From War in the Twentieth Century,
Willard Waller, editor, Dryden Press, 1940, 71-82; reprinted in The
American Past: Conflicting Interpretations of the Great Issues,
Volume 2, Sidney Fine and Gerald S. Brown, editors. Brown McMillan 1961,
308-16.
The United States and the First World War
Harry Elmer Barnes
We now consider the
forces, factors, and personalities which brought the United States into
the First World War.
The
United States could not have been more perfectly set up for neutrality than it was
in July and August, 1914. President Woodrow Wilson was a lifelong and
deeply conscientious pacifist. His convictions in this matter were not
emotional or impressionistic, but had been based upon deep study and
prolonged reflection. Moreover, he was married to a woman noted for
pacific sentiments and firm convictions on such matters. She strongly
backed up her husband in his pacific beliefs and policies. As Secretary
of Stale, we had in William
Jennings
Bryan the
world’s outstanding pacifist. His pacifism was notably courageous; he
was willing to stick by his guns even in the face of malicious
criticism.
Moreover,
Wilson was
almost uniquely well informed as to the essentials of the European
situation before war broke out in the summer of 1914. He had sent his
personal representative, Colonel Edward M. House, to
Europe to
study the international situation and to report to him upon it.
Whatever his later mistakes, Colonel House sized up matters in
Europe with
almost perfect sagacity and understanding in May, 1914. He concluded
his observations with the statement that “whenever
England consents,
France and Russia will close in on
Germany.”
If one were to
summarize, as briefly as this, the outcome of the years of scholarly
study since 1918, with respect to responsibility for the World War, a
more perfect estimate and verdict than Colonel House’s phrase could not
be rendered in the same number of words. Further, the Colonel pointed
out that, whatever the Kaiser’s emotional shortcomings, he wished for
European peace. On the other hand, he stated candidly that George V of
England was “the most pugnacious monarch loose in these parts.”
When war broke out,
President Wilson’s statements were a model of neutral procedure. He
issued a formally correct neutrality proclamation and went on to exhort
his countrymen to be neutral in thought as well as in action. There is
no doubt that he was completely neutral at heart in August, 1914. Less
than three years later, however, in April, 1917, he went before Congress
and told its members that “God helping her,” this country could do no
other than make war on
Germany. Moreover, he returned from the Capitol to the White House and made
statements to his secretary,
Joseph P. Tumulty, indicating that, at the time of his war message, he
had so far changed his attitude that he could not believe he ever had
been neutral. He cited with approval an article by the correspondent of
the Manchester Guardian stating that Mr. Wilson had always been
sympathetic with the Allies and had wished to throw this country into
war on their side just as soon as circumstances would permit.
We shall first
briefly consider some of the reasons why Wilson altered his point of view, since no other set of circumstances could
alone have forced us into the war, if
Wilson had
not been favorable to our entry by the spring of 1917.
First and foremost,
we must take into account the fact that Wilson’s intellectual perspective was predominantly Anglo-Saxon. He had
little knowledge of, or sympathy with, continental European culture and
institutions. His great intellectual heroes were such English writers
as John Milton, John Locke, Adam Smith and Waiter Bagehot. He did his
graduate work in the
Johns
Hopkins
University Seminar under Herbert Baxter Adams, where the “Anglo-Saxon Myth”
reigned supreme. Wilson was
a persistent student and admirer of the English constitution and frankly
regarded the British system of government as superior to our own.
Then
Wilson had
in his cabinet and among his ambassadors men who were intensely
pro-English or pro-Ally in their sympathies. Such were Secretaries
Lindley M. Garrison and David F. Houston. Waiter Hines Page, our
ambassador in
London, was
even more intensely pro-English than Wilson. Indeed, he frequently went to such excesses as to annoy the
President. When
Bryan was
succeeded by Robert Lansing, the most crucial post in the cabinet went
to another vehemently pro-English
sympathizer. The biases of Page and
Lansing
made it difficult to pursue forthright diplomacy with
Great Britain.
Another major
difficulty lay in the fact that President Wilson and Secretary Lansing
did not formulate and execute a fair and consistent line of diplomatic
procedure. They had one type of international law for
England and the Allies, and quite another for
Germany. They all but allowed Great Britain to run wild in the violation of
international law and of our neutral rights, while they insisted on
holding Germany “to strict accountability.”
England started out in 1914 by making a scrap of paper out of the Declaration
of London governing contraband in wartime. Next, we proceeded to allow her to
make use of armed belligerent merchantmen as if they were peaceful
commercial vessels. England violated our neutral rights far more
extensively between 1914 and 1917 than she did before the War of 1812,
even to the point of flying the American flag.
Wilson came to
believe, however, that Great Britain was fighting for civilization and that so trivial a thing as
international law must not be allowed to stand in her way. Wilson’s
Attorney-General, Thomas W. Gregory, tells of the rebuke which the
President administered to certain cabinet members when they protested
over the flagrant British violation of our neutral rights: “After
patiently listening, Mr. Wilson said, in that quiet way of his, that the
ordinary rules of conduct had no application to the situation; that the
Allies were standing with their backs to the wall, fighting wild beasts;
that he would permit nothing to be done by our country to hinder or
embarrass them in the prosecution of the war unless admitted rights were
grossly violated, and that this policy must be understood as settled.” Bryan
protested against our unfair and unneutral diplomacy and ultimately
resigned because he could not square his conscience with it.
Secretary Lansing
admits in his Memoirs that he made no real pretense of holding
England to the tenets of international law. He tells us that after the
sinking of the Lusitania he thought we should be fighting on the
side of the Allies and that he was determined to do nothing which would
prove embarrassing to us when we later took up our position as a
military comrade of the Allied powers. He persisted in this attitude,
even though he was honest enough to write after the war that in 1917 we
had as good, if not better, legal grounds for fighting Britain as for
fighting Germany.
Ambassador Page even
went so far as to collaborate with Sir Edward Grey in answering the
protests of his own government, an unparalleled procedure which, when
revealed, outraged even so pro-Ally a journal as the New York Times.
We thus encouraged
and perpetuated the illegally extensive British blockade, which provoked
the German submarine warfare. In time, we made war on the latter,
though it was our unneutral diplomacy which contributed, in large part,
to the continuance of both the British blockade and the German submarine
activities. Wilson was
deeply affected by the criticisms to which he was subjected by prominent
Americans sympathetic with the Allies and in favor of intervention on
their side. He was stung by the famous speeches of Theodore Roosevelt
on “The Shadows of Shadow Lawn,” and by the latter’s reference to Wilson’s diplomatic statements as examples of “weasel words.” He was
particularly annoyed by the statement of Elihu Root that “first he
shakes his fist and then he shakes his finger.”
On the other hand,
Wilson was
human enough to take note of the praise which was showered upon him by
the press when he made a bellicose statement or led a preparedness
parade. This contrasted sharply with the bitter criticism he evoked
when he made a statesmanlike remark, such as that a country might be
“too proud to fight,” or that the only desirable peace would be “a peace
without victory.”
Wilson was
also profoundly moved by the British propaganda relative to German
atrocities and territorial ambitions. This was particularly true after
Lord Bryce lent his name to the prestige and veracity of the propaganda
stories as to German savagery. Of all living Englishmen, Bryce was
probably the man whom
Wilson most
admired and trusted. When Bryce sponsored the propaganda lies, Wilson came to believe that they must have a substantial basis in fact. This
helped on his rationalization that
England was fighting the battle of human civilization against wild beasts.
Personal matters also
played their role in the transformation of
Wilson’s
attitude. His first wife died and a strong pacific influence was
removed. He then courted and married a dashing widow who was
sympathetic with the Allied side and friendly with Washington military and naval circles. She was also bitterly resentful of the
criticism to which
Wilson was subjected on account of his refusal to be stampeded into
intervention. She appears to have wished him to take a stronger stand
for intervention. The domestic influence on the President was, thus,
completely transformed in character as a result of his second marriage.
The publication of Mrs. Wilson’s Memoirs does not make it
necessary to modify this statement.
When, as an outcome
of these various influences, Wilson had been converted to intervention, he rationalized his change of
attitude on the basis of a noble moral purpose. As he told Jane Addams
in the spring of 1917, he felt that the United States must be
represented at the peace conference which would end the World War if
there was to be any hope of a just and constructive peace. But Wilson
could be at the peace conference only if the United States had
previously entered the World War.
It is still asserted
by many writers, such as Professor Charles Seymour, that the resumption
of submarine warfare by Germany was the sole reason for
Wilson’s
determination to enter the war on the Allied side. But we know that he
had been converted to intervention long before January, 1917.
A year earlier, he
had sent Colonel House to Europe with a plan to put us in the war on the side of the Allies if
Germany would not accept peace terms obviously unfavorable to her. But even
such peace terms for
Germany were rejected by the British leaders, who felt sure of American aid
anyway and were determined to crush
Germany. Yet this British rebuff did not lead
Wilson to lose heart in his efforts to put this country into the war.
His next step was
taken in this country. Early in April, 3 1916, Wilson called into consultation Speaker Champ
Clark of the
House of Representatives and Congressional leaders Claude Kitchin and H.
D. Flood, and sounded them out to see if they would support him in a
plan to bring the
United States into the war on the side of the Allies. This was the famous “Sunrise
Conference” described later by Gilson Gardner in McNaught’s Monthly of
June, 1925. These men sharply refused to sanction any such policy, and
Wilson allowed the campaign of 1916 to be fought out on the slogan, “He kept
us out of war.” Wilson did
not dare to risk splitting the Democratic Party over entry into the war
before the campaign of 1916 had successfully ended. The existence of
the “Sunrise Conference” has been fully verified by Professor A. M. Arnett in his
scholarly book on Claude Kitchin.
Wilson was
convinced after the failure of the “Sunrise Conference” that there was no hope of getting the country into war
until after the election. The sentiment of the nation was for peace. If
he was elected as an exponent of peace and then went into war the
country as a whole would believe that he had done his best to “keep us
out of war.” He would have a united country behind him. Hence, he and
Colonel House sent Governor Martin Glynn of New York and Senator Ollie
James of Kentucky to the Democratic National Convention at St. Louis, in
June, 1916, with instructions to make keynote speeches emphasizing
Wilson’s heroic efforts to keep us out of war.
Thus was fashioned
the famous slogan “He kept us out of war,” which reelected Woodrow
Wilson to the presidency almost a year after Colonel House, following
Wilson’s directions, had declared that: “The United States would like
Great Britain to do whatever would help the United States to aid the
Allies.” The campaign and election of 1916 were very really a referendum
on war, and the people voted against war. This is illuminating as an
illustration of the fallacy that a war referendum, such as the Ludlow Amendment would, by itself alone, suffice to keep us out of war, but
the election of 1916 does offer definite proof that
Wilson was
not pushed into war by popular demand.
The influence exerted
by American finance upon our entry into the World War has been revealed
in Ray Stannard Baker’s Life and Letters of Woodrow Wilson, in
the volumes of the Nye armament investigation, and in Professor C. C.
Tansill’s America Goes to War.
At the outset, the
international bankers were not by any means all pro-Ally. Some, like
the Morgan firm, were pro-British, and had been for years, while others,
like Kuhn, Loeb and Company, manned chiefly by men of German derivation,
were pro-German. But the financial interests of all the bankers soon
came to be pro-Ally, for credit and loans to
Germany were discouraged, while large loans were presently being made to the
Allied powers.
On August 15, 1914, at the beginning of the war,
Bryan
declared against loans to any belligerent, on the ground that credit is
the basis of all forms of contraband. President Wilson backed him up.
For the time being, this position did not operate seriously against the
Allies, for the balance of trade and investment was against the United
States, and the Allied countries could pay for their purchases by
canceling the debts owed abroad by Americans. This situation took care
of matters for a few months. But Allied war purchases became so great
that, by the autumn of 1914, there was a credit crisis. The
National City
Bank addressed Robert Lansing, then Counselor of the State Department,
on this matter on October 23, 1914. Short-term credits to European
governments were advocated. Lansing talked the matter over with
President Wilson at once, and the latter agreed that the government
would not interfere with such an arrangement. This information was
transmitted orally to Willard Straight of J. P. Morgan & Company at the
Metropolitan Club in
Washington
on the same night.
Shortly afterwards,
H. P. Davison of the Morgan firm went to
England and signed a contract to become the British purchasing agent in
America. A similar contract was soon made with
France.
The short-term loans
sufficed for some months, but by the summer of 1915 Allied buying had
become so extensive that the bankers saw that they must float loans here
for the Allied countries if the latter were to continue to buy American
munitions on a large scale. So they made strong representations to
Colonel House and to the Secretary of the Treasury, W. G. McAdoo.
On August 21, 1915,
McAdoo wrote a long letter to President Wilson, pointing out that great
prosperity had come to the country as a result of the sale of munitions
to the Allies, but that this prosperity could not continue unless we
financed it through open loans to the Allies—i.e., selling Allied bonds
in our own financial markets.
On September 6, 1915, Secretary Lansing argued similarly in a letter to President Wilson,
stressing the crisis that faced American business if the earlier ruling
of Bryan and the President on American loans to belligerents was not
rescinded. Colonel House supported this position. McAdoo and Lansing
won their point. On
September 8, 1915, Wilson assented to loans and the Morgan firm was once more given oral
information. Very soon, the first public loan, the $500,000,000
Anglo-French loan, was floated.
The formal loans to
the Allies—over $2,500,000,000 in all—financed their purchases for a
little over a year, but their buying was so heavy that even the great
investment banking houses could not take care of their needs. By
January, 1917, the Allies had overdrawn their credit by nearly
$500,000,000. Only Uncle Sam could save the great banking houses and
the Allies. And Uncle Sam could help only if the
United States were at war with
Germany. We could not, as a government, lend money to a belligerent, unless
we were at war with its enemy.
Just at this time the
Germans renewed their unrestricted submarine warfare. The
United States could now be led into the war, and the bankers would be repaid. They
were repaid to the last cent.
When the war was over, Mr. Thomas W. Lament, of J. P. Morgan and
Company, stated the facts relative to the attitude of his firm toward
the World War and the belligerent powers:
At the request of
certain of the foreign governments the firm of Messrs. J. P. Morgan and
Company undertook to co-ordinate the requirements of the Allies, and
then to bring about regularity and promptness in fulfilling these
requirements. Those were the days when American citizens were being
urged to remain neutral in action, in word, and even in thought. But
our firm had never for one moment been neutral: we didn’t know how to
be. From the very start we did everything we could to contribute to the
cause of the Allies. And this particular work had two effects: one in
assisting the Allies in the production of goods and munitions in America necessary
to the Allies’ vigorous prosecution of the war; the other in helping to
develop the great and profitable export trade that our country has had.
Most American
industrialists naturally shared the attitude of the bankers. Since
England controlled the seas, our sales were mainly to the Allied powers. We
wished to see the Allies continue the war and win it. Upon their
purchases depended most of our sales and prosperity, and upon their
success and solvency depended the prospect of their being able to pay us
in the end. The trade in munitions carried us from a depression in 1914
to boom years in 1915 and 1916.
By abandoning his
neutral financial and industrial policy in favor of the Allies,
President Wilson made it possible for the Entente Powers to enjoy an
enormous advantage over the Central Powers in getting war supplies. The
only way for the Central Powers to overcome it was to resume unlimited
submarine warfare and try to sweep from the seas the ships that were
carrying these supplies to the Allies.
It was our unneutral
financing of the Allies that led to the resumption of German submarine
warfare, and it was the resumption of this warfare which furnished the
“incident” that enabled the war party in this country to put us into the
conflict. It is, thus, perfectly clear that economic and financial
pressure was the crucial factor which led us into war in 1917.
But no one need hold
that President Wilson was moved primarily by any tender sentiments for
the bankers. Both McAdoo and Lansing argued that it was essential to
American prosperity to finance the Allies.
It was this general
consideration of continued prosperity in 1915-16 and the relation of
this to the prospects of the Democratic Party in the election of 1916,
rather than any direct banker pressure on the White House, that bore in
on Wilson’s consciousness in the late summer of 1915, when he let down
the gates to financing the Allies.
Yet, it is downright
silly to contend that the bankers had no influence on
Wilson’s
policy. If he did not listen to the bankers himself, he did listen very
attentively to those who did heed banker pressure, namely, McAdoo,
Lansing and House.
The active campaign
for American preparedness and intervention was engineered by leaders of
the war cult in the
United States, such men as Theodore Roosevelt, Leonard Wood, Henry Cabot Lodge,
“Gus” Gardiner, and the like. They led in the preparedness movement,
the Plattsburg camp episode, and other steps designed to stimulate the
martial spirit in
America. The newspapers warmly supported this movement because of the
circulation appeal which preparedness material supplied.
While there were
notable exceptions, the majority of our newspapers were pro-Ally and
pro-interventionist. Many of them were honestly sympathetic with the
Allies. Others were deeply influenced by Allied propaganda. Some were
heavily subsidized by the Allies. Still others were bought outright by
Allied interests. Moreover, the Allies supplied all American newspapers
with a vast amount of war-news material always favorable to the Allied
cause. The newspapers also had a natural affinity for the bankers and
industrialists who were their chief advertising clients. Finally, the
newspapers were not unaware of the enormous circulation gains and
increased advertising revenue which would follow our entry into the
World War.
In the matter of
propaganda the Allies had a notable advantage. They controlled the
seas, the cables, and other means of communication. The Germans had
only one crude and temporary wireless contact with the
United States. Further, Allied propaganda was far better organized and more
lavishly supported. It was also much more adroit than the German. As a
result, a majority of Americans were led to believe in the veracity of
the great batch of atrocity lies relative to the German invasion of
Belgium, submarine warfare, and the like. This was particularly true after
Lord Bryce put the force of his name and prestige behind the
authenticity of such tales. Lord Northcliffe, who was in charge of
British propaganda, in moments of unusual candor, stated that the
Americans proved more gullible in such matters than any other people
except the Chinese and called us “a bunch of sheep.”
The ministers of the
gospel also joined heartily in the great crusade to put us into the
World War. Lining up behind such a stalwart as Newell Dwight Hillis,
they preached a veritable holy war. They represented the Allies as
divinely-anointed promoters of international decency and justice and the
Central Powers as the servants of evil and the agents of savagery.
The net result of all
this was that we entered the World War in April, 1917. We did so, even
though there was no clear legal or moral basis for our so doing. If
there ever was an instance in which the facts were clearly in accord
with a neutrality policy it was in the spring of 1917. We should have
fought both
Germany and Britain or else neither. But the country went into war, with most of the
citizens of the
United States feeling that our self-respect and national honor demanded it. No
other course seemed open to us.
Posted
March 9,
2008