scholarly journals Establishment of the Nazi regime in Germany and the position of American politics and diplomacy

2020 ◽  
pp. 60-69
Author(s):  
Taras Tkachuk
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
New World ◽  
Third Reich ◽  
The United States ◽  
World War ◽  
Nazi Regime ◽  
Leading Role ◽  
The World

The article examines the problem of relations between the two leading states of the world in the interwar period: Germany, which withdrew from the First World War as a defeated country and after the establishment of the Nazi regime started preparing revenge, and the United States, proclaimed «isolationism» and, therefore, distanced themselves from European international political problems. The scientific novelty: the author points up primarily political «isolationism», while in the economic sphere the United States has played a leading role in the reconstruction and development of the afterwar Germany. Today, due to the difficult geopolitical situation in the world, caused by the aggressive actions of the Russian Federation, which are quite similar to the former Nazi regime, there is a chance to look at the events of the 1930s in the international arena in a somewhat new way. Regarding this, the author sets out an aim of the article to carry out a comprehensive analyze and give his own assessment of the position of American politicians on the establishment of the Nazi regime in Germany. The methodological basis of the study. In the study the author used a descriptive method to identify the essence and features of American-German relations in the 1920s and early 1930s, a comparative-historical method in analyzing the positions of President Roosevelt’s enciclement on German Chancellor A. Hitler’s policy in 1933, the principles of objectivity and systematization using only verified facts and their comprehensive assessment. This made it possible for the first time to draw attention to the position of the American leadership on the establishment of the Nazi regime and its role in international diplomacy on the eve of World War II in order to the current geopolitical situation connected with Russia’s aggressive actions. The Conclusions. Finally, the author asserts that President Roosevelt’s encirclement perceived the threat of a new world war from the German Nazis, but did not change the United States’ overall foreign policy toward Europe. The reason was that Franklin Delano Roosevelt chose a wrong strategy to avert new world conflict in the relationship with Berlin. At the same time, the author underlines the differences in the attitudes of American «isolationists» towards Germany and Japan, as well as the differences between Washington’s position on the political and non-political aspects of relations with Hitler’s regime. Therefore, the author points out that not all the American politicians perceived the Nazi «Third Reich» totally negatively. As a result, the United States chose the wrong strategy to deter Nazi Germany, which did not testify its effectiveness. That’s why, the article asserts that the current United States and the Western European countries need to anticipate their past mistakes in building of the strategy of relations with Russian Federation.

scholarly journals The UK-US Game and UK's Return to Gold Standard

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 324
Author(s):  
Zheming Zhang
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
World War I ◽  
Economic System ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
International Economic Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
World War ◽  
The World ◽  
The Uk

<p>With the continuous development and evolution of the United States, especially the economic center shift after World War II, the United States become the economic hegemon instead of the UK and thus it seized the economic initiative of the world. After the World War I, the European countries gradually withdraw from the gold standard. In order to stabilize the world economy development and the international economic order, the United States prepared to build the economic system related with its own interests so as to force the UK to return to the gold standard. The game between the United States and the UK shows the significance of economic initiative. Among them, the outcome of the two countries in the fight of the financial system also demonstrates a significant change in the world economic system.</p>

Analogies at War

2005 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 411-426 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. CHRISTOPHER JESPERSEN
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
American History ◽  
The United States ◽  
World War ◽  
The Past ◽  
Frequent Use ◽  
The World ◽  
Current Events

The frequent use of the Vietnam analogy to describe the situation in Iraq underscores the continuing relevance of Vietnam for American history. At the same time, the Vietnam analogy reinforces the tendency to see current events within the context of the past. Politicians and pundits latch onto analogies as handles for understanding the present, but in so doing, they obscure more complicated situations. The con�ict in Iraq is not Vietnam, Korea, or World War II, but this article considers all three in an effort to see how the past has shaped, and continues to affect, the world the United States now faces.

Rescue or Return: The Fate of the Iraqi Jewish Archive

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce P. Montgomery
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cultural Property ◽  
World War ◽  
Mass Destruction ◽  
Jewish Diaspora ◽  
The World ◽  
The One ◽  
Invasion Of Iraq

AbstractShortly following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, an American mobile exploitation team was diverted from its mission in hunting for weapons for mass destruction to search for an ancient Talmud in the basement of Saddam Hussein's secret police (Mukhabarat) headquarters in Baghdad. Instead of finding the ancient holy book, the soldiers rescued from the basement flooded with several feet of fetid water an invaluable archive of disparate individual and communal documents and books relating to one of the most ancient Jewish communities in the world. The seizure of Jewish cultural materials by the Mukhabarat recalled similar looting by the Nazis during World War II. The materials were spirited out of Iraq to the United States with a vague assurance of their return after being restored. Several years after their arrival in the United States for conservation, the Iraqi Jewish archive has become contested cultural property between Jewish groups and the Iraqi Jewish diaspora on the one hand and Iraqi cultural officials on the other. This article argues that the archive comprises the cultural property and heritage of the Iraqi Jewish diaspora.

The Realist–Pacifist Summit Meeting of March 1942 and the Political Reorientation of Ecumenical Protestantism in the United States

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Hollinger
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Orientation ◽  
The Political ◽  
World War ◽  
Summit Meeting ◽  
The World ◽  
Institutional Forces ◽  
First Moment

This chapter analyzes the consolidation in 1942 of the two major, religiously defined institutional forces of the entire period from World War II to the present. The Delaware Conference of March 3–5, 1942, was the first moment at which rival groups within the leadership of ecumenical Protestantism came together and agreed upon an agenda for the postwar world. The chapter addresses the following questions: Just what did the Delaware Conference agree upon and proclaim to the world? Which Protestant leaders were present at the conference and/or helped to bring it about and to endow it with the character of a summit meeting? In what respects did the new political orientation established at the conference affect the destiny of ecumenical Protestantism?

WORLD WAR I AND THE PARADOX OF WILSONIANISM

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-22
Author(s):  
Lloyd E. Ambrosius
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World War I ◽  
New World ◽  
World Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
New World Order ◽  
World War ◽  
Imperial Germany ◽  
The World ◽  
The Individual

One hundred years ago, on April 6, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson led the United States into the First World War. Four days earlier, in his war message to Congress, he gave his rationale for declaring war against Imperial Germany and for creating a new world order. He now viewed German submarine attacks against neutral as well as belligerent shipping as a threat to the whole world, not just the United States. “The present German submarine warfare against commerce is a warfare against mankind,” he claimed. “It is a war against all nations.” He now believed that Germany had violated the moral standards that “citizens of civilized states” should uphold. The president explained: “We are at the beginning of an age in which it will be insisted that the same standards of conduct and responsibility for wrong done shall be observed among nations and their governments that are observed among the individual citizens of civilized states.” He focused on protecting democracy against the German regime of Kaiser Wilhelm II. “A steadfast concert for peace,” he said, “can never be maintained except by a partnership of democratic nations. No autocratic government could be trusted to keep faith within it or observe its covenants.” Wilson called on Congress to vote for war not just because Imperial Germany had sunk three American ships, but for the larger purpose of a new world order. He affirmed: “We are glad, now that we see the facts with no veil of false pretense about them, to fight thus for the ultimate peace of the world and for the liberation of its peoples, the German peoples included: for the rights of nations great and small and the privilege of men everywhere to choose their way of life and of obedience. The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundation of political liberty.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt and US Foreign Relations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham Cross
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New York ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Active Role ◽  
The United States ◽  
American People ◽  
World War ◽  
The World ◽  
The Impact

Franklin D. Roosevelt was US president in extraordinarily challenging times. The impact of both the Great Depression and World War II make discussion of his approach to foreign relations by historians highly contested and controversial. He was one of the most experienced people to hold office, having served in the Wilson administration as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, completed two terms as Governor of New York, and held a raft of political offices. At heart, he was an internationalist who believed in an engaged and active role for the United States in world. During his first two terms as president, Roosevelt had to temper his international engagement in response to public opinion and politicians wanting to focus on domestic problems and wary of the risks of involvement in conflict. As the world crisis deepened in the 1930s, his engagement revived. He adopted a gradualist approach to educating the American people in the dangers facing their country and led them to eventual participation in war and a greater role in world affairs. There were clearly mistakes in his diplomacy along the way and his leadership often appeared flawed, with an ambiguous legacy founded on political expediency, expanded executive power, vague idealism, and a chronic lack of clarity to prepare Americans for postwar challenges. Nevertheless, his policies to prepare the United States for the coming war saw his country emerge from years of depression to become an economic superpower. Likewise, his mobilization of his country’s enormous resources, support of key allies, and the holding together of a “Grand Alliance” in World War II not only brought victory but saw the United States become a dominant force in the world. Ultimately, Roosevelt’s idealistic vision, tempered with a sound appreciation of national power, would transform the global position of the United States and inaugurate what Henry Luce described as “the American Century.”

In Defense of Justice

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eileen H. Tamura
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Twentieth Century ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
The United States ◽  
Concentration Camps ◽  
Japanese Americans ◽  
Japanese American ◽  
World War ◽  
The World ◽  
History Of

As a leading dissident in the World War II concentration camps for Japanese Americans, Joseph Yoshisuke Kurihara stands out as an icon of Japanese American resistance. In this biography, Kurihara's life provides a window into the history of Japanese Americans during the first half of the twentieth century. Born in Hawaiʻi to Japanese parents who immigrated to work on the sugar plantations, Kurihara was transformed by the forced removal and incarceration of ethnic Japanese during World War II. As an inmate at Manzanar in California, Kurihara became one of the leaders of a dissident group within the camp and was implicated in “the Manzanar incident,” a serious civil disturbance that erupted on December 6, 1942. In 1945, after three years and seven months of incarceration, he renounced his U.S. citizenship and boarded a ship for Japan, never to return to the United States. Shedding light on the turmoil within the camps as well as the sensitive and formerly unspoken issue of citizenship renunciation among Japanese Americans, this book explores one man's struggles with the complexities of loyalty and dissent.

America: Promised Land or Wasteland

1973 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth W. Thompson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World War Ii ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
World War ◽  
Promised Land ◽  
The World ◽  
Anniversary Issue ◽  
History Of ◽  
Hans Morgenthau

Hamilton Fish Armstrong, retiring editor of the influential quarterly, Foreign Affairs, writes in its fiftieth anniversary issue: “Not since we withdrew into comfortable isolation in 1920 has the prestige of the United States stood so low.” Lest his judgment be construed as political rhetoric, it should be noted that Armstrong has been an advisor to both major political parties. And if anyone doubts that there is cause for this critique, he need only consider the following: the United States, which in the 1940's and 1950's had an “automatic majority” in votes at the United Nations, has learned in the 1960's what it means to be outvoted in this same assembly. Americans, who during and after World War II trumpeted the cause of anticolonialism and the end of aggression, are today condemned as imperialists and aggressors. And while we have been heralded since 1946 as the most powerful nation in the history of the world, a tiny and divided nation among the less developed of Southeast Asia has fought us to a standstill. Is it any wonder Armstrong can write of the decline of America and point to the loss of our prestige in the world? Or that Hans Morgenthau can say: “America no longer sets an example for other nations to emulate; in many respects it sets an example of what to avoid”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document