Yeltsin Presidency

In the 1991 presidency in Russia, Boris Yelstin came into power with 57% of the votes, he was the first popularly elected president. Yelstin vowed to transform Russia from a socialist commmand economy, which is a system based on the states ownership, to a free market economy, which is an economy based on the division of labor. Yelstin's views were seen as quite reactionary, due to his anti-authoritarian views. His style and personality made him extremely popular with the Russian people. He was often seen as a political opportunist, he was able to uphold authoritarian values when needed, but heavily compromise as well.

Unfortunatetly, Yelstin lost status and led Russia through a rocky political, and economic downfall. In the year 2000, Yelstin resigned, and Vladimir Putin became the next president. Was Yelstin's resignation the failure of democracy? Many think that Yelstin was a brilliant man, and his resignation was a shock, and a big upset. Yelstin was loved by the people and his resignation was unfathomable.

Vladimir Putin on the other hand had different political views than Boris Yelstin. Although Putin was hand picked by Yelstin they could not be more different. Yelstin made Putin Prime Minister, and just a little over six months later, Putin became the next president of Russia. Putin's political views were much more authoritarian than democratic. Putin had taken command of the second Chechen war; by the year 2004, Putin had made a multitude of decisions expanding, and rejecting aspects of the Yeltsin legacy.

Many believe that Putin is returning to its Soviet past, instead of building a new Russia. So far this has not been the case, he has been reforming Russia, and is building on the Yelstin policies, not reforming them. Putin is beginning to become more well liked by the public, because he is not your ordinary politician, he understands the public.

Still, the question remains, who is more fit to rule Russia, Yeltsin or Putin? Many will say that the obvious choice is Yeltsin, because he has been so loyal and knows how to negotiate, and really rule Russia. More people find him more trustworthy than Putin. This is because Putin is authoritarian, which means there is more chance that he will turn Russia back into its Soviet past. Others will argue that Putin is the better choice, because he has proved himself reliable and loyal, and has not tried any type of a communist reform. Both men have proved themselves good rulers, but with Putin as president, there leaves much more risk to repeat the past. (527)

French handling of Vietnam

The French were in control of Vietnam, but were slowly losing the land, not soon after did the United States join the war. It all started with Vietnam gaining independance, but was gradually eroded by France in a series of military conquests. The French imposed significant political and cultural changes to Vietnam. Soon after, anti-colonial movements began to challenge French authority. France unsuccessfully fought bitter wars until the early 1960's in Vietnam to keep its empire intact. It became clear to the French that they were losing the war and eventually withdrew from the country in 1954.
In fear that communism would take over, the United States began sending increasing war materials. The United States was fearful about having a communist rule. The French were not as worried about this as the United States were. United States Military advisors were authorized to fire back upon being fired upon. By the mid sixties the United States deployed 543,000 combat troops, to fight against communism. A communist government on paper sounds good,because it is a classless society which makes everyone equal. Because the ideas surrounding a communist government sounded so appealing it became increasingly popular.
Through out the fifties and sixties many countries tried out a communist government including Vietnam. The United States was so fearful that communism would take over that they made their best efforts to fight against what was happening. The United States did not want to appear soft on communism, which is why they backed up France in their battle against the communists. The United States thought of communism as a menace and a problem to be dealt with, they figured if communism was wiped out anywhere it would be wiped out everywhere.
The money spent on military, and nuclear weapons would increase, also the amount of forces to stop or contain communism. Many Americans feared that their "free world," would be threatened by "domination," and a new way of life. Although the United States wanted a non communist country, there was controversy surrounding the U.S’ involvement in Vietnam.
Many American soldiers did not understand why they were in Vietnam fighting in the first place. They understood that the French needed help to fight against the Vietnamese, to avoid a communist take over, but many believe their involvement was more than just that. Many soldiers fighting there believed that it was immoral and just plain wrong. Many civilians thought America's involvement was a waste of American blood and a conflict that did not involve the U.S. On the other hand, there were also other soldiers who believed that what they were doing was right, and it needed to be dealt with. They wanted their country to remain free, and not fall under a communist regime.
So, was the United States right to aid the French in fighting against communism? Or should the United States have stayed out of it? If the United States had not stayed out of the war then maybe things could have been a lot worse. Did America's involvement really help anything? Or did it just make the situation worse? If the United States had not gotten involved our world would probably be a communist one.
(544)