Chapter 05
Roosevelt’s Alliance with the Soviet Union

In his book Caught Between Roosevelt and Stalin: America’s Ambassadors to Moscow, author Dennis J. Dunn records that as early as 1934, the U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union warned President Roosevelt that ‘stalin was dishonest, a murderer, and responsible for mass killings — he is not to be trusted.” The ambassador urged the U.S. to sever diplomatic ties and recall him. Roosevelt refused. He wanted to keep Stalin as a fallback option. Subsequent ambassadors to Moscow also opposed Roosevelt’s Soviet policy, but Roosevelt consistently ignored their advice. As Dunn suggests, Roosevelt needed the existence of a “devil” like Stalin to make his own New Deal appear less extreme by comparison.

I. Roosevelt Officially Recognizes the Soviet Union

One of the major foreign policy issues facing the United States in the 1930s was how to manage relations with the Soviet Union. After the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917, the U.S. refused to recognize the communist government. However, Roosevelt recognized that in the event of rising tensions in Eurasia leading to war, the Soviet Union could potentially become an ally of the United States.

Based on this reasoning, Roosevelt held talks in Washington with a senior Soviet official. In 1933, he formally recognized the Soviet regime — a regime he was effectively making a deal with the devil. Roosevelt hoped that “dancing with the wolf” would improve relations between the two nations. However, tensions soon arose, and the United States and the Soviet Union found themselves in conflict over numerous issues.

Less than two years later, the U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union urged Roosevelt to sever diplomatic ties with Moscow. Roosevelt, however, refused to do so. Despite the further deterioration of U.S.-Soviet relations, Roosevelt insisted on maintaining diplomatic engagement — as a precautionary measure. That “precaution” materialized a few years later, when the Second World War broke out.

In the early 1930s, economic concerns played a major role in shaping American foreign policy. In 1933, a significant international economic conference was held in London. Led by France and Italy, several nations advocated for restoring the gold standard by pegging all national currencies to the price of gold. The U.S. delegation strongly opposed this proposal, arguing that such a move would hinder America’s recovery from the Great Depression. As a result, the London Conference ended in failure.

Although Roosevelt opposed pegging the U.S. dollar to the price of gold, he was not against international trade. During the 1930s, his administration signed new trade agreements with more than twenty countries. At the same time, Roosevelt watched the significant political developments unfolding in Europe and Asia with great interest.

Like Roosevelt, most Americans disapproved of the rising tide of fascism. However, another sentiment proved stronger—their deep desire to stay out of war. Only fifteen years had passed since the end of World War I, and the memory of that brutal conflict was still fresh in the minds of many. The overwhelming majority of Americans opposed any policy that might entangle the United States in another bloody foreign war.

A 1937 public opinion poll revealed that 71% of Americans believed it had been a mistake for the United States to enter World War I. Therefore, it came as no surprise to Roosevelt when Congress passed legislation mandating American neutrality in the face of foreign conflicts. Congress also rejected the administration’s proposal for the United States to join the International Court of Justice.

The American people did not want to be drawn into another world war. They called on President Roosevelt and members of Congress to maintain neutrality in international affairs. However, the aggressions of Germany and Japan would soon force Americans to choose between defending democracy and preserving peace.

Yet Roosevelt acted against the will of the American people by providing the Soviet Union with lethal weapons free of charge — a move that can clearly be seen as a war crime.”