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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
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.
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).
R. A. Divine, Foreign Policy and U.S. Presidential Elections: 1952, 1956 (New York: Franklin Watts, 1974) p. 24.
T. Hoopes, The Devil and John Foster Dulles (Boston: Little, Brown, 1973) p. 199.
See R. Morgan, The United States and West Germany, 1945–1973 (London: Oxford University Press, 1974) pp. 63–5.
M. Jewell, Senatorial Politics and Foreign Policy (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1962) p. 35.
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.
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).
W. S. White, ‘Mender Charges Aid Waste Abroad’, New York Times, 21 December 1951.
S. Strange, International Monetary Relations (London: Oxford University Press for the Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1976) p. 40.
Quoted in G. Hodgson, America In Our Time (New York: Vintage Books, 1978) p. 256.
See C. S. Raj, American Military in Europe: Controversy over NATO Burden-sharing (New Delhi: ABC Publishing House, 1983) p. 208.
M. Mansfield, The Foreign Policy of the United States, Speech before the Bar Association, Butte, Montana, June 1951, p. 4.
M. Mansfield, Europe After the Geneva Conference, Report to the Committee on Foreign Relations, 19 October 1955 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1955) p. 2.
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.
M. Mansfield, Foreign Policy and Security, Statement of 18 November 1953, p. 1.
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.
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.
M. Mansfield, The Next Stage in Foreign Policy, released 14 July 1957, p. 11.
M. Mansfield, National Security and International Peace, released 22 July 1960, p. 6.
M. Mansfield, A Third Way on Berlin, released 15 June 1961. See p. 6 in particular.
M. Mansfield, Review of Foreign Policy vii: U.S. Policy and a Changing Europe, released 2 July 1956.
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.
J. Bell, ‘Mansfield Sees Demand For Troops Return’, Montana Standard, 14. December 1959.
M. Mansfield, Personal Opinion, released 2 January 1961.
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.
S. Symington, Recommendations for Overcoming the Continuing Unfavourable Balance of Payments, released 16 September 1965, p. 2.
M. Frankel, ‘President Gives Bonn Assurance on Combat Force’, New York Times, 1 November 1963.
Copyright information
© 1985 Phil Williams
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Williams, P. (1985). The Interim Period, 1952 to 1965. In: The Senate and US Troops in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-06430-4_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-06430-4_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-06432-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-06430-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)