Embedded Files
"Why We Won't Go Back in the Navy," An Interwar Perspective
"Why We Won't Go Back in the Navy," An Interwar Perspective
The newspaper article Why We Won’t Go Back in the Navy was anonymously written after World War I by a man who had served in the US navy during the war. Found in the West Virginia and Regional History Center’s archive (https://archives.lib.wvu.edu/repositories), this article has no tangible differences in appearance and structure to newspapers over a century later and provides a glimpse into attitudes and issues facing the military structure in the interwar period. The author’s personal experiences as an enlisted man and interactions with other former sailors allowed him to paint a distinctly unique evaluation of the problems facing the armed forces in peacetime.
People familiar with issues that plague the US military in the modern era may find the author’s points familiar, as similar topics continue to be discussed to this day: peacetime recruitment, retention of recruits, and appeal to young men. Although the author makes clear his critique of the interwar naval structure, he did not write this article to degrade the institution of the military, but instead to promote its evolution and growth (Elsie Janis Collection, 1919). He also made several claims regarding the common man’s feelings toward the war that contradict popularly touted perspectives on public opinion of World War I; the topics these claims focus on are contested by historians to this day. When evaluating the source, it is also important to keep in mind the author’s past service and allegiance to the United States as this may have distorted the reality of the situation, and the article itself is certainly an opinion piece.
The US Navy as it was after WWI, the author claimed, was doomed to fail. He insisted that despite the emergence of the United States as a major industrial and military power, all of that strength would be useless without ‘good men’ willing to serve. The United States was certainly capable of building a highly advanced and modern navy, but it would be lacking the most fundamental aspect that any fighting force requires, that being eager and able soldiers. In his eyes, the structure and culture of the US navy did not appeal to ‘good men’ because while they were fundamentally American, democratic, and supported “equality of rights, freedom of speech, and the belief that one man is as good as another” (Elsie Janis Collection, 1919), the navy did not.
To the enlisted man, the navy appeared (and may very well have been) autocratic, anti-American, and against the ideals of the nation they supposedly represented (Elsie Janis Collection, 1919). Yet, while that statement carries at least a bit of truth, what was the alternative? Even into the modern era, the armed forces are still known for their strict hierarchy and tough discipline. But it seems the key to its growth lies in why the hierarchy is formed and how it is maintained.
According to the anonymous serviceman, the solution was a system devoid of the idea of officers' social superiority, which was taught to would-be officers from the moment they entered the Naval Academy. A complete rebuilding of military—and particularly navy—culture would also be necessary. When officers were no longer are taught to view themselves as superior to enlisted men, the author argued, navy seamen would no longer feel as mistreated as they do. Instead, he feels that the men would thrive off of an ‘Americanization’ of the navy and the elimination of an ‘officer’ social class simply because of their gold braid.
There is no lack of earned respect for officers’ leadership and competence by the sailors, but the author wrote that sailors were simply unwilling to accept the idea their officers were any better than they were (Elsie Janis Collection, 1919). The article claims that the soldiers are told the distinction is a necessity for discipline and efficiency, but that even if this were the case, the common man’s lack of belief in that idea renders it useless at best and counterintuitive at worst. The removal of a such a divisive and unappealing aspect of military service would both boost enlistment and retention of sailors, according to the author.
On the other hand, when analyzed in context of the time period, the article is also a clear view into the hypocrisy between American society and American ideals, particularly regarding civil rights. The author makes repeated mention of the American ideal that all men are created equal, but fails to mention, of course, that this only applies to white men. While claiming that the navy during WWI might have been “the most un-American institution in all of America” (Elsie Janis Collection, 1919), he neglects to mention that the first bill make lynching a federal crime hadn’t even been passed (Francis 2014).
It also fails to mention that women were largely excluded from public life and had likely only been given the right to vote a few years before the time of the article. This vast gap between what was thought by people in the interwar period, and what objectively occurred encapsulates early 20th century race-relations fairly nicely. Despite this continued injustice, it can be argued that the continued application of these ideals did lead to the US Armed Forces becoming one of the first desegregated government structures, beginning with President Truman’s 1948 Executive Order 9981 (Burk and Espinoza 2012, 401-422).
Another contentious topic the article briefly touches on is the insistence that men were willing and eager to fight in times of war. The author was adamant about this point, asserting that despite the structural issues and prevailing discontent, if war breaks out, “[the average man] will gladly go back to sea again and do it all over” (Elsie Janis Collection, 1919). Whether or not the article’s view can be extended to ground forces or any military branches outside of the navy at all is unspecified. Historian Niall Ferguson has similarly argued that despite popular belief, most soldiers in WWI fought willingly, and some enthusiastically (Ferguson 2000, 357–366), which perhaps indicates many other servicemen outside of the US navy felt the same. But this potential eagerness did not extend to peacetime service, with one man’s response to peacetime service—much like the title of the piece itself— being that he’d “Never [serve] again in the Navy!” (Elsie Janis Collection, 1919).
Along with Why We Won’t Go Back in the Navy in the Elsie Janis Collection, the West Virginia and Regional History Center also has an abundance of material on a variety of topics for anyone interested in regional or state history. I am personally very thankful for the opportunity to describe this curious piece of interwar period history. It was very interesting to see the similarities in thought from an opinion piece roughly 100 years ago to modern theories and positions on military recruitment and stability. Being able to know how a man who served in the wartime navy himself feels certainly provides nuance and breathes life into what may otherwise appear to some as a fairly dry and uninteresting aspect of United States interwar history.
Bibliography
Burk, James, and Evelyn Espinoza. “Race Relations within the US Military.” Annual Review of Sociology 38, no. 1 (2012): 401–22. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145501.
Ferguson, Niall. The Pity of War. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000.
Francis, Megan. “Anti-Lynching Legislation and the Sinking of the Republican Ship in Congress.” Civil Rights and the Making of the Modern American State, 2014, 98–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139583749.004.
Newspaper article “Why We Won’t Go Back in the Navy”, 1900-1964, A&M 4355, box 2, folder 1, Memorabilia of Entertainer Elsie Janis, Clyde Cale Collection, West Virginia and Regional History Center, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV
Page updated
Report abuse