A Lasting Impact on American Society. This class is about an hour, 20 minutes. All right. So today were going to talk about america during the First World War. And ive called this lecture americans at war the myth busters edition. And i did that kind of intentionally. Because when we think about understanding the First World War in general, there are so many myths and misconceptions that are attached to the war that its really interesting for us to first understand why those myths exist and then to unpam them a little bit and think more about the reality of the experience, right . I want to start first by talking about how this connects to the First World War overall. So its not just america that has these myths, but even this sense of how we understand the First World War to begin with. And we think of the kind of general narrative that we attach to it. One of the most common narratives is that world war i was a senseless slaughter. Right . Weve already talked about the uncertainty as to why this war ever occurred. But once its underway there is this predominant image and we get a lot from popular culture. The idea that this really was just men sent needlessly to their deaths. And so i got two examples. One is all quiet on the western front. Youre going to like this image, right . This is the cover for the first english edition of the novel. Youll recognize that image from something we discussed last class. And last class was with german war bond poster and that soldier was meant to represent germanys last hope. The one who is willing to sacrifice for his country. And now it becomes sort of recycled as a different image. Now its an image of a man who is needlessly sacrificed for his country. And then this one over here which is from a movie from the 1960s called oh what a lovely war. And i think that this little part over here is pretty introductive. The everpopular war games with songs, battles, and a few jokes. Really the idea is the politicians and the generals play at war. Its a war game for them. But its the men on the battlefield who actually have to suffer. Now, im not trying to suggest to you that world war i did not involve senseless slaughter. What i do want to suggest to you is that this overarching image kind of obscures some other realities to the war in a more general sense. So heres just one example of this, right . We have this notion of how many people die overall in the war. We have less of a notion that actually the majority of soldiers will survive, right . Most men actually will come home. So theres tremendous numbers of casualties, but theres also a high rate of survival. So here we have a statistic 9 out of 10 british soldiers, for instance, will actually come home. So thats one thing that the senseless slaughter conception obscures for us. And the other is it obscures for us the reality that, in fact, soldiers spent a lot of their time outside of the trenches, right . They were obviously fighting. But the majority of their time was either spent in reserve trenches or far behind the lines. And we could take this even one step further to point out that for all those men that are on the front lines, there needs to be two or three men behind the lines supporting them. So there are large numbers of men who survive not just because theyre not in the front lines that long, but because so many men are noncombatants. Theyre serving in the rear. And those are people we never really factor into our narrative when we think of the First World War as senseless slaughter. The last point i want to make here about this is that when we had this myth of senseless slaughter overall connected to the First World War, it kind of obscures the fact that in 1918, there is a learning curve that happens. And there is a breakthrough in the trench stalemate. The war does end in 1918. I have this map up here to kind of show you at this moment, we had muchlt. And then in 1918 theres movement again. So there is going to be some learning that occurs about how to fight this war. And that kind of challenges a little bit this notion of lions led by donkeys, right . That the generals were stupid, they werent actually trying to innovate and to make improvements in how they fought. So the point that im trying to make here is that we can think about myths not just to, you know, point out how theyre wrong, but by dissecting them we can actually learn a little bit more about the war itself, okay . This is something we can do overall for world war i. What about the United States . So what i have for you today is i have six myths about world war i that i want to talk about and do the same thing i did in this introduction. Okay . So the first myth here, myth number one, america was neutral until april 1917. April 1917, thats when the United States officially enters the war against germany. What im going to argue is untrue about this myth is that while officially the United States was trneutral, that does not mean americans were uninvolved. And so the key point here is that neutrality does not mean noninvolvement. Right . And we can get a sense of how this is a different concept. Neutrality from noninvolvement if we take a look at what Woodrow Wilson tells the American People in 1914, right . Here we have the countdown to war. Something weve already discussed. How we get from the assassination ferdinand to the german army invading belgium. Now this is the moment when Woodrow Wilson has to say to the American People, where are we in this conflict . Whats our stake as this war is spreading across europe . And this is the quote we always hear. Right . This is the one that gets pulled out again and again. We must be impartial in thought as well as action. Right . Thats what we say. Woodrow wilson told us to be impartial. But theres another thing that Woodrow Wilson said that i actually think is a little bit more reveelg of whats going to happen. And in that same neutrality address, he said the effect of the war upon the United States will depend on what american citizens say and do. Right . So hes recognizing right from the very beginning that the government can say america is neutral, right . The government can say that we have a policy of treating both sides the same. But what the government does is only going to be one side of the story, right . What American People decide to do, thats going to really tell the tale of how america behaves in the socalled period of neutrality, right . Now, what do the American People do . Again, there are wellknown parts of this story and lesser known parts of this story. What are some of the wellknown parts . Well, we know for instance that american banks lend overwhelmingly to the allied side. Right . Thats a pretty well known part of the story. We know that american manufacturers sell overwhelmingly to the allied side. Thats one of the wellknown stories. What is less well known, is what the average american does. They reach into their pockets and they contribute to humanitarian aid causes. Right . They realize that theres some way for them to be involved in the conflict and the way for them to be involved in the conflict is through humanitarianism. Now, the person who starts this ball rolling is Herbert Hoover. And Herbert Hoover organizes a sort of massive relief effort for belgian civilians. And here you can see the kind of propaganda that he uses, right . Youve got literally hungry children holding out empty tins. Right . They have no food. They need to be fed. Hes got propaganda here about people donating clothes and people donating food to help feed these civilians. Herbert hoover, its amazing what he does. Statistics say that in terms of the amount of aid that he sent and the amount of money that he raised, there was no greater humanitarian effort organized by americans until the recent tsunami. Thats how tremendous this response was. Herbert hoover is a private citizen. Right . He has no official capacity. What does he do . He buys his own ships. Hes got about 40 ships. He paints them his own colors. He flies his own flag. He negotiates with the germans and the british to let him both through the blockade, the british blockade. And then with the germans to allow him to distribute this food in a germanoccupied territory. Right . He really in a sense becomes almost a quasination in an of himself. He enlists the help of average american citizens in this quest. So aiding belgian civilians is what americans overwhelmingly decide they want to do. Theyre not going to take a side necessarily against britain or against germany. Theyre on the side of the civilian. The person caught up in this war through no fought of their own. Right . Now, what we tend to do is stop there in the story and just talk about belgium, right . Just talk about the western front. But if we think for a second, when wilson said the effect of the war upon Americans Society depends on what americans say or do, right . The thing he was really concerned about and the thing he knew was that america had just undergone this massive wave of immigration. So he knew that, in fact, we had people from all parts of the world all parts of europe here in the United States and he didnt want the war to tear americans apart. In a sense, he was right to realize that the different places where americans came from was going to influence their reaction to the war. And we can see this through the humanitarian effort as well. So a lot of people this is a map that comes from a friend of mine, Michael Nyberg who did some research into the jewish humanitarian effort. And realize we had massive immigration coming from russia. A lot of russian jews came to the United States fleeing religious persecution. And if you take a look at this map here which shows you the Eastern Front nks right . Not the western front, but the Eastern Front of the war. You could see that actually a lot of the places that were caught up with the heaviest fighting and therefore had the biggest refugee crisis were places that were heavily populated by jews. Whenever the army, theres a lot of movement back and forth. Whenever the army comes through, civilians get up and run, right . They run as fast as they can. Because they dont want to get caught up in this fighting. And what begins to happen is in vienna, these massive numbers of refugees that are descending on these cities. And theyre overwhelmingly jewish refugees. So for a lot of these russian jews, for people who are helping belgian civilians, its a humanitarian impulse. We want to do the right thing. But for people helps russian jews, a lot of times this is very personal for them. You have got refugee workers that go up and ask them do you have a relative in the United States. If somebody says yes, do you have their name and address. And they will write directly to that person and say, your aunt, your grandfather, your former neighbor is in need of help. Can you send some money. Right . Thats personal outreach. Thats really trying to make sure that the personal becomes political. Or the political becomes personal. However you want to put it. And we can see this with italians, right . Italians are also mobilizing. Theyre very, very concerned about this as well. Places where they came from and making sure that they actually help those communities in need. And so in this case we can see its the personal that kind of motivates people in these immigrant groups to actually contribute to the humanitarian aid effort. But as the war goes on, it starts operating even when we talk about belgium. Im not sure if you can actually see what these are, but i find these things fascinating. What these are are these are sacks. These are sacks that held flour. I showed you that first picture that showed you sacks of flour going to belgian relief. These come from kansas donated as part of hoovers humanitarian relief effort. And whats happened is that belgian women who are very renowned for their embroidery skills have embroidered them and sent them back to that Kansas Community. So this is topeka, kansas, basically to say thank you. Right . And so we say, you know, people want to make a personal connection in terms of who theyre sending money to. Heres the flip side. These people in belgium are saying thank you to this Kansas Community for the aid. And these go up in topeka store fronts and people are able to see them. Its that kind of personal connection that begins to fuel humanitarianism as well. In fact, one of the things that relief workers complain about on the american side is that, you know, those clothes they donate all those clothes. The relief workers have to go into all the pockets. Because whats happening is that americans are writing notes. Theyre writing notes to people in belgium and theyre also sending bibles, things like that. And the agreement with the German Authorities says no notes, nothing. It can only be clothes, nothing else can pass. Thats how desperate people are to sort of make a personal connection about excuse me. As theyre rendering this humanitarian aid. So the point here is that americans obviously are involved, right . Theyre involved through these humanitarian efforts. And the point here is that the personal and the political become very closely connected, right . The abstraction of the cause begins to have personal meaning for people either because theyre helping people they knew or they start developing a sort of personal investment in former strangers that theyre now helping. This begins to motivate people to really care about whats going on in europe, right . Now, my last sort of point here about humanitarianism is that humanitarianism is never neutral. Right . Its impossible for it to be neutral. If we agree that this is the massive humanitarian effort that americans are actively participating in this and shaping it, its not a neutral effort. First of all, just given the geopolitics of the war, the vast majority of this aid goes to the allied side. Right . I didnt give you examples of any of this aid going to germany, for instance. Its still going primarily to the allied side. And as much as americans are motivated by the empathy they feel for these starving civilians, theres something in it for them as well. Right . Theyre also motivated in a sense by the way that they feel that its increasing the stature of the United States in the world. Right . And we can see a really good example of this in this poster from the red cross, right . They are looking to us for help. Are you one of us . And i love how the us is kind of almost says u. S. , right . Its sort of connecting the same thing here. And this is the idea that in this conflict it is american alone that can rise above and be above the fray, right . We are interested in humanitarianism and philanthropy in doing the right thing. Were not interested in actually picking sides here or territorial gain or anything else that the european nations are involved in. Were actually above the fray. And thats going to be important because what it means is that in 1917 when Woodrow Wilson actually asks for a declaration of war, right . And he says to america our war goals are better than everybody elses. We dont want any territory. We dont seek any endindemnitie. In a way the American People are already there. Right . Theyve gotten there through their own humanitarian efforts. Thats not just coming out of the blue. Theyve already begun to see themselves as a nation that can actually rise above and do some good in the world. Right . And so what i think is important here is not just to think about america not being neutral, but also to pay some more attention to what average americans are doing in the period of neutrality. Not just what Woodrow Wilson is doing or saying. Not that Woodrow Wilson is unimportant as im going to say in my next myth here. Okay. So myth number two, america entered world war i because of the sinking of the lusitania. This is my favorite one because it would be so nice if it wasnt true. All right. So this is a big one. Right . It make no sense if you think about the dates. Because lusitania sinks in may of 1915 and the United States doesnt enter the war until april of 1917. Its almost two years before the United States actually enters the war. So its interesting to wonder why people so consistently get this wrong. Right . I always tell my survey students, if you write on a test that the lusitania is the reason america got into world war i, you fail automatically. I refuse to talk to you the rest of the class. Why . Why is this a perpetual myth that we have . I think this gives indication of that. Washington stirred as when maine sank. And if you think about the overall history, think about how many times a ship going down and america going to war works for you. Name goes down, spanish american war. Pearl harbor, gulf of tonkin. If the lusitania would just fit into that, it would be the easiest thing to ever remember. Right . It would be so straightforward for you. I think thats one of the reasons why so many people tend to cite that. Thats the kind of narrative they have in their head, right . The idea were attacked, ship goes down, we go to war. Thats who you believe we are. Our Immediate Response is going to be a forceful one. What happens in the lusitania is not that. Right . Its going to take another two years before we go to war. Already sort of made that point. I think that narrative should also make us feel pretty good, right . If we look in our past, we actually have a moment where americans have died and we use restraint. Right . We dont actually immediately jump into war. But nonetheless, this is something we commonly see people making a mistake about. Right here. Now, i want to poin