ad no difficulties with the need to prevail of Nazi Germany. He was concerned, however, that the American foreign policy approach to these efforts was trending in a direction that would cause the American approach to international relations to become more similar to that of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, as opposed to conducting foreign policy in a way consistent with democratic principles.
Williams did not invoke the name of religion in his criticism of the practice of American foreign policy. Rather, he contended that the manner in which the United States entered into the arena of international relations tended to obscure the superiority of the humanitarian values for which the country stands.4 He condemned American political leadership for using the specter of Soviet communism as a cloak for its own failure. Further, he condemned the implication in American foreign policy initiatives that all other countries should emulate the United States in all things. In essence, Williams advocated a more __________
4William Appleman Williams, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy (Cleveland, Ohio: The World Publishing Company, 1959), 12 14.
balanced and a more human approach to international relations for the United States. The approach that he promoted was not significantly different from that advocated by Niebuhr, although the phraseology of justification differed from that of Niebuhr. As was true of Niebuhr, Williams detected in American political leadership too much of a tendency to rely on the use of force in the conduct of international relations, along with little willingness to consider the outlook of other sovereign nations. Both agreed, however, that the American system was far superior to the Soviet system which was challenging the United States on the world stage.5
That the American system was superior to the Soviet system was about all that George Frost Kennan could find to agree on with Niebuhr and Williams. Ke...