MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564557030

The United States and the Founding of NATO

2016· article· en· W2564557030 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S.J. Schuthof, Dario Fazzi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary History and Strategy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNorth Atlantic TreatyTreatyAllianceAdministration (probate law)Political scienceLawArms controlPeace treatyDoctrineCommunismPublic administrationPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On the 4th of April 1949 several Western European states, Canada and the United States signed the North Atlantic Treaty. The new allies agreed that “an armed attack against one or more of them… shall be considered an attack against them all”. To help the allies, a new organisation based on the North Atlantic Treaty was formed: the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. The reasons that led President Harry S. Truman to sign the treaty have been researched quite extensively in the past decades. NATO’s purpose in the eyes of the Truman administration was to institutionalize, from a military point of view, the strategy of containment set forth in the Truman Doctrine. It was supposed to support Western Europe and prevent the further expansion of the Communist influence sphere. However it is still somewhat unclear what kind of alliance and appropriate organization the US administration wanted and envisioned during the founding phase of the alliance and if the eventual embodiment of NATO corresponded with the US administrations views. Therefore this thesis focusses on the following questions: how did the relevant officials within the US administration envision NATO during its founding phase, why did they chose those views and did the eventual embodiment of NATO correspond with the US administrations views? In this traditional historical research project, which covers the time-period between 1945 and December 1949, an awnser to these questions will be formulated by looking at internal and external communication of the Truman administration. From the American point of view, the primary goal of NATO was to enhance American security by strengthening the ability of the Europeans to resist the Soviet political threat. However since the US administration at the time did not fear a Soviet attack, and since military commitments needed to stay in line with US capabilities, they wanted to keep the military commitment to Europe as small as possible. Also the US government did not want to lose the right to make their own decisions and to make and peruse their own policy’s and goals, also in regard of defence matters. Finally the US government, especially the Senate, did not want to support an alliance which would endanger the existence of the UN. Subsequently the Americans wanted an alliance which would stiffen European moral but which at the same time would keep US military commitments to a minimum, support the UN and in which the US could retain the largest possible freedom of action. When we look at the North Atlantic Treaty and NATO as they were in December 1949 it is safe to say that the US administration got there way on almost all fronts. Although the US negotiators had to give in on some minor points, the US government got almost all of their demands realised.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMilitary History and StrategyFrench-language works237,207