Was World War I a war of liberals against authoritarians?

Question

An essay by Robert Kagan in the Washington Post, March 14, 2019, argues for rethinking the big theme of 20th-century history as a struggle between liberalism and authoritarianism, and for an interpretation of authoritarianism as explicitly ideological. In particular, he argues that

World War I, fought mainly in the trenches along the Western Front from 1914 to 1918, was very much a war between authoritarianism and liberalism.

This seems like a very novel interpretation to me, but maybe my high school education in 1980 was biased or is now out of date. Is this picture well-supported by the historical record? Is Kagan stretching a point too far?

My picture of World War I had been that it was not an ideological conflict but rather an unintended consequence of the existence of secret treaties that allowed a trivial assassination to become amplified into a world-wide conflict. I would have also thought of it as being connected to colonialism. I'm an American, and when I think of Woodrow Wilson, I don't think of classical liberalism — I think of the Palmer Raids, hardcore racism and segregation, and the East St. Louis massacres. I suppose World War I was a war to make the world safe for capital in the US and Britain, which does align with the Hayek-style notion of classical liberalism, but Kagan seems to want to disassociate liberalism-authoritarianism from right-left economic policy.

Imperial Russia wasn't particularly liberal, so I don't see how you can claim it started out as such a thing. — yesterday
It's as good an oversimplification as most of them...which is to say "not really very good" As long as you ignore the parts that don't fit, it works pretty well as an organizing principle. — yesterday
Kagan seems to be trying to force the past into a shape that supports his ideas about the present. He isn't convincing me with this argument. — yesterday
@StevenBurnap Regarding your point that "Imperial Russia wasn't particularly liberal," I get the impression that Robert Kagan's attitude would be: "Who cares about that stupid Eastern Front? It was the Western Front that was full of Great Historical Significance, as I choose to perceive it, so let's focus on that! Besides, Russia's own February Revolution occurred during WWI, so I can patch up my theory to claim that this was more 'proof' of a form of liberalism fighting against a corrupt and obsolete authoritarian regime as part of the larger conflict." — yesterday
Protecting your colonies, your king/queen and empire is indeed what a real liberal do. — 18 hours ago

score 35 · Accepted Answer · 2019-03-16 22:50:25Z

Seeing WWI as an ideological battle between liberal democracies and authoritarian regimes requires hindsight and taking the Western perspective and adjusting your lenses for what was considered "liberal democracy" at the time. While certainly empires fell and new republics rose, other empires gained, and people continued to be oppressed. When you start to look at WWI in the moment and in detail it's less clear. When you look at WWI from the perspective of the world outside the victorious Allies and remove the "liberal for the time" distortion things start to get a lot less rosy.

Maintaining the status quo

The primary drive for WWI was the rise of a unified Germany in 1871 overnight destabilizing the balance of power Europe. Previously the UK, France, and Russia were centers of economic and military power with fractured central Europe and stagnant Austria-Hungary acting as a buffer zone. Now Germany is a new center of power right in the middle. Born in the defeat of France, and later getting into a naval arms race with Britain, Germany scares the pants off both France and Britain.

They held it together for 40 years: emperor to emperor; monarch to monarch... and France. The monarchies of Britain, Germany, Russia, and Austria-Hungary all had a vested interest in keeping the status quo to remain in power. France had a vested interest in countering its mortal enemy: Germany. Eventually it fell apart as Germany got too ambitious. France and Russia allied against Germany. That opportunistic alliance between liberal France and autocratic Russia against autocratic Germany further complicates the narrative.

Even as WWI is breaking out we see frantic shuttle diplomacy happening right up to the last moment to prevent a general European war. None of the powers are saber rattling for general war, it's all about a power grab in Serbia. Even Germany, who was goading Austria-Hungary, hoped for a quick victory against Serbia before Russia could mobilize.

Liberal democracies?

Russia is the most obvious thorn in this idea. Autocratic Imperial Russia in WWI are fighting on the side of... democracy? No, Imperial Russia joined WWI in a spat with Austria-Hungary over who gets to ~~protect~~ dominate the Slavs. These were two autocrats going to war over who gets control. It's only after the war went horrendously badly for Russia (plus many contributing factors) that allowed a Communist revolt to take hold. Then the resulting Soviet regime is democratic in name only, it's more autocracy.

And then there's Imperial Japan, at the time just getting started on a decades long brutal occupation of Korea. They joined the war on the Allied side in a deal with the UK to protect against German Pacific raiders. Japan used this as an opportunity to grab German Pacific territories including the German occupied port of Tsingtao in China which they kept. Then they turned against China with a series of unequal treaties designed to give Japan more control.

Liberal democracy for whom?

The Third French Republic is liberal democracy... for men. The UK, a constitutional monarchy, had representation for about half the men. And in the democratic US only men could vote, and in practice often only white men.

And, oh yes, their many, many, many colonies and occupied territories. Racism appears again in the preferential treatment of mostly-white colonies. Canada and Australia, for example, had a modicum of home rule. Others like India, Indochina, and the Philippines don't get democracy until after another world war and many revolts. For them the US, UK, and France are the autocrats.

Post war winners and losers

Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points for the peace following WWI made some very enlightened promises regarding the handling of occupied territories. Some were kept. Most were not. But the ideas had power.

After the Entente surrenders and the war proper is over, multiple nationalist uprisings spring up in former imperial territories. Anatolia (ie. Turkey), the Middle East, Russia, Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, and Southeast Europe all expect their autonomy. While one can view the Allies support of Central European and Baltic nationalism as a blow for freedom and democracy and self-rule... when you start to look at the Allied attitude towards other regions it looks more like a cynical buffer zone against Germany and the Soviets.

East Germany, western Russia, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire were largely carved up. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Hungary got their independence more or less by treaty and a bit of fighting. Self-rule, yes, but also convenient checks on German expansion.

Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia emerged from the chaos of German-occupied Baltic area following the collapse of both Imperial Russia and Imperial Germany. A three way brawl developed, generally, between nationalists, Soviets, and local Germans. The Allies and Whites generally threw in with the nationalists. Again, supporting self-rule, but they also act as a bulwark against Communism which scared the crap out of the Allies.

Once we look beyond keeping Germany in check, things become less rosy for the liberal democracies. In Russia we see a confused Allied intervention into the Russian civil war generally on the part of the autocratic Whites, though really against the Soviets who scare the crap out of them. We also see victorious ally autocratic Imperial Japan attempt to establish a Siberian buffer state, not very democratic. This is all in contrast to point VI.

VI. The evacuation of all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy.

Looking south at the Ottoman Empire, we see the Allies making promises of independence after the war if the locals would please fight the Ottomans. Meanwhile the Allies are making secret treaties to carve up the territory for themselves. The war in Europe is over, but Allied armies continue to gobble up Ottoman territory. Russia, Britain, France, Greece, and Italy are all tripping over each other in the mad scramble to lay claim to pieces of Anatolia and the Middle East for themselves. This mostly went according to plan, the Middle East was carved up into regions for the benefit of the Allies; not very democratic.

As for the Turks, point XII promised...

XII. The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.

Instead there was a plan to carve up Anatolia with "zones of influence" and outright annexations leaving about a third of the territory for the Turks. The Turks strenuously objected to this plan that nobody consulted them about and won their independence by fighting the Allies who wanted to carve them up.

Finally, some colonies took point V to heart.

V. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable government whose title is to be determined.

Most famously Hi Chi Minh arrived at the Versailles Peace Conference asking for independence from France for Vietnam. He was ignored and two generations of the Indochinese would suffer for it.

Years ago I read some books by Thomas A. Bailey -- Woodrow Wilson and the Lost Peace, and Woodrow Wilson and the Great Betrayal. As I recall, one of his main themes -- which is oddly relevant to Robert Kagan's point about liberalism vs. authoritarianism -- is that after Wilson came back from Paris with the draft of the treaty of Versailles, he literally expected the U.S. Senate to just rubber-stamp it with a seal of approval without expressing any reservations or exceptions whatsoever. For instance, reservations about not sending U.S. troops to help crush colonial rebellions (cont'd) — yesterday
or to put down an Irish bid for independence. Republicans were afraid of U.S troops being "obligated" by the League of Nations to do dirty work for French and British imperialism, unless they made it clear, as they ratified the treaty, that they only would send troops overseas if Congress said "Good idea!" in each case. Wilson was so offended that he told his fellow Democrats to not accept such a compromise. Since Republicans had the Senate majority, that meant the USA never signed the Treaty. So, despite his liberal ideas, Wilson's authoritarian approach doomed his own pet Treaty. — yesterday
After the Entente surrenders and the war proper is over, what? I mean, in the reality I'm coming from, the Triple Entente won the war... — 15 hours ago
The thing I really object to here is the idea of invalidating liberalism on the grounds that only men could vote. While I am not arguing and would not argue that women shouldn't be able to vote, history is complicated and women's suffrage was a comparatively radical idea at the time. That doesn't mean that great strides in freedom weren't being made. It wasn't that long before that the institution of slavery was torn down in the West. — 8 hours ago
@jpmc26 Sometimes I amuse myself, while reading works of fiction set in a medieval culture, by telling myself: "Remember, this character qualifies as an extreme case of 'bleeding-heart liberal' . . . by the standards of the times." He thinks the accused should have a trial by jury instead of just being pronounced guilty in ten seconds by an angry nobleman? "Bleeding-heart liberal!" He thinks noblemen shouldn't sexually assault female serfs? "Bleeding-heart liberal!" He thinks being the old king's son doesn't prove you deserve to be the new king? "Wild-eyed anarchist!" — 8 hours ago

JMSJMS 14.6k342113 · Accepted Answer · 2019-03-18 01:23:42Z

Question:
World War I as a war of liberals against authoritarians?

An essay by Robert Kagan in the Washington Post, March 14, 2019, argues for rethinking the big theme of 20th-century history as a struggle between liberalism and authoritarianism, and for an interpretation of authoritarianism as explicitly ideological. In particular, he argues that

World War I, fought mainly in the trenches along the Western Front from 1914 to 1918, was very much a war between authoritarianism and liberalism.

Short Answer:

I think you are mostly correct. I think Robert Kagan proposes rethinking the lessons of history to support his own politics. When he does so he largely ignores traditional historical scholarship. That is his job as an editorialist, and why the Washington Post hired him.

Detailed Answer
Robert Kagan is a neoconservative. Their movement which championed pre-emptive war in Iraq after 911 promotes alternative views of history to support their own agenda. Recasting Woodrow Wilson's as a Liberal and claiming he was a historical example to their interventionist ideology in WWI. "Make the World Safe for Democracy" joined with the "Democratic War theory" are used to demonstrate how broad politically their ideology of intervention was historically, even liberal Democrats used this policy.

The association with history the neoconservatives put forward are jingoistic and don't penetrate much beyond slogans. A more traditional interpretation of history would say that Woodrow Wilson was a conservative democrat from the South who only became president when the liberal vote was split by Teddy Roosevelt's bull moose party and Roosevelt's hand picked successor William Howard Taft in the 1912 election. That WWI lasted for a little longer than 4 years (1564 days) and that Americans involvement was only 1 year seven months.

That when WWI began in 1914 Wilson pledged neutrality and kept that position for most of the war. That as you say Wilson had significant other reasons for involving the United States in WWI not the least of which were economic.

The UK was America's largest foreign trade partner.

That American Banks lead by J.P Morgan had heavily invested in France and the UK and had also invested thousands of other American Banks deposits in that outcome.

“Zimmermann Telegram” where Germany was conspiring with Mexico to attack the United States.

Unrestricted U-boat warfare in the Atlantic including the sinking of the Lusitania and the death of 120 Americans, turned public opinion away from Neutrality.

Democratic Peace Theory - Democracies don't make war on other democracies. First proposed by age of reason philosopher Immanuel Kant and political theorist Thomas Paine in the late 1700's when there weren't very many democracies around. That they proposed it not as an observation of historical fact as neoconservatives do, but as a conjecture based upon their belief in the future benefits of democracy. History has recorded many wars between Democracies.

Punic Wars between ( Roman Republic and Carthage )

The American Revolution

Quasi War between French and American Republics

War of 1812.

Mexican American War

American Civil War

Sonderbund War in Switzerland

War of 1849 between Roman Republic and French Second Republic

War of 1859 between Peru and Ecuador

Spanish American War

Philippine-American War

First and Second Boar Wars

First Balkan War (1912)

WWI

Polish Lithuanian War

Continuation War

Israeli War of Independence

First Kashmir War

Six Day War

Football War between ElSalvador and Honduras

Turkish Invasion of Cyprus

Paquisha War (Ecuador and Peru )

Yugoslav Wars

Cenepa War

Sources:

Robert Kagan

War Between Democracies

Democratic Peace Theory

J. P. Morgan

LangLangCLangLangC 25.9k584133 · Accepted Answer · 2019-03-18 10:12:41Z

If you either accept the war-guilt clause in the treaty of Versailles, or the German ambitions hypothesis of Fritz Fischer, then who started the war? Germany!

And what were the driving forces in that country at the time?

The chancellor at the time was

Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg held liberal views and was close to the Progressive People's Party.

The whole affair of financing to be able to continue the war in Germany hinged on the support of the worker's party, the Social-Democratic Party.

The main drivers for expansionist war aims where of course found in the military, the aggressive Prussian military? Well, not exclusively.

The war aims majority (for the 'offical' programme by Bethman-Hollweg) in the Reichstag extended from conservative and liberal parties to the social democratic camp.

Then there were non-parliamentary industrialists, like Rathenau, staunch liberals, who went even further and formulated views that called for annexation of vast swathes of land.

This is not to say that Imperial Germany was a liberal democracy in the absolutes. But it was much more liberal compared to Imperial Russia. And it was in no small part the liberals themselves in Germany that drove the way to war and prolonged it.

In short, if that liberal vs authoritarian thesis were true, then we should have seen the British with the Germans against the Russians. That is an experimental setup we only see realised in recent years.

score 35 · Accepted Answer · 2019-03-16 22:50:25Z

Seeing WWI as an ideological battle between liberal democracies and authoritarian regimes requires hindsight and taking the Western perspective and adjusting your lenses for what was considered "liberal democracy" at the time. While certainly empires fell and new republics rose, other empires gained, and people continued to be oppressed. When you start to look at WWI in the moment and in detail it's less clear. When you look at WWI from the perspective of the world outside the victorious Allies and remove the "liberal for the time" distortion things start to get a lot less rosy.

Maintaining the status quo

The primary drive for WWI was the rise of a unified Germany in 1871 overnight destabilizing the balance of power Europe. Previously the UK, France, and Russia were centers of economic and military power with fractured central Europe and stagnant Austria-Hungary acting as a buffer zone. Now Germany is a new center of power right in the middle. Born in the defeat of France, and later getting into a naval arms race with Britain, Germany scares the pants off both France and Britain.

They held it together for 40 years: emperor to emperor; monarch to monarch... and France. The monarchies of Britain, Germany, Russia, and Austria-Hungary all had a vested interest in keeping the status quo to remain in power. France had a vested interest in countering its mortal enemy: Germany. Eventually it fell apart as Germany got too ambitious. France and Russia allied against Germany. That opportunistic alliance between liberal France and autocratic Russia against autocratic Germany further complicates the narrative.

Even as WWI is breaking out we see frantic shuttle diplomacy happening right up to the last moment to prevent a general European war. None of the powers are saber rattling for general war, it's all about a power grab in Serbia. Even Germany, who was goading Austria-Hungary, hoped for a quick victory against Serbia before Russia could mobilize.

Liberal democracies?

Russia is the most obvious thorn in this idea. Autocratic Imperial Russia in WWI are fighting on the side of... democracy? No, Imperial Russia joined WWI in a spat with Austria-Hungary over who gets to ~~protect~~ dominate the Slavs. These were two autocrats going to war over who gets control. It's only after the war went horrendously badly for Russia (plus many contributing factors) that allowed a Communist revolt to take hold. Then the resulting Soviet regime is democratic in name only, it's more autocracy.

And then there's Imperial Japan, at the time just getting started on a decades long brutal occupation of Korea. They joined the war on the Allied side in a deal with the UK to protect against German Pacific raiders. Japan used this as an opportunity to grab German Pacific territories including the German occupied port of Tsingtao in China which they kept. Then they turned against China with a series of unequal treaties designed to give Japan more control.

Liberal democracy for whom?

The Third French Republic is liberal democracy... for men. The UK, a constitutional monarchy, had representation for about half the men. And in the democratic US only men could vote, and in practice often only white men.

And, oh yes, their many, many, many colonies and occupied territories. Racism appears again in the preferential treatment of mostly-white colonies. Canada and Australia, for example, had a modicum of home rule. Others like India, Indochina, and the Philippines don't get democracy until after another world war and many revolts. For them the US, UK, and France are the autocrats.

Post war winners and losers

Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points for the peace following WWI made some very enlightened promises regarding the handling of occupied territories. Some were kept. Most were not. But the ideas had power.

After the Entente surrenders and the war proper is over, multiple nationalist uprisings spring up in former imperial territories. Anatolia (ie. Turkey), the Middle East, Russia, Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, and Southeast Europe all expect their autonomy. While one can view the Allies support of Central European and Baltic nationalism as a blow for freedom and democracy and self-rule... when you start to look at the Allied attitude towards other regions it looks more like a cynical buffer zone against Germany and the Soviets.

East Germany, western Russia, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire were largely carved up. Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Hungary got their independence more or less by treaty and a bit of fighting. Self-rule, yes, but also convenient checks on German expansion.

Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia emerged from the chaos of German-occupied Baltic area following the collapse of both Imperial Russia and Imperial Germany. A three way brawl developed, generally, between nationalists, Soviets, and local Germans. The Allies and Whites generally threw in with the nationalists. Again, supporting self-rule, but they also act as a bulwark against Communism which scared the crap out of the Allies.

Once we look beyond keeping Germany in check, things become less rosy for the liberal democracies. In Russia we see a confused Allied intervention into the Russian civil war generally on the part of the autocratic Whites, though really against the Soviets who scare the crap out of them. We also see victorious ally autocratic Imperial Japan attempt to establish a Siberian buffer state, not very democratic. This is all in contrast to point VI.

VI. The evacuation of all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy.

Looking south at the Ottoman Empire, we see the Allies making promises of independence after the war if the locals would please fight the Ottomans. Meanwhile the Allies are making secret treaties to carve up the territory for themselves. The war in Europe is over, but Allied armies continue to gobble up Ottoman territory. Russia, Britain, France, Greece, and Italy are all tripping over each other in the mad scramble to lay claim to pieces of Anatolia and the Middle East for themselves. This mostly went according to plan, the Middle East was carved up into regions for the benefit of the Allies; not very democratic.

As for the Turks, point XII promised...

XII. The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.

Instead there was a plan to carve up Anatolia with "zones of influence" and outright annexations leaving about a third of the territory for the Turks. The Turks strenuously objected to this plan that nobody consulted them about and won their independence by fighting the Allies who wanted to carve them up.

Finally, some colonies took point V to heart.

V. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable government whose title is to be determined.

Most famously Hi Chi Minh arrived at the Versailles Peace Conference asking for independence from France for Vietnam. He was ignored and two generations of the Indochinese would suffer for it.

Years ago I read some books by Thomas A. Bailey -- Woodrow Wilson and the Lost Peace, and Woodrow Wilson and the Great Betrayal. As I recall, one of his main themes -- which is oddly relevant to Robert Kagan's point about liberalism vs. authoritarianism -- is that after Wilson came back from Paris with the draft of the treaty of Versailles, he literally expected the U.S. Senate to just rubber-stamp it with a seal of approval without expressing any reservations or exceptions whatsoever. For instance, reservations about not sending U.S. troops to help crush colonial rebellions (cont'd) — yesterday
or to put down an Irish bid for independence. Republicans were afraid of U.S troops being "obligated" by the League of Nations to do dirty work for French and British imperialism, unless they made it clear, as they ratified the treaty, that they only would send troops overseas if Congress said "Good idea!" in each case. Wilson was so offended that he told his fellow Democrats to not accept such a compromise. Since Republicans had the Senate majority, that meant the USA never signed the Treaty. So, despite his liberal ideas, Wilson's authoritarian approach doomed his own pet Treaty. — yesterday
After the Entente surrenders and the war proper is over, what? I mean, in the reality I'm coming from, the Triple Entente won the war... — 15 hours ago
The thing I really object to here is the idea of invalidating liberalism on the grounds that only men could vote. While I am not arguing and would not argue that women shouldn't be able to vote, history is complicated and women's suffrage was a comparatively radical idea at the time. That doesn't mean that great strides in freedom weren't being made. It wasn't that long before that the institution of slavery was torn down in the West. — 8 hours ago
@jpmc26 Sometimes I amuse myself, while reading works of fiction set in a medieval culture, by telling myself: "Remember, this character qualifies as an extreme case of 'bleeding-heart liberal' . . . by the standards of the times." He thinks the accused should have a trial by jury instead of just being pronounced guilty in ten seconds by an angry nobleman? "Bleeding-heart liberal!" He thinks noblemen shouldn't sexually assault female serfs? "Bleeding-heart liberal!" He thinks being the old king's son doesn't prove you deserve to be the new king? "Wild-eyed anarchist!" — 8 hours ago

JMSJMS 14.6k342113 · Accepted Answer · 2019-03-18 01:23:42Z

Question:
World War I as a war of liberals against authoritarians?

An essay by Robert Kagan in the Washington Post, March 14, 2019, argues for rethinking the big theme of 20th-century history as a struggle between liberalism and authoritarianism, and for an interpretation of authoritarianism as explicitly ideological. In particular, he argues that

World War I, fought mainly in the trenches along the Western Front from 1914 to 1918, was very much a war between authoritarianism and liberalism.

Short Answer:

I think you are mostly correct. I think Robert Kagan proposes rethinking the lessons of history to support his own politics. When he does so he largely ignores traditional historical scholarship. That is his job as an editorialist, and why the Washington Post hired him.

Detailed Answer
Robert Kagan is a neoconservative. Their movement which championed pre-emptive war in Iraq after 911 promotes alternative views of history to support their own agenda. Recasting Woodrow Wilson's as a Liberal and claiming he was a historical example to their interventionist ideology in WWI. "Make the World Safe for Democracy" joined with the "Democratic War theory" are used to demonstrate how broad politically their ideology of intervention was historically, even liberal Democrats used this policy.

The association with history the neoconservatives put forward are jingoistic and don't penetrate much beyond slogans. A more traditional interpretation of history would say that Woodrow Wilson was a conservative democrat from the South who only became president when the liberal vote was split by Teddy Roosevelt's bull moose party and Roosevelt's hand picked successor William Howard Taft in the 1912 election. That WWI lasted for a little longer than 4 years (1564 days) and that Americans involvement was only 1 year seven months.

That when WWI began in 1914 Wilson pledged neutrality and kept that position for most of the war. That as you say Wilson had significant other reasons for involving the United States in WWI not the least of which were economic.

The UK was America's largest foreign trade partner.

That American Banks lead by J.P Morgan had heavily invested in France and the UK and had also invested thousands of other American Banks deposits in that outcome.

“Zimmermann Telegram” where Germany was conspiring with Mexico to attack the United States.

Unrestricted U-boat warfare in the Atlantic including the sinking of the Lusitania and the death of 120 Americans, turned public opinion away from Neutrality.

Democratic Peace Theory - Democracies don't make war on other democracies. First proposed by age of reason philosopher Immanuel Kant and political theorist Thomas Paine in the late 1700's when there weren't very many democracies around. That they proposed it not as an observation of historical fact as neoconservatives do, but as a conjecture based upon their belief in the future benefits of democracy. History has recorded many wars between Democracies.

Punic Wars between ( Roman Republic and Carthage )

The American Revolution

Quasi War between French and American Republics

War of 1812.

Mexican American War

American Civil War

Sonderbund War in Switzerland

War of 1849 between Roman Republic and French Second Republic

War of 1859 between Peru and Ecuador

Spanish American War

Philippine-American War

First and Second Boar Wars

First Balkan War (1912)

WWI

Polish Lithuanian War

Continuation War

Israeli War of Independence

First Kashmir War

Six Day War

Football War between ElSalvador and Honduras

Turkish Invasion of Cyprus

Paquisha War (Ecuador and Peru )

Yugoslav Wars

Cenepa War

Sources:

Robert Kagan

War Between Democracies

Democratic Peace Theory

J. P. Morgan

LangLangCLangLangC 25.9k584133 · Accepted Answer · 2019-03-18 10:12:41Z

If you either accept the war-guilt clause in the treaty of Versailles, or the German ambitions hypothesis of Fritz Fischer, then who started the war? Germany!

And what were the driving forces in that country at the time?

The chancellor at the time was

Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg held liberal views and was close to the Progressive People's Party.

The whole affair of financing to be able to continue the war in Germany hinged on the support of the worker's party, the Social-Democratic Party.

The main drivers for expansionist war aims where of course found in the military, the aggressive Prussian military? Well, not exclusively.

The war aims majority (for the 'offical' programme by Bethman-Hollweg) in the Reichstag extended from conservative and liberal parties to the social democratic camp.

Then there were non-parliamentary industrialists, like Rathenau, staunch liberals, who went even further and formulated views that called for annexation of vast swathes of land.

This is not to say that Imperial Germany was a liberal democracy in the absolutes. But it was much more liberal compared to Imperial Russia. And it was in no small part the liberals themselves in Germany that drove the way to war and prolonged it.

In short, if that liberal vs authoritarian thesis were true, then we should have seen the British with the Germans against the Russians. That is an experimental setup we only see realised in recent years.

Label

Cari Blog Ini

Arsip Blog

Laporkan Penyalahgunaan

Mengenai Saya

Senin, 18 Maret 2019

Was World War I a war of liberals against authoritarians?

3 Answers

3

Maintaining the status quo

Liberal democracies?

Liberal democracy for whom?

Post war winners and losers

Your Answer

Post as a guest

3 Answers

3

3 Answers

3

Maintaining the status quo

Liberal democracies?

Liberal democracy for whom?

Post war winners and losers

Maintaining the status quo

Liberal democracies?

Liberal democracy for whom?

Post war winners and losers

Maintaining the status quo

Liberal democracies?

Liberal democracy for whom?

Post war winners and losers

Maintaining the status quo

Liberal democracies?

Liberal democracy for whom?

Post war winners and losers

Post as a guest

0 komentar:

Posting Komentar

Categories

Popular Posts

Label

Cari Blog Ini

Arsip Blog

Laporkan Penyalahgunaan

Mengenai Saya

Senin, 18 Maret 2019

Was World War I a war of liberals against authoritarians?

3 Answers 3

Maintaining the status quo

Liberal democracies?

Liberal democracy for whom?

Post war winners and losers

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Post as a guest

3 Answers 3

3 Answers 3

Maintaining the status quo

Liberal democracies?

Liberal democracy for whom?

Post war winners and losers

Maintaining the status quo

Liberal democracies?

Liberal democracy for whom?

Post war winners and losers

Maintaining the status quo

Liberal democracies?

Liberal democracy for whom?

Post war winners and losers

Maintaining the status quo

Liberal democracies?

Liberal democracy for whom?

Post war winners and losers

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Post as a guest

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

0 komentar:

Posting Komentar

Categories

Popular Posts

3 Answers

3

3 Answers

3

3 Answers

3