Isolationists and American Foreign Policy:
Pearl Harbor Forever Ends a Failed Ideology
Michael Streich
November 11, 2011
On Monday, December 8, 1941,
every U.S. Senator and representative
except one, voted to go to war with the empire of Japan. Only Montana Representative
Jeanette Rankin, a life-long pacifist, demurred. The Pearl
Harbor attack united Americans and instantly converted the
isolationists in Congress. Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg recalled his own
immediate change after receiving a telephone call about the attack Sunday at
four o’clock in the afternoon: “That day ended isolationism for any realist.”
Isolationism before the Pearl Harbor Attack
Isolationism is still used to
describe the ideology of those not willing to intervene in foreign matters if
the impact of such affairs affects U.S. security interests. In the
years before Pearl Harbor, isolationists believed that the Pacific and Atlantic
oceans were natural barriers, protecting the United
States from the anti-democratic regimes creating havoc in
Europe and Asia.
Extreme isolationists
believed that any U.S.
assistance either directly or indirectly would result in foreign entanglements
inconsistent with Constitutional prerogatives. They pointed to World War I and
deplored the prospect of sending American boys to fight in foreign wars.
Isolationists Represented
Liberal and Conservative Views
Pearl
Harbor and World War II
changed the meaning of isolationism. Pre-war isolationists that criticized
Franklin Roosevelt’s handling of the war were, often ironically, dubbed
reactionaries and anti-interventionists despite their life-long liberal pedigrees.
This included Democrat Burton Wheeler and Jeanette Rankin. Wheeler, in his
memoirs, comments that, “Never before had the question of whether one was a
liberal or conservative turned on his view of foreign policy.”
Isolationists like Vandenberg
hated Communism and fascism as much as those eager to commit to war. On
September 15, 1939 Vandenberg wrote in his diary, “…I decline to embrace the
opportunistic idea…that we can stop these things in Europe
without entering the conflict.” Isolationists viewed every White House attempt
to assist Britain and France as a potential door through which the United States
would step into a long and bloody conflict much like World War I.
Senator Gerald P. Nye’s
committee hearings on World War I, culminating in a controversial report in
1936, provided some ammunition for isolationists and Americans favoring
neutrality. Historian Wayne Cole states that, “It is significant that the
particular controversy that ended the investigation in 1936 involved President
Woodrow Wilson’s role in World War I – not the activities of munitions makers.”
Like Wilson, FDR appeared to be maneuvering the
nation into war, a perception that led to later conspiracy theories linking
Roosevelt to the Pearl Harbor attack. Senator
Tom Connally writes in his memoirs that, “…the most effective medium for
channeling American public opinion into isolationism during this period was the
Nye Committee investigation…”
Connally blamed Gerald Nye
and “his cohort” Arthur Vandenberg for using the committee hearings to publish
“half-truths” in order to further their isolationist agenda. According to
Connally, this included a blistering indictment of Wall Street and U.S. bankers
that “duped” the government “…into shedding American blood” in 1917. Connally
also identified different “schools” of isolationism, equating, for example,
Burton Wheeler with anti-British sentiments. Another isolationist viewpoint was
attributed to William Borah who believed in the two-ocean defense idea and had
been one of the chief opponents of Woodrow Wilson’s League
of Nations.
Japanese Action Unites
Americans
1941 was a crucial year for Britain as it
struggled against what was perceived as an imminent invasion by Nazi Germany.
In January 1941, as the issue of Lend-Lease was being debated in Congress, the New York Times stated that, given the
scope of European affairs, the ideology separating isolationists from
“interventionists” had become academic. According to the Times, “The Roosevelt Administration opposed ironclad isolation,
insisting that a great nation must lift its voice against treaty violations and
infringements of international law…”
Pearl
Harbor ended the debate. A New York Times editorial, referring to
the years of “Hamletlike irresolution,” concluded that the declarations of war
“instantly united us” and brought a sense of relief to all Americans: “Their
spirit was no longer troubled; their soul was no longer divided; they knew at
last what they must do.”
The same sentiment had been
expressed in Congress on December 8th where one representative
referred to the “war mad Japanese devils…” American hero Charles A. Lindbergh,
a leader in the isolationist movement, volunteered to serve with the Army Air
Corps. His acceptance was hailed as “a symbol of…newfound unity.”
Burton Wheeler’s early 1941
predictions that the “New Deal Triple A foreign policy [would] plow under every
fourth American boy…” were not unfounded, but other observers compared the United States
to 1917 when a declaration of war was almost too late. The Pearl
Harbor attack, defended by General Tojo at his trial in 1947,
forever ended isolationism.
The subsequent Cold War imposed
an on-going interventionist policy supported by former isolationists like
Arthur Vandenberg. The defense of democracy became a global imperative not by
design but from the lessons of history and the impossibility of avoiding
foreign entanglements.
References:
“America’s Role: A National Debate,”
New York Times, January 19, 1941
Wayne S. Cole, Senator Gerald P. Nye and American Foreign
Relations (The University of Minnesota Press, 1962)
Tom Connally, My Name Is Tom Connally (Thomas Y.
Crowell Company, 1954)
“The Lone War Dissenter,” NPR, December 7, 2001
Arthur H. Vandenberg, Jr., The Private Papers of Senator Vandenberg
(Houghton Mifflin Company, 1952)
Burton K. Wheeler, Yankee
from the West (Doubleday & Company, 1962)
[First published in Suitew101; copyright owned by Michael Streich. Reprints require written permission]
No comments:
Post a Comment