power-and-diplomacy-the-1920s-reappraised

Power and Diplomacy: The 1920s Reappraised

John Braeman

Historical Context

• Post-World War II assessment of American foreign policy has been often negative due to perceptions surrounding the Republican administrations of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover.

• Historians aligned with Wilsonian internationalism critique these administrations for not participating in collective-security arrangements, contributing to the world order's breakdown leading to WWII.

• The Cold War's tensions led to a reevaluation of these critiques, with some historians citing a failure of American leadership in maintaining international order.

Realist Evaluation of US Foreign Policy

• Hans J. Morgenthau emerged as a key figure in the realist school, contrasting Wilsonian ideals with a view that sees power as the primary mover in international relations.

• Morgenthau argued that international politics is defined by conflict, and that power is the immediate objective of states, contrasting with the liberal belief in collective security and harmony.

• Robert E. Osgood and Robert H. Ferrell emphasize public naivety and the influence of the peace movement in shaping ineffective foreign policies that avoided military engagement.

Critique of Power Politics

• Critics of the realist approach point out that the prevailing isolationist sentiment in the US led to a misunderstanding of international military norms and the role of power.

• Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes faced criticism for relying on diplomacy without understanding the importance of military preparedness.

• American dollar diplomacy was criticized for being ineffective in influencing global peace without military backing.

American Foreign Policy and Military Preparedness

• The political climate of the 1920s promoted pacifism with limited military engagement strategies.

• The era was marked by internal and external challenges including the growing threat from Japan and the need for military modernization.

• Hughes' diplomacy emphasized economic instruments without sufficient military strategy to complement them.

Military Readiness in the 1920s

• US Military Strategy: The Republican administrations focused on a robust Navy and a capable Regular Army ready to transition from peacetime to wartime production.

• Despite budget constraints, recruitment issues were mitigated by the economic conditions of the Great Depression, which allowed for higher-quality enlistments and training.

• A historical perspective reveals that while limited, military innovations were happening, and preparedness initiatives were in the works rather than stagnation.

Naval Policy and Treaties

• The Five Power Treaty of 1921-22 and restrictions from the London Conference created a tense naval environment, limiting American naval expansion.

• The agreements were both politically motivated and technologically challenging, reinforcing commitments to naval modernization despite limitations.

• American naval strategy focused on maintaining advantageous positions against potential eastern threats while adapting to treaty limitations.

American Involvement in European Affairs

• America aimed at supporting European stability through loans and economic agreements, particularly addressing the repercussions of the Treaty of Versailles and its reparations.

• The Dawes Plan represents a key moment in American involvement, indicating a willingness to play a mediating role in European politics.

• However, there remained a prevalent reluctance to engage militarily in European disputes, reflecting a desire to avoid entanglement in entropic conflicts.

Far Eastern Policies

• U.S. interests in China reflected a complex interplay between ideological beliefs and pragmatic limitations.

• The Japanese invasion of Manchuria highlighted the US's limited influence in Asia and the challenges of balancing diplomatic relations with military readiness.

• There was a strong sentiment against military action, illustrating American reluctance to confront Japan directly despite growing tensions.

Conclusion: A Reevaluation of the 1920s

• A retrospective view of the 1920s indicates that American policies were more aligned with national interests than commonly portrayed.

• The US maintained a strong sense of security and an ambivalent relationship with international aggression, preferring to believe in economic prosperity without military involvement.

• The actions and attitudes in the 1920s must be understood in light of their time, with security perceptions greatly influencing foreign policy approaches.

Power and Diplomacy: The 1920s ReappraisedJohn Braeman

Historical Context

Page 1Post-World War II assessment of American foreign policy has been often negative due to perceptions surrounding the Republican administrations of Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover.Historians aligned with Wilsonian internationalism critique these administrations for not participating in collective-security arrangements, contributing to the world order's breakdown leading to WWII.The Cold War's tensions led to a reevaluation of these critiques, with some historians citing a failure of American leadership in maintaining international order.

Realist Evaluation of US Foreign Policy

Page 3Hans J. Morgenthau emerged as a key figure in the realist school, contrasting Wilsonian ideals with a view that sees power as the primary mover in international relations.Morgenthau argued that international politics is defined by conflict, and that power is the immediate objective of states, contrasting with the liberal belief in collective security and harmony.Robert E. Osgood and Robert H. Ferrell emphasize public naivety and the influence of the peace movement in shaping ineffective foreign policies that avoided military engagement.

Critique of Power Politics

Page 5Critics of the realist approach point out that the prevailing isolationist sentiment in the US led to a misunderstanding of international military norms and the role of power.Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes faced criticism for relying on diplomacy without understanding the importance of military preparedness.American dollar diplomacy was criticized for being ineffective in influencing global peace without military backing.

American Foreign Policy and Military Preparedness

Page 6The political climate of the 1920s promoted pacifism with limited military engagement strategies.The era was marked by internal and external challenges including the growing threat from Japan and the need for military modernization.Hughes' diplomacy emphasized economic instruments without sufficient military strategy to complement them.

Military Readiness in the 1920s

Page 8US Military Strategy: The Republican administrations focused on a robust Navy and a capable Regular Army ready to transition from peacetime to wartime production.Despite budget constraints, recruitment issues were mitigated by the economic conditions of the Great Depression, which allowed for higher-quality enlistments and training.A historical perspective reveals that while limited, military innovations were happening, and preparedness initiatives were in the works rather than stagnation.

Naval Policy and Treaties

Page 10The Five Power Treaty of 1921-22 and restrictions from the London Conference created a tense naval environment, limiting American naval expansion.The agreements were both politically motivated and technologically challenging, reinforcing commitments to naval modernization despite limitations.American naval strategy focused on maintaining advantageous positions against potential eastern threats while adapting to treaty limitations.

American Involvement in European Affairs

Page 12America aimed at supporting European stability through loans and economic agreements, particularly addressing the repercussions of the Treaty of Versailles and its reparations.The Dawes Plan represents a key moment in American involvement, indicating a willingness to play a mediating role in European politics.However, there remained a prevalent reluctance to engage militarily in European disputes, reflecting a desire to avoid entanglement in entropic conflicts.

Far Eastern Policies

Page 14U.S. interests in China reflected a complex interplay between ideological beliefs and pragmatic limitations.The Japanese invasion of Manchuria highlighted the US's limited influence in Asia and the challenges of balancing diplomatic relations with military readiness.There was a strong sentiment against military action, illustrating American reluctance to confront Japan directly despite growing tensions.

Conclusion: A Reevaluation of the 1920s

Page 16A retrospective view of the 1920s indicates that American policies were more aligned with national interests than commonly portrayed.The US maintained a strong sense of security and an ambivalent relationship with international aggression, preferring to believe in economic prosperity without military involvement.The actions and attitudes in the 1920s must be understood in light of their time, with security perceptions greatly influencing foreign policy approaches.