Word War I
Responding to a listener comment on the BackStory website, hosts Peter Onuf, Ed Ayers, and Brian Balogh discuss how public perceptions of the war changed, and what inspired the U.S.to intervene…often with a little help from British news and propaganda.
View Transcript
PETER: You’re listening to BackStory.
BRIAN: We’re back, with BackStory. I’m Brian Balogh.
PETER: I’m Peter Onuf.
ED: And I’m Ed Ayers. We’re talking today about World War I. Now as you may remember from yourhistory books, the United States didn’t enter that war until 1917. But August 1914, 100 years ago thismonth, marked the beginning of the fighting on the continent of Europe.
PETER: Well, we’ve been culling comments from our website, and we have one from a listener, PeterStory, and I thought I would share it with you guys and see what you have to say. What Peter wants toknow is, whether or not Americans paid any attention to World War I before 1917, before Americaninvolvement– or, Peter asks, was the war entirely over there, that is, in Europe, perhaps of interest onlyto foreign news buffs and financial types, but few others? What do you say?
ED: I say it’s a good question, because our textbooks always have Lusitania as sort of the beginning ofthe American interest in this story. And yet, if you go back and read newspapers from the 19th and early20th centuries, they’re covered with international news. We imagine America was ignorant of the worldbefore this. I’m glad we have a person who specializes in this period here to help us understand it.
BRIAN: Where is that person, Ed?
[LAUGHTER]
BRIAN: It is safe to say that until Americans actually entered the war they tended to view it more as aspectator sport. So it’s not as though they were not interested– they were interested in the way theywere interested in how their favorite baseball team was doing.
PETER: I challenge that, Brian. It seems to me that Americans know that they’re players in the world.They know that whatever happens with this war does impact them, whether they fight in it or not,because Americans are aware– particularly in the wake of the Spanish-American War, Americanimperialism– America’s a worldwide power. It’s an empire, and its engaging with native populations inthe Philippines, and elsewhere, in ways that the British have been engaging with native peoples aroundthe world. And there’s a lot of shared experience, and increasingly a sense of shared interest, in makingthe world safe for Anglo-American trade. Let’s say Americans are on the bench, rather than up in thestands.
BRIAN: Yeah? Well, I challenge your challenge, Peter, because–
ED: All right. I like this. This is like World War I.
PETER: Join in, Ed, any time you want. I’m Switzerland, here.
BRIAN: No. I challenge your challenge, because I think what you say is absolutely true of certain elites,particularly those who are involved in commercial transactions. And I think that’s part of what people are watching very closely among the elite classes. But in fact, we know once there started to be publicopinion polling, that Americans are notoriously uninterested in foreign affairs.
This is not to say that they’re not aware of the many commercial relationships between the UnitedStates and especially Great Britain, but Europe in general. But I don’t think they envision the UnitedStates militarily engaged around the world the way we now take for granted. And if you look at our go tosource– newspaper headlines– you see headlines that scream, “Giants and Germans Lose,” referringto a baseball team and the German troops overseas. There is an element of spectator sportobservation, until we get involved militarily.
ED: Well, I think you’re both wrong.
[LAUGHTER]
PETER: Ed, you’re going to resolve this, cause you’re the third team on the field.
ED: So here’s what I would say. I think that– focusing so much on commercial, I think, is kind of besidethe point here. If we think about what has America’s major role in the world been over the late 19th andearly 20th Century, in its own perception, it has been as missionaries. And we look at World War I, notmerely as a game, but as an opportunity to use our missionary impulse. And certainly President Wilsonspeaks this language more than anybody– to come in and work things out and save the world in thesame way that we’ve been saving Africa, saving China, through missionaries. So it’s interesting that it’snot just a very cold calculation, but this missionary impulse.
PETER: Yeah. And Ed, with that sense of mission that you’re talking about, that long period ofindecision, of sitting it out, of neutrality, is not indifference. It’s coming to a clear understanding of whereand how you need to intervene. So you’re in the world– do you need to intervene now, and on whatside? Those questions don’t answer themselves at first. And it takes a period of sustained publicrelations, sustained reporting on, observing the war, before Americans can become clear– at leastsome of them, enough of them, to make the choice to intervene.
BRIAN: And Peter and Ed, we’d be remiss if we left our listeners thinking that those questions wereresolved just because we entered the war. Because, in fact, there was a remarkable resistance to thiswar, especially when we implemented a draft in order to staff up the war. And people like Eugene Debs,a socialist, were very active in opposing the war, and they had a lot of support– especially out in thecountryside, where people continued to say, well wait. This doesn’t need to be our war. What’s in it forus?
PETER: Yeah, and I think you’re right, Brian. And there’s a real revulsion against the war, and itsaftermath. The great question, why did they fight? And was it just industrial interest? Was it a quest foreconomic domination and power? I think Ed’s point about a missionary sense of Woodrow Wilson iswas absolutely on point, because Americans needed to be able to tell themselves there was a point tothis war when it was finally over. And the notion of, well, exporting democracy– that was a way ofmaking sense of it. It’s something like emancipation in the Civil War.
ED: The difference being, in the 1920s the story would have been that it was a mistake, that it wasmunitions makers that got us into this. So unlike the Civil War, in which we clean it up after the fact– oh,yeah, it was to free the slaves– after World War I it’s like, ah, gee, what a mistake. We’ll never do thatagain. And then World War II– not to run the story for people, but there’s another World War after thisone– that actually goes back and gives shape and meaning to World War I that it did not have, hadbeen isolated.
[MUSIC PLAYING – “OVER THERE”]