The
Lost History of 1914: How the Great War Was Not Inevitable, by Jack Beatty.
“Never before has any political
assembly heard so fine a sermon on what human beings might be capable of
accomplishing if only they weren’t human…He leaps forward far beyond the limits
of time and space…way above material things, whose inferiority resides in the
mere fact of there existence.”
-
Georges Clemenceau, commenting on Woodrow Wilson’s
January 22, 1917 speech, proposing “peace without victory.”
Sadly for humanity, we remain cursed with the results of numerous
of Wilson’s utopian-laced dreams.
It has been reasonably argued that the Great War would
likely have ended in something closer to “peace without victory” had the United
States not entered. The people of both
sides had grown tired of the fighting.
The Russians were soon enough going to withdraw from the
battlefield. A true stalemate might have
resulted in something closer to a treaty designed for peace.
Instead, we continue to reap the harvest of 1919 Paris.
I understand the role the United States played in this
story, but Mexico? I was barely familiar
with the ongoing war in Mexico – Pancho Villa, Huerta, etc. – as well as the US
interventions, most notoriously, Veracruz.
But what did any of this have to do with the US entry into the Great
War?
The Telegram
I will start at the end.
Venustiano Carranza, the “First Chief of the Constitutionalist Army in
Charge of Executive Power,” threatened war if Wilson did not evacuate “our territory.” In January, 1917, a telegram was intercepted –
Zimmerman’s telegram – proposing that Mexico join with Germany against the
United States. In exchange and after a
successful outcome, Mexico would recover Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.
Once made public, many in the United States were enraged by
this treachery from Germany.
According to Ray Stannard Baker,
the journalist Wilson chose to write his biography, “No single more devastating
blow was delivered against Wilson’s resistance to entering the war.”
Why would Germany have reason to believe that Mexico would
care to join the fight against the United States? Now we move to the beginning of the story….
Revolución
Revolution had been raging in Mexico since 1910 – an uprising
of the landless peasants. For European
and American mining and oil companies, fortunes were at risk. For Wilson, Mexico was a moral proving
ground. Falling in with the little guy,
Wilson fell in with Pancho Villa, who cast himself in whatever graven image
Wilson wanted to see.
In 1913, Huerta had claimed to Taft that he had restored the
government. Before negotiations toward
recognition of this government could be completed, Taft was out of office and
Wilson was in. Wilson was not satisfied with
the situation, for example insisting on an election in order to determine the proper
government (an election to bring an end to an ongoing revolution?). Wilson did not recognize the Huerta
government.
In early 1914, Wilson lifted the arms embargo to Mexico,
previously imposed by Taft:
No sooner had the president
reassured a doubting senator that this step would not trigger a “bloodbath”
than Pancho Villa bathed his name in blood.
It seems this idea of arming moderate terrorists did not
begin with Hillary Clinton.
A Matter of Honor…or Imperialism?
A Mexican federal officer briefly detains American sailors. The Mexican Commander of this federal officer
sets the sailors free, jails the errant officer, and apologizes to the American
Admiral. This was not enough for the
Admiral. To make a long story short,
Wilson exploited this incident as irreverence by Huerta and his “disregard for
the dignity and rights of this Government.”
Hence, the US
occupation of Veracruz. In one
stroke, Wilson turned a divided Mexico into one focused on the imperialism of
the American government. Of all of the
leaders of all of the factions, only Pancho Villa praised this occupation of
Veracruz by US Marines.
“Three years of fratricidal war was
forgotten in a day,” the London Daily
Telegraph reported from Mexico City…
Many of those with Villa and formerly against Huerta now
sided with Huerta – factory workers, railroad workers, beggars; all united
against the American imperialists (and seeing Villa as a tool of those same
Americans). Anti-American demonstrations
were regularly on display. In Europe,
this action by Wilson was seen as nothing but economic imperialism:
“For the first time the veil is
torn away from the pretense behind which the designs of American imperialism have
been hiding,” the Paris Journal
thundered.
There is an interesting backstory to this imperialism: in
November, 1913, one William F. Buckley, Sr. wrote to Colonel Edward House
regarding the damage inflicted by Mexican rebels on American oil
companies. Buckley demanded
intervention.
Whether for honor or imperialism, Wilson set the stage for
Mexico to look to a European power for salvation.
Conclusion
Next came the telegram.
And Pancho Villa, the loser as a result of Veracruz, named
his mule Woodrow Wilson.
Beatty suggests the possibility that had Wilson not thrown
in his lot with Villa and instead just stayed out of the Mexican war as Taft
had done, there would have been no cause for the telegram and therefore no
pressure on Wilson to enter the Great War.
I am not so sure, as Wilson’s idealism (and other political pressures)
would likely have driven him to the same end one way or another.
But what an interesting story!
From Harry Browne's 'The War Racket, Part I'
ReplyDeleteMyth: The Zimmermann telegram proved that the Germans intended to fight America.
However, the telegram actually said the opposite:
We 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. The settlement in detail is left to you. (whole book at HarryBrowne.org $9.95)
RE: Mexico
ReplyDeleteI think you need to read some more b/4 boldly dissecting the two [2] Mexican Revolutions . . . that of 1910 and 1912 [actually there were multiple counterrevolutions so the 1912 date could be 1913 or something else]. The PRI of course claims that The Revolution has never ended . . .
I suggest you read "The Life and Times of Pancho Villa" by Friederich Katz [Stanford University - 1998].
It was much more that a landless peasant revolution.
Moreover I find the first 130 or so pages relevant w/ what the US is experiencing [revolutionary sentiment gaining traction now that the economic picture is undeniably bad]. This triggered by a wealthy landowner coming out of nowhere to capture popular sentiment and eventually becoming president w/ no governmental experience. Sound familiar??!!
Balance your research w/ some Pro-Villista research.
A fine article. Thanks. I remember reading of Wilson's involvement in Mexico somewhere - maybe something from Ralph Raico? Hold on... ... ... yep - I just checked. It was in his book, 'Great Wars and Great Leaders: A Libertarian Rebuttal'.
ReplyDeleteI learned a great deal about Mexico from another book, 'Santa Anna of Mexico', by Will Fowler. Very informative, both politically and historically.
How about the war loans and munitions dealing by the House of Morgan. Could this have impacted Wilson's decision?
ReplyDelete