Why Did the Allies Win WW II?

There were three critical factors that led to the Allies’ defeat of Nazi Germany: (1) the superior air power of the Royal Air Force and the United States Army Air Force; (2) Russia’s heroic effort to hold the Nazis on the eastern front so the Allies could gather their forces for the D-Day invasion; and (3) America’s ability to out-produce Germany in the manufacture of war materiel. When the rest of Europe fell to the Nazi regime, Britain alone resisted Hitler’s attacks. The Royal Air Force defeated the German Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain and Hitler turned his eye to the east and Russia’s vast natural resources. Earlier, Hitler had cleverly bought Russia’s neutrality by negotiating a non-aggression treaty that resulted in Stalin invading eastern Poland after Germany attacked in the west. But in 1941, Hitler broke the treaty and invaded. Russia suffered millions of casualties on the eastern front, but was able to finally defeat the Germans. By the time America entered the war and geared up for wartime production, the Germans (and Japanese for that matter) simply could not keep up with America’s manufacture of planes, tanks, aircraft carriers, ammunition and arsenal. Three brutal and bloody years later, the Allied forces bombarded the Germans by air, invaded at Normandy and marched on to Berlin to meet the Russians.

Would World War II have ended sooner if the Soviets had allied with Britain and France from the beginning? Why or why not? How do you think the Soviets felt when they had to hold the eastern front for years, waiting for the invasion of Normandy?

Although Roosevelt did everything short of declaring war on Germany to aid the British, widespread isolationism in America kept us out of the war until the bombing of Pearl Harbor.  Do you think the US would have reacted differently in 1939 if it had been a member of the League of Nations?  If so, what would the US have done?

Fascism: Adolf Hitler and National Socialism

1. How did the Versailles treaty and the fallout from World War I lead to a dictatorship in Germany?

Germany agreed to an armistice in World War I with the understanding that the terms of a treaty would be derived from Wilson’s fourteen points.  But Germany wasn’t even allowed representation at Versailles and the final agreement was far more punitive than the Germans expected.  While the Americans wished to allow the German people to save face, they could afford to feel more magnanimous – they weren’t fighting the Germans in the trenches for three long deadly years like the French.  The British and the French were determined to crush Germany, not just for the sake of world peace, but in retaliation for the loss of lives and devastation to their countries.  Wilson was opposed to this harsh treatment, but in order to persuade France to back down from its territorial claims on Germany’s Rhineland, he was forced to agree to assign war guilt to Germany.  The German military was reduced to 100,000 and the Germans were forced to give up their air force.  Burdened with a $33 billion debt in war damages, the Germans’ smoldering resentment just needed a spark to ignite their anger and feelings of betrayal by America and the rest of Europe.  This gave rise to the Nazi party that vehemently opposed the democratic Weimar Republic and the Treaty of Versailles.  After Wilson, the Republican administration in the U.S. demanded repayment of war loans from the Allies.  In order to pay, the Allies in turn leaned on the Germans.  Payment of reparations, inflation, then the Great Depression, wiped out the savings of middle class Germans and destabilized the democratic government.  Hitler exploited the situation by appealing to German pride, promoted nationalism and anti-Semitism, and vowed to erase the humiliation of Versailles by creating a stronger, more militaristic Germany. 

2. Why was the Nazi government successful in reducing unemployment in Germany? What were the political and social costs of this economic success?

When Hitler came into power, he tackled unemployment by implementing government public work projects, similar to those set up by New Dealers.  One of the most prominent projects was extensive work on the German autobahn. The Nazi government poured money into auto manufacturing and construction projects.  Labor unions were nationalized and strikes were banned.  In order to artificially lower unemployment figures, jobs were take away from Jews and women and given to unemployed German men.  Hitler then made plans to rearm Germany.  The ugly side of fascism began to appear.  Business was increasingly tied to fascism and disagreement with the Nazis led to a loss of livelihood, at the very least.  The Nazis rise to power had a dark undertone of violence and menace, and the larger the party grew the more dangerous it was to oppose Hitler and his followers.  Democracy, newer to Germans than the Allies, and more fragile, was crushed.  The Nazis bullied the German population to the point where fear for their lives took precedence over their morals and laws.

3. Do you think the citizens of a fascist government gain more than they lose? Why or why not? What are the advantages and disadvantages?

If the citizens of a fascist government thought they would gain economic and political stability by giving up their personal liberties, they were naïve at best.  The promise of a new world and a new order is false lie of all dictators.  When people divest themselves of autonomy and lose control over their own government, there is no braking mechanism that prevents abuse of power.  Under the fascists, Germans may have seen an improved economy, but it was a propped up economy due to the government engaging in an illegal war-build up.  In order to move the country in the direction of war, no deviation by business or by labor was allowed.  Both business and labor lost their rights of self-determination.  If one can find any advantages to a fascist government, it may be that a dictatorship can force efficiency, up to a point.  Mussolini claimed that he made the Italian trains run on time.  In post World War I Germany, the Germans, faced with the immediacy of massive unemployment and economic chaos welcomed any port in the storm.  When people are hungry and frightened, they become short-sighted and willing to overlook small infringements on their liberties.  But if examined closely, are there any advantages to a system of government that slaughters innocent men, women and children by the hundreds of thousands, declares war on its neighbors, steals their lands and makes slaves of their populace?  No moral person could find a human advantage to fascism, unless, of course, one was a fascist themselves and believed they were deserving of this power.  To quote Lord Acton, “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  Should one claim absolute power over others, their corrupt nature should automatically reveal itself.  However, in the case of Nazi Germany, Hitler’s followers blinded themselves to his true nature and led the Germans to participate in atrocities that make Americans shudder to this day.

4. What do you think would happen in America if we faced inflation and huge amounts of unemployment like they did in Germany? What would you want to see happen in that case?

America faced similar difficulties with inflation and unemployment in the Great Depression.  There are notable differences between America and post World War I Germany.  The most obvious difference is that America won the war and Germany didn’t.  The United States began its existence as a group of scrappy little colonies and since that time had increased its reputation as a global military power.  America had never been occupied, never lost a major war and never forced to pay reparations.  At the end of the war, America’s pride was intact.  But German pride was crushed and the psychological impact must have been horrendous.  The only parallel in America would be the South after the Civil War.  America, as the first modern democracy, had almost a century and a half of self-governance by World War I.  By contrast, Germany’s first democracy was established after World War I.  They simply did not have the experience of democracy that seems to lend itself to the rejection of tyranny.  If America were to face massive inflation and unemployment at the level that Germany faced in the 1930s, I believe that that the majority of Americans who believe in our Constitution and rule of law would not allow dictatorship in the guise of “solution” to sway us away from our freedoms.  Dictatorships have a nasty habit of offering “final solutions” for those who disagree with their policies:  left (Stalin) and right (Hitler).  I believe that our laws have evolved to the degree where the lack of civil rights for minorities that existed during the 1930s in the U.S. would not be tolerated today and any programs to bring back the economy would be applied fairly and equitably (or at least as is humanly possible, given the temptations that mankind is prey to). 

Text Analysis - Bryan and Mencken

Text Analysis –

Williams Jennings Bryan – In Defense of the Bible

Theron has presented a summary of the reading in a clear, concise and balanced way, giving due respect to each side of this highly controversial and contemporary debate.  When discussing the reading, it is important remember that not only was the proceeding itself highly inflammatory, but the court proceedings themselves were very unorthodox.  Evolution and Christianity were not on trial here.  A teacher in Dayton, Tennessee, John T. Scopes, had violated the State of Tennessee’s Butler Act by teaching evolution.  What is not revealed in the introduction is that the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) offered to defend anyone accused of teaching evolution in defiance of the Butler Act.  A group of Dayton businessmen approached Scopes with the proposition that he “break the law” by teaching evolution to bring the notoriety of a trial to Dayton, thereby gaining national publicity.  So while the issue of law was being decided, a greater drama was being played out and the court even allowed the defense attorney, Darrow, and the prosecutor, Bryan(former Secretary of State under Wilson) to cross-examine each other.  The conflict between William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow was personal, and the comments that Theron highlights illustrate this point.  This trial was a metaphor for two conflicting American interests:  urban and rural.  This sectional tension has been with America since colonial days.  Northern, urban settlers with industrial development more often than not were at odds with the agrarian South regarding customs and institutions.  Fundamentalist Christianity was not a new development, either, but rather a deep-rooted part of American culture.  Although divergent groups swam in the same Progressive pool, a faction of progressives who believed in efficiency, scientific progress and expert management believed their view was superior to the more orthodox Christian approach to social ills.  The theory of evolution wasn’t news either.  Charles Darwin published On Origin of the Species, in 1859.  What was new was the ability of the media in 1925 to disseminate daily accounts of the trial across the nation.  The radio brought the trial into family living rooms where the discussion of creationism v. evolution in public schools would continue to this date.  Darrow instigated the “cross-examination” by calling Bryan as “an expert witness.”  Bryan never made any claim to be a biblical scholar.  This was a courtroom trick of Darrow’s to use his cross-examination techniques to trip up a witness to refute their testimony.  Bryan was thoughtful and courteous in response to questions like “do you think about the things you do think about?”  Darrow and the ACLU weren’t interested in the legal issues of the trial (as noted above).  They wanted to discredit Southern Fundamentalist Christianity and their literal interpretation of the Bible in favor of their belief in evolution.

H.L. Mencken – To Expose a Fool

I also agree that your  analysis was excellent.  You carefully examine the flow of Mencken’s writing from “irritated but amused to livid.”  That is a perfect description.  H.L. Mencken’s scathing attack on William Jennings Bryan in his essay “To Expose a Fool” puts modern political pundits to shame (yes, even Ann Coulter).  Mencken’s writing is so clever and articulate and the images that he creates are so vivid, that the reader almost forgets to be repulsed at the hatred and calumny contained in this article.  The sneering tone of the article implies that anyone who actually agrees with Bryan, or for that matter, lives a country lifestyle is a “yokel” and “anthropoid rabble.”  Highly revered as a voice of “reason” by the younger generation in the 1920s, his stinging words were most likely received with enthusiastic endorsement.  He was a popular satirical writer and well known for his coverage of the Scopes “Monkey Trial.”  Mencken was an intellectual, an atheist and an elitist who was not enamored of populist democracy.  His distaste of all things Southern was evident in his writing (even though his beloved wife was from the South).  Mencken’s attitudes influenced young college students across the country as he disparaged the “old” and promoted a more cynical, non-religious and urban point of view through his magazine, American Mercury, one of the most influential of its time.  This article reveals the ongoing antagonism between modern intellectuals of the 1920s and the more conservative rural residents of America as typified in the heated debate of evolution over creationism.  

A Home of One's Own

1.      Why do you think residential segregation continued for another 40 years after the Sweet case?

Ossian Sweet was a product of the American dream and a victim of American failings.  Dr. Sweet was born in Florida in 1895, the second son of a former slave.  He grew up at a time when Jim Crow laws were in full effect and American blacks faced dire economic circumstances.  While the emancipation of slaves and the passage of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments abolished slavery and gave blacks citizenship, the Federal government failed to intervene in the affairs of southern states, particularly race relations.  In the Supreme Court ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson (1986), the doctrine of separate but equal was established.  American blacks had been granted rights through Constitutional amendments, but it became clear was up to individuals to fight for those rights and many did not know where to begin. 

Because of his experiences as a slave, then a poor rural farmer, Dr. Sweet’s father was determined that his son would have a better life and instilled in Ossian a desire to educate himself and become a professional.  Dr. Sweet attended the all-black Wilberforce University, then medical school and began his medical practice in Detroit in the early 1920s.  It was his goal to be a part of W.E.B. du Bois’ “Talented Tenth” and rise above the barriers imposed on black Americans at the time.  Post-war America saw a large migration of southern blacks to northern urban centers who hoped to escape their grinding poverty.  Many cities, like Detroit, developed cultural enclaves where various races lived in homogeneous communities, and few individuals ventured outside their allotted neighborhoods.  This led to ghettos in the poorer parts of Detroit.  Dr. Sweet was determined to break the race barrier and purchase a middle class home for his family in a white neighborhood.  Suspicion and fear of blacks had spread from the south to the north, particularly after the post-war migrations.  Blacks competed with white for jobs and housing and many whites closed ranks against them.  Reaction by Dr. Sweet’s neighbors was swift and violent and he and his friends and family had to defend themselves with firearms to protect their home.  How could this have happened in the America we know today?  There was great reluctance on the part of the Federal government and courts to legislate morality.  Racism was whipped up through the spread of the Klu Klux Klan across the country and their propaganda encouraged white people to believe that blacks in their neighborhoods would drive the property prices down, increase crime rate and cause civil strife.  For decades, disreputable real estate companies scared whites into moving into new housing tracts outside the cities, bought the old houses, then sold them to blacks at an inflated price.  Real estate “redlining” (unofficial racial boundary lines) became an established practice until the 1960s.  As long as people were allowed to profit from the misery of others and justify their behavior through racism, these injustices would prevail.  It took federal intervention through the executive and the courts to rectify this evil.

 2.  How do you think this event played a big part in African American history?

The trial and acquittal of Dr. Sweet was surrounded by a whirlwind of media coverage.  The nature of the case, whether a man was entitled to defend his home and his life, was at the heart of American independence and embedded in the Bill of Rights.  The results of the trial would answer the question of whether the Court would uphold the rights of black Americans as well as white.  This drew the attention of the NAACP as a potential landmark case that would further the rights of black Americans across the country.  James Weldon Johnson, General Secretary of the NAACP invited Clarence Darrow to be part of the legal defense team.  After a long-much publicized process, Dr. Sweet was acquitted, the first black man exonerated of the killing of a white man.  Publicity surrounding the trial exposed the hatred and racism and made that type of behavior disreputable.  After the Sweet trial, there were a number of challenges to the separate but equal doctrine brought to the Supreme Court, but this doctrine survived as a precedent up through the end of World War II.  When President Truman integrated the military in post-war America, the Federal government finally took the moral high road.  Following Truman’s lead, former California Governor and former supporter of anti-Asian legislation, Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Brown v. Board of Education that smashed segregation in schools and opened the door to the Civil Rights movement.  The success of Dr. Sweet and the NAACP was another link in the long chain of battles American blacks fought for equality.  It is important because it brought negative publicity for racist attacks on blacks in white neighborhoods and the KKK, and set a legal precedent.  It is unfortunate that it took another forty years for the rest of the nation to support the Civil Rights movement.  

Was there a Sexual Revolution in the 1920s?

1. How do you define the "New Morality" that the younger generation had created in the 1920s?

The “New Morality” was result of a burgeoning economy where young women were becoming more financially independent, better educated and had more disposable income.  They were influenced by leaders of various movements to discard the mores of their parents and lead a more self-determined (and some would say more self-indulgent) life.  This was particularly illustrated in the behavior of young women known as “Flappers” who rebelled against the standards of the older generation, particularly with regard to public behavior and sexual activity. Suddenly images of “Flappers” with rouged knees that drank at speakeasies and were free to do as they pleased, flouting the “double-standard” of sexual conduct, appeared in movies, books and magazines.  Like many cultural “fads”, the “Flappers” as icons of the “New Morality” were small in number but were idealized in the popular culture of the time.  I disagree with the statement that the younger generation created the “New Morality.”  The individuals who influenced this line of thought were actually of the older generation. The term “New Morality” was promoted by Margaret Sanger in her book “Woman and the New Race”, published in 1920.  Ms. Sanger was forty-one at the time of publication.  High profile activists like Ms. Sanger promoted the idea that birth control would allow women to “improve the quality of their sexual experiences” (Kennedy, David, Birth Control in America, Yale University Press, 1970, p. 127).  Sanger had adopted the beliefs of psychologist Havlock Ellis; that sex was a liberating force.  The younger generation was coming of age after the conclusion of a world war.  The economy was booming and entertainment in the form of radios, movies and mass market magazines was affordable and readily accessible.  When American intelligentsia started following the theories of Sigmund Freud and sexual repression, together with the frank publications by Sanger and Ellis about birth control and sexual freedom, media picked up on the trend, unfortunately only presenting the enticing form, not the substance. 

2. Do you think that there really was a sexual revolution? And if so, what was the cause of it? [proceed to next to questions if you think so]

If there was a sexual revolution, there was also a counter-revolution.  Margaret Sanger’s explicit sexual advice to women was indicative of the split in the women’s movements of the 1920s.  The more conservative movements, like the League of Women Voters, would not support the Equal Rights Amendment because they believed that laws that protected women should remain in place.  These conservatives were also repelled by radical feminist beliefs that women should not only have the same legal rights as men, but should be sexually active as men.  In other words, the conservatives believed the message from the “New Women” was that women had the right to behave as badly as men.  The more radical wing of the women’s movement, the National Women’s Party, pushed for equal rights, period.  There was not a revolution so much as a heated debate as to how women should exercise their new found freedoms.  The conservative contingent was interested in expanding the lives of American women and the radical contingent wanted to toss out the old rules completely.

i.              Why would most people think that a women's new found freedom was the cause for this revolution?

The mere fact that women could vote sent a psychological jolt throughout American society.  However, while it was a major step, many women did not exercise their legal right to vote; particularly recently arrived immigrants, and black women (and men) in the south, where they were actively discouraged from voting, through literacy tests, poll taxes and intimidation.  Women, for the most part, were not active in political campaigns either.  The machinations of the political machine were new to women and still dominated by men.  However, gaining suffrage leveraged women into the position of pushing for stronger laws to protect women and children.  When a class of individuals does not have the right to vote they are at the mercy of others.  In the case of marriage where the man held all the rights, he also held all the responsibilities.  But if he did not meet his obligations or abused his rights as a husband, a woman would have no recourse outside of social ostracism of the offender through religious or family intervention (as is seen in cultures with close kinship ties).  When women gained the right to vote, they climbed another rung up the ladder of independence and equality under the law, but the potential freedoms suffrage afforded were not realized for many decades. 

The driving force behind “new found freedom” was economic independence.  During World War I women stepped into the jobs that were traditionally held by men.  After the conclusion of the war, an economic boom created a consumer-oriented economy.  More, better educated women entered the job market and were able to support themselves.  With this new independence, women were freer to make decisions about sex, contraception, marriage and divorce.  The women of the 1920s were exploring new roles in life as demanding as any the pioneers faced in the previous century.  Psychologically, the vote may have seemed liberating, but it took cold hard cash to purchase that freedom.

      ii. What role did men play in the sex revolution?

Ah, men!  Revolutionary ideas about sexuality and the psychology behind it were put forth by psychologists like Sigmund Freud and Havlock Ellis.  In spite of the spike in economic growth, there was a growing cynicism and loss of idealism that inspired Progressives of an earlier generation.  Writers like Ernest Hemingway were traumatized by the war and presented a bleak view of the world.  The promotion of sex as a “liberating force” as an anodyne to the despair of disillusioned cynics added to the acceptance of “free love” as a positive social behavior.  While the resurgence of “free love” was not a new movement, it represented a further move from Christian teachings toward a more permissive society.  It is interesting to note that male doctors supported Margaret Sanger’s views on birth control.  This clinical approach fit in nicely with the Progressive ideal of efficiency and management of a social problem by experts.  Efficiency, and ultimately, racism, led some of these medical professionals, together with Margaret Sanger, and later, the Nazis, to support the dehumanized practice of eugenics. 

If the “New Woman” was rebelling, it was not only against her parent’s strong belief system, it was against men as well.  If one reads Margaret Sanger, men were the architect of women’s evils.  They forced their wives to have sex (rape), made them bear too many children, drank in saloons and came home and beat their wives, then gave them venereal diseases.  As in many movements, the excesses of bad behavior became a cause célèbre, even though this behavior was not typical of most men.  Outrage against the suffering of mistreated women fueled the American suffragette movement that eventually led to the “sex revolution.”  We see in this attitude the seeds of the radical feminist movement of the 70s that demonized men.  How did men come out on this one?  More young women were willing to have sex outside of marriage and use birth control, therefore weakening the sanctity of marriage and made both men and women less culpable for the consequences of their actions.  Maybe it was a good thing for young men and women for the enjoyment of the moment, but the long-term disadvantages of permissiveness were dissipation and lack of direction. 

3. How did the rise of the “flapper” change behavior and fashion of the new generation? What role did movies and peer groups play in these changes?

The glamorous “Flapper” started to appear on magazines that almost every housewife in America read.  The 1924 cover of Redbook featured a “Flapper” with a story of about “girls gone wild.”  Flappers bobbed their hair, smoked, dressed revealingly, rolled down their stockings and rouged their knees.  They drank all night, danced to wild jazz music and had casual sex.  Mothers and fathers were terrified.  Young men and women were secretly and no-so-secretly captivated by the mystique.  Ever-eager to capitalize on this image, movie makers jumped on the bandwagon to exploit the popularity of the Flapper in movies.   “The Flapper,” starring Olive Thomas, was a hit.  Other actresses like Clara Bow (the “It Girl”) and Joan Crawford made their careers as Flappers.  The clothing style, as epitomized by French icon Coco Chanel, was called garçonne (French for “boy” with a feminine suffix), as it presented a young, boyish look.  The short hair, flattened bust line and straight waistlines typified the look.  Writers like F. Scot Fitzgerald presented Flappers as reckless and independent.  Men generally saw Flappers as “easy” and while they enjoyed their company, tended to objectivize them, and disrespect them.  As to peer-pressure, while popular culture and media glorified the Flapper, unless younger people were independent, it seems unlikely that “Flapper” behavior would be tolerated at home.  Dorothy Parker had the final word in her poem, “The Flapper,” which reads, in part:

“All spotlights focus on her pranks.
All tongues her prowess herald.
For which she well may render thanks
To God and Scott Fitzgerald.”

4. How was the debate on jazz and dancing (and all the themes from above) not simply about sexuality but also about race?  

The migration of black Americans from the south to urban centers like Detroit and New York City during and after World War I created “cities within cities.”  The influx of black Americans into the Harlem district of New York sparked a Renaissance of African-American culture that produced artists like Langston Hughes, James Weldon Johnson, and Nora Neale Hurston.  The explosion of musical creativity in the jazz of Duke Ellington, Ella Fitzgerald, Jelly Roll Morton, Bessie Smith, Cab Calloway (of “Minnie the Moocher” and “St. James Infirmary Blues”) and the venerable Louis Armstrong (the list is so long, it is impossible to include them all) brought whites to the Cotton Club in Renaissance Harlem to experience “real” jazz.  Music was where the social circles of blacks and whites intersected but barely.  In other ways, society was still as integrated as before.  Jazz, as well as Dixieland and blues, spread across the country though the medium of radio and phonographs.  Music and dance were important forms of entertainment in the 1920s and the influence of jazz was everywhere.  Many critics did not feel that jazz was a musical art form, but others who understood the creativity and depth it had to offer, embraced it wholeheartedly.  With jazz came dances like the Charleston and the Bunny Hop.  These dances imitated dance moves that originated in the south, mostly in black communities.  This caused a shocked reaction in people who had not been exposed to the music and dance of black American culture.  The younger generation embraced jazz music and dance not only for its virtues, but to rebel against their parents.  But when the medium of radio brought jazz across America, it became a part of mainstream culture, making black artists household names. 

President Wilson's War Speech

President Wilson had the stamina to use military force in the Western Hemisphere when deemed necessary (e.g., Cuba, Panama and Nicaragua, to name a few).  However, like Jefferson before him, he had no real desire to become involved in foreign (European) entanglements.  His War Speech makes his reluctance to go to war very clear, but convinces the listener that America had no other option at that point.  An expansionist, autocratic Germany and an increasingly interdependent global economy made it impossible for a world power not to become involved in this conflict.  Key to this address is Wilson's insistence that America does not enter this war for gain, but rather to "make the world safe for democracy."  The righteousness of the cause and the desire to support the rights of others as Americans enjoyed them on their own soil, lifted a declaration of war to the level of a modern Crusade, a quest for the holy grail of freedom.  For a man as devout as President Wilson, nothing less would suffice.

Bolshevism and the United States

Bolshevism

1. How did the national policy of anti-communism affect different progressive reform movements during the period from 1919-1920 and later?

When the Soviet leaders created the Comintern (a worldwide association of communist leaders whose purpose it was to export revolutionary tactics to capitalist countries), American leaders became hardliners against terrorism (not unlike what we are experiencing today).  The response was not without  merit:  terrorists had mailed thirty-eight bombs to prominent politicians (recipients included were the U.S Attorney General, Seattle Mayor Ole Hansen, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., J.P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller) and on September 16, 1920, anarchists exploded a bomb in New York’s financial district that killed 30 people and injured hundreds more.  Progressive reform stalled as dissenters and strikers were perceived as “Reds.”  Post-war Americans were nervous: they were experiencing postwar recession, labor unrest and the difficult task of re-establishing millions of G.I.s back into a peacetime economy.  Labor strikes were viewed as Bolshevik agitation.  Washington State’s own “Wobblies” made matters worse by opening fire on a crowd surrounding their union  hall and killing three people.  In addition, a Justice Department investigation concluded that black activism was being instigated by the “Reds.”  While this was not the case, many blacks whose experiences in the war effort gave them a taste of the American dream, were not willing to go back to the poor economic station they experienced in the south.

2. What were some of President Wilson’s motivations for sending troops to Russia in 1918, and how does this relate to his international diplomacy effort following WWI?

When Czar Nicholas was overthrown by a democratic revolution, Wilson praised the effort.  A democratic Russia was a strong ally against the Germans.  However, a second revolution occurred in which Lenin and the Bolsheviks emerged as leaders.  Despising capitalism, they believed that this was a “bourgeois” war and decided to pull out.  In March of 1918, Lenin signed the treaty of Brest-Litovsk with Germany and withdrew Russian soldiers from the eastern front.  The allies felt that communist Russia was now their enemy.  Wilson has supported a democratic revolution in Russia, but a Russia run by Bolsheviks threatened Western democracy and capitalism.  When the Allies approached Wilson with a proposal to invade Russia with the purpose of restoring the democratic government, he was hesitant at first, but then accepted the plan as part of his policy of “making the world safe for democracy.”

3. Was it a wise decision on Wilson's end to agree to Great Britain and France's plea to enter Russia in the interest of helping the Russian democrats regain power?

Underestimating the strength and organization of the Bolsheviks was a huge mistake on the part of the Allies.  In the midst of a war with Germany, desperate for Russia’s support on the eastern front, Lenin’s treaty with Germany, shortly after the Americans were entering the war was a blow (one that Lenin calculated to do the most damage to the Allies).  While Lenin was shoring up his political power and destroying enemies of the state within, Wilson reluctantly agreed with Great Britain and France to send an expeditionary force to Vladivostok to support the fragile opposition democratic government and to secure the large amounts of military materiel sent to Russia to assist her in fighting the Germans.  However, the brutal conditions in Siberia and the lack of unity of purpose for this maneuver led to its failure.  The plan was hastily conceived and poorly executed.  The only thing it accomplished was to further isolate Russia from Europe and gave the Communists further fodder for their hatred of the West.  Was it wise to support Russia’s democratic government in exile?  Not really.  Was it the right thing to do?  Yes.

4. How was Wilson's plan of making the world "safe for democracy" seem less appealing to some people Lenin's plan to overthrow capitalism and imperialism everywhere?

The communist philosophy of a world run by the “proletariat”, a workers’ world, was appealing to labor unions who struggled for improved conditions and wages.  Progressives frustrated with the lack of progress for their objectives looked to the community party as a means of furthering their goals.  There were intellectuals in the United States who idealized the movement and believed that the redistribution of wealth would be to the benefit of all.  To these groups, capitalism meant exploitation and democracy was an extension of capitalist interests.  The communist party in the United States was established in 1919, financed and fueled by Lenin’s government. 

Constitutional Rights and WW 1 - A quiz

1.  I believe that President Wilson and Congress were right to criminalize acts that undermined national security in order to effectively and swiftly prosecute this war.  But great care must be taken not to undermine civil rights to a point where they are not restored when peace is won.  The Constitution allows suspension of rights in certain instances.  When America entered the “Great War,” it was no stranger to battle and the issues of national security. The tension between national security and constitutional rights has been in existence ever since the founding of America.  Immediately after the Constitution was ratified in 1789, it was amended almost immediately with ten constitutional amendments (collectively known as The Bill of Rights), limiting the powers of the federal government and preserving the “natural rights” property ownership, and freedoms of religion, speech, press, free association and assembly as well as the right to bear arms.  As early as John Adams’ presidency, Congress passed acts that limited speech seen as “sedition” and made it more difficult for immigrants to obtain naturalized citizenship as a response to potential war with France.  Lincoln suspended the privilege of habeas corpus during the Civil War (allowed under the Constitution when “the public safety may require it”) and military tribunals sprang up to try confederate sympathizers (although that effort was squelched by the Supreme Court:  see Ex parte Milligan).  The President and Congress have been given war powers under the Constitution and Federal Law that were put in place to protect national security.  I believe that with this power comes a great responsibility to ensure that the least amount of infringement on civil liberties is imposed while protecting the safety of Americans.  In World War I, by making the commitment to send over 2,000,000 soldiers to aid Britain and France, America invested not only its finances, but more importantly, its current generation of young men and women.  The emotional stake in making sure the war was won quickly and decisively, and that the troops came safely home, added to the push to see dissenters as “enemy agents.”  To bring a country from isolationism to full-time war mobilization in less than a year was a daunting task.  The patriotic fervor that was aroused through popular culture (e.g. George M. Cohen’s “Over There” and patriotic movies produced by Hollywood), together with newspaper reporters and government programs supporting the war, were influential in raising support for the war effort.  Of course there were abuses.  The difficulty lies in extremism and vigilantism. Citizen discrimination against German-Americans and mob-style lynching were the result of frightened people reacting in a mindless frenzy against anyone who appeared to be a threat to the home front.  Wilson cautioned the population in his War Speech that he was not making war on the German people.  But through use of propaganda, all Germans were dehumanized, not just the Kaiser’s regime.  Words are powerful tools and must be chosen carefully and wisely.

2.  There are three ways to look at the statement “bend the Constitution in order to save it.”  The first way is to interpret “bend” as extending powers to the President or Congress that allows them to suspend certain individual rights during war time or threats to domestic security.  In Ex Parte Milligan, the issue was whether martial law trumped the Constitution.  It was argued that without internal security, peace and rule of law, there is no way to enforce our Constitution.  However, the majority opinion of the Supreme Court at the time was as long as U.S. Courts were open the Constitution was the law of the land.  And as noted above, in the Constitution, the President had the authority, in certain cases, to suspend habeas corpus.  The second way to “bend” the Constitution is through decisions handed down by the Supreme Court as they examine the constitutionality of enacted laws.  Judicial activism turned the tide for the civil rights movement in the stunning Brown v. Board of Education decision.  The strength of the Constitution is in the fact that it was written to establish self-government in whatever form the citizens chose while protecting certain “unalienable rights” by establishing a balance of power.  As our country progressed and matured, those principles would be tested under fire.  The third way to “bend” the Constitution is by ratification of Amendments.  During Wilson’s presidency, two progressive amendments were ratified: the Eighteenth Amendment, prohibition of alcohol and the Nineteenth Amendment, granting women the right to vote.  The amendment process is the most democratic way of bending the Constitution and the most conservative.  As the Constitution spells out the balance of power in government, so must the agents of change to the Constitution itself be balanced.  The executive may “bend” the Constitution in times of war and the Supreme Court in times of peace.  I believe that the balance that was created protects civil liberties and allows for expansion of those liberties through legal and democratic means.  Any “bending” of the Constitution that impinges on those liberties is met by restoration of those rights through political action. 

Woodrow Wilson's "Defense of the League of Nations"

I agree with Alex that President Wilson gave great insight into the philosophy behind the League of Nations. Woodrow Wilson was forced by circumstance to leave his pacifistic policy of international diplomacy and instead bear the psychic armor of war.  His mission to Versailles and the almost messianic reception he received from throngs of cheering French men and women was his road to Damascus.  The vision he saw was the potential of redemption for the bloodshed that he unleashed.  However, the failure of the Allies to accept the Fourteen Points presented as an enticement for armistice coupled with Wilson’s lack of power to sign a treaty without Congressional ratification all but destroyed his bargaining power.  Wilson’s final glory was the creation of the League of Nations.  His fervent belief that the war must stand for a higher purpose than mere political boundaries radicalized him and sent him on a cross country journey appeal to all Americans.  Wilson, in his own words, felt deeply guilty when mothers “who lost their sons in France . . . said “God bless you, Mr. President.”  “Why should they weep upon my hand and call down the blessings of God upon me?” he asks aloud, knowing that his orders were the instruments of death for those young men?   It was because they believed this war was fought to protect the liberty of all peoples and “to see to it that there was never such a war again.”  To prevent the horror of future wars, Wilson gave his very life to promote the League of Nations.  To end a war with a compromise that does not effectively resolve conflicts or creates an abused underclass (e.g. the unresolved issue of slavery in the case of the American Revolution) only leads to further war.  The tragedy here was that Wilson was well aware of this fact, and like Cassandra of Greek mythology, he was not believed when he told this simple but profound truth and thus, powerless to affect a change.  Woodrow Wilson may have had a stroke, but he died of a broken heart.

TA - First Inaugural Address of Franklin D. Roosevelt

Frieda Cramer

First Inaugural Address of Franklin D. Roosevelt, March 4, 1932

In the depths of the Great Depression, worried families huddled near their radios for the presidential inaugural address, wondering what the future would bring with the new administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.   Throughout the presidential race against incumbent Herbert Hoover, Roosevelt used his charm and wit to deflect detailed discussion about his plan to turn around the American economy.  Roosevelt enjoyed a landslide victory, but now the country anxiously waited for the new president to unveil his plan. President Roosevelt knew that he had this one great opportunity to: (1) inspire “with candor”  and to “speak the truth” about the economy so he could call for the country’s united support his of programs, that support being “essential to victory”; and, (2) to give advance notice that he was planning to exercise as much of his executive authority as was “within [his] constitutional authority,” to broaden federal assistance to individuals and small businesses and endow the federal government with sweeping powers to regulate the banking and financial industries.  He needed strong public support in order to exercise extraordinary powers to respond to “an unprecedented demand and need for un-delayed action."

Layer, by layer, President Roosevelt described the country’s financial predicament. While America still had “much to be thankful for,” he said, “it [plenty] languishes in the very sight of the supply.  Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s good have failed . . .” And the reason they failed?  “They only know the rules of a generation of self-seekers.  They have no vision. . .”  Roosevelt knew that the climate of the country had turned its back on the self-gratification and imprudence of the prior decade.  Then, in easy to understand terms, Roosevelt laid out logically and precisely how he planed to put the nation back on its financial feet by: (1) putting people to work; (2) forestalling foreclosures on small homes and farms; and, (3) regulating the banking and financial industry and “put an end to speculation with other people’s money.”  His logic was irrefutable. 

Imagine for a moment what it was like to live in rural mid-west America and listen to that broadcast.  People were barely clinging to their farms.  It was March 4, 1933 and deep winter chilled the country.  Parents and their children together with elderly grandparents sat in their living rooms around the fireplace, kerosene lamps their only light.  A large domed radio with scratchy speakers announced the new president.  Then a kindly, fatherly voice that was strong and determined came over the airwaves like a clarion call, telling the nation, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”  Roosevelt had everyone’s attention.  His stirring words gave hope, where before, only despair and loss of confidence existed.  The villains were the “unscrupulous money changers,” giving the scandals of the financial industry a biblical import.  Roosevelt’s optimistic approach was a relief to those who were afraid, who identified with fear, that “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”  With those powerful words, he exposed the nation’s fears, described them, and swept them away with his ringing confidence in the “warm courage of national unity.”

Not only did President Roosevelt understand the fear and distress his audience was experiencing, he set before the nation a goal nobler than “mere monetary profit.”  He reminded Americans that “happiness lies not in the mere possession of money; it lies in the joy of achievement, in the thrill of creative effort.”  He used inspirational phrases like “sacrifice for the good of a common discipline,” and promised to lead “this great army of our people dedicated to a disciplined attach upon our common problems.”  Roosevelt's language was inclusive and made the economic problems “our” problems to be solved together as a “sacred purpose.”  Gone was the razzle-dazzle of the Roaring 20s.  The nation had a quest, a challenge that could more readily be faced “with the clear consciousness of seeking old and precious moral values.”  The challenges that Roosevelt proposed and accepted had to be met with the highest sense of duty.  He invited the nation to put the needs of the country and one’s neighbors ahead of private gain, “on unselfish performance.”  Roosevelt challenged American society to care for all its members.  This message still resonates today as we experience our own financial crisis and look for answers that go beyond the making of wealth.

By the time President Roosevelt was inaugurated, the country had been in economic depression for over three years.  His inaugural address was the advance sheet for his first hundred days in office during which he instituted the New Deal.  The speech was filled with optimism and idealism, turning away from the cynicism and materialism of the 1920s.  It was a call to arms for the country to discipline itself in order to reverse the climate that caused the Depression; a turning point in American political history.  And a call to arms was needed.  Factory and mine workers were striking, veterans protested in the streets of Washington D.C., and farmers were dumping their crops in protest of increasing foreclosures.  The Democratic Party was composed of disparate factions, similar to the coalitions that supported the progressives at the turn of the century.  White, rural Protestant conservative Democrats were united with immigrant, urban, Catholic Democrats.  Factory workers, farmers, “drys” and “wets” voted for Roosevelt, giving him a mandate.  And through exercise of that power, Roosevelt involved the federal government in the economy like never before.  This action was necessary and immediate. His New Deal policies were a turning point in American history. 

President Roosevelt called on the strength of the American people and invoked their pioneering spirit.  He used every appeal to the mind, heart and soul and carefully laid the groundwork for his position by first calling out a challenge – that “we have nothing to fear but fear itself.”  Then he chastised those he believed responsible for the crisis.  Finally, he provided a clear vision and promised strong leadership and action to attain his goals.  He promised to work within the Constitution, but to exercise all authority granted to the Executive.  The strong application of executive authority must be exercised with caution and only under grave circumstances.  But in time of great crisis for our country, we have been fortunate in our presidents Washington, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the President the country needed in 1933.  President Roosevelt’s sincerity, clarity and strength of purpose and appeal to a higher good were clear, honest, inspiring and convincing. 

What did the Doughboys Find in France?

Frieda Cramer

History 148 – US History III

Fall 2011

Professor Benjamin Montoya

Class Discussion

What Did the Doughboys Find in France?

10/4/11

Summary

President Woodrow Wilson ran for re-election in 1916 under the slogan “he kept us out of the war.”  Within the first year of his second term Wilson would be forced to reverse his position.  America’s entry into World War I was a slow, tortuous process from neutrality to armed combat.  Although the war was on European soil and did not threaten any critical American interests or breach any key doctrines (e.g., the Monroe Doctrine), even the threat of a blockade of American goods affected an economy already in recession.  Wilson, like many Americans, also sympathized with Great Britain and France, democracies with historical ties to the United States, while Germany, by contrast, was a militaristic monarchy.  By 1916, the United States was supplying the Allies with 40 percent of their war materiel and granting loans to the Allies to help finance their war effort; America’s façade of neutrality was replaced with outright support.  When Germany sank five American vessels just off Great Britain’s coast, President Wilson saw no alternative but to ask Congress for a declaration of war.  The United States declared war on Germany on April 6, 1917. Wilson appointed General John J. (“Black Jack”) Pershing as commander of the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) and on June 13, 1917, the first American troops landed in France, almost three years after war broke out in Europe.  But the Doughboys (or at least most of them), spent the first eight months essentially as tourists before they saw any real combat. Then, when they did, it was short, bloody and effective.

Question #1

Why did Pershing’s AEF succeed against the Germans where the French and British military failed? 

Question #2

How did the status of American black soldiers during World War I change when they left the United States to fight in France?