DOCSLIB.ORG

Confronting Soviet Power Confronting Soviet Paul C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Confronting Soviet Power Confronting Soviet Paul C Confronting Soviet Power Confronting Soviet Paul C. Avey Power U.S. Policy during the Early Cold War For many, the behav- ior of the United States in the early Cold War highlights the inºuence of ideas in foreign policy. According to this view, American liberalism directly faced off against Soviet Communism after World War II. This caused the United States to abandon collaboration, deªne the Soviet Union as an enemy, and implement a series of combative policies. In other words, Soviet power became a threat because the Soviet Union was a Communist dictatorship.1 To be sure, works in the realist tradition contend that balance of power concerns motivated U.S. policy. Yet these explanations often sidestep the role of ideas,2 blur the role of power and ideas,3 or incorporate ideas into their analysis.4 In short, many scholars accept that ideas were critical in pushing the United States to confront the Soviet Union and Communism. A close look at early Cold War history, however, suggests that U.S. policy was often inconsistent with the most prominent ideational explanations for U.S. behavior toward the Soviets. For instance, the United States genuinely at- tempted to engage the Soviet Union in the early postwar period despite aware- ness of the totalitarian nature of Soviet Communism. In addition, U.S. policy initially tolerated Communist groups beyond the Soviet Union and later tar- geted them to prevent Soviet expansion. Finally, the United States did not seri- Paul C. Avey is a Ph.D. candidate in political science at the University of Notre Dame. The author is grateful to Michael Desch, Sebastian Rosato, and the anonymous reviewers for their careful reading and advice. He would also like to thank Robert Brathwaite, Peter Campbell, Charles Fagan, Kirstin Hasler, Keir Lieber, Dan Lindley, and Richard Maass for their helpful com- ments on earlier drafts. He thanks the Nanovic Institute for European Studies and the Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts, both at Notre Dame, for their generous ªnancial support. 1. See, for example, Christopher Layne, The Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2006); Colin Dueck, Reluctant Crusaders: Power, Culture, and Change in American Grand Strategy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2006); Henry R. Nau, At Home Abroad: Identity and Power in American Foreign Policy (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2002); and Thomas Risse-Kappen, “Collective Identity in a Democratic Commu- nity: The Case of NATO,” in Peter J. Katzenstein, ed., The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), pp. 357–399. 2. John J. Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: W.W. Norton, 2001), pp. 256– 261, 322–329; and Dale C. Copeland, The Origins of Major War (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2000), pp. 146–208. 3. Norman A. Graebner, Richard Dean Burns, and Joseph M. Siracusa, America and the Cold War, 1941–1991: A Realist Interpretation, 2 vols. (Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger, 2010). 4. Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, 7th ed. (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2006 [1948]), pp. 357–376. International Security, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Spring 2012), pp. 151–188 © 2012 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 151 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/ISEC_a_00079 by guest on 24 September 2021 International Security 36:4 152 ously pursue regime change in the Soviet Union or Eastern Europe and sought to engage Communist regimes in Yugoslavia and China. In this article, I argue that U.S. policy was principally directed toward chal- lenging Soviet state power.5 The rise of Soviet power and the collapse of Eurasia beyond initial postwar assessments generated broad concerns in the United States. U.S. policy subsequently moved to block Soviet expansion and restore a balance of power in Europe and Asia. As the relative power situation worsened, the United States increased the scope of its economic and military commitments. My argument builds on existing power-based accounts, but goes beyond them to explicitly engage ideological arguments and demonstrate that speciªc U.S. policy initiatives followed balance of power logic. I do not claim that ideology played no role in the U.S. decision to confront the Soviets: for instance, U.S. ofªcials feared that Communism offered the Soviet Union a novel means to expand its power and used ideology to justify various initia- tives shaped by power concerns. Examining the origins of U.S. policy toward the Soviet Union in the Cold War is important for two reasons. First, there is widespread acceptance across the major international relations paradigms—realism, liberalism, and constructivism—that U.S. policy during the early Cold War went beyond tra- ditional power politics. These arguments turn to ideas to explain U.S. behav- ior. Historians writing across different historiographic traditions, while generally advancing eclectic explanations for U.S. behavior, provide support- ing evidence for the ideational explanations. My argument challenges these ac- counts. Second, U.S. behavior in the early Cold War is an important case for the growing body of literature premised on the inºuence of ideas in foreign policy. Indeed, ideas should play a critical role in this case. The United States has a strong liberal tradition, and Soviet Communism differed substantially. By showing that ideas did not drive U.S. policy, my argument challenges the broader claims built on this case.6 The rest of the article proceeds in ªve sections. First, it deªnes ideology and power, outlines the ideological and power-based logic for the origins of the 5. I do not address Soviet foreign policy. For recent works on this topic, see Vladislav M. Zubok, Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007); Nigel Gould-Davies, “Rethinking the Role of Ideology in Interna- tional Politics during the Cold War,” Journal of Cold War Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Winter 1999), pp. 90– 109; and John Lewis Gaddis, We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History (Oxford: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 1997). 6. Harry Eckstein, “Case Study and Theory in Political Science,” in Fred Greenstein and Nelson Polsby, eds., Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 1: Political Science: Scope and Theory (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975); and Alexander L. George and Andrew Bennett, Case Studies and Theory De- velopment in the Social Sciences (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2005), pp. 120–123. Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/ISEC_a_00079 by guest on 24 September 2021 Confronting Soviet Power 153 United States’ confrontation with the Soviet Union, and speciªes predictions for each. It also demonstrates the widespread agreement among self-identiªed realists, liberals, and constructivists that ideology played a critical role (if not the most critical role) in spurring U.S. behavior. Second, it discusses the key changes in power and ideology, including ideological perceptions, which should cause changes in U.S. policy. Third, it examines the content and tim- ing of major U.S. initiatives to demonstrate that power, rather than ideol- ogy, primarily drove U.S. policy. Fourth, it shows that U.S. policy toward Communist groups and regimes outside the Soviet orbit primarily reºected concerns about Soviet power. The ªnal section brieºy reviews the key ªndings and concludes with historical and theoretical implications. Ideology, Power, and Confrontation In this section, I outline the ideological and power-based explanations for in- ternational conºict. I show that scholars frequently employ ideology to explain the origins of U.S. Cold War policy. I then use this discussion to generate pre- dictions for U.S. behavior. ideology Ideas provide a useful tool for analyzing international politics and foreign policy, particularly U.S. policy in the Cold War. Given the breadth of concepts implied by the term, however, assessing the impact of ideas is difªcult. Indi- vidual psychology, common beliefs, norms, ideology, identity, and culture are a few examples.7 I employ the concept of “ideology,” which I deªne as a set of shared beliefs within a society through which that society identiªes and interprets events and selects appropriate policy responses. Ideology provides the basis for the proper construction of state institutions, the economy, conceptions of individ- ual and group, the use of force, and identiªcation of “in” and “out” groups.8 Ideology is distinct from internationally constructed culture, but is informed by and at times synonymous with national culture. It generally subsumes, or is 7. For a discussion, see Michael C. Desch, “Culture Clash: Assessing the Importance of Ideas in Security Studies,” International Security, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Summer 1998), pp. 150–158. 8. This deªnition draws on Kathleen Knight, “Transformations of the Concept of Ideology in the 20th Century,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 100, No. 4 (November 2006), pp. 619–626; Mark L. Haas, The Ideological Origins of Great Power Politics, 1789–1989 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Uni- versity Press, 2005), pp. 1–6; Gould-Davies, “Rethinking the Role of Ideology in International Poli- tics during the Cold War,” pp. 95–109; and Alexander L. George, “Ideology and International Relations: A Conceptual Analysis,” Jerusalem Journal of International Relations, Vol. 9, No. 1 (March 1987), pp. 1–21. Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/ISEC_a_00079 by guest on 24 September 2021 International Security 36:4 154 at least consistent with, strategic culture, collective ideas, or national identity.9 I cannot specify the origins of an ideology or why a particular ideology becomes dominant, but ideologies tend to become entrenched, to repli- cate through socialization, and to constrain or even constitute foreign policy thinking.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Marshall Plan & Berlin Airlift
    Objectives: 1. Explain how the Marshall Plan, the Berlin airlift, and the creation of NATO helped achieve American goals in postwar Europe. 2. Assess the impact of two Communist advances on American foreign policy. 3. Summarize the effects of the cold war on American life. Main Idea: As the cold war intensified, American policy focused on rebuilding and unifying Western Europe. At home, emotionally charged spy cases raised fears of Communist infiltration into American society and government. Marshall Plan & Berlin Airlift • Secretary of State George C. Marshall created an economic plan to rebuild Europe after World War II. The Soviet Union and their Eastern European allies refused to take part in the Marshall Plan, but 16 European countries did accept economic aid from the U.S. ($13 billion over 4 years). • In 1948, to keep people from fleeing communism, Stalin blockaded Berlin. To avoid a war, the U.S. and Britain airlifted supplies to Berlin for 15 months called the Berlin Airlift. 1948 Berlin Airlift NATO & Warsaw Pact In 1949, NATO created a military alliance between 10 Western European countries, the U.S., and Canada. The countries viewed an attack against one country, as an attack against them all. In 1949, China becomes communist and Soviets create their atomic bomb, causing the U.S. to drastically increase peacetime defense spending to enforce Containment. In the 1950s, President Eisenhower will continue with Containment, even though his Secretary of State John Dulles wanted to end communism. The U.S. did not interfere in situations involving Soviet Satellite Nations. President Eisenhower did not want the Cold War to become an actual war.
    [Show full text]
  • Truman Doctrine / Marshall Plan, Comecon & Cominform
    Cold War Aim: To understand how USA used financial develops… aid to fight Communism in post-war Europe (Marshall Plan) Imagine you were reading this at the breakfast table, have a conversation with your neighbour, what might have been said? How does this headline make you feel? What is it trying to say? Key terms: Before WW2 After WW2 Isolationism: Containment: US policy before WW2 was US policy after WW2 was Isolationism, basically staying Containment (limiting the out of other countries affairs, spread of something), basically especially Europe’s as it is “so stopping the spread of far away” anyway! Communism outside a small number of countries What was the impact of the Truman Doctrine? Kennan’s ’Long Telegram’ confirmed Truman’s worst fears Stalin intended to spread Communism across Europe Truman’s military advisors told Truman the Soviets weren't strong enough to fight the USA. Truman said they didn't need to fight to increase their territories and power. What would you do if you were Truman at this stage? What can you see here, and why might this help Stalin out? Post war damage in Europe • Many European countries were in ruins • Homes, factories, infrastructure (roads, railways) • Poverty increases with anger and desperation Communism is actually quite attractive right now, the wealth of the rich will be redistributed (shared) to help us all, not just the few at the top! I see what Stalin is offering us! So, you see, Stalin doesn't need to go to war, he has a perfect scenario, the people are already discontented, he When you put
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 26: the Origins of the Cold War Chapter Review
    Chapter 26: The Origins of the Cold War Chapter Review Terms United Nations: 1. An international peacekeeping organization 2. Founded in 1945 a. Represented 50 nations 3. Purpose a. Promote world peace b. Promote security c. Promote economic development Satellite Nations: 1. A country dominated politically and economically by another. a. Much of Eastern Europe became part of the Soviet Union as satellite nations Containment: 1. A measure used to block another nation’s attempts to spread its influence to other nations Iron Curtain: 1. Term used to describe the imaginary line separating Communist Eastern block countries with Western Europe. 2. Terminology first used by Winston Churchill in 1946 Cold War: 1. A conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union a. Neither country directly confronted the other in a battle situation 2. Dominated world affairs from 1945‐1991 3. Dominated United States foreign policy between 1945‐1991 Truman Doctrine: 1. United States policy during the Truman Administration a. Presented by Truman in 1949 2. Doctrine provided economic and military aid to free countries under the threat of takeover a. Threat by internal or external forces 3. Stopped communism in Greece Marshall Plan: 1. Plan was proposed by Secretary of State George Marshall in 1947 a. United States would provide economic aid to help European nations rebuild following World War II. Berlin Airlift: 1. An operation where the United States and Britain flew supplies into West Berlin in 1948. a. Began when the Soviet Union blockaded the city 2. Operation lasted 327 days a. They made 277,000 flights b.
    [Show full text]
  • Conspiracy of Peace: the Cold War, the International Peace Movement, and the Soviet Peace Campaign, 1946-1956
    The London School of Economics and Political Science Conspiracy of Peace: The Cold War, the International Peace Movement, and the Soviet Peace Campaign, 1946-1956 Vladimir Dobrenko A thesis submitted to the Department of International History of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, October 2015 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 90,957 words. Statement of conjoint work I can confirm that my thesis was copy edited for conventions of language, spelling and grammar by John Clifton of www.proofreading247.co.uk/ I have followed the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition, for referencing. 2 Abstract This thesis deals with the Soviet Union’s Peace Campaign during the first decade of the Cold War as it sought to establish the Iron Curtain. The thesis focuses on the primary institutions engaged in the Peace Campaign: the World Peace Council and the Soviet Peace Committee.
    [Show full text]
  • Just Rewards? Communism's Hard Bargain with the Citizen-Consumer
    JUST REWARDS? COMMUNISM’S HARD BARGAIN WITH THE CITIZEN-CONSUMER Patrick Patterson University of California, San Diego The National Council for Eurasian and East European Research 2601 Fourth Avenue Suite 310 Seattle, WA 98121 TITLE VIII PROGRAM Project Information* Principal Investigator: Patrick Patterson NCEEER Contract Number: 821-12g Date: August 6, 2008 Copyright Information Individual researchers retain the copyright on their work products derived from research funded through a contract or grant from the National Council for Eurasian and East European Research (NCEEER). However, the NCEEER and the United States Government have the right to duplicate and disseminate, in written and electronic form, reports submitted to NCEEER to fulfill Contract or Grant Agreements either (a) for NCEEER’s own internal use, or (b) for use by the United States Government, and as follows: (1) for further dissemination to domestic, international, and foreign governments, entities and/or individuals to serve official United States Government purposes or (2) for dissemination in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act or other law or policy of the United States Government granting the public access to documents held by the United States Government. Neither NCEEER nor the United States Government nor any recipient of this Report may use it for commercial sale. * The work leading to this report was supported in part by contract or grant funds provided by the National Council for Eurasian and East European Research, funds which were made available by the U.S. Department of State under the Title VIII program. The analysis and interpretations contained herein are those of the author.
    [Show full text]
  • The Marshall Plan and the Beginnings of Comecon
    THE MARSHALL PLAN AND THE BEGINNINGS OF COMECON Cristian BENȚE Abstract: The integration of the Eastern-European states into the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence at the end of the Second World War represented a complex process that aimed all the vital sectors in those states. In a relatively short period of time, the political, economic, social and cultural life of the Eastern-European states was radically transformed, according to the models imposed by Moscow. The Soviet Union imposed its control over Eastern Europe because it had strategic, political, military and economic interests in this region. The states in this region became, after the Soviet Union broke relations with its former Western allies, the main suppliers of resources for the recovery of the soviet economy. The soviet control over the Eastern-European economies took many forms: from the brutal transfer of raw materials, finite products and technology during the first years after the war, to more subtle methods, as the establishment of “mixed enterprises”, the initialization of bilateral agreements and finally by establishing the COMECON. The establishment of the COMECON in January 1949 was one of the measures taken by Moscow in order to counteract the effects of the Marshall Plan and to consolidate the Soviet influence in the satellite-states from Eastern Europe. This measure was preceded by other actions meant to strengthen Moscow’s political, economic and ideological control over these states. Keywords: Marshall Plan, COMECON, Cold War economic integration, Iron Curtain The launch of the Marshall Plan in the summer of 1947 and its rejection by the Soviet Union represents a turning point in the evolution of the Cold War.
    [Show full text]
  • The Marshall Plan and the Cold War ______
    Background Essay: The Marshall Plan and the Cold War _____________________________________________ The Cold War was fought with words and threats rather than violent action. The two nations at war were the United States and the Soviet Union. Although the two superpowers had worked as allies to defeat Germany during World War II, tensions between them grew after the war. Feelings of mistrust and resentment began to form as early as the 1945 Potsdam Conference, where Harry S. Truman and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin met. Stalin was interested in expanding Russia’s power into Eastern Europe, and the U.S. feared that Russia was planning to take over the world and spread the political idea of Communism. Truman’s response to the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence and current conditions of war-torn Europe would become known as the Truman Doctrine. This doctrine proposed to give aid to countries that were suffering from the aftermath of World War II and threatened by Soviet oppression. The U.S. was especially concerned about Greece and Turkey. Due to the slow progress of Europe’s economic development following WWII, Truman devised another plan to offer aid called the Marshall Plan. The plan was named after Secretary of State George Marshall due to Truman’s respect for his military achievements. Truman hoped that by enacting the Marshall Plan two main goals would be accomplished. These goals were: 1.) It would lead to the recovery of production abroad, which was essential both to a vigorous democracy and to a peace founded on democracy and freedom, and which, in the eyes of the United States, the Soviet Union had thus far prevented.
    [Show full text]
  • The Brookings Institution Center on the United
    THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION CENTER ON THE UNITED STATES AND EUROPE Second Annual Raymond Aron Lecture IN DEFENSE OF DECADENT EUROPE Speakers: Tony Judt Gilles Andreani Introduction: Philip Gordon November 16, 2005 [TRANSCRIPT PRODUCED FROM A TAPE RECORDING] P R O C E E D I N G S MR. GORDON: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Let me welcome you all here, and apologies for the late start. There are a number of people still fighting the elements, but I thank you for doing your best to get here. I'm Phil Gordon, the director of the Center on the United States and Europe here at Brookings. It's really a great pleasure for me to welcome you to the second annual Raymond Aron lecture here. Aron, as everybody knows, was the prominent French scholar, philosopher, political commentator, journalist who was best known for his willingness to follow his ideas wherever the evidence took him rather than supporting the conventional wisdom of the day. He also combined great theoretical and historical work with a deep appreciation for the dilemmas of the policymaker and the need to apply those ideas to the real world. He had very little time for intellectuals who couldn't think about the realities of the real world. And finally, he also stood quite strongly for a strong U.S.-French and U.S.- European relationship at a time when that itself wasn't always fashionable. I think in all of those ways he is sort of a symbol for what we aspire to do here, combining theoretical historical work with the dilemmas of the policymaker and the real world.
    [Show full text]
  • Remembering George Kennan Does Not Mean Idolizing Him
    UNITED STATES InsTITUTE OF PEACE www.usip.org SPECIAL REPORT 1200 17th Street NW • Washington, DC 20036 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063 ABOUT THE REPORT Melvyn P. Leffler This report originated while Melvyn P. Leffler was a Jennings Randolph Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace. He was writing his book on what appeared to be the most intractable and ominous conflict of the post–World War II era—the Cold War. He was addressing the questions of why the Cold War lasted as long as it did and why it ended when Remembering it did. As part of the ongoing dialogue at the United States Institute of Peace, he was repeatedly asked about the lessons of the Cold War for our contemporary problems. George Kennan His attention was drawn to the career of George F. Kennan, the father of containment. Kennan was a rather obscure and frustrated foreign service officer at the U.S. embassy in Lessons for Today? Moscow when his “Long Telegram” of February 1946 gained the attention of policymakers in Washington and transformed his career. Leffler reviews Kennan’s legacy and ponders the implications of his thinking for the contemporary era. Is it Summary possible, Leffler wonders, to reconcile Kennan’s legacy with the newfound emphasis on a “democratic peace”? • Kennan’s thinking and policy prescriptions evolved quickly from the time he wrote the Melvyn P. Leffler, a former senior fellow at the United States “Long Telegram” in February 1946 until the time he delivered the Walgreen Lectures Institute of Peace, won the Bancroft Prize for his book at the University of Chicago in 1950.
    [Show full text]
  • Harry S. Truman As a Modern Cyrus
    BYU Studies Quarterly Volume 34 Issue 1 Article 2 1-1-1994 Harry S. Truman as a Modern Cyrus Michael T. Benson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq Part of the Mormon Studies Commons, and the Religious Education Commons Recommended Citation Benson, Michael T. (1994) "Harry S. Truman as a Modern Cyrus," BYU Studies Quarterly: Vol. 34 : Iss. 1 , Article 2. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol34/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in BYU Studies Quarterly by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Benson: Harry S. Truman as a Modern Cyrus harry S truman with chaim weizmann truman officially received weizmann on may 25 1948 the first time the head of the new jewish state was received by a US president on that occasion weizmann acknowledged trumanstromansTrumans role in the recognition of israel by presenting him with a set oftorahof torah scrolls abba eban recalled that truman was not fully briefed by his staff not understanding what was within the purple velvet covering truman responded ive always wanted a set of these courtesy of the bettmann archive Published by BYU ScholarsArchive, 1994 1 BYU Studies Quarterly, Vol. 34, Iss. 1 [1994], Art. 2 harry S truman as a modern cyrus despite concerted opposition from his advisors who saw the move as strategically unwise truman ignored strategy and
    [Show full text]
  • The Revisionist Imperative: Rethinking Twentieth Century Wars* I
    The 2012 George C. Marshall Lecture in Military History The Revisionist Imperative: Rethinking Twentieth Century Wars* I Andrew J. Bacevich Abstract What students want (and citizens deserve) is an account of the past that illuminates the present. The conventional narrative of the twenti- eth century, exalting World War II as an episode in which Anglo-Amer- ican good triumphs over Nazi evil, is no longer adequate to that pur- pose. Today, the “lessons” that narrative teaches mislead rather than guide. The moment is ripe for revisionism. Historians need to respond to the challenge, replacing the familiar and morally reassuring story of a Short Twentieth Century with a less familiar and morally ambiguous story of a still unfolding Long Twentieth Century. ot long before his untimely death the historian Tony Judt observed that “For many American commentators and policymakers the message of the twenti­ ethN century is that war works.”1 Judt might have gone even further. Well beyond the circle of experts and insiders, many ordinary Americans even today at least tacitly share that view. * This essay derives from the George C. Marshall Lecture on Military History, delivered on 7 January 2012 at the annual meeting of the American Historical Association, Chicago, Il­ linois. The Marshall Lecture is sponsored by the Society for Military History and the George C. Marshall Foundation. 1.Tony Judt, “What Have We Learned, If Anything?” New York Review of Books, 1 May 2008. Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of history and international relations at Boston University. A graduate of the U.S. Military Academy, he received his Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • W. Averell Harriman Papers a Finding Aid to the Collection in the Library of Congress
    W. Averell Harriman Papers A Finding Aid to the Collection in the Library of Congress Manuscript Division, Library of Congress Washington, D.C. 2016 Contact information: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/mss.contact Catalog Record: https://lccn.loc.gov/mm85061911 Additional search options available at: https://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/eadmss.ms003012 Prepared by Allan Teichroew with the assistance of Haley Barnett, Connie L. Cartledge, Paul Colton, Marie Friendly, Patrick Holyfield, Allyson H. Jackson, Patrick Kerwin, Mary A. Lacy, Sherralyn McCoy, John R. Monagle, Susie H. Moody, Sheri Shepherd, and Thelma Queen Revised by Connie L. Cartledge with the assistance of Karen Stuart, 1999 Revised by Michael Folkerts, 2016 Finding aid encoded by Library of Congress Manuscript Division, 2003 Revised 2016 October Collection Summary Title: W. Averell Harriman Papers Span Dates: 1869-2008 Bulk Dates: (bulk 1895-1986) ID No.: MSS61911 Creator: Harriman, W. Averell (William Averell), 1891-1986 Extent: 346,760 items Extent: 1,041 containers plus 11 classified and 75 oversize Extent: 529.9 linear feet Extent: 54 microfilm reels Language: Collection material in English Location: Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. LC Catalog record: https://lccn.loc.gov/mm85061911 Summary: Diplomat, entrepreneur, philanthropist, and politician. Correspondence, memoranda, family papers, business records, diplomatic accounts, speeches, statements and writings, photographs, and other papers documenting Harriman's career in business, finance, politics, and public service, particularly during the Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter presidential administrations. Online Content: A digital copy of the Alaska expedition album is available is available on the Library of Congress Web site at http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/eadmss.amrvm03.
    [Show full text]