Introduction
The foreign policy of any state depends on its current aims, goals, and relations with other countries. It encompasses a set of various strategies, political factors, moods within the state, and historical background. While some nations prefer to form alliances and play an active role in global affairs, others prefer to stay out of conflicts or avoid involvement in critical international issues.
The last stance is linked to the idea of neutrality, which some parties have always used as a basis for their national policies. There are numerous definitions of the concept because of its multifaceted nature. One of the most popular and general descriptions is that it involves neither taking a position nor taking sides (McDonald & Birdi, 2020). It means that the state, maintaining neutrality, deliberately avoids supporting either party because of the risks of becoming involved in a conflict and incurring specific losses.
The idea of remaining neutral is not new and has been employed by different states at different periods of their development. In the USA, the approach to building relations with other nations had long been part of foreign policy. For more than half a century, the US government adhered to a general policy of global neutrality, which meant avoiding participation in European conflicts and forming alliances with other parties (Reginbogin et al., 2009).
It was viewed as the core principle of the foreign relations established by George Washington in 1796 (Rakove, 2016). However, the rise of the nation, its development, and its transformation into a global power became critical factors that undermined the stability of the concept and states’ readiness to stand aside from international conflicts. As a result, the USA became a belligerent in both World Wars and numerous smaller conflicts.
In this way, the proposed paper delves into the politics of neutrality and how the USA attempted to use it as its main course. The three central periods, pre-World War I, the interwar years, and the prelude to World War II, will be investigated. Thus, at the start of the 20th century, the country focused on resolving its inner problems. A foreign policy of neutrality reflected the US’s focus on building a powerful, industrial economy to help the nation become a leading global player (Locke & Wright, 2019). The federal government had limited diplomatic tools to engage in the international struggle for world power (Locke & Wright, 2019).
Furthermore, the army remained comparatively small compared to those of other leading global powers (Locke & Wright, 2019). President Wilson emphasized adherence to the policy of neutrality as the main course (Locke & Wright, 2019). However, because of economic ties and the need to interact with various countries to support the fast-growing industry, preserving neutrality proved complex (Locke & Wright, 2019). It led to a change in the policy and involvement in the war.
During the two analyzed periods, the US approach to foreign relations and policy was similar. The interwar period was characterized by isolationism and a focus on internal problems (Rakove, 2016). For this reason, a set of isolationist policies was adopted, including avoiding an active role in the League of Nations (Rakove, 2016). Furthermore, in the pre-World War II period, the USA entered with a strong desire to avoid new global conflicts. The Congress accepted three Neutrality Acts in the late 1930s to prevent future involvement in wars in Europe and other regions (Locke & Wright, 2019). However, as the new global war became evident, the debates over the issue grew more intense.
In this way, examining three distinct periods—pre-World War I, the interwar years, and the immediate prelude to World War II—allows us to understand the multifaceted nature of U.S. foreign policy. Through this analysis, the essay traces the alternating patterns of American engagement, shifting from a neutral standpoint to active involvement as an international ally and participant in conflicts. The essay is critical for understanding how the USA’s political course changed and how the state transformed into a global power. The discussed military conflicts were the central drivers of the country’s radical shift in foreign policy, making these events critical to discuss.
Pre-World War I Neutrality
President Woodrow Wilson’s Approach
World War I became a central factor in shaping global relations and the broader history of humanity. It resulted in millions of deaths, devastation, and the emergence of new models of interactions between nations. However, the conflict stemmed from years of growing tensions and from other states’ foreign policy approaches. For this reason, numerous countries sought neutrality and avoided engagement.
The USA, under President Woodrow Wilson, entered the pre-war phase to remain non-involved. His approach emphasized the need to stay focused on the nation’s inner aspects of development to lay the basis for its future rise and growth (Neiberg, 2017). The only exception made because of the war was the concept of “armed neutrality”, meaning that the USA had to have a solid army to protect itself (Neiberg, 2017). However, it was believed that the practice of non-involvement would help to avoid severe issues and losses.
Furthermore, Wilson’s approach to the US position during World War I was linked to the need to protect its citizens. The president’s statecraft was cogent and thoughtful, emphasizing the need to avoid military conflicts as long as possible (Doenecke, 2011). In his speech, he admitted that “The people of the United States are drawn from many nations, and chiefly from the nations now at war” (Wilson, 1914, para. 2). Appealing to the multi-ethnicity, he admitted the need to avoid conflicts as they might trigger relations within the state.
Nevertheless, as an experienced and skilled politician, Wilson recognized the difficulties of maintaining neutrality, especially regarding trade interests in regions seized by war. He accepted the idea of arming merchant ships but warned people against traveling on them (Doenecke, 2011). At the same time, the critical aspect of his approach was the correct understanding that, as the war escalates, the ability to step aside becomes increasingly compromised (Doenecke, 2011). As a result, the USA failed to preserve its neutrality in World War I, despite its pre-war policy aimed at doing so.
Key Events Shaping US Foreign Policy
Speaking about the US position before WWI, it is critical to admit that the idea of being distant from other conflicts was formulated soon after the state became independent. For instance, President Washington stated that the great rule of conduct for the nation in foreign relations is to be politically distant while building solid economic ties (Curti, 1970). This idea soon became the central event in transforming the nation and the state into one of the global powers, with a strong industry and the ability to influence international affairs. Furthermore, the War of Independence and the Civil War shaped people’s mentalities and attitudes toward global conflicts (Locke & Wright, 2019). They influenced the shift toward focusing on the inner aspects of the state’s evolution rather than interfering in other nations’ conflicts and clashes.
Migration and the acts that led to the emergence and development of the state were other critical events that contributed to the formation of the neutral position. Discussing foreign policy, Wilson admitted that numerous nations represent the USA (Reginbogin et al., 2009). For instance, around 10% of citizens identified themselves as ethnic Germans (Reginbogin et al., 2009).
The given cohort hoped the state would remain neutral and not fight against their motherland. It means that engagement in the conflict between countries would lead to clashes within the nation and reduced loyalty. Wilson correctly recognized the risks and threats posed by the decision to support one camp or the other. However, the Germans’ desire to block Great Britain’s sea trade and other acts impacted the US’ interests and ability to evolve as an industrial state (Reginbogin et al., 2009). For this reason, neutrality was reconsidered to ensure that the state could continue to grow as an industrial nation and maintain its connections with other strategic partners.
Interwar (Pre-World War II) Neutrality
Neutrality Acts in the 1930s
World War I was a critical event for all belligerents and caused significant harm. Thus, years after the conflict, most Americans concluded that participation was a disastrous mistake that should not be repeated (Rakove, 2016). For this reason, new attempts were made to return to a neutral policy. At the same time, events in Europe and Asia indicate that a new World War will start soon (Locke & Wright, 2019). For this reason, the Neutrality Acts were enacted to protect the state. The document of 1935 prohibited the export of “arms, ammunition, and implements of war” to foreign nations (“The Neutrality Act of 1935,” n.d., para. 2).
Later, the Neutrality Act of 1937 was enacted to prohibit citizens from traveling on belligerent ships and transporting arms (Locke & Wright, 2019). The act responded to the rapid deterioration of the international situation. Finally, in 1939, the government adopted the last Neutrality Act (Locke & Wright, 2019). It lifted the arms embargo and introduced the term cash-and-carry to describe relations with belligerents (Locke & Wright, 2019). In this way, the Acts became an attempt to prevent the nation from entering a new world war.
US Sentiment and Action of Isolationism
The complex situation with the state and the memories of crucial losses during World War I shaped US sentiment and the state’s overall mood. The Great Depression pushed the public in the United States toward accepting isolationist ideas (Locke & Wright, 2019). Furthermore, the state witnessed numerous antiwar movements that grew in popularity and attracted thousands of people (Curti, 1970). The adherents of the idea emphasized the dramatic consequences of the decision to stop neutrality and join one of the opposing camps during the previous conflict (Curti, 1970).
As a result, thousands of deaths and a growing number of problems became critical factors. The USA faced a worldwide economic depression, national issues of unemployment and poverty, and the need for greater attention to domestic concerns (Schulzinger, 2008). The combination of these factors shaped public opinion and US diplomacy, and popularized the idea of being isolated from troubles affecting the Old World (Schulzinger, 2008). The USA also refused to participate in the League of Nations, which was created to regulate global relations among states (Schulzinger, 2008). In this way, facing global militarism and the rapid deterioration of international relations, the country focused on attempts to isolate itself from others.
Challenges Testing Neutrality
Nevertheless, rather than focusing on neutrality, the USA faced severe challenges that affected its position. First, around 32 million of its citizens represented other nations with strong emotional ties to their homelands (Locke & Wright, 2019). As a result, it was difficult to explain the need to avoid helping some parties. Furthermore, the country had strong trade relations with Great Britain, France, and other countries engaged in the global discourse and preparing for war (Locke & Wright, 2019). Continuing cooperation with representatives of one help was considered a threat by representatives of another, undermining the idea of neutrality and isolation (Locke & Wright, 2019).
At the same time, Germany’s and its allies’ attempts to isolate European countries, such as France and Great Britain, also affected the US fleet (Locke & Wright, 2019). In one of his speeches, Roosevelt warned that the would-be storm cab “rage till the flower of culture” would disappear (Roosevelt & Grafton, 1999, p. 78). It indicated the growing threat to peace and neutrality. The incidents involving attacks by military ships were not ordinary, which shaped the public opinion people’s view of neutrality.
Comparison
Disillusionment with Previous Wars
In this way, the USA attempted to remain neutral before both global conflicts, a critical part of its foreign policy. Presidents Wilson and Roosevelt had different views on neutrality; however, both recognized it as essential for protecting the state and its citizens from war. The disillusionment with the previous wars was a crucial factor in the establishment of isolationism (Doenecke, 2011).
Millions of deaths, devastation, and the financial crisis demonstrated the risks of global war and the inability of war to improve the nation’s condition in the short term (Doenecke, 2011). In the pre-World War I period, the USA used the Civil War experience, which was a great challenge for the nation. However, after 1918, the country gained new experience that led to disillusionment and the clear realization that playing an active role in global politics requires involvement in military conflicts. For this reason, the USA tried to formulate a new course to help it avoid being belligerent in a new conflict.
Formalizing U.S. Neutrality Stance
Another important similarity across all the discussed periods is the attempt to formalize the stance on neutrality. For instance, President Wilson wanted Congress to accept the acts that would prevent the USA from participating in military engagements or battles (Locke & Wright, 2019). The same was observed during the years before World War II. The nation and the government recognized the threat of a new conflict, leading to the adoption of the Neutrality Acts of 1935, 1937, and 1939 (Hendrickson, 2009).
These documents introduced strong prohibitions on participating in events that other states might consider support for their enemies (Hendrickson, 2009). In fact, the neutral status was formalized due to the work of the Congress and its focus on establishing the basis for interacting with others without being considered a belligerent. In this way, the official course on neutrality was supported by the documents and legal regulations necessary to control the situation. As a result, the conditions for preserving the country’s neutrality in foreign policy were established.
Differences
Extensiveness and Effectiveness of Neutrality
Analyzing the idea of neutrality in US foreign policy during the discussed periods, it is essential to acknowledge several important differences. First, the effectiveness of the approaches to interacting with other states was different. During Wilson’s presidency, the USA sought to remain neutral to support the rapid development of its industry (Hendrickson, 2009).
However, the British blockade disrupted trade, and German submarine warfare posed a danger to US ships. However, the state had to resort to armed neutrality to resist threats. At the same time, in the pre-World War II period, the USA was more engaged in international relations. It had to adopt a cash-and-carry model to support its trade and avoid financial losses due to the restrictions (Vine, 2021). However, compared to the previous years of neutrality, its effectiveness was reduced, and as a result, the USA entered WWII.
Awareness of Potential Threats After WWI
Another critical difference was the increased awareness of the potential threats associated with entering the global war. Before WWI, the USA sought to avoid military conflict due to the potential harm and the need to address internal problems, such as industrial development (Hendrickson, 2009). However, after WWI, the situation altered radically as the nation acquired several vital lessons.
Awareness of the devastating effects of the conflict grew, and citizens viewed isolation as the only way to remain safe (Doenecke, 2011). Furthermore, the nation faced the consequences of the global conflict, including the Great Depression and an economic crisis (Hendrickson, 2009). As a result, the USA reconsidered its stance on playing an active role in global affairs and returned to neutrality as its primary foreign policy stance.
Pre-WWI: Preventing Involvement with European Nations
The unacceptability of involving other European nations’ conflicts was another critical aspect of US neutrality at the start of the 20th century. The foreign policy aimed to avoid foreign entanglements and stand above conflicts (Hendrickson, 2009). Wilson’s presidency aimed to keep the nation out of war by making it neutral and non-involved in the conflicts of the Old World (Hendrickson, 2009).
However, the complications in international trade and relations due to the war were a serious challenge to the USA and its ability to evolve. Although the conditions were worsening, the nation focused on protecting its interests without direct clashes. The country entered the war only in 1917 and, as an associated power, sought to remain as detached from the tensions as possible (Hendrickson, 2009). In this way, even though the USA entered the war, Wilson and the government made a significant contribution to ensuring the state’s neutrality.
WWII: Seeking Peace
Lessons from WWI demonstrated the risks of entering a global military conflict and the potential problems it entails. For this reason, the USA focused on maintaining isolation in foreign relations and protecting its interests. Non-interventionists appealed to historical precedents such as Washington’s address and the failure of WWI to serve the nation’s interests (Doenecke, 2011).
For this reason, many attempts were made to create a legal base for remaining neutral and avoiding new deaths and devastation. However, unlike Wilson, Roosevelt’s political course implied cooperating with the allies in the expected conflict to empower the nation and make it one of the leading global powers (Doenecke, 2011). For this reason, efforts to seek peace failed, and WWII radically altered the US approach to foreign policy and relations with other states.
Conclusion
Altogether, the US could not remain neutral during both global conflicts. The nation’s foreign policy focused on staying out of the wars in Europe. The country tried to develop its industry and trade relations as the key to prosperity and further evolution.
However, the idea of neutrality could not support the US’s desire to become a global power. Its interests in Europe and its partners from various regions led it to be unable to remain on the sidelines. The USA had to protect its interests and trade routes, which made clashes with the opposing parties inevitable. Furthermore, during WWII, the cash-and-carry practice helped to revitalize the economy and reduce the adverse effects of the Great Depression. As a result, the USA failed to remain neutral during the periods under discussion.
The discussion above also underscores the importance of a cautious, practical approach to foreign affairs and to building relations with others. The central idea behind selecting the course is to protect the state’s interests and lay the foundation for its future development and rise. Thus, the USA’s neutrality grew from the first government’s and presidents’ attempts to protect the nation and lay the foundation for stability and economic growth.
Washington’s farewell address was considered the central factor impacting the US course. At the same time, the fast-changing nature of international relations underscored the need to revise foreign policy. In this way, the events during the discussed periods show that radical changes in the course could lead to unexpected outcomes and a critical deterioration of the situation. The state should be ready for the consequences of altering the approach to interacting with numerous states globally.
Annotated Bibliography
Curti, M. (1970). Pearce or war: The American struggle 1636-1936. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
The book delves into the American debate over its foreign policy and the strategies used to interact with other states. It is a valuable source as it traces the evolution of the approach to international relations and how the idea altered under the impact of external and internal factors.
Doenecke, J. D. (2011). Nothing less than war: A new history of America’s entry into World War I. University Press of Kentucky.
The source offers valuable information about America’s decision to join World War I. It highlights the desire to remain neutral as the initial position and admits the changing global landscape and its importance for the US’s entry into the global conflict. The author also discusses the problems the nation faced at the start of the new century.
Hendrickson, D. C. (2009). Union, nation, or empire: The American debate over international relations, 1789-1941. University Press of Kansas.
The author discusses the debate over the political course of the USA and its approach to building foreign relations. The book cultivates a better understanding of how the nation selected the paradigm of further development and what factors shaped its approach to foreign relations. It is a vital source for understanding the roots of US neutrality.
Neiberg, M. (2017). Why fight? In S. Berg (Ed.) World War I and America: Told by the Americans who lived it (pp. 3-12). The Library America.
The source is a compilation of works devoted to World War I and how the USA faced it. The selected article outlines the reasons that impacted the country’s decision to fight against the policy of neutrality. It highlights the significant aspects of being neutral and how public opinion has altered over time.
Locke, J., & Wright, B. (Eds.). (2019). The American YAWP(Vol. 2). Stanford University Press.
The selected source offers important information about the history of the USA. It highlights the most critical events, such as WWI and WWII, and the periods between them. That is why it cultivates the enhanced vision of the period and its major challenges.
McDonald, S., & Birdi, B. (2020). The concept of neutrality: A new approach. Journal of Documentation, 76(1), 333-353.
The journal article discusses the idea of neutrality as one of the central aspects of foreign policy. The authors define the phenomenon and speak about its main features that are essential for understanding how it evolves and why it remains attractive for states globally. It establishes the theoretical basis for talking about the idea of non-involvement and staying aside from conflicts.
The Neutrality Act of 1935. (n.d.). DigitalHistory.
The chosen primary source is critical for discussing the selected historical period. The text of the Neutrality Act of 1935 cultivates a better vision of the measures the US government accepted as an attempt to avoid direct confrontation with other nations and avoid the horrors of World War II.
Rakove, R. (2016). Neutrality/nonalignment and the United States. American History.
The article delves into the policy of neutrality in the USA and outlines its central points. The author discusses the roots of nonalignment in the US foreign policy and the regulations made by the government to remain neutral. It also shows the pressures the nation experienced because of its policy and the challenges it had to resolve.
Reginbogin, H. R., Vagts, D. F., Seeberger, U., Britten, J., & Ryan, T. (2009). Faces of neutrality: A comparative analysis of the neutrality of Switzerland and other neutral nations during WW II. Lit Verlag.
The book discusses the idea of neutrality by using examples of various states. Comparing the approaches to standing aside, the authors cultivate a better understanding of the global discourse and how the impact of military conflicts and global wars shapes foreign relations.
Roosevelt, F. D., & Grafton, J. (1999). Great speeches. Dover Publications.
The given primary source is vital for understanding the atmosphere in the USA in the period before the world wars. The speeches in the book show how the President and the government viewed the place of the state in the world and the ideas that shape the views on isolationism and non-involvement in international crises.
Schulzinger, R. D. (2008). U.S. diplomacy since 1900. Oxford University Press.
The book is a critical source for understanding how the US political course has evolved since 1900. The authors discuss the most critical phases of the nation’s transformation into one of the global powers and how its view of neutrality altered over time.
Vine, D. (2021). The United States of war: A global history of America’s endless conflicts, from Columbus to the Islamic State. California University Press.
The author provides facts about the USA’s participation in conflicts, including the global wars, and the role its diplomacy played in becoming one of the belligerents. The source cultivates an enhanced vision of how military conflicts impacted the nation and created the basis for future evolution and growth.
Wilson, W. (1914). August 19, 1914: Message on neutrality. Miller Center.
This primary source offers President Woodrow Wilson’s speech related to neutrality and the need to adhere to the given course. Analyzing the speech, it is possible to understand the central arguments made by the politician and his view on the future of the USA. It also cultivates a better understanding of the roots of neutrality in the state.