Scott Parkin

Hist 6393-- Empire, War and Revolution

7 May 2000

What I Learned and Didn't Learn in Empire, War and Revolution

During the course of Empire, War and Revolution we studied numerous themes and ideas which affected the history of American foreign policy and international affairs. These themes and ideas included political economy, class, revolution, the origins of the Cold War and the US National Security State, US relations with the Third World, and the impact of global events and US foreign policy on domestic society and politics. Most course readings focused on the establishment of a "liberal capitalist democratic" ideal system that rationalizes foreign intervention as the basis for domestic stability and economic prosperity of the affluent classes. The study, and subsequent discussion, of this ideal system often conflicted with traditional American ideas of class and revolution. We also discussed, at length, the beginnings of the Cold War and the National Security State and their subsequent impact on Third World nations and US society. The issues of the Cold War and relations with the Third World also dealt with the political economy and ideas of class and revolution.

Economics figured largely in Empire, War and Revolution's class discussions and readings. Our first course reading, William Appleman Williams' TheTragedy of American Diplomacy integrated the concept of economics into American foreign relations and set a standard for our classwork. Williams' book dismissed foreign intervention as a tool for democracy and moralism and viewed foreign policy in relation to economics. In much of his writings, Williams argued that American foreign policy since the Revolution had been an ongoing process of US economic expansion and domination. Several other books and readings discuss economics and the political economy as motive for American foreign policy as well.

My first class reading, Drew McCoy's The Elusive Republic, also argues that US territorial expansion was an attempt to stabilize and preserve the agrarian society ideal established by the Founding Fathers, an ideal threatened by the perceived social decay and corruption of European style rapid industrialization. According to McCoy, the political economy originated in the republican ideal of interdependence between polity, economy and society to preserve the elusive republican ideal by expanding territory westward and markets abroad. In Manifest Design, Tom Hietala's thesis also puts forth that the US expanded westward to stabilize domestic problems such as sectionalism and slavery during the 1840's. Tom McCormick's China Market and Walter LaFeber's The New Empire argued that 1880's and 1890's labor strife and social unrest, inspired by economic panics, motivated the American business community to expand into foreign markets to stabilize economic and social conditions. Nineteenth century America saw turbulent social conditions at home and attempted to alleviate that unrest with territorial expansion and the Open Door policy abroad. The private sector partnered with the Federal government to assure territorial and economic expansion to preserve the status quo in American society and keep the American elite in power. United States economic expansion into foreign markets eventually led to a greater political and military role in the world.

During the 20th century, the increased economic, political and military role for the United States led to numerous military interventions and involvement in World War One. As America's political role increased, so did the private investment and economic development of other parts of the world. Discussing the 1920's, Warren I. Cohen's Empire Without Tears argued that the Republican management of the political economy continued unimpaired by the isolationist attitudes of the American public during the "Age of Normalcy". During that period, Commerce Secretary, and later President, Herbert Hoover focused on private-public associations designed to further organize and expand the American economy at home and abroad. The lack of distinction between official and private American power led to an ad hoc foreign policy during the 1920's that further strengthened American influence abroad. As Cohen states:

"At no time in the 1920's did the government exercise effective control over American economic structure abroad. Economic policy was rarely an effective instrument of foreign policy. That is not the same, however, as saying that overseas economic activity had no impact on foreign relations. Regardless of the level of government involvement, American overseas activity had enormous influence on the world economy and the affairs of individual nations."(Cohen, p. 44).

Empire, War and Revolution's readings in the first half of the semester established the importance of economy in US foreign relations. Economics and materialism as the primary motive for policy-making makes ideas such as class and revolution more tangible. The elites, in the US, Russia, China or wherever, control primarily through economics with force of arms and a democratic or legal process coming second. This makes class conflict easier to view as a conflict between the "haves" and the "have-nots". Revolution becomes easier to comprehend because it represents the process of redistributing materials from the "have" to the "have-nots". Globally, the industrialized elites govern through foreign investment, foreign aid and transnational elites throughout the world. This idea of economy makes learning about sticky concepts such as class warfare and revolution so much easier.

Empire, War and Revolution also used the origins of the Cold War and the National Security State as a theme in the latter part of the class. Empire, War and Revolution taught the origins of the Cold War rested in an economic perspective of world events. Towards the end of World War One the Bolshevik Revolution erupted in Russia and established a radically new socioeconomic system as a counter to the Western capitalist. During the revolution, western capitalist nations, including the US, sent troops to overthrow the newly established Soviet Union. While they failed in their initial attempt to end the communist regime, they established a pattern of opposition to Moscow's revolutionary government that lasted most of the century.

During World War Two, the Soviet Union and the western industrialized nations, led by the United Stated, formed an uneasy alliance to end Hitler's reign over Europe. But by the end of World War II, two nations, the United States and the Soviet Union, found themselves in a dangerous political and military standoff over post-war Europe, Asia and other parts of the world. The orthodoxy teaches us that the Cold War began during this period when the Soviets instigated the conflict by not relinquishing control of Eastern Europe, exporting support to leftist and communist movements throughout the world and generally being a bad evil people. The revisionists teach us, using recently released Soviet archives, that World War Two had exhausted Soviet resources, devastated their population and wrecked their infrastructure. Often viewing this period as the beginning as the Cold War, scholars overlook the almost 30 year period before the war where the West intervened in the Russian Revolution, placed a 15 year economic embargo, persecuted numerous labor and radical movements at home and delayed Lend-Lease and a 2nd Front until much later in the war.

My first class reading on the Cold War dealt with the creation of the National Security State during the 1940's and 1950's. Michael Hogan's Cross of Iron reconstructed the budget battles over the establishment of the National Security State waged by the Truman White House, conservatives and liberals in Congress and the managers of the newly developing National Security State. NSC-68 became the watershed document for the Cold War hawks and outlined the state of permanent readiness for possible conflict with the Soviets. While Hogan limns the political infighting of the Cold War, Philip Jenkins' study of 1940's and 1950's Pennsylvania, The Red Scare at Home, focused on the sociological issues, bringing to light the impact of the Cold War on ordinary Americans. The Soviet "menace" and the Red Scare were found to be extremely useful constructs on which to base personal ambition. This was as true in the business community as in labor, ethnic and religious groups as the purge of assorted radicals and agitators took place.

We also discussed several episodes of foreign intervention by the United States before, during and after the Cold War. My second reading, Richard Immerman's The CIA In Guatemala, recounts the Central Intelligence Agency's shocking intervention into a tiny impoverished Central American nation. Richard Schmitz details continued support of right wing dictatorships from the 1920's until the 1960's in Thank God They're On Our Side. While an apologia for Carter era decisions, Gary Sick's All Fall Down describes the US's thirty year relationship with the brutal regime of the Shah of Iran. These books illustrate to me that repression of political freedom was looked as irrelevant, and that US intervention to suppress anti-American movements and to support pro-American regimes, represents the norm in the history of US foreign policy.

For me, Empire, War and Revolution systematically reconstructed the history of US foreign relations, by demonstrating its Machiavellian and self-centered aspects. This class has been immensely important to me and my thinking of US history. I know we read some articles with opposing viewpoints, but I would like to have heard more on the other perspectives. I also would have liked more discussion in class on contemporary subjects such as Vietnam and the end of the Cold War. Otherwise it was a great class and I wish every learning experience was this meaningful.