Earlier this year, I had a change of view on WWI war guilt
after reading some new books on the start of that tragic conflict, and I now
believe the Russians were also significantly to blame along with the Germans.
I’m now wondering whether I misanalyzed FDR’s policy of
rearmament and aid to the allies in 1939-41. For years, and after much
research, I accepted the conventional view that FDR worked hard to build public
support for rearmament and aid, but never acted beyond the constraints of
public opinion, which evolved especially after the fall of France. He also let
Gen. Marshall take the public lead on the draft and aid because that seemed
most likely to work and least risky to his own political standing. That’s the
view I express in my FDR chapter in Warriors
& Politicians.
Now I’m re-thinking because of what I read in Lynne
Olson’s new book on that period. [To my surprise, since Olson is not an academic and
Susan Dunn is, and has done other fine books on FDR, Olson’s book is much
better, livelier, broader in scope, with more telling details and anecdotes
than Dunn’s
1940.]
Olson has details of the “Century Group,” a mostly
Republican eastern establishment group, and its numerous efforts to build
public support for support for the allies and U.S. intervention. She suggests
that members directly orchestrated not only the introduction of the draft bill
in Congress but also the timing and selection of Henry Stimson’s nomination to
be secretary of war. I’m generally dubious of conspiracy theories even to
accomplish desirable ends; maybe these folks were just bragging about actions
that might have happened anyway.
Olson makes a more significant point as she quotes
contemporaneous diary and other documents where administration officials
express dismay at FDR’s vacillation. She argues that his fireside chats seemed
to promise action that the president was then reluctant to take. I had always
excused FDR’s behavior as politically necessary until public opinion caught up
with him. Maybe I should see this more as a failure of leadership, since
support for various escalatory actions did increase whenever the president
openly endorsed them.
She also builds a case that many senior military officers
were against aid and intervention, were convinced of German military
superiority, and were conspiring with anti-interventionist press and members of
Congress by leaking information to support their views. She even has evidence
that Gen. Marshall failed to rein in these officers when he found out about
their activities and would speak disparagingly of FDR behind his back. I think
I need to reassess the FDR-military relationship with this new evidence.
In short, U.S. rearmament before Pearl Harbor may not have
been the steady progress I previously described but instead was a halting
process, partly aided by a well-placed pressure group and partly hindered by a
vacillating president. Moreover, maybe the U.S. military leadership did more
than I realized to undercut and slow administration policy of supporting the
British. Hmmmm.
No comments:
Post a Comment