Monday, November 30, 2020

Argentina Violates British Sovereignty in the South Atlantic

Feb 17, 2010
Michael Streich

Tension between the military junta in Argentina and Great Britain increased after an Argentine landing at South Georgia Island and the subsequent failure of diplomacy.

At 6:00 AM on April 2, 1982, Argentina, under the leadership of a right-wing dictatorship, invaded the Falklands Islands with two landing forces, seizing Port Stanley and violating British sovereignty. The islands had been part of the British community since 1833 and the invasion was termed a matter of “great gravity” by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. According to Thatcher, “British sovereign territory has been invaded by a foreign power.”

Why Argentina Invaded the Falklands

The Argentine military junta, led by General Leopoldo Galtieri, used the invasion to divert public concern from a weakening economy and criticism of human rights violations. Since 1978, an arms embargo by the United States, in tandem with new foreign policy objectives of the Carter administration, had further exacerbated Argentine objectives. This embargo was lifted in December 1981 during the Reagan administration and pushed through the US Congress by NC Senator Jesse Helms, a supporter of authoritarian regimes as a means to “keep communism out of this hemisphere.”

Confrontations and Public Opinion in the Falklands War

The Falkland Islands are only 400 miles from Argentina in the South Atlantic but over 8,000 miles from the British Isles. Despite earlier efforts by Argentina to claim the Falklands or Malvinas Islands as the Argentines called the island group, the inhabitants’ loyalties were with Britain. According to Prime Minister Thatcher, in an April 3rd speech to Parliament, the people of the islands did not want to be Argentines. Thus, the primary goal of the government was to pursue a policy freeing the islands “of occupation.” The “lawful” British government “had been usurped.”

Events leading to the invasion of the Falklands may well have begun in South Georgia Island, a dependency of the Falklands and claimed by Britain since 1775 when it was discovered by Captain Cook. On March 19, 1982, an Argentine warship arrived at S. Georgia and landed fifty men, ostensibly to threaten the British scientific station at the Antarctic base. Under British protests, most of the men were withdrawn.

Despite a February 1982 New York meeting between Argentine and British diplomats seeking a solution to the Falklands debate, newspapers in Buenos Aires printed inflammatory and “bellicose” stories regarding British claims to the Falklands, a harbinger of Argentine government policies regarding the disputed island group. According to Thatcher, however, the February talks were “constructive…cordial and positive…” and paved the way toward future negotiations.

The Argentine Invasion April 2, 1982 of the Falklands Islands

The British government was aware that the Argentine fleet had put to sea in the hours before the invasion. On March 28th, in a response to British inquiries, the Argentine Foreign Minister reasserted Argentine sovereignty over the islands and ended all diplomatic efforts to resolve the territorial dispute. An emergency meeting of the United Nation’s Security Council resulted in no solutions.

Prime Minister Thatcher called U.S. President Ronald Reagan to intervene in the crisis. Reagan, the U.S. State Department, and Congress supported British actions from the outset, sharing intelligence information with the British, albeit covertly. Only Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, later to chair the Foreign Relations Committee, supported Argentina. When Congress voted overwhelmingly to support Britain in an April 29th Resolution sponsored by Joseph Biden, Helms was the only Senator to oppose the measure.

Results of the Falklands War

European foreign ministers condemned the invasion and NATO leaders called for a diplomatic solution. In Britain, Argentine assets were frozen and export credits suspended. A naval task force, led by HMS Invincible, was dispatched to the South Atlantic. Although the British suffered losses, the Argentines ultimately withdrew. Argentine defeat eventually undermined the power of the military junta which was brought down by the Argentine people.

References:

Stephen E. Ambrose and Douglas G. Brinkley, Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938, 8th Edition (Penguin Books, 1997) [general source]
William A Link, Righteous Warrior: Jesse Helms and the Rise of Modern Conservatism (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1988)
Speeches and papers of Margaret Thatcher.

Michael Streich -

Retired History Adjunct Instructor

Leader of the Communist International of Seamen & Harbor Workers

May 24, 2009
Michael Streich

From the early 1920s until February 1933, Albert Walter led a world-wide organization that funded international Communist clubs, cells, and dispensed propaganda.

During the 1920s and until February 1933, Albert Walter was one of the most prominent leaders of the German Communist Party and the head of an international maritime union that sought to achieve Comintern (Communist International) goals throughout the world. Working out of Hamburg, Walter developed a highly organized system of control and intelligence. His shift in alliance to the Nazis and subsequent work for German intelligence prior to the outbreak of war shocked the Communist Party.

The Early Years in Hamburg

According to Communist defector Richard J.H. Krebs (alias Jan Valtin), Albert Walter was made a political commissar of the Baltic fleet by Lenin himself during a visit to Moscow shortly after the end of World War One. Walter had been a seaman, held in the United States after German merchant ships were seized. Returning to Hamburg after the war, he rapidly rose in the ranks of the party.

German Communists had been very active in the maritime trade. Their success among sailors of the Imperial fleet led to the naval mutiny of 1918 that turned Bremen into a war zone. Recognizing the value of converting sailors, the Comintern established the International Propaganda and Action Committee of Transport Works in 1922 with Albert Walter at the head.

This committee inaugurated the “Hamburg Method” designed to document every ship, the Communist cells aboard that ship, and all ship destinations. Through this efficient system, propaganda was sent throughout the world and local “clubs” established to further party goals. The Committee was headquartered in Hamburg because of the city’s great marine industry.

Throughout the early twenties, Soviet Russian officers were smuggled into Hamburg to “train” activists, turning these young men into “Red Marines.” Additionally, the international propaganda efforts paid off: at its height, the Committee supported 72 newspapers and over 4,000 worldwide Communist cells. Albert Walter facilitated the funding for the massive operation.

The Immediate Years before Hitler

In 1930 Albert Walter traveled to Moscow to attend a conference, part of which was to organize a new Seamen International. Goals included the formulation of plans to effectively tie up capitalist shipping in the event of war. This resulted in the International of Seamen and Harbor Workers (ISH for short), headed by Albert Walter. Revolutionary action included espionage as well as organizing cells. ISH had operating cells in 22 countries and 19 colonies while supporting 47 international clubs, including both coasts of the United States.

Arrest and Capitulation

Albert Walter was arrested during the night of February 27th, 1933 – the night of the Reichstag fire, along with other Communist leaders, and eventually imprisoned at Fuhlsbuettel Concentration Camp. Repeatedly tortured, he refused to break.

Richard Krebs, in his autobiography, states that Albert Walter had an “Achilles Heel,” which was his mother. Walter was utterly devoted to her. The Gestapo took him to a cell and allowed him to peer inside. Walter saw his mother and was told that if he did not work for the Gestapo, she would be tortured and executed.

This story conflicts with that told by members of his family who maintained that it was his friendship with the regional Gauleiter that got him out of the camp and convinced him to work for the Nazis.

After the War

Albert Walter was no stranger to politics and he was a survivor. In 1949 he became a member of the new German parliament, representing Hamburg on behalf of the conservative “Deutschen” Party (German Party) until 1957. He spent his retirement years in Hamburg, bequeathing his estate to the Seamen’s Union upon his death in 1980. This included a hand-carved chess set given to him by V. Molotov in the years before the war.

Sources:

Jan Valtin, Out of the Night (New York: Alliance Book Corporation, 1941)
Family archives

Michael Streich -

Retired History Adjunct Instructor

Franklin Roosevelt's 'Forgotten Man' of 1932

May 17, 2010 Michael Streich

FDR's April 8, 1932 speech focused on millions of Americans who were unemployed, about to lose their homes and farms, and without recourse to federal help.

By the end of 1932, 1,453 banks had closed during that year. In the previous two years, 3,646 banks closed. The nation’s farmers were particularly suffering as their costs soared and credit was unavailable. Many faced foreclosure. This was Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “Forgotten Man,” coming out of his April 8, 1932 radio speech and from this would come the New Deal. This meant, according to Francis Perkins (Secretary of Labor from 1933 -1945) that “the forgotten man, the little man, the man nobody knew much about, was going to be dealt better cards to play with.”

Roosevelt the Progressive

Although the “Forgotten Man” speech signaled FDR’s intent to secure the Democratic nomination, it did not represent a departure in ideology. Historian Albert Fried, discussing Roosevelt’s moral ideals, states that they “kept faith in turn with the genteel mugwumpery of his youth and adolescence.” In the speech, Roosevelt refers to “These unhappy times…” and called for putting faith in “…the forgotten man at the bottom of the economic pyramid.”

Roosevelt focused on restoring the buying power of small farmers, relief for homeowners and small – generally rural, banks, and the elimination of high protective tariffs. FDR took issue with the Hoover Administration’s solutions: “Here should be an objective of government itself, to provide at least as much assistance to the little fellow as it is now giving to the large banks and corporations.”

For Roosevelt, the economic picture was like a domino effect. “No nation can long continue half bankrupt.” If consumers could not buy the products that they were able to produce, unemployment would never be conquered. According to Roosevelt, “Main Street, Broadway, the mills, the mines will close if half the buyers are broke.” The 1929 Crash and subsequent depression created massive layoffs. Consumer credit was extinguished. Other than private charities, no federal assistance existed for Roosevelt’s “forgotten man.”

Reaction to the Forgotten Man

Al Smith, competing for the Democratic nomination, accused Roosevelt of being a demagogue and attempting to ignite class warfare. “I will take off my coat and fight to the end against any candidate who persists in…setting class against class and rich against poor.” (Jean Edward Smith, New York Times, May 14, 2007) Republicans also took issue with the “forgotten man” image and the promise of a New Deal. In September 1932, Hoover’s Secretary of War, Patrick J. Hurley, stated that President Hoover had “not forgotten any man of woman in America.” (New York Times, September 23, 1932)

Origin of the ‘Forgotten Man’

A September 18, 1932 New York Times article, “The Forgotten Man,” stated that the phrase “owes its genesis to an older decade: Professor William Graham Sumner of Yale, a noted opponent of socialism and protectionism…” In a National Review interview (June 12, 2007), Amity Shlaes also pinpoints the Yale philosopher while discussing her book, The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. According to Shlaes, “During the Great Depression many people still recalled Sumner’s forgotten man.”

Will there always be a “Forgotten Man?”

Some argue that the New Deal never managed to affect all of the forgotten in American society. Blacks and other minorities experienced no relief nor, for that matter significant advances. FDR owed much of his support to the Southern political machines and was not about to confront segregation. Shlaes argues that the 1935 Schechter Poultry Corp. v United States Supreme Court decision was actually a victory for “the little man.” The case, which declared FDR’s National Recovery Act (NRA) unconstitutional, was a unanimous decision.

The American “forgotten man” may still exist. Timothy Eagan (New York Times, August 28, 2008) compared Barak Obama to FDR. Of Roosevelt, he wrote, “…with one speech, Franklin D. Roosevelt put himself on the side of a huge majority of Americans eager to throw out a president.” Eagan draws a parallel between the appeal of Obama and that of FDR. It may have been a reason Senator Obama was elected: voters that felt powerless in 2008 agreed with the phrase, “yes we can.”

References other than those noted in the article:

Anthony J. Badger, FDR: The First Hundred Days (NY: Hill and Wang, 2008)
Albert Fried, FDR and His Enemies (Palgrave: St. Martins Griffin, 1999)
Frances Perkins, The Roosevelt I Knew (NY: The Viking Press, 1946)

Decline and Fall of the American Empire

Niall Ferguson's Essay in Foreign Affairs March/April 2010

Mar 19, 2010 Michael Streich

Historian Niall Ferguson presents a different model for the decline and fall of empires, postulating that empires frequently fall rapidly and without warning.

It took just a few holes on the side of RMS Titanic to send the mighty liner to the ocean bottom one cold April night in 1912 in less than three hours. The “unthinkable” had happened and the so-called “unsinkable” Titanic went into the annals of maritime history as one of the worst disasters of all time. Niall Ferguson’s essay “Decline and Fall” in Foreign Affairs discusses how empires can dissolve catastrophically, often by seemingly unforeseen events. “Rome’s fall was sudden and dramatic,” Ferguson writes, evaluating empires in the light of current US dilemmas.

Why Empires Suddenly Collapse

Ferguson states that, “If empires are complex systems that sooner or later succumb to sudden and catastrophic malfunctions…what are the implications for the United States today?” He further asserts that “most imperial falls are associated with fiscal crises.” The United States may continue for an extended period with huge deficits as long as the perception of the US is positive. But, as Ferguson notes, “…one day, a seemingly random piece of bad news – perhaps a negative report by a rating agency…” will cause that perception to fade, leading to total failure.

On March 15, 2010, the Associated Press reported that Moody’s, a rating agency, had published a warning regarding the heavy national debts of the UK and the US, suggesting that this could jeopardize the top triple-A rating. Although much of that debt is tied to the so-called Welfare State, America’s wars abroad count heavily. Ferguson writes that, “Defeat in the mountains of the Hindu Kush or on the plains of Mesopotamia has long been the harbinger of imperial fall.” He cites the Soviet experience in Afghanistan as one recent model.

Other Perspectives Tied to Ferguson’s Thesis

Discussing the new role of the lone superpower following the dissolution of the Soviet Union (which Ferguson uses as an example of the swift-fall concept), British historian Eric Hobsbawm in 2003 wrote, “Megalomania is the occupational disease of global victors, unless controlled by fear.” In a February 2008 interview, Dr. Henry Kissinger identified three current problems, none of which can be adequately managed by one superpower or empire: “the disappearance of the nation state, the rise of India and China…” and a host of other problems “such as energy and the environment.”

Samuel Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order addresses similar themes. According to Huntington, new civilizations are emerging in a unipolar world, all of which must be addressed by the United States. Niall Ferguson takes the argument further, postulating that the decline of empires can be rapid, often within a generation and without warning. Part of this, according to Ferguson, is the notion of putting off the inevitable, relegating Armageddon to some future generation. One is reminded of British inhabitants in Singapore in 1942, sitting in the Raffles Hotel bar singing “There Will Always be an England” even as the Imperial Japanese army advanced into the suburbs.

Modern Empires May Fall Faster

Ferguson does not address comparative collapses in terms of imperial endurance. The Roman Empire lasted until the events of the 4th and 5th centuries. The Japanese Empire, in contrast, lasted but a few decades and might have lasted longer had it not been for a delayed scout plane at Midway discovering the American fleet too late. Thirty minutes potentially cost an empire years of life. Hitler’s projected 1000-year Reich lasted less than 15 years.

Niall Ferguson’s essay should be seen as a warning – a new lens to perceive how and why empires fall. Can the US avoid financial collapse? Are current leaders savvy enough to understand the lessons of history? Can one civilization co-exist with newly emerging ones? Finally, how will the answers transform an empire into one that endures or fails?

References:

Erin Conroy, “Moody’s warning on US, UK ratings lifts dollar,” Associated Press, March 15, 2010
Niall Ferguson, “Decline and Fall: When the American Empire Goes, It Is Likely to Go Quickly,” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2010
Eric Hobsbawm, “Only in America,” The Chronicle Review, Volume 49, Issue 43, p B7, July 4, 2003
Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996)
Henry Kissinger, Spiegel Interview, February 18, 2008.

The copyright of the article Decline and Fall of the American Empire in American History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Decline and Fall of the American Empire in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Margaret Chase Smith in Washington, DC

First Female Nominated to the Presidency by a Major Political Party

Mar 24, 2010 Michael Streich

After serving in the House for 8 years, Margaret Chase Smith was elected 4 times to represent Maine in the Senate and nominated in 1964 for the presidency.

At the 1964 Republican Convention in San Francisco, political history was made when Vermont Senator George Aiken placed in nomination the Senior Senator from Maine, Margaret Chase Smith. This represented the first time that a woman had been nominated for the presidency by a major political party. Although Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater won the nomination, it was a victory for women. In her first 18 years in the Senate, Smith had been the only female in an all-male club.

The Early Years in the PineTree State

Margaret Chase Smith was born and raised in Skowhegan, Maine. As a young teenager, she began working part-time jobs to help her family that included six siblings. After completing high school, she worked as a teacher, telephone operator, newspaper writer, and office manager. In 1930 she married Clyde Smith, politically connected and soon to enter Congress as Maine’s 2nd District representative.

Margaret Chase Smith in the House of Representatives

Clyde Smith died from a heart attack in 1940, related to a diagnosis of tertiary syphilis. Margaret had pledged to enter the Maine primary election in place of her husband – at his request. In January 1941, Congresswoman Smith became one of a select minority to sit in the Congress; few women had been elected to the national legislature up to that point.

Margaret Chase Smith refused to be identified on the basis of gender; she saw herself as the representative from Maine’s 2nd district, although she championed women’s rights and equality. She supported the ERA and as a member of the House Naval Affairs Committee, worked to equalize the status of women in the military. According to Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Senator Smith “favored a completely gender-blind society.”

Serving in the U.S. Senate for Four Terms

When Margaret Chase Smith lost her bid for reelection in 1972, she had served the people of Maine for 24 years in the U.S. Senate. She was first elected in 1948, the 100th anniversary of the Seneca Falls Convention where Elizabeth Cady Stanton delivered the Declaration of Sentiments, that advocated, among other things, a woman’s right to vote. Senator Smith would deliver a declaration of her own in 1950, but the issue would be the tactics of Wisconsin’s junior senator, Joseph McCarthy.

On June 1, 1950, Margaret Chase Smith rose in the Senate to deliver her Declaration of Conscience. She was the first senator to challenge McCarthy’s hearings on alleged Communist sympathizers in government departments. Of the six senators that supported her, only Oregon’s Wayne Morse stood by her. Her courage cost her committee assignments but she never regretted her actions. After the Eisenhower victory in 1952, Smith would serve on both the Appropriations and Armed Service committees.

A Democrat in the White House

John F. Kennedy won the 1960 election but, as historians have pointed out, was unable to see many of his ideas approved by Congress. As a senator, Kennedy had been less than industrious, often shunning important committee work. Senator Smith recalled that Kennedy had missed the 1954 censure vote of Joseph McCarthy and believed the young president was not forceful enough in combating Nikita Khrushchev.

Yet following the assassination of JFK in November 1963, it was Senator Smith who delivered the most poignant eulogy and tribute: removing the red rose from her lapel – a trademark for the indomitable senator, and placing the flower on the desk once occupied by Kennedy. A year later she thrust herself into the Republican primaries, taking on Barry Goldwater and Nelson Rockefeller.

The Break-Through Senator Returns to Maine

Senator Smith’s first priority was to be an effective and transparent legislator, although her public life and successes made her a “break through” woman. Senator Hutchison writes that, “Despite the press’s tendency to treat women legislators as novelties…Margaret managed to convince the voters that she was an effective presence on Capitol Hill.” This was the great legacy of Margaret Chase Smith.

References:

Lewis L. Gould, The Most Exclusive Club (Basic Books, 2005)
Kay Bailey Hutchison, American Heroines (Harper, 2006)
Margaret Chase Smith, Declaration of Conscience (Doubleday & Company, 1972) edited by William C. Lewis, Jr

The copyright of the article Margaret Chase Smith in Washington, DC in American History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Margaret Chase Smith in Washington, DC in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.

Huey Long's Assassination and Political Alienation

May 15, 2010 Michael Streich

Huey Long, the Louisiana Kingfish, ruthlessly eliminated political opposition and used patronage to solidify his political machine in Louisiana.

On September 8, 1935, a young man stepped from behind a column in the Baton Rouge capital building pointing a .38 caliber revolver at Louisiana Senator Huey Long. What happened next is a mystery. The assailant, Dr. Carl Weiss, was riddled with bullets from Long’s body guards. His body had been hit with 61 bullets. Long, who received one shot to his abdomen, died following a failed operation. Speculation still exists if Dr. Weiss actually discharged his gun, or if Long had been assassinated by a stay bullet that ricocheted off the marble columns. Long, the self-styled “Kingfish,” was dead and would pose no threat as a third party candidate against President Roosevelt in the election of 1936.

The Rise of Huey Long in Louisiana

Huey Long came from a poor family and grew up in a parish (or county) that had a reputation for challenging the status quo. By the time he became governor at age 34, he was, according to historical writer Jack Pearl, the “supreme dictator of Louisiana.” University of Texas historian Lewis L. Gould agrees, referring to Long as “virtual dictator.” Long’s political machine controlled the politics of the state through patronage and Long himself was ruthless in his actions toward enemies.

Carl Weiss, Long’s assassin, had good reason to hate the man. His father-in-law, a judge, had been ruined by Long, his reputation falsely impugned. Weiss’ wife had become depressed over the affair and their children were treated as outcasts. But given Huey Long’s reputation, Weiss was viewed sympathetically after his assassination of the demagogue. This was particularly true of the Louisiana wealthy class. As governor, Long “taxed the rich practically into extinction,” according to Pearl.

Huey Long, FDR, and the U.S. Senate

Senator Long was a firebrand on Capital Hill. Labor Secretary Frances Perkins recalls how Senator Long held up an appropriations bill to fund the newly created Social Security system with a 19-hour filibuster at the moment Congress was set to adjourn. His “Share the Wealth” redistribution proposal, though completely unworkable, was embraced by millions of poor and unemployed Americans, particularly at a time the New Deal seemed to be foundering.

Long cared nothing for Senate protocols. He took on Senate leaders, like Arkansas Senator Joseph Robinson, and helped elect Hattie Caraway to the U.S. Senate in 1932, directly challenging Robinson’s state political machine. This action demonstrated very clearly Long’s ability to defeat the political machines of Southern state politics as well as the leaders of those machines. FDR, always wary of Long, knew that he needed the support of those Southern political bosses to pass New Deal measures. Huey Long was a threat.

Long, who had cautiously supported FDR in 1932, had become an adversary by 1935. Long saw himself as a future president and curried the favor of those that had not benefited from the New Deal. Historian Albert Fried writes that Long became a “militant advocate” for “Labor, the unemployed, small farmers and businessmen, the poor…” Long proposed a redistribution of wealth This included the government confiscation of personal wealth over $2 million and the distribution of $5,000 payments to every family in America.

The Death of Huey Long

Ironically, Huey Long, according to Pearl, was obsessed “with the subject of assassination.” He was always surrounded by body guards, many of them common thugs. At the time Weiss confronted Long, one of those body guards actually used a machine gun.

Even if assassination had not ended the career of a corrupt and self-absorbed politician, the government might have. The same Treasury agent who had brought down Al Capone in 1931 was investigating the Long machine in Louisiana. Ultimately, numerous cronies would be brought to justice. It was the one reliable tool FDR’s justice department could level against the Kingfish. For Huey Long, it was only a matter of time.

References:

Albert Fried, FDR And His Enemies (Palgrave for St. Martin’s Griffin, 1999)
Lewis L. Gould, The Most Exclusive Club: A History of the Modern United States Senate (Basic Books, 2005)
Robert Mann, Legacy of Power: Senator Russell Long of Louisiana (Paragon House, 1992) [Senator Russell Long was the son of Huey Long – see Chapter One]
Jack Pearl, The Dangerous Assassins (Derby, CT: Monarch Books, Inc., 1964)
Frances Perkins, The Roosevelt I Knew (NY: Viking Press, 1946)

The copyright of the article Huey Long's Assassination and Political Alienation in American History is owned by Michael Streich. Permission to republish Huey Long's Assassination and Political Alienation in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.