Interpreting American History: The New Deal and the Great Depression

10. Overseas Intervention, the Rise of Fascism Abroad, and the Origins of World War II

cHApter ten overseas Intervention, the rise of Fascism Abroad, and the origins of world war II peter luddington-foronJy Historians have divided Franklin D. roosevelt’s presidency into two distinct periods. the first encompasses the years from 1933 through 1938. Historians of roosevelt’s presidency generally agree that during this period roosevelt turned his back on foreign involvements and focused his attention on ameliorating the hardships caused by the great Depression. within this first period, roosevelt and congress enacted many of the landmark pieces of legislation that symbolized both the achievements and limitations of roosevelt’s economic reform agenda, which came to be known as the new Deal. the second period of roosevelt’s presidency began in approximately 1938 when roosevelt’s attention shifted away from domestic reform to focus on international affairs and concluded with his death in April 1945. roosevelt’s abandonment of his domestic economic reform agenda coincided with a crisis in foreign affairs. that crisis escalated in march of 1938 when Hitler ended Austria’s independence and made that country part of germany. It reached its nadir in the fall of 1938, when the leaders of the British and French governments met Adolf Hitler at munich, and in an attempt to prevent the start of another war, agreed to Hitler’s demand that part of czechoslovakia be given to germany. many historians pointed 169 peter luddington-foronjy 170 to these events as the crucial moments when roosevelt returned to his roots as an internationalist, abandoned any further attempts to reform the domestic economy, and became almost exclusively preoccupied with how the United states should respond to the looming threat of war in europe and the ongoing conflict in Asia. consequently, historians defined the final six years of roosevelt’s presidency within the parameters of his administration’s struggle to rebuild the nation’s armed forces, the effort to secure an alliance with Britain and the soviet Union, the war against the Axis powers, and finally, his conceptualization of foreign relations for the United states in the postwar world. Historians have studied these interconnected themes through a variety of paradigms. many scholars have examined how the war influenced the nature and direction of liberal reform that started during the new Deal. In The New Men of Power (1948), sociologist c. wright mills argued that postwar liberalism abandoned its traditional role as an opponent of capitalism. According to mills, leaders within the liberal community became part of the nation’s political power structure and were more concerned with protecting their own interests than they were in reforming the domestic economy.1 mills’s view that postwar liberalism had gone astray attracted a wide audience beyond the field of sociology. His ideas influenced a generation of historians who came of age during the tumultuous 1960s. Drawing upon mills’s analysis, historians argued that roosevelt ’s approach to fighting the war against the Axis powers was the source of postwar liberalism’s acceptance of the economic status quo. many historians argued that in response to the growing menace of nazi germany and particularly after the attack at pearl Harbor, roosevelt and his supporters formed an alliance with corporate America to supply the materials the government needed in the fight against the Axis powers. they cited roosevelt’s decision to work with corporate America as proof that liberal supporters in government halted domestic reform efforts, and thus liberalism. In The Rise and Fall of the People’s Century (1973), norman markowitz claimed that beginning in 1941, liberals began to suggest in their writings that the war against the Axis powers presented an oppor- Overseas Intervention, the Rise of Fascism Abroad, and the Origins of WWII 171 tunity for roosevelt to create an international new Deal. such a worldwide effort would spread democratic principles and lay the foundation for the start of a “people’s century” that would emerge at the end of the war. markowitz contended that the roosevelt administration failed to embrace a genuine effort to restructure the economy, and instead employed the rhetoric of social liberalism in order to garner popular support for the war. markowitz argued that the administration’s rhetoric during world war II suggested that roosevelt favored replacing capitalism with a form of socialism. However, in practice, the roosevelt administration and its liberal supporters rejected socialism and favored reforming corporate America.2 similarly, labor historian nelson lichtenstein argued, in Labor’s War at Home...