Advertisement

The Interim Period, 1952 to 1965

  • Phil Williams
Chapter
  • 2 Downloads

Abstract

By April 1951, the Senate had exhausted both itself and the issue of sending US troops to Europe. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that for the rest of the decade the military presence in Europe was not something which generated much argument. The ‘Great Debate’ acted almost as a catharsis, allowing senators to ventilate their grievances and anxieties about the direction of United States foreign policy, and then turn to other matters. Nevertheless, the debate had revealed that the US contribution to NATO, and especially the presence of a substantial number of troops in Europe, was an issue with an inherent potential for controversy. Inevitable uncertainties about what constituted fair shares, lingering doubts over the vigour and reliability of the European allies, and a continuing faith in the principle of self-help, all contributed to this potential. Nor was it simply a partisan matter: although the opposition to sending troops had come primarily from one section of the Republican Party, concern over equitable burden-sharing transcended this group and was clearly evident not only among Republicans who were more sympathetic to Truman’s decision, but also among loyal Democrats.

Keywords

Foreign Policy Interim Period Great Debate Defence Budget American Troop 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 2.
    R. F. Grimmett, ‘The Politics of Containment: the President, the Senate and American Foreign Policy, 1947–1956’ (Kent State University: PhD diss, 1973) pp. 167–8.Google Scholar
  2. 5.
    The best analysis of the ‘new look’ remains that by Glenn Snyder in W. Schilling, P. Hammond and G. Snyder, Strategy, Politics and Defense Budgets (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962).Google Scholar
  3. 6.
    R. A. Divine, Foreign Policy and U.S. Presidential Elections: 1952, 1956 (New York: Franklin Watts, 1974) p. 24.Google Scholar
  4. 7.
    T. Hoopes, The Devil and John Foster Dulles (Boston: Little, Brown, 1973) p. 199.Google Scholar
  5. 8.
    See R. Morgan, The United States and West Germany, 1945–1973 (London: Oxford University Press, 1974) pp. 63–5.Google Scholar
  6. 11.
    M. Jewell, Senatorial Politics and Foreign Policy (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1962) p. 35.Google Scholar
  7. 15.
    S. W. Reichard, ‘Divisions and Dissent: Democrats and Foreign Policy, 1952–1956’, Political Science Quarterly, vol. 93, no. 1 (Spring 1978) 51–72, especially pp. 55–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 16.
    See Jewell, Senatorial Politics, pp. 23–8. For the pressures from the Democrats for the Administration to expand the defence budget see ch. 6 of E. A. Kolodziej, The Uncommon Defense and Congress, 1945–63 (Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 1966).Google Scholar
  9. 17.
    W. S. White, ‘Mender Charges Aid Waste Abroad’, New York Times, 21 December 1951.Google Scholar
  10. 20.
    S. Strange, International Monetary Relations (London: Oxford University Press for the Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1976) p. 40.Google Scholar
  11. 22.
    Quoted in G. Hodgson, America In Our Time (New York: Vintage Books, 1978) p. 256.Google Scholar
  12. 23.
    See C. S. Raj, American Military in Europe: Controversy over NATO Burden-sharing (New Delhi: ABC Publishing House, 1983) p. 208.Google Scholar
  13. 31.
    M. Mansfield, The Foreign Policy of the United States, Speech before the Bar Association, Butte, Montana, June 1951, p. 4.Google Scholar
  14. 33.
    M. Mansfield, Europe After the Geneva Conference, Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations, 19 October 1955 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1955) p. 2.Google Scholar
  15. 36.
    M. Mansfield, A Survey of Political and Economic Developments During 1949 in France, Western Germany, Austria and Italy. Report to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 10 December 1949 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1950) p. 16.Google Scholar
  16. 40.
    M. Mansfield, Foreign Policy and Security, Statement of 18 November 1953, p. 1.Google Scholar
  17. 43.
    M. Mansfield, A Survey of Political and Economic Developments During 1950 in Western Germany, Austria, Trieste, Italy, Spain and Portugal, Report to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1951) p. 3.Google Scholar
  18. 45.
    See M. Mansfield, Prospects for Western Unity, Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations on a Study Mission to France, Western Germany and Italy, 4 November 1954 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1954) p. 1.Google Scholar
  19. 58.
    M. Mansfield, The Next Stage in Foreign Policy, released 14 July 1957, p. 11.Google Scholar
  20. 61.
    M. Mansfield, National Security and International Peace, released 22 July 1960, p. 6.Google Scholar
  21. 62.
    M. Mansfield, A Third Way on Berlin, released 15 June 1961. See p. 6 in particular.Google Scholar
  22. 64.
    M. Mansfield, Review of Foreign Policy vii: U.S. Policy and a Changing Europe, released 2 July 1956.Google Scholar
  23. 68.
    M. Mansfield, ‘Foreign Relations: Late Summer 1959’, Congressional Record, 14 September 1959, 86th Congress, 1st Session, vol. 105, pt. 14, pp. 18038–40, at p. 18040.Google Scholar
  24. 69.
    J. Bell, ‘Mansfield Sees Demand For Troops Return’, Montana Standard, 14. December 1959.Google Scholar
  25. 72.
    M. Mansfield, Personal Opinion, released 2 January 1961.Google Scholar
  26. 75.
    M. Mansfield, Address to the Springfield Adult Education Council, Springfield Public Forum, The Phillips Lecture, Technical High School, Springfield Mass., 10 October 1962, p. 4.Google Scholar
  27. 89.
    S. Symington, Recommendations for Overcoming the Continuing Unfavourable Balance of Payments, released 16 September 1965, p. 2.Google Scholar
  28. 101.
    M. Frankel, ‘President Gives Bonn Assurance on Combat Force’, New York Times, 1 November 1963.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Phil Williams 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Phil Williams

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations