Flynn, Michael E. 2014. The International and Domestic Sources of Bipartisanship in U.S. Foreign Policy. Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 67, Issue. 2, p. 398.
Cook, Christopher R. 2013. Coverage of African Conflicts in the American Media: Filtering out the Logic of Plunder. African and Asian Studies, Vol. 12, Issue. 4, p. 373.
1 Holland Max, “Citizen McCloy,” The Wilson Quarterly, 15 (Autumn 1991), 23. This issue also included John B. Judis, “Twilight of the Gods”; and a piece on “Background Books: The Rise and Fall of the American Establishment.” I am greatly indebted to Holland and to Dr. Michael Lacey of the Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington, DC, for providing me with copies of this issue.
2 Much of the material upon earlier historiography on the American foreign policy Establishment is drawn from an article of mine which appeared some years ago, “The American ‘Eastern Establishment’ and Foreign Affairs: A Challenge for Historians,” The Society for Historians of American foreign Relations Newsletter, 14, No. 4 (1983), 9–28, and 15, No. 1 (1984), 8–19. See also “Background Books,” 56–57.
3 Rovere Richard H., “The American Establishment,” in idem, The American Establishment and other reports, opinions and speculations (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1962), 233–49, quotation from 238. See also Rovere's later reassessment, “Postscript: A 1978 Commentary,” Wilson Quarterly, 2 (Summer 1978), 180–82.
4 Silk Leonard and Silk Mark, The American Establishment (New York: Basic Books, 1980), esp. chs. 6–8, quotation from 184.
5 White Theodore H., The Making of the President 1964 (New York: Atheneum, 1965), 65–69, quotation from 68.
6 Kraft Joseph, Profiles in Power: A Washington Insight (New York: New American Library, 1966), esp. 187–92, quotation from 188.
7 May Ernest R., American Imperialism: A. Speculative Essay (New York: Atheneum, 1968), esp. 17–94, 198–230. Quotation from idem, “American Imperialism: A Reinterpretation,” Perspectives in American History, 1 (1967), 187. May's portrait of the influentials should be compared with those in Adler Kenneth P. and Bobrow David, “Interest and Influence in Foreign Affairs,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 20 (1956), 89–101; and Rosenau James N., National Leadership and Foreign Policy: A Case Study in the Mobilization of Public Support (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963).
8 Cohen Bernard C., The Public's Impact on Foreign Policy (Boston: Little Brown, 1973), esp. 84–88, quotation from 84.
9 Divine Robert A., Second Chance: The Triumph of Internationalism in America During World War II (New York: Atheneum, 1967), esp. 6–28, quotations from 22–23. On the interwar internationalists, see also Adler Selig, The Isolationist Impulse: Its Twentieth- Century Reaction (New York: Free Press, 1957), 113–17, 119–28, 132–33, 138–39, 148–50, 177–96; idem, The Uncertain Giant, 1921–1941: American foreign Policy Between the Wars (New York: Macmillan, 1965), 23, 25–28, 33–42; Osgood Robert E., Ideals and Self-Interest in America's Foreign Relations: The Great Transformation of the Twentieth Century (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1953), 322–23.
10 Nicholas H. G., The United States and Britain (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1975), 120–21.
11 Schlesinger Arthur M. Jr, A Thousand Days: John F. Kennedy in the White House (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1965), 128–29, quotation from 128.
12 See, e.g., Sparks Nelson, One Man – Wendell Willkie (New York: Raynor Publishing Company, 1943); Schlafly Phyllis, A Choice not an Echo (Alton, IL: Pere Marquette Press, 1964). On the division within the Republican party between the “isolationists” and “internationalists,” a split which seems to coincide with that between those Republicans who opposed intervention before Pearl Harbor and favoured an “Asia First” policy after the war and those who were interventionists prior to Pearl Harbor and subsequently supported a “Europe First” policy, see Caridi Ronald J., The Korean War and American Politics: The Republican Party as a Case Study (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1968), esp. 19–20, 126–33.
13 Evans M. Stanton, The Liberal Establishment (New York: Devin-Adair, 1965); Stormer John A., None Dare Call It Treason (Florissant, MO: Liberty Bell Press, 1964), esp. 200–27; Viguerie Richard A., The Establishment vs. the People: Is a New Populist Revolt on the Way? (Chicago: Regnery Gateway Inc., 1983). Indeed, even today the Republican Right harbours grave reservations as to the conservative bona fides of the Trilateralist and Yale-educated Bonesman George Bush, who openly admits his preference for foreign over domestic issues and his fundamental admiration for the foreign policy Establishment's achievements.
14 Mills C. Wright, The Power Elite (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956), esp. 274–75; also idem, “The Power Elite: Military, Economic, and Political,” in Problems of Power in American Democracy, ed. Kornhauser Arthur (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1959), 145–72, 175–83; idem, “The Structure of Power in American Society,” in Power, Politics and People: The Collected Essays of Mills C. Wright, ed. Irving Louis Horowitz (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), 23–38.
15 Halberstam David, The Best and the Brightest (New York: Random House, 1973).
16 Hodgson Godfrey, In Our Time: America from World War II to Nixon (London: Macmillan, 1977), esp. 111–33, quotations from 118 and 115. See also idem, “The Establishment,” Foreign Policy, 9 (1972–73), 3–40.
17 Barnet Richard J., Roots of War: The Men and Institutions Behind U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Atheneum, 1973), 48–75, 179–82, quotations from 48. Several other historians and social scientists have also commented from a rather more radical standpoint upon the extent to which a relatively small group of men from the great business institutions have dominated American foreign policymaking since World War II. See Mills , The Power Elite, esp. 274–75; Domhoff G. William, Who Rules America? (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1967), 97–107; Kolko Gabriel, The Roots of American Foreign Policy: An Analysis of Power and Purpose (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969), 16–26.
18 Donovan John C., The Cold Warriors: A Policy-Making Elite (New York: D. C. Heath, 1974), quotations from 21.
19 See, e.g., Williams William Appleman, The Contours of American History (Cleveland and New York: World Publishing Co., 1961); idem, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, 2nd revised and enlarged ed. (New York: Dell, 1972); Chomsky Noam, American Power and the New Mandarins (London: Chatto and Windus, 1964); Domhoff G. William, Who Rules America?; idem, The Bohemian Grove and Other Retreats: A Study in Class Cohesiveness (New York: Harper & Row, 1975); idem, The Powers That Be: Process of Ruling Class Domination in America (New York: Random House, 1979); Lasch Christopher, “The Foreign Policy Elite and the War in Vietnam,” in idem, The World of Nations: Reflections on American History, Politics and Culture (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1973), 232–49; Gardner Lloyd C., A Covenant with Power: America and World Order from Wilson to Reagan (London: Macmillan, 1984); LaFeber Walter, America, Russia and the Cold War, 1945–1980, 4th ed. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1980).
20 Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of Great Powers: Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000 (London: Unwin Hyman, 1988). Two of Kennedy's strongest critics are Henry R. Nau, The Myth of America's Decline: Leading the World Economy in the 1990s (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990); and Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power (New York: Basic Books, 1990). See also Kennedy's review of several such works, “Fin-de-Siècle America,” New York Review of Books, 28 June 1990, 51–40.
21 Kissinger Henry, Years of Upheaval (Boston: Little Brown, 1982), 86–87.
22 Destler I. M., Gelb Leslie H. and Lake Anthony, Our Own Worst Enemy: The Unmaking of American Foreign Policy, revised and updated ed. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984).
23 See comments by Galbraith, Kissinger, and Ball on the dustjacket of the book's hardcover edition; Steel Ronald, “Cohort of the American Century,” New York Times Book Review, 2 11 1986, 3, 40; Broder David S., “NATO: What Comes After America's ‘Wise Men’?,” International Herald Tribune, 27–28 05 1989, 11. Some academic reviewers were far less appreciative of the subjects' supposed merits; see, e.g., Little Douglas, “Crackpot Realists and Other Heroes: The Rise and Fall of the Postwar American Diplomatic Elite,” Diplomatic History, 13 (1989), 99–111.
24 Isaacson Walter and Thomas Evan, The Wise Men: Six Friends and the World They Made (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1986).
25 Recent years have seen the publication of biographical studies of Dean Rusk and such lesser-known but by no means insignificant Establishment men as Grenville Clark and Lewis W. Douglas, while works on McCloy, Acheson, and Harriman are in the pipeline. Most of these volumes made some reference to their subjects' status within the Establishment, though without sustained analysis of the concept. The flood of memoirs and autobiographies also continues unabated; while Acheson and Harriman had their say many years ago, only in the past two or three years did Nitze and Rusk take the plunge. Nitze's arms control efforts have been the subject of a separate major study, and two volumes by J. Garry Clifford concentrated upon Clark's efforts to revitalize American defenses before each world war. Schoenebaum Thomas J., Waging Peace and War: Dean Rusk in the Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson Years (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988); Dunne Gerald T., Grenville Clark: Public Citizen (New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 1986); Browder Robert Paul and Smith Thomas C., Independent: A Biography of Lewis W. Douglas (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986); Nitze Paul H., with Smith Ann M. and Rearden Steven L., From Hiroshima to Glasnost: At the Centre of Decision – A Memoir (London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1989); Rusk Dean, As I Saw It (New York: Viking, 1991); Talbott Strobe, The Master of the Game: Paul Nitze and the Nuclear Peace (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1988); Clifford John Garry, The Citizen Soldiers: The Plattsburg Training Camp Movement, 1913–1020 (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1972); idem and Spencer Samuel R. Jr, The First Peacetime Draft (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1986).
26 The radical leftwing view of the Council on Foreign Relations is given at length in Shoup Lawrence H. and Minter William, Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1977); cf. Sklar Holly, ed., Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Government (Boston: Shankman, 1980). A representative example of works arguing the rightwing view is Smoot Dan, The Invisible Government (Dallas: Dan Smoot Report, 1962).
27 Schulzinger Robert D., The Wise Men of Foreign Affairs: The History of the Council on Foreign Relations (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984).
28 Hodgson Godfrey, The Colonel: The Life and Wars of Henry Stimson 1867–1950 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1990). I am greatly indebted to Mr. Hodgson for giving me a copy of this book when it proved impossible to obtain one in England.
29 Holland , “Citizen McCloy”; Alan Brinkley, “Minister Without Portfolio,” Harper's (02 1983), 32–46; Schwartz Thomas Alan, America's Germany: John J. McCloy and the Federal Republic of Germany (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1991).
30 Reviewing Hodgson's biography of Stimson, Brinkley likewise commented: “Stimson's bequest [to the next generation of the foreign policy elite] included a certitude about the righteousness of American ideals and their suitability for other nations; a conviction that diplomacy must be insulated from popular and legislative whims (and hence from democracy); and a social and cultural elitism – born of his own rarefied station - that survived in foreign policy circles long after it had been repudiated by the rest of American society. But Stimson also brought to public life a personal integrity, a lack of self-interest and of hypocrisy, and a commitment to the ideal of public service that compensated for many of the shortcomings of his social and political vision.” Brinkley , “The Good Old Days,” The New York Review of Books, 17 01 1991, 30.
31 The Anglophile Lewis Douglas, McCloy's brother-in-law and a former Ambassador to Great Britain, by then retired and living in Arizona, was one; the journalist Walter Lippmann, whose writings on foreign affairs from World War I onwards encapsulated much Establishment dogma, another. Browder and Smith , 396–99; Steel Ronald, Walter Lippmann and the American Century (Boston: Little Brown, 1980), 577–84.
32 Dileo David L., George Ball, Vietnam, and the Rethinking of Containment (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991), 211.
33 See, e.g., Matks Sally, “The World According to Washington,” Diplomatic History II (1987), 265–82; Christopher Thorne, “After the Europeans: American Designs for the Remaking of Southeast Asia,” ibid., 12 (1988), 201–08; idem, “Diplomatic History: Some Further Reflections,” ibid., 14 (1990), 602–05; Robert J. McMahon, “The Study of American Foreign Relations: National History or International History?” ibid., 554–64; Michael H. Hunt, “Internationalizing U.S. Diplomatic History,” ibid., 15 (1991), 1–12.
34 Bradford Perkins, D. Cameron Watt, and Michael Fry have all drawn attention to the manner in which certain British statesman and politicians, notably the liberal imperialists who had once surrounded Lord Milner and later congregated at Cliveden, and others who included Lord Salisbury, Joseph Chamberlain, Sir Edward Grey, and Arthur Balfour, encouraged the United States to take a greater role in world affairs, and hoped for an Anglo-American alliance. According to Lord Bullock, in the post-World War II years the “worst” fear of Ernest Bevin, the British Foreign Secretary, was of “a settlement between the USA and the USSR which Britain would be left to accept and the consequent withdrawal of American interest from Europe and the Mediterranean.” Perkins Bradford, The Great Rapprochement: Britain and the United States, 1898–1914 (New York: Atheneum, 1968), 51–53, 65–67, 84–86; Watt D. C., Succeeding John Bull: America in Britain's Place 1900–197; (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 24–163; idem, Personalities and Policies: Studies in the Formulation of British Foreign Policy in the Twentieth Century (London: Longmans, 1965), 19–52; Fry Michael G., Illusions of Security: North Atlantic Diplomacy 1918–22 (Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1972); Roberts Priscilla, “The American ‘Eastern Establishment’ and World War I: The Emergence of a Foreign Policy Tradition” (Ph.D. diss., Cambridge University, 1981), 223–29, 385–89, 406–15, 501–09; Bullock Alan, Ernest Bevin: Foreign Secretary (New York: Norton, 1983), 239.
35 Schulzinger , Wise Men of Foreign Affairs, 3–6; Hodgson , 172–75; Schwartz , 6–7, 302–03; Dileo , 24–28.
36 Charles Maier, “The Making of ‘Pax Americana,’” unpublished paper presented at a Diplomatic History Workshop, Harvard University, October 1988, cited in Schwartz, 392 n. 13; cf. idem, Recasting Bourgeois Europe: Stabilization in France, Germany, and Italy in the Decade after World War I (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975); idem, “The Two Postwar Eras and the Conditions for Stability in Twentieth Century Western Europe,” American Historical Review, 86 (1981), 327–52.
37 Hogan Michael J., The Marshall Plan: America, Britain, and the Reconstruction of Western Europe, 1947–1912 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987); also idem, “Revival and Reform: America's Twentieth-Century Search for a New Economic Order Abroad,” Diplomatic History, 8 (1984), 287–310; Carew Anthony, Labour under the Marshall Plan: The politics of productivity and the marketing of management science (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987); Burr William, “Marshall Planners and the Politics of Empire: The United States and French Financial Policy, 1948,” Diplomatic History, 15 (1991), 495–522; Leffler Melvyn P., A Preponderance of Power: National Security, the Truman Administration, and the Cold War (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992); Ambrosius Lloyd E., “Wilson, the Republicans, and French Security after World War I,” Journal of American History, 59 (1972), 341–52.
38 See Buckingham Peter H., International Normalcy: The Open Door Peace with the former Central Powers, 1921–29 (Wilmington: Scholarly Resources, 1983); Cohen Warren I., Empire Without Tears: America's Foreign ‘Relations, 1921–1933 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987); Costigliola Frank C., Awkward Dominion: American Political, Economic, and Cultural Relations with Europe, 1919–1933 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984); Hogan Michael J., Informal Entente: The Private Structure of Cooperation in Anglo-American Diplomacy, 1918–1928 (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1977); Kent Bruce, The Spoils of War: The Politics, Economics, and Diplomacy of Reparations, 1918–1932 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989); Leffler Melvyn P., The Elusive Quest: America's Pursuit of European Stability and French Security, 1919–1933 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1979); McDougall Walter A., France's Rhineland Diplomacy, 1914–1924: The East Bid for a Balance of Power in Europe (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978); McNeil William C., American Money and the Weimar Republic: Economics and Politics on the Eve of the Great Depression (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986); Schuker Stephen A., The End of French Predominance in Europe: The Financial Crisis of 1924 and the Adoption of the Daives Plan (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1976); Silverman Dan P., Reconstructing Europe after the Great War (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982); Meter Robert Hardin Van Jr, “The United States and European Recovery, 1918–1923: A Study of Public Policy and Private Finance” (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin, 1971); Wilson Joan Hoff, American Business and Foreign Policy, 1920–1933 (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1971). The literature on the 1920S is reviewed more fully in Jacobson Jon, “Is There a New International History of the 1920S?”, American Historical Review, 88 (1983), 617–45; and McKercher Brian, “Reaching for the Brass Ring: The Recent Historiography of Interwar America Foreign Relations,” Diplomatic History, 15 (1991), 565–98.
39 The literature on corporatism, and the studies which attempt to explore the concept or which employ it in their analysis of United States domestic and diplomatic history, is extensive and growing. For discussions, see McCormick Thomas J., “Drift or Mastery? A Corporatist Synthesis for American Diplomatic History,” Reviews in American History, 10 (12 1982), 318–30; Gaddis John L., “The Corporatist Synthesis: A Skeptical View,” Diplomatic History, 10 (1986), 357–62; Hogan Michael J., “Corporatism: A Positive Appraisal,”ibid., 10 (1986), 363–72; idem, “Corporatism,” Journal of American History, 77 (1990), 153–60.
40 Many of the studies cited in the two previous notes, and also the works by the Radical Revisionists cited earlier in this essay, regard Establishment figures as essentially concerned with safeguarding and promoting the American capitalist system. The close connections which many such men have with big business interests has not unnaturally-led a number of scholars to adopt this interpretation. Dileo, for example, while not following this approach, gives an excellent description of Ball's ties to various multinational corporations, and of his belief that, as he wrote in a 1967 Fortune article, there are “few things more hopeful for the future than the growing determination of American business to regard national boundaries as no longer fixing the horizons of their corporate activity.” Dileo, 23–27, 208–10, quotation from 209.
41 van der Pijl Kees, The Making of an Atlantic Ruling Class (London: Verso, 1984).
42 Isaacson and Thomas , Wise Men, 480–504; Donovan , Cold Warriors, 86–103; Wells Samuel F., “Sounding the Tocsin: NSC–68 and the Soviet Threat,” International Security, 3 (1968), 116–58; Sanders Jerry W., Peddlers of Crisis: The Committee on the Present Danger and the Politics of Containment (Boston: South End Press, 1983), 23–50.
43 Sanders , 51–129.
44 Leffler Melvyn P., “National Security”, Journal of American History, 77 (1990), 143–52, quotations from 149.
45 Idem, Preponderance of Power; idem, “The American Conception of National Security and the Beginnings of the Cold War, 1945–48,” American Historical Review, 89 (1984), 346–81. See also Leffler's “Reply” to the “Comments” by John Lewis Gaddis and Bruce Kuniholm, all in ibid., 382–400.
46 Larsen Deborah Welch, Origins of Containment: A Psychological Explanation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985), quotation from 353.
47 Huntington Samuel P., The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1957), 270–88, quotations from 270, 271, and 273; on Mahan, see also Seager Robert II, Alfred Thayer Mahan: The Man and His Letters (Annapolis, 1977); Crowl Philip A., “Alfred Thayer Mahan: The Naval Historian,” in Makers of Modern Strategy from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, ed. Paret Peter with the collaboration of Craig Gordon A. and Gilbert Felix (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 444–77.
48 Pearlman Michael, To Make Democracy Safe for America: Patricians and Preparedness in the Progressive Era (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1984), quotation from 6; cf. Clifford, Citizen Soldiers; Finnegan John Patrick, Against the Specter of a Dragon: The Campaign for American Military Preparedness, 1914–1917 (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1974). The same themes are also brought out in Chambers John Whiteclay II, To Raise an Army: The Draft Comes to Modern America (New York: Free Press, 1987), esp. 87–101. Studies of American nativism and the Americanization movement have already demonstrated that many preparedness supporters used the movement as a means of “Americanizing” immigrants, instructing them in what their teachers believed were basic American values. Higham John, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism 1860–1925, 2nd ed. (New York: Atheneum, 1977), 242–49; Kennedy David M., Over Here: The First World War and American Society (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), 53–88.
49 See, e.g., Scott James Brown, Robert Bacon: Life and Letters (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1924), 155; Nicolson Harold, Dwight Morrow (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1935), 66–67, 225–226; Jessup Philip C., Elihu Koot, 2 vols (New York, 1938), 1, 218; Stimson Henry L. and Bundy McGeorge, On Active Service in Peace and War (New York: Harper, Dodd, Mead, 1948), 17.
50 Pearlman , esp. 58–76; Aldrich Nelson W., Old Money: The Mythology of America's Upper Class (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1988), 169–82. On the turn–of-the-century cult of manliness and romanticized idealization of war in both Britain and the United States, see Adams Michael C. C., The Great Adventure: Male Desire and the Coming of World War I (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990); Stromberg Roland N., Redemption by War: The Intellectuals and 1914 (Lawrence: Regents Press of Kansas, 1982); Eksteins Modris, Rites of Spring: The Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1989).
51 Clifford , 57, 68.
52 Clifford and Spencer, First Peacetime Draft. In his study of those Americans involved in the Century Group and Fight for Freedom who strongly supported American intervention prior to Pearl Harbor, Mark Lincoln Chadwin pointed out that the great majority of these individuals could plausibly be regarded as members of the Establishment. The Warhawks: American Interventionists Before Pearl Harbor (New York: W. W. Norton, 1968), esp. 69–71.
53 These might well be seen as the heirs of Theodore Roosevelt; it is also at least possible that they corresponded with those who had inherited money, rather than being self-made men, and so felt a corresponding need to prove themselves. It would include such figures as William J. Donovan and Allen W. Dulles, who took with such enthusiasm to clandestine operations overseas. Arguably and ironically the ultimate heirs of this tradition, intoxicated with force, eager for permanent military commitments, may well be such fervent anti-Communists as Colonel Oliver North.
54 Griffith Robert, “Eisenhower and the Corporate Commonwealth,” American Historical Review, 87 (1982), 87–122. Here one would find such individuals as McCloy and David K. Bruce, who in 1951 hoped that the American commitment to the NATO alliance would not last longer than a decade; or Lovett, who by the 1950S had grave reservations as to the wisdom of some of the Central Intelligence Agency's operations. Schwartz , America's Germany, 218–19; Isaacson and Thomas , Wise Men, 574.
55 Thus although private bankers, primarily the firm of J. P. Morgan & Company, organized the loans which enabled the Allies to buy vast quantities of essential war supplies in the United States and so survive until American intervention in April 1917, the Wilson administration's decision to sanction such financial transactions was just as important in enabling the Allied government to continue the war. It is equally arguable that these loans, organized by bankers in many ways at the heart of the Establishment, were responsible for the American war trade which, in its turn, brought about the successive diplomatic crises with Germany and ultimately entangled the United States in war with Germany. On these loans and their significance, see Burk Kathleen, Britain, America and the Sinews of War 1914–1918 (Boston: George Allen & Unwin, 1985), 11–95; also Cooper John Milton Jr, “The Command of Gold Reversed: American Loans to Britain, 1915–1917,” Pacific Historical Review, 45 (1976), 209–30.
56 In the 1950S Osgood pointed out that with almost no exceptions even those Americans most committed to American intervention before 1917 did not believe that Germany would win the war, and felt no real apprehensions that the United States itself was in danger. Osgood , Ideals and Self-interest, chs. 6–12 passim, esp. 205–22, 255–63. The case against the need for American intervention in World War II is made in Russett Bruce M., No Clear and Present Danger: A Skeptical View of the U.S. Entry into World War II (New York: Harper and Row, 1972).
57 Roberts , “Eastern Establishment,’” esp. 161–68, 578–83.
58 Susman Warren I., Culture as History: The Transformation of American Society in the Twentieth Century (New York: Pantheon, 1984), esp. xx–xxiv, 41–42, 271–85.
59 See, e.g., references in Roberts , 563, n. I.
60 Symptomatically, George Bush's assumption of the presidency generated a slew of approving articles pointing out the degree to which he embodied the Establishment's foreign policy tradition. See, e.g., Dionne E. J. Jr, “Which Way Does the New Breeze Blow?,” New York Times, Pt. 4, I; Broder, “NATO.”
61 Judis , “Twilight of the Gods,” 54–55.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 24th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.