U.S. oil imports, and it is the largest source of U.S. natural gas and electricity imports. Trade between the United States and Canada as well as Mexico is facilitated through the USMCA.

The United States has close ties with the European Union, and it is a member of NATO along with several European countries. The United States has close relations with most countries of Europe. Much of American foreign policy has involved combating the Soviet Union in the 20th century and Russia in the 21st century.

The Monroe Doctrine has historically made up the foreign policy of the United States in regard to Latin America. Under this policy, the United States would consider Latin America to be under its sphere of influence and defend Latin American countries from European hostilities. The United States was heavily involved in the politics of Panama during the early-20th century in order to construct the Panama Canal. Cuba was an ally of the United States following its independence, but it was identified as a major national security threat following the Cuban Revolution; Cuba-United States relations remain poor.

The Middle East region was first proclaimed to be of national interest to the United States during World War II, and relations were secured with Saudi Arabia to secure additional oil supplies. The Middle East continued to be regarded as an area of vital importance to the United States during the Cold War, and American containment policy emphasized preventing Soviet influence from taking hold in the Middle East. The Truman Doctrine, the Eisenhower Doctrine, and the Nixon Doctrine all played roles in the formulation of the Carter Doctrine, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. Carter's successor, President Ronald Reagan, extended the policy in October 1981 with the Reagan Doctrine, which proclaimed that the United States would intervene to protect Saudi Arabia, whose security was threatened after the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War. During the war on terror, the United States increased its involvement in the region; some analysts have argued that the implementation of the Carter Doctrine and the Reagan Doctrine also played a role in the outbreak of the 2003 Iraq War.

Two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves are estimated to be found in the Persian Gulf, and the United States imports oil from several Middle Eastern countries. While its imports have exceeded domestic production since the early 1990s, new hydraulic fracturing techniques and discovery of shale oil deposits in Canada and the American Dakotas offer the potential for increased energy independence from oil exporting countries such as OPEC.

Australia and New Zealand are close allies of the United States. Together, the three countries compose the ANZUS collective security agreement. The United States and the United Kingdom also have a separate agreement, AUKUS, with Australia. After it captured the islands from Japan during World War II, the United States administered the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands from 1947 to 1986 (1994 for Palau). The Northern Mariana Islands became a U.S. territory (part of the United States), while Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau became independent countries. Each has signed a Compact of Free Association that gives the United States exclusive military access in return for U.S. defense protection and conduct of military foreign affairs (except the declaration of war) and a few billion dollars of aid. These agreements also generally allow citizens of these countries to live and work in the United States with their spouses (and vice versa), and provide for largely free trade. The federal government also grants access to services from domestic agencies, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Weather Service, the United States Postal Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, and U.S. representation to the International Frequency Registration Board of the International Telecommunication Union.

Defense policy of the United States is established by the president under the role of commander-in-chief, and it is carried out by the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. As of 2022, the stated objective of the Department of Defense is to deter attacks against the United States and its allies in order to protect the American people, expand America's prosperity, and defend democratic values. The department recognizes China as the greatest foreign threat to the United States, with Russia, North Korea, Iran, and violent extremist organizations recognized as other major foreign threats. Most American troops stationed in foreign countries operate in non-combat roles. As of 2021, about 173,000 troops are deployed in 159 countries. Japan, Germany, and South Korea are host to the largest numbers of American troops due to continued military cooperation following World War II and the Korean War. The United States has not been involved in a major war since the conclusion of the War in Afghanistan in 2021, though American forces continue to operate against terrorist groups in the Middle East and Africa through the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001. The United States also provides billions of dollars of military aid to allied countries each year.

The Constitution of the United States requires that Congress authorize any military conflict initiated by the president. This has been carried out through formal declarations of war, Congressional authorizations without formal declaration, and through United Nations Security Council Resolutions that are legally recognized by Congress. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 limited the ability of the president to use the military without Congressional authorization. Prior to 2001, 125 instances of American presidents using military force without Congressional authorization had been identified. Since 2001, the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 (AUMF) has granted the president the power to engage in military conflict with any country, organization, or person that was involved in carrying out the September 11 attacks. American presidents have since interpreted the AUMF to authorize military campaigns against terrorist groups associated with Al-Qaeda in several countries.

The Department of Defense considers cooperation with American allies and partners to be "critical" to achieving American defense objectives. The department makes a distinction between alliances, which are formal military agreements between countries through a treaty, and strategic partnerships, which are military cooperation agreements that aren't bound by specific terms. The United States military works in cooperation with many national governments, and the United States has approximately 750 military bases in at least 80 different countries. In addition to military agreements, the United States is a member of multiple international disarmament organizations, including the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

A map of allies of the United States

NATO member states, including their colonies and overseas possessions

The United States is a founding member of NATO, an alliance of 29 North American and European nations formed to defend Western Europe against the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Under the NATO charter, the United States legally recognizes any attack on a NATO member as an attack on all NATO members. The United States is also a founding member of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, an alliance of 19 North and South American nations. The United States is one of the three members of ANZUS, along with Australia and New Zealand, and it also has military alliances with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Thailand. Under the Compact of Free Association, the United States is responsible for the defense of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau. The United States has also designated several countries as major non-NATO allies. These are countries that are not members of NATO but are granted certain privileges in regard to defense trade and security cooperation, including eligibility for certain trade deals and research collaboration. The president is empowered to designate additional foreign countries as major non-NATO allies.

Since it became a superpower in the mid-20th century, the United States has primarily carried out defense operations by leading and participating in multilateral coalitions. These coalitions may be constructed around existing defensive alliances, such as NATO, or through separate coalitions constructed through diplomatic negotiations and acting in a common interest. The United States has not engaged in unilateral military action since the invasion of Panama in 1989. United States military action may take place in accordance with or in opposition to the wishes of the United Nations. The United States has opposed the expansion of United Nations peacekeeping beyond its previous scope, instead supporting the use of multilateral coalitions in hostile countries and territories.

U.S. Air Force Special Tactics Commandos training with Jordanian special operations forces

The U.S. provides military aid through many channels, including direct funding, support for training, or distribution of military equipment. Military aid spending has varied over time, with spending reaching as high as $35 billion in 1952, adjusted for inflation. The United States established a cohesive military aid policy during World War II, when the Lend-Lease program was implemented to support the Allied powers. After the war, the United States continued to provide military aid in line with other foreign aid programs to support American allies. Programs such as Foreign Military Financing and Foreign Military Sales oversee distribution of military aid.

According to a 2016 report by the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. topped the market in global weapon sales for 2015, with $40 billion sold. The largest buyers were Qatar, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Pakistan, Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Iraq. In 2020, the United States distributed $11.6 billion in military aid, the lowest since 2004. Military aid is one of the main forms of foreign aid, with 23% of American foreign aid in 2020 taking the form of military aid. Afghanistan was the primary recipient of American military aid in the 2010s. In 2022, military aid policy in the United States shifted from Afghanistan to Ukraine following the end of the War in Afghanistan and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. As of 2021, the United States has military bases in at least 80 countries.

The table below outlines the ten largest recipients of United States military aid in 2020 and their estimated aid in billions.

The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was a proposal by U.S. President Ronald Reagan on March 23, 1983 to use ground and space-based systems to protect the United States from attack by strategic nuclear ballistic missiles, later dubbed "Star Wars". The initiative focused on strategic defense rather than the prior strategic offense doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD). Though it was never fully developed or deployed, the research and technologies of SDI paved the way for some anti-ballistic missile systems of today.

In February 2007, the U.S. started formal negotiations with Poland and Czech Republic concerning construction of missile shield installations in those countries for a Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system (in April 2007, 57% of Poles opposed the plan). According to press reports, the government of the Czech Republic agreed (while 67% Czechs disagree) to host a missile defense radar on its territory while a base of missile interceptors is supposed to be built in Poland.

Russia threatened to place short-range nuclear missiles on the Russia's border with NATO if the United States refuses to abandon plans to deploy 10 interceptor missiles and a radar in Poland and the Czech Republic. In April 2007, Putin warned of a new Cold War if the Americans deployed the shield in Central Europe. Putin also said that Russia is prepared to abandon its obligations under an Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987 with the United States.

On August 14, 2008, the United States and Poland announced a deal to implement the missile defense system in Polish territory, with a tracking system placed in the Czech Republic. "The fact that this was signed in a period of very difficult crisis in the relations between Russia and the United States over the situation in Georgia shows that, of course, the missile defense system will be deployed not against Iran but against the strategic potential of Russia", Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's NATO envoy, said.

Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, argue in Foreign Affairs that U.S. missile defenses are designed to secure Washington's nuclear primacy and are chiefly directed at potential rivals, such as Russia and China. The authors note that Washington continues to eschew nuclear first strike and contend that deploying missile defenses "would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one; as an adjunct to a US First Strike capability, not as a stand-alone shield":

If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with only a tiny surviving arsenal, if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes.

This analysis is corroborated by the Pentagon's 1992 Defense Planning Guidance (DPG), prepared by then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney and his deputies. The DPG declares that the United States should use its power to "prevent the reemergence of a new rival" either on former Soviet territory or elsewhere. The authors of the Guidance determined that the United States had to "Field a missile defense system as a shield against accidental missile launches or limited missile strikes by 'international outlaws'" and also must "Find ways to integrate the 'new democracies' of the former Soviet bloc into the U.S.-led system". The National Archive notes that Document 10 of the DPG includes wording about "disarming capabilities to destroy" which is followed by several blacked out words. "This suggests that some of the heavily excised pages in the still-classified DPG drafts may include some discussion of preventive action against threatening nuclear and other WMD programs."

Robert David English, writing in Foreign Affairs, observes that the DPG's second recommendation has also been proceeding on course. "Washington has pursued policies that have ignored Russian interests (and sometimes international law as well) in order to encircle Moscow with military alliances and trade blocs conducive to U.S. interests."

Studies have been devoted to the historical success rate of the U.S. in exporting democracy abroad. Some studies of American intervention have been pessimistic about the overall effectiveness of U.S. efforts to encourage democracy in foreign nations. Until recently, scholars have generally agreed with international relations professor Abraham Lowenthal that U.S. attempts to export democracy have been "negligible, often counterproductive, and only occasionally positive". Other studies find U.S. intervention has had mixed results, and another by Hermann and Kegley has found that military interventions have improved democracy in other countries.

Intelligence policy is developed by the president and carried out by the United States Intelligence Community, led by the Director of National Intelligence. The Intelligence Community includes 17 offices and bureaus within various executive departments as well as the Central Intelligence Agency. Its stated purpose is to utilize insights, protected information, and understanding of adversaries to advance national security, economic strength, and technological superiority.

The Intelligence Community is responsible for counterintelligence to protect the United States from foreign intelligence services. The Central Intelligence Agency is responsible for counterintelligence activities abroad, while the Federal Bureau of Investigation is responsible for combating foreign intelligence operations in the United States. The goal of American counterintelligence is to protect classified government information as well as trade secrets of American industry. Offensive counterintelligence operations undertaken by the United States include recruiting foreign intelligence agents, monitoring suspected foreign agents, and collecting information on the intentions of foreign intelligence services, while defensive counterintelligence operations include investigating suspected cases of espionage and producing analyses of foreign intelligence threats.

In addition to intelligence gathering, the Central Intelligence Agency is authorized by the National Security Act of 1947 to engage in covert action. Covert action is undertaken to influence conditions in foreign countries without evidence of American involvement. This may include enacting propaganda campaigns, offering support to factions within a country, providing logistical assistance to foreign governments, or disrupting illegal activities. The use of covert action is controversial within the Intelligence Community due to the potential harm to foreign relations and public image, but most individuals involved in American intelligence cite it as an "essential" option to prevent terrorism, drug trafficking, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

United States foreign policy also includes covert actions to topple foreign governments that have been opposed to the United States. According to J. Dana Stuster, writing in Foreign Policy, there are seven "confirmed cases" where the U.S.-acting principally through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), but sometimes with the support of other parts of the U.S. government, including the Navy and State Department-covertly assisted in the overthrow of a foreign government: Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Congo in 1960, the Dominican Republic in 1961, South Vietnam in 1963, Brazil in 1964, and Chile in 1973. Stuster states that this list excludes "U.S.-supported insurgencies and failed assassination attempts" such as those directed against Cuba's Fidel Castro, as well as instances where U.S. involvement has been alleged but not proven (such as Syria in 1949).

In 1953 the CIA, working with the British government, initiated Operation Ajax against the Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mossadegh who had attempted to nationalize Iran's oil, threatening the interests of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. This had the effect of restoring and strengthening the authoritarian monarchical reign of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. In 1957, the CIA and Israeli Mossad aided the Iranian government in establishing its intelligence service, SAVAK, later blamed for the torture and execution of the regime's opponents.

A year later, in Operation PBSuccess, the CIA assisted the local military in toppling the democratically elected left-wing government of Jacobo Árbenz in Guatemala and installing the military dictator Carlos Castillo Armas. The United Fruit Company lobbied for Árbenz's overthrow as his land reforms jeopardized their land holdings in Guatemala, and painted these reforms as a communist threat. The coup triggered a decades long civil war which claimed the lives of an estimated 200,000 people (42,275 individual cases have been documented), mostly through 626 massacres against the Maya population perpetrated by the U.S.-backed Guatemalan military. An independent Historical Clarification Commission found that U.S. corporations and government officials "exercised pressure to maintain the country's archaic and unjust socio-economic structure", and that U.S. military assistance had a "significant bearing on human rights violations during the armed confrontation".

During the massacre of at least 500,000 alleged communists in 1960s Indonesia, U.S. government officials encouraged and applauded the mass killings while providing covert assistance to the Indonesian military which helped facilitate them. This included the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta supplying Indonesian forces with lists of up to 5,000 names of suspected members of the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI), who were subsequently killed in the massacres. In 2001, the CIA attempted to prevent the publication of the State Department volume Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964-1968, which documents the U.S. role in providing covert assistance to the Indonesian military for the express purpose of the extirpation of the PKI. In July 2016, an international panel of judges ruled the killings constitute crimes against humanity, and that the US, along with other Western governments, were complicit in these crimes.

In 1970, the CIA worked with coup-plotters in Chile in the attempted kidnapping of General René Schneider, who was targeted for refusing to participate in a military coup upon the election of Salvador Allende. Schneider was shot in the botched attempt and died three days later. The CIA later paid the group $35,000 for the failed kidnapping.

According to one peer-reviewed study, the U.S. intervened in 81 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000.

The failed 1961 CIA Bay of Pigs Invasion in Cuba was an attempt by the U.S. government to overthrow a regime. Not only did this cause a diplomatic embarrassment, it also damaged the CIA's credibility internationally.

United States foreign policy has been the subject of debate, receiving praise and criticism domestically and abroad. As of 2019, public opinion in the United States is closely divided on American involvement in world affairs. 53% of Americans wish for the United States to be active in world affairs, while 46% of Americans wish for less involvement overseas. American involvement in the global economy is received more positively by the American people, with 73% considering it to be a "good thing".

Public opinion on the US (2022)

President George W. Bush and Slovakia's Prime Minister Mikulas Dzurinda are greeted by a crowd of thousands gathered in Bratislava's Hviezdoslavovo Square (February 2005).

International opinion about the US has often changed with different executive administrations. For example, in 2009, the French public favored the United States when President Barack Obama (75% favorable) replaced President George W. Bush (42%). After President Donald Trump took the helm in 2017, French public opinion about the US fell from 63% to 46%. These trends were also seen in other European countries.

Many democracies have voluntary military ties with the United States. See NATO, ANZUS, U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, Mutual Defense Treaty with South Korea, and Major non-NATO ally. Those nations with military alliances with the U.S. can spend less on the military since they can count on U.S. protection. This may give a false impression that the U.S. is less peaceful than those nations. A 2013 global poll in 65 countries found that the United States is perceived as the biggest threat to world peace, with 24% of respondents identifying it as such. A majority of Russian respondents named the United States as the greatest threat, as well as significant minorities in China, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Argentina, Greece, Turkey, and Pakistan.

Dedication ceremony of the Embassy of the United States in Jerusalem, Israel, 14 May 2018

Empirical studies (see democide) have found that democracies, including the United States, inflict significantly fewer civilian casualties than dictatorships. Media may be biased against the U.S. regarding reporting human rights violations. Studies have found that The New York Times coverage of worldwide human rights violations predominantly focuses on the human rights violations in nations where there is clear U.S. involvement, while having relatively little coverage of the human rights violations in other nations. For example, the bloodiest war in recent time, involving eight nations and killing millions of civilians, was the Second Congo War, which was almost completely ignored by the media.

Journalists and human rights organizations have been critical of US-led airstrikes and targeted killings by drones which have in some cases resulted in collateral damage of civilian populations. In early 2017, the U.S. faced criticism from some scholars, activists and media outlets for dropping 26,171 bombs on seven countries throughout 2016: Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.

Research on the democratic peace theory has generally found that democracies, including the United States, have not made war on one another. There have been U.S. support for coups against some democracies, but for example Spencer R. Weart argues that part of the explanation was the perception, correct or not, that these states were turning into Communist dictatorships. Also important was the role of rarely transparent United States government agencies, who sometimes mislead or did not fully implement the decisions of elected civilian leaders.

Critics from the left cite episodes that undercut leftist governments or showed support for Israel. Others cite human rights abuses and violations of international law. Critics have charged that the U.S. presidents have used democracy to justify military intervention abroad. Critics also point to declassified records which indicate that the CIA under Allen Dulles and the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover aggressively recruited more than 1,000 Nazis, including those responsible for war crimes, to use as spies and informants against the Soviet Union in the Cold War.

Studies have been devoted to the historical success rate of the U.S. in exporting democracy abroad. Some studies of American intervention have been pessimistic about the overall effectiveness of U.S. efforts to encourage democracy in foreign nations. Some scholars have generally agreed with international relations professor Abraham Lowenthal that U.S. attempts to export democracy have been "negligible, often counterproductive, and only occasionally positive". Other studies find U.S. intervention has had mixed results, and another by Hermann and Kegley has found that military interventions have improved democracy in other countries.

America's history of non-intervention has been criticized as well. In his World Policy Journal review of Bill Kauffman's 1995 book America First! Its History, Culture, and Politics, Benjamin Schwartz described America's history of isolationism as a "tragedy" and being rooted in Puritan thinking.

Today the U.S. states that democratic nations best support U.S. national interests. According to the U.S. State Department, "Democracy is the one national interest that helps to secure all the others. Democratically governed nations are more likely to secure the peace, deter aggression, expand open markets, promote economic development, protect American citizens, combat international terrorism and crime, uphold human and worker rights, avoid humanitarian crises and refugee flows, improve the global environment, and protect human health." According to former U.S. President Bill Clinton, "Ultimately, the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere. Democracies don't attack each other." In one view mentioned by the U.S. State Department, democracy is also good for business. Countries that embrace political reforms are also more likely to pursue economic reforms that improve the productivity of businesses. Accordingly, since the mid-1980s, under President Ronald Reagan, there has been an increase in levels of foreign direct investment going to emerging market democracies relative to countries that have not undertaken political reforms. Leaked cables in 2010 suggested that the "dark shadow of terrorism still dominates the United States' relations with the world".

The United States officially maintains that it supports democracy and human rights through several tools. Examples of these tools are as follows:

A published yearly report by the State Department entitled "Advancing Freedom and Democracy",[47] issued in compliance with ADVANCE Democracy Act of 2007 (earlier the report was known as "Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record" and was issued in compliance with a 2002 law).[48]

A yearly published "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices".[49]

In 2006 (under President George W. Bush), the United States created a "Human Rights Defenders Fund" and "Freedom Awards".[179]

The "Human Rights and Democracy Achievement Award" recognizes the exceptional achievement of officers of foreign affairs agencies posted abroad.[180]

The "Ambassadorial Roundtable Series", created in 2006, are informal discussions between newly confirmed U.S. Ambassadors and human rights and democracy non-governmental organizations.[181]

The National Endowment for Democracy, a private non-profit created by Congress in 1983 (and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan), which is mostly funded by the U.S. Government and gives cash grants to strengthen democratic institutions around the world.[182]

Barack Obama with King Salman of Saudi Arabia, January 2015. According to Amnesty International, "For too long, the USA has shied away from publicly confronting Saudi Arabia over its human rights record, largely turning a blind eye to a mounting catalogue of abuses."[183]

Both currently and historically, the United States has been willing to cooperate with authoritarian governments to pursue its geopolitical goals. The U.S. has faced criticism for backing right-wing dictators that systematically violated human rights, such as Augusto Pinochet of Chile, Alfredo Stroessner of Paraguay, Efraín Ríos Montt of Guatemala, Jorge Rafael Videla of Argentina, Hissène Habré of Chad Yahya Khan of Pakistan and Suharto of Indonesia. Critics have also accused the United States of facilitating and supporting state terrorism in the Global South during the Cold War, such as Operation Condor, an international campaign of political assassination and state terror organized by right-wing military dictatorships in the Southern Cone of South America.

Regarding support for certain anti-Communist dictatorships during the Cold War, a response is that they were seen as a necessary evil, with the alternatives even worse Communist or fundamentalist dictatorships. David Schmitz says this policy did not serve U.S. interests. Friendly tyrants resisted necessary reforms and destroyed the political center (though not in South Korea), while the ' realist' policy of coddling dictators brought a backlash among foreign populations with long memories.

The U.S. has been accused of complicity in war crimes for backing the Saudi Arabian-led intervention into the Yemeni Civil War, which has triggered a humanitarian catastrophe, including a cholera outbreak and millions facing starvation.

Niall Ferguson argues that the U.S. is incorrectly blamed for all of the human rights violations perpetrated by U.S.-supported governments. Ferguson writes that there is general agreement that Guatemala was the worst of the U.S.-backed regimes during the Cold War, but the U.S. cannot be credibly blamed for all of the estimated 200,000 deaths during the long Guatemalan Civil War. The U.S. Intelligence Oversight Board writes that military aid was cut for long periods because of such violations, that the U.S. helped stop a coup in 1993, and that efforts were made to improve the conduct of the security services.

Zairean dictator Mobutu Sese Seko and Richard Nixon in Washington, D.C., October 1973

Since the 1970s, issues of human rights have become increasingly important in American foreign policy. Congress took the lead in the 1970s. Following the Vietnam War, the feeling that U.S. foreign policy had grown apart from traditional American values was seized upon by Representative Donald M. Fraser (D, MN), leading the Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, in criticizing Republican Foreign Policy under the Nixon administration. In the early 1970s, Congress concluded the Vietnam War and passed the War Powers Act. As "part of a growing assertiveness by Congress about many aspects of Foreign Policy", human rights concerns became a battleground between the Legislative and the Executive branches in the formulation of foreign policy. David Forsythe points to three specific, early examples of Congress interjecting its own thoughts on foreign policy:

1. Subsection (a) of the International Financial Assistance Act of 1977: ensured assistance through international financial institutions would be limited to countries "other than those whose governments engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights".

2. Section 116 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended in 1984: reads in part, "No assistance may be provided under this part to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights."

3. Section 502B of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended in 1978: "No security assistance may be provided to any country the government of which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights."

These measures were repeatedly used by Congress, with varying success, to affect U.S. foreign policy towards the inclusion of Human Rights concerns. Specific examples include El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and South Africa. The Executive (from Nixon to Reagan) argued that the Cold War required placing regional security in favor of U.S. interests over any behavioral concerns of national allies. Congress argued the opposite, in favor of distancing the United States from oppressive regimes. Nevertheless, according to historian Daniel Goldhagen, during the last two decades of the Cold War, the number of American client states practicing mass murder outnumbered those of the Soviet Union. John Henry Coatsworth, a historian of Latin America and the provost of Columbia University, suggests the number of repression victims in Latin America alone far surpassed that of the USSR and its East European satellites during the period 1960 to 1990. W. John Green contends that the United States was an "essential enabler" of "Latin America's political murder habit, bringing out and allowing to flourish some of the region's worst tendencies".

On December 6, 2011, Obama instructed agencies to consider LGBT rights when issuing financial aid to foreign countries. He also criticized Russia's law discriminating against gays, joining other western leaders in the boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Russia.

Bailey, Thomas. A Diplomatic History of the American People (10th ed. Prentice Hall, 1980) online

Bevins, Vincent (2020). The Jakarta Method: Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World. PublicAffairs. ISBN 978-1-5417-4240-6.

Bokat-Lindell, Spencer. "Is the United States Done Being the World's Cop?". The New York Times. July 20, 2021.

Borgwardt, Elizabeth. A New Deal for the World (Harvard University Press, 2005)

Chomsky, Noam. Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance (Metropolitan Books, 2003)

Cohen, Warren I. The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations: Volume 4, America in the Age of Soviet Power, 1945-1991 (Cambridge University Press, 1995)

Congressional Research Service. Canada-U.S. Relations (Congressional Research Service, 2021) 2021 Report, by an agency of the U.S. government; not copyright; Updated February 10, 2021.

Crothers, Lane. "The cultural roots of isolationism and internationalism in American foreign policy". Journal of Transatlantic Studies 9.1 (2011): 21-34. online

Dueck, Colin. Hard Line: The Republican Party and U.S. Foreign Policy since World War II (2010).

Fawcett, Louise, ed. International Relations of the Middle East (3rd ed. Oxford U.P. 2013)

Foot, Rosemary, and Amy King. "Assessing the deterioration in China-US relations: US governmental perspectives on the economic-security nexus". China International Strategy Review 1.1 (2019): 39-50 online

Franczak, Michael. Global Inequality and American Foreign Policy in the 1970s. (Cornell UP, 2022) On US foreign policy response to New International Economic Order (NEIO)online book review

Freedman, Lawrence. A Choice of Enemies: America Confronts the Middle East (PublicAffairs, 2009)

Gries, Peter Hays. The Politics of American Foreign Policy: How Ideology Divides Liberals and Conservatives over Foreign Affairs (Stanford University Press, 2014)

Hastedt, Glenn P. Encyclopedia of American Foreign Policy (2004) online

Hastedt, Glenn P. American foreign policy (4th ed. 2000) online

Hermann, Margaret G.; Kegley, Charles (1998). "The U.S. Use of Military Intervention to Promote Democracy: Evaluating the Record". International Interactions. 24 (2): 91-114. doi:10.1080/03050629808434922.

Herring, George C. From Colony to Superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1776 (Oxford History of the United States) (2008) excerpt

Hixson, Walter L. The Myth of American Diplomacy: National Identity and U.S. Foreign Policy. Yale University Press, 2009. ISBN 978-0-300-15131-2

Hook, Steven W. and John Spanier. American Foreign Policy Since WWII (19th ed. 2012)

Ikenberry, G. John, ed. American Foreign Policy: Theoretical Essays (6th ed. Wadsworth, 2010), 640pp; essays by scholars

Iriye, Akira. The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations: Volume 3, The Globalizing of America, 1913-1945 (Cambridge University Press, 1995)

Jentleson, Bruce W. American Foreign Policy: The Dynamics of Choice in the 21st Century (4th ed. W. W. Norton, 2010)

Jentleson, Bruce W. and Thomas G. Paterson, eds. Encyclopedia of U.S. Foreign Relations (4 vol 1997), long historical articles by scholars online

LaFeber, Walter. The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations: The American Search for Opportunity, 1865-1913, vol. 2 (Cambridge University Press, 1995)

Lowenthal, Abraham F. (March 1, 1991). Exporting Democracy : The United States and Latin America. The Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-4132-3.

McCormick, James M. et al. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence (2012)

McDougall, Walter. "Promised Land, Crusader State" (2004)

Mead, Walter Russell, and Richard C. Leone. Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World (2002)

Meernik, James (1996). "United States Military Intervention and the Promotion of Democracy". Journal of Peace Research. 33 (4): 391-402. doi:10.1177/0022343396033004002. JSTOR 424565. S2CID 51897214.

Moyn, Samuel (2021). Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Reinvented War. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. ISBN 978-0-374-17370-8.

Nichols, Christopher McKnight. "Promise and Peril: America at the Dawn of a Global Age" (2011)

Paterson, Thomas G. and others. American Foreign Relations (6th ed. 2 vol, Wadsworth, 2004), a detailed history

Perkins, Bradford. The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations: Volume 1, The Creation of a Republican Empire, 1776-1865 (Cambridge University Press, 1995)

Power, Samantha. "A Problem from Hell": America and the Age of Genocide (2002) covers Bosnia, Kosovo, Srebenica, and Rwanda; Pulitzer Prize.online

Sergent, Daniel J. A Superpower Transformed: The Remaking of American Foreign Relations in the 1970s (2015)

Schulzinger, Robert. U.S. Diplomacy Since 1900 (6th ed. 2008) online

Schulzinger, Robert. A Companion to American Foreign Relations (Wiley Blackwell Companions to American History) (2006). 26 essays by scholars; emphasis on historiography

Smith, Tony; Richard C. Leone (1995). America's Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-04466-8.

Watry, David M. Diplomacy at the Brink: Eisenhower, Churchill, and Eden in the Cold War. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2014.

Wittkopf, Eugene R. et al. American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process (2007)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Foreign policy of the United States - Wikipedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The officially stated goals of the foreign policy of the United States of America, including all the bureaus and offices in the United States Department of State, as mentioned in the Foreign Policy Agenda of the Department of State, are "to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community".

# data[].attributes.body
This link will tell you about the London Economic Conference of 1933.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
london economic conference of 1933the london economic conference of 1933 had its origins in president herbert hoover's 1931 call for an international conference to discuss how to raise prices and to reduce tariffs. the internationalists in hoover's cabinet hoped that once these issues were addressed economic recovery would set in. interest overseas in the proposal grew in europe in the summer of 1931 amid speculation that hoover's administration had finally recognized that reparations and war debts were interconnected.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
London Economic Conference of 1933 | Encyclopedia.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LONDON ECONOMIC CONFERENCE OF 1933The London Economic Conference of 1933 had its origins in President Herbert Hoover's 1931 call for an international conference to discuss how to raise prices and to reduce tariffs. The internationalists in Hoover's cabinet hoped that once these issues were addressed economic recovery would set in.

# data[].attributes.body
Roosevelt declared the "Good Neighbor Policy" to foster better relations with the nations to the south. This link will provide information on that policy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Good Neighbor Policy phrase was coined by President Herbert Hoover, not President Franklin Roosevelt. Hoover was on a goodwill trip to Latin America soon after his election in 1928 when he gave a speech in Honduras announcing, "We have a desire to maintain not only the cordial relations of governments with each other, but also the relations of good neighbors."

The intention of the new policy was to mend relations with Latin American countries after they criticized The Coolidge Administration during the Sixth Pan-American Conference in Havana in 1928 for armed interventions in Haiti and Nicaragua. U.S. relations with Latin America were at an all-time low.

During The Hoover Administration, policies were put into place to improve relations, such as the Clark Memorandum of 1930 in which the State Department retracted Theodore Roosevelt's Corollary to the 1823 Monroe Doctrine, which declared that only the United States could collect debts owed to foreigners by countries in the Western Hemisphere. The Clark Memorandum did not, however, repudiate the right to intervention itself. Also, Hoover's withdrawal of troops from Nicaragua and planned removal from Haiti improved relations with Latin America.

In President Franklin Roosevelt's inaugural address, he also promised to improve relations with Latin America by stating, "In the field of world policy, I dedicate this nation to the policy of the good neighbor — the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others." President Roosevelt did much to improve relations by assigning Secretary of State Cordell Hull to carry out his vision of this policy, which was to improve the ties between those countries and the United States to ensure non-hostile neighbors south of its borders. In addition, the policy sought to secure Latin American cooperation in the world war effort by maintaining the flow of petroleum and other raw materials.

Hull's policies of low tariffs improved the economies of the Latin American countries that had been hurt by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, especially in Cuba where low prices on sugar had previously made it impossible to sell to the United States. Also the Panama Canal Treaty was re-negotiated in 1936. In addition, when the United States restrained from intervening when Mexico expropriated foreign oil companies in 1938, both countries were able to arrange an amicable settlement.

In other efforts, Hull convened the Seventh Montevideo-Pan-American Conference in 1933 in Uruguay, where he committed to a policy of non-intervention into the affairs of Latin American countries. As evidence of his commitment, U.S. Marines were removed from Haiti in 1934 and Congress signed a treaty with Cuba nullifying the 1903 Platt Amendment, which authorized United States occupation of that country.

At the Conference for the Maintenance of Peace in Buenos Aires in 1936, the American nations agreed to mutual consultation if there was a security threat to any of the nations within the hemisphere. At the Eighth Pan-American Conference, held in Lima, Peru, Hull managed to obtain a resolution reasserting a united front against possible Axis aggression against American nations during the war, even though most Latin American countries at the time were ruled by generals who admired European facism.

Great strides had been made to improve relations between the United States and Latin America during World War II so that after the war's end, the U.S. was able to pursuade Latin American countries to join the Organization of American States, a regional organization under the United Nations that was largely funded by the United States.

However, postwar policies toward Latin American countries began to erode the previous progress made in those relationships when a newly structured economic power restored the monetary and financial strength of industrial countries, but largely ignored Latin America.

The Good Neighbor Policy and the Pan-American "war propaganda" were further abandoned when the United States ignored free trade overtures and viewed Latin America merely as a supplier of raw materials and tropical foodstuffs. As a result, Brazil began to restrict imports and to subsidize domestic industries, while drawing foreign companies to invest in Latin America caused friction with the United States, whose control over those economies began to slip.

During the Cold War (1946-1989), the threat of Communist infiltration into poverty-striken neighbors to the south caused the United States to once again intervene. Examples included Guatemala, where the CIA secretly intervened in 1954, and in Cuba, where Fidel Castro, with his rise to power in 1959, installed a government backed by the Soviet Union. The United States tried unsuccessfully to subvert the revolution in Cuba through the Bay of Pigs invasion by Cuban exiles in 1961. Castro allowed the Soviet Union to place nuclear missiles in Cuba a year later, to defend the island against continued threats from the United States. Those missiles were later removed, but Cuba continued to receive aid from the Soviet Union.

The U.S., concerned with possible further infiltration by the Soviet Union with foreign aid and military assistance to other Latin American countries, increased its own contribution of foreign aid and technical advice through its Alliance for Progress program — and subsidized secret police and armies throughout the region.

During the 1970s, Latin America was hurt by a jump in oil prices and a subsequent decline in foreign investment in those countries. Those countries expanded their investments in their own countries by amassing huge amounts of debt from money provided by international banks. Because of improper guidance and corruption elements within those governments, their debts became unpayable by 1980, and the military governments still in power resigned, leaving common citizens to run the government. Little was done by the United States to deal with those debts, which were associated with the decline of U.S. trade and investment in Latin America. But the U.S. continued to intervene when they invaded Grenada in 1983 where a leftist movement rose to power. They also funded Honduran-based guerrillas to fight the Nicaraguans and other covert operations to prevent further communist infiltration.

Other issues, such as the massive illegal immigration to the United States, the importation of drugs, and environmental degradation, further complicated relations with countries south of the border. But as the presence of Americans of Latin American descent grew, their influence culturally and politically helped to strengthen the bonds with those countries. In addition, as the United States began to be less competitive in foreign markets, discussions of a free trade area began to take place.

In a more recent version of the Good Neighbor Policy, the world's largest free trade area was created when the United States, Canada and Mexico launched the North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA). That 1994 agreement has brought economic growth and higher standards of living for all three countries and is committed to helping the partners to realize a more integrated and efficient North American economy.

In March 2002, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Otto J. Reich, spoke at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., regarding President George W. Bush's hemispheric policies. In his speech, Reich spoke of the challenges facing Latin American countries after a decade of reforms. Although the U.S. and other countries had experienced economic slowdowns, some Latin American countries were weathering the storm due to "...maintaining the course on reforms, maintaining fiscal descipline, liberalizing trade regimes, privatizing inefficient state industries, deregulating internal markets and investing in their own people."

Reich spoke eloquently of the Bush administration's version of the Good Neighbor Policy, stating,

"We get to freedom through democracy; to prosperity through trade; and to security through a concerted, multiple-layered effort to combat the scourges of terrorism, narcotics trafficking, criminality and lawlessness, and other transnational threats."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Good Neighbor Policy phrase was coined by President Herbert Hoover, not President Franklin Roosevelt. Hoover was on a goodwill trip to Latin America soon after his election in 1928 when he gave a speech in Honduras announcing, "We have a desire to maintain not only the cordial relations of governments with each other, but also the relations of good neighbors."

# data[].attributes.body
This link will tell you about the Plea for International Support.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Five international aid groups on Monday urged the United States government to halt all military support for a Saudi Arabia-UAE-led war in Yemen, saying this will save millions of lives.

A joint statement by the International Rescue Committee, Oxfam America, CARE US, Save the Children, and the Norwegian Refugee Council said that 14 million people are at risk of starving to death in Yemen if the parties to the conflict do not change course immediately.

The warring sides have undermined Yemen's economy with policies and practices that have caused rampant inflation while the value of currency plummets, it added.

"Starvation must not be used as a weapon of war against Yemeni civilians," the statement said.

"All warring parties, and those fuelling the conflict through arms transfers, are implicated in this totally man-made humanitarian crisis."

The charities called the US to back up its recent call for a cessation of hostilities in Yemen with genuine diplomatic pressure, mainly on Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

International outrage over the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi by Saudi agents in October in Turkey has also focused attention on Yemen's civil war, prompting the US to scale back its support for the coalition and call for a ceasefire by the end of this month.

Concerned by the rise of the Houthis, a Saudi-UAE military coalition, backed by the US, intervened in 2015 with a massive air campaign aimed at reinstalling the government of Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi.

Since then, data collected by Al Jazeera and the Yemen Data Project has found that more than 18,000 air raids have been carried out in Yemen, with almost one-third of all bombing missions striking non-military sites.

Weddings, funerals, schools and hospitals, as well as water and electricity plants, have been hit, killing and wounding thousands.

Tens of thousands of people have been killed in the war, and according to Save the Children, as many as 85,000 children under five "may have died from extreme hunger" or disease since 2015.

If it does not end its military support for the coalition, "the United States, too, will bear responsibility for what may be the largest famine in decades," the charities said.

SOURCE: Al Jazeera and news agencies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Aid groups in joint plea for US to cease support for Yemen war

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Five international aid groups on Monday urged the United States government to halt all military support for a Saudi Arabia-UAE-led war in Yemen, saying this will save millions of lives.

# data[].attributes.body
"Guernica," the slaughter of over 1,600 Spanish civilians by fascist forces. This link will tell you about this.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Sixty years ago, Hitler's warplanes bombed this mountain town to rubble. For the first time, Germany atoned for the slaughter in a solemn tribute Saturday to the more than 1,000 civilians who died.

As a bell recovered from a church destroyed in the April 26, 1937, attack tolled for its victims, German Ambassador Henning Wegener sat in the front row of wooden seats in Guernica's cemetery, his head bowed.German President Roman Herzog planned to apologize Sunday for the attack, the first air bombardment of an undefended town in history and immortalized in Pablo Picasso's "Guernica."

Germany's atonement comes after six decades, but it is not too late for survivors who remember the attack as if it happened yesterday.

"We were in a sandbagged shelter when it began," recalled Miren de Gomeza, 76, who along with Wegener placed wreaths at a victims' memorial. "We thought we would die and began to pray together, but we couldn't hear our voices above the bombs."

When de Gomeza and others in the shelter emerged after the three-hour bombardment, "we saw a Dante-esque scene. There was a red cloud over the town, trees and utility poles covered the streets, and all the houses were on fire."

Incendiary devices were among the 100,000 pounds of bombs dropped on Guernica by the German Condor Legion, which fought alongside Gen. Francisco Franco's fascist forces in the Spanish Civil War. It was the first time they were used against an urban target.

German fighter planes strafed civilians trying to flee into the countryside.

"The planes came very low," remembered Itziar de Arzanegi, who was 11 then. "We could even see the goggles on the pilots' faces. One old woman didn't run and instead screamed curses at them. She was hit by bullets."

De Arzanegi and de Gomeza, animatedly recounting the attack that left the streets littered with pieces of bodies, including many children, said an apology from Germany would be welcome. The death toll has never been clarified. Estimates range from 1,000 to 1,650.

Wegener, in an interview, noted Germany's acceptance of blame comes as new information is emerging about World War II, to which the Spanish Civil War was a prelude. The role of Swiss banks in accepting Nazi gold stolen from Jews, and of Franco protecting German spies and saboteurs have recently made headlines.

Historians still differ on whether the attack, in which some Italian pilots reportedly had a minor role, was mounted primarily to destroy a bridge outside Guernica to hamper a retreat by enemy Republican troops or to sow terror among civilians.

But the lack of outcry from Britain, which pursued an appeasement policy with Hitler, emboldened the Nazis and led to their bombing civilian targets in World War II, according to historian Paul Preston.

"Had the British said `No more,' the Germans may have backed down," Preston said from his office at the London School of Economics. "Instead, the Germans and Italians moved from being scared of Britons to believing they were absolute wimps and that they could get away with anything."

During the ceremony, gray-haired survivors dabbed tears from their eyes. A choir of German schoolchildren sang pieces by Bach and others, their voices carried off by wind whipping through pine-studded hills above Guernica and across the graveyard.

"We must have these remembrances," said Mayor Eduardo Vallejo, who survived the attack as an infant and who embraced Wegener during the ceremony. "We want the world to remember so it does not happen again. It is a scream that should never be silenced."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sixty years ago, Hitler's warplanes bombed this mountain town to rubble. For the first time, Germany atoned for the slaughter in a solemn tribute Saturday to the more than 1,000 civilians who died.

# data[].attributes.body
this link will tell you about the neutrality act of 1936.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Neutrality Act 1936 the second of four neutrality acts

# data[].attributes.body
This link will tell you about the incident on Marco Polo Bridge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
needs additional citations for verification .improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

# data[].attributes.body
this link will tell you about the Munich Pact of 1938

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
an agreement on the partition of Czechoslovakia signed in Munich on September 29 by the heads of the governments of Great Britain (N. Chamberlain), France (E. Daladier), fascist Germany (A. Hitler), and fascist Italy (B. Mussolini). The Munich Pact was concluded in an atmosphere of undisguised military and political pressure on Czechoslovakia by fascist Germany. After Germany's occupation of Austria in March 1938 this pressure became more intense and was accompanied by heightened activity of the Hitlerite network of agents in Czechoslovakia.

A number of major steps led immediately to the preparation of the Munich Pact. On Apr. 24, 1938, Henlein's fascist Sudeten German Party (Sudetendeutsche Partei), acting on Hitler's directives, made demands that, in essence, required Czechoslovakia to renounce its sovereignty over the Sudetenland. Various maneuvers by the British and French were aimed at justifying before public opinion the deal that was being arranged with the aggressor and at persuading Czechoslovakia to capitulate (the Runciman mission of 1938). A rebellion by the Sudetenland fascists on September 13 was put down by the armed forces of Czechoslovakia. At the Berchtesgaden meeting on Sept. 15, 1938, Chamberlain agreed in principle to Hitler's demands that the Czechoslovak border regions be transferred to Germany. An Anglo-French ultimatum (September 18) demanding the transfer of part of Czechoslovakia to Germany was accepted by Czechoslovak president E. Beneŝ on September 21. On September 22, Chamberlain met with Hitler in Bad Godesberg to discuss the German government's new demands, which were even more oppressive for Czechoslovakia.

In view of the rising threat of fascist aggression, the government of the USSR resolutely supported Czechoslovakia and carried out large-scale military measures aimed at rendering, if necessary, immediate and effective help to the victim of aggression. Calling on the Western powers to forestall aggression through collective action, the government of the USSR repeatedly declared its readiness to fulfill its obligations under the Soviet-Czechoslovak Pact of 1935, which provided for Soviet aid to Czechoslovakia in case of an aggression against that country, on the condition that France would also render aid. Furthermore, the USSR was willing to support Czechoslovakia even in the absence of French support, if Czechoslovakia would resist the aggression and ask for help. Contrary to the demands of democratic forces, the Czechoslovak bourgeois government, which was well acquainted with the Soviet Union's position but was guided by narrow class interests, refrained from accepting assistance from the country of victorious socialism.

In this situation, Hitler, encouraged by the conciliatory attitude of the Western powers, demanded that Czechoslovakia accept his new proposals, which were confirmed by all the parties to the Munich Pact, with the behind-the-scenes support of the USA, at a conference held on September 29-30.

The Munich Pact provided for the transfer to Germany, between Oct. 1 and Oct. 10, 1938, of the Sudeten region of Czechoslovakia, with all its installations and fortifications, factories, plants, raw material reserves, and means of transportation. The territorial claims of Hungary and Poland were to be satisfied at the expense of Czechoslovakia within three months. The parties to the pact were to provide "guarantees" of Czechoslovakia's new frontiers against unprovoked aggression. The hollowness of these guarantees was demonstrated when German troops invaded Czechoslovakia in March 1939. On September 30 the Czechoslovak government accepted the Munich dictates without the consent of the National Assembly.

The pact signed in Munich was among the clearest manifestations of the policy of appeasement pursued by the governments of Great Britain and France on the eve of World War II. This policy was directed at reaching an accord with the aggressive states, particularly fascist Germany, at the expense of the countries of Central and Southeastern Europe. It was also designed to divert fascist aggression away from Great Britain and France and direct it toward the East against the Soviet Union. The statesmen who pursued this policy intended to crush or weaken the might of the USSR with the forces of the states of the fascist bloc and to weaken the latter by using the military might of the USSR. This policy was consistently supported by the USA.

The Munich Pact, which was imposed on Czechoslovakia by force and in violation of international and Czechoslovak law, was an important landmark in the events leading to World War II. After the war Czechoslovakia, supported by the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, demanded that the unlawful Munich Pact be recognized as having been invalid from the outset. In a treaty signed in December 1973, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany declared the Munich Pact "in view of their mutual obligations stemming from the present treaty, null and void."

SOURCES

Dokumenty i materialy kanuna vtoroi mirovoi voiny, vol. 1. Moscow, 1948.
Novye dokumenty iz istorii Miunkhena. Moscow, 1958.
Mnichov v documentech, 2 vols. Prague, 1958.
"Dogovor o vzaimnykh otnosheniiakh mezhdu Chekhoslovatskoi Sotsialisticheskoi Respublikoi i Federativnoi Respublikoi Germanii." Mezhdunarodnaia zhizn ', 1974, no. 2.

REFERENCES

Istoriia vneshnei politiki SSSR, part 1: 1917-1945 gg. Moscow, 1966.
Ovsianyi, I. D. Taina, v kotoroi voina rozhdalas', 2nd ed. Moscow, 1975.
Wheeler-Benett J. Munich: Prologue to Tragedy. London, 1963.
Parkinson, R. Peace for Our Time. London, 1971.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Looking for Munich Pact of 1938? Find out information about Munich Pact of 1938. an agreement on the partition of Czechoslovakia signed in Munich on September 29 by the heads of the governments of Great Britain , France , fascist Germany... Explanation of Munich Pact of 1938

# data[].attributes.body
this shows the fierce land-grabbing that took place in the Fall of 1938.

# data[].attributes.body
This link will tell you about the Arms Embargo.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
United States President Jimmy Carter imposed an arms embargo on the 1976 Argentinian Proceso de Reorganizacion Nacional (National Reorganization Process) military junta due to the Dirty War that took place from 1974 to 1983. The embargo was joined by the United Kingdom following the 1982 Falklands War.

# data[].attributes.body
this link will tell you about the neutrality act of 1939 it ended the arms embargo and permitted the sales of munitions on a "cash and carry" basis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Little Background

After World War I, many Americans felt like they'd been manipulated into the fighting by businesses that had profited from the war. Several books came out over the next few years that only supported public opinion, and when the Nye Committee did an official investigation, it came to the same conclusion. The people of the U.S. didn't want to get into another war.

Beginning in 1935, Congress passed a series of Neutrality Acts. Each Act had their differences, but they were all designed to help the U.S. stay out of war by preventing the businesses from getting U.S. citizens in the line of fire. U.S. businesses were not allowed to sell to any nation at war because doing that might show favoritism. The Neutrality Act of 1937 had allowed a cash and carry policy but only because it limited the amount of arms a nation could buy and ensured that U.S. citizens would not be in danger as they shipped them. The last one came in 1939. The Neutrality Act of 1939 was the U.S.'s last attempt to keep the country neutral during World War II.

When War Gets in the Way of Neutrality

In 1939, Germany invaded Czechoslovakia. Months later, it was Poland. Before the winter came, Germany had taken France and begun the Battle of Britain. With Italy as its ally in Europe and the Japanese already conquering the heavily populated cities of China, it was clear that World War II would not be the stalemate World War I had been. Without support, the British Isles would be conquered and Germany would control all of Europe while Japan might just conquer all of Asia.

The U.S. realized it had to give that support; otherwise, they would have to get involved in the war. The last Neutrality Act was an attempt to balance that support while retaining their neutrality.

The Specifics of 1939

In 1939, the cash and carry policy lapsed, and Roosevelt was unable to get it renewed. He invoked the Neutrality Act, making sure neither Germany and Japan nor Britain and France, could buy anything from the U.S. When Poland was invaded, though, Congress changed its mind. The Neutrality Act of 1939 again allowed the U.S. to sell war materials to warring nations on a cash and carry basis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After World War I, many Americans felt like they'd been manipulated into the fighting by businesses that had profited from the war. Several books came out over the next few years that only supported public opinion, and when the Nye Committee did an official investigation, it came to the same conclusion.

# data[].attributes.body
this link will tell you about the Atlantic Charter, it was a statement that outlined Anglo-American war aims.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Roosevelt and Churchill Discuss Atlantic Charter

From August 9 to August 12, 1941, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945) and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (1874-1965) met aboard naval ships in Placentia Bay, off the southeast coast of Newfoundland, to confer on a range of issues related to World War II. It was the first time the two leaders had met as heads of their respective governments, and at that point, the United States had not yet entered the war (it would do so in December of that year following the bombing of Pearl Harbor). They met under utmost secrecy, evading all press to avoid the threat of being targeted by German U-Boats or isolationists bent on pulling the U.S. out of war.

Did you know? Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill had a close relationship, and the U.S. president once sent the British leader a cable that read: "It is fun to be in the same decade as you."

The document that resulted from the Roosevelt-Churchill meetings was issued on August 14, 1941, and became known as the Atlantic Charter. The document, which was not a treaty, stated that the two leaders "deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world."

What Was Included In The Atlantic Charter?

The Atlantic Charter included eight common principles. Among them, the United States and Britain agreed not to seek territorial gains from the war, and they opposed any territorial changes made against the wishes of the people concerned. The two countries also agreed to support the restoration of self-government to those nations who had lost it during the war. Additionally, the Atlantic Charter stated that people should have the right to choose their own form of government. Other principles included access for all nations to raw materials needed for economic prosperity and an easing of trade restrictions. The document also called for international cooperation to secure improved living and working conditions for all; freedom of the seas; and for all countries to abandon the use of force.

Allied Nations Support Atlantic Charter

On January 1, 1942, at a meeting in representatives of 26 governments (the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, China, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Poland, South Africa, Yugoslavia) signed a "Declaration by United Nations" in which they pledged their support for the Atlantic Charter's principles.

Text of Atlantic Charter

"The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, being met together, deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world.

First, their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other;

Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;

Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;

Fourth, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;

Fifth, they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security;

Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want;

Seventh, such a peace should enable all men to traverse the high seas and oceans without hindrance;

Eighth, they believe that all of the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons must come to the abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea or air armaments continue to be employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggression outside of their frontiers, they believe, pending the establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential. They will likewise aid and encourage all other practicable measure which will lighten for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Winston S. Churchill"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Atlantic Charter - Definition, Purpose & Significance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Atlantic Charter is considered one of the first key steps toward the establishment of the United Nations. In August 1941, the U.S. and Great Britain set out a vision for the postwar world. In January 1942, a group of 26 Allied nations pledged their support for this declaration.

# data[].attributes.body
This link will tell you about the USS Arizona. It was pounded by Japanese bombers as it rested at anchor at Pearl Harbor.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Since 1999, USSArizona.org has been presented by the Nease Family; Budd, Carol & Nancy. With the passing of Budd in 2011 and ever increasing costs of operations and reseaarch, this website now faces shutting down.

Until his death in 2011, Budd Nease (USNR Ret.) served 10 years as Historian for the USS Arizona Reunion Association. His wife Carol assisted him with answering thousands of emails from service personnel, students of all ages, and people from all walks of life around the world. His daughter Nancy worked as his Assistant Historian and took over duties as Historian in 2011 as well as maintaining this website. Budd's grandson, Charles, has stepped into the role of Assistant Historian and answers emails as well.

One of Budd's greatest pleasures was assisting students with their research projects and linking them with USS Arizona survivors for interviews. In an effort to continue to keep this website free to students and the general public, and continue operations, we are asking for your help.

Your donations go directly to supporting this website and costs of ongoing research. Any donation, no matter how small, goes a long way to keeping USSARIZONA.ORG operating. Please use the "Donate" button to securely make a donation through PayPal today. We thank you for your help.

Our thanks to the following for their generous donations:

2016
Larry Turner (2), Robert McWilliams, Christopher James, Joseph Givens, Meredith Scott, Mike Baldwin, Eddie Rice, and Jean McGovern.

2015
Mary Hoar, Aaron Hudacky, Benjamin Wiselogle, Terry King, and Jack Van Lierop.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
USS Arizona BB-39 and Pearl Harbor Memorial Page - 75th Anniversary - USS Arizona BB-39 and Pearl Harbor Memorial

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
USS Arizona BB39 and Pearl Harbor Memorial site. Official Home of the USS Arizona Reunion Association. Photos, history, survivor and crew stories, newsletters, and much more! This page is dedicated to The Men of the USS Arizona BB39 and all who gave their lives on that 'Day of Infamy' December 7, 1941 at Pearl Harbor.

# data[].attributes.body
this link will take you to who Chiang Kai-shek, who was the nominal leader of the Chinese forces resisting Japanese takeover.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Contents

1. Chiang Kai-shek's Early Life and Career

2. Chiang Kai-Shek: Internal and External Conflict in China

3. Chiang Kai-Shek: Civil War and Government in Exile

Chinese military and political leader Chiang Kai-shek joined the Chinese Nationalist Party (known as the Kuomintang, or KMT) in 1918. Succeeding party founder Sun Yat-sen as KMT leader in 1925, he expelled Chinese communists from the party and led a successful unification of China. Despite a professed focus on reform, Chiang's government concentrated on battling Communism within China as well as confronting Japanese aggression. When the Allies declared war on Japan in 1941, China took its place among the Big Four. Civil war broke out in 1946, ending in a victory by Mao Zedong's Communist forces and the creation of the People's Republic of China. From 1949 until his death, Chiang led the KMT government in exile in Taiwan, which many countries continued to recognize as China's legitimate government.

Chiang Kai-shek's Early Life and Career

Born in the coastal province of Chekiang on October 31, 1887, Chiang ran away from home after his father died and joined the provincial army. He received formal military training at the Paoting Military Academy in northern China, and later in Japan. When uprisings against the ruling Qing (Manchu) dynasty broke out in China in 1911, Chiang returned home and joined the struggle, which ended in the overthrow of the Manchus and the formation of a Chinese republic. In 1918, he joined the Nationalist Party (known as the Kuomintang, or KMT), founded by Sun Yat-sen.

Did you know? Chiang Kai-shek's second wife, Soong Mei-ling, became a significant political figure in her own right. In addition to her address of Congress in 1943, the Wellesley-educated "Madame Chiang" wrote many articles on China for the American press.

With Sun's support, Chiang founded a military academy at Whampoa, near Canton, in 1924. He began to build up the Nationalist army, based on methods Chiang observed during a visit to the Soviet Union. During this same time, Chinese Communists were admitted into the KMT; after Sun's death in 1925, they began to clash with more conservative party elements. As Sun's successor, Chiang led a successful military campaign against local warlords in northern China and consolidated control within his own party by expelling the Communists in a brutal coup in 1927. In 1928, he formed a new central government out of Nanking, with himself as head of state.

Chiang Kai-Shek: Internal and External Conflict in China

Chiang sought to institute a modest program of reforms, including financial and educational reforms, infrastructure improvements and a revival of Confucianism, supported by the "New Life Movement" campaign. The bulk of his government's energies and resources, however, were focused on threats to its own stability from within and outside of China. The Communists were operating their own opposition government from rural strongholds, while war with Japan-which seized Manchuria in 1931-seemed imminent. Chiang initially focused on the communist threat rather than confront Japan directly, a choice that angered many of his supporters. In the Sian (Xian) Incident of December 1936, one of his generals seized Chiang and held him captive for two weeks until he agreed to ally with Mao Zedong's Communist forces against Japan.

Japan invaded China the following year, sparking the Sino-Japanese War. China fought Japan on its own for more than four years, until the Allies (with the exception of the Soviet Union) declared war on Japan in 1941. For its efforts, China earned inclusion among the Big Four powers, and Chiang's international reputation skyrocketed. In 1943, his Western-educated wife, Soong Mei-ling, became the first Chinese and only the second woman to address a joint session of the U.S. Congress, when she asked for increased U.S. aid for China in the Sino-Japanese War. At the same time, however, Chiang's government was losing a good deal of support within the country itself, thanks to his relative passivity toward Japan and increasingly conservative policies that favored landowners and mercantile interests and alienated peasants (who made up nearly 90 percent of the Chinese population).

Chiang Kai-Shek: Civil War and Government in Exile

In 1946, a year after Japan's surrender, civil war broke out in China between KMT and Communist forces. With the Communist victory in mainland China in 1949, Mao declared the establishment of the People's Republic of China. Upon his defeat, Chiang fled with the remnants of his Nationalist government to Taiwan, which had been turned over to the Nationalist government after the defeat of Japan according to terms agreed upon in Cairo in 1943. Backed by American aid, Chiang launched Taiwan on the path of economic modernization, and in 1955 the United States signed an agreement guaranteeing Taiwan's defense. Many countries continued to recognize Chiang's government in exile as the legitimate Chinese government, and it would control China's seat in the United Nations until Chiang's death.

From 1972 onward, however, Taiwan's preferred status (especially in relation to the United States) was threatened by improving U.S.-China relations. In 1979, four years after Chiang died, the United States broke off diplomatic relations with Taiwan and established full relations with the People's Republic of China.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Chiang Kai-shek's Early Life and Career Chiang Kai-Shek: Internal and External Conflict in China Chiang Kai-Shek: Civil War and Government in Exile Chinese military and political leader Chiang Kai-shek joined the Chinese Nationalist Party (known as the Kuomintang, or KMT) in 1918.

# data[].attributes.body
this link will tell you about the battle of pearl harbor, specifically in this article almost 3,000 Americans were killed. Six battleships were destroyed or rendered unseaworthy, and most of the ground planes were ravaged as well.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Japan and the Path to War

The attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise, but Japan and the United States had been edging toward war for decades.

The United States was particularly unhappy with Japan's increasingly belligerent attitude toward China. The Japanese government believed that the only way to solve its economic and demographic problems was to expand into its neighbor's territory and take over its import market.

To this end, Japan declared war on China in 1937, resulting in the Nanking Massacre and other atrocities.

American officials responded to this aggression with a battery of economic sanctions and trade embargoes. They reasoned that without access to money and goods, and especially essential supplies like oil, Japan would have to rein in its expansionism.

Instead, the sanctions made the Japanese more determined to stand their ground. During months of negotiations between Tokyo and Washington, D.C., neither side would budge. It seemed that war was all but inevitable.

Where Is Pearl Harbor?

Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, is located near the center of the Pacific Ocean, roughly 2,000 miles from the U.S. mainland and about 4,000 miles from Japan. No one believed that the Japanese would start a war with an attack on the distant islands of Hawaii.

Additionally, American intelligence officials were confident that any Japanese attack would take place in one of the (relatively) nearby European colonies in the South Pacific: the Dutch East Indies, Singapore or Indochina.

Because American military leaders were not expecting an attack so close to home, the naval facilities at Pearl Harbor were relatively undefended. Almost the entire Pacific Fleet was moored around Ford Island in the harbor, and hundreds of airplanes were squeezed onto adjacent airfields.

To the Japanese, Pearl Harbor was an irresistibly easy target.

USS Arizona

The Japanese plan was simple: Destroy the Pacific Fleet. That way, the Americans would not be able to fight back as Japan's armed forces spread across the South Pacific. On December 7, after months of planning and practice, the Japanese launched their attack.

At about 8 a.m., Japanese planes filled the sky over Pearl Harbor. Bombs and bullets rained onto the vessels moored below. At 8:10, a 1,800-pound bomb smashed through the deck of the battleship USS Arizona and landed in her forward ammunition magazine. The ship exploded and sank with more than 1,000 men trapped inside.

Next, torpedoes pierced the shell of the battleship USS Oklahoma. With 400 sailors aboard, the Oklahoma lost her balance, rolled onto her side and slipped underwater.

Less than two hours later, the surprise attack was over, and every battleship in Pearl Harbor- USS Arizona, USS Oklahoma, USS California, USS West Virginia, USS Utah, USS Maryland, USS Pennsylvania, USS Tennessee and USS Nevada-had sustained significant damage. (All but USS Arizona and USS Utah were eventually salvaged and repaired.)

Impact of the Pearl Harbor Attack

In all, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor crippled or destroyed nearly 20 American ships and more than 300 airplanes. Dry docks and airfields were likewise destroyed. Most importantly, more than 2,000 people died.

But the Japanese had failed to cripple the Pacific Fleet. By the 1940s, battleships were no longer the most important naval vessel: Aircraft carriers were, and as it happened, all of the Pacific Fleet's carriers were away from the base on December 7. (Some had returned to the mainland and others were delivering planes to troops on Midway and Wake Islands.)

Moreover, the Pearl Harbor assault had left the base's most vital onshore facilities-oil storage depots, repair shops, shipyards and submarine docks-intact. As a result, the U.S. Navy was able to rebound relatively quickly from the attack.

How Many People Died in Pearl Harbor?

The attack on Pearl Harbor killed 2,403 U.S. personnel, including sailors, soldiers and civilians. Additionally, 1,178 people were wounded. 129 Japanese soldiers were killed.

Half of the dead at Pearl Harbor were on the USS Arizona. Today the sunken battleship serves as a memorial to all Americans who died in the attack.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed a joint session of the U.S. Congress on December 8, the day after the crushing attack on Pearl Harbor.

"Yesterday, December 7, 1941-a date which will live in infamy-the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan."

He went on to say, "No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory. I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again."

America Enters World War II

After the Pearl Harbor attack, and for the first time during years of discussion and debate, the American people were united in their determination to go to war.

The Japanese had wanted to goad the United States into an agreement to lift the economic sanctions against them; instead, they had pushed their adversary into a global conflict that ultimately resulted in Japan's first occupation by a foreign power.

Did you know? The single vote against Congress's declaration of war against Japan came from Representative Jeannette Rankin of Montana. Rankin was a pacifist who had also voted against the American entrance into World War I. "As a woman," she said, "I can't go to war, and I refuse to send anyone else."

On December 8, Congress approved Roosevelt's declaration of war on Japan. Three days later, Japan's allies Germany and Italy declared war against the United States.

For the second time, Congress reciprocated, declaring war on the European powers. More than two years after the start of World War II, the United States had entered the conflict.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pearl Harbor is a U.S. naval base near Honolulu, Hawaii, that was the scene of a devastating surprise attack by Japanese forces on December 7, 1941. The day after the attack, President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked Congress to declare war on Japan.

# data[].attributes.body
this link will tell you about island hopping which is what the U.S did

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After the Battle of Midway, the United States launched a counter-offensive strike known as "island-hopping," establishing a line of overlapping island bases, as well as air control. The idea was to capture certain key islands, one after another, until Japan came within range of American bombers. Led by General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of the Allied forces in the Southwest Pacific, and Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander-in-Chief of the Pacific Fleet, the first stage of the offensive began with the Navy under Nimitz, and Marine landings on Guadalcanal and nearby islands in the Solomons.

From that point on, Nimitz and MacArthur engaged in "island-hopping" amphibious drives that bypassed strongly-held islands to strike at the enemy's weak points. In an effort to liberate the people of the Philippine Islands, MacArthur pushed along the New Guinea coast with Australian allies, while Nimitz crossed the central Pacific by way of the Gilberts, Marshalls, Marianas, Carolines, and Palaus. Both campaigns would entail seemingly endless, bloody battles — ultimately leading to the unconditional surrender of the Japanese.
Preparing for U.S. counterattack
Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, flew to MacArthur's headquarters in Brisbane, Australia, where they discussed campaign strategy. MacArthur's headquarters issued plans on April 26th that laid out a two-pronged offensive, code-named CARTWHEEL, which would corner the Japanese at Rabaul Island. One prong — MacArthur — would advance along the northern shores of New Guinea and into the Bismarck Archipelago. The second prong — Halsey — would drive northwest from Guadalcanal and control the remainder of the Solomon Islands.
Buna
By November 1942 the Japanese had established a jungle fortress around Buna and Gona. Inexperienced with guerilla warfare, weather-beaten, sick, and short on artillery and rations, the Australians and Americans could not dislodge the dug-in Japanese. General MacArthur sent Lt. General Robert Eichelberger to lead the Buna campaign.

On December 9, 1942, the Allies stormed Gona and captured it during the last week of January 1943. MacArthur then turned his attention to the key Japanese airfield at Lae and control of the coastline facing New Britain. After a series of land and sea attacks, the Allies landed in New Britain at the end of 1943.
Solomon Islands Guadalcanal
To make the first Buna Allied offensive in the Pacific more effective, the Americans readied a separate attack from a different direction. That decision brought American forces into the Solomon Islands and U.S. Army infantry onto the island of Guadalcanal.

On the morning of August 7th, 1942, the First Marine Division followed heavy naval preparatory shelling, and landed on the north beaches east of the Tenaru River. In a three-month struggle marked by disease (diarrhea, malaria, dysentery, skin fungus), and many casualties, the marines took an airfield and established a beachhead roughly six miles wide and three miles deep.

During the last weeks of 1942 and the first weeks of 1943, the Americans strengthened their foothold on Guadalcanal by reorganizing and bringing in fresh troops, the Second Marine Division and the 25th Infantry Division. The Japanese held off five American battalions for a month, which delayed the advance west long enough for the defenders to evacuate 13,000 men from the island. Allied forces quickly constructed landing strips — the first series of island hopping had begun.
New Georgia
Admiral Halsey landed troops on New Georgia, while MacArthur's troops moved to Nassau Bay, New Guinea.

The New Georgia offensive, code-named TOENAILS, was a learning experience for Allied forces in the region. Shallow reefs surrounded those islands, making it difficult to navigate large watercraft through narrow rock channels. Also, Japanese soldiers in pillboxes, and deeply dug in, were nasty obstacles to overcome during the New Georgia Campaign.

Heavy rains reduced visibility almost completely, and high winds and rough seas wreaked havoc with the landing operation. Amphibious vehicles had to follow the sound of breaking waves to find the shore. In the ensuing chaos, six landing craft became lodged on the coral reef, while others discharged troops at the wrong site and then had to reload. Over the next four days, marines and Solomon Island soldiers, supported by 105-mm howitzers from the 152d Field Artillery Battalion, rooted out the Japanese from Wickham Anchorage.

On August 5th, 1943, the capture of Munda airfield was assured, giving the Allies a huge vantage point. However, it was only one phase of the New Georgia campaign. Japanese were still on New Georgia, as well as on other surrounding islands. Those islands had to be taken or neutralized before the Americans could continue island-hopping up the Solomons chain.

While firing their remaining artillery, Japanese forces desperately attacked through the ravines and gullies of northern New Georgia. A pounding barrage of counter mortar fire by the 129th mounted tank-infantry rained down on the the Japanese, devastating them in front of the American line. After suffering terribly (more than 5,000 killed), the remaining Japanese troops left behind their wounded and retreated off the island. With the highest number of non-combatant U.S. casualties (jungle disease) in the island-hopping campaign, the New Georgia mission became a costly success. The next few weeks brought sporadic fighting as XIV Corps pursued the beaten Japanese. During those operations the First Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment, became the first black American infantry unit to engage in combat during the war. The 25th Regimental Combat Team of the 93d Division also joined in the final operations of CARTWHEEL.
Bougainville
On November 1, 1943, the Allies attacked, going ashore at Empress Augusta Bay. The 60,000 elite Japanese troops, concentrated in the southern half of the island, did not want a repeat of Guadalcanal. Although the western part of Bougainville was left relatively undefended by the Japanese, the Allies concentrated on attacking from the sea and the sky.

The Japanese responded with naval and air vessels from Rabaul, but were pummeled and sustained heavy casualties. Four days later, on November 5th, Admiral Halsey dispatched a carrier air strike against Rabaul, thus knocking down many Japanese planes and forcing the naval forces to flee to the open ocean. The battle for Bougainville proved to be the site of some of the fiercest battles during World War II.

In November 1944, command of all island operations passed from General Griswold to Lt. Gen. Sir Stanley Savige of the Australian Army, and by mid-December Australian forces had relieved all American units.

In the Solomons, most of the Japanese soldiers who escaped fought again another day.
Gilbert Islands
Near the close of 1943, a thrust at the Gilbert Islands from the Central Pacific, in which Tarawa, Makin, and Apamama were seized, paved the way for the assault on the Marshall Islands on January 31, 1944.

Previous raids by bombers of a U.S. Navy task force had brought the Gilberts under fire in January 1942. The following August, "devil dogs" (marines) spent an active night there demolishing installations and most of the small Japanese barracks.

Landings at Makin and Tarawa, 105 miles away, were planned to begin simultaneously by two separate landing forces from Task Force 54, Rear Admiral Richmond K. Turner commanding. A complement of six fleet carriers, five light carriers, six battleships, six cruisers, and 21 destroyers were deployed; 7,000 troops of the 27th Infantry Division also were deployed. At 8:30 a.m., November 20th, 1943, the first landing craft were to touch the beach at each atoll*.

While the 27th Division Landing Team, with attached units, took Makin on the 20th of November, the Second Marine Division was to assault Tarawa, leaving one of its combat teams in reserve for the support of one or both operations. If that reserve remained uncommitted, it was later to occupy Apamama. LVTs (Landing Vehicle, Tracked), popularly called "alligators," were ordered to move at once to the flanks and there establish positions defending the beaches.

After four days of relatively low resistance, Makin was secured. However, Tarawa was a different story. Betio, the primary island of Tarawa atoll, is only two miles long and 600 yards wide, but it had the only airstrip in the islands and was vigorously defended by highly trained Japanese troops.

Machine gun positions, concrete bunkers and pillboxes (Japanese foxholes), mines, and eight-inch coastal gun emplacements, told a story of formidable Japanese defenses. Admiral Keiji Shibasaki (Japanese commander on Betio) boasted that a million men could not take Tarawa in a hundred years. Shibaski soon realized his under-estimation of Allied capabilities — mostly by way of America's relatively new invention, the flame thrower.

Banzai! After two hours of heavy bombing, and before dawn on November 20th, 1943, the first wave of marines stormed the Tarawa atoll. "Bloody Tarawa," as it soon was known, required 76 hours before a final "Banzai" (suicide) rush of the Japanese signaled the end. While the Americans inched inland, the 4,500 Japanese defiant defenders were slowly crushed. Only 17 Japanese troops, of the original 4,500, made it out alive. One thousand of the 5,600 Americans that rushed the beaches of Tarawa gave their lives — 3,000 of them were wounded.
MacArthur pushes for the Philippines
Meanwhile, American forces in the Southwest Pacific were approaching Mindanao, southernmost of the Philippine Islands, by advances through New Guinea in which Japanese armies were neutralized and isolated on New Ireland and New Britain.

The capture of Wakde on the northeastern coast of New Guinea in May 1944 was followed by the seizure of Biak and Noemfoor. During the summer, a Japanese army attempting to break out from Wewak in Australian New Guinea was chastened. The invasion of Morotai in September placed American forces within 300 miles of Mindanao.
Marshall Islands
Near the close of 1943, a thrust at the Gilbert Islands from the Central Pacific, in which Tarawa, Makin, and Apamama were seized, paved the way for the assault on the Marshalls on 31 January 1944. American forces gained control of Kwajalein, Majuro, and Eniwetok, and their fleet and air arms moved forward.

At the same time, American carriers attacked Truk heavily, and that formidable enemy naval base in the Carolines was thenceforth immobilized. Saipan, Tinian, and Guam in the Marianas fell to American arms in summer 1944. The capture of the Marianas, and later Iwo Jima, provided fixed bases for B-29 Superfortress air attacks against Japan and surrounding islands.

With the first Battle of the Philippine Sea, the U.S. Navy administered a crushing defeat of the Japanese fleet that tried to interfere with the American push westward. In September and October, the Americans occupied Ulithi in the western Carolines for use as an anchorage and advanced fleet base, and took Angaur and Peleliu in the Palau Islands, situated close to the Philippines.
Aleutian Islands
Fighting in the Aleutians was known as the " Thousand-Mile War," the approximate distance between American bases on the Alaska coast, Dutch Harbor, and the westernmost Aleutian Islands. Attu and Kiska became a U.S. military priority because of a 57-mile gap that the Japanese feared the United States would use to attack their homeland — so the Japanese attacked first. Furthermore, the islands had important military value for the enemy because, if successfully held, they would more easily managed to take territory farther down the coast.

A Canadian and American force of 100,000 troops was deployed to push the Japanese from America's northwestern-most territory. In May 1943, after nearly two weeks of bloodshed under frostbitten climatic conditions, across some of the globe's most forbidding terrain, the 2,000 Attu-based Japanese were uprooted by the American Seventh Infantry Division.
Iwo Jima and Okinawa Iwo Jima
The volcanic island of Iwo Jima was a crucial location for the island-hopping campaign to succeed. The island's proximity would make it possible for B-29 raids — halfway from Marianas Island to mainland Japan. Three airstrips, which the Japanese had been using for their Kamikaze** attacks, also made Iwo Jima a primary target. With the island captured, the Kamikazes would have to operate from Okinawa or Kyushu.

On February 19th, 1945, the U.S. Marine Corps' legendary Third, Fourth and Fifth divisions landed on Iwo Jima at 8:59 a.m. That came after 10 weeks of relentless bombing from carrier-based planes and medium bombers. The preliminary bombardment was the heaviest up to that point in the war. A total of 70,000 U.S. Marines charged the sandy beaches of Iwo Jima, against an opposing force of 27,000 Japanese.

The beaches were eerily quiet as the Higgins boats landed ashore and the marines began to offload. The minimal resistance, however, proved to be only a bluff to draw the exposed marines onto the beaches. It was then that 27,000 determined Japanese defenders, led by General Tadamichi Kuribayashi, opened up from a vast underground network of caves and tunnels. The relentless pre-invasion bombardment from naval and air forces had done little damage. While literally inching their way across the island, the marines were able to secure Iwo Jima after 36 days of brutal combat.

But victory came at a heavy price. At the battle's conclusion, 6,281 Americans and more than 20,000 Japanese were killed. Twenty-two marines and five sailors received the Congressional Medal of Honor for their actions on Iwo Jima — the most bestowed for any campaign. Admiral Nimitz remarked, "Among the Americans who served on Iwo Island, uncommon valor was a common virtue."
Okinawa
Code-named Operation ICEBURG, the invasion of Okinawa began on April 1st, 1945, when 60,000 troops (two marine and two army divisions) landed with little opposition.

The day began and ended with the heaviest concentration of naval gunfire ever used to support an amphibious landing. Strategically, positions off the invasion beaches were occupied by 10 older American battleships, including several Pearl Harbor survivors — the USS Tennessee, Maryland, and West Virginia; as well as nine cruisers, 23 destroyers and destroyer escorts, and 117 rocket gunboats. Together they fired 3,800 tons of shells at Okinawa during the first 24 hours.

The initial charge by U.S. troops was met by little opposition. However, the 100,000-plus Japanese who were dug into caves and tunnels on the high ground away from the beaches in an attempt to withstand the Allies' superior sea and air power.

The battle proceeded in four phases: One, the advance to the eastern coast — April first through the fourth; Two, the clearing of the northern part of the island — April fifth through the 18th; Three, the occupation of the outlying islands — April 10th through June 26; and Four, the main battle against the dug-in elements of the 32nd Army — April sixth through the 21st of June.

Although the first three phases encountered only mild opposition, the final phase proved extremely difficult because the Japanese were deep underground and naval gunfire support was ineffective.

The battle of Okinawa proved to be the bloodiest battle of the Pacific War. Thirty-four allied ships and other craft of all types were sunk, mostly by Kamikazes, and 368 ships and craft were damaged. The fleet lost 763 aircraft. The total American casualties in the operation numbered more than 12,000 killed (including nearly 5,000 navy and almost 8,000 marine and army) and 36,000 wounded.
A-bomb
On July 2, 1945, while the Sixth Marine Division rested, trained, and prepared for the expected invasion of mainland Japan, the first atomic bomb was tested in New Mexico. An alternative to invasion was now a definite possibility. The morning of August 6, 1945, an atomic bomb exploded over Hiroshima. Three days later, Nagasaki suffered a similar fate. No mainland invasion would take place; the fighting was over.

*an island consisting of a circular coral reef surrounding a lagoon.
**Japanese Special Attack Group of suicide dive-bombing pilots that flew modified Mitubishi A6M fighter planes.

- - - Books You May Like Include: ----

Flags of Our Fathers by James Bradley, Ron Powers.
In this unforgettable chronicle of perhaps the most famous moment in American military history, Bradley has captured the glory, the triumph, the heart...
Code Talker: A Novel About the Navajo Marines of World War Two by Joseph Bruchac.
The United States is at war, and sixteen-year-old Ned Begay wants to join the cause?e--specially when he hears that Navajos are being specifically rec...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After the Battle of Midway, the United States launched a counter-offensive strike known as "island-hopping," establishing a line of overlapping island bases, as well as air control. The idea was to capture certain key islands, one after another, until Japan came within range of American bombers.

# data[].attributes.body
Shortly after America's entry into World War II, the patriotic song "Remember Pearl Harbor" hit the airwaves, urging America to "go on to victory."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
1942 HITS ARCHIVE: Remember Pearl Harbor - Sammy Kaye (Glee Club, vocal)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Remember Pearl Harbor (Reid-Kaye) Swing and Sway with Sammy Kaye, vocal by the Glee Club This patriotic march was recorded only ten days after the December 7th attack and climbed to #3 on the Billboard charts by early February '42.

# data[].attributes.body
After all the blood and sacrifice, the Axis powers were defeated, but the GRAND ALLIANCE that emerged victorious did not last long.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Grand Alliance (World War II) - Wikipedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Grand Alliance, also known as The Big Three, was a military alliance consisting of the three major Allies of World War II: the Soviet Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom. It is often called the "Strange Alliance" because it united the world's greatest capitalist state, the greatest communist state and the greatest colonial power.

# data[].attributes.body
The winter of 1942 saw Russia defending Stalingrad from German capture. These German tanks aided in the battle, which ultimately left the city in ruins.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It was the winter of 1942,
Getting involved in war was something I had to do.
All day long, I witnessed the torture of Jews,
The Red Army crossed the border, States had got the news.

I marched forward, with all my courage.
Yes I was a Nazi, I had the right to show my rage.
Holding my daughter's picture in one hand, and a gun in the other
The time I had spent with my wife flashed out, it gave me a reason to go further.

Step by step, I laid my eyes upon the flag
'I wouldn't betray you; No, I wont turn my back'
It was snowing like hell, my foes had gone
I was stunned. This was something I'd planned to tell my grandson.

My country had lost, it left me no other choice.
As the time went by, I heard the Almighty's voice.
I cried to myself, I was the wound in my hand;
Fifty years have passed, but I still love my Deutschland...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Winter Of 1942 Poem by Ashwin Satyal - Poem Hunter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It was the winter of 1942, Getting involved in war was something I had to do.All day long, I witnessed the torture of Jews, The Red Army crossed the border, States had got the news.

# data[].attributes.body
he vast military knowledge of German Field Marshal Erwin Rommel — known as "The Desert Fox" — was not enough to keep British and American forces from driving German troops from North Africa in late 1942.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
German World War II Field Marshal. Erwin Johannes Eugen Rommel gained immortality in the North African campaign of 1941-1943. Sent with a small German force to help the Axis against the British after the Italians had suffered severe defeat, Rommel-reaching Tripoli in February 1941-was soon master of Cyrenaica and imposing his will on the enemy. For two years the opposing forces alternately advanced or withdrew over the desert, and Rommel's name became legendary-a master of mobile operations who was rapid, courageous, and audacious.

Rommel's supreme achievement was his defeat of the British at Gazala in May 1942, followed by the taking of Tobruk and a field marshal's baton. Nemesis came five months later at El Alamein, when the British imperial army under Bernard Montgomery won a convincing victory. Rommel withdrew the survivors of his Panzerarmee to Tunisia. By then the British and Americans had landed in North Africa, the British Eighth Army had reconquered Tripolitania and was on the Tunisian border, and the Germans were hemmed in, isolated and facing overwhelming odds. Rommel left for Europe in March 1943. The African adventure was over.

Rommel has been criticized for lacking strategic sense, for excessive absorption in the tactical battle, for neglect of logistics, for periodic imprudence. These criticisms are shallow. Rommel's especial flair was undoubtedly for the battle itself, for the cut and thrust of maneuver, for personal leadership at the point of decision, above all for the speed and energy with which he decided and acted; but in his extensive writings and recorded conversations he showed a military perceptiveness and strategic insight that would have probably enabled him to shine with the brilliance of Erich von Manstein had he held high command on the larger scale of the Eastern Front. As to logistics, Rommel was acutely aware of them at all times-they dominated the African theater where all commodities had to be imported and transported over huge distances. He refused, however, to make excessively pessimistic assumptions or to overensure-or, as he put it, to allow the scope and pace of battle to be dictated by quartermasters. A more cautious approach would have often denied him victory. And although Rommel sometimes underestimated the timing and difficulties of an operation, he was one who believed war seldom forgives hesitation or delay. From his earliest days as a brilliant young leader in World War I, or as a panzer divisional commander crossing the Meuse against fierce opposition and racing across France in 1940, he had proved to himself the virtues of initiative and boldness. On the whole his decisions were justified by victory: and in Africa victory often against odds.

Rommel's last military appointment was in command of Army Group B, responsible in 1944 for much of northwest Europe. His energetic preparations reflected his conviction that the expected invasion had to be defeated near the coast, because Allied air power would nullify large-scale armored counteroperations after the landing. He believed, too, that the coming campaign should aim to defeat the invasion for one purpose: so that in the aftermath, peace might be negotiated in the west and a stalemate achieved in the east. Politically this was fantasy and militarily it failed; but for Rommel it was the only rational hope.

By then Rommel had lost all faith in Adolf Hitler. Hitler had showed him favor, and Rommel was long grateful for what he saw as Hitler's restoration of German self-respect in the 1930s, but by 1944 he was disenchanted by Hitler's refusal to face strategic facts. After the Allied invasion had succeeded in establishing a front (see D-Day), Rommel-who believed that Germany must now inevitably lose a war on two fronts-tried again personally to confront Hitler with reality. He failed.

Rommel, therefore, was now determined to surrender the German forces in the west unilaterally. Before that could happen he was wounded in an air attack on July 17. At home on sick leave, he was visited by emissaries of Hitler on October 14 and offered the choice of trial for high treason or suicide-to be publicized as a heart attack-with guarantees for his family's immunity. He had never participated in the plot to assassinate Hitler, but his "defeatism" was known and his involvement presumed. He chose suicide and was given a state funeral.

Rommel has been variously described as a Nazi (because of long personal devotion to Hitler) or as a martyr of the German Resistance (because of the manner of his death). He was neither. He was a straightforward, gifted, patriotic German officer, a charismatic commander and master of maneuver, caught up in the disaster of the Third Reich.

GENERAL SIR DAVID FRASER

The Reader's Companion to Military History. Edited by Robert Cowley and Geoffrey Parker. Copyright © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
German World War II Field Marshal. Erwin Johannes Eugen Rommel gained immortality in the North African campaign of 1941-1943. Sent with a small German force to help the Axis against the British after the Italians had suffered severe defeat, Rommel-reaching Tripoli in February 1941-was soon master of Cyrenaica and imposing his will on the enemy.

# data[].attributes.body
The first American air attack on European enemies came in August 1942.

# data[].attributes.body
"Rosie the Riveter" served as both a symbol of women's contributions to the war effort as well as a call to others to join.

# data[].attributes.body
Posters like this encouraged Americans to conserve energy and resources by producing their own food.

# data[].attributes.body
Crooners like Bing Crosby kept America smiling during the war with hits like "Goodbye Mama, I'm Off to Yokohama."

# data[].attributes.body
Hitler's refusal to surrender to the Allies led to "Operation Overlord" on June 6, 1944. British, Canadian, and American forces managed to take key points on the coast of Nazi-occupied France, signaling a beginning to the end of war in Europe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
D-Day and the German Surrender [ushistory.org]

# data[].attributes.body
Hitler, at the BATTLE OF THE BULGE, launched a final unsuccessful counteroffensive in December 1944

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Called "the greatest American battle of the war" by Winston Churchill, the Battle of the Bulge in the Ardennes region of Belgium was Adolf Hitler's last major offensive in World War II against the Western Front. Hitler's aim was to split the Allies in their drive toward Germany. The German troops' failure to divide Britain, France and America with the Ardennes offensive paved the way to victory for the allies.

Lasting six brutal weeks, from December 16, 1944, to January 25, 1945, the assault, also called the Battle of the Ardennes, took place during frigid weather conditions, with some 30 German divisions attacking battle-fatigued American troops across 85 miles of the densely wooded Ardennes Forest.

As the Germans drove into the Ardennes, the Allied line took on the appearance of a large bulge, giving rise to the battle's name. The battle proved to be the costliest ever fought by the U.S. Army, which suffered over 100,000 casualties. The formerly serene, wooded region of Ardennes was hacked into chaos by fighting as the Americans dug in against the German advance at St.-Vith, Elsenborn Ridge, Houffalize and, later, Bastogne, which was defended by the 101st Airborne Division.

"Did you ever see land when a tornado's come through? Did you ever see trees and stuff, twisted and broken off? The whole friggin' forest was like that," said U.S. Army Charlie Sanderson in My Father's War: Memories from Our Honored WWII Soldiers.
READ MORE: 8 Things You May Not Know About the Battle of the Bulge
The surprise German attack broke through the front on day one as stories quickly spread of massacred soldiers and civilians, according to the U.S. Army Center of Military History.

"For those who had lived through 1940, the picture was all too familiar. Belgian townspeople put away their Allied flags and brought out their swastikas," the center writes. "Police in Paris enforced an all-night curfew. British veterans waited nervously to see how the Americans would react to a full-scale German offensive, and British generals quietly acted to safeguard the Meuse River's crossings. Even American civilians, who had thought final victory was near were sobered by the Nazi onslaught."

Troops Faced Severe Cold

Hitler's mid-December timing of the attack-one of the bloodiest of the war-was strategic, as freezing rain, thick fog, deep snow drifts and record-breaking low temperatures brutalized the American troops. More than 15,000 "cold injuries"-trench foot, pneumonia, frostbite-were reported that winter.

"I was from Buffalo, I thought I knew cold," baseball Hall of Famer and WWII veteran Warren Spahn said in The Love of Baseball. "But I didn't really know cold until the Battle of the Bulge."

Nazis Sent in Imposters and Changed Road Signs

Another Nazi strategy was to attempt to infiltrate the Allied troops.

Veteran Vernon Brantley, a private first class in the 289th Regiment, told the Fort Jackson Leader in 2009 that his unit had just arrived in Germany from France when they were told to load up and return to Luxembourg.

"We got word that the Germans had dropped a lot of paratroopers behind our lines, and that they were dressed like American Soldiers and spoke English," he said. "... They were there to create confusion."

The Germans also changed road signs and spread misinformation.

"The Nazis were carefully groomed for their dangerous mission," LIFE magazine reported in 1945. "They spoke excellent English and their slang had been tuned up by close association with American prisoners of war in German camps. ... Under the rules of the Hague Convention these Germans were classifiable as spies and subject to an immediate court martial by a military tribunal. After brief deliberation American officers found them guilty, and ordered the usual penalty for spies: death by firing squad."

To stop infiltrators, the U.S. troops would ask suspected Germans to answer American trivia questions.

"Three times I was ordered to prove my identity," Gen. Omar Bradley recalled, according to the Washington Post. "The first time by identifying Springfield as the capital of Illinois; the second by locating the guard between the center and the tackle on a line of scrimmage; the third time by naming the then-current spouse of a blonde named Betty Grable."
Click here to watch the full episode on the Battle of the Bulge and more from WWII in HD on History Vault
Allied Air Forces Arrived on Christmas Day

It wasn't until Christmas Day that the weather conditions finally cleared, allowing Allied air forces to strike.

"It was on that bright, clear and cold Christmas morning in 1944 that the ground froze solid," Brantley told the Leader. "The tanks and air forces could finally maneuver, and get assistance to all of us who were previously blocked off. ... It was a welcome sign to see the sun come up. It meant that we were alive for one more day."

Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the supreme Allied commander, and Lt. Gen. George S. Patton Jr. led the American defense to restore the front. According to the National Archives' Bloodiest Battle, Eisenhower gave Patton the Third Army, about 230,000 soldiers, and ordered him to head to the Ardennes.

101st Airborne Division Arrive in Bastogne

In the small, pivotal Belgian town of Bastogne, the Germans surrounded thousands of Allied troops. Eisenhower, in response, sent in more units, including the famed 101st Airborne Division.

"When the Germans sent a message demanding the surrender of the 101st on December 22, they got a one-word response from its commander, Brig. Gen. Anthony McAuliffe: 'Nuts!'" the Bloodiest Battle states. "This was interpreted by German officers as a more colorful-and negative-response to their demand. The day after Christmas, units of Patton's rapidly approaching Third Army finally arrived, broke through the German lines, and rescued the troops."

Claiming victory of the battle on January 25, 1945, and the Allies headed for Berlin. The war ended less than five months later with Germany's May 7 surrender.

In all, according to the U.S. Department of Defense, 1 million-plus Allied troops, including some 500,000 Americans, fought in the Battle of the Bulge, with approximately 19,000 soldiers killed in action, 47,500 wounded and 23,000-plus missing. About 100,000 Germans were killed, wounded or captured.

"The Ardennes campaign of 1944-45 was only one in a series of difficult engagements in the battle for Europe," wrote John S.D. Eisenhower, in his 1969 book, The Bitter Woods. "Nevertheless, it can be said that the Ardennes campaign epitomized them all. For it was here that American and German combat soldiers met in the decisive struggle that broke the back of the Nazi war machine."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Battle of the Bulge - Definition, Dates & Who Won

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Battle of the Bulge took place in December 1944, after Adolf Hitler launched a surprise blitzkrieg against Allied Forces in northwest Europe. Caught off-guard, American units fought to stem the German advance. As the Germans pushed through American defenses, the front line took on the appearance of a large bulge, giving rise to the battle's name.

# data[].attributes.body
following the defeat of the Nazi regime, the full extent of the Holocaust was at last revealed. These survivors of the Ebensee concentration camp were among the 250,000 liberated by Allied troops. Approximately 12,000,000 individuals were killed between 1933-45.

# data[].attributes.body
this sculpture depicts the raising of the American flag over Iwo Jima and is dedicated to all Marines who have given their life in defense of the United States.

# data[].attributes.body
The map inset depicts the movements of both the Japanese and Allied forces during the Battle of Midway in June 1942.

# data[].attributes.body
Gen. Douglas MacArthur was forced to surrender the Philippines, but made his famous promise of "I shall return." Three years later, he made good on his promise to liberate the islands

# data[].attributes.body
this increased because of a large Japanese presence on the West Coast.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
U.S Government vs Japanese-American: Violation of Civil Rights Through Internment Camps

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Despite the lack of any concrete evidence, Japanese Americans were suspected of remaining loyal to their ancestral land. Anti-Japanese paranoia increased because of a large Japanese presence on the...

# data[].attributes.body
After being forced from their communities, Japanese families made these military style barracks their homes.

# data[].attributes.body
Most of the ten relocation camps were built in arid and semi-arid areas where life would have been harsh under even ideal conditions

# data[].attributes.body
the first atomic bomb — a weapon that atomic scientists had nicknamed "Gadget." The nuclear age began on July 16, 1945, when it was detonated in the New Mexico desert.

# data[].attributes.body
Los Alamos atomic scientists conducted a pre-test test in May 1945 to check the monitoring instruments. A 100-ton bomb was exploded some 800 yards from the Trinity site where Gadget would be detonated a few weeks later.

# data[].attributes.body
Enrico Fermi, a physicist who left fascist Italy for America, encouraged the U.S. to begin atomic research. The result was the top-secret "Manhattan Project."

# data[].attributes.body
Winston Churchill, Harry Truman, and Josef Stalin meet at the Potsdam Conference. They discussed the post-war order and peace treaty issues.

# data[].attributes.body
A "mushroom" cloud rises over the city of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, following the detonation of "Fat Man." The second atomic weapon used against Japan, this single bomb resulted in the deaths of 80,000 Japanese citizens.

# data[].attributes.body
On August 6, the city of Hiroshima, Japan remembers those who lost their lives when the atomic bomb fell. Thousands attend the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Ceremony annually.

# data[].attributes.body
When he became President upon Franklin D. Roosevelt's death in 1945, few believed in Harry Truman's ability to govern. But it was Truman's common sense approach that helped the U.S. end World War II and move on to tackle postwar challenges.

# data[].attributes.body
The euphoria that swept the nation in 1945 was captured on film by Lifemagazine photographer Alfred Eisenstaedt. This memorable image of a sailor kissing a nurse in Times Square continues to be a defining image of WWII.

# data[].attributes.body
The American military prepared for the Cold War by conducting tests with new atomic and nuclear technology. Here, troops watch radioactive smoke during the "Desert Rock" exercise in 1951.

# data[].attributes.body
Prime Minister Churchill, President Roosevelt, and Premier Stalin meet at Yalta to discuss post-war Europe. It was at both the Yalta and Dumbarton Oaks conferences that the framework for the United Nations was devised

# data[].attributes.body
Winston Churchill's 1946 speech to Westminster University in Missouri contained the first reference to the communism of Eastern Europe as an "iron curtain."

# data[].attributes.body
This map depicts the situation in Europe around the time of V-E Day. Soviet troops (in red) were able to secure Eastern Europe, while the other Allies worked to win the West. |

# data[].attributes.body
Eleanor Roosevelt became head of the UN's Commission on Human Rights in 1946. Here she holds a copy of the "Declaration of Human Rights," which she considered to be her greatest achievement.

# data[].attributes.body
World leaders met at Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C., in August 1944 to formulate plans for a new organization to promote international cooperation. The general principles established there provided the foundation for the United Nations charter.

# data[].attributes.body
This illustration from the July 16, 1948, U.S. News magazine shows the beginnings of American containment policy. The U.S. is seen sending troops, advisors and weapons to Turkey in hopes that the country will resist communism and remain democratic.

# data[].attributes.body
When Harry Truman approved the Marshall Plan in 1948, his official statement said, "Few presidents have had the opportunity to sign legislation of such importance."

# data[].attributes.body
In a speech to Harvard University in 1947, Secretary of State George C. Marshall proposed that a post-war European aid program be initiated. Less than a year later, the Marshall Plan was a reality.

# data[].attributes.body
Many gather to watch a C-54 loaded with supplies land at Tempelhof airfield in the U.S. sector of Berlin. Over the 11 month course of the Airlift, nearly 4000 tons of goods were delivered every day.

# data[].attributes.body
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization celebrated an important milestone in 1999. For over 50 years now, NATO has existed as a symbol of the solidarity of Western nations.

# data[].attributes.body
Flying from occupied Germany and landing a supply plane in Berlin at the rate of one every 3 minutes, the Berlin Airlift managed to supply the city with the materials needed for survival.

# data[].attributes.body
The television show "M*A*S*H" aired from 1972-83 and used a Korean War innovation — the Mobile Army Surgical Hospital — as its setting. The shows characters, like Dr. "Hawkeye" Pierce, often addressed the tough issues of war through their interactions.

# data[].attributes.body
North Korean tanks cross the 38th Parallel, marking the opening salvo of the Korean War.

# data[].attributes.body
The USS Missouri fires on Chongjin, North Korea, in October 1950. The mission of this particular engagement was to disable enemy communications systems.

# data[].attributes.body
The 1948 Presidential election pitted Democrat Harry Truman against Republican Thomas Dewey. The Chicago Daily Tribune was so confident Truman was headed for defeat that they printed this headline before all of the votes had been counted.

# data[].attributes.body
Harry Truman was elected in 1948, a feat that few political experts had thought possible. To bolster his chances, Truman took to the rails and ran a "whistle-stop" campaign, speaking in over 200 towns in the weeks leading up to the election.

# data[].attributes.body
Harry Truman kept this sign on his desk to make it known that he would not be "passing the buck" on to anyone else.

# data[].attributes.body
Fears that children would be corrupted by the "communist" practices depicted in Robin Hood led many schools and libraries to ban the classic tale about taking from the rich to give to the poor.

# data[].attributes.body
Senator Joseph McCarthy sent this telegram to President Truman two days after claiming that he had identified "205 card-carrying" members of the Communist party working in the U.S. State Department.

# data[].attributes.body
It didn't start airing until 1974, but the television show Happy Daysportrayed the carefree '50s through the antics of characters named Potsie, Chachi, and Fonzie (above).

# data[].attributes.body
The actions of Senator Joseph McCarthy tarnished the relaxed attitude of the 1950s. His hunt for communists working in the U.S. showcased the paranoia and fear that gripped America.

# data[].attributes.body
Dwight D. "Ike" Eisenhower's campaign slogan "I Like Ike" epitomized the swell spirit that defined American culture in the 1950s.

# data[].attributes.body
Convenience and color were two hallmarks of the 1950s kitchen. Pink refrigerators and new pre-sweetened cereals such as Sugar Pops were introduced to America early in the decade.

# data[].attributes.body
William Levitt offered five different versions of each type of home, but all had the same floor plan.

# data[].attributes.body
William Levitt revolutionized the way Americans live and ushered in an age of suburbia by providing inexpensive housing outside the city.

# data[].attributes.body
The Lone Ranger was one of the earliest TV Westerns, making the jump from radio in 1941. The Lone Ranger and other Westerns geared toward children aired on Saturday mornings. Adult Westerns, such as Gunsmoke and Wyatt Earp aired during prime-time.