“We [the German government] intend to begin on the first of February unrestricted submarine warfare. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal of alliance on the following basis: make war together, make peace together, generous financial support and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.”
– Zimmermann Telegram (1917), one of the events that led to the American entry into World War One
President Woodrow Wilson walked a tightrope during the early years of World War One, trying to steer a middle course between full neutrality and full involvement. Of course, Americans did not declare war on Germany until April 1917, and waited even longer than that to send troops to Europe. But even at the beginning of the war in 1914, most Americans did not want the Germans to win, and some of them actually sold food (and sometimes weapons) to the Allied nations. There was a massive peace movement before America officially got involved, and PBS makes sure to cover it here. But there were also many supporters of getting involved sooner - and this, too, receives some good coverage from PBS. Among the supporters of earlier American involvement was the former president Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt was a major critic of Wilson for his perceived lack of muscle in this struggle - a correct perception. But Wilson was also criticized by the peace movement for supporting aid to Britain and France. Thus, he was having a hard time walking this tightrope within his own party. Unfortunately for Wilson, this balancing act would prove even harder when the Germans sank the RMS Lusitania in 1915.
Sinking of the RMS Lusitania, 7 May 1915
The buildup to American involvement in “The Great War” (and how PBS covers it)
Before the sinking of the Lusitania, the Germans had been practicing unrestricted submarine warfare against the Allies. Specifically, they had been targeting cargo ships that were carrying supplies to the Allies. They put an advertisement in a New York newspaper, which warned the Americans against traveling on passenger ships in the Atlantic. 1,959 people got on board the Lusitania anyway, and headed for London. A German U-boat torpedoed the Lusitania, which sank in 18 minutes. 1,198 of the ship's passengers died, including 128 Americans. There was controversy over whether the Lusitania had been carrying military equipment, such as ammunition and shell casings. As it turned out, the Lusitania did contain some of these forbidden items, and quite a few of them at that. Nonetheless, the Americans correctly perceived that the Germans didn't make much of a distinction between civilian and military targets. Despite the military nature of their most famous target, this perception was largely true. President Wilson thus faced a dilemma, because many Americans were angry about the German policies in the Atlantic, and wanted Wilson to intervene. But the peace movement was staunchly opposed to intervention, and so the president tried to steer a middle course between them. He warned the Germans that if they did not stop “unrestricted submarine warfare,” the Americans would be forced to declare war against Germany. However, he implied that if they ceased this policy, the peace would continue. The Germans decided that avoiding a war with America was more important to their national interest than “unrestricted submarine warfare.” Thus, they then ceased this policy soon after Wilson's ultimatum. Thus, the peace continued, much to the annoyance of Theodore Roosevelt and his allies. But the peace movement was satisfied (at least for the moment), and a new status quo began at this time.
Former president Theodore Roosevelt, a prominent supporter of early American intervention
Continued peace movement, later “preparedness” movement, and suppression of dissent
When the interventionists realized that a direct intervention was not going to happen anytime soon, they changed tactics, and began to advocate “preparedness.” By this, they meant that America should be prepared for any potential conflict, and begin military preparations for a possible confrontation with Germany. The peace movement mocked the “preparedness” movement at this time, saying that they were as “outdated” as the dinosaurs. But the “preparedness” movement still had its supporters at this time. This documentary is good at covering this debate within American society about earlier intervention - or any intervention at all, for that matter. It shows the earliest fighting through the eyes of American volunteers in the British and French armies in Europe. This is a good way of telling a story that is so focused on America, even during the pre-intervention period. But when America finally declared war in 1917, this debate about the war's merits took on a very different tone. Pacifism became extremely unpopular in the United States, and various “conscientious objectors” like Alvin York – who is covered in this documentary to some degree – were viewed with considerable suspicion by a number of their countrymen. Even the staunchest pacifists were sometimes forced to buy war bonds for fear of their lives, and anyone suspected of “disloyalty” to their country was liable to be targeted by unruly mobs. German Americans were also targeted, as were those with German -sounding names. This is one of the darker episodes in American history. The suppression of free speech was another unsavory episode, as all criticism of the war was then branded as “treason.” Whatever Mr. Wilson brought to the table as president, he did not bring a great love of the Constitution, and did not have a high regard for the First Amendment in particular.
Meuse-Argonne offensive (which involved the Americans), circa 1917 or 1918
Coverage of the Harlem Hellfighters, the Choctaw Code Talkers, and other minority groups
For the latter part of the “pre-intervention period,” this documentary does not actually quote from the Zimmermann Telegram as I have, but they do mention it (at least briefly). For example, they mention how the Germans had invited Mexico and Japan to join a struggle against the United States, and how the Germans had also tried to get Mexico to “reconquer the lost territory” in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona (Source: Text of the telegram). This was one of the reasons that America got involved when it did, and the German resumption of “unrestricted submarine warfare” also added fuel to the flames. However, very little time is spent on the unstable situation in Mexico, which makes it hard to understand the real context of the Zimmermann Telegram. This is one of my only criticisms of how they cover the buildup to American intervention in Europe. When they cover the war itself, they do cover some aspects that are not often covered elsewhere in the world of television. For example, they cover the African American troops before and after the American intervention, including the famous “Harlem Hellfighters” unit. This is one of the highlights of this documentary for me. They also cover the Choctaw Code Talkers, a Native American group that was much like the Navajo Code Talkers of World War Two. The Choctaws used their native language as a “code” that the Germans could not break, because of their lack of knowledge of “obscure” Native American languages. Military secrecy in many United States sectors depended on employing these Choctaws to speak over telephone lines. Thus, they certainly did their part in the war effort. Brief mention is also made of Hispanic American soldiers – who, like all non-Black minorities, were integrated into the military units with the Whites. Very little mention is made of Asian American history, though. I can only guess that they did this because of their smaller numbers compared to the other minority groups that I have mentioned here. Nonetheless, their coverage of these oft-neglected minority soldiers sets this film apart from most others, since I know of no other documentary that covers these parts of World War One. They also cover the women's suffrage movement of this time, and how it was entangled with the larger debate about the war itself.
Soldiers of the Harlem Hellfighters unit
Choctaw Code Talkers in training
Comparison with other series about World War One, such as the BBC's “The Great War”
Nevertheless, the various other documentaries about this war often have their own advantages. The CBS series from 1964, for example, narrated by Robert Ryan, is a full 10 hours long; and has a disproportionate emphasis on America - although they do cover some things besides the American involvement. And the BBC series from 1964, narrated by Michael Redgrave, is a full 17 hours long. This remains the best series ever made about World War One. This classic BBC series is probably the most complete account of World War One that has ever been made for television. It also has the advantage of interviewing the veterans – something that sets it apart from every other series that I know of about this particular war. Nonetheless, comparisons to this classic BBC series may not be entirely fair, since PBS focuses its 6 hours on American involvement to a degree that the others do not. If you just want to hear about the role of America in this war, this is definitely the documentary for you. Or if you want to use this documentary to supplement other histories (like this one from the BBC), it will probably serve you well with some additional information that is not available in these other series. The BBC series is still the definitive television history of World War One, in my opinion, but PBS may have the best coverage of the American involvement in this war. It also has the benefit of a good personal touch, a more modern use of theme music, and a number of interesting stories with dramatic value. This series has a personal touch that is reminiscent of Ken Burns at times. Although they don't often tell you what happened to their main characters after the war was over (something that a series by Ken Burns would probably have done), there are still some good similarities to Ken Burns, which recommend this film to history buffs.
United States Army field hospital in France, 1918
Most histories of this war tend either to understate or to overstate the role of the Americans
Most histories of World War One tend to fall into one of two camps, with regards to the American involvement. Generally speaking, they tend either to understate its importance, or to overstate its importance – with rare moderation in between. The understaters are often Europeans, from the Allied nations who bore the brunt of the fighting in this war – such as the British and the French. These people believe that the contribution of the Americans was “negligible” – or that it wasn't that significant. When they say that the death rate among the Americans was much smaller than that of Britain or France, they are obviously correct – we lost less than 1% of our population during this war (less than one-seventh of a percent, actually). By contrast, the Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders each lost a full percent of their respective populations. The British lost 2% of theirs, and the French lost 4% of theirs. (see source) Nonetheless, before we got involved, the British and French were losing ground because of the Russian peace with Germany on the Eastern Front; which allowed the Germans to send massive numbers of new troops to the Western Front. The arrival of Allied reinforcements from America is thus what turned the tide here, by allowing the Western Allies to reclaim the ground that they had lost, and to gain some new ground in their turn. Americans can thus claim that these reinforcements made a real difference in this war (which they did); and I must note this in fairness to the Americans.
Battle of Belleau Wood (which involved the Americans), 1918
This documentary seems to fall more into the latter category …
At the other extreme, there are the overstaters (typically Americans), who downplay the contributions of our Allies. They dismiss the contributions of the British and the French specifically, and even blame them for the (seemingly interminable) stalemate which had been hindering the war before America officially got involved – not to mention the loss of ground, when the Germans shifted troops from the East to the West. Let me be clear on this: It was not the fault of the British and the French that these things happened. They had been bearing the brunt of the fighting for two-and-a-half years, before American troops ever set foot in Europe – as the aforementioned statistics show. To dismiss the Anglo-French contributions is to be guilty of some base ingratitude towards our country's allies. This documentary may be guilty of this, in that a naïve viewer might conclude from watching this that our Allies' prior efforts were “inadequate,” and that it was “superior American courage” that carried the day. PBS doesn't actually say this outright, as it turns out; but they do imply it in a brief sentence or two, about the Battle of Belleau Wood. This is a weakness in this series, which must be noted here.
British and German wounded at the Somme – France, 1916 (before America got involved)
Comments on their coverage of the end of the war, and the battle over the peace treaty at home
PBS's coverage of the end of the war was quite helpful for me, given the fact that the BBC dedicated no time whatsoever to anything after the Armistice. PBS also talks about Wilson's “Fourteen Points,” his advocacy for a “League of Nations,” and the way that the treaty itself died when the Senate refused to ratify it as it then stood. Wilson decided to kill his own treaty, rather than allow the Senate Republicans to make any changes to it. His reasons for doing this are something of a mystery to me, but they help to show his pettiness, and his willingness to abandon goals when he didn't get everything that he wanted. Regardless of my sentiments about Wilson himself, though, I will say that their coverage of him is quite good. It strikes the right balance between praise and blame. Wilson was quite good at organizing the way that American industry produced supplies for the war, and had some appropriate words for the public about making the world “safe for democracy.” PBS acknowledges this, of course, but they are also quite candid about his flaws, and do not sugar-coat them in their depiction of the wartime president.
President Woodrow Wilson
Conclusion: Great documentary about the American experience of World War One
But the political aspects of the war are not the only ones covered here – far from it. They also focus on the stories of ordinary people, and how this war affected ordinary Americans. The political and social aspects of the war are obviously important, and so is the “active” approach to foreign policy that it promoted in this country. But they do not limit this story to broader political changes, because they also make sure to tell the stories of individuals as well. These stories are invaluable, and should not be forgotten. Thus, this program will always be relevant, as long as there are people studying history. Americans will find this particularly relevant, I think, but this may also be of interest to others as well; since World War One is such a global topic. Those who don't speak English may find this film somewhat inaccessible, of course; but others may well enjoy this, if they have any interest in history. Well recommended for anyone interested in either World War One as a whole, or American history more generally.
Footnote to this blog post:
The Treaty of Versailles ended World War One, but it also sowed the seeds of World War Two. One of its most provocative clauses said that “The Allied and Associated Governments, however, require, and Germany undertakes, that she will make compensation for all damage done to the civilian population of the Allied and Associated Powers and to their property during the period of the belligerency of each” (Source: Part VIII, Article 232).
These “reparations,” as they are now known, created great anger and crippling poverty amongst the Germans. Some of that anger and crippling poverty was responsible for the German aggressions of World War Two.
DVD at Amazon
Related Hollywood movies:
If you liked this post, you might also like:
A review of “Crucible of Empire: The Spanish-American War” (PBS)
A review of PBS's “The Storm That Swept Mexico” (Mexican Revolution)
A review of PBS's “Lawrence of Arabia: The Battle for the Arab World”
A review of “The Great War” (1964 BBC miniseries about World War One)
A review of PBS's “Woodrow Wilson” movie (American Experience)
Communism in Russia (1917): How the madness got started
A review of PBS's “Influenza 1918” (American Experience)
A review of “Paris 1919: Inside the Peace Talks That Changed the World”
A review of Ken Burns' “The War” (World War Two series)
A review of “The World at War” (World War Two series)
Part of a series about
American military history
French and Indian War 1754-1763
American Revolutionary War 1775-1783
War of 1812 (technically 1812-1815)
U.S.-Mexican War 1846-1848
American Civil War 1861-1865
Reconstruction 1865-1877
Spanish-American War 1898
World War One 1917-1918
World War Two 1941-1945
Korean War 1950-1953
Vietnam War 1955-1973
Other wars may be covered later
← Previous USA war: Spanish-American War - Current USA war: The Great War - Next USA war: The Second World War →
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment