When a leading Republican called for world government — and Einstein and Gandhi backed him
- Thread starter pecksniff
- Start date
Similar threads
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Amid the turmoil of World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt wanted a respected American to travel the globe boosting morale among the Allies. The itinerary included 13 countries on five continents, including China, the Soviet Union and the nations of the Middle East. FDR's choice of emissary might have seemed strange from a distance: He picked Wendell Willkie, the Republican he had defeated in the 1940 election. Everything had changed after the Pearl Harbor attack on Dec. 7, 1941, and Willkie gladly undertook this mission on behalf of a Democratic president. When he returned from his trip, Willkie enthusiastically shared his advice with both Roosevelt and the rest of America: Humanity needed a one-world government to avoid a future filled with unimaginable horrors. The onetime GOP presidential nominee wasn't the first or last person to reach that conclusion, but his story is both striking and strange.Willkie's book, "One World," broke sales records when it was published in 1943, and holds up remarkably well today. (If you obtain an original edition, you'll notice it was made with cheap and lightweight materials, thanks to War Production Board regulations.) Willkie openly cribbed ideas from the Atlantic Charter, a 1941 statement by Roosevelt and Winston Churchill that articulated Anglo-American war objectives, but challenged them as too Eurocentric and not bold enough. His book helped inspire the World Federalist movement, which drew from Willkie's conclusions to argue that only supranational democratic institutions could protect humanity in an era of global threats. The general idea was for an organization much stronger than the League of Nations, which had been founded in the wake of World War I, although the specific proposals varied widely. Generally speaking, though, these groups shared the goals articulated in Willkie's book: International governing bodies that would prohibit colonialism and imperialism, whether economic or military; a ban on racial discrimination; a plan to reduce global income inequality; and a gradual worldwide transition to democracy, according to each nation's particular culture.Roosevelt's choice of global emissary might seem unusual from this distance: The Republican who had run against him in 1940.
Some of the most famous people on the planet supported the One World movement, or its various incarnations thereof: Physicists Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr, philosopher Bertrand Russell, anti-colonial heroes Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, newspaper columnist Walter Lippmann. "One World" dominated the New York Times bestseller list for months, and all its proceeds went to war relief efforts in Britain, China and the Soviet Union. After the U.S. used nuclear bombs in Japan and ushered in the Cold War, the One Worlders' clamor for international government grew even stronger. For decades, the term "One Worlder" was used as an epithet by conservatives who saw this vision of left-liberal internationalism as Communism in a thin disguise.
"One World" reads less like a manifesto than a novel, at least for the most part. It's entertaining and vivid, driven by an array of fascinating characters, ranging from Joseph Stalin (!) to Charles de Gaulle to Chinese leader Zhou Enlai, along with many ordinary soldiers and civilians. He quotes at length, for example, both Chinese and Russian citizens who defend Communism, although Willkie makes it clear he disagrees. In one chapter, he marvels at the way the United States is almost universally liked (it's almost melancholy to read that now), but expresses concern that American politicians may squander that goodwill by seeking to build an empire — the very reason the Germans and Japanese were so despised.
Willkie was also far ahead of his time in deploring nationalism, even among oppressed peoples, arguing that because all humanity lives on a shrinking planet thanks to the wonders and horrors of technology, our fates are inextricably linked. He insists that racial and cultural diversity — concepts that were not widely discussed at the time — should be celebrated, and that humanity's common interests in peace, prosperity, justice and scientific progress should supersede the narrow allure of nationalism. He puts it this way in his introduction:
Many of the anecdotes Willkie shares are heartbreaking. On his visit to the Soviet Union he sees Russian farm workers walking toward the combat front lines because they need to plow the fields, At a pit stop in Siberia for what he expects will only be a couple hours, Willkie learns that a snowstorm is coming and he must stay at least overnight, because if a distinguished guest were to die in a plane crash, Stalin will have the official responsible "liquidated." Further east in what was then British-run Palestine, Willkie wonders whether the British Empire is inflaming grudges between the Arab and Jewish communities for its own purposes, and quickly deduces that the matter will not be easily resolved. In the Chinese provincial city of Chengtu, Willkie speaks with scholars who had fled from areas conquered by Japan; they're using the facilities of the two local universities in shifts, where "the buildings and the libraries and the laboratories [are] occupied almost twenty-four hours a day."There are no distant points in the world any longer. I learned by this trip that the myriad millions of human beings of the Far East are as close to us as Los Angeles is to New York by the fastest trains. I cannot escape the conviction that in the future what concerns them must concern us, almost as much as the problems of the people of California concern the people of New York. Our thinking in the future must be world-wide.
All of it should be welcome if it leads to world government.None of it should be welcome in any party for all it it is comprised of
is a power-hungry politician promising people that he/she/it
will take from "the rich" and give to the poor (you)
because life is unfair! Life should be fair!
:nods:
It's only called a ugliest redheaded stepchild because bastard with mustaches preferred authoritarian pricks to Long confederations of mutually aiding territoriessave for its ugly red-headed step-cousin Communism)
I recall that in 1917, the Bolsheviks had the idea revolution was about to break out in Germany, and then they would be "mutually aiding territories," German industry meshing with Russian agriculture.It's only called a ugliest redheaded stepchild because bastard with mustaches preferred authoritarian pricks to Long confederations of mutually aiding territories
Yeah Rosa Luxembourg and her communal communist ideas were a major thing in Germany however they got shot killed brutally by fucking freikorpsI recall that in 1917, the Bolsheviks had the idea revolution was about to break out in Germany, and then they would be "mutually aiding territories," German industry meshing with Russian agriculture.
Clearly Marx was wrong, then, in predicting the revolution would happen first in industrialized countries like Germany and Britain. In reality, the only successful Communist revolutions have been in agrarian backwaters like Russia and China. This warrants considerable revisionism.Yeah Rosa Luxembourg and her communal communist ideas were a major thing in Germany however they got shot killed brutally by fucking freikorps
Here's the thing that only happened because there was a war-torn revolutionaries and it was honestly viewed as it could have went either wayClearly Marx was wrong, then, in predicting the revolution would happen first in industrialized countries like Germany and Britain. In reality, the only successful Communist revolutions have been in agrarian backwaters like Russia and China. This warrants considerable revisionism.
