Isolationists aim to clip Roosevelt's foreign policy wings
The
strength of isolationist sentiment in the USA can but gauged from the fact that, when it finally came to a vote in Congress, a well-worn isolationist proposal
was only narrowly defeated. Senator Louis Ludlow had proposed that the
Constitution should be amended so that the USA could only declare war if this was approved by a national referendum unless it had actually been
attacked. In the aftermath of the Japanese sinking of the USS Panay fears of war rose to a point that the Ludlow Amendment
was brought forward. Ludlow himself was a nonentity who achieved nothing else but spoke for a powerful section of politicians and the public. President Roosevelt is supposed to have swung the Irish
American vote away from its traditional isolationist stance and the “discharge
petition” which would have made for a full-scale debate was only defeated by
209 votes to 188. Whilst this support was well short of the two-thirds majority
that would have been needed to amend the Constitution the vote was another shot
across the President’s bows. De facto
the Ludlow Amendment was designed to impose permanent neutrality - it is hard to imagine that its sponsors foresaw the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour - albeit deeply impractical as a proposition. It served, though, as a shibboleth for the forces of isolation that kept the USA out of the Second World War until Pearl Harbour. Even had the Ludlow Amendment been passed Roosevelt would then have been allowed to declare war.
The
Spanish Republican army achieved its immediate tactical objective for the major
offensive launched just before Christmas of taking the town of Teruel. The
occupation of Teruel gave the Republicans a propaganda victory but little else.
It had come at the cost of high casualties on both sides in fighting conducted
in exceptionally bitter winter weather. More important, it was anything but a
major strategic victory. The Nationalists still had ample resources available
with which to counter-attack. The Republican strategy was flawed: in a war of
attrition Franco held all the cards.
The
British White Paper on Palestine proved to be a remarkably feeble exercise in
prevarication that succeeded in nothing but antagonizing both sides. The
government was accused of “oscillating” between one side and the other:
shifting between apparent concession to one and then reversing the policy. The
idea of partition was not – as had been expected – entirely discarded but the
there was no thought of forcibly separating the Jews and Arabs, which the Jews
saw as the only way to make partition work.
Comments
Post a Comment