Essay Sample on America After World War One

Following the conclusion of World War I, the United States found itself in an interesting state. Although the nation was flourishing as an international powerhouse, many Americans wanted the US to turn their backs on Europeans and world affairs, suggesting an isolationist state. However, this was not the case, as the US certainly maintained certain ties that kept them very much involved with the rest of the world around them. Diplomatic historian Philip Castle’s characterization of the U.S. interwar foreign policy is mostly incorrect when he argues that the United States had been “staunchly–even obsessively–isolationist.” Despite the United States’ rejection of membership in the League of Nations and the imposition of tariffs, the country as a whole was not “staunchly” isolationist. Policymakers and citizens seemingly partook in the interconnectedness that grew across the globe. The United States' participation politically, economically, and culturally during the interwar period further emphasizes Philip Castle’s misrepresentation of America’s geopolitical conduct in the 1920s and 1930s.

Although the United States undoubtedly limited their physical involvement, they remained a looming presence in security-related politics given the potential for commercial growth. The beginning of the interwar period saw the Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover administrations repeatedly use nonmilitary methods in attempts to further bolster the “peaceful” state of the US while simultaneously remaining non-isolationist. In Latin America, specifically Haiti and Nicaragua, natives saw US troops repeatedly invade the mainlands before the interwar period. Although this imperialist state of mind somewhat faded after World War I, the US most certainly remained interventionist by way of the “paternal hand” they laid down in years prior. In 1926, US troops returned to Nicaragua in response to a civil war outbreak. Troops were met with a sense of impassioned anti-Americanism, yet would remain until 1933, once again showing America’s interventionist mindset. The Washington Conference of 1921 further highlights the United States’ stance in foreign affairs. Nine nations were invited to Washington to mandate cuts in naval armaments. The conference did result in the adoption of a 5:5:3 naval ship ratio between the US, Britain, and Japan. Within a year and a half, however, the US Congress had passed a request for fifteen new cruisers given the worsening relations with Britain and Japan. These Republican administrations had a knack for interfering when American interests were threatened. 

While the United States' involvement in non-military interventions during the interwar period allowed them to maintain foreign pacts and agreements, a crucial factor to suggest they weren’t in a state of isolationism was how they controlled things economically. On the topic of Latin America, even after the Coolidge administration pulled the marines out of the Dominican Republic, a US financial advisor remained to oversee the Dominican economy. In Latin America and the Caribbean, “American firms bulldozed forests and planted thousands of acres of bananas, coffee, and other foodstuffs.” (Merrill and Paterson p. 70) Additionally, mining companies extracted minerals and valuable jewels from South American mines. The food and minerals would eventually both make their way back to North American markets. 

The aftermath of World War I left the United States searching for the money they had once loaned to European nations because in the end, “they hired the money, didn’t they?” In further efforts, the United States attempted to stabilize the German economy and ensure a minimal reparations payment via The Dawes Plan and The Young Plan which were proposed in 1924 and 1929 respectively. The Dawes Plan essentially resolved the issue of World War I reparations that Germany was accountable for by facilitating the repayment of loans and The Young Plan reduced the total amount of reparations demanded. Germany, at this time, had seen the worth of a German mark drop significantly to the point that the cheapest form of landfill was their currency. To combat this, the US had two committees assigned to understand the German economy to get them back on their feet. Given the steep nature of these payments, in 1931, Herbert Hoover proposed a moratorium that all payments on reparations were to halt a year. This single-handedly changed nation's mindsets of the United States and even led the Europeans to praise them. Again, we see how the United States manages to maintain and assist in the passing of certain laws to ensure they ultimately get what they in the end, something a non-isolationist state would play no role in.

The United States' role in both constructing and reviving Latin American and European economies was a crucial aspect of involvement during the interwar period, however, not as influential as the cultural effect that seemingly took place throughout Europe. The interwar period saw the flow of American tourists into Europe greatly increase during the 1920s. Tourists amassed the largest most economically salient American group in Europe. How can a country claim to be isolationists if the number of “United States visitors jumped from roughly 15,000 in 1912 to 251,000 in 1929.” Moreover, “American citizens in Europe spent close to $323 million.” (Merrill and Paterson p. 92) On top of that, “Hoover’s Commerce Department noted happily that worldwide American tourist expenditures of $770 million in 1927 more than matched $714 million in war and private debt receipts.” (Merrill and Paterson p. 92)

The spike in tourism across Europe led Europeans themselves to wonder whether or not they should be adopting the methods of these successful, traveling Americans. The “American Expeditionary Force,” the armed forces that were in Europe for World War I, had also been aiding the cultural exchange process by introducing Europeans to doughboys and jazz music. This cultural interventionism, if you will, seemed to have some lasting effects as “many soldiers returned to the Old World as artists, tourists, or businessmen, each in his own way spreading US culture.” (Merrill and Paterson p. 92) The cultural rise of Americanization was also guided by the film industry in Hollywood. Hollywood films were creating a demand for American products while  also exposing viewers to American culture: “Its speech, its manners, and its values.” (Merrill and Paterson p. 92) The cultural shift that took place in Europe because of American tourism and American film and music ought to suggest that the United States could not have been isolationist during the interwar period.

Despite Philip Castle’s characterization of US foreign policy during the interwar period being mostly incorrect, a counterargument could be examined through the idea that the United States assumed a position of isolationism to protect the American values of freedom and democracy. By rejecting to join the League of Nations and by upholding the facts outlined in the Monroe Doctrine, the United States remained content with themselves due to the looming fear factor of creating more damage than that of the First World War.

In conclusion, the United States' involvement politically, economically, and culturally in both Latin America and Europe reiterates their non-isolationist stance during the interwar period. How can a country claim to be isolationist when its culture is being replicated and its economic suggestions are put into action in other regions of the world? Therefore, Castle is mostly incorrect when he argues that US foreign policy was “staunchly–even obsessively–isolationist.” A foreign policy that more aligns with interventionism, allowed the United States to repair ties internationally while also further developing processes on the mainland.