Questions of my own

Some of these may be observations rather then questions.

1. If Japan played a major part in US involvement in Korea, was it more so out of fear of a threat to the system or a need to preserve further spread of Communism? Did it also seem odd that only a few years after the war that Japan would regain regional hegemony with a few different conditions such as openness to trade?

2. This a broad point. Reading so far has led me to the conclusion that a system must be in play for reasonable stability. If this idea is somewhat recognizable, then would the communist/socialist system have been any less exploitation or did the better system (liberal capitalism) eventually win in the end?

3. It seems as if there was a continuum in US policy from the late 1890's onward throughout the use of the a-bomb and US insistence that Japan be kept from Russian hands or policy. The goal appeared to be an emphasis on liberal economics and adherence to US norms and policy. Is there any truth to this?

4. Schoonover's conclusion makes more sense now with the chapter on post-WWII events. He observed that communist Russia and Vietnam were logical responses to the imperial/neo-imperial policies of the west. Should we view them as such or should we also look at external factors such as the influence of the USSR? Why did they go Communist when Japan, S.Korea, Taiwan, the Malaysia and many other South Asian and Pacific nations went with the liberal world system? Nonetheless it does seem correct that western difficulties with these two nations did rest upon the inherent nature of the world system.

5. Without engaging in majority's simpleton arguement, was it logical for the US to hold back in Korea? If the goal was to further the world system in favor of the US, why would China not merit addition? Or was the restraint due to the internal/external needs of US politicians who realized that long term success was more important and required restraint to matinee domestic support?

6. The delay in peace talks was presented by McCormick as a need to implement NSC-68. Could also be that the delay was imperative for the US to concretely implement the new evolution of the military-industrial complex that was required to support its world system?

7. It seems odd in Germany that the US could quickly turn into a better friend then that of one of its war allies France. While the war was brutal, did the conclusion of it mean that enemies could quickly become friends in a world system were economics were more important than prior conflicts? Also, did US alliance with Germany occurring early on in the Cold War, was the US already seeing an endgame where Germany would be key to toppling the Cold War and in creating a new Europe with a relatively friendly Germany as its core?

8. Was Vietnam really the loss of American hegemony given its current friendly relations and embrace of the world system?

9. Were Japan and Vietnam effects of WWII goals to create a free Asia where liberal economics would rule the day? Or should the be looked at separately? My interest is in how Japan like Germany quickly became the centerpiece of US policy with an understanding that arms and power must be given to preserve the world system to former enemies.

10. I found the suggestion that the Cold War was used to suppress the EEC interesting. A new Europe with a clearly antagonistic French outlook on US would have surely led to an impediment on trade and a reorganization of European relations with the USSR. Is this a correct understanding of US actions that seemed to intesify the conflict?

11. Hegemony v. Intergration. If intergration would bring countires into the world system, is it any better or worse then communist attempts to keep them out. Can intergration be looked as a way for the hegemon to ensure the success of its systerm even if ability declines to prop up the system?

12. Can Israel and its destabilizing actions be looked at as an effect of US need to keep the Middle East non-commuinst/USSr friendly? Could it also be that the Middle East in turmoil is more profitable for the world system if the "Achilles heel" of the world system is oil? Is this one of the reason's the US continues to prop uo Isreale and keep out of its actions?