World War One: Avoidable? Historiography

 

Main issue is the question of why we went to war when we are traditionally a “peace-loving” nation? There are generally three answers to the question

          blundering of politicians

          an evil conspiracy

          a sense of moralism which blinded us to reality

         

The debate centers around two contemporary issues as well:

          What is the proper role of the United States in world affairs?

          Is US intervention in foreign conflicts desirable?

 

Contemporary School:

          advocated interventionism

          the concern over not obstructing the Allied cause led to war because a German

                   victory was a greater threat to the survival of democracy

 

Revisionists 1920’s:

          John K Turner: Wilson entered the war because of the greed of Wall Street

          Harry Elmer Barnes:

                   Germany was not responsible for America’s entrance into the war

                   Wilson’s acquiescence to the illegal British maritime restrictions and

                             his misguided desire to save the Allies did lead us to war

                   Wilson’s effort to save the Allies set the stage for the one-sided disaster

                             called the Treaty of Versailles

                   America had no stake in this war

                   A fairer peace would have been possible if the US had NOT intervened

                   Wilson began as a neutral but because of his Anglo-Saxon perspective

                             and his biased advisors he changed

                   Part of the reason Wilson changed was the growing munitions trade

                   This non-neutral trade forced the Germans to adopt unrestricted

                             submarine warfare

 

This viewpoint was popular in the 30’s as well because it appeared that the Treaty of Versailles was failing, fascists were gaining in Europe and Asia

 

The Neutrality Acts and Nye Committee findings were obvious attempts to avoid a repetition of the events that led us into World War One

 

The desire to stay out of the coming conflict in Europe led historians to conclude that war was wrong and avoidable because war destroys domestic reforms and initiates a period of conservatism and/or reaction

 

Beard:

          Americas strength has come from isolation from European conflicts, we must

                   keep out of war to promote liberal reforms

 

Charles Seymour: The Anti-Revisionists 1930’s

          World War One was a historical problem not a moral issue

          These historian were not colored by prevailing thoughts about staying out of

                   any upcoming conflict

          Wilson and his advisors were pro-British BUT the President DID try to follow

                   international law

          Sometimes problems with the British were more trouble than the problems with

                   the Germans

          Wilson had considered economic sanctions against the Allies

          Wilson was forced to act because of the submarine issue: if Germany has its

                   way, any neutral nation’s economic well-being and its citizens would be

                   threatened

 

Walter Lippmann 1943:

          German victory would have been a threat to American security

          German unrestricted submarine warfare led to a declaration of war because it

                   threatened to defeat the Allies

          Wilson never outlined the danger of a possible Allied defeat nor did he outline

                   America’s national interest to the people

          US cannot stand idly by when the Atlantic Community is being overrun

         

Post 1945: Kennan and Morgenthau

          Critical of Wilson for not defining the reasons for going to war

          Emphasis on power politics and national interest

          Emphasis on realism NOT moralism in foreign policy

          Wilson’s excessive moralism prevented him from defining America’s national

                   interest and put him at a disadvantage at the peace table

          National interest was to preserve a balance of power in Europe (therefore we

                   did have a vital interest)

          Wilson’s policy was exactly the opposite: to end the balance of power concept

                   once and for all in Europe

          Wilson’s policy therefore fatally weakened the balance of power and prepared

                   the way for the rise of fascist dictators because:

                             Germans were ruined, bitter, and resentful

                             Austria-Hungary was carved into small, unstable nation-states

                             Russia was no longer an ally of the French to contain Germany

                             England and France were to weak to maintain peace

 

They were not critical of Wilson for taking us to war but for doing so for the wrong reasons

 

1950’s and 60’s: Arthur S. Link

        America’s role in the world had changed

        Access to private papers of Wilson and his advisors and access to foreign archives brought

            newinformation into the equation

          Wilson was faced with a variety of pressures which limited his policy options

          Wilson was shown as a tragic and sympathetic figure

          Link emphasized the complexity of events:

                   majority of Americans desired neutrality

                   pressure for continued trade (especially with the Allies)

                   pacifist, interventionist and preparedness groups applying pressure

                   growing restrictions of the British maritime system

                   challenges posed by German unrestricted submarine warfare

                   Wilson’s desire to mediate a just and lasting peace

          Wilson had no choice but to intervene when the Germans resumed unrestricted submarine

                   warfare: implicitly the Germans and British were making the decision, not Wilson

          Wilson either could accept the loss of ships and lives or defend his nation

 

1950’s and 60’s “The Domestic Factor” School (from the New Left): Daniel M Smith

          American economic expansion into foreign markets was accepted as necessary for US well

                being

          This economic expansion resulted in a shift in American foreign policy

          German victory would upset the balance of power but NOT directly threaten American

                security, although it WOULD endanger Wilson’s hope for a just and lasting peace based

                on a stable world order: The German’s were madmen that had to be restrained