George W. Bush's Revisionist History
In remarks before the Israeli Knesset, President George Bush implicitly conflated Barack Obama’s willingness to talk with hostile foreign leaders with appeasement of the Nazis. To strengthen his case Bush cited an unnamed Senator who allegedly said, “As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland … ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.”
The Senator to whom this quote is attributed was not a Democrat, but Republican William Borah of Idaho. If Borah is to be a negative exemplar for today’s foreign policy, the upshot is the opposite of what President Bush would have us believe.
Unlike Obama, Borah was not an advocate of a multilateral foreign policy committed to engagement with an often messy and unpleasant world. Like most other Republicans in the years between the world wars, and much like President Bush today, Borah was a nationalist who believed that America should act unilaterally to protect and advance its exceptional civilization and not tie its destiny to foreign peoples and regimes.
“I obligate this government to no other power,” Borah said during the debate over American participation in World War I. No “vital issue,” he said should be submitted “to the decision of some European or Asiatic nation.”
In 1919, Borah joined with a majority of other Republicans in the Senate to defeat the Versailles Treaty that would have committed the U.S. to joining the League of Nations. America’s disengagement from the world during the interwar years contributed to the rise of Nazi aggression under Adolf Hitler. After Germany’s invasion of Poland Borah again joined with a majority of Republicans in Congress to oppose revision of the Neutrality Act to permit trade with the allies. In 1940, Borah and most congressional Republicans opposed the draft and in 1941 they also opposed the provision of Lend Lease aid to the allies. Without these measures, the Nazis would almost certainly have conquered Great Britain and possibly Russia as well.
Conservative attacks on political leaders for negotiating with our alleged enemies are nothing new. In the waning days of the Cold War, conservatives blasted one of the own, President Ronald Reagan, for pursuing arms control agreements with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev.
In 1987, Republican Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina and his political operative Tom Ellis formed The Leadership Coalition For Freedom Through Truth to “delegitimize the Soviet Union.” They urged Reagan to cease negotiating with the Soviets and to recognize that Gorbachev was not “a new kind of Soviet leader.” Conservative columnist Michael Johns charged that “Seven years after Ronald Reagan’s arrival in Washington, the U.S. government and its allies are still dominated by the culture of appeasement.”
Conservative leaders Richard Viguerie and Howard Phillips forged an Anti-Appeasement Coalition that compared Reagan to Hitler’s notorious appeaser, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Republican Senator James A. McClure of Idaho said, “We still have a lot of faith in Reagan but there is a lot of distrust of the negotiating process, a feeling that it leads to concessions that are unwise.”
Undaunted by such criticism from the right, Reagan negotiated with Gorbachev the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty that eliminated Soviet and US missiles from Europe. Reagan scorned conservatives who “have accepted that war is inevitable” and sold the treaty to the American people. Without the removal of these deadly, hair-trigger missiles and the mutual trust that the Treaty engendered it is unlikely that the Berlin Wall would have fallen in 1989 and that freedom would have come to the satellite states of Eastern Europe without a single Soviet soldier firing a shot in defense of Communism.
The final irony in Bush’s revisionist history is that Borah may never have said the words that Bush quoted. The line about Hitler was not reported in the press at the time and does not appear in Borah’s correspondence. The line comes from a single source, journalist William K. Hutchinson's error-filled memoir, in which he attributes the line to a private conversation with Senator Borah.
comments powered by Disqus
Rhubarb Koznowski - 6/16/2008
Your reasoning is a bit of a stretch.
David M Ward - 6/8/2008
Sorry, I posted before finishing:
Stop it. I can only imagine your classes have finished for the year if you have the time to write such a piece.
Bush was in Israel during the 60th Anniversary celbrations of Israel's re-birth. It was entirely appropriate that he comment on the events leading up to WWII.
There are many in the world today who seek the path of appeasement. That the thin skinned Obamites of the world jumped so quickly to attack the President' comments just mean they know they might well apply to him.
But President Bush didn't say Obama.
I suppose we should be thankfull that you took the time to name a Senator, a Republican at that, who you say is the Senator mentioned in the Presifent's remarks. Howevr, given you obvious bias I would be loath to give you a pass. Surely, it is just possible, that more than one Senator made a similar comment?
However, given your obvious bias, I question whether you are correct. Just maybe there is more than one senator who made comments similar to those President Bus mentioned in his speech.
David M Ward - 6/8/2008
R.R. Hamilton - 6/5/2008
To those of us who haven't donned kneepads for Obama, it seemed pretty clear that Bush in his speech was referring to Carter -- who had only days earlier met with Hamas.
David Quigg - 6/2/2008
Thank you, Professor Lichtman.
Until now, I couldn't track down the original source for the alleged "if I only could have talked to Hitler" quote. If, as you write, that source is full of errors, it would explain the disparity between the Borah that Bush quoted and the Borah who trashed Neville Chamberlain in a nationwide radio address for trusting Hitler and trying to tame the Nazis by giving them Austria and part of Czechosolvakia:
"No better friend since Hitler became the master of Germany has Hitler had than the British democracy. Apparently regarding arbitrary, centralized government in Europe as the best guarantee of stability, it has built up Hitler's strength and favored his cause in every crucial situation."
When Borah died, four months after the invasion of Poland, he got a state funeral. FDR and his cabinet attended. So did the Supreme Court. Twenty members of Congress escorted Borah's body back to Idaho. The man was a Senate titan.
A NY Times editorial marking his death noted the "high respect in which Senator Borah was held by literally millions who did not always agree with him."
Regardless of Borah's shortcomings (detailed in Professor Lichtman's piece), it’s shameful that the president has been permitted to "swift boat" a man who's too dead to defend himself. Aside from one imperfect attempt by the AP, I haven't seen any coverage that put Borah in broader context. So Professor Lichtman's words are helpful.
My own attempt to put Borah into context can be seen at:
I clearly don't want to replace one caricature with another. So if Professor Lichtman or HNN's readers find any errors (of fact or of analysis), please post a comment on my article or contact me directly:
- Did a historian who said he’s a victim of McCarthyism get the story wrong?
- Stephanie Coontz’s work on the history of marriage cited by the Supreme Court.
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- David Hackett Fischer wins $100,000 prize for lifetime achievement in military writing