End of Empires: who and what was responsible? (post WW2)

[Dayuhan]

In your article you lay out FDR's vision. Despite his best efforts his vision failed to be fulfilled and as can be or should have been anticipated the resulting failure was a train smash. Truman (and the rest of the free world) had to deal with the wreckage.

FDR died before much of this vision had a chance to get much effort... and there's been nothing cited or said here that suggests that the post-war train wreck was somehow caused by FDRs vision. Certainly there are many other causes available for consideration; why would anyone think that the post-war chaos was somehow solely a consequence of one man's dream? Q quite bizarre contention, really...

For three terms and 82 days FDR prepared the ground work for his vision and as such a series of activities had been set in motion and as has been stated the ghost of FDR still haunts US foreign policy to this day.

FDRs actual time in office was spent responding to the exigencies of depression and war, not pursuing a long-term vision. In an average day between 1929 and 1945, how much time did American Presidents have had to spend pursuing any dream beyond getting through that day intact? It was not an easy time.

His sudden death did not bring all that he had started to an immediate halt. There was momentum which carried his vision forward.

Stated, but unsupported. What specific "set of activities" was set in motion, and what specific impacts are you suggesting they had on subsequent developments?

His Four Policemen idea relied on emasculating the British and consigning them to a subservient role to the US and tasked with "looking after" western Europe. In this he succeeded.

The US didn't "emasculate the British". They didn't need to; the British did that all by themselves. If you're going to allege US emasculation, please explain how exactly you think this took place. Postwar Britain was not in a position to "look after" anything, regardless of anything the US did. The European powers weren't "emasculated" by any outside force, they fought each other until they were depleted. The process culminated in WW2, but didn't start there.

As stated and proved by history he backed the wrong horse in China.

Possibly so, but in the long run did it really make much difference in the way things emerged in China? I see no reason to believe that it did, or that US backing for Mao would have somehow brought the Chinese into some kind of pro-US fold. Is there anything beyond vague "what if" speculation to suggest that US China policy post WW2 was a critical element in setting that country's direction? The US isn't necessarily in the center of everything. Chiang was going to fall, Mao was going to take over, and Mao was going to run things his way... and this is what would have happened no matter what FDR had decided or who he had backed. Whatever vision FDR had for China was an insubstantial cloud in a gale-strength wind. He was not in a position to impose his visions on China, and who he backed or didn't back was not a deciding factor in what happened.

His supposed "understanding" of Stalin was a disaster. He was so desperate to bring and keep Stalin on board that he was prepared to be manipulated by Stalin at just about every turn. To the extent that he was prepared to exclude eastern European countries from his third pillar "The Right of Self-Determination" and allow Stalin a free hand. 50 years later eastern Europe is trying to recover.

Again, what happened didn't happen because of FDR. FDR could have placed East European independence at the core of his vision and it wouldn't have made any difference. The Soviet Union would still have finished the war in physical possession of Eastern Europe. Stalin would not have given up that possession because of any vision FDR might have had, and there was nothing that FDR could have done to compel him to give up that possession. FDR's dreams were dust in the wind, no impact at all on that equation. In practical, realistic terms, what did FDR ever do that allowed the Soviets to occupy Eastern Europe, which they would have done in any case? In practical, realistic terms, what could FDR have thought, said, or done that would have removed the Soviets once that occupation was established? Nothing. The dream was a dream, what happened was what would have happened in any event. It was never FDRs choice to make.

His post colonial outcome was naive to say the least. The mind boggles that he thought that it would work by "Enabling formerly colonial societies to achieve independence through an evolution of governance, rather than revolution against governance; all under the watchful eye of the four policemen."

And these four objective policemen would guide these nations to "Self-Determination" and independence "through an evolution of governance"? Come on.

A very naive vision indeed... but again, what impact did this vision actually have on the subsequent decisions made by colonized peoples and colonial powers after FDRs death? The colonies were going to break away no matter what FDR envisioned. That didn't happen because of FDRs vision, it happened because the colonized wanted out, the colonial powers no longer had the capacity to keep them in, and support for Empire on the home front was evaporating. How was any of that a consequence of FDRs vision? How did FDRs vision affect, say, the mutinies among British armed forces in India, the subsequent spread of strikes and riots, and the British realization that they could no longer keep the colony?

Again, where are the specific actions that link this nebulous vision to what actually happened? There was a vision, there were subsequent events, but how do you justify a claim that the vision was the cause of the subsequent events?

Lots of people had visions at the close of WW2. Most of them were blown away by events, events driven not by any individual's vision but by a complex interplay of a huge array of competing interests. The people who drove the actual decolonization process didn't make their choices and decisions because of FDRs dreams, they had their own reasons.

FDR could have believed that empire was as wonderful as a Rudyard Kipling fantasy, and empires would still have fallen as the dust from WW2 settled. The imperial powers were too depleted by war to hold on, the people in the colonies knew it, and the home front had other priorities. It was done, finished, over, no matter what FDR wanted. Where was the tangible impact of his vision? What actions were based on this vision and how exactly did they affect the decolonization? Is there anything but speculation in these contentions?

As an aside I am somewhat taken aback at the denial displayed by some in relation to the effect of FDR on the world. If his foreign policy was positive for the US I can't for the life of me see how. He was certainly not good for Europe, Africa and large chunks of Asia. So for who and where did FDR idealism work?

I wouldn't call FDRs postwar impact hugely positive or negative. He died too soon to have much postwar impact at all. Like most Presidents he was a man of his times, many of his actions were reactions to often desperate circumstances, and he was driven as much by need as by vision. The only vision he had that was ever implemented was prevailing at war, by the time the rest of it came to doing he was dead and other people's visions took over. Like so many others, his visions were overtaken by events beyond his control and dissipated with few real consequences. Of interest to those curious about the history of visions, but with very little impact on how the postwar world actually emerged.

The question at hand is whether FDRs idealism had any real impact at all on post-war decision making or post-war actions. Idealism has no impact on anyone until it is translated into action. What actions were driven by this idealism, and what consequences did they produce that weren't well on the way to happening in any event?

"Great man" history, as stated before here, rarely explains anything with any adequacy... nobody's that big and there are too many other trends and influences at play. Decolonization certainly saw many mistakes by many people, but if you want to connect those mistakes to the vision of a man who died before that process got underway you'll have to show some kind of evidence of causative links between the vision and actual events. So far we've seen none at all.