War Against War: The American Fight for Peace, 1914-1918

by Michael Kazin

The untold story of the movement that came close to keeping the United States out of the First World War.

This book is about the Americans who tried to stop their nation from fighting in one of history’s most destructive wars and then were hounded by the government when they refused to back down. In the riveting War Against War , Michael Kazin brings us into the ranks of the largest, most diverse, and most sophisticated peace coalition up to that point in US history.

They came from a variety of wealthy and middle and working class, urban and rural, white and black, Christian and Jewish and atheist. They mounted street demonstrations and popular exhibitions, attracted prominent leaders from the labor and suffrage movements, ran peace candidates for local and federal office, and founded new organizations that endured beyond the cause. For almost three years, they helped prevent Congress from authorizing a massive increase in the size of the US army—a step advocated by ex-president Theodore Roosevelt.

Soon after the end of the Great War, most Americans believed it had not been worth fighting. And when its bitter legacy led to the next world war, the warnings of these peace activists turned into a tragic prophecy—and the beginning of a surveillance state that still endures today. War Against War is a dramatic account of a major turning point in the history of the United States and the world.

Genres: History, American History, Politics, Nonfiction, War, World War I, American

378 pages, Hardcover

Published January 3, 2017

About the author

Michael Kazin is a professor of history at Georgetown University. He is co-editor of Dissent magazine.

Reviews

[Clif Hostetler · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book provides a history of antiwar sentiments at the time of, leading up to, and after the American entrance into World War I. These political battles of a hundred years ago regarding whether to enter a European war are largely forgotten by historians today—another example of how the losing side doesn't write the history books.

Once war was declared there was also broad resistance and non-participation in the military draft. Based on modern expectations, it is surprising how many people failed (or refused) to cooperate. It is estimated that three million eligible young men failed to register. That's fifteen percent of the twenty-four million who did register. That's a much higher percentage than what was experienced during the Vietnam War.

Of those who registered for the draft, sixty-five thousand registered as conscientious objectors. Of those fewer than four thousand refused orders after being drafted. It's my understanding that the point on non-cooperation for the four thousand generally occurred at the point when they refused to wear a military uniform. The conscientious objectors willing to wear the uniform were given non-combatant roles. Those who didn't wear the uniform were sentenced to prison. Many of these were treated roughly (i.e. tortured).

Two imprisoned Hutterite conscientious objectors died in the Leavenworth military prison as a result of being tortured. They had refused to wear the uniform. The army added insult to injury by sending their bodies home dressed in army uniforms.

I had two uncles who were drafted during WWI. One wore the uniform but was never sent to Europe. The other uncle reported for induction as ordered but refused to wear a military uniform for reasons of conscience. He spent the war years in prison.

An aspect of this history that's surprising to modern sensibilites is the severity of the enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. Many people were sentenced to long prison terms for doing little more than griping about inconveniences caused by the government.

One famous prosecution and conviction was that of Eugene V. Debs, the five times the candidate for President for the Socialist Party. Debs' speeches against the Wilson administration and the war earned the enmity of President Woodrow Wilson, who later called Debs a "traitor to his country." On June 16, 1918, Debs made a speech in Canton, Ohio, urging resistance to the military draft of World War I. He was arrested, charged with sedition, convicted, and sentenced to ten years in prison.

There were no reliable nationwide polling services at the time which can be used to document public sentiment. But most historians agree that the majority of the electorate opposed the war at the time of the 1916 election. Wilson's motto for reelection was, "He kept us out of the war." My own grandparents voted for him because he was considered to be the "peace candidate." Then almost immediately after winning the election Wilson began using his persuasive powers to change sentiments toward acceptance of a declaration of war.

Wilson's ability to get Congress to declare war is an example of what we now call the "only Nixon goes to China" phenomenon. An argument can be made that only a President with the reputation of being the peace candidate could have managed to carry a majority to war.

"Without the President's forceful and persuasive message," recalled Fiorello La Guardia, then a pro-war Republican House member, "I am not sure a majority could have been obtained for the declaration."

Would a president Charles Evans Hughes done as well? If the dour jurists eked out a win in California and moved into the White House with just 46 percent of the popular vote, the opposition in Congress may have been more implacable and a good deal larger. La Follette and Kitchin might not have been lonely outcasts but confident leaders of the opposition, one swelled by dozens of Democrats freed from the obligation to support a president of their own party and by progressive Republicans who had long clashed with the pro-war chieftains of the GOP. Indeed, a President Hughes would have found it difficult to persuade the many disciples of Bryan and allies of Kitchin in the House and Senate to give up objections they had voiced consistently since the summer of 1914. Representative George Huddleston—who represented Birmingham, Alabama—had lambasted support for the war "as a racket foisted upon the country by eastern bankers, industrialists, publishers, armchair jingoes from the Yale and Harvard clubs … the natural enemies of democracy." He opposed every preparedness bill. But on April 5, as a loyal Democrat, Huddleston sided with the majority."

The ironic and cynical lesson here is to vote for the opposite of what one wants because politicians will always do the opposite of what they promised.

Early in 1937, a time when memory of the war was fresh in the minds of most adults and to no one's surprise at the time, "the Gallup Poll found that 70 percent of American believed it had been a mistake for the United states to fight in World War I." It certainly didn't make the "world safe for democracy" nor did it turn out to be "the war to end all wars."

The author of this book will be one of the keynote speakers at a conference planned to be held October 19-22, 2017 at the National World War I Museum and Memorial, Kansas City, MO. The title of the seminar is "Remembering Muted Voices." Papers will be presented focusing on "Conscience, Dissent, Resistance, and Civil Liberties in World War I through Today." More information is at the following link:
https://www.theworldwar.org/learn/rem...

[David Eppenstein · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is well written and researched and recounts a period of history that is not very well known though it should be. I give it three stars because it is worth reading but I don't think it will appeal to the average reader. Unless the reader has a particular interest in this period it is probable that they will find this book rather dry and dull. It was for this reason that I was more than a little disappointed in the book. I have read about this period and I know how turbulent a time it was and while the author mentions some of the events of that time he does it in a manner that fails to capture the passions of that time.

Since the book is about the anti-war movements and their organizers of the time leading up to the U.S. involvement in WWI it would be hard to discuss this topic without dealing with the history of the time. Consequently, Woodrow Wilson and the various key figures of Congress are featured prominently as they should. The anti-war activists are with a very few exceptions lost to popular history. Jane Adams is mentioned as is Helen Keller, Samuel Gompers, Eugene Debs, Henry Ford are all names most of us have heard but their involvement in the anti-war movements prior to WWI are not the stuff of popular history. I think what might take the wind out of the sails for a reader of this book is knowing that the efforts of these well-meaning progressives and liberals was all for nothing since the reader knows we did enter that war. What is missing in this book, in my opinion, is the evidence of just how correct these advocates were. If the purpose of this book is to encourage such voices to be heeded then providing the reasons would have helped and it would have made the book more readable. The author does mention that shortly after WWI starts that Britain cut the transatlantic cable linking Germany with the U.S. thus requiring any communication between Germany and the U.S. to first pass through England. What is not mentioned is how England controlled all the war news received by the U.S. Only Allied news reporters had access to the war front. England had an entire public relations department devoted to controlling what war news was given to the U.S. How eager do you think Americans would have been to enter this war if they had any idea of how massive the casualties were that were being suffered by the Allies? England played Wilson like a country bumpkin and he never questioned anything they fed him because he was completely biased when it came to England. Our entry into that war can easily be portrayed as a fraud committed on this country by our supposed friend, England. Unfortunately, this activity by England is not given the attention it deserves in this history and it certainly would have justified the actions of the people and organizations that fought so earnestly for us to avoid it.

After we enter the war Wilson succeeds in passing some of the most outrageous legislation in our history. Further, he manages to garner the cooperation of the courts to rationalize the legality of constitutional travesty. This legislation is mentioned and some anecdotal stories are detailed to demonstrate the draconian legal consequences visited upon people for what could easily be seen as offhanded remarks and innocent activities. Never in our history has free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly been so efficiently suppressed and done so in the name of liberty and patriotism. Worse, these laws are still valid and on the books today. The author does show how these laws caused some of the peace advocates to alter their stance. Some simply gave up and joined the parade while others tried to continue while attempting to skirt the laws as best they could. Those that continued the struggle ended up in prison. The book also fails to really bring home how these laws in the wrong hands were used to persecute immigrants for the sole crime of being different and not "American Enough".

While the book is about attempts to keep the U.S. out of WWI in the closing pages the anti-war movements for Viet Nam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are also given brief discussion but only the Viet Nam movements seem to be comparable to what took place a century ago. We didn't listen in the early 20th century but we did listen, eventually, in the 70's. A book like this could have given a lot of readers something to think about but I think the author missed the audience that need to be reached. I believe this book is just a bit too scholarly for the average reader and it is that reader that needed it.

[Colleen Browne · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a well-written, thoughtful book written by a professor of mine from last semester. It deals with those who tried to keep the U.S. from entering the fight in WWI and once in it, to end involvement. Heroic though they were, they were obviously unable to do it- partly do to the repressive measures designed to keep them from speaking what they knew to be truth. As people like Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge screamed that they were cowards and pushed to get the nation into war, people reacted through fear and eventually we lost nearly 150,00 men for nothing. It has been suggested, quite convincingly, that if the U.S. had not entered the fray, the entire 20th Century would have turned out differently. If Germany had won, there would have been no "stab in the back", no Hitler, no genocide. Such a shame. Kazin focuses on several people important to the peace movement from a variety of backgrounds: from Jane Adams, to Kitchens, to the Eastmans, to Hillquit, and so on. I recommend this book. I have read many books on WWI and several Wilson bios but none of them have presented the detail about what was happening in the U.S. as well as this one.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

While parades have long been a staple of demonstrations in New York City, the one that took place on August 29, 1914 was something new. On that day, tens of thousands of bystanders watched as approximately 1,500 women, many of them dressed in mourning or wearing black armbands with their white dresses, conducted a silent march down Fifth Avenue. Led by two women carrying a white banner bearing the image of a dove holding an olive branch, the "Parade for Peace" marched to the beat of muffled drums from 58th Street to Union Square. It was a display of something that had never before been witnessed in the United States: the first direct action tactic by a peace organization in opposition to war.

The march consisted of women from a diverse range of backgrounds, from wealthy members of New York society to African-Americans and French refugees. What united them was their shared objection to the war then unfolding in Europe, one from which they hoped fervently the United States would remain apart. In this they were not alone, as a surprisingly varied range of Americans shared their passion to stay out of the conflict. Michael Kazin’s book provides an account of how this eclectic coalition of interests came together to form a surprisingly cohesive opposition to American intervention, one that campaigned incessantly in public, the press, and the corridors of power, to maintain America’s neutrality and make the nation into an agent for peace.

Kazin argues that this coalition consisted of four key groups, in each of which he identifies a particular spokesperson who was notably representative of it. Two of these – labor lawyer Morris Hillquit and feminist Crystal Eastman – were activists for movements outside government with long records of agitating for change. In Hillquit, Kazin sees someone who represented both left-wing trade unionism and the socialist movement that was then at the height of its appeal in America. Some of these interests overlapped with those of Eastman, a suffragist who was instrumental in organizing the Women’s Peace Party in January 1915. An outgrowth of the Peace Parade Committee that had organized the march in New York five months earlier, it worked with like-minded organizations of women in Europe to lobby political leaders in Europe to seek a negotiated end to the war.

Such delegations were often welcomed by members of Congress, many of whom shared their objections to involvement in the war. Kazin noes that these legislators mostly belonged to one of two groups: Southern populists such as Claude Kitchin, the North Carolina Democrat who was then the House Majority Leader, and progressive Republicans like the pugnacious Wisconsin senator Robert La Follette. Though both groups held different – and often adversarial – positions on many of the major issues of the day, they found common cause in their mutual belief that big business was driving the United States towards involvement in the conflict.

The combination of the efforts of both of these groups, Kazin notes, was critical to the success the movement enjoyed during the first two and a half years of the war, especially against the challenges they faced. From the start this campaign faced considerable pressure from numerous prominent figures – such as former president Theodore Roosevelt – who mounted a well-funded “preparedness” campaign intended to expand the size of the American military. Peace advocates fought this at every turn, arguing that such an enlarged military only made intervention more likely, and at unnecessary cost to the American taxpayer. The latter point was an especially effective argument with economy-minded Democrats in Congress, and Kazin argues that their success in blunting preparedness measures played a significant role in the delayed deployment of American troops to France after April 1917.

Yet many American peace advocates sought not just the negative goal of keeping the United States out of the conflict, but the positive one of mediating an end to the fighting. In this they played to Woodrow Wilson’s aspirations for the role he sought for himself. Kazin portrays the American president as broadly sympathetic to the American peace movement, often boosting the hopes of the delegations who met with him. He sees Wilson’s anti-war stance as key to his victory in the 1916 presidential election, which he followed with a renewed effort to seek a negotiated settlement to the war. While these efforts were thwarted by Germany’s resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare, antiwar activists still believed that their redoubled efforts might still keep the United States out of the war, only for Wilson’s gradual shift towards armed confrontation to fragment the movement in the weeks leading up to his request from Congress for a declaration of war.

The peace movement split over the declaration of war, with Kitchen and many other members in Congress bowing to the inevitable. Though many of these elected officials continued to resist as best they could the militarization of the country, those outside the halls of power faced growing public pressure and legal harassment designed to silence them. To Kazin, their fate was that of Cassandra, with the prescience of many of their concerns appreciated only after the war was over. He makes clear his regret over their failure, arguing that the world as a whole would have been better off had these activists succeeded. Though many will disagree with this view, it is easy to appreciate from his account why he empathizes with the men and women who fought passionately for peace in a time of war. While an even broader examination of the prewar movement, particularly of its grassroots, might have helped him to better make his argument for its popularity among the American people, this does not diminish its value of a study of the efforts of the first modern antiwar movement in the United States to oppose “the war to end all wars.”

[Christopher Saunders · Rating 4 out of 5]

Michael Kazin's War Against War chronicles the hodgepodge of pacifist groups that opposed America's entry into WWI and were persecuted during and after the conflict. They're a motley lot of socialists, suffragettes, idealistic tycoons, progressive politicians like Robert La Follette and mainstream liberals. Kazin does an excellent job exploring the broader background of pacifism, showing that it had deep roots in early 20th Century America; as evidenced by the variety of groups mentioned above, it was a mainstream rather than fringe movement far more powerful than any equivalents today. Kazin does excellent work fleshing out forgotten incidents like Henry Ford's peace cruise and the attempts to filibuster Wilson's "armed neutrality" bill, along with interesting tidbits (I learned that the ACLU came from the Civil Liberties Bureau, formed in protest to the Espionage Act). Fascinating and highly recommended.

[Jerome Otte · Rating 4 out of 5]

A broad and readable history of the various figures and organizations opposed to American intervention in the Great War.

Kazin focuses on Claude Kitchin, Crystal Eastman, Morris Hilquit and Robert LaFollette (although they kind of appear, disappear, and re-appear for long periods throughout the narrative) His sketches of them are vivid and he does a good job portraying their concern over war profiteering. While readers familiar with Wilson will be aware of how zealously his government attacked wartime free speech, Kazin goes into lots of detail on how exactly dissent was treated, and it is not pretty. He also notes how antiwar critics were often mocked or dismissed as “isolationists” (as antiwar activists often are) despite their awareness of the dangers of intervention.

Kazin does a great job capturing the atmosphere of the times. The narrative is pretty fluid, although it can meander at times. Kazin does assert that America could have avoided intervention, but the evidence for that argument is not presented in detail.

The book also includes the story of Frank Cobb’s April 2, 1917 discussion with Wilson, where Wilson supposedly unburdened himself of his fear for the country and his desperation for a way out (Although Kazin writes that it took place on March 19) There are reasons to doubt this story, since Cobb left no oral or written account of such a meeting and the story first appeared after the deaths of both Wilson and Cobb. The White House visitor logs have no record of a visit by Cobb that night. Wilson didn’t even keep his cabinet in the loop on his upcoming speech to Congress, so why would he summon a journalist from New York that he wasn’t really friends with?

A well-written and well-researched work.

[The American Conservative]

A slog, but not without rewards: that’s what best describes this account of Americans who opposed U.S. participation in the European War of 1914–1918. While Michael Kazin, a historian of progressive bent who teaches at Georgetown University, tells an important story, his book suffers from a want of zip. The narrative meanders. The prose lacks sparkle. Still, for the patient reader, War Against War offers much to reflect upon.

Kazin’s subject is what he calls “the largest, most diverse, and most sophisticated peace coalition” to that point in all U.S. history. Not until the Vietnam War a half-century later would there be an antiwar movement “as large, as influential, and as tactically adroit.”

Perhaps so, but the American peace coalition that flourished a century ago failed abysmally. It succeeded neither in keeping the country out of the war nor in insulating the home front from war’s corrosive effects once the U.S. eventually intervened.

http://www.theamericanconservative.co...

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

A compelling, thoroughly researched book on the "War to End All Wars" and the diverse coalition of activists, politicians, and ordinary citizens that opposed it. American opposition to the Great War was not isolationist or able to be easily captured in any single sentiment- Southerners, Northerners, socialists, anti-corporatists, suffragists, republicans, and democrats all opposed the war.

If you are interested in peace, American history, militarization, socialism in the US, or coalition building and activism- check this book out.

[Tom Peebles · Rating 4 out of 5]

Earlier this month, Europe and much of the rest of the world paused briefly to observe the 100th anniversary of the day in 1918 when World War I, sill sometimes called the Great War, officially ended. In the United States, where we observe Veterans’ Day without explicit reference to World War I, this past November 11th constituted one of the rare occasions when the American public focused on the four-year conflict that took somewhere between 9 and 15 million lives, including approximately 116,000 Americans, and shaped indelibly the course of 20th century history. In this engaging work, Michael Kazin recounts the history of the diverse groups and individuals in the United States who sought to keep their country out of the conflict when it broke out in 1914; and how those groups changed, evolved and reacted once the United States, under President Woodrow Wilson, went to war in April 1917.

The opposition to World War I was, Kazin writes, the “largest, most diverse, and most sophisticated peace coalition to that point in U.S. history” (p.xi). It included pacifists, socialists, trade unionists, urban progressives, rural populists, segregationists, and crusaders for African-American rights. Women, battling at the same time for the right to vote, were among the movement’s strongest driving forces, and the movement enjoyed support from both Democrats and Republicans. Although opposition to the war had a decidedly anti-capitalist strain – many in the opposition saw the war as little more than an opportunity for large corporations to enrich themselves — a handful of well-known captains of American industry and finance supported the opposition, among them Andrew Carnegie, Solomon Guggenheim and Henry Ford. It was a diverse and colorful collection of individuals. Not until the Vietnam War did any war opposition movement approach the World War I peace coalition in size or influence.

This eclectically diverse coalition was in no sense isolationist, Kazin emphasizes. That pejorative term that had not yet come into popular usage. Convinced that the United States had an important role to play on the world stage beyond its own borders, the anti-war coalition sought to create a “new global order based on cooperative relationships between nation states and their gradual disarmament” (p.xiv). Its members hoped the United States would exert moral authority over the belligerents by staying above the fray and negotiating a peaceful end to the conflict.

Kazin’s tells the story of the anti-war movement largely through admiring portraits of four key members of the anti-war coalition, each representing one of its major components: Morris Hillquit, a New York labor lawyer and a Jewish immigrant from Latvia, standard-bearer for the Socialist Party of America and left-wing trade unions; Crystal Eastman, a charismatic and eloquent New York feminist and labor activist, on behalf of women; and two legislative representatives, Congressman Claude Kitchen, a populist Democrat from North Carolina and an ardent segregationist; and Wisconsin Republican Senator Robert (“Fighting Bob”) LaFollette, Congress’ most visible progressive. The four disagreed on much, but they agreed that industrial corporations yielded too much power, and that the leaders of American industry and finance were “eager to use war and preparations for war to enhance their profits” (p.xiv).

Kazin spends less time on the coalition’s opponents – those who had few qualms about entering the European conflict and, short of that, supported “preparedness” (always used with quotation marks): the notion that the United States needed to build up its land and naval capabilities and increase the size of its military personnel in the event that they might be needed for the conflict. But those favoring intervention and “preparedness” found their voice in the outsized personality of former president Theodore Roosevelt, who mixed bellicose rhetoric with unadulterated animosity toward President Wilson, the man who had defeated him in a three-way race for the presidency in 1912.

Kazin’s story necessarily turns around Wilson and his fraught relationship with the anti-war coalition. Stern, rigid, and frequently bewildering, Wilson was a firm opponent of United States involvement in the war when it broke out in 1914. Wilson wanted the United States to stay neutral in the conflict so he could negotiate a lasting and just peace — an objective that the anti-war coalition fully endorsed. He met frequently with peace groups and took care to praise their motives. But Kazin shows that, throughout 1915, Wilson edged ever closer to the “preparedness” side, leaving many on both sides confused about his intentions, probably deliberately so. In Kazin’s interpretation, Wilson ultimately decided that he could be a more effective negotiator for a lasting and just peace if the United States entered the war rather than remained neutral. As the United States transitioned to belligerent, Wilson transformed from sympathizer with the anti-war coalition to its suppressor-in-chief. His transformation constitutes the most dramatic thread in Kazin’s story.

Shipping on the high seas precipitated the crisis with Germany that led to the United States’ entry into the war. The German sinking of the Cunard ocean liner RMS Lusitania off the coast of Ireland on May 7, 1915, killing more than 1,200 citizens, among them 128 Americans, constituted in Kazin’s view the beginning of the end for any real chance that the United States would remain neutral in the conflict. Peace activists who had been urging their neutral government to mediate a settlement in the war “now faced a struggle to keep their nation from joining the fray” (p.62).

Kazin describes how, after the sinking of the Lusitiana, throughout 1916 and into the early months of 1917, “social workers and feminists, left-wing unionists and Socialists, pacifists and non-pacifists, and a vocal contingent of senators and congressmen from both major parties,” led by LaFollette and Kitchin, “worked together to stall or reverse the drive for a larger and more aggressive military” (p.63). As events seemed to propel the United States closer to war in late 1916 and early 1917, the anti-war activists found themselves increasingly on the defensive.

Wilson ran for re-election in the fall of 1916 as the “peace candidate” and eked out a narrow victory in the Electoral College, with war opponents likely putting him over the top in three key states. Then, in January 1917, he outlined his vision of a vision for a “cooperative peace” that would “win the approval of mankind,” enforced by an international League of Peace. The details for Wilson’s “cooperative peace” borrowed liberally from the anti-war coalition’s playbook. But, two months later, in March 1917, German U-boats sank three unarmed American vessels. This was the point of no return for Wilson, Kazin argues. The president, who had “staked the nation’s honor and prosperity on protecting the ‘freedom of the seas,’ now believed he had no choice but to go to war” (p.172).

The United States’ declaration of war on Germany in April 1917 seemed to have coincided with a declaration of war on the anti-war coalition and anyone else who questioned the United States’ role in the conflict. The Wilson administration persecuted and prosecuted opponents of the war effort with a ferocity few in the anti-war movement could have anticipated. The Wilson administration, its allies in Congress and the judiciary all embraced the view that critics of the war had to “stay silent or suffer for their dissent” (p.189).
Under the draconian Sedition Act of 1918, which criminalized “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the government, the flag, or the “uniform of the armed forces” (p.246), even mild anti-war sentiment was prosecuted aggressively. Uttering the view that conflict was a “rich man’s war and the United States is simply fighting for the money” (p.245) sent one man to jail, while another was prosecuted and jailed for charging that the United States Army was a “God damned legalized murder machine” (p.245).

Many in the anti-war coalition, understandably, fell into line or fell silent, fearing that they would be punished for “refusing to change their minds” (p.xi). Those continuing in the shrunken anti-war movement felt compelled to “defend themselves constantly against charges of disloyalty or outright treason” (p.243). They fought to “reconcile their fear and disgust at the government’s repression with a hope that Wilson might still embrace a ‘peace without victory’ . . .” (p.243). As American attention to the Great War recedes in the aftermath of this month’s November 11th remembrances, Kazin’s contrarian work remains a timely reminder of the divisiveness of the conflict.

For a more detailed review of Kazin’s work, see:
https://tomsbooks.wordpress.com/2018/...

[Micah · Rating 3 out of 5]

I felt like Kazin tried to turn history into a dramatic soap opera. With 100 different characters each with their own drama and own personality. It was super hard for me to keep track of all that happened up to WWI plus how each character played its role & how their drama fit into the story. I appreciated that this book wasn’t as stiff as so many other historians but this direction didn’t work for me tbh.

[Renee · Rating 4 out of 5]

I won this book and gave it to my husband, because he loves history. It sure didn't take him long to read - just a few days. He was into it. He states that he enjoyed learning about what went on behind the scenes leading up and into WWII. If anyone wants to learn about this period in our history, this book is definitely worth reading! It gets our seal of approval!

[Joseph Spuckler · Rating 4 out of 5]

War Against War: The American Fight for Peace, 1914-1918 by Michael Kazin is a study of American opinion of the war in Europe. Kazin is a Professor in the Department of History. He is an expert in U.S. politics and social movements, 19th and 20th centuries. His most recent book is American Dreamers: How the Left Changed a Nation, which was named a Best Book of 2011 by The New Republic, Newsweek/Daily Beast, and The Progressive. He is editor of "Dissent," a leading magazine of the American left since 1954.

World War I was a war that was half a world away to most Americans. Fifty years earlier America was fighting its own war which cost 620,000 lives. Losses and carnage were still fresh in many minds and losing lives in a far away land was not a priority for most. The European war presented complications for many. Today's seemingly easy answer of the Allies was not clear then. America's Irish immigrants opposed Britain over home rule. German-Americans would hold some loyalty to the fatherland. The idea of hyphenated Americans is not a new thing. Many Americans held their old country's identity. When I was going up in the 1970s neighborhoods were identified by their nationality. Immigrants tended to settle with their own kind and kept it as an identity.

Wilson positioned himself in varying degrees of neutrality voicing support for trade and the rights of neutrals. German u-boats and submarine warfare were the most publicized but little was said of British restrictions against American trading with Germany. Britain effectively blockaded Germany from the beginning of the war. In addition to the blockade, Britain imposed a comprehensive contraband list that nearly eliminated US trade with Germany. US industry was as unhappy with Britain as it was with Germany's submarine warfare.

Many groups in the US opposed the war such as the socialists who saw the war as being fought for the bankers and the rich. Women's groups opposed the war as it would be their sons who would be dying. Even expanding the size of the military was not a popular idea. Teddy Roosevelt was perhaps one of the most outspoken voices for siding with Britain. As much as many people despised the German actions few believed it was worth fighting for. Wilson's ability to keep America out of war is seen as the reason for his very narrow victory in the 1916 presidential elections. Almost exactly five months later Wilson asked congress to declare war on the German government.

The tide against the war seemed to disappear but very cautiously. The draft was brought up as volunteerism rather than conscription. Those speaking out against the war were silenced. The Espionage Act of 1917 was enacted to prevent interference with recruiting or military operations. Thousands of antiwar protesters were tried and convicted under the Espionage Act. The most famous of these being Eugene Debs. Chrisitan pacifist inductees were also court-martialed and sentenced to prison. Many civilians were arrested for not having their draft cards with them.

The war no one wanted to fight suddenly turned into the war that was illegal not to support. Kazin gives a detailed study of the social currents leading to America's entry into World War I and the changes that would have the country as a whole. The sudden change from neutralism to war was without a major incident. There was no Pearl Harbor, Concord, or Ft. Sumpter to trigger the war. The US simply slipped into the war and afterwards slipped into deep isolation.

[Jared Lebental · Rating 2 out of 5]

I picked this book up because it was a requirement for a political science 101 class I took at SDSU taught by a man named Graubart.

So here is the thing about War Against War. We [the students POLISCI 101] were told the book was supposed to explain how the first world war was the cause of the second world war and all subsequent wars the United states took part in. I'm forced to agree that the book does do that, but I can save you some trouble by telling you the same effect could be done in a few sentences. The main points are Congressional resistance to the Treaty of Versailles and punitive postwar action of the Allies on Germany, but I won't get too far into it.

This book is less an extensive thesis on how the ball got rolling than it is a memorial to the antiwar efforts who, try as they might, could not keep the United States out of the war. Kazin writes the narrative of the antiwar efforts through 4 key anti war figures: Morris Hilquit a prominent socialist and union lawyer, Claude Kitchen the Democratic leader of the House during the Wilson years, Crystal Eastmen a tireless agent of several Suffrsgist and antiwar groups, and La Follete the republican senator.

There doesn't seem to be much point to telling the story in my opinion beyond respecting these figures. It could be argued that it shows what its like to stand up for what you believe in against the Powers that be, but Hisstory is littered with that sort of moral so this instance is no more special for that lesson than any other.

The only posited ideas I noticed were in the last page and a half. Kazin claimed that realistically, the only war the US had no choice but to enter was WW2. That war was necessary "for national survival instead of just exercising a strategic or moral option". All other wars he says were wars of choice. And he makes this claim in reference to wars as early as the Mexican-American war in the 1840s and the Spanish war of 1898 to those as contemporary as the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't really disagree with his claim, but I will stand in defense of several wars because they advanced several interests that I value.

The best point I read in the book was one that Kazin cited from another man named Jonathan Ebel, who believed that World War 2 gave Americans a skewed perspective on the narrative of American Military triumph which was bad given the amount of wars coming up. So this best thing I read in this book was said by some other guy Kazin heard of. What an interesting idea too! Thats a thesis, a good idea I'd love to hear argued.

Truthfully, I finished this book at least 2 days after the midterm I took on it. But I did great on my midterm anyway. Thats because I'm a genius.

Would I have opened this book if I weren't forced to? Probably not. Do I regret reading it? No, I'm no worse off for reading it. 2 Stars.

[Chris Jaffe · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this it bits and spurts over 6 weeks, and that's not an ideal way to retain info.

Kazin looks at the Peace Movement before and during WWI. Early on, there was hopes to create a movement that would end war. Then it was a hope to keep the US out of war. But the movement began to fracture as the US went more towards war. For instance, many suffragettes were peace advocates, but as the US ramped into preparedness, some went along with it while others remained steadfastly opposed.

One random thing that stuck with me: why Wilson supported a draft right away. He had two reasons. One, his main political opponent - Teddy Roosevelt was trying to organize some volunteers for him to lead in battle, and Wilson didn't want to give him any glory. Second: there was a concern by Wilson that just letting some join the war would keep the anti-war group unsupportive of the war. But - if that group had relatives in the fight, they might support it more. That's the opposite of nowadays, where the government wants an all-volunteer force in part because it lets the civilian population stay so unconnected from the war effort. Also, all other English-speaking nations tried to avoid having a draft in WWI. England only had one midway through the war after the Somme. Canada, Australia, New Zealand didn't go to a draft for a while either.

[Kenneth Barber · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book traces the organizations that tried to keep America out of WWI. The book defines the various men and women that comprised those groups and the philosophers that motivated them. It is interesting all the different strains of reformers, suffragettes, socialists and labor unions that coalesced to keep us out of war. They fought against entering the war,preparedness and the draft.
After we entered the war the movement split as some advocating support for the war once we declared war and those that continued opposition. Most protested the draft, but had to be careful about advocating not registering. Many of the people in the movement vacillated between different groups and levels of protest.
Hanging over the protest movement were Yuen Espionage Act and the Sedition Act which was used to stop dissent and many were sent to jail for long sentences. The violations of civil liberties in a time when we supposedly fight for democracy was inconsistent with our public objectives. The book introduces the reader to many activists that are not that well known to all, but had significant impact on events.
This is a good book highlighting a period often overlooked in the rush to study the depression and WWII.

[Robert S · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pop Quiz: What wars do you think of when you hear the phrase "antiwar sentiment"?

Answers that first come to mind likely include the Iraq War in 2003, the Vietnam War of the 1960s, and perhaps even the Civil War of the 1860s.

Less considered is World War I. Perhaps part of it can be attributed to the lack of teaching about the war in schools. Most education involving the war involves a shooting started it, the mention of No Man's Land, and then the mighty Americans coming in to bail the Allies out. If your education goes deeper, you may remember President Woodrow Wilson's "He Kept Us Out of the War" re-election campaign slogan when running in 1918. Rarely mentioned is the vehement and strong antiwar sentiment that ran throughout the country even after the United States joined the fight.

War Against War is the story of that sentiment and the movement's (failed) mission to keep the United States out of Europe during what we know today as World War I.

Definitely worth reading.

[Scott Martin · Rating 4 out of 5]

(Audiobook). A somewhat timely read, given the 100 year anniversary of America's official entry into World War I is almost here. This work is a staunch reminder that American participation in World War I was far from a popular certainty. Various forces, from socialists and liberal-minded reformers to key industrial leaders, sought to keep America from entering into World War I for three years. For the most part, their efforts succeeded in making it difficult to impossible for the US Government to garner the popular support to mobilize forces and take any direct actions that would push the US into the war. Certainly, there were times prior to 1917, mainly the sinking of the Lusitania, that almost pushed the US into the war, but it would be German declarations of unrestricted warfare on all shipping, to include US, that would finally drive America into the conflict. Even when the US officially declared war, it was still not a popular concept. To maintain order, the US engaged in a series of acts and decrees that limited dissent, thus limiting opposition. The US did manage to help tip the balance of the war, but it did not do so willingly. It is an interesting read about a time that doesn't get a lot of attention in this day and age. Yet, concepts of anti-war movements, equal rights, privacy vs. security and political will would not be so alien to people today. It is not an easy chapter in American history, but one worth reviewing, especially through the prism of modern times. I don't necessarily agree with the author that we should have stayed out of the war, but he does present the argument that the anti-war movement was a very powerful force in American politics. For an audiobook, the reader does a good job of keeping the pace interesting. For anyone who wants to learn about America's role and actions during this time, this would be a fine addition to the reading list.

[Sarah W. · Rating 4 out of 5]

I learned a lot from this book about the American pacifism movement during World War I. I did not realize how significant this movement was, or how close it got to achieving a key goal: a national referendum before any declaration of war. American involvement in World War I was a difficult issue and I could sympathize with plenty of the arguments leaders made about keeping the United States out of war. However, it did make me curious about how some of these people would have thought about World War II, as the American entrance to that conflict is remarkably different. Unfortunately, this book cannot answer this question, as the author notes that nearly all of the movement's leaders died in the 1920s, long before WWII began. Overall, an interesting read about a lesser known aspect of American history.

[Katie · Rating 4 out of 5]

War Against War, by Michael Kazin, is about the pacifist movement in the years prior to World War I. This was an interesting read, because I know very little about World War I and had no idea there was such a strong peace movement.

This book starts in 1914 and continues through the pre-war period, into WWI. It looks at the people and the politics involved in the fight for peace. Some players were mostly expected, like the women from the suffrage movement, and others surprised me. I would not have thought that Henry Ford would have been a part of the peace movement, but for a time he was an, albeit ineffective, leader.

For the rest of this review, and more check out my blog: www.theunsophisticatedbibliophile.wor...

[Gregory · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kazin begins the book with the hypothesis that American entrance as a belligerent in World War I in 1917 closed off the only possibility to peace, and led to catastrophes of totalitarianism, genocide, and an even greater military cataclysm. Honestly, I cannot say that I agree with this. I have always felt that the United States should have gotten involved sooner, say in 1915, because it would have significantly reduced the overall number of dead and perhaps prevent the political-social collapse that followed the war. Granted, this was not very likely, as Americans, as Kazin points out, were ambivalent about the war right up to the declaration in April 1917. This excellent history charts the activities of Socialist lawyer Morris Hillquit, activist feminist Crystal Eastman, Democratic congressman from North Carolina Claude Kitchin, and Senator Robert LaFollette, Republican from Wisconsin, in opposing preparedness and war. Needless to say, they failed, but their heroic struggle is worth studying.

[Matthew Rohn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting book on the fight against U.S. entry into WWI, that does a good job of breaking down the different strains of anti-war activism (pacifists, anti-militarists, preparedness supporters, etc.) that also presents a much stronger than usual mechanization of why the sinking of the Lusitania and German submarine warfare in the Atlantic was the turning point that made U.S. entry into the war almost inevitable. Good book for historians and general readers with an interest in the subject.

[Nalene · Rating 4 out of 5]

My husband is the history fanatic and so he read this giveaway win instead of me. He was impressed by the thorough research, balanced historical viewpoint (despite a few glimpses of the author's apparent liberal bias), and unique perspective on this period in history. He appreciated the look into the people involved more than just the events that transpired.

[Aloysius · Rating 5 out of 5]

100 years ago, a disparate group of individuals from all walks of life tried to stop the United States from entering World War I. They failed, of course, but their warnings and the results of the action they sought to prevent hold great relevance for today.

[Chase · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great great info that I craved but often the prose put me to sleep. Literally. Very little characterization. I need that

[Jean Kelly · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting book about the various factions that sought to keep America out of WWI. My memory from schooldays was that the movement was isolationist but the author provides a great deal of detail refuting that view.

[Terri Wangard · Rating 4 out of 5]

War Against War is the story of a peace movement that almost kept the US out of World War One. It is filled with little known and long forgotten actions of the American government and its citizens.

America’s entry into the war foreclosed the possibility of a negotiated peace among the belligerents, who were exhausted by three years of fighting. In another year or two, the warring nations would have been forced to reach a settlement. There would have been no punitive peace treaty, no reparations, no Nazis and World War Two.

Four very different individuals―Socialist Morris Hillquit, liberal feminist Crystal Eastman, House Majority Leader Claude Kitchin, and Senator Bob LaFollette―all believed industrial corporations wielded too much sway, eager for war to increase their profits. Americans could do a good business with one or both sides while the killing lasted. A Nashville headline: “Let ‘em shoot! It makes good business for us!”

The Progressives argued that all munitions be produced by the federal government to take the profits out of war. If that happened, the millionaire patriots agitating for ever increasing armaments would instead complain about the tax money being spent to prepare for war in time of peace. LaFollette insisted the “trade in munitions had but one purpose, and that is to sacrifice human life for private gain.”

Peace advocates had grand conventions, but little came of them. They were praised for their efforts, but belligerents were firm about the war ending their way. The warring nations wanted decisive victory for their armies. Some claimed spinning grand designs for a mediated peace was a colossal waste of time.

People who warned us against entering wars often end up being right, and they often end up being punished by a government that doesn’t want to hear the message. In joining the Allies, the US won the war, but lost the peace, gaining no satisfying moral outcome.

In no previous war had there been so much repression in the US, legal and otherwise. Never had the government created a propaganda agency to make an altruistic case for involvement. President Woodrow Wilson believed war critics had to stay silent or suffer. He equated opposition with treason. He actually endorsed a form of Prussianism: employing the might of the state to crush the liberties of its citizens.

As Max Eastman (brother of Crystal Eastman) said, “There is no use making the world safe for democracy if there is no democracy left in the world. There is no use waging a war for liberty if every liberty we have must be abolished in order to wage war.”

War Against War presents a lot to ponder. This is not light reading, but it is worth it.

I received a free copy in exchange for my honest review.

[Terry · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have tremendous respect for those high lighted in this account of the movement to bring an end to WWI. After hearing Dylan's Nobel Prize acceptance speech, I read All Quiet on the Western Front. Both books should be part of high school history classes.

There are a couple of fine books that describe how the Versailles Treaty (ending WWI) paved the way for WWII, as well as the conflicts in the Middle East. The US entry enabled Brits and French to retain/expand their empires. In the Middle East arbitrary boundaries ignoring religion/tribe affiliations were laid. Iraq, eg, ended up a volatile mix of sunni, Shia, and Kurdish groups.

The peace movement included:
socialists, suffragettes, Henry Ford, Robert La Follette and mainstream liberals.

Here's a summary from the WilsonCenter:
In War Against War, Historian Michael Kazin narrates how a group of Americans tried to stop their nation from fighting in one of history’s most destructive wars, and then were hounded by the government when they refused to back down. It was the largest, most diverse, and most sophisticated peace coalition up to that point in US history. Members of the coalition came from a variety of backgrounds, and their political ideologies ranged from socialist and anarchist to populist and white supremacist. They mounted street demonstrations and popular exhibitions, attracted prominent leaders from the labor and suffrage movements, ran peace candidates for local and federal office, and founded new organizations, some of which, like the ACLU, endured beyond the cause. For almost three years, they helped prevent Congress from authorizing a massive increase in the size of the US army—a step advocated by ex-president Theodore Roosevelt. Soon after the end of the Great War, most Americans believed it had not been worth fighting. And when its bitter legacy led to the next world war, the warnings of these peace activists turned into a tragic prophecy—and the beginning of a surveillance state that still endures today.

Michael Kazin is a professor of history at Georgetown University and editor of Dissent magazine.

[Bonnye Reed · Rating 4 out of 5]

GNab I received a free electronic copy of this history from Netgalley, Michael Kazin, and Simon and Schuster in exchange for an honest review. Thank you all, for sharing your hard work with me.

GN I have a special interest in 20th century history, including WWI during which my maternal grandfather served. This book touches on those who supported isolationism during the WWI conflict - something only covered lightly in my past readings. I am grateful to more fully understand this aspect of our history.

The book is well written, and well documented. It is one I will keep for research. Though the isolationists of WWII and the Vietnam Conflict have been pretty well documented, I was not aware that WWI had as strong a backing of anti-militarists as this book reveals them to be. Thank you, for sharing this aspect of American history with me.

Pub date Jan 3, 2017
Simon and Schuster

[Edward Sullivan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kazin's well-researched, insightful look at the leaders of the peace coalition who vigorously opposed American entry into World War I, and continued its dissent once the United States declared war, is an incisive examination of American pacifism and dissent and its resonance in the present day.