US Foreign Policy Between 1930 and 1950

Topic: International Law
Words: 1172 Pages: 4

The twenty-year period between 1930 and 1950 was a crucial period for American foreign policy. During this period, the world economy recovered from a global economic depression, emerged from the world’s most destructive war, and witnessed the start of the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union (Payne, 2017). In keeping with its tradition of isolating itself from European politics and wars, the United States largely kept off the 1914-1918 World War. However, the sinking of merchant ships by German U-boats and a plot by the German government to arm some elements in Mexico and assist them to regain territories in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona triggered an American response (Herring, 2011). The participation of American troops in the First World War marked the beginning of a change in American policy that would characterize the period between 1930 and 1950. It was during this period that America’s foreign policy moved from isolationism to intervention and then containment.

After the First World War, America reverted to its long-established non-interference and isolationist foreign policy. The death of more than 50,000 in the war and the devastation of the Great Depression convinced the American public that concentrating on internal development rather than intervening in international disputes was the correct cause of action (Herring, 2011). The isolationist foreign policy goal advocated for non-intervention in European and Asian conflicts and the disentanglement of the US from international politics. Despite taking measures to avoid conflict across the Pacific and the Atlantic oceans, the US had some level of involvement in Latin America. The isolationist policy proponents drew on history and especially an address by President George Washington where he argued for American non-intervention in European affairs and a focus on internal development (Trott, 2020). American investment of a large naval force in the nineteenth century and treaties with European powers guaranteed merchant ships’ security and allowed flourishing trade ties with European and Asian powers without interventions.

An intervention during the First World War served as a best-case example of why America should never get involved in foreign wars and politics. Despite the Allies forcing Germany and other Central powers to capitulate during the war and essentially winning it, the American public was not swayed (Zoellick, 2021). Hence, the policy of isolation and removing America from the center stage of world problems was a popular foreign policy goal with the electorate. The case for intervention was made worse by a Congressional report by the Republicans in which they blamed the arms manufacturers and bankers for pushing the US to war for their benefit (Amonson, 2018). Books and films that depicted the war as an opportunity for the elite to profit discouraged any American involvement in conflicts and politics in Europe and Asia. The consensus among the general public was that their sacrifices were in vain because industries and bankers profited from any American intervention (Herring, 2011). Therefore, the US maintained its isolationist foreign policy well into the 1930s because it was unpopular to do otherwise.

As the European and Asian powers jostled for control and domination, moving from isolationism to intervention faced serious opposition in Congress and from the general public. The Japanese invasion of North East China or the rise and maneuvers of the Nazis in Germany did not convince the majority of Americans of the need to intervene. However, the outbreak of the Second World War would see a paradigm shift in American foreign from isolationism to intervention. The US involvement in the war was limited between 1939 and December 1941 (Herring, 2011). However, after the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese, the US declared war on Japan. Three days later, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States, marking the full entrance of the US into the war. Therefore, the attack on Pearl Harbor and the subsequent declaration of war by the US, Germany, and Italy marked the end of isolationism and the dawn of interventionist policy by the US.

Before the complete break from isolationism at the end of 1941, the US had started channeling massive amounts of weaponry to the allies through a lend-lease program. The invasion of Poland by Germany led President Roosevelt to convince Congress to amend the Neutrality Act to allow allies to purchase weapons from the US. The fall of France to Germany in 1940 led the president to redirect arms to the British (Herring, 2011). At the time, these actions were unprecedented, but they would be overshadowed by events that occurred after the full abandonment of the isolationist policy. The entry of the US into the war turned the tide against the Germans and in 1944, the war was won. Therefore, the attack on the US mainland saw the complete abandonment of the isolationist foreign policy and the adoption of the interventionist policy.

The end of the Second War led to the emergence of two superpowers and the realignment of the world’s politics. The United States and the Soviet Union emerged as the dominant countries in the world and their competition soon developed into what would come to be known as the cold war. The weapons at the disposal of the Soviet Union and the threat of mutual destruction meant that the US’s intervention policy had to be recalibrated to one of containment. The containment policy sought the weaken the Soviet Union but without a direct military clash between the two superpowers (Lewis, 2021). This new type of conflict also took an unusual ideological turn, pitting communism against capitalism. The nature of the threat and its multiple facets led to the emergence of the foreign policy goal of containment. A transatlantic alliance dedicated to the deterrence of an attack by the Soviets and an aggressive campaign to discredit communism ensued. Thus, when faced with a peer competitor, the US amended its interventionist policy to a policy of containment.

The US foreign policy in the two decades between 1930 and 1930 gravitated between isolationism, interventionism, and containment. These aspects of the US foreign policy reflect the deeply held beliefs of American exceptionalism. It is the belief that American foreign policy’s goals are to restore justice and fairness in the world as God intended. The religious undertones of the American foreign policy have anchored it in Americans’ souls and led to broad support for any course of action the authorities choose to undertake, be it isolation, intervention, or containment. At crucial junctions in American foreign policy between 1930 and 1950, religious leaders took a stand that helped persuade the general public that the proposed changes were for the greater good. For example, Psalms 82:3 on the defense of the fatherless, the weak, the poor, and the oppressed was widely used in the runup to the complete abandonment of the isolationist policy. This overarching belief in the American good continues to shape American foreign policy more than thirty years after the fall of the Soviet Union. Today, American policy is characterized by interventionism and some level of containment, especially in relation to big power competition with Russia and China.

References

Amonson, K. (2018). The necessity of intervention: A foreign policy analysis of the United States and World War I. Small Wars Journal. Web.

Herring, G. C. (2011). From colony to superpower: U.S. Foreign Relations since 1776. Oxford University Press.

Lewis, J. (2021). Strategies of containment: A critical appraisal of American national security during the Cold War. The SHAFR Guide Online. Web.

Payne, R. J. (2017). Global issues: Politics, economics, and culture (5th ed.). Pearson.

Trott, V. (2020). Humor, neutrality, and preparedness: American satirical magazines and the First World War, 1914–1917. War in History, 29(1), 104–136. Web.

Zoellick, R. (2021). America in the world: A history of U.S. diplomacy and foreign policy. Grand Central Pub.