Listen free for 30 days
Listen with offer
-
Tomorrow, the World
- The Birth of US Global Supremacy
- Narrated by: Stephen Graybill
- Length: 9 hrs and 10 mins
Failed to add items
Add to basket failed.
Add to wishlist failed.
Remove from wishlist failed.
Adding to library failed
Follow podcast failed
Unfollow podcast failed
£0.00 for first 30 days
Buy Now for £17.99
No valid payment method on file.
We are sorry. We are not allowed to sell this product with the selected payment method
Summary
A new history explains how and why, as it prepared to enter World War II, the United States decided to lead the postwar world.
For most of its history, the United States avoided making political and military commitments that would entangle it in European-style power politics. Then, suddenly, it conceived a new role for itself as the world’s armed superpower - and never looked back. In Tomorrow, the World, Stephen Wertheim traces America’s transformation to the crucible of World War II, especially in the months prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor. As the Nazis conquered France, the architects of the nation’s new foreign policy came to believe that the United States ought to achieve primacy in international affairs forevermore.
Scholars have struggled to explain the decision to pursue global supremacy. Some deny that American elites made a willing choice, casting the United States as a reluctant power that sloughed off “isolationism” only after all potential competitors lay in ruins. Others contend that the United States had always coveted global dominance and realized its ambition at the first opportunity. Both views are wrong. As late as 1940, the small coterie of officials and experts who composed the US foreign policy class either wanted British preeminence in global affairs to continue or hoped that no power would dominate. The war, however, swept away their assumptions, leading them to conclude that the United States should extend its form of law and order across the globe and back it at gunpoint. Wertheim argues that no one favored “isolationism” - a term introduced by advocates of armed supremacy in order to turn their own cause into the definition of a new “internationalism.”
We now live, Wertheim warns, in the world that these men created. A sophisticated and impassioned narrative that questions the wisdom of US supremacy, Tomorrow, the World reveals the intellectual path that brought us to today’s global entanglements and endless wars.
What listeners say about Tomorrow, the World
Average customer ratingsReviews - Please select the tabs below to change the source of reviews.
-
Overall
-
Performance
-
Story
- E N Cuentro
- 29-06-21
An argument with several holes
The story of this book is, first, that, early in WW2, US planners came around to the idea that the US needed to dominate globally, whether in alliance with the British Empire, or alone - that much is not so new. The account focuses on the deliberations of the CFR planners to whom much post war planning was delegated, and the crucial role of US public opinion in determining support for the UN.
Second - and this is the distinctive argument - advocates of this "interventionist" view developed the slur "isolationist," to dishonestly delegitimise a group whom the author calls "non-interventionists" or "advocates of limits on the use of military force". This group, the author says, had a coherent alternative which did not eschew involvement and intercourse with the rest of the world, and was hence not truly for isolation.
But we never learn what that coherent alternative was, except, in some cases, a resurrection of Wilsonian idealism. And while the author acknowledges, briefly and only in the final chapter, that the rejection of this approach was a historical product of WW2, the logic of which was forceful not only for elites but for a very large proportion of public opinion, the normative tone and content of the argument doesn't make sense unless there is a credible account under which this logic was mistaken, and US non intervention in Europe during WW2 would have been preferable.
If not, the "non-interventionist" position in WW2 seems in retrospect holed below the waterline, and the "interventionist" position vindicated. (The author doesn't distinguish the camps on the WW2 question from those on the post war question, the implication is that there's a fairly stable continuity.)
Wertheim was amongst the founders of the Quincy Institute, a new Washington think tank dedicated to non interventionism, and it's clear that his account is meant to bolster the non-intervention current in the present, by providing a means to push back against the term "isolationist". But due to elisions in the historical argument, it ends up leading us to refocus on WW2. Absent a reason to reject the popular view of that as a "good war", a good intervention (in consequence if not necessarily in inspiration) the work may achieve the opposite of the author's intent.
The reading is good, makes the most of a fairly dry text.
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
You voted on this review!
You reported this review!
-
Overall
-
Performance
-
Story
- Tony
- 06-02-22
Overwritten and reader sounds like automaton
An interesting thesis on the USA''s global hegemony is in need of editing - it is terribly overwritten and is read by someone who sounds like a automaton and affords the reader little in the way of nuance or inflexion of the grammar of the text - at times this becomes amusing/annoying depending upon your level of tolerance.
Something went wrong. Please try again in a few minutes.
You voted on this review!
You reported this review!