Entering World War I
GRATTAN, C. HARTLEY
Entering World War I Woodrow Wilson and the Balance of Power. By Edward H. Buehrig. Indiana. 325 pp. $5.00. Reviewed by C. Hartley Grattan Professor Buehrig's book re-studies the entrance of the...
...Wilson himself saw that war to the end—that is, destruction of one side by the other—was sure to create a situation disastrous to the world, but he did not clearly see that the war, if prolonged, would also violently deteriorate Western society...
...Lansing emerges from this book as little more than an impassioned partisan of ideological warfare...
...It is, in short, a study in diplomacy, not in the social dynamics of war...
...The Memorandum undercut peace-by-negotiation by placing something very near to veto power over the calling of the conference in the hands of one side...
...This makes his book an interesting review of a complex episode in diplomatic history, but an unsatisfactory account of why the United States went to war...
...Professor Buehrig skirts around all the nailing-down remarks which it would be disastrous for a diplomat to print...
...As Professor Buehrig sees it, the climax of Wilson's insight into the war was his "peace without victory" stance, on which he founded his abortive campaign late in 1916 for a negotiated peace...
...Since Buehrig says he worked with Earle at Princeton, why did he give no compelling evidence to contradict Earle's verdict, while yet employing a title that implies he did...
...Buehrig's book is not tough-minded enough in looking for the answer...
...It is also a long way from meeting the prescription for a restudy of the question laid down by Professor R. W. Leopold in World Politics for April 1950...
...Reviewed by C. Hartley Grattan Professor Buehrig's book re-studies the entrance of the United States into World War I, more in the spirit of Charles Seymour's books of the Thirties than in that of Seymour's critics...
...This in turn traces back to the fact that the United States was never (save perhaps for a few early weeks) a neutral in World War I. It was always neutral-against-Germany...
...And yet he took the country into the war...
...Professor Leopold in his article wrote: "Edward M. Earle has said that our motive in 1917 should have been to redress the European balance of power, "but no evidence conclusive beyond reasonable doubt has been brought to light to show that Wilson was consciously influenced by such considerations.'" Earle's conclusion accords with my own, and Professor Buehrig's text adduces no evidence to alter the view...
...He leads the reader through the diplomatic story, but his insight always stops just short of stating the point which the evidence appears to support, apparently because this would lead him straight into the wilderness inhabited by those who used to be called "the revisionists...
...In this he was nobly assisted by his associates...
...His handling of both the British blockade and German submarine warfare was inept...
...With all Buehrig's hard work, the confusion remains and the reconciliation is not accomplished...
...It wasn't out of balance-of-power considerations...
...Within its field, it is far better than Seymour, but its narrow focus decidedly limits its usefulness...
...The title is rather misleading...
...I had the uneasy feeling all the way through the book that it was less an historical study than an effort to make sense of Wilson's confused policies and to reconcile his random (and very impressive) insights with his deeds...
...An excellent example of this failure is his handling of the House negotiations with Grey over the launching of peace discussions, culminating in the House-Grey Memorandum of February 22, 1916...
Vol. 39 • April 1956 • No. 18
