Schlesinger portrays the US as ideological warriors defending the American values of freedom and democracy. The passage portrays an America opposed to spheres of influence approach and instead favouring universalism whereby every nation shares common interests. Schlesinger highlights how the US distanced itself from the UK when Churchill went ahead with sphere of influence agreements highlighting its opposition to such measures. The article strongly contrasts to Williams, as the source rejects any imperialist role by the US. The article does not acknowledge the creation of any economic sphere of influence and states that “the US must not permit Britain and Russia to revert to these bad old ways [spheres of influence].” The source depicts the …show more content…
The source outlines the open door policy which aimed to assure the USA unrestricted economic access to as many global markets as possible. The passage contrasts strongly with Gaddis’s interpretation, as Williams claims that the issue of sustaining capitalism was primarily on the minds of US policy makers rather than the threat from the USSR which was largely exaggerated. William’s claims that policy makers were deeply concerned about the risk of a depression and America post war policy centred around keeping this risk to a minimum. To offset the risk of depression, American policy makers looked to underdeveloped foreign countries to facilitate trade between them and the USA. However, the USA also tried to apply the open door policy to eastern Europe, this economic imperialist drive for new markets broke the sphere of influence agreement and the percentages agreement ensuring a break down in post war relations which was brought about by the US. Indeed, Secretary of Commerce Wallace cautioned Truman that “[the open door policy] was increasing tensions.” Truman did not heed his warning and went ahead with trying to consolidate power in eastern orchestrating protests over the soviet sphere of influence. The passage also contrasts strongly with Gaddis as he claims that economic instruments were used to serve political and not economic ends. However, this …show more content…
He claims that the US was at fault not for being too aggressive but for not being aggressive enough. As the US did little to prevent the expansion of the USSR into eastern Europe. He attributes the primary cause of the cold war to the imperialist ambitions by Russia and claims that the US’s passive response to this action as a secondary cause. Gaddis claims “only the west could have defined the limits of Stalin’s ambition. Stalin was incapable of doing so.” Gaddis backs up this claim of passivity by citing recently opened British Foreign Office records that asserts that “The fear was not of American expansion by of American Isolationism.” The article acknowledges the existence of an American Sphere of influence however unlike the soviets he claims this came about primarily by invitation as many states welcomed American influence to offset that of the Russians. He attacks the notion that this sphere of influence came about as a tool of economic imperialism, which contrasts strongly with the passage by William A. Williams. Rather he claims after WW2 US policy makers saw the USSR as a far greater threat than the crisis of capitalism. To back this up he states “policies actually followed did less than one might think to advance it [capitalism].” On this issue of economic imperialism, he further claims that the onus of the Marshall plan, Post war credits and other economic
The alliance formed between the US and USSR during the second world war was not strong enough to overcome the decades of uneasiness which existed between the two ideologically polar opposite countries. With their German enemy defeated, the two emerging nuclear superpowers no longer had any common ground on which to base a political, economical, or any other type of relationship. Tensions ran high as the USSR sought to expand Soviet influence throughout Europe while the US and other Western European nations made their opposition to such actions well known. The Eastern countries already under Soviet rule yearned for their independence, while the Western countries were willing to go to great lengths to limit Soviet expansion. "Containment of 'world revolution' became the watchword of American foreign policy throughout the 1950s a...
To start off the Cold war, Russia had lost twenty-seven million soldiers in World War II. Stalin was not going to allow the Germany to attack Russia again . To make sure of this , Stalin made East Europe his buffer zone.The United states could not allow the this to contunie to happen. The first example was the Truman Doctrine, that declared the the Untited States would support “free people”. The Doctrine was followed by the Marshall Plan which gave 12 billion dollars in aid European democracies so that communist ideas would not be so attractive. These were some of the long term , patient policies the United States did to
In its efforts to defend democracy, the U.S. created the policy of containment. In this new policy, the United States would try to block Soviet influence by making alliances and supporting weaker nations. Winston Churchill described this strategy as an?iron curtain?, which became an invisible line separating the communist from the capitalist countries in Europe.... ... middle of paper ...
During 1940-1970, the USSR and the USA were the world’s leading superpowers. After WW2, it was the US money that helped rebuild nearly all of Western Europe, putting nearly half a dozen countries into debt. They opened trade and helped Europe’s ravaged economy to get back onto its feet. They did so by creating the ‘Marshall Plan’ on June the 5th, 1947. The plans aim was to reconstruct Western Europe and at the same time to stop Communism spreading to them – the Americans were avid believers in the Domino Theory, and believed that communism would take over all of Europe if they did not intervene. They also created other policies such as the Truman doctrine on March the 12th, 1947 (which is a set of principles that state that the US as the worlds ‘leading country’ will help out other democratic governments worldwide) and NATO, 4th of April 1949.
Without understanding the importance of foreign relations the American people’s way of life could be at stake. Not only could the economic strength of the U.S. diminish, but the military might of the U.S. could also be compromised. Mead argues that without the centrality of foreign policy being evident in American politics the happiness of the world is at risk. “Since the United States has become the central power in a worldwide system of finance, communications, and trade, it is not only the American people whose happiness and security will be greatly affected by the quality of American foreign policy in coming years (Mead 176). I contend that without a strong emphasis on foreign policy, we could begin to see the end of American
...es when it comes to implementing controversial foreign policy decisions that directly affect Americans and those in different countries. The main aspect of the affair that greatly influences the United States’ government is ensuring that its past imperialistic motives do not become an integral part of American affairs once again.
Gaddis, John Lewis. We Now Know: Rethinking the Cold War: Dividing the World. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1997. Publishing.
Discussions of the causes of the Cold War are often divisive, creating disparate ideological camps that focus the blame in different directions depending on the academic’s political disposition. One popular argument places the blame largely on the American people, whose emphasis on “strength over compromise” and their deployment of the atomic bomb in the Second World War’s Pacific theatre apparently functioned as two key catalysts to the conflict between US and Soviet powers. This revisionist approach minimizes Stalin’s forceful approach and history of violent leadership throughout World War 2, and focuses instead on President Harry Truman’s apparent insensitivity to “reasonable Soviet security anxieties” in his quest to impose “American interests on the world.” Revisionist historians depict President Truman as a “Cold War monger,” whose unjustified political use of the atomic bomb and ornery diplomatic style forced Russia into the Cold War to oppose the spread of a looming capitalist democratic monopoly. In reality, Truman’s responsibility for the Cold War and the atomic bomb drop should be minimized.
The Soviet Union began to view the United States as a threat to communism, and the United States began to view the Soviet Union as a threat to democracy. On March 12, 1947, Truman gave a speech in which he argued that the United States should support nations trying to resist Soviet imperialism. Truman and his advisors created a foreign policy that consisted of giving reconstruction aid to Europe, and preventing Russian expansionism. These foreign policy decisions, as well as his involvement in the usage of the atomic bomb, raise the question of whether or not the Cold War can be blamed on Truman. Supporting the view that Truman was responsible for the Cold War, Arnold Offner argues that Truman’s parochialism and nationalism caused him to make contrary foreign policy decisions without regard to other nations, which caused the intense standoff between the Soviet Union and America that became the Cold War (Offner 291)....
As we approach the next Presidential election the topic of American foreign policy is once again in the spotlight. In this paper, I will examine four major objectives of U.S. foreign policy that have persisted throughout the twentieth century and will discuss the effect of each on our nation’s recent history, with particular focus on key leaders who espoused each objective at various times. In addition, I will relate the effects of American foreign policy objectives, with special attention to their impact on the American middle class. Most importantly, this paper will discuss America’s involvement in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War to the anticipated fulfillment of these objectives—democracy, manifest destiny, humanitarianism, and economic expansion.
Economics becomes a large factor in the American imperialism; but more specifically that expansion in foreign markets is a vital part in the growth of America. As historian Charles Beard puts it, “[it] is indispensable to the prosperity of American business. Modern diplomacy is commercial. Its chief concern is with the promotion of economic interests abroad” (Kinzer 81). Williams provides that the people of United States wanted this change to culminate in the business. “A great many farm businessmen were in trouble, and if they voted together they could control national policy. There was, in truth, a crisis before the Cri...
One of the first foreign policies in the twentieth century was the Roosevelt Corollary. This policy asserted U.S. authority to intervene in the affairs of Latin American nations; an expansion of the Monroe Doctrine. Also known as the cornerstone of American foreign policy, the Monroe Doctrine was the first time the United States had declared their own foreign policy without following the foreign policies of other countries. The doctrine declared that we (the United States) “are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European power” (Out of Many Pg. 765), meaning the Western Hemisphere was to be closed off to further European colonization and that the U.S. would not interfere in the internal affair of European nations. The Roosevelt Corollary, however, was an amendment stating that the United States of America was the superior culture, and Roosevelt wanted to spread value and influence in Latin America and keep the Europeans out. President Roosevelt was very fond of the West African proverb, “Speak softly and carry a big stick, you will go far.” Throughout his presidency and the Roosevelt Corollary, the president used the “big st...
Roosevelt was able to spread his influence into conflict involving other world powers during this, signifying more respect for American power. Another way this was apparent was in the Open Door Policy in China. Around this time, China was largely controlled by other countries that held spheres of influence in the country. These spheres of influence meant that the countries that controlled them practically had control of all trade and economic activity in the area. When the United States was attempting to grow and expand its influence, President McKinley wanted to be included in Chinese trade, but it was a competitive area.
Dumbrell, J. 2004. The US--UK'Special Relationship'in a world twice transformed. Cambridge review of international affairs, 17 (3), pp. 437--450.
Born from the crashed economy of the Great Depression and the memory of the Great War, public attitudes towards foreign affairs turned inward. Perhaps best capturing this sentiment was a quote published in The Reader’s Digest that “War doesn’t determine who’s right, only who’s left”(16). In 1935 General Smedley D. Butler USMC published a book entitled “War is a Racket”, in which General Butler recommended an isolationist military policy, predicated on defense in lieu of undue aggression(17). It seemed, at least for a while, that U.S. foreign policy would be conscripted to an isolationist