HANS MORGENTHAU
513
attacked the United States with the same arguments which America
used to argue against colonialism, racism, and exploitation, per–
petuated by its friends. Arguing within its traditional moral frame–
work, the United States had no answer when its own arguments were
turned against it.
It
had at least spoken as the champion of the
downtrodden and the exploited in the name of equality and freedom,
and now defended in its deeds the status quo of colonialism and
exploitation in the name of anti-Communism. Foreign aid, par–
simoniously and ineffectually dispersed, is a token tribute to the
professed ideals of America.
This moral disarmament by an adversary invoking the other side's
moral arguments for his own purposes was used brilliantly by Hitler in
the Czechoslovakian crisis of 1938. Hitler invoked the principle of
national self-determination for the purpose of destroying Czechos–
lovakia. Yet the Western allies, having invoked the very same
principles on behalf of all oppressed nationalities, had no moral
argument to counter Hitler. As the London
Times
put it in its
comment on the Munich settlement:
Self-determination, the professed principle of the Treaty of
Versailles, has been invoked by Herr Hitler against its written
text, and his appeal has been allowed.
The United States, threatened materially and weakened morally
by its association with the traditional nation-states of the West, finds
itself in the end weakened by the very magnitude of its material power.
It
is one of the paradoxes of the nuclear age that, in contrast to the
experiences of all pre-nuclear history, an increase in military power is
no longer necessarily conducive to an increase in political power. The
threat of all-out nuclear violence implies the threat of total destruc–
tion. As such, it can still be a suitable instrument of foreign policy
when addressed to a nation which cannot reply in kind. The nation
armed with nuclear weapons can assert power over the other nation by
saying: Either you do as I say, or I will destroy you. The situation is
different if the nation so threatened can respond by saying: If you
destroy me with nuclear weapons you will be destroyed in turn. Since
the nuclear destruction of one nation would call forth the nuclear
destruction of the other, both nations can afford to disregard the threat
