the prelude: moving toward war (1901-1917 ) chapter 24—part i

THE PRELUDE: MOVING TOWARD WAR (1901-

1917)

Chapter 24—Part I

America’s entry onto the world stage can be divided into three

phases:

• 1898-1917 from the Spanish-American War to American participation in World War I

• 1917-1918 during which the U.S. fought in the war itself

• 1919, the year that the U.S. took part in settlement crafted at Versailles

United States from the Spanish American War to 1917

“The foreign policy they [Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson] pursued from 1901 to 1920 was aggressive and nationalistic.” TR’s Foreign Policy

Steps Taken by Roosevelt to Make America

A World Leader in the 20th Century

• Modernized the U.S. army

• Established the Army War College

• Imposed stiff tests from promotion of officers

• Created a General Staff to oversee military planning and mobilization

• Doubled the strength of the U.S. Navy

An Anglo-Saxon supremacist, T.R. flexed the United States' muscles abroad as no other President. His diplomacy was known as "big stick diplomacy." He prepared America to become a world power.

Great White Fleet

T.R. had America's 16 battleships go on a world tour as a show of American might

Japan 21-3

• Taft-Katsura Agreement of 1905– Recognized Japanese dominance in Korea—a

violation of the Open Door Policy– In return the U.S. received assurance that

Japan would not invade the Philippines • Treaty of Portsmouth 21D-3

The Japanese were able to escape imperialism and decided the only way to keep from being a colony was to become like the industrial nations. TR dealt directly with the Japanese, a

newly emerging power in Asia:

Treaty of Portsmouth 21D-3**

• TR mediated the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 that totally destroyed the Russian navy.

• All treaty parties agreed to: – Maintain the status quo in the Pacific – Uphold the Open Door – Support Chinese independence

TR won the Noble Peace Prize for his involvement. Japan received Manchuria and Port Arthur. While publicly, Roosevelt received acclaim, he found negotiations with these two nations to be distasteful and difficult.

Root Takahira Agreement

• Japan wanted to create a Japanese Monroe Doctrine for Asia

• TR's Secretary of State, Elihu Root, worked out an agreement with Japan that

– Preserved the Open Door – Preserved trade – Protected American interests (the Philippines)

in the region

The Agreement checked Japanese imperialism in Asia

Europe (1905-1906)

Germany and France both had interests in Morocco and were willing to fight for them. TR successfully defused the First Moroccan Crisis of 1906 when he told the Kaiser to

back down.

Latin America

• Roosevelt Corollary 21D-2**

• The Panama Canal—completed in 1914 21D-1

This new U. S. policy claimed the U.S. had right to exercise “international police power” over Latin American nations

when they failed to take care of their own affairs

The Corollary in Action**

• In 1902, Venezuela defaulted on its debts• England, Germany, and Italy blockaded Venezuelan

ports and sent an ultimatum demanding repayment• In 1904, the Dominican Republic defaulted on its debts• In 1905, TR book charge of Dominican finances with

U.S. officials collecting customs and overseeing the repayment of Dominican debt

• In 1912, the “Lodge Corollary” warned foreign corporations not to purchase harbors and strategically significant sites in Latin America

These collective policies remained in effect until the 1930s when FDR’s “Good Neighbor Policy” became standard U.S.

practice

The Panama Canal—Major Benefits to U. S. of Canal Across

Isthmus of Panama**

• Shortened the journey from New York to San Francisco

• Reduced shipping costs

• Avoided expenses of keeping separate navies in Atlantic and Pacific oceans

How President Roosevelt Gained Right to Build Canal

Through Panama

He negotiated a treaty with Britain giving the U. S. sole right to build a canal across Panama or Nicaragua. When

Colombia rejected TR’s offer to buy land in Panama for the canal, he encouraged the revolt that later occurred there against the Colombians. The newly formed Panamanian

government cooperated with the U. S.**

Problems Facing Those Who Constructed the Canal

• Dense vegetation

• Mud in rainy season

• Jungle creatures

• Malaria and Yellow Fever

William C. GorgasMedical officer from

Alabama who realized that the malaria and

fever bearing mosquitoes must be

conquered before any canal could be

successfully built.

By defeating the enemy the mosquito first, American efforts proved successful where the earlier French attempt to build a

canal had succumbed to tropical diseases.

Steps Along the Way

• Clayton-Bulwer Treaty of 1850—treaty between U. S. and Britain agreeing to joint control over any future canal in Panama or Nicaragua

• The Hay-Pauncefort Treaty of 1901—this Anglo-American agreement permitted U.S. to construct and control an isthmian canal that would be freely open to ships of all nations

• Hay Herrản Convention of 1903—this gave U.S. a 99-year lease with option to renew on a 9-mile wide canal zone; the U.S. was to pay the Columbian government a one-time fee of $10 million and annual rent of $25,000.The Columbian Senate rejected the treaty.

Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty of 1903

The newly formed revolutionary Panamanian government granted U.S.

control of a 10-mile wide canal zone; the U.S. guaranteed Panamanian

independence and promised to pay the same fees offered to Columbia.**

TR used Frenchman Philippe Bunau-Varilla to negotiate with Panamanian rebels.

TR & The Canal

In 1911, TR responded to criticism of his action declaring, “If I had followed traditional conservative methods, I would have submitted

a dignified state paper of 200 pages to Congress and the debate on it would have

been going on yet; but I took the Canal Zone and let Congress debate; and while the debate

goes on the Canal does also.” Like other milestones in the extension of American influence and territorial control—e.g.,

Thomas Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase—acquisition of the Canal was affected unilaterally by presidential decision.

TR’s Foreign Policy

Ironically, TR’s image as one that subdued the dogs of war (right) was accurate during his presidency. . . but not at all the case as international events deteriorated during

the second decade of the 20th century. Roosevelt

belligerently pushed for American involvement in World War I and assailed Woodrow Wilson for not

doing so.

Taft’s “Dollar Diplomacy”** 21E

GOALS OF DOLLAR DIPLOMACY

• bring stability to troubled regions

• increase American power and profit without the use of force

President Taft’s policy of substituting dollars for bullets (i.e., TR’s “Big Stick” policy). He argued that American investment abroad would help stabilize troubled regions

while simultaneously turning a profit. As such, Taft encouraged business ventures abroad when they advanced

U.S. interests.

While Taft’s domestic

conservative policies led to an

estrangement with TR, his foreign policy, like his

predecessor’s, was interventionist.

In 1911, Taft helped Nicaragua obtain a large sum

in the form of a loan. In exchange, the U.S. received

control of Nicaragua’s National Bank. When

Nicaraguans revolted against the agreement, Taft

dispatched a detachment of Marines to stabilize the situation. Those soldiers

remained in Nicaragua, off and on, into the 1930s.

Moreover, From 1906-1909, the United States U.S.

intervened in Cuba regularly As the cartoon above

suggests, Nicaragua was the site of “exploding

foreign policy volcanoes.”

Wilson’s “Moral Diplomacy”** 21F

• Make the U. S. conscience of the world

• Condemn colonialism

• Spread democracy

• Promote Peace

Wilson sought these goals with a missionary zeal

Wilson was not experienced in foreign affairs and knew little about foreign policy. He was “a supremely self-confident man” who “conducted his own diplomacy. . . . The idealistic Wilson believed in a principled, ethical world in which militarism, colonialism, and war were brought under control. He stressed moral purpose over material interests. . . . [Rejecting] dollar diplomacy, Wilson initially chose a course of moral diplomacy, designed to bring right to the world, preserve peace, and stand to other peoples the blessings of democracy.”

Countries Where Wilson and Bryan used Moral Diplomacy

• Nicaragua

• Haiti

• Dominican Republic

• Mexico

Bryan, right, was an amateur in foreign relations. He trusted the common man and

was skeptical of the experts at the State Department. He embraced pacifism

fervently, and considered it America’s duty to help less favored nations.

Bryan developed the idea of “cooling off treaties”—a nation that sought to prevent international conflict by giving the belligerents, through the passage of time, an

opportunity to use sense and human reason in a less emotional or passion filled environment. Bryan’s

treaties were predictably naïve and failed to work.

As was the case in his domestic policy, Wilson eventually reverted to the ideas and programs of his

predecessors. Wilson intervened in Latin America more than both

Roosevelt and Taft.

Wilson’s Foreign Policy in Mexico**

Mexican president, Porfirio Diaz

(above) fell from power when

overthrown in 1911.

The liberal reformer, Francisco I. Madero (below right) replaced Diaz. By 1913, Madero

—overwhelmed by a coalition of powerful opponents including wealthy landowners, the

army, and the Catholic Church—was arrested and later murdered.

The liberal reformer, Francisco I. Madero (right)

replaced Diaz. By 1913, Madero—overwhelmed by a

coalition of powerful opponents including wealthy landowners, the army, and the Catholic Church—was

arrested and later murdered.

Victoriano HuertaMexican general who overthrew the government and seized power; he favored the wealthy landowners in Mexico and received support from foreign oil interests He resigned in 1914.

Venustiano CarranzaLeader of a group in opposition to Huerta’s newly established Mexican government; the conflict led to a bloody civil war. Upon Huerta’s departure, Wilson recognized the Carranza government.

Francisco “Pancho” VillaA Mexican revolutionary who led a revolt against Carranza (Villa’s former leader), as well as a series of anti-American border raids against the U. S. in 1916. He was responsible for over 30 American deaths.**

John PershingWilson dispatched American brigadier general John J. “Black Jack” Pershing to lead U. S. 6,000 troops on a punitive expedition in pursuit of Villa. Pershing never caught his prey.

Actions Taken by Wilson During Mexico’s Civil War**

• Adopted policy of “watchful waiting”

• Wilson objected to Huerta’s government based on arbitrary, irregular force rather than just rule of law

• Offered to negotiate between Huerta and Carranza

“Wilson’s [Mexico] policy had laudable goals; he wanted to help the Mexicans

achieve political and agrarian reform. But his motives and methods were

condescending. . . . He interfered in the affairs of another country, and in doing so

he revealed the themes—moralism, combined with pragmatic self-interest and a

desire for peace—that also shaped his policies in Europe.”

Ordered Capture of Vera Cruz

The stage was set for a drastic change in American foreign policy.

The U.S. stood on the verge of abandoning its time-honored practice of avoiding foreign entanglements and plunging

headlong into vigorous participation in world affairs.

THE CAUSES AND THE COMING OF WORLD WAR

I

Chapter 24—Part II

Even after 1900, Americans had little apparent interest in

foreign affairs. Celebrated political

pundit, Walter Lippman, observed, “I

cannot remember taking any interest whatever in foreign

affairs until after the outbreak of the First

World War.”

Statistics about World War I

• war which was supposed to last 4 months lasted 4 years (just like the U. S. Civil War)

• The "Great War" involved 30 nations• Close to 10 million soldiers were killed and twice that

many were wounded • The advent of "total war," or war involving everyone• The war's initial purpose—to determine the fate of little

Serbia—took on far greater aims• The war cost an estimated $350 billion ($3,730,890,000,000

—TRILLION in 2003 dollar value)• The Old World "blew itself up"

General Alignment

Allied and Associated Powers (49 million mobilized men) Britain, France, and Russia (Triple Entente) + the "Associated Powers"

Austria, Germany, Turkey, and Bulgaria (Central Powers)—the Central Powers (25 million mobilized men)

Dissolution of the “Old World”

• Class structure was shattered

• Belief in progress was shattered

• The war precipitated a revolution in central and eastern Europe which swept away any remnants of autocratic monarchism

• Monarchical government was abolished in favor of democracy

What led to such a drastic

change?

Root, Underlying or Long-Term Causes — Larry "Long Fuse" Lafore**

• Nationalism• Territorial Disputes• Economic Competition • Secret Diplomacy/Alliances • Militarism• Festering Hostility Because of the Franco-Prussian

War of 1870 • Absence of any Effective International Agency to

Preserve Peace

Nationalism

• Eastern European Nationalities: Alsace-Lorainne, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Poland, or Serbs, Croats, etc. within the Austro-Hungarian Empire

• Herbert Spencer and Social Darwinism—belief that some better than others

Territorial Disputes

• Imperialism was an expression of nationalism and/or racism

• It fulfilled territorial desires

• It fulfilled economic needs (e.g., acquisition of new markets and sources of raw materials)

• Areas of Contention in the World

– Africa

– Asia (the Far East)

– Near (or Middle) East

Imperialist Rivalries

Imperialist Rivalries Continued

• the New Imperialism differed from that preceding it in that its motives now operated with far greater intensity

• a scramble for overseas possessions, colonies, protectorates, and spheres of influence

• moreover, in the past, imperial expansion had a limited appeal chiefly among the upper classes; in the late-19th century, it suddenly became of vital concern to almost every strata of society

• the New Imperialism Embodied the Key Trends of the Period

The "New Imperialism" of the Late-19th Century

Key Trends of the Period

• Aggressive nationalism

• Ruthless economic competition

• Restless struggle for success

• Opportunity for men of daring and initiative to suffer hardship in foreign, distant lands to:

The Balkans — The Only Remaining "Zone of Accommodation"

The Coming of the Age of Nations — Germany and Italy

The Balkans was an area in which several of the Great Powers had conflicting interests. With the coming of the Age of Nations, 1860-1871, and the unification of Germany and Italy, it became the only region in Europe where boundary lines remained fluid.

Germany—desired control there for the Berlin to Baghdad Railway

At the Congress of Berlin ore than 30 years before, German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck (left) had noted “Europe today is a powder keg and the leaders

are like men smoking in an arsenal…A single spark will set

off an explosion that will consume us all…I cannot tell you when that explosion will

occur, but I can tell you where…Some damned foolish thing in the Balkans will set it

off.”

The Balkans

• Serbia—desired to build a southern Slavic (Yugoslav) state• Russia

– desired as an outlet from the Black Sea – viewed itself as champion of the Slavic nationalities

within the Austro-Hungarian Empire • Nationalities problem within the Austro-Hungarian

Empire

The Balkans was an area in which several of the Great Powers had conflicting interests. With the coming of the Age

of Nations, 1860-1871, and the unification of Germany and Italy, it became the only region in Europe where boundary

lines remained fluid.

Economic Competition

• The Depression of the 1870s

• England challenged as the sole industrial nation of the world

• Nations embraced protectionism and erected protective tariffs, trade barriers

Secret Diplomacy/Alliances

• Triple Entente— France, Britain, and Russia

• Triple Alliance— Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy (Turkey)

The grand irony of it all was that the powers formed these alliances out of fear of war

Militarism

• Universal Military Service

• The Great Arms Race to Keep the Nation Strong

• Anglo-German Naval Rivalry/Buildup

Anglo-German Naval Rivalry/Buildup

• The Dreadnought

• First Lord of the Admiralty, Jacky Fisher

• Admiral Alfred Von Tirpitz

Germany's shift to weltpolitic

• Germany used risiko-Gedanke or the "Risk Theory" which posited that the German fleet would become so powerful that it would be too big a risk for Britain to fight Germany

• Brinkmanship — Bluster, Bullying of Britain to Extort Concessions

Festering Hostility Because of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870

The harsh peace imposed by Germany on France sewed seeds of discontent that ultimately germinated, in large part, into the French war effort of 1914-1918.

The victorious leadership of Prussia proclaims the German Empire in the French Palace of Versailles (above)

Immediate or Short-Term Causes**

• Stupidities and Timidities of Statesmen Involved

• Pressures of Public Opinion

• Vagaries of Coincidence—the “wrong turn” taken by Franz Ferdinand’s driver

• Assassination of Archduke Fraz Ferdinand and Wife, June 28, 1914 at Sarajevo

#1—Immediate or Short-Term Causes

Stupidities and Timidities of Statesmen Involved

Wilhelm II of Germany

German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-

Hollweg

Wilhelm II dismissed Bismarck in 1890 as “Dropping the Pilot” (right) illustrates.

Nicholas II of Russia

Tsar Nicholas II (left) was out of touch with his

subjects.

Moreover, his wife the Tsarina was under the sinister influence of the charismatic but diabolical and malevolent monk Rasputin

British Statesmanship

What Prime Minister H. H. Asquith (left) had in

political experience in longevity, he lacked in

dynamic leadership. He proved to be an uninspiring

and mediocre wartime leader.

The latter was also the case with his Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey (right). Grey did, however, have the insight to understand the gravity of the impending conflict.

On the eve of the war, from his office, Grey watched the gas lights on the streets of London being

extinguished. He reflectively observed, “The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them

lit again in our lifetime.”

#2—Pressures of Public Opinion

• The fin-de-siècle outburst of literacy and the simultaneous explosion of "Yellow Journalism" was a major contributor in whipping up popular sentiment which contributed to war fever

• Lord Northcliffe and "Yellow Journalism"

The Education Act of 1870 established compulsory education in England. By the turn of the 20th

century, there existed a vastly expanded citizenry with literacy

skills. Publishers like Alfred Harmsworth, a.k.a., Lord

Northcliffe, took advantage of this “market,” luring thousands of with

his flamboyant style, bold and screaming headlines, and

sensationalized accounts of events. His is the British counterpart to America’s Joseph Pulitzer and

William Randolph Hearst.

Vagaries of Coincidence—the “wrong turn” taken by Franz Ferdinand’s driver

Assassination of Archduke Fraz Ferdinand and Wife, June 28, 1914 at

Sarajevo

• He favored moderation and reconciliation of the south Slav element in the Dual Monarchy

• This policy interfered with Serb nationalism

• It would have blocked the ultimate union of all southern Slavs under Serbian rule

Assassin—Gavrilo Princip, a Serb nationalist. Why Franz Ferdinand?

The Coming of War -- A foreordained domino effect

• Austro-Hungary declares war on Serbia

• Germany declares war on Russia (who supported Serbia) and France

• Germany invades neutral Belgium to strike at France

• England declares war on Germany

French orders to mobilize and enthusiastic French troops headed to the Western Front (above). Soldiers on both sides

expected to be home within months. They were blissfully unaware of the lengthy horror that awaited them. This

insensitivity to the awfulness of war was in large part the product of the 99 years that Europe had enjoyed without a

general war (after Napoleon fell in 1815).

Alfred Graf von Schlieffen

Long before the Great War actually took place, German strategist Alfred Graf von Schlieffen (who died the year before the war began) designed the basic attack plan used by the German Army in 1914.

He proposed a quick and powerful western blow to take France out of the war early,

leaving the German divisions to turn on the slowly mobilizing Russian Army to the east.

This “Von Schlieffen Plan” called for following the easiest route, traversing neutral Belgium.

The invasion of Belgium invited British intervention since England had guaranteed Belgian

neutrality from the time that Belgium became an independent nation in 1831. For the British, this German action was a God-send.** They were in the awkward position of being committed to a

course of war by virtue of secret alliance treaties with France and Russia. Violation of Belgian

neutrality enabled the English to enter the war without openly divulging the degree to which

Britain was already obligated. If the “sins” of the other Great Powers were ones of “commission”--

aggressive acts of war--the sin of England was one of “omission.”

German Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg (below) dismissed the British decision going to war against a kindred nation over nothing more than a mere “scrap of paper.” His flippant attitude regarding Belgian sovereignty fueled war sentiment in the British Isles.

Thus the Western World hurtled pell-mell into war. Few

at the time realized what revolutionary change this

unprecedented conflict would work.

Chapter 24 Essay Assignment

• Why did the U.S. abandon George Washington’s venerated advice & become a participant in World War I

• Was this a wise / good thing to do?• Compare & contrast the “Realist” &

“Idealist” schools of thought• Evaluate the merits of the Revisionist

interpretation of why America went to war in 1917