In the midst of the Vietnam War, two titans of the Senate, J. William Fulbright and John C. Stennis, held public hearings to debate the conflict's future. In this intriguing new work, historian Joseph A. Fry provides the first comparative analysis of these inquiries and the senior southern Senators who led them. The Senators' shared aim was to alter the Johnson administration's strategy and bring an end to the war--but from dramatically different perspectives. Fulbright hoped to pressure Johnson to halt escalation and seek a negotiated settlement, while Stennis wanted to prompt the President to bomb North Vietnam more aggressively and secure a victorious end to the war. Publicized and televised, these hearings added fuel to the fire of national debate over Vietnam policy and captured the many arguments of both hawks and doves. Fry details the dramatic confrontations between the Senate committees and the administration spokesmen, Dean Rusk and Robert McNamara, and he probes the success of congressional efforts to influence Vietnam policy. Ultimately, Fry shows how the Fulbright and Stennis hearings provide vivid insight into the debate over why the United States was involved in Vietnam and how the war should be conducted.

Background to a needless war -- Morgenthau and Bundy : the Harvard dean fails the Vietnam reality test -- Media neglect of the national interest -- Morgenthau and Schlesinger and the national interest -- Morgenthau and the Council on Foreign Relations -- Morgenthau's influence, Fulbright's conversion and the stupidity of smart men -- "What I have said recently, I have been saying for years without anybody paying attention.

In 2021, the American Historical Association published a study on how the American public perceives and understands the past. Almost half of the respondents argued that they turn to Wikipedia to learn about history and acquire a historical understanding of the past. Wikipedia was ranked higher than other historical activities, such as "Historic site visit," "Museum visit," "Genealogy work," "Social media," "Podcast/radio program," "History lecture," and "History-related video game." These findings combined with the appropriation of Wikipedia's corpus by ChatGPT and Wikipedia's partnership with the most central search engine in the digital world, Google, and other digital assistants, such as Siri and Alexa, make clear how crucial the role of Wikipedia in how the public learns about history and makes sense of the past is. But how is historical knowledge produced on Wikipedia? How do Wikipedia editors engage with historical events of the past and transform the past into historical knowledge? Why do they decide to contribute to the production of history? By placing Wikipedia editors at the center of research inquiry and using multiple methodologies and different kinds of data, this book explores how historical knowledge is produced in one of the most central digital communities of knowledge, Wikipedia.

Debating the 1960s explores the decade through the controversies between radicals, liberals, and conservatives. The focus is on four main areas of contention: social welfare, civil rights, foreign relations, and social order. The book also examines the emergence of the New Left and the modern conservative movement. Combining analytical essays and historical documents, the book highlights the polarization of the era and assesses the enduring importance of the 1960s on contemporary American politics and society.

As American soldiers fought overseas in Vietnam, American churchmen debated the legitimacy and impact of the war at home. While the justness of the war was the primary issue, they also argued over conscientious objection, the legitimacy of protests, the weapons of war, and other related topics. Divided into three primary groups—mainline, conservative evangelical, and African American—and including fourteen denominations, this book uses the churchmen’s publications and proceedings to better understand how American religion responded to and was impacted by the Vietnam War. In the various debates, churchmen brought their theological convictions and reading of the Bible to bear on their political perspectives. Convictions about sin, the nature of man, the fate of the world, violence and benevolence had direct impact upon the foreign policy perspectives of these churches. Rather than result in static political positions, these convictions adapted as the nature of the war and the likelihood of American success changed over time. The positions taken by American denominations brought about attitudes of support, opposition, and ambivalence toward the war, but also impacted the vibrancy of many churches. Some groups were rent asunder by the fractious, debilitating debate. Other churches, due to their greater ideological clarity and unanimity, saw the war provide an impetus for growth. Regardless of the individual consequences, the debate over the Vietnam War provides a concrete study of the intersection of religion and politics.

Revolution is an idea that has been one of the most important drivers of human activity since its emergence in its modern form in the 18th century. From the American and French revolutionaries who upset a monarchical order that had dominated for over a millennium up to the Arab Spring, this notion continues but has also developed its meanings. Equated with democracy and legal equality at first and surprisingly redefined into its modern meaning, revolution has become a means to create nations, change the social order, and throw out colonial occupiers, and has been labelled as both conservative and reactionary. In this concise introduction to the topic, Jack R. Censer charts the development of these competing ideas and definitions in four chronological sections. Each section includes a debate from protagonists who represent various forms of revolution and counterrevolution, allowing students a firmer grasp on the particular ideas and individuals of each era. This book offers a new approach to the topic of revolution for all students of world history.

Despite the brevity of John F. Kennedy's presidency, its significance endures. From the Cuban Missile Crisis and the creation of the Berlin Wall to the Peace Corps and the civil rights movement, Kennedy's presidency was one of crisis and change. In Debating the Kennedy Presidency, noted scholars James N. Giglio and Stephen G. Rabe examine the successes and failures of Kennedy's foreign and domestic policies. Rabe focuses on the administration's foreign relations and argues that JFK was a relentless Cold Warrior who perpetuated the Cold War more than he resolved it. Conversely, Giglio sympathetically surveys domestic policies and defends Kennedy's record by emphasizing the constraints under which the president had to operate. The differing viewpoints of the two authors, as well as the supplementary documents, provide an ideal introduction allowing readers to examine the issues and draw their own conclusions about America's 35th president.

This study examines the relevance of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in responding to humanitarian challenges across the world. In proposing a number of revisionist alternatives, Ercan proposes a way forward for R2P, particularly regarding its Second and Third Pillars. Despite the debate shifting from a right to intervene towards a responsibility to protect, the conceptual and systemic limitations imposed on R2P via its institutionalisation have hampered its ability to consolidate change. In light of this, Ercan argues that R2P cannot make a positive contribution towards changing the international system without first being equipped with new powers.

A history of international law in public debates and its resulting popular language of international law.