I read Five Days in Philadelphia (by Charleston native Charles Peters) over the weekend. I was under the impression that the history was focused upon how Wendell Willkie secured the Republican nomination for president in 1940. It starts off that way, presenting the man, the time and the convention in a grandfatherly voice with vivid detail. How Willkie reached such political heights even though he had long been a Democrat (perhaps as late as 1940) is an interesting tale. But Willkie has secured the nomination by the time you are halfway through the book, and it’s at this point that it becomes clear that what Peters is really examining in this text is how internationalists came to control foreign policy making in DC in 1940. This was a time when their rise was absolutely essential if the country was to prepare to fight the evil world powers – but a time when their rise was be no means easy or even necessarily likely. The 1940 Republican convention was a crucial part of this shift. It’s troubling to think of what might have occurred if Sen. Robert Taft (“Mr. Republican”) had won his party’s nomination instead, and he very well might have. Peters thinks that there was only one week that Willkie could have won – so in a way the timing of the Fall of France worked out well for both Willkie, the British (who we were eventually able to aid in 1940 in the nick of time) and the United States.
The book links the party conventions, “Destroyers for Bases”, the draft, and “Lend-Lease”, arguing that they had to build on each other, and that a few people with great foresight and a good bit of luck enabled the country to move forward in a way that put it in a much stronger position for when it did fight the Axis powers later on. I think 1940 is one of the most interesting political years of the twentieth century, and this book illustrates a number of reasons for that. And along the way it also tells some interesting sidebars – for example, the fate of the French aircraft carrier Bearn and its cargo, or Willkie witnessing (and marveling at) a parliamentary debate going on in which a Labour member berated the government for criticizing the Daily Worker, while bombs exploded outside the palace of Westminster. It’s a quick read, and I recommend it if you are interested in US politics in this era.
Posted by armand at May 1, 2006 04:20 PM | TrackBack | Posted to BooksSounds interesting. How long?
What conclusions do you draw from the book about our present infestation of NeoCons (who might see themselves as the "internationalists" of this era)?
Posted by: baltar at May 2, 2006 01:18 PM | PERMALINKAbout 200 pages. There are quite a few pages of notes after that, but in terms of the primary text 200 pages.
Uh, I don't see that this says much of anything about the NeoCons of this era. The NeoCons seem in a much stronger position in 2001-today to get what they want than the internationalists who wanted to aid the UK in 1940 did. I mean there are some sort of kind of similarities (say, getting the Attorney General to make new arguments/findings on particular points). But the NeoCon position now is stronger than the pro-UK position was then - even they Hitler himself had just taken over most of Europe and Stalin, Franco and Mussolini ruled most of the rest of it.
One thing that did stand out to me (related to that last point) that I always find interesting when looking at US foreign policy pre-WWII is how closely tied Americans were to their native lands - for example, German-Americans to Germany, or Irish-Americans motivated mostly by their hatred of the Brits. That's still strong in some communities - but it was hugely strong back then. Which is something we should consider when examining the politics of today, be it in terms of building nationalism in Iraq, or dealing with immigration on our own shores.
Posted by: Armand at May 2, 2006 02:23 PM | PERMALINK