Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in American History Since 1945

This reader introduces students to controversies in American history since 1945. The issues discuss topics such as: was it necessary to drop the atomic bomb to end World War II; was Dwight Eisenhower a great president; and did the great society fail. Taking Sides actively develops critical thinking skills by requiring students to analyze opposing viewpoints and reach considered judgements. Visit our student Web site Dushkin Online (www.dushkin.com/online/) for additional support to this Taking Sides title.

PART 1. American High: 1945-1963

ISSUE 1. Was the United States Responsible for the Cold War?

YES: Thomas G. Paterson, from Meeting the Communist Threat: Truman to Reagan

NO: John Lewis Gaddis, from Russia, the Soviet Union, and the United States: An Interpretive History, 2d ed.

Professor of history Thomas G. Paterson argues that the Truman administration exaggerated the Soviet threat after World War II because the United States had expansionist political and economic global needs. Professor of history John Lewis Gaddis argues that the power vacuum that existed in Europe at the end of World War II exaggerated and made almost inevitable a clash between the democratic, capitalist United States and the totalitarian, communist USSR.

ISSUE 2. Did Communism Threaten America's Internal Security After World War II?

YES: John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, from Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America

NO: Richard M. Fried, from Nightmare in Red: The McCarthy Era in Perspective

History professors John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr argue that army code-breakers during World War II's "Venona Project" uncovered a disturbing number of high-ranking U.S. government officials who seriously damaged American interests by passing sensitive information to the Soviet Union. Professor of history Richard M. Fried argues that the early 1950s were a "nightmare in red" during which American citizens had their First and Fifth Amendment rights suspended when a host of national and state investigating committees searched for Communists in government agencies, Hollywood, labor unions, foundations, universities, public schools, and even public libraries.

ISSUE 3. Should President Truman Have Fired General MacArthur?

YES: John S. Spanier, from "The Politics of the Korean War", in Phil Williams, Donald M. Goldstein, and Henry L. Andrews, Jr., eds., Security in Korea: War, Stalemate, and Negotiation

NO: D. Clayton James with Anne Sharp Wells, from Refighting the Last War: Command and Crisis in Korea, 1950-1953

Professor of political science John S. Spanier argues that General Douglas MacArthur was fired because he publicly disagreed with the Truman administration's "Europe first" policy and its limited war strategy of containing communism in Korea. Biographer D. Clayton James and assistant editor Anne Sharp Wells argue that General MacArthur was relieved of duty because there was a lack of communication between the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the headstrong general, which led to a misperception over the appropriate strategy in fighting the Korean War.

ISSUE 4. Were the 1950s America's "Happy Days?''

YES: Melvyn Dubofsky and Athan Theoharis, from Imperial Democracy: The United States Since 1945, 2d ed.

NO: Douglas T. Miller and Marion Nowak, from The Fifties: The Way We Really Were

Professor of history and sociology Melvyn Dubofsky and professor of history Athan Theoharis argue that throughout the 1950s, the U.S. economy dominated much of the globe and created a period of unprecedented growth and prosperity for the percentage of the American population that made it into the middle class. Professor of history Douglas T. Miller and journalist Marion Nowak argue that the nostalgia craze, which re-creates the 1950s as a sweet, simple, golden age of harmony, masks the fact that the decade was an era of conformity in which Americans feared the bomb, Communists, crime, and the loss of a national purpose.

ISSUE 5. Did Lee Harvey Oswald Kill President Kennedy by Himself?

YES: President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, from The Warren Report: Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

NO: Michael L. Kurtz, from Crime of the Century: The Kennedy Assassination From a Historian's Perspective, 2d ed.

The President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy argues that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin of President Kennedy and that he was not part of any organized conspiracy, domestic or foreign. Professor of history Michael L. Kurtz argues that the Warren commission ignores evidence of Oswald's connections with organized criminals and with pro-Castro and anti-Castro supporters, as well as forensic evidence that points to multiple assassins

PART 2. From Liberation Through Watergate: 1963-1974

ISSUE 6. Was Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Leadership Essential to the Success of the Civil Rights Revolution?

YES: Adam Fairclough, from "Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Quest for Nonviolent Social Change", Phylon

NO: Clayborne Carson, from "Martin Luther King, Jr.: Charismatic Leadership in a Mass Struggle", Journal of American History

Professor of history Adam Fairclough argues that Martin Luther King, Jr., was a pragmatic reformer who organized nonviolent direct action protests in strategically targeted local communities, which provoked violence from his opponents, gaining publicity and sympathy for the civil rights movement. Professor of history Clayborne Carson concludes that the civil rights struggle would have followed a similar course of development even if King had never lived because its successes depended upon mass activism, not the actions of a single leader.

ISSUE 7. Did the Great Society Fail?

YES: Charles Murray, from "The Legacy of the 60's", Commentary

NO: Joseph A. Califano, Jr., from "How Great Was the Great Society?" in Barbara C. Jordan and Elspeth D. Rostow, eds., The Great Society: A Twenty Year Critique

Conservative social critic Charles Murray argues that not only did the Great Society's retraining, anticrime, and welfare programs not work, but they actually contributed to the worsening plight of U.S. inner cities. Joseph A. Califano, Jr., a former aide to President Lyndon Johnson, maintains that the Great Society programs brought about positive revolutionary changes in the areas of civil rights, education, health care, the environment, and consumer protection.

ISSUE 8. Was the Americanization of the War in Vietnam Inevitable?

YES: Brian VanDeMark, from Into the Quagmire: Lyndon Johnson and the Escalation of the Vietnam War

NO: H. R. McMaster, from Dereliction of Duty: Lyndon Johnson, Robert McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam

Professor of history Brian VanDeMark argues that President Lyndon Johnson failed to question the viability of increasing U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War because he was a prisoner of America's global containment policy and because he did not want his opponents to accuse him of being soft on communism or endanger support for his Great Society reforms. H. R. McMaster, an active-duty army tanker, maintains that the Vietnam disaster was not inevitable but a uniquely human failure whose responsibility was shared by President Johnson and his principal military and civilian advisers.

ISSUE 9. Has the Women's Liberation Movement Been Harmful to American Women?

YES: F. Carolyn Graglia, from Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism

NO: Jo Freeman, from "The Women's Liberation Movement: Its Origins, Structure, Activities, and Ideas", in Jo Freeman, ed., Women: A Feminist Perspective, 3rd ed.

Writer and lecturer F. Carolyn Graglia argues that women should stay at home and practice the values of "true motherhood" because contemporary feminists have discredited marriage, devalued traditional homemaking, and encouraged sexual promiscuity. Feminist Jo Freeman argues that in the late 1960s activists challenged the notion of women's inferior status in society through lawsuits and through "consciousness-raising" sessions to develop egalitarian and liberation values.

ISSUE 10. Will History Forgive Richard Nixon?

YES: Joan Hoff-Wilson, from "Richard M. Nixon: The Corporate Presidency", in Fred I. Greenstein, ed., Leadership in the Modern Presidency

NO: Stanley I. Kutler, from "Et Tu, Bob?" The Nation

According to professor of history Joan Hoff-Wilson, the Nixon presidency reorganized the executive branch and portions of the federal bureaucracy and implemented domestic reforms in civil rights, welfare, and economic planning, despite its limited foreign policy successes and the Watergate scandal. Professor and political commentator Stanley I. Kutler argues that President Nixon was a crass, cynical, narrow-minded politician who unnecessarily prolonged the Vietnam War to ensure his reelection and implemented domestic reforms only when he could outflank his liberal opponents.

PART 3. Postindustrial America and the End of the Cold War: 1974-2001

ISSUE 11. Did President Reagan Win the Cold War?

YES: John Lewis Gaddis, from The United States and the End of the Cold War: Implications, Reconsiderations, Provocations

NO: Daniel Deudney and G. John Ikenberry, from "Who Won the Cold War?" Foreign Policy

Professor of history John Lewis Gaddis argues that President Reagan combined a policy of militancy and operational pragmatism to bring about the most significant improvement in Soviet-American relations sinc e the end of World War II. Professors of political science Daniel Deudney and G. John Ikenberry contend that the cold war ended only when Soviet president Gorbachev accepted Western liberal values and the need for global cooperation.