AboutTom Expertise While it is a huge topic, I am well-versed in World War II generally. There is a huge wealth of information available on the internet, HOWEVER, one has to know the trash from the gems. Many sites which are not obviously credible (govt, university, and museum sites, for ex.), provide erroneous information (intentionally or otherwise).
Experience BA in history, and been reading and studying WW2 as my 'hobby' for 30 years. Regular contributor to several online forums in military history, WW2, and related areas and topics.
Organizations None relevant to this topic.
Education/Credentials BA, History (Secondary Education), with minor in Geography
US Army Engineer Officer (Officer Basic and Advanced Courses)
Question Hey Tom, I've had a bit of a time trying to answer this comprehensively. I know the fundamental assumptiuon was the fact USSR had the "bomb" and they may sell the intelligence to the Chinese... but the second part of the question I can't answer specifically.. I know we did the Vietnam thing to try and knock-out communism and seperate USSR and China..... but my answers are vague and not hard-hitting enough for my style. Can you help?
What were the fundamental assumptions by the US and the Soviet Union that guided their respective Cold War policies?
How did these policies evolve or change from 1947 to 1960, and how did they affect America's role in Vietnam?
Answer This is indeed a very difficult question.
I have been way behind in my own master's class, so haven't had chance to think on this, but since it has been days, I feel I should give you what I know off top of head, though I wish I could do some research. While the web is full of dubious info, there are a ton of great sites, too, and the Cold War was an enormous and watershed event in history with incredible amounts of information, commentary and analysis. The books on this subject are literally thousands,with journals having probably articles in the many thousands.
"What were the fundamental assumptions by the US and the Soviet Union that guided their respective Cold War policies?"
AS you know, the US created the bomb in 1945. Due to espionage and effort, Stalin got it for the USSR in 1949. In the same time frame you are talking, Britain, France and China were working on their own programs and supporting weapons systems to deliver them (China 1964, Britain and France in similar timeframe), with the US and USSR also developing the even more powerful Hydrogen bomb (early 50s).
For the US (and somewhat for the west), came a growing realization that communism, led by the USSR, posed a very real and present danger. That the USSR was expansionist and was so vehemently opposed to Capitalism and Democracy that there was no true peace or trust.
Remember that with the fall of Germany in 1945, the allies met in central Germany. The occupation/spheres of influence were pretty much set right there, with (Churchill's statement in speech in Missouri) an iron curtain falling from the Baltic to the Adriatic. The soviets essentially placed communist governments in the eastern european countries (though Yugoslavia and Albania would have 'gone communist' anyway) - East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria.
Then in the coming years, while communist govts were put in place, events transpired - West Berlin was cut off (Berlin airlift), Greek communist rebellion that turned to civil war, western nations forming the defensive NATO alliance, the fall of China to Chinese communists in 1949, and in 1950, outbreak of the Korean War.
So what did this mean to the US/West? It set the core viewpoints:
1) Communism was expansionist.
2) It had aim of worldwide expansion.
3) It was directed from MOSCOW (key point - Moscow was seen as directing the whole thing).
The domino theory came to be seen as FACT - that nations, esp. weak nations, would fall to vigorous communist movements (like China did), and would then support the rebels in the next nation, and they would fall like dominoes.
How this plays into Vietnam is that the US, fearing that the communists - doing the work of the Soviets (remember, nationalism was seen as secondary to Moscow's directives) - were going to take over Indochina (esp. Vietnam). Thus, the US actually did an 'about-face' and supported a colonial power (France) in fighting the Viet Minh to retain control of Indochina. We simply feared that if France lost, the communists (Ho Chi Minh) would take control. Read about the 1954-55 Geneva talks and Geneva Accord that 'ended' the French colonial war, and how the US manipulated it.
France left, and the "two sides" of Vietnam separated to prepare for elections - communists to north, 'others' (I can't call them anything else as they were authoritarians, monarchists, french loyalists, catholics, wealthy, and some other groups - but not really democracy advocates, their main virtue was... they were not communists!) - those folks went to the southern half. That border of "North" Vietnam and "South" Vietnam was a temporary artificial boundary at 17th parallel. With elections in 1956, it is believed that the communist leader would have won in a free and fair election. So the US supported the southerners in refusing to hold elections!
All this is to say that the basic views were those 3 above.
Now the communists - that's another matter, and I won't make such a long statement.
Communism WAS expansionist.
Communism WAS 'directed' by Moscow, but it was NOT uniform. Tito in Yugoslavia never permitted soviets to base troops there, and did not take orders from Moscow. Hoxha in Albania broke with Moscow, later allied with China, then broke with China too! China (under Mao) was in conflict with Stalin/Moscow from before their victory in 1949. Mao did not take to being a 'lackey' - he expected to be a full partner.
Nationalism and differences in the implementation of communism meant that over time, those differences came to be very important, BUT in the timeframe you have cited, communism was almost MONOLITHIC, and it APPEARED monolithic to the US.
The break of China and USSR grew over the years, but probably didn't become more or less 'solid' until about 1960.
Communism saw the west, generally, as weak, decadent, without purpose or focus. They also saw the west as a great danger - so strong that the communists could not challenge us DIRECTLY, and thus communist movements and support for rebels, fifth columns and such was the primary tool.
Get a world map and note that in 1939, communism was in precisely TWO nations - Mongolia and the vast USSR (today that territory comprises 12 nations - 15 if you count the three baltic republics annexed in 1940).
Look at it in 1950 and you see additions of about 1/4 of the world population - China, North Korea, eastern Europe.
By 1960 you could also add in North Vietnam, Cuba and you would see a lot of rebel movements in AFrica and Asia that were communist in basis.
Hope that helps, and that it wasn't too late.
BTW: " I know we did the Vietnam thing to try and knock-out communism and seperate USSR and China...."
I don't agree with that assessment. While Vietnam did do a small bit to drive a wedge between China and USSR, that was not why we were there, nor why we stayed.
