NEUTRALITY - BUT WHAT KIND? THE UNITED STATES AND THE OUTBREAK OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR IN 1914 (IN THE LIGHT OF THE 'NEW YORK TIMES')
An analysis of the contents of articles published in the 'New York Times' in August 1914 considerably facilitates understanding the attitudes accepted by the American society and authorities during the first month of WW I. The views it presented strongly accentuated the national egoism of the Europeans, which led them to a state of war and which was contrasted with the mission of civilisation development, realised by the United States. Consequently, emphasis was placed on the necessity of accepting a neutral stand in order to protect the interests of the whole international community involved in wartime hostilities. The journal also depicted the benefits and losses stemming from neutrality. The former, which encompass such elements as the growth of American industry and the financial sector and, at the same time, the elimination of European trade competition from Latin America, clearly predominated. The latter were portrayed extremely vividly and upon occasions the journal resorted to outright cynical arguments. Formal neutrality was to be actually more pro-British than pro-German.By supporting neutrality towards the war in Europe, the 'New York Times' in August 1914 was just as reliable, both to its readers and the authorities, as three years later, when it spoke in favour of joining the same war.
CEJSH db identifier