Summary Of William Williams The Tragedy Of American Diplomacy

The end of the nineteenth century marked a significant change in the American foreign policy. Prior to the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, America had paid little attention to foreign affairs. When compared to some of the more powerful European countries, such as France, Germany, and Great Britain, the United States had a

The Spanish-American War was considered short lived and relatively mild in terms of American casualties compared to the many wars that our nation has fought. However, it served as a historical marker that set the imperialistic momentum of our nation. It played a significant role in our nation’s strategic move towards acquiring trade routes and further strengthened our naval power. Throughout my research paper I will touch on what led to the Cuban revolution against Spain, America’s political climate at the time, and why our nation eventually decided to intervene and aid the Cubans in their fight for independence.

Besides, it was all very necessary after the depression of the 1890s; people sought to find a route for recovery and “…strong majority agreed that foreign policy could and should play an important – if not crucial – part… in forestalling future difficulties… explained the depression and social unrest as the result of not having enough markets for their specific product… an outlet for surplus stocks becomes an imperative necessity” (Williams 30). This engendered the Open Door Policy which “was in fact a brilliant strategic stroke which led to the gradual extension of American economic and political power throughout the world” (Williams 45-6). But not all historians agreed with Williams for Schlesinger attacks Williams concerning his ideas on the Open Door Policy. “[T]his zeal for foreign trade and for territorial expansion predated the general agricultural surplus....[A]fter the Civil War, the passion to promote trade and exports subsided, instead of intensifying as it should have done according to the Open Door thesis” (Schlesinger 132). He satirically criticizes Williams’ economic reasoning by saying, “vast new markets in the solar system” (Schlesinger 149) and furthermore, firmly states “the American empire was produced not by the economic system...but by the political

One of the main differences between the US and the USSR’s expansions of business and power into Europe was their systems of political and economic ideologies. The US believed establishing forms of capitalism and a free trade market with their European partners. They used the Truman Doctrine and the Marshal Plan to enacted these ideals. The Marshal Plan gave Europe’s an estimated seventeen billion dollars for aid to Europe’s economy. Western European industries were producing twice as much and were producing mass amounts of trade with American firms. This helped create economic boom in the United States. Along side the Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine also added to the advancement of Capitalism and stoped expansion of Communism in Europe. The Truman Doctrine helped contain communism by providing aid for Greece and Turkey. The USSR deterred the

In 1898, President William McKinley asked congress to liberate Cuba because of our humanity in a country. McKinley said we must help Cuba for they were our next door neighbor and we could “put an end to the barbarities, bloodshed, starvation, and horrible miseries now existing there, and which the parties to the conflicts are either unable or unwilling to stop or mitigate.”(Source 1) In other words, McKinley believed that Cuba deserved the help of the United States because we were the only ones who could help. He unknowingly presented the idea of imperialism to Governor Theodore Roosevelt.

     Cuba had been rebelling against Spanish rule for decades and the United States never intruded. America claimed that the reason for their involvement in 1895 was to assist Cuba against Spanish slaughter, but they hadn’t thought about involving themselves until their trade for sugar with Cuba was cut off. The Wilson-Gorman Tariff of 1894 placed high taxes on sugar, destructing Cuba’s sugar market and causing the discontinuation of trade with the United States. Cuba had acted as America’s primary sugar market. President Cleveland and successor, McKinley, desired to stay neutral, but the revealing of the Spanish De Lome letter and the sinking of the Maine in 1898 presented no other option.

However, the organization of the book proved to be beneficial to Williams’ it successfully portrays why he wrote the book and how passionately he felt about its topics. The Tragedy of American Diplomacy follows and critiques the twentieth century belief that the substantial surge of growth in the nineteenth century was crucial to the opulence and security to go forward in America. He highlights the distinction between this idea and the determined quest of expansion with the belief of many Americans that this “economic intervention” would usher in wealth and tranquility to the rest of the world. The tragedy that Williams informs us about is purely ironic because, The American ideals at the time contradict with what was

The question of, “Was America’s actions during the Cold War containment or hegemony?” cannot be easily answered with a single source or perspective. While some attempt to justify the United States’ actions during the Cold War as necessary to preserving freedom and the American way of life through the containment of the Soviet threat, there are just as many critics on the other side of the debate that have argued that, America used the Cold War as a veil under which it expanded it’s influence and power throughout the world. My intent is to show how some believe that America’s Cold War policies were completely justified and how others see America’s actions as nothing more than American imperialism.

In June 1947, the United States announced the Marshall Plan, intended to help economic recovery in Europe and thus prevent the spread of Communism in a Europe that was increasingly becoming “a breeding ground of hate”, thus providing a comforting environment for the rise of the Marxist ideology. At first, the Marshall Plan seemed to be a success, with economic aid worth $17 billion being made available to Europe and ensuring the protection of democratic governments in Turkey and Greece. Marshall Aid did help economic recovery in Europe, erasing unemployment and improving living standards greatly. Most Western European nations were happy to accept American aid in order to redevelop their economies. However, Stalin forbade any Eastern European countries from accepting the Plan and setup organizations like the Cominform and Comecon instead, to further tighten Stalin’s grip over Eastern Europe.

Left as one of the only remaining major powers, not significantly devastated by World War II, the United States of America lit the beacon of humanitarian aid. At its own discretion, after the Soviet Union’s refusal of America’s extent of influence and relief in the European continent, the U.S. was free to do as it pleased regarding attempts of foreign assistance. Secretary of State in the U.S. at the time, George Marshall, proposed the "Marshall Plan”, originally called “the European Recovery Program”, in June of 1947, during his speech at Harvard University. Marshall’s argument was to provide 13 billion U.S. dollars, about 5% of the American gross domestic product during that period, to European nations to bail them out of their continental crisis post-World War II. The plan was in operation for four years, rebuilding war terrorized countries with several goals put in place by the United States. America would take on the responsibility to rebuild their economies, rebuild their currency, and foster a free and open trade between European and U.S. economies.

Williams believed the US were responsible for the breakdown of post-war peace due to their efforts to isolate and confront the Soviet Union well before World War II ended. US policymakers shared associate overarching concern with maintaining capitalist economy domestically. So as to achieve that objective, they continued an associate "open door" policy, aimed toward increasing access to foreign markets for U.S. business and agriculture. From this angle, a growing economy domestically went perfectly with the strengthening of U.S. power

There have been numerous books written in the past by various political scientists on how to improve U.S. foreign policy. However, Fettweis’s Pathologies of Power provides a very interesting and somewhat unusual dig at U.S. foreign policy. In his book Pathologies of Power Fettweis is highly critical of the below average foreign policy performance of the United States over the last few decades and he strives to shed some light on why the U.S. keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over again. In his view, the many blunders in American foreign policy can be attributed to the nation’s deep connection to a series of closely held pathological beliefs that he collectively describes as fear, honor, glory, and hubris. Professor Fettweis in his book also discusses the origins of these deep pathological beliefs. He strongly argues that some of the major foreign policy disasters like the Iraq War, the Bay of Pigs and the Vietnam War was a result of these strongly held pathological beliefs. He also recommends that American foreign policy performance can be improved significantly if these strongly held pathological beliefs are identified and eradicated and replaced with prudence and restraint.

The works of William Appleman Williams and George F. Kennan have contributed to understanding of American diplomatic history during the period of 1900-1950. Kennan's book, American Diplomacy, offers a sharp critique with its focus on American "mistakes", specifically examining the absence of direction in American foreign policy and with the end result of American strength and insecurity at the start of the Cold War. Williams, in his book The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, pursues a different but still critical perspective by asserting that American policy was largely motivated by the "Open Door" policy, which led to the eventual alienation of countries to the United States and ultimately created the Cold War. By analyzing these two

This ambitious aid plan was called the Marshall Plan after the secretary of state at the time. General Marshall proposed the plan with two intentions: to assist in the rebuilding of Europe and to win the “hearts and minds” of the citizens most vulnerable to the reach of communism. The act of benevolence was accepted by the United States’ European allies after a phase of negotiations, but was discarded by the Soviets and other members of the Eastern Bloc. The Marshall Plan represented a significant early application of U.S. soft power and the vital non-military aspect of US policies of containment.

The term ‘Cold War’ had been used to describe periods of extreme tensions between states, which never culminate to actual, direct warfare. However, for the purpose of this essay, we will define the Cold War as being the period of hostility that existed between two blocs shortly after World War II and divided the world into two parts: the Soviet bloc and the Western bloc. More than just a conflict, the Cold War was, as the historian John Mason pointed out, ‘a fundamental clash of ideologies and interests’ between Soviet-sponsored communism and capitalism promoted by the United States. This essay will argue that the announcement of the Marshall Plan at Harvard on the 5th of June 1947 - a European Recovery Program initiated by the US Secretary