Introduction
World War II (WWII) and the advent of the Cold War taught many lessons regarding the American presidency, especially on matters of foreign military policies and strategies. While the presidents themselves held different opinions on conflicts and deployment of combat personnel and weapon development, many of their decisions were influenced by public opinions and, in some cases, paranoia. One of the sharpest contrasts in presidencies can be seen between Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy. According to Warren and Siracusa, President inherited a hardline legacy of Eisenhower manifested by his willingness and determination to develop and use nuclear weapons (1). On the contrary, it can be argued that Kennedy was significantly reluctant to pursue similar policies and tactics, even though he kept it as a viable option should the Soviet Union attack. Despite the differences in strategies, it can be argued that the American presidency managed to maintain the status quo of Europe and avert the dangers of armed conflict across Central Europe.
Data Collection Procedures
Focusing on the American presidencies of the 20th century would require gathering historical data recorded and published across multiple platforms. In this case, the historical accounts could include first-hand observations from the press, critics, and commentaries by experts on the subject. Additionally, some of the major events that took place during the WWII and Cold War have been the subject of scholarly research, which also serves as an ideal source of data. The data collection procedures depend on the nature of the data and the primary objectives of the paper.
The thesis stated in the introduction highlights that the presidencies had different military and foreign strategies in Europe, but they all managed to protect Central Europe from armed conflict. Therefore, the data needed include accounts of what different presidencies did in Europe during these two eras and how each president successfully managed to keep Europe safe. A key point to note is that the data ranges across different presidencies, with Kennedy and Eisenhower used to explain the contrasting policies and such underlying issues as personal opinions, paranoia, and public opinion. The presidencies are selected based on the significance of the events that took place in Europe during WWII and the Cold War. For example, Franklin Roosevelt was the first president to become engaged in WWII after persuasion from Britain, and Eisenhower served in the war both in the military and as a president. Additionally, some presidencies dealt with the Soviet Union while others faced the Germans, which presented each with different priorities and strategies.
The collection of the data will be done through a systematic review of the literature. The rationale is that a systematic review seeks to identify, select, and critically appraise text, mostly research, to answer the formulated study question. With the objectives of this study being to identify presidencies and their strategies in Europe, a systematic review will be used as a data collection tool since it makes it possible to identify materials with the relevant data. The sources will be mostly electronic, especially those verifiable databases, sites, and repositories with historical information. Past studies on the subject will also be used, as long as they meet the inclusion criteria set for the research. The criteria include that the sources must contain factual information regarding the selected presidencies and their policies and strategies for Europe. Additionally, the sources have to be recent and credible for them to be regarded as reliable. However, there are exceptions for original text or seminal papers, including press briefings and speeches made by specific presidents.
Findings
The findings from the data collected can be arranged in several themes under which the specific observations can be outlined. To offer a better understanding of the American presidency and how it formulates and implements military and foreign strategy and policy, this section will highlight key incidences of the WWII and Cold War. Specifically, the focus will be on Roosevelt’s presidency and the decision to enter WWII, Eisenhower’s time in the military and as President, and Kennedy’s strategies on nuclear war and handling of the Soviet threat in Cuba and Europe.
Roosevelt’s Presidency and the Start of WWII
Roosevelt’s presidency viewed Europe as a key strategic partner in geopolitics and trade. However, the lessons learned from WWI made Americans believe in the policy of neutrality. More so, America was engaged with Japan, a country that was perceived as a threat to the American interests in the Far East. The Office of the Historian Office of the Historian notes that President Roosevelt declared that the United States would remain neutral, but could not ask Americans to remain neutral in thought. Therefore, the policy for Europe supported by the legislative bodies was that America would not be involved in the war, but it would support the allies, especially Britain, in the war efforts. However, the public for this strategy support was not much since the public believed that helping in the war would draw the country into war. As indicated by the National WWII Museum, neutrality was broken by the attacks by Japan, which initially led the United States to declare war on Japan. Additionally, Japan allied with Germany and Italy to declare war on the United States, which effectively made the United party to WWII.
In summary, Roosevelt’s presidency was more interested in observing the country’s constitutional guidelines for foreign policy. However, such legal constraints did not prevent the presidency from seeking public support to allow the presidency to formulate and implement measures of aid to the European allies. Additionally, historical records indicate that the allies also persuaded Roosevelt’s presidency to be engaged in the war. According to Little, Britain launched a secret campaign that used fake news to shift the public opinion in the United States about going to war with Germany. Regardless of the persuasion, it can be observed that the American presidency was keen to maintain good relations with Europe, including using resources to support Europe in its war efforts. Public opinion played a critical role in determining the actions of this presidency. Similarly, the presidency actively sought to influence public opinion in favor of the presidency’s strategy and policy for Europe.
Dwight Eisenhower in Military and Presidency
The rationale for exploring Eisenhower’s presidency is that this president served in the military during WWII and his reign as president took place during the Cold War. Therefore, the military policy and strategies for Europe used by President Eisenhower were shaped by his experiences in WWII. However, it can be observed that he inherited a legacy of failing foreign interventions by the Truman presidency, whose popularity in public opinion was dwindling. The wars in Asia, including Korea and Vietnam, would shape several presidencies, including that of Eisenhower. During his presidency, the government was facing credibility problems from the public. According to Burns and Novick, the Vietnam War broke the American presidency by opening up a credibility gap. All presidents who oversaw the war expressed their doubts regarding the involvement of the government, but only privately. Publicly, none wanted to be known as the president who got defeated in that war (Greenspan). This observation further illustrates the power of public opinion and opens up a series of issues that helped persist the wars.in other words, personal interests, including preservation of one’s political image, marred the American presidency.
Having won WWII, it can be argued that Eisenhower’s presidency had little concern for Europe despite the emergence of the Soviet Union as a major challenger for the superpower position. However, this European rival engaged with the United States in battle frons far from Europe, which means that Eisenhower’s military and foreign strategy for Europe was not a major issue. The Cold War was mostly fought in regions where capitalism and communism classed, with the key examples being the Vietnam and Korean wars. The public opinion during his presidency, and those that followed across the entire era of the Cold War, would be shaped by fears and paranoia, which led to covert operations across the world. For instance, President Eisenhower sanctioned a covert CIA operation in Cuba in 1959 to remove Castro from power due to his alliances with the Soviet Union (Klein). As for Europe, Eisenhower’s presidency sought to reduce direct involvement in European conflicts by sharing the responsibility with NATO allies.
This strategy can be described as tacit cooperation between Eisenhower’s presidency and the European allies. However, Eisenhower’s presidency was also keen to prevent the spread of Soviet communism in Europe. In this case, propaganda was the main tool used in Eastern Europe, which meant no major military actions took place in Europe during Eisenhower’s presidency. Similar strategies were used in Spain and Italy where tacit cooperation helped defeat communism in this part of Europe. However, an arms race was at its peak during this presidency, facilitated by covert and spy actions against the Soviet Union. The main objective of spying was to determine the Soviet Union’s military capabilities, where Eisenhower learned that America was losing in terms of weapon shortage and had a missile gap (History.com). Eisenhower managed to contain the spread of communism across Europe and elevated America’s position as the world’s superpower.
Kennedy’s Presidency against the Soviet Union
It can be argued that President Kennedy inherited a hard-liner legacy of Eisenhower and a public opinion shaped by discontent over the government failures in military action abroad and growing paranoia over nuclear war. Even though Eisenhower’s entered a voluntary pact with the Soviet Union to cease nuclear bomb testing, observers noted that his policy reflected his belief that nuclear war was the ultimate deterrent to the Soviet threat. His presidency faced an early crisis in Cuba when Kennedy approved a plan to send 1400 trained Cuban exiles to oust Castro, an attempt earlier made by Eisenhower’s presidency. The mission failed and Kennedy’s presidency focused on facing Nikita Khrushchev (History.com). Kennedy’s dealings with this Soviet leader also failed as he was not experienced enough to handle him (Little). However, his handling of the Cuban Missile crisis may have helped avoid an imminent nuclear war.
Kennedy’s presidency is well-known for its policy on nuclear development, as manifested by the nuclear test ban treaty signed with the Soviet Union. Similar to Eisenhower, Kennedy used the support of the European allies, especially Britain, to help ease the nuclear threat during the Cold War. The British and the Americans were both parties to the nuclear disarmament agreements with the Soviet Union, where they both ushed for on-site inspections (History.com). Kennedy’s presidency was mostly occupied with the Soviet threat. However, Kennedy remained true to America’s pledged support for Europe amid the spread of communism as manifested in his 1963 speech on America’s solidarity with Berlin (The Associated Press). The policy and strategy for Europe were to keep the fight for democracy and capitalism going until all of Europe was freed from the Soviet stranglehold.
Discussion
The American presidency has been a major player in global politics, including conflicts that take place far from the American homeland. The most notable similarity in the three presidencies explored is that they have all sought to protect the American interests and those of the allies while making deliberate efforts to avoid direct involvement in conflicts. However, it can be argued that such a foreign policy has not always been observed, as expressed through the Korean and Vietnam wars, both of which failed. The involvement of the American presidency in such countries as Cuba, Panama, Puerto Rico, and Nicaragua indicates that the country has played a key role in the regime changes in Latin America (Essen). The military and foreign policy for Europe across the three presidencies has been focused on protecting the allied interests and curbing the spread of communism. However, this seems to be the only case where democracy was a true agenda. In Latin America and elsewhere, the American presidency has supported dictatorships that were friendly with the United States.
Many scholars have expressed their doubts regarding the involvement of the American presidency in foreign affairs and terming the interference as the democratization process. Such an interpretation in the case of Latin America’s regime changes has been labeled as inaccurate since democracy was not the ultimate motive (Schenoni 269). On the contrary, it can be argued that the foreign and military strategies used by American presidencies were hegemonic mechanisms. Such doubts date back to the Vietnam war, which threatened the credibility of five presidencies (Greenspan). In Europe, the hegemonic tendencies were displayed in the efforts to stop the spread of communism and to help install democracies and capitalism in countries previously under dictatorships. Spain and Italy, as well as West Germany, are some of the examples mentioned earlier. However, it can be argued that hegemony was the secondary motive considering the strategic importance of Europe for the United States. During the two world wars, Europe had been a key market for American produce up until America itself got involved in the wars. Therefore, the American presidencies rationalized the use of resources, including the military, to retain its influence and relationship with Europe.
For researchers, an interesting approach would be to explore the logic of America’s foreign policy, especially that which often sees America become part of major global conflicts. The United States has had interests in such regions as the Middle East, one of the most conflict-prone wars in the world. For instance, the war in Afghanistan, the Iraqi war, the conflicts with Iran, and the Syrian war have seen active military involvement by the United States. At the same time, the United States has also made allies with such countries as Saudi Arabia, most of which have dictatorships accused of major atrocities against human rights. In Europe during the WWII and Cold war, the involvement was rationalized by such incidences as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and Axis powers declaring war on the United States (Office of the Historian). At that point, President Roosevelt was guided by the country’s legislation and constitution that dictated that the country should remain neutral in global conflicts. Today, it can be observed that neutrality is no longer a guiding principle for American presidencies and the formulation and implementation of their foreign and military strategies.
Paranoia and unfounded fears shaped military and foreign strategies in Europe and across all battlefronts during the Cold War. The three presidencies examined in this paper reveal that only Roosevelt faced real threats as the war was declared on America. Eisenhower and Kennedy remained fearful of nuclear threats from the Kremlin, despite some critics observing that even Stalin was relatively cautious and rational in responding to both threats and opportunities (Sachs 30-31). Therefore, it can be argued that the American presidency has always been fearful of countries allied to powers other than the United States, and hence the hegemonic agenda across Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America.
Another concern from the findings is the credibility of the American presidencies and their foreign and military strategies across the world. Eisenhower and Kennedy failed in Vietnam and Korea, which could be regarded as an embarrassing defeat to a nation deemed to be a superpower. Similarly, more recent presidencies also seem to record embarrassing failures and defeats, including the current loss to the Taliban in Afghanistan. According to (Brooks), such presidencies as Obama, Bush, and Clinton have failed in Somalia, Syria, Yemen, or caused catastrophic incidences in such countries as Libya (206). The strategy for Europe for the current presidency can be critically observed in the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, where weaknesses have already started to appear. Bidden’s policy and strategy could revolve around the interests of the United States and those of the European allies. However, the dilemma lies with the fact that Ukraine is not officially a NATO member, which could hinder any military deployments. However, it can be argued that the West is expected to remain true to their support for democracies, which is under threat in Ukraine.
Conclusion
This research has explored the American presidency and its foreign and military strategy, focusing majorly on Europe. Serious questions can be raised regarding the rationalization of the policies and military involvement in global conflicts, especially with the dwindling credibility of such efforts dating back to the Vietnam and Korean wars. However, the fact that the residencies have managed to protect and support America’s allies in Europe and elsewhere means that criticism should not be all negative. However, further rationalizations are required to understand the past presidencies and their successes and failures. These can be compared to what is currently happening across the world and the modern presidencies’ military and foreign strategies for different countries.
Works Cited
Brooks, Rosa. “War, Conflict and the Military.” Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, vol. 61, no. 1, 2019, pp. 205-213.
Burns, K. and L. Novick. “How the Vietnam War Broke the American Presidency” The Atlantic, Web.
Essen, Hasan. “America’s Role in Latin American Regime Change”. Web.
Greenspan, Jesse. “How the Vietnam War Ratcheted Up Under 5 U.S. Presidents”. History, Web.
History.com. John F. Kennedy. Web.
Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. Web.
U-2 Spy Incident. Web.
Klein, Christopher. “Why the Bay of Pigs Invasion Went So Wrong.” History, Web.
Little, Becky. “JFK Was Completely Unprepared For His Summit with Khrushchev.” History, Web.
—. “The Secret British Campaign to Persuade the US to Enter WWII.” History, Web.
Office of the Historian. Lend-Lease and Military Aid to the Allies in the Early Years of World War II. n.d. Web.
Sachs, Jeffrey. “Will America Create a Cold War With China?” Horizons: Journal of International Relations and Sustainable Development, vol. 12, no. 2, 2019, pp. 28-39.
Schenoni, Luis, Mainwaring, Scott. “US Hegemony and Regime Change in Latin America.” Democratization, vol. 26, no. 2, 2019, pp. 269-287.
The Associated Press. “Today in History: President John F. Kennedy delivers notable speech to West Berlin on solidarity with city residents” Mining Journal, Web.
Warren, A. and J. Siracusa. “Kennedy’s Nuclear Dilemma.” Warren, A. and J. Siracusa. The Evolving American Presidency. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2021, pp. 95-124.