Should America Have Entered World War I?

Army recruits in New York in April 1917.

Source: Michael Kazin in The New York Times, April 6

One hundred years ago today [April 6], Congress voted to enter what was then the largest and bloodiest war in history. Four days earlier, President Woodrow Wilson had sought to unite a sharply divided populace with a stirring claim that the nation “is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace which she has treasured.” The war lasted only another year and a half, but in that time, an astounding 117,000 American soldiers were killed and 202,000 wounded.

Still, most Americans know little about why the United States fought in World War I, or why it mattered. The “Great War” that tore apart Europe and the Middle East and took the lives of over 17 million people worldwide lacks the high drama and moral gravity of the Civil War and World War II, in which the very survival of the nation seemed at stake.

World War I is less easy to explain. America intervened nearly three years after it began, and the “doughboys,” as our troops were called, engaged in serious combat for only a few months. More Americans in uniform died away from the battlefield — thousands from the Spanish flu — than with weapons in hand. After victory was achieved, Wilson’s audacious hope of making a peace that would advance democracy and national self-determination blew up in his face when the Senate refused to ratify the treaty he had signed at the Palace of Versailles.

But attention should be paid. America’s decision to join the Allies was a turning point in world history. It altered the fortunes of the war and the course of the 20th century — and not necessarily for the better. Its entry most likely foreclosed the possibility of a negotiated peace among belligerent powers that were exhausted from years mired in trench warfare.

Although the American Expeditionary Force did not engage in combat for long, the looming threat of several million fresh troops led German generals to launch a last, desperate series of offensives. When that campaign collapsed, Germany’s defeat was inevitable.

How would the war have ended if America had not intervened? The carnage might have continued for another year or two until citizens in the warring nations, who were already protesting the endless sacrifices required, forced their leaders to reach a settlement. If the Allies, led by France and Britain, had not won a total victory, there would have been no punitive peace treaty like that completed at Versailles, no stab-in-the-back allegations by resentful Germans, and thus no rise, much less triumph, of Hitler and the Nazis. The next world war, with its 50 million deaths, would probably not have occurred.

The foes of militarism in the United States had tried to prevent such horrors. Since the war began, feminists and socialists had worked closely with progressive members of Congress from the agrarian South and the urban Midwest to keep America out. They mounted street demonstrations, attracted prominent leaders from the labor and suffrage movements, and ran antiwar candidates for local and federal office. They also gained the support of Henry Ford, who chartered a ship full of activists who crossed the Atlantic to plead with the heads of neutral nations to broker a peace settlement.

They may even have had a majority of Americans on their side. In the final weeks before Congress declared war, anti-militarists demanded a national referendum on the question, confident voters would recoil from fighting and paying the bills so that one group of European powers could vanquish another.

Once the United States did enter the fray, Wilson, with the aid of the courts, prosecuted opponents of the war who refused to fall in line. Under the Espionage and Sedition Acts, thousands were arrested for such “crimes” as giving speeches against the draft and calling the Army “a God damned legalized murder machine.”

The intervention led to big changes in America, as well as the world. It began the creation of a political order most citizens now take for granted, even as some protest against it: a state equipped to fight war after war abroad while keeping a close watch on allegedly subversive activities at home.

The identity of the nation’s enemies has changed often over the past century. But at least until Donald Trump took office, the larger aim of American foreign policy under both liberal and conservative presidents had remained much the same: to make the world “safe for democracy,” as our leaders define it. To achieve that purpose required another innovation of World War I: a military-industrial establishment funded, then partly and now completely, by income taxes.

For all that, the war is largely forgotten in the United States. Combatants in World War II and Vietnam are memorialized in popular sites on the National Mall, but the men who fought and died in the Great War have no such honor (though there is a small memorial specific to soldiers from Washington, and a small national monument is in the planning stages).

Alone among the former belligerent nations, the United States observes a holiday on the anniversary of the Armistice – Veterans Day – that makes no explicit reference to the conflict itself. The centennial of the declaration of war is a good time to remember how much the decision to enter it mattered.

Advertisements

3 responses to “Should America Have Entered World War I?

  1. mike holliday

    The war – and the failure to preserve peace in the following century – can be laid solely at the feet of politicians. People in a democracy can not avoid blame. They vote for men (and sometimes women) who say they can solve the problems by force. A drone or a missile will be answered by a man or woman carrying a bomb or driving a vehicle. You call them terrorists. You call your pilots heroes.
    You KNOW that force begets force. You reap what you sow.

  2. Where does genocide belong in this discussion?

  3. Elisabeth Ecker

    There is a strong argument to be made against America entering World War 1. The punitive Treaty of Versailles caused a lot of resentment and hardship which made it possible for Hitler to gain power. Borders were drawn in such a way that created unnatural countries which still contribute to the problems in the Middle East. At the end of the First World War all original combatants must have realized that they all lost more than they gained, which would have been a considerable deterrent to start another war. American influence to the war and treaty contributed to bringing Germany to its knees with catastrophic consequences.

    I even wonder how effective it is even now, to impose embargoes or threaten a country with military intervention with the result that they cause great hardship to the population social unrest and military buildup which invariably leads to war. More diplomacy is needed which gives all countries its fair share. Too many International relations still follow the motto of Richard Walther Darre, Hitler’s Agriculture Minister, who stated: “….there is a law that superior people always have the right to conquer and to own the land of an inferior people.” the modern version would add to make sure to have access to their resources.