Advertisement

Journal of Transatlantic Studies

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 389–407 | Cite as

A man for all seasons: Woodrow Wilson, transatlantic relations and the war against militarism

  • Ashley CoxEmail author
Themed Section: Wilsonianism and Transatlantic Relation Introduction

Abstract

This paper investigates the role of transatlantic Wilsonian values in the entry of the United States in to the First World War. Arguing that the offshore balancing thesis and economic rational are not sufficient to explain US entry and we must engage with Wilsonian explanations to understand this conflict.

Keywords

Woodrow Wilson First World War transatlantic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/11/17/op-ed-president-obama-and-chancellor-merkel-future-transatlantic.
  2. 2.
    For a further discussion of democratic peace see: B. Russett, C. Layne, D. Spiro, and M. Doyle ‘The Democratic Peace’, International Security, 19, no. 4 (1995): 164–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 2a.
    S. Weart and B. Russett ‘A Separate, Democratic Peace’, Foreign Affairs, 78, no. 3 (1999): 160–162 andCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 2b.
    M. Doyle ‘Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 12, no. 3 (1983): 205–35.Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    Walter Russell Mead, Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World (New York: Routledge, 2002), location 2581.Google Scholar
  6. 4.
    M. Doyle ‘Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, 12, no. 3 (1983): 216.Google Scholar
  7. 5.
    Stephen R. Rock, Why Peace Breaks Out: Great Power Rapprochement in Historical Perspective (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989) andGoogle Scholar
  8. 5a.
    Sam W. Haynes et al., Manifest Destiny and Empire: American Antebellum Expansion (Arlington: Texas A&M University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
  9. 5b.
    For further reading on Great Britain’s attempts to prevent regional hegemony see Ephraim D. Adams, British Interests and Activities in Texas 1838–1846 (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1910) andGoogle Scholar
  10. 5c.
    H.C. Allen, Great Britain and the United States: A History of Anglo-American Relations, 1783–1952 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954).Google Scholar
  11. 6.
    John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (New York: Norton, 2001).Google Scholar
  12. 7.
    Sir Alistair Horne, The Price of Glory: Verdun 1916 (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1962).Google Scholar
  13. 8.
    Paul G. Halpern, A Naval History of World War I (Annapolis: US Naval Institute Press, 1994) andGoogle Scholar
  14. 8a.
    V.E. Tarrant, The U-Boat Offensive 1914–1945 (London: Arms and Armour Press, 1989).Google Scholar
  15. 9.
    R. Trouton ‘Cancellation of Inter-Allied Debts’, The Economic Journal, 31, no. 121 (1921): 38–45 and Stephen Broadberry and Mark Harrison, eds., The Economics of World War I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 10.
    Melvin Small ‘The United States and the German “Threat” to the Hemisphere, 1905–1914’, The Americas, 28, no. 3 (1972): 252–270 andCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 10a.
    Michael C. Meyer ‘The Mexican-German Conspiracy of 1915’, The Americas, 23, no. 1 (1966): 76–89 andCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 10b.
    Patrick L. Cox, “An Enemy Closer to Us than Any European Power”: The Impact of Mexico on Texan Public Opinion before World War I’, The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, 105, no. 1 (2001): 40–80.Google Scholar
  19. 11.
    Text available at https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/zimmermann.
  20. 12.
    Galen Jackson ‘The Offshore Balancing Thesis Reconsidered: Realism, the Balance of Power in Europe, and America’s Decision for War in 1917’, Security Studies, 21, no. 3 (2012): 455–89, 487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 13.
    Ibid., 483.Google Scholar
  22. 14.
    David Reynolds, America, Empire of Liberty (London: Penguin Group, 2009), 354.Google Scholar
  23. 15.
    This line of thinking would eventually lead to the US neutrality Acts of the 1930s see: https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/neutrality-acts.
  24. 16.
    H.C. Engelbrecht and F.C. Hanighen, Merchants of Death: A Study of the International Armament Industry (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1934), 175.Google Scholar
  25. 17.
    Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000 (London: Random House, 1987), 346.Google Scholar
  26. 18.
    Engelbrecht and Hanighen, Merchants of Death, 176.Google Scholar
  27. 19.
    Arthur S. Link, Woodrow Wilson: Revolution, War and Peace (New York: AHM Publishing, 1979), 35.Google Scholar
  28. 20.
    John Milton Cooper, Jr ‘The Command of Gold Reversed: American Loans to Britain, 1915–1917’, Pacific Historical Review, 45, no. 2 (1976): 209–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 21.
    E.L. Stewart Patterson ‘London and New York as Financial Centers’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 68, America’s Changing Investment Market (1916): 264–77 andCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 21a.
    P.J. Cain and A.G. Hopkins, British Imperialism 1688–2000 (Abingdon: Pearson Education Limited, 2001).Google Scholar
  31. 22.
    The 14 points available at https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=62&page=transcript.
  32. 23.
    L.S. Rowe, ‘America as the Defender of Neutral Rights’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 55, no. 3 (1916): 259–66 andGoogle Scholar
  33. 23a.
    Alice M. Morrissey ‘The United States and the Rights of Neutrals, 1917–1918’, The American Journal of International Law, 31, no. 1 (1937): 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 24.
    The declaration of London was the declaration following the London naval conference of 1908 between the world’s naval powers to govern the conduct of naval warfare with an emphasis on the rights of neutrals. For Further reading on this see James Brown Scott ‘The Declaration of London of February 26, 1909 Part 1’, The American Journal of International Law, 8, no. 2 (1914): 274–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 24a.
    James Brown Scott ‘The Declaration of London of February 26, 1909: Part II’, The American Journal of International Law, 8, no. 3 (1914): 520–64 andCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 24b.
    Paul S. Reinsch ‘The Declaration of London’, The North American Review, 190, no. 647 (1909): 479–87.Google Scholar
  37. 25.
    Cruiser Rules were essentially a series of customs governing the behaviour of warships and there relations to civilian ships, such as allowing the crew time to disembark before sinking the merchant vessel.Google Scholar
  38. 26.
    Woodrow Wilson ‘War Message, April 2 1917’, Our Documents, http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=61 (accessed July 21, 2013).
  39. 27.
    Kendrick A. Clements ‘Woodrow Wilson and World War I’, Presidential Studies Quarterly, 34, no. 1, Going to War (2004): 62–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 28.
    Woodrow Wilson ‘War Message, April 2 1917’, Our Documents, http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=61 (accessed July 21, 2013).
  41. 29.
    Robert Tucker, Woodrow Wilson and the Great War: Reconsidering America’s Neutrality (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2007), 132–3.Google Scholar
  42. 30.
    Wilson ‘War Message’.Google Scholar
  43. 31.
    Woodrow Wilson ‘Address on Unrestricted Submarine Warfare, 19 Apr. 1916’, Woodrow Wilson E-library, http://wwl2.dataformat.com/Document.aspx?doc=30461 (accessed March 3, 2014).
  44. 32.
    Ross Gregory, The Origins of American Intervention in the First World War (New York: Norton and Company, 1971), 59.Google Scholar
  45. 33.
    Link, Woodrow Wilson, 69.Google Scholar
  46. 34.
    Marion C. Siney ‘British Official Histories of the Blockade of the Central Powers During the First World War’, The American Historical Review, 68, no. 2 (1963): 392–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 35.
    Gregory, The Origins of American Intervention in the First World War, 55.Google Scholar
  48. 36.
    Ibid., 56.Google Scholar
  49. 37.
    Tucker, Woodrow Wilson and the Great War, 133.Google Scholar
  50. 38.
    This was demonstrated by the outrage that surrounded the sinking of the Lusitania see: Thomas A. Bailey ‘The Sinking of the Lusitania’, The American Historical Review, 41, no. 1 (1935): 54–73 and its long lasting effects inCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 38a.
    Frank Trommler ‘The Lusitania Effect: America’s Mobilization against Germany in World War 1’, German Studies Review, 32, no. 2 (2009): 241–66.Google Scholar
  52. 39.
    This is not an uncontested opinion for alternative opinions see: David Reynolds ‘Rethinking Anglo-American Relations’, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), 65, no. 1 (1988-1989): 89–111.Google Scholar
  53. 40.
    Tucker, Woodrow Wilson and the Great War, 142.Google Scholar
  54. 41.
    For further reading on the February revolution see: Robert Bruce Lockhart ‘“The Unanimous Revolution”: Russia, February 1917’, Foreign Affairs, 35, no. 2 (1957): 320–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 41a.
    Michael C. Hickey ‘Discourses of Public Identity and Liberalism in the February Revolution: Smolensk, Spring 1917’, Russian Review, 55, no. 4 (1996): 615–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 42b.
    David S. Anin ‘The February Revolution: Was the Collapse Inevitable?’, Soviet Studies, 18, no. 4 (1967): 435–57 andCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 42c.
    Boris Ivanovich Kolonitskii ‘“Democracy” in the Political Consciousness of the February Revolution’, Slavic Review, 57, no. 1 (1998): 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 42.
    Although this government was itself to fall to the communist revolution in October/November at the time of the American declaration of war all of the major allied powers were democracies. Also it is important to note that the term ‘democratic’ in reference to the provisional government is a liberal interpretation of the termGoogle Scholar
  59. 43.
    Gregory, The origins of American Intervention in the First World War, 127.Google Scholar
  60. 44.
    G.J. Sosnowski ‘Letter to Woodrow Wilson’, Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library, http://wwl2.dataformat.com/Document.aspx?doc=35544 (accessed May 1, 2014).
  61. 45.
    Wilson ‘War Message’.Google Scholar
  62. 46.
    Woodrow Wilson ‘Letter to Cyrus H. McCormick, 27 Apr. 1917’, Woodrow Wilson E-library, http://wwl2.dataformat.com/Document.aspx?doc=36387 (accessed March 3, 2014).
  63. 47.
    Woodrow Wilson, Constitutional Government in the United States, Kindle ed. (New York: Quid Pro Quo Books, 2011), 1.Google Scholar
  64. 48.
    Ibid., 17.Google Scholar
  65. 49.
    In 1914 the U.S. had the economic power to warrant grate power status but had been reluctant to take on the other aspects of great power status such as a large standing military. For further reading on the United States rise to Great Power Status see: Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, and Paul Kennedy ‘The First World War and the International Power System’, International Security, 9, no. 1 (1984): 7–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 50.
    Indeed Wilson ran on a peace platform during the 1916 election: see Arthur S. Link, Wilson: Confusion and Crisis (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1964)Google Scholar
  67. 50a.
    Edward Cuddy ‘Irish-Americans and the 1916 Election: An Episode in Immigrant Adjustment’, American Quarterly, 21, no. 2, Part 1. (1969): 228–43 andCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 50b.
    James Allen Beatson ‘The Election the West Decided: 1916’, Arizona and the West, 3, no. 1 (1961): 39–58.Google Scholar
  69. 51.
    Arthur S. Link, Wilson the Struggle for Neutrality 1914–1915 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979), 25.Google Scholar
  70. 52.
    Sydney Brooks ‘The United States and the War: A British View’, North American Review (1915): 237.Google Scholar
  71. 53.
    Link, Wilson the Struggle for Neutrality, 25.Google Scholar
  72. 54.
    Wilson ‘War Message’.Google Scholar
  73. 55.
    Lloyd E. Ambrosius, Wilsonianism: Woodrow Wilson and His Legacy in American Foreign Relations (New York: Palgrave Macmillen, 2002), 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 56.
    As an associate power the United States retained more independence of action than the Allied powers. The United States was not at war with the Ottoman Empire and could conclude a separate peace with Germany if it chose to do so.Google Scholar
  75. 57.
    Wilson ‘War Message’.Google Scholar
  76. 58.
  77. 59.
    Edward M. House ‘Letter to Woodrow Wilson, 17 Aug.1917’, Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library, http://wwl2.dataformat.com/Document.aspx?doc=36121 (accessed May 13).
  78. 60.
    Adam Quinn, U.S. Foreign Policy in Context: National Ideology from the Founders to the Bush Doctrine, (London: Routledge, 2010), 95.Google Scholar
  79. 61.
    Mead, Special Providence, 163.Google Scholar
  80. 62.
    Adam Quinn, U.S. Foreign Policy in Context, 89.Google Scholar
  81. 63.
    Ibid., 90.Google Scholar
  82. 64.
    Link, Woodrow Wilson, 34.Google Scholar
  83. 65.
    Esther Caukin Brunauer ‘The Peace Proposals of December, 1916–January, 1917’, The Journal of Modern History, 4, no. 4 (1932): 544–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 66.
    Robert Hannigan, The New World Power: American Foreign Policy 1898–1917 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002), 250.Google Scholar
  85. 67.
    House ‘Letter to Wilson August 1917’.Google Scholar
  86. 68.
    Woodrow Wilson ‘Fourteen Points, 8 January, 1918’, Avalon Project, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/wilson14.asp (accessed May 6, 2014).
  87. 69.
    Also the Zimmerman Telegram was essentially a proposal of a secret alliance with Mexico.Google Scholar
  88. 70.
    On this point Wilson was successful as it is now received convention that treaties should be public see G.R. Berridge, Diplomacy: Theory and Practice (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), 72.Google Scholar
  89. 71.
    It was popular at the time to blame the European arms race and the failure of deterrence for the conflict. For discussion of the validity of this idea see: Theresa Clair Smith, ‘Arms Race Instability and War’, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24, no. 2 (1980): 253–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 72.
    Indeed on the run up to World War Two we see secret clauses in the Ribbentrop-Molotov packed to divide Poland between the USSR and Nazi Germany. Gabriel Gorodetsky ‘The Impactof the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact on the Course of Soviet Foreign Policy’, Cahiersdu Monde russe et soviétique, 31, no. 1 (1990): 27–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 73.
    Tony Smith, America’s Mission: The United States and the World Wide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), 84.Google Scholar
  92. 74.
    Ibid., 82.Google Scholar
  93. 75.
    Woodrow Wilson, Address to the United States Senate: January 22nd 1917’, First World War, http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/peacewithoutvictory.htm (accessed July 21, 2013).
  94. 76.
    Smith, America’s Mission, 85.Google Scholar
  95. 77.
    The Napoleonic period gives a good comparison as this was the last major European conflict which leads to American belligerence with a European great power since the War of 1812 discussed previously. Spain having fallen out of the great power ranks by the time of the Spanish American War. The Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars can be consider to have been between 1792 and 1815.Google Scholar
  96. 78.
    It is a fair assessment that that takeover of the communist government was the most important factor in the default.Google Scholar
  97. 79.
    This is of course what happened when the debt was effectively written off by the Hoover moratorium in 1931. Herbert Hoover ‘Statement on the Moratorium on Intergovernmental Debts and Reparations. July 6, 1931’, The American Presidency Project, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=22735 (accessed June 20, 2013).
  98. 80.
    David R. Woodward, Trial by Friendship: Anglo-American Relations 1917–1918 (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1993), 80.Google Scholar
  99. 81.
    Wilson, -War Message’.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Board of Transatlantic Studies 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SOAS, University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations