I finally finished this, after being interrupted by other pursuits, and I have a few notes. Perhaps the most striking part is the extent to which the Soviets placed national interests above those of left movements in Europe. Of course, everybody sort of knows this from the “socialism in one country” discourse, but still the volume of detail surprised me. The U.S.S.R. systematically traded away left movements and interests for the sake of security on its borders, which meant friendly – not necessarily socialist – governments.
Hi, Max. Doesn’t Kolko also classify LaFollette as a handmaiden of conservatism in his general dismissal of “progressives?” Would he recognize any nuance in political factions jockeying over the determination of US foreign policy? Would he have tested Arthur Schlesinger Jr.‘s probably exaggerated argument that the State Department had some critical voices?
Hi EP. I am not that familiar with the rest of Kolko's work. In the book, there is quite a bit of detail about internal debates in Roosevelt's Administration, typically between Departments of State, War, and Treasury, and among the top advisers. There is also a lot on the role of Arthur Vandenberg, especially in the run-up to the founding of the UN.
I don't think Kolko would have much use for Schlesinger. The overall frame is how the obsessions of U.S. foreign economic policy -- removing barriers to U.S. exports and access to raw materials, imperialism, in other words -- led to bad political policies. The view of FDR is not rose-colored, I imagine contrary to Schlesinger, whom I've never read.
I came away with a diminished view of FDR. The USG's anti-communist mania led to a lot of suffering in the world, not to mention creating obstacles to non-communist forms of political and economic development.
Hi, Max. Doesn’t Kolko also classify LaFollette as a handmaiden of conservatism in his general dismissal of “progressives?” Would he recognize any nuance in political factions jockeying over the determination of US foreign policy? Would he have tested Arthur Schlesinger Jr.‘s probably exaggerated argument that the State Department had some critical voices?
https://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schlesinger-notrightleft.html
As usual, mostly of “academic” interest.
Hi EP. I am not that familiar with the rest of Kolko's work. In the book, there is quite a bit of detail about internal debates in Roosevelt's Administration, typically between Departments of State, War, and Treasury, and among the top advisers. There is also a lot on the role of Arthur Vandenberg, especially in the run-up to the founding of the UN.
I don't think Kolko would have much use for Schlesinger. The overall frame is how the obsessions of U.S. foreign economic policy -- removing barriers to U.S. exports and access to raw materials, imperialism, in other words -- led to bad political policies. The view of FDR is not rose-colored, I imagine contrary to Schlesinger, whom I've never read.
I came away with a diminished view of FDR. The USG's anti-communist mania led to a lot of suffering in the world, not to mention creating obstacles to non-communist forms of political and economic development.
After skimming the linked article, the contrast between the message and FDR/Truman's efforts to destroy any viable "third force" is noteworthy.