Post analysis is useful only if one learns and acts on it, thus the bar is set by Erik Larson’s book In The Garden of Beasts: Love, Terror and
an American Family in Hitler’s Berlin.
The book is a biography of William Dodd, the American Ambassador to
Germany during Adolph Hitler’s rise to power.
The lesson to be learned however, isn’t the obvious one.
Dodd was a relatively obscure University of Chicago professor when he
was selected by President Franklin Roosevelt as Ambassador to Germany. Well versed in German history, he was a
curmudgeon, an academic, an independent thinker. What he was not was a diplomat.
But, making an accurate assessment of the situation, and advising international
diplomacy, were not Dodd’s deficiencies. His
problem was mastering the internal politics of the U.S.
State Department, which could validate, or dismiss, his assessments. Dodd was an outsider from day one within the
State Department and although he recognized this as a problem, his failure to
resolve it hampered his ability to shape history.
Dodd's personal reputation remains intact, his assessments were accurate,
and that should after all be the measure of an Ambassador. And he even succeeded in getting his
assessments noticed by the White House by going around the State Department,
with history to judge FDR’s inaction on them.
Yet, clearly Dodd’s assessments went nowhere at the State
Department. Why? The author makes the
case that the State Department’s old boy network (or more accurately, the rich
old boy network) was to blame. Historically there has been a blurring of
lines between whether the top diplomatic corps is a social network of goodwill ambassadors or a legion of foreign policy experts. Then, and to a certain extent now, the most
important qualification for an embassy post is a strong resume as a political fundraiser
or ally of the President. The lesson to
be learned is this: In this politicized
old boy environment, and in an ever complex world, how does one get one’s diplomatic
cables noticed and acted on?
Erik Larson is best known for his mega-blockbuster The Devil in the White City. With In The Garden of Beasts he has again put his considerable story
telling skills on full display as he overlays “the big picture” on what
is at its base a family history. It’s a good
read, even if one is not into the policy aspects of the book.
I just finished this book also. The facts of it are amazing, although in truth I felt it could have been condensed by at least 100 pages.
ReplyDeleteYour write-up didn't mention the daughter. Her reckless dating of Nazis and Russians and whoever else she felt like was annoying to me. I felt like she really needed to be reined in by her father, particularly over dating Nazi officers. And I was disappointed that Larson never said a word about his son, who also lived with them.
Nevertheless, an interesting chapter in the story of our history with Germany.
Brian
Brian: Yep, got to admit the phrase "slut" crossed my mind multiple times in reference to the daughter. Agree too on the son. Was his personal life a family secret, or was he just dull? I think it's probably that she kept a diary, and he probably did not.
DeleteI thought about the latest diplomatic issue in Libya last year. While our ambassador was a passionate defender of the rebels and the new government how much of that passion clouded his judgement to 'the powers that be' in the State Department.
ReplyDeleteI always thought the reason the State Department was referred to as "foggy bottom" was because of DC's tidal basin. Now I'm not so sure.
Delete