Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Philosophy: A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing. -- Ambrose Bierce


arts / alt.history.what-if / Robert A. Taft's alternative to the Noerg Arlantic Treaty

SubjectAuthor
o Robert A. Taft's alternative to the Noerg Arlantic TreatyDavid Tenner

1
Robert A. Taft's alternative to the Noerg Arlantic Treaty

<XnsADC3B1031DD4Ddtennerameritechnet@144.76.35.252>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article-flat.php?id=6903&group=alt.history.what-if#6903

 copy link   Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if
Path: rocksolid2!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: dten...@ameritech.net (David Tenner)
Newsgroups: alt.history.what-if
Subject: Robert A. Taft's alternative to the Noerg Arlantic Treaty
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 22:24:03 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <XnsADC3B1031DD4Ddtennerameritechnet@144.76.35.252>
Injection-Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 22:24:03 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="cfcfc96b15b95e1c5b06b8369b56675e";
logging-data="31034"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/WYfiZBeQUTBaiM+081BhI"
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8DVjRUPM38LWSKjqBoEtqg7FBsU=
 by: David Tenner - Thu, 14 Oct 2021 22:24 UTC

Although Senator Robert A. Taft's opposition to the North Atlantic Treaty
in 1949 is often dismissed as merely negative and "isolationist," Taft
actually did suggest an alternative to the North Atlantic Treaty: a Monroe
Doctrine style unilateral declaration that the US would resist a Soviet
attack on western Europe. Taft's explanation of his idea is of some
interest if only because he quite conceivably (with a few more errors or
bad luck on the part of Dewey and Truman) been POTUS in 1949:

***

....Why did I vote against the Atlantic Pact? I wanted to vote for it-at
least I wanted to vote to let Russia know that if she attacked western
Europe, the United States would be in the war. I believe that would be a
deterrent to war ... We issued just this warning in the Monroe Doctrine,
and though we were a much less powerful nation, it prevented aggression
against Central and South America. [Others might suggest that British
Fleet was a bit more important in doing that...--DT] That was only a
President�s message to Congress, and there were no treaty obligations, and
no arms for other nations. But it was one of the most effective peace
measures in the history of the world. I would favor a Monroe Doctrine for
western Europe.

But the Atlantic Pact goes much further. It obligates us to go to war if
at any time during the next 20 years anyone makes an armed attack on any
of the 12 nations. Under the Monroe Doctrine we could change our policy at
any time. We could judge whether perhaps one of the countries had given
cause for the attack. Only Congress could declare a war in pursuance of
the doctrine. Under the new pact the President can take us into war
without Congress. But, above all the treaty is a part of a much larger
program by which we arm all these nations against Russia. ... A joint
military program has already been made ... It thus becomes an offensive
and defensive military alliance against Russia. I believe our foreign
policy should be aimed primarily at security and peace, and I believe such
an alliance is more likely to produce war than peace. A third world war
would be the greatest tragedy the world has ever suffered. Even if we won
the war, we this time would probably suffer tremendous destruction, our
economic system would be crippled, and we would lose our liberties and
free system just as the Second World War destroyed the free systems of
Europe. It might easily destroy civilization on this earth ...

There is another consideration. If we undertake to arm all the nations
around Russia from Norway on the north to Turkey on the south, and Russia
sees itself ringed about gradually by so-called defensive arms from Norway
and. Denmark to Turkey and Greece, it may form a different opinion. It may
decide that the arming of western Europe, regardless of its present
purpose, looks to an attack upon Russia. Its view may be unreasonable, and
I think it is. But from the Russian standpoint it may not seem
unreasonable. They may well decide that if war is the certain result, that
war might better occur now rather than after the arming of Europe is
completed ...

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/speech-on-the-north-atlantic-
treaty/

***

It's interesting how much the attack on the North Atlantic Treaty from the
Taftite Right resembled that from the Henry Wallace Left. Both worried
that if "Russia sees itself ringed about gradually by so-called defensive
arms from Norway and. Denmark to Turkey and Greece, it may form a
different opinion. It may decide that the arming of western Europe,
regardless of its present purpose, looks to an attack upon Russia." The
difference is that the Left (unlike Taft) did not think such a view by
Russia would be at all "unreasonable."

--
David Tenner
dtenner@ameritech.net

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor