May 31, 2005
IS THAT YOUR BEST DEFENSE?:
FDR at Yalta (Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., 25 May 2005, Times Literary Supplement)
A great foreign-policy fear that haunted Roosevelt’s generation was the fear of resurgent American isolationism. We sometimes forget how brief an interval separated the two World Wars. FDR was thirty-eight years old when the Senate rejected the League of Nations; he was only fifty-seven when war broke out again in Europe in 1939 – the war predicted by Woodrow Wilson “with absolute certainty”, in September 1919, if America did not join the League. During the inter-war years the struggle against isolationism consumed much of FDR’s time and energy. As foreign-policy spokesman for the Democratic Party, he declared in a Foreign Affairs article in 1928 that only by actions of international collaboration could the United States “regain the world’s trust and friendship”.The experience of an internationalist moment followed by a profound and impassioned isolationist revival had engraved itself indelibly on the consciousness of the old Wilsonians. In the 1942 mid-term Congressional election, internationalists launched a major campaign for a “win-the-war” Congress, targeting isolationist legislators on a hit list. The leading isolationists in Congress survived the primaries. In FDR’s own Congressional district, internationalist Republicans like Wendell Wilkie and Thomas E. Dewey opposed the renomination of the bitter isolationist, Hamilton Fish, but Fish won the primary two to one. In the General Election, only five of 115 Congressmen with isolationist records were beaten. The Republicans gained forty-four seats in the House and nine in the Senate – their best performance in years.
After the Election, Secretary of State Cordell Hull told Vice President Henry Wallace that “the country was going to keep the sequence of events from following the 1918–1921 pattern because he felt if we went into isolationism this time, the world was lost forever”.
For Roosevelt the critical task in 1943–5 was to commit the United States to a post-war structure of peace. FDR regarded a permanent international organization, in Bohlen’s words, as “the only device that could keep the United States from slipping back to isolationism”. The memory, still vivid, of the repudiation of the League two decades before suggested that the task would not be easy. Unilateralism had been the American norm for a century and a half. Internationalism had been a two-year Wilson-ian aberration. No one could assume that isolationism would simply wither away. It had to be brought to a definitive end by American commitments to international order, and, as the
master politician knew, Congress and the people were more likely to make such commitments while the war was still on. FDR said privately, “Anybody who thinks that isolationism is dead in this country is crazy. As soon as this War is over, it may well be stronger than ever”.He proceeded to lay the groundwork in 1943–5 with the same skill and circumspection with which he had steered the nation away from isolationism in 1937–41. The challenge of contriving a smooth transition from unilateralism to internationalism shaped Roosevelt’s diplomatic strategy. He moved quietly to prepare the American people for a larger international role. By the end of 1944, a series of international conferences, held mostly at American initiative and generally with bipartisan American representation, had created a post-war agenda – international organization (Dumbarton Oaks), finance, trade and development (Bretton Woods), food and agriculture (Hot Springs), civil aviation (Chicago), relief and reconstruction (UNRRA). These conferences established a framework for the world after the war – an impressive achievement for a President whom historians used to charge with subordinating political to military goals.
Against this background we can consider Roosevelt’s objectives in this last meeting with Stalin. In order of priority, they were, I surmise: first, to get the United Nations under way before the end of the war on terms that would assure American and Soviet participation – a result Roosevelt deemed imperative both to provide the means of correcting any mistake that harassed leaders framing the peace might make and also to save his own country from a relapse into isolationism. The second priority was to get the Soviet forces to join the war against Japan by a date certain (the atomic bomb was five months in the future) on terms that would strengthen Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist regime in China. A third priority was to work out some compromise on Eastern Europe as a test of Soviet intentions; and a fourth, to get a few modest preliminary agreements for the occupation of Germany. “I dislike making detailed plans”, Roosevelt explained to Hull in October 1944, “for a country which we do not yet occupy.”
Roosevelt achieved his objectives. [...]
[A]fter Yalta, the Russians indeed went their own way. The Second World War left the international order in acute derangement. With the Axis states vanquished, the European Allies exhausted, the colonial empires in tumult and dissolution, great gaping holes appeared in the structure of world power. The war left only two states – the USA and the USSR – with the political dynamism to flow into these vacuums. The two states were constructed on opposite and antagonistic principles, marvellously incarnated in Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin. No one should be surprised by what ensued. The real surprise would have been if there had been no Cold War.
You'll not find many Eastern Europeans who think it was worth their freedom just so FDR could create conditions that would keep America involved in Europe. Far better for all concerned to have gotten rid of Stalin and reverted to a healthy non-interventionism. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 31, 2005 12:01 AM
First, getting rid of Stalin would have required America to commit a war crime - the deliberate and unprovoked attack on a nation that was not threatening the US at the time (1945).
Second, a return to isolationism was neither possible nor desireable in a modern interconnected world. In a world of radio, television and passenger airlines, there was no way America could return home and hide under its covers. By the 1940s isolationism had become a self deluding fantasy.
But let's assume a return to isolationism after a nuclear sneak attack on the USSR had made America a pariah nation anyways. If America had retreated back into its shell, European squabbling would have ensured yet another Great War being fought on the continent. How is such non-interventionism "healthy"?
Like the squabbling city states of ancient Greece, the European states needed a "Rome" to impose a peace, provide security and ensure prosperity. Post-war America fulfilled the same historic role. The real reason the likes of OJ and Pat Buchanan hate FDR is that he drove the last nails into the coffin of isolationism.
daniel:
(1) The USSR had already attacked our allies--we were in a de facto state of war.
(2) We returned to one as soon as the Cold War ended and we'll return again within the next couple years as the war on terroir winds down.
(3) Who cares if the Europeans fight amongst themselves?
Posted by: oj at May 31, 2005 10:30 AM(1) The USSR had already attacked our allies--we were in a de facto state of war.
Which allies had been attacked by the Soviets in 1945?
(2) We returned to one as soon as the Cold War ended and we'll return again within the next couple years as the war on terroir winds down.
I assume by this poorly written statement that you mean we reverted to isolationism after the Berlin Wall fell. Funny, I don't recall seeing that in the papers. How exactly did America become isolationist in the early 1990s?
(3) Who cares if the Europeans fight amongst themselves?
Aside from basic humanitarianism and simple decency associated with preventing a war that could could millions more innocent people (even if they are Europeans), we should be concerned about European fighting simply because there is no physical way for America not to become involved. Or from a a more cynical realpolitik point of view, it would not be in America's best interest to have Europe dominated by one nation, even if that nation was supposedly friendly.
Posted by: daniel duffy at May 31, 2005 10:41 AMdaniel: 1) War is not a crime. How one wages a war may be.
Seems to me that any writing on Yalta that doesn't mention one Mr. Hiss is fundamentally dishonest.
Posted by: b at May 31, 2005 10:43 AMPoland for starters.
Cut military spending in half.
No one nation can dominate Europe, but if it did that would be all it could do. It's a self-solving "problem."
Posted by: oj at May 31, 2005 10:47 AMDaniel:
The Euros punted on the Balkans and Americans have been there since 1998, basically just parked between groups of people who do not like each other. Last time I checked, no one cared enough (especially in Europe) to change the equation.
Now that the EC is cratering, should we send troops to protect Brussels? Should we go protect Poland?
The belly of isolationism died when the globe started to shrink. It's one thing to have a 6-week or even 5-day journey to London or Paris; it's quite another to be able to eat breakfast in New York (or Chicago, Atlanta, Miami, etc.) and then have dinner in Europe.
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 31, 2005 11:32 AMHow does driving German occupiers out of Poland (the Red Army had reached the Oder by the time of Yalta) constitute an attack on Poland? Using the same reasoning (if you want to call it that), the American and British liberation of France was an attack on France.
How does a cut in defense spending equate to isolationism? America severely cut its military spending immediately after WWII (which is why we were so unprepared for the Korean War). yet during the same period, American foreign policy was anyting but isolationist (the UN, Marshall Plan, etc.).
It's the self solving part that bothers me since it involves many dead bodies. Is it not more moral and Christian to prevent such a war from happening in the first place by imposing American hegemony?
b, How one wages such a war is exactly the point. An unprovoked attack on the USSR would have been a war crime under international law. Many a Nazi was hung at Nuremberg for committing such a crime.
Jim, you are quite right. Modern commuication and transporation technology makes isolationism physically impossible. Isolationism is a fantasy for the deluded.
Oh OJ, you said "allies" plural. Which other allies were attacked by the Soviet Union in 1945?
Posted by: daniel duffy at May 31, 2005 12:20 PMdaniel:
Of course we attacked France--they were the enemy. Though we probably should have, we didn't have Katyn Forest style massacres of their officer corps though (Well, the British did sink their fleet and all the men on board.)
Post WWII spending averaged over 6% of GDP. After the Cold War we cut it to 3%. And almost completely ignored al Qaeda, which was an actual threat and the mess in the Middle East which we were likely to get involved in sooner or later. America is non-interventionist by default. As Schlesinger's own essay says, Americans punished FDR and Democrats for getting involved with Europe in WWII.
The Baltic states, the Czechs, etc.
Posted by: oj at May 31, 2005 12:26 PMThough we probably should have, we didn't have Katyn Forest style massacres of their officer corps though
Is there no limit to the number and kinds of people you would like to kill?
How do you live with yourself?
How does your wife live with you?
Do your children know that you are a monster?
daniel: Your comment to oj implies that you believe we did not "attack" France. How exactly do you square this with Operation Torch and the fact that the French fairly vigorously (by their standards) resisted the Allies?
Given that the French authorities viewed Operation Torch as an invasion, and given that France was not threatening us, how was this not a "war crime"?
Seriously, when you feel yourself driven into such a rage by oj's obtuse and deliberately provocative statements, it's time to put away the keyboard...
Posted by: b at May 31, 2005 12:46 PMThe Wife and kids are Jewish--they think nuking France would be too kind. They want to napalm it.
Posted by: oj at May 31, 2005 2:43 PMWhat East European freedom?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 31, 2005 3:15 PMExactly.
Posted by: oj at May 31, 2005 4:20 PMNone before the Red Army got there.
On what evidence do you think there would have been any had the Red Army gone home?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at May 31, 2005 9:59 PMThere was when the Red Army went home.
Posted by: oj at May 31, 2005 10:11 PMThere's a slogan for the new century - "The Red Army, Bringer of Freedom!"
Even Suslov might have like that. :>)
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 31, 2005 11:37 PMoj, admit it, harry is a "plant"; no one would unintentionally set you up the way he does.
"There was when the Red Army went home." classic
Posted by: cjm at May 31, 2005 11:46 PM"Post WWII spending averaged over 6% of GDP. After the Cold War we cut it to 3%. And almost completely ignored al Qaeda, which was an actual threat and the mess in the Middle East which we were likely to get involved in sooner or later."
How does this prove the desirability of isolationism. It seems to me that it is closer to proving the foolishness of isolationism.
"America is non-interventionist by default."
Yes, but we will not be able to mind our own business until such time, if ever, as universal peace is achieved. Like it or not the United States is the guarantor of peace and decncy in world affairs.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 1, 2005 11:24 PMSome of you might be very interested in reading Anthony Beevor's The Fall of Berlin, 1945 (also published as Berlin: the Downfall, 1945), which may clarify some of the positions/questions above, particularly, how Stalin was able to mislead the US (though not Churchill, essentially), and by extension, how poorly equipped Americans can be in assessing paranoid, dictatorial rulers.
And in Stalingrad he shows just how many Russians Stalin had to murder to get the rest to fight even to defend the Motherland.
Posted by: oj at June 2, 2005 11:09 AMYes, cjm, it is curious that the Eastern European countries have not (yet) reverted to the unfree, rightwing dictatorships that they chose in the 1920 and '30s.
No one would have predicted that in 1945.
It may be, perhaps, that the suppression of Christianity for two generations allowed ideas of independence and self-government to emerge where they had never existed before.
If I'm wrong, what's your explanation?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at June 2, 2005 4:02 PMHarry;
they are comparatively rightwing and quite Christian. That's why places like Poland and the Czech Republic are outperforming secular Western Europe. Germany is about to try the same formula.
Posted by: oj at June 2, 2005 4:11 PMIf having half the output is 'outperforming' then I couldn't argue.
They are not 'quite Christian' any more, for which the few remaining Jews there can be thankful. The decline in pogroms is among the things that need explaining.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at June 3, 2005 3:38 PMHarry:
They got rid of the Jews--what would be the point of a pogrom?
Posted by: oj at June 3, 2005 4:36 PMWhat was the point the first times around?
Proving something to God?
Posted by: Harry Eagar at June 3, 2005 9:14 PMIt was a simple application of Darwinism.
Posted by: oj at June 3, 2005 9:18 PM