Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T07:42:32.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Power and Diplomacy: The 1920's Reappraised

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

John Braeman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since Pearl Harbor, American foreign policy during the Harding-Coolidge-Hoover years has receivedalargely negative appraisal from historians. In the aftermath of World War II, the adherents of Wilsonian internationalism dominated the writing of American diplomatic history. The crux of their indictment of the Republican administrations of the twenties was that this country's refusal to participate in collective-security arrangements for upholding the peace was responsible for the breakdown of international order in the years that followed. If the United States had joined the League of Nations, or at the minimum cooperated with the peace-loving nations, Britain, France, and, until the illusions of the wartime alliance collapsed, the Soviet Union, against would-be or actual aggressors, the Second World War could have been avoided. Although this view has continued to have its champions, the hardening of Cold War tensions —and the accompanying disillusionment with the efficacy of the United Nations — spurred a major counterattack upon what George F. Kennan has termed the “legalistic-moralistic approach to international problems.” With the emergence of the so-called realist school came a different—though no more positive—evaluation of the role played by the United States during the age of normalcy.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , July 1982 , pp. 342 - 369
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a review of the literature, see Braeman, John, “American Foreign Policy in the Age of Normalcy: Three Historiographical Traditions,” Amerikastudien/American Studies, 26, no. 2 (1981); 125–58Google Scholar.

2 Kennan, George F., American Diplomacy 1900–1950 (Chicago, 1951), p. 95Google Scholar.

3 Morgenthau, Hans J., Scientific Man vs. Power Politics (Chicago, 1946), p. 218Google Scholar; Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York, 1948), pp. 16–17, 21, 13Google Scholar: “The Mainsprings of American Foreign Policy: The National Interest vs. Moral Abstractions,” American Political Science Review, 44 (12 1950), 834–35Google Scholar.

4 Osgood, Robert E., Ideals and Self-interest in America's Foreign Relations: The Great Transformation of the Twentieth Century (Chicago, 1953), pp. 324, 362, 9Google Scholar.

5 Ferrell, Robert H., “The Peace Movement,” in Isolation and Security: Ideas and Interests in Twentieth-Century American Foreign Policy, ed. DeConde, Alexander (Durham, 1957), pp. 82–106Google Scholar; and Peace in Their Time: The Origins of the Kellogg Briand Pact (New Haven, 1952), pp. 264–65Google Scholar.

6 Glad, Betty, Charles Evans Hughes and the Illusions of Innocence (Urbana, 1966), p. 324Google Scholar. An even sharper indictment of Hughes's “utopianism” is given by Vinson, John C., “Charles Evans Hughes 1921–1925,” in An Uncertain Tradition: American Secretaries of State in the Twentieth Century, ed. Graebner, Norman A. (New York, 1961), pp. 128–48Google Scholar.

7 Feis, Herbert, The Diplomacy of the Dollar: First Era 1919–1932 (Baltimore, 1950), pp. 63–64Google Scholar.

8 Vinson, J. Chalmers, “Military Force and American Policy, 1919–1939,” in , DeConde, Isolation and Security, pp. 57–58Google Scholar.

9 May, Ernest R., “The Development of Political-Military Consultation in the United States,” Political Science Quarterly, 70 (06 1955); 168–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Morton, Louis, “War Plan Orange: Evolution of a Strategy,” World Politics, 11 (01 1959), 221–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Matloff, Maurice, “The American Approach to War, 1919–1945,” in The Theory and Practice of War: Essays Presented to Captain B. H. Liddell Hart on His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Howard, Michael (New York, 1966), pp. 217–19Google Scholar.

10 Examples include Ambrosius, Lloyd E., “The United States and the Weimar Republic: America's Response to the German Problem,” in Perspectives in American Diplomacy: Essays on Europe, Latin America, China and the Cold War, ed. Davids, Jules (New York, 1976), pp. 78–104Google Scholar; McDougall, Walter A., France's Rhineland Diplomacy, 1914–1924: The Last Bid for a Balance of Power in Europe (Princeton, 1978), pp. 377–79Google Scholar; Jacobson, Jon, Locarno Diplomacy: Germany and the West 1925–1929 (Princeton, 1972), pp. 376–79Google Scholar; Bennett, Edward W., German Rearmament and the West, 1932–1933 (Princeton, 1979), pp. 131–68, 247, 250, 399–400, 406, 446, 510Google Scholar.

11 Kennan, , American Diplomacy, pp. 38–54Google Scholar; Halle, Louis J., Dream and Reality: Aspects of American Foreign Policy (New York, 1959), pp. 215–46Google Scholar. For the post Vietnam revival, Small, Melvin, Was War Necessary? National Security and U.S. Entry into War (Beverly Hills, 1980), pp. 234–57, 260–65Google Scholar.

12 Vinson, John C., The Parchment Peace: The United States Senate and the Washington Conference 1921–1922 (Athens, Georgia, 1955)Google Scholar; Wheeler, Gerald E., Prelude to Pearl Harbor: The United States Navy and the Far East, 1921–1933 (Columbia, Mo., 1963)Google Scholar; Tuleja, Thaddeus V., Statesmen and Admirals: Quest for a Far Eastern Naval Policy (New York, 1963), pp. 9–87Google Scholar; O'Connor, Raymond G., Perilous Equilibrium: The United States and London Naval Conference of 1930 (Lawrence, 1962)Google Scholar.

13 Ferrell, Robert H., American Diplomacy in the Great Depression: Hoover-Stimson Foreign Policy, 1929–1933 (New Haven, 1957), pp. 120–93, 280Google Scholar; Rappaport, Armin, Henry L. Stimson and Japan, 1931–33 (Chicago, 1963)Google Scholar.

14 Knorr, Klaus, The War Potential of Nations (Princeton, 1956), pp. 3–60Google Scholar; and Military Power and Potential (Lexington, Mass., 1970)Google Scholar.

15 Baker, Roscoe, The American Legion and American Foreign Policy (New York, 1954), pp. 110–42Google Scholar; Rappaport, Armin, The Navy League of the United States (Detroit, 1962), pp. 83–156Google Scholar; Lotchin, Roger W., “The City and the Sword: San Francisco and the Rise of the Metropolitan-Military Complex 1919–1941,” Journal of American History, 65 (03 1979), 996–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 DeBenedetti, Charles, “The American Peace Movement and the State Department in the Era of Locarno,” in Doves and Diplomats: Foreign Offices and Peace Movements in Europe and America in the Twentieth Century, ed. Wank, Solomon (Westport, Conn., 1978), pp. 202–16Google Scholar. Re the belief structure of the State Department careermen, Schulzinger, Robert D., The Making of the Diplomatic Mind: The Training, Outlook, and Style of United States Foreign Service Officers, 1908–1931 (Middletown, Conn., 1975), pp. 8–11Google Scholar.

17 Morton, Louis, “Interservice Co-operation and Political-Military Collaboration,” in Total War and Cold War: Problems in Civilian Control of the Military, ed. Coles, Harry L. (Columbus, 1962), pp. 142–50Google Scholar; O'Connor, Raymond G., “The ‘Yardstick’ and Naval Disarmament in the 1920's,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 45 (12 1958), 441–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Winkler, Fred H., “The War Department and Disarmament, 1926–1935,” Historian, 28 (05 1966), 426–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Huntington, Samuel P., “Equilibrium and Disequilibrium in American Military Policy,” Political Science Quarterly, 76 (12 1961), 494–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Killigrew, John W., The Impact of the Great Depression on the Army (New York, 1979)Google Scholar, is a broader overview than the title indicates. Specialized studies include: Griffith, Robert K. Jr, “Quality Not Quantity: The Volunteer Army During the Depression,” Military Affairs, 43 (12 1979), 171–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Coffman, Edward M. and Herrly, Peter F., “The American Regular Officer Corps Between the World Wars: A Collective Biography,” Armed Forces and Society, 4 (11 1977), 55–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ekirch, Arthur A. Jr, “The Popular Desire for Peace as a Factor in Military Policy,” in Coles, Total War and Cold War, pp. 162–65, 170–71Google Scholar; Bartlett, C. J., “The US and Global Politics, 1917 to 1927” Journal of American Studies, 14 (08 1980), 248–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gillie, Mildred H., Forging the Thunderbolt: A History of the Development of the Armored Force (Harrisburg, 1947), pp. 16–84Google Scholar; Koistinen, Paul A. C., “The ‘Industrial-Military Complex’ in Historical Perspective: The InterWar Years,” Journal of American History, 56 (03 1970), 819–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wilson, John R. M., “The Quaker and the Sword: Herbert Hoover's Relations with the Military,” Military Affairs, 38 (04 1974), 41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; James, D. Clayton, The Years of MacArthur, 2 vols. (Boston, 1970 and 1975), 1:351–81Google Scholar.

20 Watt, Donald C., Too Serious a Business: European Armed Forces and the Approach to the Second World War (London, 1957), pp. 31–58, 86–92Google Scholar. Re Great Britain: Bond, Brian, British Military Policy between the Two World Wars (Oxford, 1980), pp. 1–160Google Scholar. France: Hughes, Judith M., To the Maginot Line: The Politics of French Military Preparation in the 1920's (Cambridge, 1971)Google Scholar; and Young, Robert J., In Command of France: French Foreign Policy and Military Planning, 1933–1940 (Cambridge, 1978), pp. 10–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Germany: Carroll, Bernice A., Design for Total War: Arms and Economics in the Third Reich (The Hague, 1968), pp. 57–66Google Scholar. Soviet Union: Garder, Michel, A History of the Soviet Army (New York, 1966), pp. 53–92Google Scholar; Mackintosh, Malcolm, “The Development of Soviet Military Doctrine since 1918,” in Howard, , Theory and Practice of War, pp. 249–56Google Scholar; and Ulam, Adam B., Expansion and Coexistence: Soviet Foreign Policy, 1917–73, 2nd ed. (New York, 1974), pp. 126–208Google Scholar.

21 Cate, James L., “Development of Air Doctrine 1917–41,” Air University Quarterly Review, 1 (Winter 1947), 11–22Google Scholar; Williams, Edwin L. Jr, “Legislative History of the Air Arm,” Military Affairs, 20 (Summer 1956), 81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Futrell, Robert F., Ideas, Concepts, Doctrine: A History of Basic Thinking in the United States Air Force 1907–1964, 2 vols. (Air University, 1971), 1:26–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shiner, John F., “Birth of the GHQ Air Force,” Military Affairs, 42 (10 1978), 113–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The quote is from Arnold, H. H., Global Mission (New York, 1949), p. 157Google Scholar.

22 Higham, Robin, Air Power: A Concise History (New York, 1972), pp. 59–87Google Scholar; and Quester, George H., Deterrence before Hiroshima: The Airpower Background of Moderm Strategy (New York, 1966), pp. 50–77Google Scholar, are cross-national surveys. Re Britain: Hyde, H. Montgomery, British Air Policy Between the Wars 1918–1939 (London, 1976), pp. 49–317, 490–505Google Scholar. France: Young, Robert J., “The Strategic Dream: French Air Doctrine in the Inter-War Period, 1919–39,” Journal of Contemporary History, 9 (10 1974), 57–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Germany: Homze, Edward L., Arming the Luftwaffe: The Reich Air Ministry and the German Aircraft Industry 1919–1939 (Lincoln, 1976), pp. 1–50Google Scholar. Soviet Union: Kilmarx, Robert A., A History of Soviet Air Power (New York, 1962), pp. 75–123Google Scholar.

23 Futrell, , Ideas, Concepts, Doctrine, pp. 46, 61–62Google Scholar; Watt, D. C., “The Air Force View of History,” Quarterly Review, 300 (10 1962), 433, 435–36Google Scholar; Homze, Edward L., “The Luftwaffe's Failure to Develop a Heavy Bomber Before World War II,” Aerospace Historian, 24 (Spring/03 1977), 20–26Google Scholar; Krauskopf, Robert W., “The Army and the Strategic Bomber 1930–1939,” Military Affairs, 22 (Summer 1958), 83–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Rae, John B., Climb to Greatness: The American Aircraft Industry, 1920–1960 (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 1–77Google Scholar.

25 Re the background of the Washington Conference agreement, Dingman, Roger, Power in the Pacific: The Origins of Naval Arms Limitation, 1914–1922 (Chicago, 1976)Google Scholar, is an excellent multinational study.

26 Braisted, William R., The United States Navy in the Pacific, 1909–1922 (Austin, 1971), pp. 687–88Google Scholar; Hone, Thomas C., “The Effectiveness of the ‘Washington Treaty’ Navy,” Naval War College Review, 32 (11–12 1979), 58Google Scholar. For further details, see Saville, Allison W., “The Naval Military Industrial Complex, 1918–41,” in War, Business, and American Society: Historical Perspectives on the Military-Industrial Complex, ed. Cooling, Benjamin F. (Port Washington, N.Y., 1977), pp. 105–17Google Scholar; Rosen, Philip T., “The Treaty Navy, 1919–1937,” in In Peace and War: Interpretations of American Naval History, 1775–1978, ed. Hagan, Kenneth J. (Westport, Conn., 1978), pp. 223–27Google Scholar.

27 Millett, Allan R., Semper Fidelis: The History of the United States Marine Corps (New York, 1980), pp. 319–32Google Scholar; Andrade, Ernest Jr, “Submarine Policy in the United States Navy, 1914–1941,” Military Affairs, 35 (04 1971), 50–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Palomar, Norman et al. , Aircraft Carriers: A Graphic History of Carrier Aviation and Its Influence on World Events (Garden City, N.Y., 1969), pp. 1–77Google Scholar; Weigley, Russell F., The American War of War: A History of United States Military Strategy and Policy (New York, 1973), pp. 249–53Google Scholar; Brune, Lester H., The Origins of American National Security Policy: Sea Power, Air Power and Foreign Policy 1900–1941 (Manhattan, Kansas, 1981), pp. 45–55, 68–76Google Scholar; Higham, , Air Power, pp. 61–65Google Scholar., King is quoted in Tuleja, , Statesmen and Admirals, pp. 106–107Google Scholar.

28 The most comprehensive account is Roskill, Stephen, Naval Policy between the Wars I: The Period of Anglo-American Antagonism 1919–1929 (New York, 1968)Google Scholar; and Naval Policy between the Wars II: The Period of Reluctant Rearmament 1930–1939 (Annapolis, 1976), pp. 21–88Google Scholar. See also Braisted, William R., “On the American Red and Red-Orange Plans, 1919–1939,” in Naval Warfare in the Twentieth Century 1900–1945: Essays in Honour of Arthur Marder, ed. Jordan, Gerald (London, 1977), pp. 170–72, 180–81Google Scholar; Gibbs, Norman, “The Naval Conferences of the Interwar Years: A Study in Anglo-American Relations,” Naval War College Review, 30 (Summer 1977), 58Google Scholar.

29 Andrade, Ernest Jr, “The United States Navy and the Washington Conference,” Historian, 31 (05 1969), 361–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Pelz, Stephen A., Race to Pearl Harbor: The Failure of the Second London Naval Conference and the Onset of World War II (Cambridge, 1974), pp. 1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 14, 27–29, 34–39, 76–78, 86–94. Re the American side: Morton, Louis, Strategy and Command: The First Two Years (Washington, 1962), pp. 21–35Google Scholar; Heinrichs, Waldo H. Jr, “The Role of the United States Navy,” in Pearl Harbor as History: Japanese-American Relations 1931–1941, ed. Borg, Dorothy and Okamoto, Shumpei with Finlayson, Dale K. A. (New York, 1973), pp. 202–204Google Scholar; Doyle, Michael, “The United States Navy—Strategy and Far Eastern Policy, 1931–1941,” Naval War College Review, 29 (Winter 1977), 52–57Google Scholar; and “The U.S. Navy and War Plan Orange, 1933–1940: Making Necessity a Virtue,” ibid., 33 (May–June 1980), 49–57. The Japanese side: Asada, Sadao, “Japanese Admirals and the Politics of Naval Limitation: Katō Tomosaburō vs Katō Kanji,” in Jordan, , Naval Warfare in the Twentieth Century, pp. 141–66Google Scholar, and “The Imperial Japanese Navy and the Politics of Naval Limitation 1918–1930” (unpub. paper).

31 Nuechterlein, Donald E., “National Interests and Foreign Policy: A Conceptual Framework for Analysis and Decision-making,” British Journal of International Studies, 2 (10 1976), 246–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 For fuller elaboration with accompanying documentation, John Braeman, “The New Left and American Foreign Policy during the Age of Normalcy: A Reexamination,” Business History Review (forthcoming).

33 Child, John, “From ‘Color’ to ‘Rainbow': U.S. Strategic Planning for Latin America, 1919–1945,” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 21 (05 1979), 233–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Munro, Dana G., The United States and the Caribbean Republics 1921–1933 (Princeton, 1974)Google Scholar. For the activities of the Special Squadron, see Millett, Richard, “The State Department's Navy: A History of the Special Squadron, 1920–1940,” American Neptune, 35 (04 1975), 118–38Google Scholar; re the Sandinista problem: Tierney, John J. Jr, “U.S. Intervention in Nicaragua, 1927–1933: Lessons for Today,” Orbis, 14 (Winter 1971), 1012–28Google Scholar.

35 On the receptivity of Latin American elites to United States investment, see Pike, Fredrick B., “Corporatism and Latin American-United States Relations,” Review of Politics, 36 (01 1974), 137–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; deference to the United States on even purely South American political issues, Wood, Bryce, The United States and Latin American Wars 1932–1942 (New York, 1966), pp. 4–12Google Scholar. The more useful studies of United States relations with individual South American countries includeLieuwen, Edwin, Petroleum in Venezuela: A History (Berkeley, 1954), pp. 18–71Google Scholar; Randall, Stephen J., The Diplomacy of Modernization: Colombian-American Relations, 1920–1940 (Toronto, 1977)Google Scholar; Carey, James C., Peru and the United States, 1900–1962 (Notre Dame, 1962), pp. 32–101Google Scholar; Peterson, Harold F., Argentina and the United States 1810–1960 (New York, 1964), pp. 340–80Google Scholar; Pike, , Chile and the United States, 1880–1962: The Emergence of Chile's Social Crisis and the Challenge to United Slates Diplomacy (Notre Dame, 1963), pp. 214–42Google Scholar.

36 Horn, James J., “Did the United States Plan an Invasion of Mexico in 1927?” Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, 15 (11 1973), 454–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kane, N. Stephen, “Bankers and Diplomats: The Diplomacy of the Dollar in Mexico, 1921–1924,” Business History Review, 47 (Autumn 1973), 335–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “Corporate Power and Foreign Policy: Efforts of American Oil Companies to Influence United States Relations with Mexico, 1921–1928,” Diplomatic History, 1 (Spring 1977), 170–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ross, Stanley R., “Dwight Morrow and the Mexican Revolution,” Hispanic American Historical Review, 38 (11 1958), 506–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Rhodes, Benjamin D., “Reassessing ‘Uncle Shylock': The United States and the French War Debt, 1917–1929,” Journal of American History, 55 (03 1969), 787–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hogan, Michael J.Informal Entente: The Private Structure of Cooperation in Anglo-American Economic Diplomacy, 1918–1929 (Columbia, Mo., 1977), pp. 51–55Google Scholar.

38 Re Washington's, efforts to work out “eine realistische Festsetzung der deutschen Reparationen” (p. 280)Google Scholar, Wandel, Eckhard, Die Bedeutung der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika für deutsche Reparationsproblem 1924–29 (Tübingen, 1971)Google Scholar. See also Nelson, Keith L., Victors Divided: America and the Allies in Germany, 1918–1923 (Berkeley, 1975), pp. 235–39, 243–50Google Scholar; Schmidt, Royal J., Versailles and the Ruhr: Seedbed of World War II (The Hague, 1968), pp. 175–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Clarke, Stephen V. O., Central Bank Cooperation: 1924–31 (New York, 1967), pp. 71–143Google Scholar; Costigliola, Frank, “The Other Side of Isolationism: The Establishment of the First World Bank, 1929–1930,” Journal of American History, 59 (12 1972), 602–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

40 Burks, David D., “The United States and the Geneva Protocol of 1924: ‘A New Holy Alliance?” American Historical Review, 64 (07 1959), 904–05CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Costigliola, Frank, “The United States and the Reconstruction of Germany in the 1920s,” Business History Review, 50 (Winter 1976), 497–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Stromberg, Roland N., Collective Security and American Foreign Policy: From the League of Nations to NA TO (New York, 1963), pp. 57–61Google Scholar. For the hopes to use the pact by American advocates of collective security: Josephson, Harold, “Outlawing War: Internationalism and the Pact of Paris,” Diplomatic History, 3 (Fall 1979), 377–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 This argument draws heavily upon the pathbreaking work of Leffleo, Melvyn P., The Elusive Quest: America's Pursuit of European Stability and French Security, 1919–1933 (Chapel Hill, 1979), pp. 40–193Google Scholar.

43 Jordan, W. H., Great Britain, France, and the German Problem 1918–1939: A Study of Anglo-French Relations in Making and Maintenance of the Versailles Settlement (1943Google Scholar; reprint ed., London, 1971).

44 Davis, Joseph S., The World between the Wars, 1919–1939: An Economist's View (Baltimore, 1975), pp. 69–81Google Scholar; Maier, Charles S., Recasting Bourgeois Europe: Stabilization in France, Germany, and Italy in the Decade after World War I (Princeton, 1975), pp. 481–586Google Scholar.

45 DeBenedetti, Charles, “The First Detente: America and Locarno,” South Atlantic Quarterly 75 (Autumn 1976): 407–23Google Scholar; Newman, William J., The Balance of Power in the Interwar Years, 1919–1939 (New York, 1968), p. 109Google Scholar.

46 Bennett, Edward W., Germany and the Diplomacy of the Financial Crisis, 1931 (Cambridge, 1962)Google Scholar; Rhodes, Benjamin D., “Herbert Hoover and the War Debts, 1919–33,” Prologue, 6 (Summer 1974), 130–44Google Scholar; Burns, Richard D., “International Arms Inspection Policies between World Wars, 1919–1934,” Historian, 31 (08 1969), 583–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Winkler, Fred H., “Disarmament and Security: The American Policy at Geneva, 1926–1935,” North Dakota Quarterly, 39 (Autumn 1971), 21–29Google Scholar; Divine, Robert A., The Illusion of Neutrality (Chicago, 1962), pp. 1–41Google Scholar; Leflleo, , Elusive Quest, pp. 194–315Google Scholar.

47 Wilson, Joan H., American Business & Foreign Policy 1920–1933 (Lexington, Ky., 1971), pp. 200–18Google Scholar; Wilkins, Mira, “The Role of U.S. Business,” in Borg, and Okamoto, , Pearl Harbor as History, pp. 353, 358–59, 374Google Scholar; Cohen, Warren I., The Chinese Connection: Roger S. Greene, Thomas W. Lamont, George E. Sokolsky and American-East Asian Relations (New York, 1978), pp. 41–70, 97–119, 148–88Google Scholar.

48 Isaacs, Harold R., Scratches on Our Mind: American Images of China and India (New York, 1958), pp. 66–71, 124–27, 140–67, 195–209Google Scholar; Varg, Paul A., Missionaries, Chinese and Diplomats: The American Protestant Missionary Movement in China, 1890–1952 (Princeton, 1958), pp. 147–255Google Scholar; Garrett, Shirley S., “Why They Stayed: American Church Politics and Chinese Nationalism in the Twenties”; and Varg, “The Missionary Response to the Nationalist Revolution,” in The Missionary Enterprise in China and America, ed. Fairbank, John K. (Cambridge, 1974), pp. 283–335Google Scholar.

49 Etzold, Thomas H., “In Search of Sovereignty: The Unequal Treaties in Sino-American Relations, 1925–1930,” in China in the 1920s: Nationalism and Revolution, ed. Chan, F. Gilbert and Etzold, (New York, 1976), pp. 176–96, 226–31Google Scholar. For the State Department's objection to removal of American troops: Morton, Louis, “Army and Marines on the China Station: A Study in Military and Political Rivalry,” Pacific Historical Review, 29 (02 1960), 63–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Pugach, Noel H., “America's Friendship for China and the Shantung Question at the Washington Conference,” Journal of American History, 64 (06 1977), 67–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Borg, Dorothy, American Policy and the Chinese Revolution 1925–1928 (1947Google Scholar; reprint ed., New York, 1968); Buhite, Russell D., Nelson T. Johnson and American Policy toward China 1925–1941 (East Lansing, 1968), pp. 19–54Google Scholar; Fishel, Wesley R., The End of Extraterritoriality in China (Berkeley, 1952), pp. 126–87Google Scholar.

51 Hudson, Geoffrey, “The Far East at the End of the First World War,” Journal of Contemporary History, 4 (04 1969), 165–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Re British anxiety to avoid antagonizing Japan: Louis, Wm. Roger, British Strategy in the Far East 1919–1939 (Oxford, 1971), pp. 17–205Google Scholar.

52 Buckley, Thomas H., The United States and the Washington Conference, 1921–1922 (Knoxville, 1970), pp. 95, 143–44, 150, 153–56, 185–90Google Scholar; Trani, Eugene P., “Four American Fiddlers and Their Far Eastern Tunes: A Survey of Japanese-American Relations, 1898–1941,” in The New Political Economy of the Pacific, ed. Gordon, Bernard K. and Rothwell, Kenneth J. (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 56–58Google Scholar; Esthus, Raymond A., “The Open Door and Integrity of China, 1899–1922: Hazy Principles for Changing Policy,” in Etzold, , Aspects of Sino American Relations, pp. 68–70Google Scholar.

53 Indispensable for the rise and collapse of the Washington treaty system is Iriye, Akira, After Imperialism: The Search for a New Order in the Far East 1921–1931 (Cambridge, 1965)Google Scholar. See also Bamba, Nobuya, Japanese Diplomacy in a Dilemma: New Light on Japan's China Policy, 1924–1929 (Vancouver, 1972)Google Scholar; Iriye, , “The Failure of Economic Expansionism: 1918–1931,” in Silberman, Bernard S. and Harootunian, H. D., eds., Japan in Crisis: Essays on Taishō Democracy (Princeton, 1974), pp. 237–69Google Scholar; Crowley, James B., Japan's Quest for Autonomy: National Security and Foreign Policy 1930–1938 (Princeton, 1966)Google Scholar; Mayer-Oakes, Thomas F., ed., Fragile Victory: Prince Saionji and the 1930 London Treaty Issue from the Memoirs of Baron Harada Kumao (Detroit, 1968)Google Scholar; Nish, Ian, Japanese Foreign Policy 1869–1942: Kasumigaseki to Miyakezaka (London, 1977), pp. 126–96Google Scholar.

54 Thorne, Christopher, The Limits of Foreign Policy: The West, the League and the Far Eastern Crisis of 1931–1933 (New York, 1973), p. 416Google Scholar.

55 Wheeler, Gerald E., “The United States Navy and War in the Pacific, 1919–1941,” World Affairs Quarterly, 30 (10 1959), 199–225Google Scholar; Morton, , Strategy and Command, pp. 21–35Google Scholar; Greene, Fred, “The Military View of American National Policy, 1904–1940,” American Historical Review, 66 (01 1961), 363–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Heinrichs, , “Role of U.S. Navy,” pp. 201–203Google Scholar. RePratt: Wheeler, , Admiral William Veazie Pratt, U.S. Navy: A Sailor's Life (Washington, 1974)Google Scholar; and Symonds, Craig L., “William Veazie Pratt as CNO: 17 September 1930–30 June 1933,” Naval War College Review, 33 (03–04 1980), 17–33Google Scholar. For more on the army's views, see Schaffer, Ronald, “General Stanley D. Embrick: Military Dissenter,” Military Affairs, 37 (10 1973), 89–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Weigley, Russell F., “The Role of the War Department and Army,” in Borg, and Okamoto, , Pearl Harbor as History, pp. 165–88Google Scholar.

56 Wayne S. Cole, “The Role of the United States Congress and Political Parties”; and Cohen, Warren I., “The Role of Private Groups in the United States,” in Borg, and Okamoto, , Pearl Harbor as History, pp. 308–309, 421–28Google Scholar.

57 Burner, David, Herbert Hoover: A Public Life (New York, 1979), pp. 293–97Google Scholar. See also re his views of U.S. vital interests: Reagan, Michael D., “The Far Eastern Crisis of 1931–1932: Stimson, Hoover and the Armed Services,” in American Civil-Military Decisions: A Book of Case Studies, ed. Stein, Harold (University, Ala., 1963), pp. 33–34Google Scholar; Graebner, Norman A., “Hoover, Roosevelt, and the Japanese,” in Borg, and Okamoto, , Pearl Harbor as History, pp. 26–42Google Scholar.

58 Perkins, Ernest R., “The Nonapplication of Sanctions against Japan, 1931–1932,” in Essays in History and Inter-National Relations in Honor of George Hubbard Blakeslee, ed. Lee, Dwight E. and McReynolds, George E. (Worcester, 1949), pp. 215–32Google Scholar, is a pioneering account; further confirmation is provided by Ostrower, Gary B., Collective Insecurity: The United States and the League of Nations during the Early Thirties (Lewisburg, Pa., 1979), pp. 56–166, 199–206Google Scholar.

59 McCarty, Kenneth G. Jr, “Stanley K. Hornbeckand the Manchurian Crisis,” Southern Quarterly, 10 (07 1972), 305–24Google Scholar; Doenecke, Justus D., ed., The Diplomacy of Frustration: The Manchurian Crisis of 1931–1933 as Revealed in the Papers of Stanley K. Hornbeck (Stanford, 1981), pp. 4–52Google Scholar; Borg, Dorothy, The United States and the Far Eastern Crisis of 1933–38: From the Manchurian Incident through the Initial Stage of the Undeclared Sino-Japanese War (Cambridge, 1964), pp. 34–35, 569CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 The relevant Japanese scholarship and published documentary materials are reviewed in the following articles in the Journal of Asian Studies: Iriye, Akira, “Japanese Imperialism and Aggression: Reconsiderations. II,” 23 (11 1963), 103–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “Japan's Foreign Policies Between World Wars —Sources and Interpretations,” 26 (08 1967), 677–82Google Scholar; Berger, Gordon, “Changing Historical Perspectives on Early Shōwa Politics: ‘The Second Approach,’” 34 (02 1975), 473–84Google Scholar. See also Hosoya, Chihiro, “Miscalculations in Deterrent Policy: Japanese-U.S. Relations, 1938–1941,” Journal of Peace Research (Oslo), 5 (1968), 97–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “Twenty-Five Years after Pearl Harbor: A New Look at Japan's Decision for War,” in Goodman, Grant K., ed., Imperial Japan and Asia: A Reassessment (New York, 1967), pp. 52–64Google Scholar; Fujiwara Akira, “The Role of the Japanese Army,” and Sadao, Asada, “The Japanese Navy and the United States,” in Borg, and Okamoto, , Pearl Harbor as History, pp. 189–95, 243–590Google Scholar.

61 Campbell, A. E., “The Conditions of Isolationism,” Bulletin of the British Association for American Studies, new ser., no. 9 (12 1964), 38–39Google Scholar.