There is an overarching traditional narrative that dominated teaching of US History and the World Wars that goes something along these lines; in the case of both World Wars, the United States desired nothing more than to remain peaceful and prosperous and was completely unprepared for the conflicts they were drawn into by Germany and Japan respectively. Despite this unpreparedness; the United States rallied, became unified, and mobilized its tremendous economic potential into a war machine that would transform the United States into a superpower by the end of World War II.
The revisionist history will challenge some of that narrative and come up with other conclusions as to why the United States remained disengaged from both conflicts. It will also contest the idea that the United States was entirely unprepared for the World Wars citing preparations made in 1917 before World War I or actions taken by the Roosevelt administration and the military that were arguably provocative against Germany before direct US involvement.
The purpose of the project is to understand how Western historiography has examined American neutrality and eventual entry into World War I and later World War II has evolved over time. The sources uncovered so far have uncovered a familiar trend; first, there is an initial writing that cited traditionally accepting reasons such as Wilson idealism as the cause for neutrality and the Zimmermann Telegram, and Unrestricted Submarine warfare as reason for entering World War I.
In the case of World War II, the horrors of World War I was a primary reason cited for neutrality. Axis aggression and eventual physical attack at Pearl Harbor was the reasoning for American entry into World War II. The challenge to those narratives has evolved since the 1960s when new methods of historical analysis emerged, and analysis has been evolving ever since. While the traditional narrative hasn’t been exactly proven wrong, it’s been proven as simplistic. While it is true, America was neutral in World War I partly because of idealism but sources also point out that ethnic rivalry internally, sympathy for both sides, and economic gain.
Also played a serious role. Economics also played a role in its declaration of war. It’s also true that America was physically attacked which drew them into World War II, but it is also true that American leadership had been anticipating hostilities and might have inadvertently (or intentionally as some have stated) provoked hostilities. As time has passed and new methods of analyzing history have been introduced, the issue of American neutrality and belligerence in the World Wars has become more complex.
Before moving onto that examination, a brief understanding of the dynamics of traditional history is necessary. Is traditional history is unashamedly biased at best and a complete whitewash of history as worst? Not exactly. In Pursuit of History by John Tosh discusses some principles of history that are important to remember such as the role history plays in reconstruction of the past. If nothing else, a good historian will build an accurate reconstruction of past events but the emphasis on the accuracy can sometimes override other concerns.
Tosh also mentions that all historical writing contains bias and that is an unavoidable condition of human psychology not matter who the writer but that is not a bad thing for history. As the study of history evolved to include social, racial, economic, and psychological lenses, so did the viewpoints taken when studying various historical periods including the Pre-World War I and interwar period before World War II. [1]
It is important to note that the traditional narrative still holds a great deal of support in many K-12 teaching programs. In his book A Century of American Historiography James M. Banner presented historiography on several different historical events through differing viewpoints but the one major point important to reference for this essay is the popular support for traditional American history amongst lawmakers and the resistance against educational funding for revisionist history.
He cites an example for a proposal in Florida for increased education funding for history programs that examined social history or revisionist history in greater detail, but the measure was blocked by then governor Jeb Bush and his supporters who vetoed the measure. [2] This is important because it denotes the government support traditionalist history teaching has in the United States.
One might wonder why this topic is important or what this study contributes to the historiography discussion. The answer is hopefully a historical teaching methodology that is far more robust than it is now. As a history student, the author can testify to the idea that a great deal of historiography, the concept of historical lenses, and historiography is not available to most students until/unless they declare a history major. This paper will present multiple angles of America’s neutrality and entry into World Wars in a way that hopefully future history will for all history students.
The 1960s was important time for history as a discipline as writers began to examine American neutrality and entry into the World Wars in a new way. A journal article National Interest and American Intervention, 1917: An Historiographical Appraisal is from the Journal of American history written in 1965. The source analyzes the historical analysis that emerged post 1945 on American entry into World War I and places special emphasis on the national interest narrative.
The author, Daniel Smith, concludes there were several complicated reasons as to why the United States got involved in World War I, including competing economic factors in America, the long-term fear of what a German victory might mean for the US economy, American prestige in the Western Hemisphere, submarine warfare by the Germans, and Wilson idealism all played a role in American involvement.[3] This source doesn’t completely dismiss the traditional reasons such as the Zimmerman telegram or Wilson idealism but expands on what other motivations the United States had for entering World War I.
The next source that examines/ exemplifies the historiographical shift is Georgia’s Entry into World War I is a journal article written in 1968 by Milton Ready. This source expands on the complexity of American neutrality and the rally for readiness by examining Georgia during 1916-1917. Georgian citizens, like many Americans, viewed the war as far away, not their problem, and were focused on domestic issues. In fact, they were not pro-British because Georgian cotton and wheat producers were frustrated by the blockade England put into place against the central powers.
This cation caused the price of cotton and wheat to drop hurting their business. However, one event would compel Georgians alter their course and that was the lynching of Leo Frank in August of 1916. That action and the condemnation and boycotts that followed, unnerved many Georgians who were put in the same league as the reported German conduct in Belgium. It unnerved them into supporting the war effort. [5]
Nothing Less than War is an eBook written by Justus Doenecke that examines American political opinions prior to and on the eve of American involvement in the war. American policymakers were swayed to remain neutral by a public that was antiwar and a political establishment that was very worried about potential German dominance of Europe and a challenge by German dominance in the Western Hemisphere.[6] The book also examines how Wilson used public and private diplomacy, the actions of congress when war finally came, and the public debates that immerged in the media and between various citizen groups with some that advocated pacifism and neutrality while others argued for an increase in preparedness.
There was also the fact that many immigrants of the United States had ties to countries on both sides of the conflict meaning supporting England or Germany risked ethnic conflict. The book also examines the public reaction of those groups once Americans began dying in submarine attacks and the negative impact of the British blockade on the U.S. economy.
As historiography has evolved, there have been further challenges to the narrative of American neutrality and entry into the war. When Memory and Reality Clash: The First World War and the Myth of American Neutrality by Russel Freure argues that American neutrality was far from neutral.
He makes this claim based on President Wilson’s complaints about German violations of maritime law with regards to the U-boat attacks on allied merchant shipping but doesn’t protest the legality of British Naval blockade of Germany or the suffering it was causing on the German populace.[7] There is also the fact that the United States maintained diplomatic, trade, economic ties with the Allied Powers during the period prior to US involvement. Wilson was deeply distrustful of the German leadership and it showed in his diplomatic policy.
The Role of the Zimmermann Telegram in Spurring America’s Entry into the First World War evaluates the role of the Zimmerman Telegram in expediting America’s entry into World War I. The article discusses in detail how British Naval intelligence intercepted the telegram but did not immediately disclose the entire decoded document out of fear of revealing their codebreaking and intelligence capabilities, as well as, the fact they were reading diplomatic code of their ally in the United States.
The article’s analysis concludes that the Zimmermann telegram and the plot by Germany to align with Mexico and Japan in distracting the United States into staying out of Europe was not a major factor in the United States decision to enter World War I. [8] The author makes this argument because Wilson waited over two months after the telegram was decoded and presented by Great Britain before declaring war. Even though the German Ambassador admitted the telegram was real, the United States was still not in any hurry to declare war on Germany. That eventual declaration came with the continuation of unrestricted submarine warfare by Germany and their pledge to expand operations to the high seas and target American shipping.
The historiography of American neutrality and eventual belligerency in World War I has undergone a significant amount of revision. Whether America was truly neutral has been questioned, reasons why American politicians and citizens wanted to stay out of war became more complex than bloodshed as economic interests and ethnic rivalries at home became an issue. American belligerence became more complex as it has become apparent the “Threat” of the Zimmerman telegram wasn’t taken very seriously by the Wilson Administration. The war preparations began in earnest in 1916 and by 1917, the United States declared war on the grounds of Germany’s increase in unrestricted warfare.
While the issues of Neutrality and belligerence in World War II seem less complicated than the issues surrounding World War I, there still has been a significant debate and scrutiny surrounding it. The earliest historiographical shift encountered by the author of this project is the 1979 journal article Beyond Polemics: An Historiographical Re-Appraisal of American Entry into World War II. Beyond Polemics is a re-appraisal of historiography of American entry into World War II.
Whereas traditional historiography might state that American involvement was in response to Japanese militarism that saw Japan take territory in China, Vietnam, Korea, and throughout the east Pacific culminating with the attack on Pearl Harbor which forced the United States to intervene. [9] Similarly, Traditionalists have cited Hitler’s timetable for conquest In Mein Kampf as the catalyst for the War in Europe. Historic re-appraisal in this source discusses a few other theories that have been put forth including those that cite a poor foreign policy (i.e. Roosevelt being too lenient in dealing with German Aggression, embargoing oil to Japan) as reasons for the eventual US involvement. The article also addresses some historians who have made wild accusations such as Roosevelt “let” Pearl Harbor happen so the US could become involved. [9]
One fact is that is historiographically universal is that there was a strong sentiment of neutrality amongst American citizens and politicians. According to Twenty Years of Disenchantment: The American Entry into World War I Remembered, 1917-1937 Many Americans began to feel and argue that the United States didn’t go to war to protect maritime shipping rights or because of a provocation by the Germans but rather at the interest of Wall Street bankers and munitions makers who were profiting off the war. By 1929, one writer, C. Hartley Grattan, suggested that skillful British manipulation, Wilson’s Anglophilia, naivete, unaccountability, and the interests of bankers and brokers that drove the country to war.
The accompanying feeling in addition to feeling like they were tricked into war was that the sacrifice of American soldiers had been in vain. Arthur Vandenberg and the Fight for Neutrality, 1939, discusses the strong and Michigan senator Arthur Vandenberg and his efforts to keep the United States neutral in 1939. Vandenberg was one of the leading voices in a coalition of Republican and conservative Democrats who wanted to keep the United States out of World War II. While he and his supporters were unable to prevent the repeal of the arms embargo in the neutrality act, he did have considerable political power in 1939. [11] America entering World War II was not a forgone conclusion and there was a strong antiwar sentiment.
The traditional narrative will also imply that for the United States, that one day of infamy on December 7th, 1941 drew the United States into a conflict it neither wanted or was prepared for. Historiography has also contradicted this narrative as exemplified in the next source. Conceptions of National Security and American Entry into World War II discusses the changing perception of American national security on the eve of World War II. In the article, the author John Thompson, examines the idea that American national security required more than physical and proximal security.
The significant developments in aviation with fighter aircraft, aircraft carriers, and long-range bombers meant that the balance of power in Europe and the potential subordinance of South America meant that the early years of the war mattered to the United States economic and idealist security. This meant that while the danger was still far from home, the United States needed to become involved. [12]
The article U.S. Policy and the European War, 1939-1941 discusses the historiography of Roosevelt’s policy regarding the war in Europe in the neutral years prior to American involvement with some historians debating his that his policies amounted to isolationism and appeasement citing his policies on German rearmament in the 1930s, limited action of the Ethiopian crisis, and backing the infamous Munich Agreement of 1938. Challenges to that had been undertaken by other historians such as Robert Dalleck who argued the president was limited by congress, public opinion, and international constraints as to how much action he could take thus was forced to compromise.
Another school of thought has stated that American actions taken under presidential prerogative might be considered or intended to be provocative against Germany. These include the expansion of supply convoy protections zones to England and running battles that occurred between German U-boats and American convoy escort ships. [13] Also, some revisionist historians began to dispute the idea that the United States entered the war because of German/Japanese aggression and attack but rather the fact that America wanted to keep their economic interests overseas intact. [14]
What do these sources suggest about the historiography of American neutrality and entry into the World Wars? As mentioned during the intro, the author has felt that the traditional narrative is too simplistic. This essay has only scratched the surface for reasons as to why the United States remained neutral for so long in both conflicts and if the research is any indication, why the United States would eventually become involved in both conflicts.
Assuming the United States neutral, there were more reasons in play than a desire to avoid bloodshed. Regarding entery into both wars, there was more in play than the perceived threat of German plotting with Mexico (World War I) and a direct attack at Pearl Harbor (World War II). At this point, the essay provides evidence that the historiography of American neutrality and belligerence in the World Wars is convoluted.
