Customer Reviews

Storm on the Horizon: The Challenge to American Intervention, 1939-1941

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

These days, 'isolationist' is one of the A-bombs of political invective. Along with 'anti-Semite' and one or two other smear words, to label someone an 'isolationist' is to paint him in colors that will never entirely wash away. To be an 'isolationist,' an 'America-Firster,' is to be xenophobic, head-in-the-sand, economically illiterate, and politically a reactionary mossback, a shirker of America's undoubted responsibilities to the rest of the world, and probably a crypto- (or not so crypto-) fascist.

That many on the Right as well as the Left unquestioningly use the term in just this way reflects not only on the sorry state, and narrow limits, of 'acceptable' political debate, but also the way American history has been cheapened and distorted for political purposes. That's what makes Justus Doenecke's impressive history all the more important.

With intricate and painstaking documentation, Doenecke shatters the latter-day myth of who the 'isolationists' (Doenecke prefers the less loaded term 'anti-interventionists') were, and what they stood for. As the clock ticks down to Pearl Harbor, we see the incredible diversity of the anti-interventionist bloc, who agreed on keeping America out of the war, but on little else. Learned and articulate people from every part of the political spectrum opposed intervention. Some anti-interventionists were outright pacifists who opposed any military spending, while others were '100% for arming to the teeth for defense of this country' (as the New York Daily News described Thomas E. Dewey, quoted on page 158). Some denied National Socialist Germany posed any threat to America, while others feared an invasion, via South America or Canada, was imminent. Many were strongly anti-Nazi, while others seemed to believe the longer-term threat to peace came from Imperial Britain. Some wholeheartedly supported the 'bases for destroyers' deal with the UK, but others vehemently opposed it. Some few were indeed anti-Semitic, but most were not, and a few opposed aid to Poland in 1939 explicitly because of Poland's own history of anti-Semitism. And so on.

After Pearl Harbor, anti-interventionists remained divided -- on FDR's degree of culpability, for example. But they were virtually unanimous in calling for an immediate declaration of war against Japan. The time for anti-interventionism had ended, and the America First Committee dissolved itself within days (declaring, as it did, that 'Our principles were right. Had they been followed, war could have been avoided.').

In short, the one-dimensional caricature of 'isolationists' we're treated to today has little basis in reality.

Doenecke's research is truly impressive. When I first opened this book, I was surprised at how small the type was. But then I realized that literally the final third or so of the text is all endnotes, references, and bibliography, and that was what I had opened to. The author of several histories of anti-interventionism before and after the Second World War, Doenecke's familiarity with the relevant sources is unsurpassed.

But Doenecke's not just a skilled researcher. He's also a fine writer. His narrative is fast-paced and engrossing. Most usefully, while he's recounting the on-the-one-hand/on-the-other-hand positions the anti-interventionists took, he doesn't comment on which position turned out to be historically 'right.' Only in the excellent Conclusion does he weigh the merits of the different arguments, and the anti-interventionist position generally.

As with any group of diverse and opinionated humans, there's good and bad, right and wrong, in what the anti-interventionists said, and what they stood for. It's hard to dispute, though, that there's much we can learn from the principled stand these men and women took. As Doenecke notes, for example, they had a healthy skepticism of Presidential power, were keenly aware of geopolitical reality (including the threat posed by the Soviet Union), power politics, and of how engagement in wars abroad inevitably swells the size and power of the State at home.

In these days of a new war, when some commentators explicitly call for America to embrace its alleged role as Global Empire, this book is exceptionally important reading. As important as grasping 'Why We Fight' is an understanding of why, sixty-plus years ago, so many people tried so hard to keep America from having to do so.

In Storm On The Horizon: The Challenge To American Intervention 1939-1941 is a compelling and informative history of how America became entangled in Europe's political and military struggles prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor which resulted in a formal declaration of war and overt participation as a combatant. Justus Doenecke (Professor of History at new College of the University of South Florida, Sarasota) combines painstaking and meticulous historical research with perceptive insights and an ability to engage the reader's total attention. Storm On The Horizon is particularly recommended reading for students of 20th Century American history, World War II, and the role of the Roosevelt administration in dealing with American isolationist sentiments.

This book is useful on two levels. Firstly, the reader has a chance to survey the confused and disjoined efforts of anti-interventionists in their struggle to stop US invovlement in WWII, an effort doomed to failure because the US wasn't the only party to that decision.

Secondly, the bibliography the author provides is a valuable update to his 1987 work, "Anti-Intevention: A Bibliographical Introduction to Isolationism and Pacifism from World War I to the Early Cold War."

An honest heir to Wayne Cole, Mr. Doenecke is the leading (almost the only) writer on isolationism and anti-inteventionism working today. If you haven't read this book you're not up-to-date on the debate.

Larry W. Jewell
Gradute student,
History Dept.
Purdue University

This triumphal book lauds praise upon those that opposed intervention in World War Two. This book paints a picture of `action groups' and congressman who wanted to remain behind the veil of isolationism, pretending the worlds problems had nothing to do with America. Meanwhile FDR was girding for war, enforcing sanctions on Japan and rebuilding an American army that was the smallest of the western democracies. The isolationists remained adamantly against intervention as states fell to fascism, Spain, Italy Germany and then Poland, Albania, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Serbia, the low countries, France and Norway, until all of Europe was under fascist rule. Meanwhile in Asia the states of China, and southeast Asia likewise fell. But this book argues that isolationism was the correct stance. Unfortunately this book is simply wrong in its assessment. Had the isolationists won then the world would all be either speaking German or Russian. This book advocates keeping the wool over ones eyes even as the fire is burning down the house. A better selection would be the book `Alone' about Winston Churchill by Mr. Manchester.