Will Hitler Save Democracy?
An exploration of isolationism in pre-World War America and the effects Hitler had on the
reshaping of American foreign policy
History of American Foreign Policy
Research paper Amber Heyman-Valchanov
December 16, 2005
An article written in an April, 1939 issue of Foreign Affairs titled “Will Hitler
Save Democracy?” raises many a pointed brow. The initial response to a question
that would put such an infamous character in a position of responsibility for
modern democracy could be considered blasphemy even to the most extreme
atheist. This article by an unknown author analyzes the significance of Hitler’s
ability to exploit the passivity of democracy at the time, and the perception of
Hitler’s objective to conquer communism that ultimately awoke a “sleeping giant”
and helped shape democracy today. I utilize this analogy of a “sleeping giant” as a
way to express American isolationism at the time just before the United States
entered World War II. As America’s position in international affairs was teetering
between involvements of European issues and focusing on self-interest at home.
The misguided perception and the isolationist attitude of Americans in the
1930’s and 40’s, play a major role in understanding what the author is trying to
convey in his statement. To the naïve, the article could insinuate that the author
felt Hitler championed democracy. However, as ironic and powerful the statement
may be, it is a legitimate question and it does put Hitler’s involvement in shaping
modern democracy into perspective. What would democracy look like today had
the United States not gotten involved in the war with Hitler? How did Hitler break
the democratic world out of its isolationist shell?
To start, the author of the article states first that, the First World War was
won by “soldiers of democracy”, and the Peace that was sought was lost by
“democracy’s postwar statesmen”. Here referring to the approach of peace
through the failed League of Nations and the unsubstantiated Treaty of Versailles.
The attitude of defeatism or indifference of the democracies allowed Germany to
unite under militarized nationalism to rearm, increase territory, and openly
organize wars of conquest. He then goes on to say that the democracies blinded
by indifference a decade after World War I, were misled into thinking that the
essential conflict was between German and Italian nationalism on the one side
and communism on the other.
This raises the question as to whether democracies were misled by a
brilliant scheme on the part of Hitler, to divert attention from his ultimate goal of
going beyond conquering communism, or if America was oblivious to reality and
only saw what she wanted to legitimize her isolationist stance? What would
ultimately fuel Hitler’s goal and hinder the approach of the democracies would be
indifference mixed with a false perception, however conceived, of what was really
at stake: that “fundamentally, Fascist dictatorship fights Communism only as a
competitor, but its chief aim is the destruction of democracy.” The ultimate
question posed is: would the approach of the democracies against Hitler have
been any different had the perception of his cause been not against communism,
but clearly against democracy itself?
Hitler was in a place strategically to take advantage of the myriad of factors
to complete his mission of world hegemony. The 1930’s opened devastating
events, which demonstrated that the quest for a peaceful world order and balance
of power had failed. The Great Depression had crippled the world economy, debts
and reparations went unpaid, and trade wars broke out. “The posture of
isolationism of the United States from failed attempts at an international
government along with abandonment of wartime efforts to remake the world in its
own image and retreating instead to the confines of its immediate interests”1,
would prove to be Hitler’s vantagepoint. The defeatism of both Great Britain and
the United States would serve as the backbone to the many victories for the
totalitarian regime. According to scholar Joseph Nye, American defeatism stems
from the policies coordinated by a balancing of power.
Woodrow Wilson regarded the balance of power policies as “immoral
because they violated democracy and national self-determination.” The balance of
power was unable to give priority to democracy and Peace, because it is only a
way to preserve the sovereign state system. This immoral feeling in regards to the
balance of power on the part of Wilson is attributed to this defeatist attitude that
would have been reason enough for the League of Nations to fail and for the
Treaty of Versailles to be considered illegitimate.
When America joined the Great War in 1917, it tilted the balance against
the Central Powers, because of her large population and industrial proficiency. By
the time the war ended, President Wilson was in a strong position to influence the
1 Norman A. Graebner, Oblivious to Reality: The Extremes of American isolationism and Internationalism
peace treaties -the peace settlement was based in fact upon his "Fourteen Points".
A new international body called the League of Nations was to be set up to keep
the peace between nations. Sadly, America turned her back on Wilson and on
Europe. Many Americans believed that the lives lost and the money spent in the
Great War had been too great an expenditure. They were opposed to anything
that might drag America into another European war. Because of the defeatist
attitude of the United States, she did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles, ironic, as it
was both too harsh because it stirred up German nationalism and too lenient
because it left the Germans the capability to do something about it. What gave
Germany this “capability” to do something about it? Was it the harshness of the
treaty or was it the lenience of it? Personally, I think the capability and causation
come from the same place, in both harshness and lenience. They are joint causes
of German nationalism.
Going back to Wilsonian defeatism, not only was the treaty not strong
enough follow through with a balance of power, the United States and in some
cases Great Britain, felt a kind of sympathy for Germany in the harshness of the
Treaty. So why would Wilson put so much effort into his Fourteen Points and to
establish a League of Nations, only to not follow through in its execution? The
reason would be, because it needed to look like something was being done. And
to the world it did look like something was being done. International policy was
starting to take form and all the actors initially took things seriously. Once
presented with the Fourteen Points at Versailles, the Germans were allowed to
submit a counter-proposal. The following extract is part of the preamble.
“In spite of such monstrous demands the rebuilding of
our economic system is at the same time made impossible.
We are to surrender our merchant fleet. We are to give up all
foreign interests. We are to transfer to our opponents the
property of all German undertakings abroad, even of those
situated in countries allied to us. Even after the conclusion of
peace the enemy states are to be empowered to confiscate
all German property. No German merchant will then, in their
countries, be safe from such war measures. We are to
completely renounce our colonies, not even in these are
German missionaries to have the right of exercising their
profession. We are, in other words, to renounce every kind
of political, economic and moral activity. But more than this,
we are also to resign the right of self-determination in
domestic affairs. Dictatorial powers are conferred on the
International Reparation Commission over our whole
national life in economic and cultural matters, its power by
far exceeding those ever enjoyed within the German Empire
by the Emperor, the German Federal Council and the
Reichstag put together. This Commission has the
unrestrained power of disposal over the economic system of
the state, of the municipalities and of private individuals.”
But the Allied reply was uncompromising, rejecting all arguments and
conceding only border adjustments in relation to Polish territory. The German
position was, of course, unsupported and in an atmosphere of bitter hostility, the
country's representatives were forced to sign the hated document. Germany had
many legitimate claims against the magnitude of responsibility she was to endure
through the reparations of the treaty. Ultimately Germany’s prosperity was
jeopardized. How was she to recover economically when one third of the gross
productivity was going into other nations? The power that Great Britain and France
were initially afraid of Germany having prior to the Great War were now regarded
as just and right for the democratic nations to have in retribution. How is this a
balance of power? The rape of German prosperity and pride was the lit fuse for
extreme nationalism. None of the democracies would have given into such
demands and it is preposterous to think that the treaty was just and going to
resolve any issues to maintain a balance of power. If the United States was not
going to relinquish any amount of sovereignty to an international policy what
makes her think that nothing ill would come out of making a nation relinquish over
a third of her gross worth to make the democracies stronger than her? Had the
statesmen in the postwar reconciliation taken better care at coming to a more
reasonable resolution without imposing on the sovereignty of Germany such
extreme demands, it is possible that Germany would not have gone down a path
that lead to World War II.
Equally, the legitimacy of this international policy was questionable from the
beginning, and Wilson knew it. First, in international policy, there is no common
sovereignty, no ruler above all. Who is the judge of just and unjust? Who is
responsible for the execution of laws uncommon between actors? This is one of
the dilemmas that Wilson faced when he stated that balance of power is immoral.
How can something immoral be the judge of morality? Second, according to
Hobbes the state of nature is a war of all against all, because there is no higher
ruler to enforce order. So again, who is to be the judge against what is in our very
nature to seek out? We always seek commonality to maintain restraint against our
nature and ultimately it is our commonality that will find what is most just and
unjust.
In the case of American defeatism it was not the question necessarily what
was just or unjust or about our very nature. It was all about the ability to enforce
international policy and preserve democracy, peace, and self-nationalism all at the
same time. This dilemma prevented the success of the League of Nations and
hindered the legitimacy of the treaty. The harshness of the treaty was the causality
of German nationalism and the lenience of its enforcement, gave the Germans the
capability of German nationalism in its most extreme form, Fascism and Hitler to
guide them.
At the descent of Wilsonianism came a desire to go back to American roots
dating to the Monroe Doctrine that led to American isolationism. America torn
apart from the Great Depression that also affected Europe opened the door for
Hitler’s dictatorship. However, Hitler in his attempt at world hegemony by trying to
eliminate the communist and democratic worlds, would only strengthen them. By
America entering into World War II, it forced spending that stimulated the economy
resulting in the end of The Great Depression. It opened the doors for women’s
rights, and ultimately to the desegregation of African-Americans. But his greatest
achievement was in fact, “saving democracy.”
In the form of a timeline, the events that occurred in American political
history will provide us in detail, how isolationism began, who championed
isolationism, and who championed internationalism, as a reaction to Hitler. The
remaining part of this essay will give examples of the effects that Hitler had on
shaping American foreign policy that forced America out of her defeatist position.
Hitler’s duel sided war against communism and democracy ultimately
strengthened them both.
For most of our nation’s history, America has exercised a policy of
independence from European affairs, and expected the gesture to be returned by
the rest of the world. During Wilson’s presidency America reflected a period of
idealism that mirrored that of the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe doctrine,
expressed by the president in 1823, declared that the America would not take
kindly to any future European involvement in the Western Hemisphere, and
pledged America’s neutrality in any European issues.
Wilson’s presidency eventually pulled America into World War I. Although,
neutrality was difficult to maintain with the British seizing of materials and the
German U-boat issue, many blame Wilson because he failed to protect American
interests. America played a major role in World War I, and sustained large losses
as well as maintaining a strong voice in the post-war negotiations. Wilson was
intent on fastening isolationism’s grave, and introduced his idea for a League of
Nations in his famous Fourteen Points. Wilson joined Clemeceau of France,
Orlando of Italy, and George of Britain in the creation of the Treaty of Versailles.
Because of Wilson’s inability to compromise on key issues when presenting the
treaty to the Senate, the bill was defeated. As a result, America never joined the
European League of Nations, and the next presidency vowed to return America to
the “normalcy” of isolationism.
The Presidents of the twenties avoided the Euro-American interaction of the
previous decade. Harding concentrated on domestic issues, and increased
intolerance towards European immigrants. Coolidge, much like his predecessor,
avoided major European negotiations. The following decade included the infamous
stock market crash and the resulting depression. Domestic issues took
precedence in importance, and little in the way of foreign policy occurred until
America entered the Second World War of the century.
President Roosevelt frustrated with concern about international issues,
encouraged Great Britain and France to rejoin their alliance to curb Hitler’s power.
Roosevelt in his mind was resolved to prevent war in Europe, and in October
1937, he proposed that the United States lead the "peace loving nations" in
placing aggressive nations - Japan, Germany and Italy - under quarantine. It would
be his first speech in which he warned the nation of approaching peril. Roosevelt
remained vague as to what he meant by “quarantine”, as he did not want to say
anything that contravened the Neutrality Act, which he was contracted to uphold.
But still, the speech raised much criticism from isolationists during the following
weeks. The isolationists wanted clarification from Roosevelt, and they complained
that distinguishing between "peace-loving" and "warlike" nations was not neutrality
but taking sides.
The U.S. economy had been in decline since the spring of 1937, and by
October, more than one-half million people were out of work. Compromising with
the conservatives, Roosevelt allowed then Secretary of Treasury, Morgenthau, to
continue with old economic orthodoxy that would cut spending and pursue
balancing the budget. This method stood contrary to the head of the Federal
Reserve, Eccles, who urged deficit spending. Eccles did not buy into the analogy
between the economy of a household and that of a government. He believed that
the government should go into temporary debt to stimulate demand and get
investors investing again.2 Influenced by Eccles, Roosevelt began to move into
increased spending.
Against the American grain at the time, Roosevelt tried to encourage
American knowledge of international developments. In his annual message in
1938, Roosevelt focused on this sentiment. Subsequently, the same year Hitler
was named “Man of the Year” by Time Magazine. In his message he described the
2 The Economy, Politics and Questions of War, 1937-38, http://fsmitha.com/h2/ch22.htm
threat to peace as coming from the dictatorships, and he spoke of the American
need for involvement in Europe to prevent war. But the American perceptions of
events abroad were, misguided, if they were even acknowledged. The American
people wanted to focus on interests at home, not abroad. Then in September
came the crisis of German invasion of Czechoslovakia. In trying to show the public
his desire for peace, he appeared happy to the world with the agreement at
Munich. However, he was personally displeased with the capitulation of France
and Great Britain. He was able to see where the American people were coming
from in their isolationism, but could not understand the defeatism in the
neighboring countries of Germany.
Kristallnacht, a Fascist lead pogrom in Germany in Austria on November 9,
1938, opened the eyes of the world to the actual horror that was lurking around the
corner. Roosevelt, without reservation this time, spoke out publicly, expressing his
dismay and horror. Many influential people shared this horrific sentiment as well.
The American Legion endorsed Roosevelt's statement, as did the CIO labor
organization. Prominent movie stars - Fred Astaire, Claudette Colbert and Bette
Davis - spoke out against the brutalities, Bette Davis suggesting that the U.S.
sever all economic ties with Hitler's Germany. Support among U.S. citizens for the
appeasement policy of Britain's Prime Minister, Chamberlain, diminished. In a
Gallup poll that month, 94 percent expressed disapproval of "Nazi treatment of
Jews."3 Although horrific sentiments began to spawn across the U.S., many
people still did not want to be involved in the affairs of Europe.
The effects of Kristallnacht were so brutal, the Jews knew they must
emigrate from Germany. By this time in the United States the issue of immigration
had risen. Americans finding it hard enough to take care of themselves, did not
want to worsen the job markets and food shortages. In the winter of 1938-39 many
people were against the idea of helping what they called "refu-jews.” The majority
of Americans polled opposed an increase of the national immigration quotas.
Sixty-seven percent of those polled opposed admitting any refugees to the United
States, and sixty-seven opposed a one-time admission of ten thousand refugee
children. Roosevelt acquiesced to public opinion and did nothing to help change
immigration quotas. A bill to admit 20,000 refugee children won no backing from
Roosevelt and died in Congress.4
Although Americans were opposed to any involvement, the good thing was,
American complacency on the matter of international affairs was dwindling.
Democracy was being revived and the path was opening for Roosevelt to make
moves towards the international peace he so desired. In response to Hitler,
Roosevelt set forth the development of the U.S. aircraft industry. He told the
3 The Economy, Politics and Questions of War, 1937-38, http://fsmitha.com/h2/ch22.htm
4 The Economy, Politics and Questions of War, 1937-38, http://fsmitha.com/h2/ch22.htm
Herald Tribune that, “like other nations the United States would not accept
disarmament while neighbor nations are armed to the teeth."
The entertainment industry in Hollywood was very influential in the late
1930’s. Politically themed movies were at an all time high with the release of Gone
with the Wind, Gunga Din, Mr. Smith, and Stagecoach. All of which exemplified
that democracy was not free. In order for democracy to exist, it had to be sought
after and fought for. In order to preserve individual self-interest, one has to protect
it.
Roosevelt began the year 1939 with his annual message to Congress,
aggressively trying to encourage the nation to approve the budget for rearmament.
He stressed fervently the need to increase the range and speed of military aircraft,
and making necessary advances in "defensive aviation." Roosevelt understood the
threat of Hitler in Europe and saw the weaknesses in France and Great Britain
being able to defend democracy in their own territory. If the great powers of
Europe were to be taken, the ability of Hitler to attempt to invade America was only
a few steps away.
Hitler, meanwhile, continued to view the United States with scorn and as
militarily insignificant. He believed that, the landed aristocracy of the United States
had been crushed in its civil war and followed by upstart capitalists in the United
States importing "scum of the earth" immigrants from Eastern Europe. This
resulted in the kind of polyglot urbanization that Hitler had seen in his youth in
Vienna.5 In the eyes of Hitler, America had only a small percentage of racially
worthy citizens. German propaganda included depictions of the United States as a
place of decadence: crime, gangsters, jazz and bleach blond women having
cigarettes dangling from their mouths, nothing like virtuous National Socialist
Germany.
Hitler’s perception of the United States would prove to be his weakness, as
Roosevelt was aware that Hitler was dismissing the United States as being of no
concern. Looking back at the Munich agreement in disappointment, Roosevelt
5 The Economy, Politics and Questions of War, 1937-38, http://fsmitha.com/h2/ch22.htm
believed that had the United States been involved with its former allies, there
would not have been appeasement. He did not want war but knew war was
coming and the idea that the United States did nothing to prevent it resonated
within him. More than ever he aspired to create a coalition against Germany led by
the United States and he pushed for the increased influence that the United States
would have if it amended the Neutrality Act. Backed by congress, Roosevelt made
attempts to align the United States with the Soviet Union against the fascist
powers. Had a union been met the United States may not have needed to
physically fight in the war. But shortly after negotiations with the Soviet Union,
Stalin decided to align Russia with Germany in the Hitler-Stalin pact.
By July 1940, the Battle of Britain had begun and in the United States
stirred an outcry of patriotism in the American people that had turned their backs
to democracy. "God Bless America" began being sung at sporting events, school
meetings and at gatherings for bingo. The American people swung their flags
representing their return to democracy.
In September, Roosevelt delivered 50 destroyers to Britain in exchange for
bases at eight points on the Atlantic coast, from Newfoundland to British Guyana.
Concerned about the prospect for war, Congress passed the Selective Service
and Training Act, and Roosevelt signed the bill into law, establishing the first
peacetime military service draft in the United States.6 Immediately the U.S. began
drafting men into the military. The U.S. Navy was authorized to double the number
of their combat ships, and the production of planes for the Army Air Corps was
anticipated just as quickly.
6 The Economy, Politics and Questions of War, 1937-38, http://fsmitha.com/h2/ch22.htm
In January 1941, a lend-lease bill was making its way through Congress - a
bill that gave the president the power to transfer war material, including ships, to
Britain or any other power. The few isolationists still standing fought the bill, only,
to see it pass. The time of American isolationism: kam einem halt zu.
With national security at stake, the U.S. government was spending without
concern for deficits. Spending was lifting the United States out of the depression,
without bringing the economic disaster that some thought it would. Millions were
going to work in what was called the defense industry. Women were filling most of
the work at home, as men were drafted into the military. This would mark the
prelude to women’s rights and the dawning of feminism. The characteristic role of
the woman was no longer going to be domestic.
War also offered military service as a way out of poverty. Another
revolutionary marker in American history was about to begin the including of
Blacks into the military. Black Americans made up the majority of the impoverished
citizens. And once in the service, Blacks were exposed to experiences far beyond
their pre-war horizons. Although they were still segregated in the military services
and often given menial labor jobs, such as cooks, stewards, and clerks, many
Blacks returned to a post-war America with raised expectations, fired up to bring
about major changes. Many white women, formerly sheltered from the effects of
racism in their hometowns, saw segregation in the South and racism in the
service. Many, whether Jewish or Christian, saw connections between Nazi ideas
about white supremacy and racism at home. Judith Cohen explained, "There was
the feeling that the kinds of slurs, insults, and jokes that people make about
minorities had helped lead to Hitler...I think there was a very strong feeling after
the war that there wasn't going to be that kind of discrimination again."
Segregation began to break down, and the Civil Rights movement started up.7
It is hard to say what would have happened to America had she not been
broken out of her isolationist shell by Hitler. But what we do know is that in the
time that Hitler was dictator of Germany, he impacted democracy in America,
however indirectly. We live in an America today that we take for granted. All the
rights that we have as women, blacks, and Jews we see as just that, “rights”. But
7 Dr. Sharon H. Hartman Strom and Linda P. Wood, What Did You Do During the War, Grandma? Women and World War II, http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/WWII_Women/WomenInWWII.html
in the time of our grandparents, it was not a right. It was not even a seed in the
uterus of democracy. That is until Hitler exposed hate and inequality as a retched
belief that must be eliminated from the world. At the expense of Hitler’s ideology of
totalitarianism, world democracy will finally realize its peril. Hitler’s political activity
resulted in bringing about an overwhelming and unprecedented manifestation of
defensive solidarity amongst the democratic people.8
8 Unknown Author, Will Hitler Save Democracy, Foreign Affairs, 1939