“Participation in the war against Hitler remains almost wholly sacrosanct,
nearly in the realm of theology.” -- Bruce M. Russett
I post this solely in support of Professor Russett’s political heresy, not
because I share any of the statist presuppositions underpinning his
expression of it. I do understand, however, that few will even attempt
to swallow such a pill unless many conventional
reassurances coat it; many coat his. This essay is a fine example of moderate rather
than radical revisionism, a halfway house on the road to the
stable-cleaning the American mind must undergo if it is to embrace
wholeheartedly the goal of a free society.
For a 2006 interview with Professor Russett, go
here.
Anthony Flood
Posted March 21, 2008
No Clear and Present Danger
A Skeptical View of the U.S. Entry into World War II
Harper & Row, 1972
Bruce M. Russett
Preface (on this page)
Chapter 1: Isolationism Old and New
Chapter 2: The Impending Stalemate in Europe
Chapter 3: A Hobson’s Choice for Japan
Chapter 4: From the North
Atlantic to the Tonkin Gulf
Chapter 5: Force and Choice in the
Environment of International Politics
There is no
guarantee whatsoever that there would be any better history written should
we participate again to bring complete victory to one side . . . Great as
is the power of America, we cannot police Europe, much less Asia, and in
addition protect the whole Western Hemisphere . . . Nor can we expect that
a nation having as many unsolved problems as we have, and as little
understanding of some of the problems that lie beyond our borders, would
be given, under the all-embracing hysteria of war, wisdom for the perfect
solution of all the world’s ills.
Norman Thomas, 1940
The one great danger
we face is that we may overcommit ourselves in this battle against Russia
. . . An unwise and overambitious foreign policy, and particularly the
effort to do more than we are able to do, is the one thing which might in
the end destroy our armies and prove a real threat to the liberty of the
people of the United
States.
Robert A. Taft, 1951
Preface
It has been a long
trip, and is not yet complete. Nevertheless I have come far enough to
want to give a report on the vivid scenery to be viewed from this
prospect. I began, as a child in World War II, with a firm hatred of the
Axis powers and conviction that American was fighting for its very
existence. After the war, Stalinist Russia merely replaced Hitlerite
Germany as the insatiable aggressor. With most Americans I accepted
without much question the need for active resistance to Communism, and the
necessity that such resistance would often have to be military in
character. Though as a young scholar I did become very concerned about
arms control and the risks of nuclear war, my faith in the requirement for
military assistance to threatened members of the Free World remained
essentially unshaken. I was fairly hawkish on Vietnam, and saw only in
early 1967 that the war had been a mistake. In retrospect, I am not proud
of having taken so long. Even then, I considered that the sole mistake
was having chosen a conflict where the essential conditions of victory
were absent.
In the past few
years, however, I have slowly begun to question my earlier easy
assumptions. Once some began to fall, others became far less tenable.
Here really was a row of intellectual dominoes. If Vietnam was
unnecessary or wrong, then where else? How distorted were our images of
the origins of the cold war? What has been the role of economic interests
in promoting foreign involvements by the United States government?
This is an exciting
time in which to be a scholar. Some of these questions were forced on me
directly by observing events; others were in substantial part impelled by
the questioning of students who had been less thoroughly indoctrinated in
the cold war myths than I, and thus rejected them more easily. In this
reexamination I am, of course not alone. Many Americans of all
generations have come to question their former assumptions. Still, the
results differ among us. I find the New Left’s emphasis on foreign
investment and trade interests to be stimulating and overdue; in the
anti-Communist hysteria of the first cold war decades such matters were
all too thoroughly ignored. Nevertheless I am still unconvinced that such
influences should be elevated to the role of a primary explanation, and
while in this book I sometimes suggest their relevance to pre-World War II
policy preferences I do not emphasize them. But I am interested in the
work of others on these questions, and consider them with a mind more open
than before.
And although there
are finally some rumblings on the New Left, and occasionally elsewhere,
about the propriety of American participation in World War II, they have
yet to surface much in public. The situation is curious. A few writers,
I among them,1 challenged
the prevailing interpretation about war with Japan some time ago, but with
little impact beyond a small circle of professional scholars.
Participation in the war against Hitler remains almost wholly sacrosanct,
nearly in the realm of theology. Yet it seems to me that many of the
arguments against other wars can also be applied, with somewhat less
force, to this one too. Hence I came to rethink, and to write while still
in the process of rethinking.
For the opportunity
to reconsider my old myths I am grateful to a year in Brussels, made
possible by a fellowship from the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial
Foundation and a Fulbright-Hays award. I neither expected nor intended to
spend much time on these matters when the awards were made, but such
things will happen when a scholar is given time for reflection. A
decision-maker and a scholar helped unintentionally. The process surfaced
on the night President Nixon announced the American foray into Cambodia,
which I absorbed under the influence of just having read the late Richard
Hofstadter’s essay on Charles A. Beard’s attitudes toward the war that was
approaching over a generation ago.
Many colleagues,
friends, and students made more deliberate contributions by giving their
reactions to my early thoughts. Notably helpful were John Morton Blum,
Robert H. Ferrell, Glenn May, Paul Hammond, Douglas Rae, James Patrick
Sewell, Fred Sondermann, Gaddis Smith, John Sullivan, and H. Bradford
Westerfield. My wife, Cynthia Eagle Russett, as so often, played a
crucial role in the initial stages by providing both insights and
stimulating criticism. Wendell Bell urged me to rescue the first version
of this essay from the obscurity of a scholarly journal. Even more
carefully than is customary, however, I want to absolve anyone from
responsibility for the opinions I express here.
B.M.R.
Hamden, Connecticut
May 1971
Notes
1
See my article, “Pearl Harbor: Deterrence Theory and Decision Theory,”
Journal of Peace Research I (1967): 89-105, parts of which are
reproduced here. Parts of Chapter 5 are taken from my “A Macroscopic View
of International Politics,” in Vincent Davis, Maurice East and James Rosenau, eds., The Analysis of International Politics (New York:
Free Press, 1971). All materials are reprinted with permission.
Forward
to
Chapter 1: Isolationism Old and New