William B. McAllister received his Ph.D. in Modern European and Diplomatic History from the University of Virginia. Over two decades he held several positions at the Office of the Historian, U.S. Department of State. As Special Projects Division Chief, he directed, edited, and contributed to the publication “War, Neutrality, and Humanitarian Relief: The Expansion of U.S. Diplomatic Activity during the Great War, 1914–1917,” https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/wwi which provides the basis for his presentation. Since 2006 McAllister has taught at the Graduate School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.

The Permeable Boundaries of Coalition Belligerency: Differences in War Status Between the United States and the Four Central Powers, 1917-1927

Although supposedly exemplifying unanimity and cohesion, military alliances often draw variable “boundaries” regarding war status. During 1917-1918, the United States government engaged in differing levels of belligerency with each of the Central Powers. The U.S. severed diplomatic relations with Germany in February 1917, but did not break relations with the other Central Powers governments. The U.S. declared war in April 1917, but only against Germany. The Hapsburg and Ottoman Empires quickly severed relations with the U.S., but neither declared war. The United States subsequently declared war against Austria-Hungary, but for reasons entirely separate from the German case. The Ottoman Empire and the U.S. never entered war status. Bulgaria and the United States maintained diplomatic relations throughout; both governments considered severing ties or declaring war, but neither did so. After the Armistice, the U.S. broke with the Entente Powers by signing separate peace agreements with Germany, Austria, and Hungary in 1921. Although never at war with the Ottoman Empire, the U.S. and Turkey did not reestablish diplomatic relations until 1927. Bulgarian-U.S. relations continued uninterrupted. This presentation explores the deliberate, calculated fuzziness of war status, highlighting the malleable boundaries of co-belligerency that serve as a management tool to enhance governments’ flexibility and options. A multiplicity of military, economic, strategic, sociopolitical, cultural, religious, and other factors bounded actors’ perceptions of “interest” and inter-coalition relations. This period featured reconsideration of fundamental concepts such as “nation,” “state,” “polity,” “economy,” “government,” and “society” amidst the undulating fortunes of global war and the uncertainties of multinational peace negotiations. The era illustrates how governments and individuals blurred ostensibly “hard” definitional lines as they attempted to discern a path through unknown “territory” to an uncertain future.