In 1937, Yale Professor Edwin Borchard, published a book with remarkable foresight. Turning away from its traditional neutrality policy would bring the USA no peace. Only more war.
Thank you Pascal. If only!! " The least that can now be done is to avoid similar ineptitude in the future. By intervention in European quarrels we can make the situation worse, but never better. The road prepared for us by the coercive peace machinery of Geneva, which has proved so alluring to some of our statesmen, can lead only to deeper involvement. Europe must work out its own problems; it understands them better than we ever can.
It is inevitable that the temptations to " coöperate " with the "peace-loving" nations of Europe will destroy our objectivity and neutrality and by making the United States the particular friend of some Powers make us necessarily the enemies of others."
Precisely. The idea that „we“ can mandate peace by higher force mist run into even more bloodshed. Borchard understood that the better way is to try to manage conflicts and keep them small, rather than create the machinery and the hubris of trying to eliminate them. Because it only creates the incentive structure to dominate instead of pacify.
Thank, Richard! You are completely right. Boechard and others used to be a majority, and then something changed. You know? The first instance EVER of a journalist using the word „neutralism“ I could find in a British newspaper of 1916 using it it quotation marks to describe the popular sentiment in the US about the war in Europe. The Americans used to be the quintessential neutralists… until something happened and this feeling was driven out of the population over a period of 40 years. We need to understand this process.
The American people have been neutralist. That does not mean that there were not interventionist episodes.
The Spanish War was hyped up. One can read what US Grant said about Mexico and 1812 was promoted by the Warhawks as Freedom of the Seas, but was an attempted land grab that went awry
Thank you Pascal. If only!! " The least that can now be done is to avoid similar ineptitude in the future. By intervention in European quarrels we can make the situation worse, but never better. The road prepared for us by the coercive peace machinery of Geneva, which has proved so alluring to some of our statesmen, can lead only to deeper involvement. Europe must work out its own problems; it understands them better than we ever can.
It is inevitable that the temptations to " coöperate " with the "peace-loving" nations of Europe will destroy our objectivity and neutrality and by making the United States the particular friend of some Powers make us necessarily the enemies of others."
Precisely. The idea that „we“ can mandate peace by higher force mist run into even more bloodshed. Borchard understood that the better way is to try to manage conflicts and keep them small, rather than create the machinery and the hubris of trying to eliminate them. Because it only creates the incentive structure to dominate instead of pacify.
Pascal you have to bring Vijay Prashad as a gest. He would fit perfectly to your YT channel.
Thanks for this, Pascal. As an American neutralist, I am jealous that you found this and it is not well-known here.
Professor Borchard's writing evidences what we lost and what we truly need which is a neutralist ethos as a nation.
PS: I‘ll send you the book if you want it. I got it as pdf
yes.
Thank, Richard! You are completely right. Boechard and others used to be a majority, and then something changed. You know? The first instance EVER of a journalist using the word „neutralism“ I could find in a British newspaper of 1916 using it it quotation marks to describe the popular sentiment in the US about the war in Europe. The Americans used to be the quintessential neutralists… until something happened and this feeling was driven out of the population over a period of 40 years. We need to understand this process.
The American people have been neutralist. That does not mean that there were not interventionist episodes.
The Spanish War was hyped up. One can read what US Grant said about Mexico and 1812 was promoted by the Warhawks as Freedom of the Seas, but was an attempted land grab that went awry
Hawaii was just piracy.
I‘ll be talking to Keanu Sai next week about Hawaii‘a 130 years of occupation. I think you‘ll enjoy that 😁
You did send me that article.
Yup