Eisenhower Speech Analysis

Words: 988
Pages: 4

On April 7th, 1954, President Eisenhower regarded the concerns of the nation as grievous in nature in an international press conference. Eisenhower spent most of the conference explaining himself as well as the concerns of his nation in regard to the socio-political ideals of communism, and the expansion of the idea in the area. Firstly, the United States President highlight the economic importance of the Indochinese nation-state in terms of their natural resources stating, “the specific value of a locality in the production of the materials is what the world needs”, which made reference to the materials such as jute, rubber and Sulphur all of which the United States had scouted out several months beforehand. He also noted the fact that nation-state …show more content…
In regard to the Eisenhower speech, it can be seen that Ho Chi Minh would have held a stricter hand on the republic, and in extension, the foreign policies that the other nations had held over the Diem administration. Throughout the duration of his life, Minh never lost sight of his goal of forming an independent state, even as a communist leader, which seemingly contradicted the ideals of the dictated choices of the man and his ideas. There is no doubt that Minh was not fully committed to the communist ideologies of his time, and would always be a head-strong political activist. In 1920, Ho Chi Minh accepted the political practice of communism completely without a second thought. His ideologies regarding communism, however, were still flexible enough to serve his purposes, and the purposes of the people. If the election had tilted towards him instead of Diem, the chances of Eisenhower’s theology becoming truth are high, because if Ho Chi Minh continued his idea of free-thinking, and development without foreign rule the other nations, that had once been suppressed would have revolted and attempted to follow in suit, much like how America is considered the figurehead of the Western World, Vietnam would have become the figurehead of freedom in the Southeastern half of Asia, which would have caused a domino effect in the east. In any case, Ho Chi Minh was never the doctrinaire, but was still more than a political activist in terms of his long-term goals for the nation-state that he’d helped develop in the years before the Geneva