The war to begin all wars
The legacy of WWI continues to haunt us.
Was the United States’ entry into World War I a tragic mistake? Historians have debated this question for nearly a century. America entered the conflict with a burst of idealism that quickly turned into bitterness. President Woodrow Wilson’s vision of making “the world safe for democracy” didn’t turn out so well — or at least didn’t seem worth the cost in blood and treasure to future generations.
Historian Michael Kazin’s “War Against War: The American Fight for Peace 1914-1918” examines the mostly forgotten story of how a diverse bunch of activists, educators and politicians fought to keep the U.S. from joining the Allies against Imperial Germany. Mr. Kazin states his belief upfront that America should not have entered the conflict. That said, he presents the war as “infinitely complex and morally ambiguous” even as he recounts the heroism (and sometimes foolishness) of the peace advocates.
Mr. Kazin links the peace movement with various progressive causes of the era, especially feminism and socialism. Women’s suffrage advocates and labor activists tried to forge coalitions across national borders, making war impossible. Feminist Charlotte Perkins Gilman thought war was simply maleness taken to “absurd extremes.” On the other side were saber-rattlers such as Winston Churchill, who felt war played “a vital part in the health and honor of every people.” It was not at all clear which side of the argument would win in America.
As the war ground on in Europe, American business interests became more deeply involved in selling arms to Britain. Mr. Kazin emphasizes how mistrust of bankers and speculators fed into a populist resistance to taking sides. Racist Southern congressmen such as Claude Kitchin made common cause with socialist crusaders such as Crystal Eastman and Morris Hillquist in keeping the U.S. neutral. What united reformers and conservatives was a belief that America would be changed forever — and not for the better — if it joined in the carnage.
Central to the story is Woodrow Wilson, who encourages the peace advocates while slowly moving his country toward a pro-Allies stance. Mr. Kazin seems ambivalent about how to portray him — at various points, he comes across as idealistic, scheming and self-sacrificing. Mr. Kazin doesn’t question his sincerity about creating a peaceful, democratic world even as he expands the U.S. military and secretly negotiates with Britain. Mr. Wilson ultimately chooses to defend American honor against German submarine attacks, even as he acknowledges the repression at home that will come with America’s entrance into the war.
Could the U.S. have kept itself out of World War I? Mr. Kazin suggests a few scenarios. One of the most fascinating involves Mr. Wilson losing his re-election bid in 1916. By running as the president who “kept us out of war,” Mr. Wilson held the peace forces at bay and had a freer hand to join the Allies a year later. His Republican opponent Charles Evans Hughes — backed by the militantly pro-war Theodore Roosevelt — would’ve been less able to overcome antiwar opposition if he had been elected.
The legacy of World War I continues into the present day. The crackdown on “subversives” during the war established methods of surveillance and control used by later administrations. Presidential war powers expanded, allowing for later military adventures such as Vietnam. The American Civil Liberties Union was likewise a product of those years. The relative innocence of an isolated, self-absorbed America ended when Mr. Wilson sent troops “Over There.”
Mr. Kazin ends “War Against War” with a salute to those who search for peace. He deserves praise for portraying that quest with clear-eyed honesty and rigor. Maybe that kind of clarity could help keep us out of wars to come. Barry Alfonso, a writer and independent scholar, lives in Swissvale (alfonso.barry@ gmail.com).