Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-02T01:51:00.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Monroe Doctrine and World War II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Francis O. Wilcox
Francis O. Wilcox
Affiliation:
University of Louisville
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Only a decade or two ago, the Monroe Doctrine was in disfavor. The vitriolic pens of its critics denounced it as an “indisputable evidence of our overweening national conceit.” They condemned it as an “obsolete shibboleth,” “hoary with age”—a doctrine which the twentieth century would surely relegate to the dusty archives of diplomatic history. As late as 1937, no less a person than the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations remarked in the course of an interview that the Monroe Doctrine was dead.

Time and circumstance, however, often bring remarkable changes. Since the beginning of World War II, the red blood corpuscles of Pan-American unity have instilled new life and vitality into the Doctrine. Curiously enough, after 120 years, the very threats which confronted President Monroe in 1823 have risen again to becloud the security of the Western Hemisphere. Historians may have argued (before the fall of France) that the Holy Alliance, with its determination “to put an end to the system of representative government,” constituted a greater danger to the New World than the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis. It is clear, however, that the fascist concepts of the master race and of world domination are far more menacing to democracy than the avowed aims of the Holy Alliance ever were. The tremendous striking power which the Axis has so amply demonstrated in a world shrivelled by technology, coupled with the demoralizing effects of up-to-date fifth column techniques, makes the case even clearer.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , June 1942 , pp. 433 - 453
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1942

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 numerous opinions, see the address of Blakeslee, G. H., Proceedings, Amer. Soc. of Int. Law, 1914, pp. 217 ff.Google Scholar See also Bingham, H., The Monroe Doctrine; An Obsolete Shibboleth, p. 111Google Scholar; Nerval, G., Autopsy of the Monroe Doctrine, p. 324Google Scholar; Perkins, D., Hands Off, p. 360Google Scholar; Garner, J. W., American Foreign Policies, p. 136.Google Scholar

2 Rippy, J. F., in introduction to Ugarte, Manuel, The Destiny of a Continent, p. xi.Google Scholar

3 The International Conferences of American States, First Supplement, 1933–1940, Carnegie Endowment, p. 122.

4 Ibid., pp. 189–191.

5 Texts in The Department of State Bulletin (cited hereafter as Bulletin), Aug. 24, 1940.

6 See Bulletin, Dec. 13, 1941, for these messages.

7 For texts, see Bulletin, Feb. 7, 1942, pp. 117–142.

8 New York Times, Jan. 29, 1942.

9 See Popper, D. H., “Thoughts After Rio,” New Republic, Feb. 9, 1942, pp. 201–202.Google Scholar

10 Bulletin, Jan. 24, 1942, p. 77.

11 See Kelchner, W. H., Latin American Relations with the League of Nations, pp. 16–41.Google Scholar See also Martin, P. A., Latin America and the War (1925).Google Scholar

12 New York Times, June 20, 1940.

13 See Moore, J. B., Digest of Int. Law, VI, pp. 435, 442Google Scholar; Nerval, op. cit., pp. 155–181.

14 On February 11, 1942, the State Department announced that American troops had been sent to the island and an AP dispatch of April 4, 1942, stated that all Dutch forces there had been placed under Rear Admiral Oldendorf of the U. S. Navy.

15 Bulletin, Oct. 7, 1939, p. 334.

16 Bulletin, June 22, 1940, p. 682.

17 Text in Jones, and Myers, , Documents on American Foreign Relations, II, p. 90.Google Scholar The Senate adopted its resolution on June 17, by a vote of 76–20; the House adopted its resolution on June 18, 380–8.

18 The Democrats declared: “We favor and shall rigorously enforce and defend the Monroe Doctrine.” The Republicans called for the building of our national defense “to the point at which we shall be able not only to defend the United States … but also efficiently to uphold in war the Monroe Doctrine.”

19 Clark, J. R.. Memorandum on the Monroe Doctrine, p. 129.Google Scholar

20 See Richardson's, J. D.Messages and Papers of the Presidents, IX, p. 3980Google Scholar; Moore's, Digest, VI, p. 428.Google Scholar

21 Bulletin, Oct. 26, 1940, p. 341.

22 Texts in ibid., Aug. 24, 1940, pp. 146–147.

23 These polls are summarized in Perkins, Dexter, “The Monroe Doctrine Today,” Yale Review, Summer, 1941, p. 694.Google Scholar See also his article in For. Affairs, Jan., 1942.

24 Cf. Nevins, Allan, “New Meaning for Monroe's Doctrine,” New York Times Magazine, July 21, 1940.Google Scholar

25 Shepardson, and Scroggs, , The United States in World Affairs in 1940, Chap. 8.Google Scholar

26 Bulletin, Dec. 27, 1941, p. 578.

27 Text in Bulletin, Oct. 7, 1939, pp. 331–332.

28 Replies of Great Britain, Germany, and Prance in Bulletin, Feb. 24, 1940, pp. 200–204.Google Scholar

29 On “The Monroe Doctrine and International Law: 1933–1941,” see Lenoir, J. J. in Jour. of Politics, Feb., 1942.Google Scholar

30 See Fenwick, C. G., “The Inter-American Neutrality Committee,” Amer. Jour. of Int. Law, 1941, pp. 19–27.Google Scholar

31 In this sense, see Duggan, Stephen, “The Western Hemisphere as a Haven of Peace,” For. Affairs, July, 1940, p. 626.Google Scholar

32 See his letter in Cong. Record, Vol. 86, p. 11963 (June 8, 1940).

33 For text, see Bulletin, Apr. 12, 1941, p. 445.

34 Ibid., p. 447.

35 See the statement of Geographer Boggs cited above; see also Col. Martin, Lawrence, “The Geography of the Monroe Doctrine and the Limits of the Western Hemisphere,” Geog. Rev., July, 1940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 “What Is the Western Hemisphere?,” For. Affairs, Jan., 1941, pp. 343–356.

37 See P. E. Mosely, “Iceland and Greenland; An American Problem,” ibid., July, 1940, p. 746.

38 Bulletin, July 12, 1941, pp. 15–18.

39 Bulletin, Sept. 13, 1941, p. 197.

40 Dept. of State, Press Release, Dec. 24, 1938.

41 Jones, and Myers, , Documents, II, p. 107.Google Scholar

42 Text in Jones, and Myers, , Documents, III, pp. 66–72.Google Scholar

43 See McCulloch, J. I. B., Challenge to the Americas (New York, 1940), pp. 36 ff.Google Scholar

44 Text in Jones, and Myers, , Documents, II, p. 95.Google Scholar Italics mine.

45 Public Law 32—77th Congress; text in Jones, and Myers, , Documents, III, p. 95.Google Scholar Italics mine.

46 Lord Lothian to Secretary Hull, Sept. 2, 1940. Bulletin, Sept. 7, 1940, pp. 196–201.

47 Ibid., p. 196.

48 Bulletin, p. 446, Art. IV of the Agreement. See also the statement of Acting Secretary Sumner Welles of July 1, 1941, in ibid., July 5, 1941, p. 9.

49 See his article in For. Affairs, Jan., 1933, p. 277. On June 14, 1940, Herr Hitler was quoted as disclaiming any interest in American affairs. “America for the Americans, Europe for the Europeans,” he said. New York Journal and American, June 14, 1940.

50 Cited in the syndicated column of Drew Pearson and Robert Allen, Mar. 26, 1942.

51 New York Times, July 7, 1940.

52 Text, in substance, in Jones, and Myers, , Documents, II, p. 92.Google Scholar

53 See Blakeslee, G. H., “The Japanese Monroe Doctrine,” For. Affairs, July, 1933, pp. 671 ff.Google Scholar

54 Moore, , Digest, VI, p. 594.Google Scholar

55 From Secretary Hull's synopsis of the German reply, Bulletin, July 6, 1940.

56 Moore, , Digest, VI, p. 397Google Scholar; Madison's, Works, III, pp. 339–341Google Scholar; Hamilton, , Writings of James Monroe, VI, pp. 323 ffGoogle Scholar; Ford, , Writings of Thomas Jefferson, XII, p. 318.Google Scholar

57 For text, see Ford, W. C., “John Quincy Adams and the Monroe Doctrine,” Amer. Hist. Rev., Oct., 1902, pp. 22 ff.Google Scholar, cited in Perkins, , Hands Off, p. 48.Google Scholar

58 See Jessup, P. C., “The Monroe Doctrine in 1940,” Amer. Jour. of Int. Law. Oct., 1940, p. 708.Google Scholar

59 Bulletin, Feb. 7, 1942, pp. 134, 135.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.