College I-Search Piece
I-Search
I-A
I am a bit of a history nerd. I find there to be
something comforting in the ups and downs that all countries have endured.
History proves that everyone goes through hard times, and that such times can
be overcome.
Some of my love of history comes just from
entertainment as well. Alternate history is a topic I find quite enjoyable to
explore; a question of how history could have diverged from our own with sometimes
a particularly small change. My favorite area to study is no doubt medieval Europe
though, typically the High or Late Medieval Period. I will fully admit it’s
partly as I was a nerd in high school, and these are the times most
characterized by the swords, castles, and knights once would find in fantasy
novels.
One quickly realizes when studying history though that
liking history does not mean you don’t have major blind spots. One shouldn’t be
surprised, but humanity has such a wide and deep history that one is inevitably
less familiar with certain aspects. I myself admit to struggling with Asian
history.
For the purposes of this project though, I shall avoid
that area where I struggle. I shall instead go with a topic closer to home, and
easier for me to delve into. I have oddly enough had little interest in US
history, largely restricted to the required school lessons. I find European
history, with its web of shifting alliances throughout history, multitude of
wars, monarchs, and movements in political, economic, military, and
technological areas more interesting. With many questioning the position the US
in the modern world though, I decided to research the reasons behind the
development of the United states of America into the superpower just about
everyone in the world has known it as in modern times.
1-B
I feel like I have some general ideas on what made the
US grow into a superpower. Some of it is what I learned from school or simply
living here, osmosis really, and some derives from my interest in other areas
of history as well. You can only study the development of so many countries
before commonalities become apparent.
Some simple reasons behind the US’s success can be
attributed to pure size. It is the third largest country on the planet, by pure
area. It should be noted though that the two countries ahead of it are Russia
and Canada, which are northerly enough that large stretches are ill-suited for
easy habitation. One could certainly claim that the US is the country on Earth
with the most access to temperate, habitable lands. Supported by just how much the
US exports. With such a size also comes a vast reservoir of natural resources,
and a large population. The US, despite being composed almost entirely of
non-Native Americans emigrating to North America, has become the ninth most populous
country on the planet.
As an American, I also feel it necessary to point
towards our comparatively stable government. The civil war obviously happened.
I can’t deny our government wasn’t always stable, but one can still point to
near two hundred and fifty years. Especially in the 20th century,
many developed and prosperous countries today can’t say the same.
History also points me towards several other factors.
The Atlantic was the foundation of American Independence. Some posit Great
Britain’s success to being islands that presented a great challenge to its
enemies in attacking it. The US benefitted from this even more obviously. Even
with British Canada, the US was able to resist the British Empire when it was
arguably the Great Power of the world as not even the Royal Navy stopped the
logistical challenge that crossing several thousand miles of open ocean
presented. The changing trends of economics and military warfare as the industrial
revolution spread globally also spelled an end to the colonial empires of the Europe
at a time when US imperialism and global aspirations finally matured.
These are just general points. If I took more time, I
have little doubt I could think of more. I hope in researching it further that
I will come across many that I wouldn’t have thought of. Even simply taking a
more in-depth perspective would help.
Part 2
· Monday
the 22nd, 10:45 – I search ‘why did the US become a superpower?’
https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/superpower
This article focused
on the way the Spanish-American War of 1898 affected the foreign policy of the
United States. The isolationism of the US ended when it went to war with Spain
over Cuba’s resistance. The result of the war was not only Cuba’s independence,
but the US for cefully gaining the Spanish colonies of Guam, the Philippines,
and Puerto Rico. The US achieving colonial possessions forced a change in
doctrine that demanded greater interaction with the Great Powers of the day.
https://www.vox.com/2016/11/28/13708364/america-superpower-expansion-colony
This article talked
about how expansionism was always in the DNA of the US, although it glosses
over the specifics of how it reached the Pacific. It briefly mentions the
industrial Revolution in the wake of the Civil War required a more centralized
government that aided in further expansionism (Why was a centralized government
better with industrialization?). It then also references the Spanish American
War where the US gained its first overseas colonies, but then oddly enough
skips to after WWII. The US emerged from it in the best shape, and in the
aftermath the Breton Woods financial system and United Nations formed. The US
strength at the time allowed it to dictate a number of points. NATO, the US’s
first non-war military alliance, was formed in response to the Soviet Union and
numerous commitments started to be made to halt the spread of communism.
I decide to use a
different kind of source. While there are a number of youtube videos that seem
to summarize my exact question, I’d prefer something a bit more organic. I
decide to log onto alternatehistory.com, which I am familiar with. While an
English language forum, I know there are many on it that are of different
nationalities. I feel like this might give me a more international view.
· 11:25
– I make a thread asking ’what are the factors that made the US a superpower?’
I need to give it several hours or days to get much response though. This is it
for today.
· Tuesday
the 23rd, 12:30 – I check alternate
history.
Posters have made a
number of points that bear investigating. One pointed towards how Manifest
Destiny and the US’ genocidal policies towards the Native American allowed not
only the gaining of immense resources, but also a constant outflow. ‘Free’ land
for settling contributed to an influx of immigrants, selling said free land
served as a revenue source, and the ability of the US to gain new territories
and states helped divert political tensions towards such endeavors. Constant
expansion provided an immense safety buffer for American politics, economics,
and morale that many other countries didn’t possess.
I am surprised by how
much focus was placed on the position of the US in the two World Wars.
Considering many of the posters are Europeans, I guess it is understandable.
They emphasized the sheer economic, demographic, and political catastrophes the
World Wars were for Europe. In US history, we generally don’t get much more
than that the US fought in it and won. Many Europeans however take a more
detailed look. The US was a latecomer, who didn’t suffer almost any of the
damage the original fighters did. The US lost a total of slightly over 100,000
casualties in WWI, including from disease, while total Entente casualties
numbered roughly six million. Most of them borne by France, Britain, Russia,
and Italy. Casualties of the Central Powers were roughly four million. The
difference is obvious, and that’s without taking into account the losses from
the Spanish Flu. The US lost roughly 1% of the total casualties of the Entente,
total. The financial and industrial consequences also benefitted the US.
Residents of the former Central Powers note that despite its ardent
‘neutrality’, the US gave massive loans to the Entente powers since the
beginning of the war and was critical in shipping war materials to the Entente.
There is also evidence that the US entered the war coincidentally at a time
when the Entente was running out of the funds necessary to fight the war to a
decisive conclusion. It was no coincidence that the US surpassed both Germany
and Great Britain during the war in industrial output during the war, and that
New York replaced London as the global financial center. The Great Depression
was partly the economic bubble formed by this exploding. (Germany had to pay
massive reparations to the Entente powers, including the latecomer US, British
and France’s reparations immediately went to the US to pay loans, so the US
basically got all of it, and the Great Depression resulted when Germany could
no longer pay its reparations so Britain and France could no longer pay their
loans that way, and so they enacted tariffs to protect encourage native
manufacturing, which hurt the US, etc).
They also don’t think
well of Woodrow Wilson.
The Second World War
was largely the same, but with it serving as a knockout blow to many of the
European great powers.
It’s an interesting
focus. The US rise was largely predicated on the fall of the European Great
Powers. The US was not only insulated from the immense damage of the time,
which the Russia/Soviet Union suffered from, but also seemed to reap all the
benefits. ‘In clashes for control of the world, the US was to the side and had
it all but dropped into its hands.’
I need to get back to
actual articles, now that I have a few points to focus on. A forum is a good
place to get organic responses, but should just be a basis to find what to
search. As for articles, feel like the ones I’ve looked at are skipping over
too much. I want a more detailed look at factors beyond ‘the US fought a war,
gained colonies’ fought more wars.’ Why was the US in a position to win these
wars? I think I’ll focus on the economic side, since the forum focused on that.
This article seems
more in depth, and its focus on the economic side that the forum pointed me
towards. Industrialization increasingly made overall population and
manufacturing potential the main factors behind military potential.
It’s a reflection
article on several books by Adam Tooze. Adam Toose says that the rose of the US
began not in 1945 but in 1916, when US output overtook that of the British
Empire’s. Woodrow Wilson summarized WWI as ‘Britain has the world, and Germany
wants it.’ Before 1914, US potential was stifled by political dysfunction,
economic mismanagement, etc. The European states were able to rally their
populaces immensely better than the US at the time. Germany, despite having
only 60$ of the Us populace had a standing army over ten times that of the US.
The US had a good navy, third in the world at the time, but a pathetic standing
army.
This is a good
article. Lots of detail on just how important the friendly neutrality of the US
aided the central powers.
Yet as World War I
entered its third year—and the first year of Tooze’s story—the balance of power
was visibly tilting from Europe to America. The belligerents could no longer
sustain the costs of offensive war. Cut off from world trade, Germany hunkered
into a defensive siege, concentrating its attacks on weak enemies like Romania.
The Western allies, and especially Britain, outfitted their forces by placing
larger and larger war orders with the United States. In 1916, Britain bought
more than a quarter of the engines for its new air fleet, more than half of its
shell casings, more than two-thirds of its grain, and nearly all of its oil
from foreign suppliers, with the United States heading the list. Britain and
France paid for these purchases by floating larger and larger bond issues to
American buyers—denominated in dollars, not pounds or francs. “By the end of
1916, American investors had wagered two billion dollars on an Entente
victory,” computes Tooze (relative to America’s estimated GDP of $50 billion in
1916, the equivalent of $560 billion in today’s money).
That staggering
quantity of Allied purchases called forth something like a war mobilization in
the United States. American factories switched from civilian to military
production; American farmers planted food and fiber to feed and clothe the
combatants of Europe. But unlike in 1940-41, the decision to commit so much to
one side’s victory in a European war was not a political decision by the U.S.
government. Quite the contrary: President Wilson wished to stay out of the war
entirely. He famously preferred a “peace without victory.” The trouble was that
by 1916, the U.S. commitment to Britain and France had grown—to borrow a phrase
from the future—too big to fail.
· Thursday
the 25th, 10:45 – I look up ‘US economic participation in WWI.’
https://www.thebalance.com/world-war-i-4173886
This is actually not
too great a source. A good summarization of WWI and its effects, but not
contributing a whole lot. Still a decent reference point for the basics.
https://eh.net/encyclopedia/u-s-economy-in-world-war-i/
This is a good
article, if a bit dull reading. It goes deep into the mechanics of WWI. It does
seem to have a bit of an American bias in how it frames facts, but it does give
good information arguably because of that. It points out that US ethnicities
favored its traditional allies in Britain and France over the Germans and
Austrians. One point I really felt important to note was the way it phrased
that the arrival of large amounts of Americans onto the battlefield shifted the
tide. German attacks in early 1918 brought them within fifty miles of Paris. We
helped blunt the German offensive, and then formed a core of the following
offensive efforts.
Need to come back to
this article. Probably need to refocus my research into the World Wars. While I
had originally believed I should focus on macro trends starting from Independence,
it is clear that a massive component of the US rise as such a superpower
derives just as much from the sudden and unpredictable fall of the half dozen
Great Powers that existed and controlled most of the world before the World
Wars.
Dear Reader
I chose such a massive topic that there are numerous areas I could focus on. I
actually expected to do a far broader field of research, mainly summarizing
brief points. That soon came to feel ineffective to me though, as such
summarization appeared to not come across well. So, I decided to focus on a
smaller area. I didn’t expect it to end up being the World Wars. However, I
really wanted an international perspective on my original hypothesis. The
response I received showed an incredible focus on those wars. Beyond what I
would have expected. For many, America’s rise as a Great Power was inevitable
at the start of the 20th century. The rise of America as a
superpower however was predicated upon the sudden and unexpected collapse of
the Great Powers at the time. Not only that, but that this collapse happened in
a way that almost perfectly benefited the US and left it in a position of
influence compared to the Soviet Union. As I did put a lot of focus on the
perspective of people from other nations, I do wish to receive a perspective of
other students. I mainly want to know whether I’m putting to much weight on the
perspective of others over academia?
Part 5: Responses
Class Response Group
· What
is the definition of a ‘superpower’ that I am using for my topic?
· Organize
it better!
· Focus
more on relationship with Native Americans?
· Separate
internal and external developments.
The general responses I received seemed to focus more
on narrowing the focus of study. ‘Why the US became a superpower’ is too broad
a question. Not only is superpower an ambiguous term, but that simply isn’t
something that has a simple answer. There are so many areas that can be focused
on. Better to narrow it down further to better be able to explore a single area
that barely skim numerous different areas.
Otherwise, it was generally a question of properly
organizing it. Making it easy for someone to read and understand. Understandable.
Still in the exploring and experimenting stage right now.
Part 6: The Search Continued
· Tuesday
the 30th, 11:00 AM – I look up ‘definition of a superpower?’
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superpower
an extremely powerful nation
specifically : one of a very few dominant
states in an era when the world is divided politically into these states and
their satellites
https://www.britannica.com/topic/superpower
Superpower, a state that possesses military or economic
might, or both, and general influence vastly superior to that of other states.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/superpower
an extremely powerful
nation, especially one capable of influencing international events and the acts
and policies of less powerful nations.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/superpower
a country that has very great political and military power:
https://www.yourdictionary.com/superpower
A
powerful and influential nation, especially a nuclear power that dominates its
allies or client states in an international power bloc.
Changed
search to ‘definition of a hyperpower?’
Largely
using the same sites. I ultimately decided upon this definition. ‘A state so
powerful that’s its influence must be accounted for in any major decisions made
around the globe.’ While not the exact definition generally provided, some of
the secondary definitions did include the general concept. It was a definition
that interested and worked for me as I decided to focus on more how the US came
to surpass the Great Powers that dominated the world before the World Wars,
leading to the state of affairs present in the Cold War where the US and
Soviety Union effectively divided the world between their spheres of influence.
·
Thursday
the 1st, 1:00 PM – Searched ‘economic powers before WWI’
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2014/11/the-economic-factors-that-shaped-the-first-world-war/
A good article that
stresses the importance of size, population, and economy in modern warfare. It
has some good charts that also list differences in population and income
between the Central Powers and Allies. Not too easy to read though. Also doesn’t
go into specifics well enough.
https://www.nber.org/digest/jan05/economics-world-war-i
A good article
focused on how the US benefitted from the war. An economic decline in the US
before WWI came to an end as a 44-month boom resulted from 1914-1918 as
European powers began buying American goods as they had to shift to war-time
economies. The US also had an easy adjustment to eventually entering the war in
1917 as the sectors needed for warfare were built up in the preceding years to
support Allied war needs. Unemployment declined from 7.9% to 1.4%. The US also
shifted from being a net debtor in international markets (foreigners invested
in the US market) before the war to a net exporter (US invested in foreign
markets), particular towards Latin America, as traditional figures of such like
Britain and the other European powers fell behind due to the damage of the war.
This allowed New York to come to match or even exceed London as the world’s
leading financial center.
https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/a-23-2006-07-12-voa3-83127997/125489.html
A great article
dealing with some of the US actions after the war. Emphasized the US’ change
from net debtor before the war to net exporter after the war. By 1920, the US
had a greater national income than the combined incomes of Britain, Germany,
France, Japan, Canada, and seventeen smaller countries. The US was the world’s
greatest economic power. The US’ economic position visa-vis Europe was of particular
importance. It had loaned the Allied powers massive amounts during the war, and
demanded these loans be paid back afterwards despite massive loss of population
and property. The US didn’t know it’s position. France relied upon Germany
reparations to repay its loans, and occupied the Ruhr with Beligum when it
couldn’t pay. An economic crisis approached. American bankers stopped this by granting
loans to Germany, which were paid to France, which were paid back to the US.
These actions put pressure on fragile European economies, and many Americans
didn’t understand the economic crises this all would create. The Great
Depression and many of the social movements of Europe that lead to WWII were
partly the result.
Also talked about
US military spending after the war, its involvement in Guatemala and Mexico,
and its actions towards the League of Nations and attempt to revert to
isolationism.
Everything
here further tells me that the area I feel most interested by is the economic changes
that came about as a result of WWI. While the US was likely inevitable by the twentieth
century, WWI played a key role in the fall of the European Great Powers and the
rise of US as a superpower. The deconiomation of European economies, loss of
their colonies, and the way the US was unharmed by both World Wars and yet
seemed to reap the benefits led to the incomparable position it found itself in
after the World Wars. Just looking at these the effects show just how important
this time war.
Part 7
Part 3 – What I
Learned?
I originally made
by search question ‘what factors led to the US becoming a superpower?’ By the
end, I had refined it to ‘What role did World War I and its aftermath
contribute to the rise of the US as an economic superpower?’
I have searched a
lot. At this point, it’s clear that I was far, far too ambitious with my
original search. Trying to quantify all the factors that lead to the rise of
the US as a superpower was far too much to reasonably do. Even as an overview.
I am quite happy
with what I found though. The topic by which I decided to focus on by the end.
The economic importance of WWI in regard to the US cannot be understated. Even
if the US would not become the political and military superpower it would after
WWII, WWI definitively led to the US becoming an economic superpower. The Great
War led to the decimation of the economies of many of Europe’s Great Powers,
through loss of population, property, and capital. The Us was perfectly
positioned to take advantage of this vacuum during the war. Us policy after the
war, being a country that hadn’t yet grown into its own importance, then led to
further economic difficulties. These failures would help create the conditions
that would contribute to the atmosphere of WWII. It is not wrong to say that
America not only contributed, but directly benefitted from the fall of the
European Great Powers. It is certain the world today, or even the world that
started after WWII, could not have happened if the European great Powers had
managed to retain the level of territorial, military, and economic power they
had before the World Wars.
An unexpected
challenge I faced was properly defining what a superpower is. Despite it being
a commonly known term, what exactly it constitutes was startlingly difficult to
pin down. Many sources actually just outright considered it the level of power
achieved by the United states of America and Society Union. Hyperpower was also
a term that was basically defined by it being a state of power achieved by the
US following the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.
I do feel like I
wasn’t able to properly research other areas that no doubt played a role. I
wasn’t able to really research much about what role the US political system played
towards economic development. Nor could I focus on how things like the
plentiful natural resources within the US contributed. This is all after I
already limited the parameters of my question just to economic matters. I wasn’t
even able to delve into military matters or international influence.
I am still satisfied
with what I learned over US economic development during and after WWI though. It
might seem a single point in what could have been a massive search, but it was
an interesting one. A point I hadn’t researched before, and probably one that
most Americans wouldn’t immediately jump towards if asked my original search
question.
Part 4 – What I
still want to know?
As already
explained, I eventually had to narrow down the search so much that there are
numerous other areas I would wish to explore. Even ignoring the areas of
research towards the political and military development of the United States,
there are other areas one could study to check US economic development.
US expansion to
encompass its current borders alone could be a massive field to explore. For
some, the Spanish-American War was the US’ first step onto the international stage
as a major power, and many Americans don’t even know about the war period. Conflicts
with Mexico over Texas and California. The purchase of Alaska. Controversy with
Britain over the Oregon territories. The gold rushes that fueled development of
many of these territories are another area that could easily be explored
further.
I also admit that a
new field of study I really want to explore after doing all this is in regard
to the pre-WWI economies of many of the European Empires. Many were
impressively developed economically. It is interesting to imagine how they
might have developed if not for WWI. While many of their ‘core’ European territories
are smaller than some US states, but many had vast colonial empires. It is
interesting to see how such colonial empires might have developed if given
several more decades of European peace. While no one can deny the mismanagement
most colonies suffered, it is still interesting to theorize how decolonization
might have turned out. Better? Worse? After all, one can raise major questions
over how the balance of power would have developed if the European Great Powers
had survived with the majority of their power preserved till the development of
the Nuclear Age.
Comments
Post a Comment