Republican Warren Harding's victory in the presidential election of 1920 essentially pounded the final nail into the death coffin of the League of Nations. It also signaled the start of a decade that would be dominated by American isolationism.
Harding began his term by making peace with the Central Powers. Because the U.S. had rejected the Treaty of Versailles, America was still technically at war with Germany, Austria, and Hungary. Congress quickly resolved the problem, though, by passing a simple joint resolution that declared the war officially ended.
The Republicans then looked to downsize the world's navies at the Disarmament Conference in 1921-1922, held in Washington D.C. The Five-Power Naval Treaty set a definite ship ratio while the U.S. agreed to refrain from fortifying their Far Eastern Possessions, such as the Philippines.
President Calvin Coolidge continued along the lines of isolationism during his term as well. For example, when the Mexican government began to assert its sovereignty over oil resources in 1926, American oil companies called for a military expedition. Instead, the isolationist Coolidge defused the Mexican crisis with some skillful diplomatic negotiating.
Finally, President Herbert Hoover played the biggest role in completing the shift to isolationism. In 1931, Japanese imperialists lunged into Manchuria and shut down the Open Door pact in the conquered area. Meeting in Geneva, the League looked to punish Japan for its flagrant violation of the League covenant. Despite the League's pleas for American support, the U.S. flatly rebuffed the attempts. American newspapers retorted that America did not "give a hoot in a rain barrel" about who controlled Manchuria. In the end, isolationist America proclaimed in the Stimson doctrine that it would not recognize any territorial acquisitions that were achieved by force. This had very little impact on Japan.
Hoover also strove to step away from Roosevelt Corollary attached to the Monroe Doctrine. In 1932, he negotiated a treaty with Haiti which promised the withdrawal of U.S. troops within a couple years. In 1933, the last marine leathernecks sailed away from Nicaragua after a continuous stay of 20 years.
The real question now is whether or not isolationism was overall beneficial or harmful to the U.S. Proponents could argue that the new "Good Neighbor" policy in Latin America led to better relations while opponents could point out that the lack of action in Japan was a partial precursor to the Second World War. What do you think? Did the benefits of isolationism outweigh the harms?
Harding began his term by making peace with the Central Powers. Because the U.S. had rejected the Treaty of Versailles, America was still technically at war with Germany, Austria, and Hungary. Congress quickly resolved the problem, though, by passing a simple joint resolution that declared the war officially ended.
The Republicans then looked to downsize the world's navies at the Disarmament Conference in 1921-1922, held in Washington D.C. The Five-Power Naval Treaty set a definite ship ratio while the U.S. agreed to refrain from fortifying their Far Eastern Possessions, such as the Philippines.
President Calvin Coolidge continued along the lines of isolationism during his term as well. For example, when the Mexican government began to assert its sovereignty over oil resources in 1926, American oil companies called for a military expedition. Instead, the isolationist Coolidge defused the Mexican crisis with some skillful diplomatic negotiating.
Finally, President Herbert Hoover played the biggest role in completing the shift to isolationism. In 1931, Japanese imperialists lunged into Manchuria and shut down the Open Door pact in the conquered area. Meeting in Geneva, the League looked to punish Japan for its flagrant violation of the League covenant. Despite the League's pleas for American support, the U.S. flatly rebuffed the attempts. American newspapers retorted that America did not "give a hoot in a rain barrel" about who controlled Manchuria. In the end, isolationist America proclaimed in the Stimson doctrine that it would not recognize any territorial acquisitions that were achieved by force. This had very little impact on Japan.
Hoover also strove to step away from Roosevelt Corollary attached to the Monroe Doctrine. In 1932, he negotiated a treaty with Haiti which promised the withdrawal of U.S. troops within a couple years. In 1933, the last marine leathernecks sailed away from Nicaragua after a continuous stay of 20 years.
The real question now is whether or not isolationism was overall beneficial or harmful to the U.S. Proponents could argue that the new "Good Neighbor" policy in Latin America led to better relations while opponents could point out that the lack of action in Japan was a partial precursor to the Second World War. What do you think? Did the benefits of isolationism outweigh the harms?
Great post, Ashwin! I would say that the benefits of U.S. Isolationism did outweigh the harms. After World War One, the United States decide to focus on domestic policies, a "Return to Normalcy" as President Warden Harding put it. In the 1930s, the United States was preoccupied with the Great Depression and foreign policy was not a burning issue for the United States. Citizens had grown weary with foreign policy, and were convinced that the U.S. should spend sometime focusing on domestic policies. U.S. Isolationist Policy in the 20s and 30s allowed the United States to successfully focus all of their efforts on the Depression. President Hoover realized that any harsh action against Japan would be unpopular in the midst of the Great Depression which is why they refused to support the league. The U.S. Did pass the Stimson Doctrine, which refused to recognize any territory illegally occupied by the Japanese. The U.S. managed to respond to the Japanese threat with diplomacy. Thus, they managed not to offend the American people, while still responding to Japan's actions. The isolationist policies allowed the U.S. to focus on itself, which is why it was such a strong power going into World War 2.
ReplyDeleteSource: http://www.ushistory.org/us/50a.asp
I would agree with Sitara that despite how tragic World War Two was, it was more in the interest of the United States to maintain a policy of isolationism during the 1920s and 1930s. To build off of what Sitara said, I would like to add that the Great Depression cast approximately 14 million Americans into unemployment, nearly 13% of the population. This caused innumerable families to suffer. By comparison, World War Two took the lives of 418,500 Americans, which was only .32% of the country's total population. I say this to prove the point that it seems many more Americans were harshly affected by the civil war, so in adopting a policy of isolationism, the United States did the right thing. At the same time, one may argue that unemployment is not nearly as bad as death. That however is a moral debate which I will not delve into at this time. I will simply say that while the families of dead soldiers of WWII were seriously affected in addition to the soldiers themselves, could it not have been almost better to be dead than suffer having everything you had ever achieved in life be stolen away from you, as occurred to many during the Great Depression? You be the judge.
ReplyDeleteSources: http://www.history.com/topics/great-depression
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties