So, the only World War I piece I've read is Tuchman's The Guns of August and my general understanding of The United States' involvement is the propaganda wave that came about from Germany's treatment of Belgium and then of course, 3 years later, the sinking of American supply and trade ships by German submarines leading to a declaration of war.
I know that Germany was viewed as a sort of "brutish" country that was trying to become a world power and that irked the leaders of France and Britain who had been world powers for centuries longer.
My simple understanding was that through the events I named prior, the United States came to hate Germany over the course of the war before declaring war. Last night, however, I was watching Ken Burns' The Roosevelts and Teddy Roosevelt, at the outset of the war, was quoted as something along the lines of "the right and wrong of this war is readily apparent: we must stand by Britain and France" or something like that. I found this quote surprising, given the level of German immigrants in the country.
Another tidbit I think I remember from The Guns of Augsut is that America heavily, heavily traded with Britain and France in comparison to Germany. Something like 95% to 5%.
So anyway, my question to y'all is what was the main source of Roosevelt's quote? Did many American's feel this way, even if they wanted to remain neutral?
Thank you so much!
Did many Americans, like Theodore Roosevelt, immediately side with Britain & France from the outset of World War I?
This is almost something that I can address but I am not sure if that would be the appropriate response. I've written a paper recently on American propaganda in WWI where I argued that most Americans were coerced into supporting allied cause. They supported the Allies but neutrality was still heavily supported.
Did many American's feel this way, even if they wanted to remain neutral?
Americans were split at the time. Some supported the allies, some wanted to stay neutral, some volunteered to go to Europe, some condemned German Imperialism, etc. There was no clear answer but there was a debate and mixed feelings about European war. Michael Neiberg mentioned that most Americans were getting their news from the Allied side, mainly Britain. And because of this the opinion towards Germany started to shift. There were rumors of atrocities (true and false) that pained Germans as the brutes so many Americans were already against the 'Prussianism' and so on, it was seen as a threat to democracy and the world order.
In 1916, Wilson got re-elected and his campaign was "He kept us out of war", but it was a close race. It seems that majority of the American public condemned the Germans but weren't too eager to get involved into European conflict. From what I've read about this time period, it seems that Republicans were more eager to draw the line and support Allies in a more pro-active way. But the public feared that electing a Republican was going to mean war with Germany and possibly Mexico.
I can't write about direct reasons of American involvement, it's not something I've studied specifically but two things stand out Zimmermann Telegram and weakening Russian position that put more pressure on the Allies.
With that said I can write about what followed and how public opinion has changed. Shortly after the declaration of war, Wilson issued an executive order to create a Committee on Public Information. The initial task was to 'censor' any dangerous news that could compromise the military (Army and Navy). British and French already had a better grip on 'unfavorable' information. The American government wanted to follow the same route.
Here is where it gets interesting. Instead of doing straight up censorship, Wilson made George Creel to be the chairman of CPI. Creel was a writer and journalist, he was a loyal supporter of Wilson and he had personal correspondence with him every now and then. Creel proposed to Wilson to disregard censorship, but to focus on promotion of democratic values instead. He also wanted to create a centralized news agency that was closely working with the military. As a result the division of news was born, it worked with the military and provided all war news to the rest of the country.
But it didn't stop there, the Committee grew larger by recruiting pro-war/pro-mobilization volunteers from various fields (writers, professors, advertisers, artists, etc.) And this is where the public opinion started to change from mixed/neutral to largely pro-mobilization.
Without getting into too much details, I'll highlight some of their accomplishments. Most propaganda posters in US from that time period were drawn by professional artists who were recruited by CPI. Newspapers all over the country were reporting on the same story from original source (CPI). If there was a campaign that needed fundraising (Red Cross, Liberty Bond, etc.) CPI was behind it and they employed volunteer speakers all over the country. It is estimated that 400,000,000 people were reached out and heard these speeches. The speeches were given in schools, factories, theaters, churches, etc.
The important thing to note is that after declaration of war the country with the help of the government and CPI went into the full frenzy mode. The public opinion and perception of war was altered. Before US entered the war, the public had a mixed opinion, there were debates, literature published, articles published, pamphlets distributed. Socialists, anarchists, pacifists, etc. were more vocal. But after American entry and propaganda we see mob violence, slacker raids, shaming, etc. It is actually quite remarkable what was going on in those years.
I am not sure if I've addressed your answer properly but here it is.
Creel, George. How We Advertised America. New York: Arno Press, 1972.
Capozzola, Christopher. Uncle Sam Wants You: World War I and the Making of the Modern American Citizen. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Hasian Jr. Marouf A. “Freedom of Expression and Propaganda During World War I: Understanding George Creel and America’s Committee on Public Information.” Free Speech Yearbook 36:1 (1998): 48-60.
of course, 3 years later, the sinking of American supply and trade ships by German submarines leading to a declaration of war.
Could a World War I expert address that? I thought Tuchman's The Zimmerman Telegram was a good argument that the Zimmerman Telegram was the proximate, and a major, cause, and that sinking of American ships had happened before without causing a breach. But that's not a recent book and it might have been superceded, hence my question.