Book Review: Doves and Diplomats: Foreign Offices and Peace Movements in Europe and America in the Twentieh Century, Soloman Wank, ed. Pub. 1978.

Doves and Diplomats collects 13 essays (introduction and twelve topical essays), nominally about  Foreign Offices and peace movements in Europe and America, from 1867 to 1975. Contrary to the title, only one essay (on American peace movements and the State Department in the 1920s) actually addresses the role of career diplomats; in the other essays, only the role of the political leadership in foreign offices is addressed, or the role of Foreign Offices is minimized or even ignored. The essays on European states and the U.S. are dissimilar, in that the European discussions focus almost exclusively on the roles of Radicals and Socialists in forming and leading peace movements. Such a focus on the Left leads to repeatedly attributing the failure of the peace movements to constrain military buildups, avoid war, and end hostilities, to a refusal by Radical and Socialist leaders to embrace confrontational stances against the government, and the Left's failure to enlist and co-opt the working class into such action (i.e., general strikes, refusal of military service, etc.)

The essays on America look at opposition to a possible war between Mexico and the US after Wilson landed troops in Vera Cruz in April 1914; the lack of influence upon the State Department from "popular" "internationalist" "peace reformers" in the 1920s, and the efforts of SANE and the Committee for NonViolent Action against nuclear testing and the Vietnam War.  The first sketches the wide variety and acceptance of peace movements in pre-global power America, only to dismiss them as having had no effect on Wilson's decision to not go to war with Mexico in 1914. (The essayist asserts Wilson did not want armed conflict when he landed troops, and was dismayed when deaths and other injuries ensued.) The second underscores the relative lack on influence of public organizations on closed governmental bodies like the State Department. While noting the objections of senior State officials to the 1924 Foreign Service Act, which opened the Service to those without family ties, wealth, or Ivy League degrees, the essayist declined to address whether that reform had, then or later, made State more susceptible to public opinion. The third attributes notable success to the two organizations, but was not clear on how that success was obtained. It also saw a rosier future for the influence of SANE and organizations of its ilk upon future American policy that has occured over the past 35 years.

On the one hand, Doves and Diplomats did address, at least in part, my curiosity as to why the European Socialist parties rallied behind the nation-state at the outbreak of World War I, when the Second International was clearly on record calling for general strikes to oppose a capitalist war. Partially, it was the success of ruling classes and governments in all combatants to depict the various patrias as the wronged party, and the war as defensive. Most Radicals and Socialists (except the oxymoronic militant pacifists) supported wars in defense of the nation. Decisively, the Radicals and especially the Socialists bady over-estimated the attraction of their policies, particularly their more leftist policies, for the working class. The last essay on the UK notes that mismatch continued through the 1960s, with fluctutating support from Labour for nuclear disarmament.

On the other, little in Doves and Diplomats is useful to a 21st century peace advocate, looking to avoid the mistakes of past movements and raise political and governmental support for arms control, arms reduction, smaller defense budgets, and ultimately disarmament.