Investigating FDR's Foreign Policy Record

Written by Will Wigginton

Personal Characteristics: Mysterious, Pragmatic, Persistent, Impactful

Crippled, but Not Broken: Even though Roosevelt was wheelchair bound from 1921 until the end of his life, he persevered, and became the right leader at the right time for America. “He remained a formidable man, a leader who won admiration and respect. In others he inspired far more affection and devotion.” Furthermore, “FDR’s political personality was set after his victory over polio. His self-confidence remained intact, as did his charming way of dominating those around him. An element of duplicity that came in handy when seeking compromises or combining opposites never left him.”

Purposefully Mysterious: While FDR was outward with his proclamations through bombastic speeches, he held many of his intentions close to his vest. “No short vignette can do justice to the extreme complexity of Roosevelt’s “heavily forested” interior. Here was a man who invested enormous energies in a wide range of policies, both foreign and domestic. Yet, he was also one of the least self-revealing of presidents, especially with regard to the emotional thrust behind his actions.”

The International Context:

Germany’s Jewish Policies: Prior to its territorial gains, Hitler was vilifying his own citizens through his anti-Jewish laws, such as the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, stripping Jews of their German citizenship. Beyond that, there was the burning of Munich’s Great Synagogue, in which the deportation of around 15,000 Jews to the first concentration camp at Buchenwald followed shortly thereafter. While these “small-scale” acts against the Jews, at least for Hitler, occurred prior to the onset of World War II. His greatest transgressions against the Jews occurred after his invasion of Russia, in which he began his “final solution,” which was the extermination of any and all Jews by any means necessary.

German Appeasement: While Hitler was consolidating his resources to exterminate the Jewish population, Germany was also invoking the ire of European states through Germany’s aggressive acts, such as taking over parts of Czechoslovakia, which invoked the Munich Agreement with Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of Britain. Furthermore, Hitler rearmed the Rhineland, violating the Treaty of Versailles, aligned with Mussolini’s fascist government, and aligned with Imperial Japan, as well.

Japanese Belligerency: While followed heavily by the international community, Japan acted in a predatory manner toward China prior to the start of World War II. The first notable instance of violence that hindered relations between America and Japan began with the Sino-Japanese skirmish by the Marco Polo bridge, sparking outrage from the international community. There was an attempt by other states to prevent further violence by condemning Japan for its actions, but fell through as many of the states involved did not have the means to uphold any extreme proclamations. Following successful German invasions in Europe, Japan became even bolder, which was followed by greater embargoes placed on them by the United States. Because of this, Japan went on a tear through the Dutch East Indies and much of Southeast Asia (including China) to consolidate necessary industrial resources.

Non-Aggression Pact: Even though the Axis power alliance coming together was notable, the non-aggression pact between the Nazis and Soviets came of great surprise to the rest of the world, which was then accompanied by fear. This agreement, which effectively laid out the terms for the onset of World War II, was based upon the taking and allocation of Poland between Germany and Russia. Germany would first invade Poland from the west, then the USSR invade from the east, then they would break up the state once the battle was completed. Following this, the two sides agreed to stay out of each other’s way, which was obviously violated and ended once Germany invaded Russia.

Key Foreign Policies:

“Neutrality:” While the U.S. boasted a policy of neutrality, similar to that of Woodrow Wilson during World War I, FDR’s actions with the war’s belligerents showed that he heavily favored the allied side, even before the war started. Take his “quarantine” speech of 1937, for example. In this speech, FDR declared his desire for a containment of aggressive states, enforcing a “contagion of war.” While he did not participate in the protection of democratic states explicitly, he did become somewhat bolder, especially after he halted his portion of the policy of appeasing Germany, unlike other European powers. “Following the Munich Conference of September 29-30, 1938, Roosevelt broke with British and French appeasement–a policy he had never fully endorsed in any case. But he still had to concern himself with the appearances of neutrality, even as he became more assertive about defenseless preparedness and formulating a forward policy to deter and, ultimately, to defeat Hitler.”

Patience Was his Virtue: As Roosevelt faced extreme scrutiny for his foreign policy initiatives from 1939-1941, FDR held firm in his position of stalling war for as long as possible. “The facts seem to indicate that he was ambivalent and that this ambivalence was based on a correct reading of the contradictory attitudes of the American public.” Furthermore, “it took him a number of years to develop an assertive diplomacy toward Germany. During his first term, as the crises in Europe and Asia built, he was more concerned about reforms at home than threats from abroad.”

Democratic Absolutism: Roosevelt’s conduct while in office showed a changing of the guard among American governmental dynamics. His increased executive power he used to pass his New Deal with tricks like court-packing, ushered the American executive into a modern, more powerful era. While some presidents, such as Teddy Roosevelt used executive powers to its limit, others that followed TR were much less abrasive, like Calvin Coolidge. FDR, on the other hand, revolved his policies around himself, refusing to be bogged down by the American political process in order to push his agenda through. When discussing the flow of war material to Britain, Stoessinger argued that this act “set the tone for Roosevelt’s later war policy: complete personal control of the conduct of the war, until the unconditional surrender of the enemy.”

Ninety-Nine Year Leases: Roosevelt understood the dynamics of the American public and media very well. He knew that if he were to supply war material to Britain with nothing in exchange, that he would have been greatly scrutinized for violating neutrality. Furthermore, even though FDR used extensive executive powers to supply this aid, he still needed a legal basis to do so, which was provided to him by his legal advisor, Benjamin Cohen. After announcing the acquisition of British naval and air bases for ninety-nine years by lease, FDR allowed for that part of the deal to sink in to gain greater public support for his announcement of the transfer of destroyers to the British shortly after.

Lend-Lease: This event was the final nail in the coffin for German appeasement of America, as it effectively made the U.S. a belligerent in World War II without having boots on the ground. “It also was a means for effecting an Anglo/American alliance in all but name, and thus dramatically increased the likelihood that the United States would be drawn into the European war.” The Soviet Union would later be added to the Lend-Lease policy.

Realistic Wilsonianism: While Wilson had almost fairy-tale-like goals of global democratization following the first World War, FDR was much more grounded with his expectations. “He searched for more ‘realistic’ methods with which to solve the major postwar problems of Germany and Japan; or preserving peace, countering aggression, and preventing instability; of maintaining the victors’ alliance and calmly settling the inevitable disputes among them.”

Positive Achievements:

Awakening the Sleeping Giant: Even though there were negative drawbacks to FDR’s conduct prior to America’s entry to the war, his actions were an overall positive. He kept America out of the war long enough to bring the U.S. out of the Great Depression, and turn it into a power that could compete in the conflict. Once America entered the war, this effort increased tenfold, in which America realized its potential as a superpower with these efforts. The executive overreach that FDR exemplified was not only effective, but was necessary to work around a Congress that was still mostly bound to isolationism, wanting to stay out of a “European” conflict, when the consequences of the war would be felt worldwide.

Positive Negotiations with the British: The ninety-nine year lease with the British in exchange for war material, along with Lend-Lease are examples of Roosevelt’s savvy negotiation and public speaking skills. He was able to secure these deals to keep the British afloat against the Nazis, maintain neutrality, and garnish greater support from the public, as he was such an effective speaker that he could spin Lend-Lease to be a policy that would keep the U.S. out of the war, not in it.

Positive Negotiations with the Soviets: The first major negotiation setting of the leaders of the three major powers took place at the Tehran Conference in late 1943. The general discussion revolved not only around the possibility of a second front against the Nazis, but the makeup of the postwar world, and how Germany would be carved up, which was agreed upon during the meeting. The reason FDR was so successful at this meeting is because he was able to appeal to the disgruntled Stalin by providing Lend-Lease aid along with the guarantee of a second front, without a timeline. In defense of Roosevelt and his signing of the Far Eastern agreement at the Yalta Conference of 1945, Stettinius argued that Roosevelt was only following the advice of his advisors when signing the agreement, not knowing whether or not the atomic bomb plan would be possible, therefore needing the help of the Soviets as a contingency plan. Some argued that Roosevelt should not have made a deal with the Soviets, but hindsight proved FDR correct, as his intentions and understanding of the situation at the time led him to the correct decision at the time.

Setting America Up for Success: While not a tangible mark of success in the moment, as the effects of FDR were mostly seen after his death, FDR’s success in making concrete changes for not only the United States, but the world were commendable. He succeeded where Wilson failed in helping establish the United Nations, which has become a much more successful successor to the failed League of Nations. Furthermore, his influence to end colonization mostly came to fruition, as great colonial powers like Britain, France, and Germany decolonized following the war. Basically, FDR’s realistic expectations for how the world can be changed for the better became more successful than Wilson’s hopes. FDR saw the coming fire of the Soviet Union, but was able to create an alliance that was sustained following the war, excluding the Soviets.

Negative Drawbacks:

Ignoring the Jewish Crisis: The hypocritical aspect of FDR’s basic refusal of accepting Jewish refugees, while understandable in terms of the Great Depression, was a direct action against his arsenal of democracy speech. If America were supposed to have been a beacon of democracy, they should have taken the lead in negotiations to help Jewish refugees that were being persecuted by the Nazis. Not only did he and his Secretary in the State Department, Breckinridge Long, severely limit Jewish immigration, but once thousands of Jews were sent to concentration camps following Kristallnacht, FDR had the audacity to maintain trade relations with Hitler. This disgrace is probably the biggest mark on his presidency.

Public Deceit: While maybe in the interest of the greater good, it was no excuse for FDR to lie to the public, or at least mislead them as often as he did. The main example that comes to mind is the Lend-Lease program, in which he tried to sell to the public that this would keep the U.S. out of the war, which ended up being a lie. However, it is understandable that FDR could not foresee the attack on Pearl Harbor, as he was not a prophet. Still, these deals were finalized with the intention of subtly violating neutrality and deceiving the American public into thinking these acts were genuinely done to keep America out of the war.

Executive Overreach: Again, this was arguably a necessity at the time, as FDR’s policies, both domestic and foreign, needed a somewhat totalitarian touch. Had he submitted to Congress the proposals for deals with the Allied powers, there was little chance of them passing. Because of this, FDR has been cleansed of wrongdoing as time has gone on, but it undeniably set a poor precedent for future American presidents, which we still see today. FDR was the last president to ask Congress for a declaration of war. His use of loopholes to stretch executive powers to their absolute limit are a reason why he was the last one to ask for a declaration of war.

Final Grade: B/ Growing up, I revered the actions of FDR. I saw him as an arbiter of democracy, as he proclaimed America to be. His ability to sift through a multitude of crises in office, while extremely sick, was commendable. He was no doubt a skilled negotiator and speaker, with a knack for getting the right deal done at the right place and right time, with the right methods. However, as I grew older and gained a greater understanding of his policies, my opinions began to change, especially after I read the book, “1944.” That book corroborated many of the subjects I discussed in this report of FDR. While his presidency had more positives than negatives, the blemishes are hard to miss. His disgraceful squeezing of Jewish immigration, public deceit, and executive overreach, harmed America not only at the time of his presidency, but also stained the presidential position for the future. Never again would America’s highest position be as well represented as George Washington, but of those who would weaken the rest of America’s political systems in order to pass their agendas, domestically and internationally.

References:

Norman Graebner, “Japan: Unanswered Challenge, 1931-1941,” in Essays on American Foreign Policy, David Deboe et al. eds. (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1974), 117-44.
“Franklin Delano Roosevelt,” in Susan Ware, “Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd President, 1933-1946,” in McPherson and Rubel, eds., To the Best of My Ability, 224-33, and Dean Acheson, Morning and Noon: A Memoir (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1965), 165.
Walter LaFeber, “Americans and the Holocaust,” The American Age: United States Foreign Policy at Home and Abroad since 1750 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1989), 366-69.
John Stoessinger, “Franklin D. Roosevelt: Prophet and Prince,” Crusaders and Pragmatists: Movers of Modern American Foreign Policy (New York: W. W. Norton, 1979), 35-53.
Cathal Nolan, “Bodyguard of Lies: Franklin D. Roosevelt and Defensible Deceit in World War II,” in Ethics and Statecraft: The Moral Dimension in International Affairs, 2nd ed., Cathal Nolan ed. (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004), 35-58.
“The Yalta Conference: A Defense of Roosevelt - Edward Stettinius, 1949,” in Chester, ed., Scope and Variety, 360-61.
Daniel Yergin, “The Yalta Axioms: Roosevelt’s Grand Design,” Shattered Peace: The Origins of the Cold War and the National Security State (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1977), 42-68.