Dyed-In-The-Wool History
The Great War
​
World War I was a complex and vast event that determined a great deal of subsequent history. Explaining the causes and blame for this war is beyond the scope of this analysis but in order to establish context, perceptions of the war then and now must be addressed. In popular culture in America, most probably assume Germany to be at fault and further accept the notion that America saved civilization against this threat. This could be considered either a lingering collective memory or simply a blurring of the two world wars. Academic views on blame have been argued since and the prevailing view probably can be summarized fairly by saying that the war was caused by a combination of complex alliances, military doctrines that responded to complex alliances that then created a sort of sequential trigger effect, competitive colonialism, and the collapse of the Ottoman empire that created opportunities for expansion and let loose ethno-religious ambitions. Adding family intrigue, Kaiser Wilhelm was grandson to England’s queen Victoria, first cousin to England’s King George V, and was also related to the Czar. The case against Germany centers around a militaristic buildup especially with regard to building a blue water (Open Ocean as opposed to coastal) navy to challenge British naval superiority and defensive doctrines, general diplomatic ineptitude primarily associated specifically with Kaiser Wilhelm, and ultimately a failure to manage their Austro-Hungarian ally. In the case of the sinking of the Lusitania which is the event commonly but indirectly associated with US entry into the war, the Germans took out adds in American newspapers warning people not to ride on these ships and when it was torpedoed, it generated secondary explosions and sank very rapidly immediately establishing that is was carrying armaments. When war finally broke out it was the violation of Belgium neutrality that created an event to drive moral outrage in England although that scenario had been analyzed for years prior to it occurring.
​
An alternate non-standard interpretation from Jim Macgregor and Gerry Docherty documented in the book Hidden History is that an element of the British aristocracy manipulated events to try to instigate a war with Germany which they considered to be an economic, military, and cultural rival. Their case is well researched and can be roughly summarized from the following quote from Kaiser Wilhelm just prior to the onset of hostilities:
​
“I have no doubt about it: England, Russia, and France have agreed among themselves…to take the Austro-Serbian conflict for an excuse for waging a war of extermination against us..the stupidity and ineptitude of our ally is turned into a snare for us…The net has been suddenly thrown over our head, and England sneeringly reaps the most brilliant success of her persistently prosecuted purely anti-German world policy against which we have proven ourselves helpless…From the dilemma raised by our fidelity to the venerable old Emperor of Austria, we are brought into a situation which offers England the desired pretext for annihilating us under the hypothetical cloak of justice.”
​
Note from Kaiser Wilhelm July 31, 1914 (1 p. 299)
​
The British origins theory has increasingly gained support and in large part because there is no shortage of material from the time period to support it. Here are a few examples from prominent British publication:
​
“We English have always waged war against our competitors in trade and transport. Our main competitor today is no longer France but Germany…In a war against Germany we would be in a position to win a lot and lose nothing…” London Sunday Review August 24, 1895[1] (2 pp. 32-36)
​
“If tomorrow every German was eliminated, there would be no British business nor English enterprise which would not profit…Get ready for the fight with Germany.” London Sunday Review February 1, 1896 (2 pp. 32-36)
​
“States have waged war for years over a town or rights to a throne, and should we not when an annual trade of five billion is at stake?” London Sunday Review September 11, 1897 (2 pp. 32-36)
​
Religion played a role in war propaganda for all countries involved in WWI but the role of the evangelical churches in America had no parallel to the other participants with the partial exception of England. In the states there was little enthusiasm for entering the war and sympathies aligned along ethnic and religious lines. Ethnic Germans and eastern Europeans tended to support the Central Powers. While Ireland ultimately did fight alongside the British through a fairly involved string of events, the Irish also had no deep sympathies for the British especially after the Easter uprising of 1916. Those who strongly favored the English tended to be of Anglo Puritan heritage. Everybody else would require a good deal of convincing and the progressive church was up to their part of the challenge.
​
A condensed summary of the specific events that turned loose “The Guns of August” is provided below from the book “1939 – The War that had many Fathers” by Gerd Schultze-Rhonolf:
​
“When in 1914 a Bosnian-Serb assassin in Bosnian-Austrian Sarajevo assassinates the heir to the Habsburg throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the situation between Habsburg and Serbia suddenly comes to a head. The German Reich out of loyalty puts itself immediately in alliance with Habsburg. The government in Vienna sees this wrongly as a blank check and makes an overdraft in issuing threats and ultimatums to sovereign Serbia, for whose “benefit” the attack had been committed. Serbia tries to cover its back by turning to its protector, Russia. It in turn is protected through its alliance with France which by agreement can count on the assistance of England. So shortly after the murder in Sarajevo, Serbia, Russia, France, and England stand on one side and Austria-Hungary on the other opposing side. In this critical situation Austria-Hungary sends the Serbs an ultimatum. Thereupon follows war preparations in France and in Russia. As both countries mobilize their troops and England does the same with its fleet, the German Reich is put on the spot and mobilizes later and faster, and attacks France first. Then the high command of the German army has some of its troops march through neutral Belgium. Thereupon England declares was on the German Reich. There follow declarations of war by England, France, and Russia against Turkey. Next Japan chimes in and declares war against the German Reich in order to acquire Germany’s colonies in the Pacific. And Italy – initially in alliance with Austria-Hungary and Germany – changes in 1915 to the other side and declares war likewise against its ally in order to expand its borders from the south of the Alps to the crest. The arrangement of the sides remains so until the entry into the war of the USA in 1917. Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Turkey fight against Great Britain, France, Russia, Japan, and Italy. The Balkan countries battle some for one side, and some for the other.” (2 pp. 63-64)[2]
​
Woodrow Wilson was elected President in 1912 over William Howard Taft with help from a third party run by Teddy Roosevelt that split the Republican vote and ensured Wilson would win. Roosevelt was drawn out of retirement and was encouraged and supported by a number of prominent financiers tied to the Morgan dynasty including Judge Elbert Gary (Chairman of US Steel), Medil McCormack (International Harvester), and William Straight (Morgan Partner) (3). Wilson was a relative newcomer to politics having been president of Princeton University and Governor of New Jersey (1910). He was originally from the South and was seen as a moderate progressive but by the time he became president and had an ever present handler referred to as colonel House. Wilson’s main political sponsor was George H. Harvey, head of Morgan affiliated Harper & Brothers publishers, and other significant backing was provided b y Morgan associate Thomas Fortune Ryan and Wilson’s college classmate and president of International Harvester, Cyrus H. McCormick (3). Two leading advisors in the Wilson circle were George Foster Peabody, who was a prominent New York banker of Boston Brahmin lineage, and the somewhat mysterious “Colonel” Edward Mandell House. House came from the prominent House family in Texas and was head of the Trinity and Brazos Valley Railway that was financed by a collaboration of Morgan associated Boston financial interests most notably the Old Colonial Trust Co. House had no official position but is generally seen as being his principal foreign policy advisor who was very influential in selling the war to Wilson (3). Wilson oversaw a massive expansion of the federal government both before and during the war. He won re-election in 1916 against Charles Evan Hughes with the campaign slogan “He Kept Us out of War” but that was clearly not his intent going forward. The election was very close and initially Hughes appeared to be the victor but Wilson didn’t concede and eventually won both the popular vote and the Electoral College.
​
By 1914 the Morgan financial dynasty was in a difficult financial position and the US economy was in a deep recession with factories operating at around 60% capacity. The House of Morgan had invested heavily in railroads which were now in a permanent decline including the $400M Morgan operated New Haven Railroad that went bankrupt in 1914 (3). Meanwhile Kuhn-Loeb had invested heavily in industrial finance and was doing very well. For the House of Morgan, however, the war proved to be a “godsend”. The Morgan’s secured a monopoly as the sole underwriters of French and British war bonds in the US and became the fiscal agent for the Bank of England. They also invested heavily in American munitions manufacturers and became the central organizing authority for routing war purchases to the Entente (3). Military related production in the US shot up with steel exports quadrupling between 1914 and 1917. In 1915 Secretary McAdoo wrote to Wilson “great prosperity” war related manufacturing was bringing to the US. A related commentary stated, “War, for Europe, is meaning devastation and death; for America a bumper crop of new millionaires and a hectic hastening of prosperity revival” (3). Kuhn-Loeb, being pro-German, was left out of all the newfound prosperity. The major downside to all of this was that France and England would have to win the war or the House of Morgan would go bankrupt and the US would undergo a financial collapse and prior to the American entry into the war, this outcome was very much in doubt. US involvement in the wars was not an easy sell to the American public although the war had created some general prosperity which was helping the cause, nor was it a given that Wilson could be made to support direct involvement but after intense lobby and manipulation he went along with the “Colonel” believed to have played a big role in that.
​
The National Security League (NSL) was founded in 1914 to promote US entry into the war which included a host of prominent bankers and industrialists (all associated with the House of Morgan) along with Theodore Roosevelt and J.P. Morgan himself (3). Another notable founding associate was Henry L. Stinson who was a dominant figure in American foreign policy in the 20th century serving in the Taft and Hoover administration and reaching peak prominence under Franklin Roosevelt. The NSL advocated for universal military conscription, attempted to convince the public that America was under imminent danger of German invasion, and fostered anti-German sentiment aimed at German-Americans. (3)
​
In 1916 Wilson created the Committee on Public Information (CPI) headed by George Creel which was in charge of censorship and promotion of the war although responsibility for censorship soon passed to the Postmaster. As the public remained reluctant to support the war effort, the propaganda grew more extreme. A repetitive talking point was to continually refer to Germany as a “Mad Brute”. This in turn incited violence against not just German-Americans but others who refused to salute the cause. Quoting from Patricia O’Toole “When the US used Fake News to Sell Americans on World War 1: “Even the most casual expression of doubt about the war could trigger a beating by a mob, and the humiliation of being made to kiss the flag in public. Americans who declined to buy Liberty Bonds sometimes awoke to find their homes streaked with yellow paint. Several churches of pacifist sects were set ablaze. Scores of men suspected of disloyalty were tarred and feathered, and a handful were lynched. Most of the violence was carried out in the dark by vigilantes who marched their victims to a spot outside the city limits, where the local police had no jurisdiction. Perpetrators who were apprehended were rarely tried, and those tried were almost never found guilty. Jurors hesitated to convict, afraid that they too would be accused of disloyalty and roughed up.” (4)
​
The degree to which all of this was effective was not by any means universally high. While 2 million men did eventually volunteer, 2.8 million had to be drafted and there was active resistance to the draft board in certain areas, especially the South. The phrase “Rich Man’s War, Poor Man’s Fight”, while originating during the War Between the States, is most associated with World War I.
​
​
There was actually a good deal of concern that instituting a draft would lead to mass insurrection and open armed rebellion but that didn’t come to pass. Still politicians of the period were both surprised and impressed at how easily they pulled off imposing the draft and were somewhat emboldened by it. (5 p. 87)
​
As to who really was the “Mad Brute” it appears as if the Entente was somewhat more brutish than the Central Powers in the end. Quoting from Professor Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and hope:
​
“Probably on the whole these violations were more extensive (although less widely publicized) on the part of the Entente than on the part of the Central Powers. The reasons for this were that the Germans still maintained the older traditions of a professional army, and their position, both as invader and as a “Central Power” with limited manpower and economic resources, made it to their advantage to maintain the distinctions between combatant and noncombatant and between belligerent and neutral. If they could have maintained the former distinction, they would have had to fight the enemy army and not the enemy civilian population, and, once the former was defeated, would have had little to fear from the latter, which could have been controlled with a minimum of troops.” (6 p. 171)
​
From the run up to and beginning of hostilities in August of 1914 to the US declaration of war in 1917, the progressive clergy remained somewhat cautious about the war although their sentiments were strongly pro-British. The war itself called into question Yankee Evangelical optimism and the entire progressive view of history most held to leaving the public as well as church leaders looking for a deeper theological meaning. This conflict was reflected in both Christian and secular literature and commentary of the time.
​
“Similar early optimism about the consequences of the war issued from the editorial staff of the Christian Century. After admitting the depth of their “sympathies with England” as that nation struggled “to preserve the peace,” the Christian Century’s editors anticipated that there would be “a new birth of Democracy in Europe” because of the war. By the sheer magnitude of the catastrophe, “the reign of universal peace” would be brought closer. Indeed, “the worse this war the sooner and the more lasting the peace that is to come.” Yet while predicting ultimate success, the editors—for the time being anyway—saw the war as a setback to most of their reformist ideals. The war meant “an awful relapse.” The delicate fabric of world unity had been badly damaged by the events of July and August, and “many things must be begun all over again.” Nevertheless, “with God’s help we’ll do them better next time!” (7 p. 96) (8)
​
The church’s attitude toward war in general was under stress. While many would like to call themselves pacifists, this could have a variety of meanings ranging from true pacifism to supporting total war if it brings about greater peace. Lyman Abbott who was a prominent progressive Christian commentator, co-editor of the Christian Union (later renamed the Outlook) with Henry Ward Beecher, and former Congregational minister (he resigned from the pastorate in 1898) noted the blessing of certain progressive wars (or wars cast in that light). Not doing so would call into question the legitimacy of the American Civil War. Abbot could trace his lineage back to the founding years of the Plymouth colony and was an iconic Yankee with many notable people in his family tree. This was still fairly typical of progressive Christian leaders and commentators of this era. The new war was simply a projection of the previous war on a grander scale.
​
As the US entry into the war drew closer, religious periodicals reflected a gradual acceptance of it and a sense of inevitability and even opportunity. Once War was declared the tone grew significantly harsher. While issuing a telegram from their national convention in Newark New Jersey to the President supporting his request for a declaration of War and congratulating the nation for “patience unexplained” they then went to call for national unity and resolve stating “even the patient Christ, whose ambassadors we are, in time of extremity, when pacific measures had failed, said, ‘He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one’” (7 p. 151)
​
Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, a strong Wilson supporter, described the war as a struggle “to preserve human freedom, democracy, and modern civilization.” Germany was, in fact, the “mad brute” whose “effort to thrust mankind back to forms of government, to political creeds and methods of conquest which we had hoped had disappeared forever from the world” (7 p. 151) had to be stopped. This would realign with the progressive view of history which was a recurring theme. With regard to the loss of freedom, this was being said while freedoms at home were being rapidly curtailed through implementation of the progressive agenda empowered by special government war powers. Wilson received a delegation from the Northern Presbyterian Church, which was his denomination, that pledged to, “to get our people into line with the splendid idealism….as the great purpose and ideal of America” (7 p. 151). Wilson justified this extremely tight church state relationship referring to a recurring talking point from a previous speech, “this is a war which any great spiritual body can support, because I believe if ever a nation purged its heart of improper motives in a war, this nation has purged its heart, and that, if there ever was a war which was meant to supply new foundations for what is righteous and true and of good report, it is this war.” (7 p. 158)
​
Lyman Abbot speaking to the League to Enforce Peace (note the irony in the name), made a rather bizarre association to a prophecy from Genesis that most Christians have historically associated with Jesus when God promised Eve after the fall that one day her offspring would defeat Satan, “The serpent shall bruise man’s heel; man’s heel shall bruise the head of the serpent.” In his extended interpretation, the US was the messianic deliverer who was to defeat satanic Germany. This is somewhat typical of how progressive Christianity had their own form of vocabulary where common Christian terms and references could take on dramatically different meanings. In other writings Abbott had sought to inspire the nation to “to transform a pagan world … into a kingdom of God” requiring “a thousand voices eloquent with a divine passion for righteousness, pressing home upon the people their responsibility.” Going on to use (or misuse) analogies of Israel fleeing Egypt and entering the promised land where Germany was occupying the new Promised Land and had to be driven out by America. “Appealing to the combined spirit of Christ and Abraham Lincoln, Abbott admonished the church to “lead Christ’s followers forth, his cross on their hearts, his sword in their hands, with malice toward none and with charity for all, to fight, to suffer, and, if need be, to die for their oppressed” (7 p. 156)
​
Although the conflict between the fundamentalists and Modernists was starting to heat up, regarding the US role in the War they appear to have been largely in line. Former professional baseball player turned evangelists, Billy Sunday, who was arguably the most prominent evangelical evangelist of the time, was a passionate supporter of World War I. In 1918 he said, "I tell you it is Bill (referring to Kaiser Wilhelm) against Woodrow, Germany against America, Hell against Heaven." He spoke extemporaneously and was never on script but this was representative of what he said on the subject and how he said it. Sunday raised large amounts of money for the troops, sold war bonds, and stumped for recruitment.
​
Reflections on the outcome of the war and what laid ahead left the progressive church trying to interpret the outcome and attempt to reconcile it with their positions similar to someone trying to explain an outcome that is very different from what they had forecast. Chicago’s Biblical World View claimed that “the Christian point of view had gained enormously” from the war. Their logic went on to justify this position observing that the war was waged “to protect institutions and ideals which in essence are the development of Biblical ethics and religion as they culminate in Jesus.” Henry Churchill King of Oberlin College saw the war abroad as an extension of the war to achieve righteousness here at home reasoning “the reforming spirit of the social gospel knew no geographical bounds; and since expansive, humanitarian love for all men involved “the fight against slavery, the fight against the degradation of women and children, the fight against selfishness and injustice and inhumanity and falseness, … [then] there will certainly come times, as in this world-war, when the disciples of Christ cannot be true to the fundamental teaching and example of their Lord without using all the means that God has put within their power against such wrongs” (7 p. 189). Lyman Abbot continued to double down on the progressive theory of historical progress arguing the “March of the centuries toward liberty could not be stopped by Germany’s efforts to return the world to barbarism.” Some even contended that the church wasn’t quick enough nor aggressive enough in its support for the war. Presbyterian pastor Joseph Odell compared the church’s support for the war to Peter’s departure from Jesus in the garden prior to Jesus’ crucifixion and Peter’s denial. (7 p. 202)
​
British socialist author and commentator Orson Wells was somewhat surprisingly referenced frequently in progressive commentaries especially with regard to the fundamental issues of reconciling concepts of God with the reality of evil. In God the Invisible King Wells presented ideas from his auto-biographical novel Mr. Britling where he preserves God’s goodness by denying Him His omnipotence. Wells, who remained an agnostic or deist, separated God the Creator from God the Redeemer. The Redeemer God was time bound working within creation working alongside man to fight evil and promote righteousness.
​
One path of progressive thought sought to cast blame on the fundamentalists. Progressive publications were increasingly trying to emphasize the differences between the two groups. Shailer Matthews’s publication Biblical World linked the two enemies of progress (Germany and fundamentalists) stating, “as anticipated, the theological conservatives blamed the war on Germany’s apostasy from orthodox Protestantism and its acceptance of biblical criticism” and countered “Reactionary orthodoxy had justified every war … since the days of Christ.” (7 p. 195)
​
In looking back at the progressive protestant clergy and commentators role in the Great War, it’s somewhat remarkable how confident they were and how they assumed they had a much broader influence on society of the day than they really did. They seemed to think the world was their congregation but they really only spoke to a small and regional segment of the population and certainly had no international following. The remaining question regarding their role is were they guiding society or were they simply useful to those who actually held power?
Footnotes
​
[1] The London Sunday Review was an upper-class journal that commonly was seen as an authoritative source for foreign policy commentary
[2] The author was a soldier in the Bundeswher (German army) for 37 years, lastly as Major General and Territorial Commander for Nisdersachsen and Bremen. In 1995 he drew the media’s attention when he openly criticized the Federal Constitutional Court because of it “Soldiers are murders” decision.
​
Bibliography
1. Docherty, Gerry and MacGregor, Jim. Hidden history. Edinburgh, Scotland : Mainstream Publishing, 2013.
2. Schultze-Rhonhof, Gerd. 1939 - The War the had Many Fathers. Munchen Germany : Olzog Verdag , 2011.
3. Rothbard, Murray N. Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy. Lew Rockwell. [Online] 1984. https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/wall-street-wars/.
4. O'Toole, Patricia. History.com. [Online] May 22, 2018. https://www.history.com/news/world-war-1-propaganda-woodrow-wilson-fake-news.
5. Fleming, Thomas. The Illusion of Victory. New York, New York : Basic Books, 2003.
6. Quigley, Carroll. Tragedy and Hope A history of the World in Our Time. New York, New York : Macmillan company, 1966.
7. Gamble, Richard M. The War for Righteousness - Progressive Christianity, the Great War and the Rise of the Messianic Nation. Willmington Delaware : ISI Books, 2003.
8. Staff, Christian Century Editorial. Man's Wrath Praising God. Christin Century. August 20, 1914, p. 789.