Posted on 03/07/2015 10:48:38 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica
In his book Public Opinion, Walter Lippmann wrote the following about what the CPI achieved: (page 47)
Probably this is the largest and the most intensive effort to carry quickly a fairly uniform set of ideas to all the people of a nation. The older proselyting worked more slowly, perhaps more surely, but never so inclusively. Now if it required such extreme measures to reach everybody in time of crisis, how open are the more normal channels to men's minds? The Administration was trying, and while the war continued it very largely succeeded, I believe, in creating something that might almost be called one public opinion all over America.
He who controls the flow of information controls the world. However, an entirely uniform set of ideas is not necessary in order to gain control or to gain an edge that cannot be overcome by others. All you need is a message that doesn't stop. But tracking the message, now that's the fun part.
It all starts on February 3, 1906. At the Lotos Club, George B. Harvey gave a speech in which he was the first to float the idea of Woodrow Wilson as a Presidential Candidate. This dinner was in honor of Woodrow Wilson. The text of Harvey's speech can be found here and here.
Looking into the details have been somewhat fun, since the people who did this were so braggadocios about it after the fact. Harvey's "first lieutenant" during the years of 1906 to 1912 when they engaged in this campaign to elect Woodrow Wilson was William Inglis. Inglis wrote this article detailing how they did it.
However, Inglis was not the only one to brag. Harper's Weekly itself ran a 39 page article detailing how one single report in their publication spawned 5 other reports, 8 other reports, sometimes a dozen other reports. In other words, Harper's readers were not the only ones treated to the "Elect Woodrow" campaign.
The article, titled "The Triumph of an Idea", does the kind of cataloging and tracking of a specific idea that any media-watching organization would be envious of. Harper's naturally had its own biased reason for tracking it - they wanted to put on display their victory. But in today's time, this kind of article is useful for more than just the relic that it is.
Once Harper's(George Harvey) was convinced that Wilson was the man for the job, covers like the one below were also common.
Actually, it is because of Wilson that Germany did not become the world superpower in the 1920s, after Great Britain lost WWI! By 1917 GB and France were broke, out of gold and running out of men and materiel, much of it bought from America, with gold. The Russian Empire was a useless ally, suffering severe losses to the Hun and suffering many mutinies throughout 1917. The Central Powers, Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, could now move troops to the Western Front. France and Britain were in danger of losing the war with much of France and most of Belgium in German hands, which would have consolidated by the Krauts. A German strongman, other than Hitler, could have easily come along in the ‘20s or ‘30s and captured the rest of Western Europe. Same old same old!
As GB and France were out of gold, the American economy was about to grind to a screeching halt, as it would have no more buyers for all of mass of armaments built for GB and France. Wilson’s intervention resulted in the US export economy NOT collapsing. A recession DID occured in 1920, rather than 1917, and was less severe then if the US had not entered the war.
All this aside from the atrocities perpetrated by the Germans in Belgium and France.
I am not seeing why the prospect of a German - Austrian victory was such a horrible event. It is difficult for me to imagine a victory by Germany & Austria Hungary as having been any worse than what happened as a consequence of the Allied victory. We won and promptly set about dismantling the Old Order in Europe and sowing the seeds of catastrophe, which crop we began harvesting in 1939. Please remember that if the Central Powers had won it is most unlikely we would have seen the chaos the reigned in Europe after we broke up the Austrian Empire and deposed the German and Austrian monarchies.
If American businessmen chose to back one side of a war, and then that side loses, why did ordinary citizens have to bail those millionaires out with the lives of their sons? Bad business decisions should not be rewarded in that manner.
The war was none of our business.
Wilson simply surfed the wave created by William Jennings Bryan, whose great speeches concerned power to the people and such. The emotional public was set to ratify the 16th and 17th Amendments, which they did as Wilson became president.
Liberalism was destroying our government long before Wilson took office.
The Krauts illegally sunk the Lusitania, in addition to the atrocities perpetrated in Belgium and France. What do you suppose the US government should have done about the sinking of the Lusitania with over one hundred American civilians on board who died? How about the Zimmerman telegram, offering a German military alliance with Mexico? How about the unrestricted submarine warfare launched by the German Navy? American merchant ships were attacked in the Atlantic and within sight of both the British and the North American coasts! How many American merchant mariners were killed by the Germans before America's entry into WW1? The Krauts were looking for a fight with the US and they sure got it!
Americans were already being killed by Germans long before the US entry into WWI! What the British were doing at sea, as a partial cause of the War of 1812, was much less than what the Germans were doing before America's entry into WW1! Are you suggesting that the War of 1812 was and unjust American War?
Germans have a history of allowing strong dictators to lead them, such as Bismarck and Hitler. It is in their nature to acquiesce to a strong leader. They do not do democracy well; just look at Honecker's regime! They never have and they never will. Something about that Teutonic nature, I guess.
One other thing: The war against the Barbary Coast pirates was because of economics and freedom of trade on the sea! American merchantmen ships were attacked, sunk, captured, and those onboard were held as captives and sold as slaves. The US Navy was in fact, founded to recover those people and those ships that were captured by North African muhamedans. If America’s entry into WW1 was wrong, how was this right? After all it was originally a war between the Muslims and the Europeans, the Americans were merely acting as traders. Wow, that sure sounds a lot like WW1, prior to America’s entry into it!
A few quick points...
* Bismark was hardly a dictator. He was a classical conservative (a Monarchist as am I) and the most able statesman of his day.
* More broadly Germany prior to World War I had no history of petty dictatorship at all. It had a long history of stable government under constitutional monarchy.
* The attacks on our shipping by the Barbary Pirates and later Great Britain were unprovoked. Germany’s attacks on US shipping during WWI while arguably excessive can hardly be called unprovoked. The United States was openly aiding their enemies in the war. US “neutrality” was a joke.
* The Lusitania was a war crime, by both sides. The British knew damn well the ship was carrying war contraband in violation of international law. And they were perfectly happy to use the passengers as human shields. To this day the British government has not come clean about their role in the affair. That doesn’t excuse the Germans sinking her. The law of proportionality was clearly abused.
* As for what we should have done, we should never have allowed a passenger ship to sail from an American port carrying warm material.
* It’s also worth noting that the British slapped a blockade not only on Germany, but also on neutral countries. The Royal Navy routinely stopped US flagged ships bound for Holland and searched them for anything that might make it’s way to Germany, which act was a gross violation of international law and the rights of “neutral” shipping.
I do agree that once Britain decided to go into the war Canada was bound by both honor and her connections to the mother country to follow. But as you noted, that was not the United States. Had I been president I would have ordered an embargo of any war materials to either side. I doubt there would have been a “Zimmerman Telegram” under such conditions, but if there had I would have broken diplomatic relations with the Germans if I had not done so earlier on principal as a response to their undeniably barbarous behavior in Belgium. And I would have told the British government that while we would respect their blockade of Germany as a legitimate policy of war, that we would not stand for the interference of our shipping with other non-beliggerent states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.