Whom the Gods Would Destroy and the Film Campaign for the League of Nations

Alex Holowicki

Abstract

After World War I, President Woodrow Wilson created the League of Nations to institutionalize a United States-led peace agenda. To rally support for the United States' membership in the League, Wilson's allies in the film industry released the seven-reel epic Whom the Gods Would Destroy (1919). The film promised audiences a powerful romance and a "vivid account of a League of Nations." Due to the film's unique blend of entertainment and political activism, prominent peace organizations endorsed it and incorporated it into their outreach activities. It helped advance Wilson's internationalist message and became a critical success. Though the film is now considered lost and has hitherto received no scholarly attention, it is still possible to explore its content and influence through surviving print materials. Examining the production, release, and reception of this neglected silent film provides a unique window into the divisive politics of the League's formation and the debate over the United States' role as an arbiter in global affairs.

On September 6, 1919, President Woodrow Wilson gave a fiery speech to a crowd of approximately 20,000 at the convention hall in Kansas City, Missouri. "I have come out with a cause," Wilson exclaimed with the fervor of an evangelical pastor, "It is as great as the cause of mankind, and I intend, in office or out, to fight that battle as long as I live."¹ The speech was part of Wilson's intensive campaign to rally support for the League of Nations in cities across the United States. The decision to ratify the United States membership in the League divided the Senate dramatically. To break the deadlock, Wilson knew that he had to muster tremendous support from the public. However, Wilson's health was deteriorating quickly. He was prone to erratic headaches, tremors, and loss of vision. Despite warnings from his physician and close friends to avoid arduous speaking events, Wilson committed himself fully to championing the benefits of the League directly to the American people. Insisting that the League was designed according to uniquely American principles, Wilson remarked, "One of the things that America has had most at heart throughout her existence has been that there should be substituted for the brutal processes of war the friendly processes of consultation and arbitration, and that is done in the covenant of the League of Nations."²

     The formation of the League was without a doubt the greatest effort to institutionalize an agenda for world peace in the immediate years after World War I. President Wilson and the other architects of the League blamed much of the war on the secret coalitions and alliances that European states had built throughout the preceding decade. Wilson figured that an international organization composed of representatives from the great powers would eliminate any clandestine diplomacy and prevent future wars. Politicians and the public mostly approved of the idea in theory. However, the details of the League's covenant and constitution proved controversial. Many Americans, for example, took aim at Article X of the League's covenant, which insisted that the "Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League."³ The article's vague language implied that member states had agreed to defend one another in the event of an outside attack. The provision outraged many Republican congressmen who feared that it created a contractual obligation that would inevitably pull the United States into another European conflict. Moreover, Republicans were also frustrated that Wilson had largely ignored their consultation when developing parameters for the League. Because Republicans held the majority of seats in the Senate, Wilson knew that in order to garner the votes needed to secure the United States' membership he had to convince senators' constituents that it was essential to the safeguarding of democracy. Fortunately for Wilson's campaign, however, it had considerable assistance from the motion picture industry.

     To rally support for Wilson's peace crusade, First National Pictures released the seven-reel epic Whom the Gods Would Destroy (1919). A massive undertaking for the trailblazing director Frank Borzage, the film promised to "set before the world the benefits of a society of nations."⁴ Far exceeding typical shooting schedules, the film took nearly eighteen months to complete and required more than 114,000 feet of film. Borzage modified the script several times throughout production to accommodate new developments in the war and to include the provisions of the Paris Peace Conference. The film employed over twenty principal actors, including silent film stars Jack Mulhall and Pauline Stark, and nearly eight thousand extras. With a budget exceeding $100,000, Borzage called for the construction of sixty-one custom sets. Marketed as "the greatest story since the world began," the film enticed audiences with both a powerful romance and a "vivid account of Wilson's ideas of a League of Nations."⁵

	Figure 1: Promotional flyer for Whom the Gods Would Destroy. Motion Picture News, March 1,1919, 1272.

     The title Whom the Gods Would Destroy derived from a famous saying often attributed to Euripides, an ancient Greek playwright. According to conventional lore, Euripides warned his fellow Greeks of the fall of Prometheus, a mythological titan who had betrayed the gods by giving the coveted power of fire to humans in order to ensure their advancement. When reflecting on the certainty that he would be reprimanded for his actions, Prometheus exclaimed, "Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad." The phrase suggested that displays of hubris were a sign of foreboding punishment from the gods. Throughout World War I, pacifist groups used the phrase incessantly in speeches and publications to comment on the horrific use of modern technology and industry on the battlefield.⁶ Like Prometheus, the warring nations had tampered with forces beyond their control and were ultimately bringing about their own destruction. By appealing to the discourse of established pacifist groups, the title distinguished the film from the usual studio fare.

	Figure 2: Advertisement for Whom the Gods Would Destroy. Motion Picture News, March 1, 1919, 1270–1271.

     Though it is now considered lost, it is still possible to explore its content and influence through surviving print materials. Due to the film's unique blend of entertainment and political activism, many peace organizations endorsed it and incorporated it into their outreach activities. It helped popularize Wilson's message and represented the motion picture industry's newfound interest in producing films that propagated peace instead of war. In response to the shifting tastes and interests of theatergoers, the motion picture industry began downplaying nationalist rhetoric around 1919 and instead exploited the public's growing interest in pacifism. Examining the production, release, and reception of the film provides a unique window into the divisive politics of the League of Nation's formation and the heated debate over the United States' role as the new arbiter for world peace.

     An unconventional figure wrote and produced Whom the Gods Would Destroy, renowned cartoonist Charles Macauley. Prior to entering the film industry, Macauley worked for many major newspapers, including the New York Herald and the New York World. By 1910, he had developed a reputation as one of the most sought-after illustrators in the world. Macauley was commissioned to provide the illustrations for Arthur Conan Doyle's famous Sherlock Holmes stories and Robert Louis Stevenson's landmark novella, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Moreover, millions of people every day saw his playful sketches of political figures like Theodore Roosevelt and Alfred Smith. Impressed by his drawings, Woodrow Wilson reached out to Macauley with the hope that he would provide visual imagery for his 1912 presidential campaign. Wilson believed that to rally support in the twentieth century, cartoons and films were needed as much as if not more than the printed word. Macauley was a firm supporter of Wilson's and he agreed wholeheartedly to support his cause. The experience marked the beginning of a dynamic friendship that lasted for over a decade and launched Macualey's career as a filmmaker. Examining his contributions to Wilson's campaigns reveals the creative evolution of Whom the Gods Would Destroy and the White House's growing interest in the political fortunes of the film industry. 

	Figure 3: Advertisement for Whom the Gods Would Destroy. Moving Picture World, March 8, 1919, 1296–1297.

     Macauley first created a series of portraits for Wilson that emphasized his progressive political philosophy. His illustrations depicted Wilson as a dignified statesman who would serve the interests of working-class and middle-class Americans. They addressed his commitment to creating new antitrust laws, reducing tariffs, busting monopolies, and reforming the banking system.⁷ They also delicately weighed in on his pledge to create new employment opportunities for African Americans while simultaneously lionizing his Southern heritage. In contrast, Macualey pegged Wilson's opponents, William Howard Taft and Theodore Roosevelt, as mere puppets to a handful of wealthy industrialists. Their focus on regulating monopolies rather than breaking them provided Democrats with the fodder they had needed to distinguish Wilson from these otherwise progressive candidates. In one of his many letters to Mary Allen Hulbert, a close confidant and suspected mistress, Wilson mentions his budding friendship with Macauley and fondly recalls the two attending a "vulgar" play in New York City.⁸ When Wilson's campaign manager struck a deal with Universal Pictures to produce and distribute one of the first political advertisements in American history, he hired Macauley to write the screenplay based on the imagery and themes of his cartoons.

     Titled The Old Way and the New (1912), Macauley's first foray into filmmaking represented a live-action version of his illustrations and foreshadowed the style of Whom the Gods Would Destroy. Beginning with a title card stating "The Old Way," the eight-minute film cuts to a shot of the lavish office of a bourgeois capitalist. A servant is seen shuffling nervously around the room before hanging a portrait of Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft next to a massive vault. A door opens and an archetypal "Fat Cat" lumbers in wearing a top hat and black suit. Two of his employees then approach with their heads hanging low and their hats in hand. Clearly apprehensive, the two men can say only a few words to their boss before he leaps up from behind his desk and wags his finger violently in front of their faces. "Raise your wages five per cent," a title card interjects, "You'd ought to be glad you're living!" After ejecting the men from his office, he lights a cigar and reads a letter with gusto, reinforcing his Fat Cat persona: "Gentlemen, we need a million dollars to swing 100,000 votes … Yours for the minimum wage, High Tariff Boss." The man chuckles menacingly as his servant opens the vault and literally shovels mounds of cash into a clearly labeled "Dough Bag." With his cigar in hand, the man saunters over to his portrait of Taft, points at it, and nods in approval.⁹

     The film's second act follows one of the ousted employees walking down a city street. He passes an illustrator, played by Macualey himself, completing a satirical portrait of his boss standing between Taft and Roosevelt with his arms draped around their shoulders. Disappointed, he continues down the sidewalk until he spots another portrait that stops him dead in his tracks. A slow panning shot reveals a massive mural of Wilson's running mate, Thomas Marshall, followed by a shrieking bald eagle with an American flag clinched in its talons. The man's enthusiasm builds as Woodrow Wilson's face comes into frame. The man stares at Wilson's portrait and pats his chest in admiration. A title card appears on the screen: "The New Way." The message is clear: wages and working conditions will improve under a Wilson presidency.

     The film is an obvious, yet effective, take on the class tensions and labor struggles that were typical of the progressive era. Wilson's campaign promise for a "New Way" served as a foil to Roosevelt's "New Nationalism" platform. By breaking monopolies and stripping them of protective tariffs, Wilson figured he could even the playing field and create a more egalitarian private sector. Macauley's film personified these issues in an effort to generate donations for Wilson's campaign. The final image leaves the viewer with an ominous warning: "Your government is in danger! This Appeal is to You! Send Your Dollar Now!" Though Macauley wanted the film to serve as a call to action, he also wanted it to stir laughter and affection. His fondness for humor and drama distinguished his films from his propaganda-producing peers. Today, many historians have credited Macauley's work as integral to Wilson winning the election.¹⁰

     In 1916, Wilson once again returned to the campaign trail and looked to Macauley to help muster support. At this point, Macauley had graduated to directing, and he realized that after Wilson's four years in office, audiences no longer wanted to see Wilson treated as an abstraction or a symbol. They wanted to see Wilson as he truly was. Consequently, Macualey decided to avoid any staged set pieces or obvious pleas for donations and asked Wilson to give him permission to shoot candid footage inside the White House. Though reluctant, Wilson ultimately agreed and granted Macauley and his crew one week of unprecedented access. The result was the groundbreaking documentary Motion Picture Portrait Studies of President Wilson and His Cabinet (1916). Because of the cumbersome title, most audiences and newspapers referred to it simply as The United States Government in Action.

     Macauley's goal was to show theatergoers what he believed Wilson did best: govern. As the writer, director, and producer of the film, Macualey provided a new view into the daily workings of the White House. "I had long felt," Macauley said of the project, "that the people of the United States were entitled to know more intimately the men who run things for them at Washington."¹¹ Advertisements championed the film as "the only one of its kind ever made in the world" as well as a powerful representation of democracy and freedom of speech.¹² Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor, wrote a publicized letter to Macualey praising the "marvelous" film for allowing ordinary Americans the opportunity to "make them feel that they have a personal acquaintance with those who control the national government."¹³ The film dovetailed with Gompers' larger mission to bridge the perceived gap between workers and elected officials.¹⁴

     The surviving press coverage for the film shows that many viewers took note of its ability to humanize Wilson. "One feature of the picture which attracted large attention," a reviewer for The Moving Picture World wrote, "was the wonderful variety of smiles shown by the President."¹⁵ Macauley wanted to lift the veil of mystery that surrounded the activities of the President and to reveal that beneath the stoic facade was a man genuinely concerned with the interests of the public. "In a full face view," the reviewer continued, "President Wilson smiled in a way which was new to those who have seen thousands of photographs of him … this motion picture smile may become known as 'the Wilson smile.'"¹⁶

     Despite the praise, Wilson was ambivalent about his appearances in film. He respected their persuasive power but felt they could too often mask a person's true spirit and intentions. When giving an unusually frank and revealing toast before the Motion Picture Board of Trade, Wilson revealed that he felt "very much chagrined" after seeing himself in motion pictures.¹⁷ "I have wondered," he continued, "if I really was that kind of a 'guy.' … While we unconsciously display a great deal of human nature in our visible actions, there are some very deep waters which no picture can sound." After insisting to his audience that he really was "a pretty decent fellow," Wilson admitted, "I have a lot of emotions that do not show on the surface [and] when I look at pictures I think of all the deep sources of happiness and of pain, of joy and misery, that lie beneath that surface, and I am interested chiefly in the heart that beats underneath it all."¹⁸ Wilson, however, had little understanding of the actual craft of filmmaking and was therefore unable to assist Macauley in showing what he claimed was "concealed under a most grave and reverend exterior."¹⁹ When Macauley asked Wilson for a thirty or forty-word caption that he could include in the film, he replied," You have proposed the one thing to me which I particularly do not know how to do."²⁰ Wilson's ignorance to the production process was perhaps a blessing in disguise because it left Macauley with creative control. Drawing liberally from the conventions of documentary, fiction film, and propaganda, Macauley closed the divide between producer and spectator. As he entertained, he also encouraged active participation in civic life. Whom the Gods Would Destroy took these ideas to new heights by creating a theatrical experience that immersed audiences in a fictitious romance and an actual fight for the League of Nations.

     Macauley adapted the screenplay for Whom the Gods Would Destroy from his 1917 play Humanity, which, unlike the screenplay, is still accessible in select libraries. The scenario and characters of the play reflected the anxieties and expectations of millions of Americans in 1917, particularly fears over German authoritarianism and its potential to resurface even after the war. Only a League of Nations, the play suggests, could maintain an enduring peace and prevent despots from rearing their heads. Within each act, Macauley wrote a scene located inside the League's council room—"a tremendous hall draped with flags of all the nations of the earth"—in order to brief his readers directly on the theoretical operations of the League.²¹

     The play introduces readers to an alternate reality that closely resembles the state of the world immediately after the war. The great powers have created a League of Nations and a World Court to "exalt the spirit of brotherhood in all the peoples of the world."²² The reader learns of these developments from the Black Emperor, a character who serves as both the antagonist and as a clear allegory for the German Kaiser. Similar to the opening scene in The Old Way and the New, Humanity begins inside the Black Emperor's lavish palace. Surrounded by portraits of former kings, the Black Emperor details his sinister plot to unleash an epidemic disease on the fictitious nation of Belsermania and take control of its oil fields. "Though the world thinks I am no longer powerful," the Black Emperor says to himself, "it will yet have cause to cry out in pain, as my hand closes about the throat of humanity."²³ The Emperor's problem, however, is that the provisions of the League of Nations prohibit him from formally conquering the territory under any circumstance. As a result, he manipulates an American millionaire William Banfield into purchasing the oil fields under the assumption that he will sell them to the Emperor after the epidemic runs its course.

     The play frames the debate over the League of Nations as a battle between forces of good and evil. Much of the opening dialogue reads like actual speeches from pro-League activists and touches upon their most sensational talking points. The notion of using diseases to murder civilians echoed the paranoia of many peace advocates who had observed World War I's characteristic cache of new weaponry. Moreover, the Black Emperor's lust for oil was a reimagining of European imperial ambitions in Africa and Asia. Macualey reinforced the popular assumption that competition over raw materials and resources was a major catalyst for war. The disloyalty of the money-grubbing Banfield mirrored the concerns of contemporary evangelical groups who contended that greed was a sin spreading rapidly throughout American society. Banfield also embodied the concern of many progressives who circulated the idea of clandestine elites working with the Kaiser to undermine the United States. However, once the League of Nations learns of the Emperor's nefarious activities, it objects and ostracizes him from the international community. After a climactic war sequence, the chairman of the League informs the reader that the Emperor has committed suicide and that his former subjects have embraced democracy and appointed representatives to serve in the League. "There will be no more wars of aggression," the chairman asserts proudly, "we will typify the spirit of the world."²⁴

     The concluding scene reveals a great deal about Macauley's worldview and the philosophical contradictions surrounding the League's formation. Macauley, like Woodrow Wilson, operated under the belief that liberal democracy was the natural order for all societies. Any authoritarian nation, he reasoned, could transition seamlessly to a democracy since that was the latent desire of the people. The notion stemmed from the false assumption that all people wanted nothing more than American conceptions of popular sovereignty and representative government.

     After the publication of Humanity in 1917, Macauley traveled to Washington, D.C. and spent four months conducting research for a film adaption of the play. As President Wilson made his ideas for a League of Nations publicly known, Macauley worked with fellow screenwriter Nan Blair and gradually incorporated each detail into the screenplay. Instead of repeating the alternate reality of his play, Macualey decided to set the film in the contemporary world and replace several shallow archetypes with real-life figures. Macauley forwent the mysterious "Black Emperor" and made the villain Wilhelm II, the actual German Kaiser and King of Prussia. He even consulted with Wilson and several members of his administration to confirm that he was doing justice to their peacekeeping ideology.²⁵ He wanted the film to function as a primer on the administrative procedures of the League and Wilson's vision for the postwar international order. They allegedly approved of his screenplay and liked the fact that their campaign had the support of individuals from the film industry. Once completed, advertisements embellished these connections, claiming the film was "backed by America's foremost thinkers" and "Members of the Paris Peace Conference helped make it."²⁶ The film adaptation of Humanity represented the culmination of Macauley's work as an artist and activist.

     In Humanity, Macauley treated war as the inevitable consequence of the Emperor's hubris. The new film allowed him to explore this theme further. Echoing Wilson's treatment of World War I as "the war to end all wars," Macualey framed the war's exceptional cruelty as the end result of Western Europe and the United States' repeated failure to learn from the past and recognize the folly of militarism. Adopting a teleological perspective, the film framed the entire duration of world civilization as a mere prelude to the creation of the League. However, to avoid confusion with the popular war propaganda film The Heart of Humanity (1918), Macauley decided to change the title from "Humanity" to "Whom the Gods Would Destroy."

     Whom the Gods Would Destroy situated a contemporary tale within the longue durée of human history. Beginning on an optimistic note, the film provided audiences with a melodramatic portrayal of the birth of Jesus Christ in the manger. The scene, according to one critic, demonstrated how "Christ brought to a troubled world the philosophy of love, which ever since has been struggling to overcome the human tendency to create strife."²⁷ Working closely with Macauley, director Frank Borzage showed this tension by cutting abruptly from the manger scene to the violent conquests of Attila the Hun. In approximately ten minutes, the film then descended into a chronological montage of the rise and fall of various military leaders, including Mehmed II, Suleiman I, and Napoleon. According to one critic, the violent tenure of these supposed "great" leaders faded into one another in "kaleidoscopic rapidity."²⁸ The sequence reached a crescendo with the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, bringing the story to the present. The months before the onset of World War I served as the backdrop for the film's initial plot, a romance between a young American inventor and a Belgian burgomaster's daughter.

     Prolific film actor Jack Mulhall played the male protagonist Jack Randall, an independent inventor who tinkers with explosives and chemicals. After a series of experiments, Randall develops a new explosive agent that he predicts will change the nature of industry and warfare forever. Unaware that German operatives are keeping a close eye on his work, the naïve Randall continues his experiments under the assumption that he will eventually use his invention to benefit the American public. Before he can bring the powerful device to interested parties in the United States, however, several "representatives" of a large German chemical company approach him with an offer to study full-time at the prestigious University of Berlin. Taken with the idea of pursuing his scientific interests in a foreign land, he agrees to move to Germany and bring his talent and explosive device with him. Though initially impressed with the country, he soon becomes disillusioned with his new life after mingling with the impressionable German student body. Randall, a proud American and supporter of liberal democracy, grows suspicious of the autocratic ideals of his cohorts and fearful of the Kaiser's increasing commitment to militarism. After discovering that his recruiters are also members of the German Secret Service, Randall finally realizes that his studies are part of a dubious program orchestrated by the Kaiser.

	Figure 4: Production still from Whom the Gods Would Destroy. Moving Picture World, May 10, 1919, 820.

     "The Menace," one reviewer noted, "schemes to gain possession of this invention and conquer the world."²⁹ The Kaiser's plan is to conscript gifted inventors from the United States to develop the most powerful weapons for the German military. Though fabricated, the film's scenario mirrored actual events. World War I transformed technological innovation by bringing together the interests of business, government, and academia. In both Germany and the United States, large firms worked closely with institutes of higher education to employ formerly independent inventors in lucrative research and development programs. Many of these programs engineered important chemical agents and explosives that were used extensively throughout the war. As the nature of technological innovation changed, popular films clearly took note.

     In order to escape the German war machine, Randall abandons his studies at Berlin and flees to Belgium. Before he can become accustomed to a new university, however, the war breaks out and German soldiers march into the country like a colonial force ready to ride herd. Occupied Belgium mirrors the conditions in the fictitious Belsermania from Humanity. Randall witnesses a series of atrocities committed against the Belgians before meeting Julie Mathieu, played by the up-and-coming star Pauline Starke. Julie is on the lam after chauvinistic soldiers killed her entire family. The two fall quickly fall in love and Randall vows to escort her across the trenches to allied territory.³⁰ When the war ends, the couple agrees to marry as Woodrow Wilson outlines the parameters for the League of Nations. Word of the League reaches Germany when a piece of paper falls from the sky into the hands of an anonymous soldier. The soldier picks up the paper and reads: "Woodrow Wilson offers the German people membership in a League of Nations."³¹ Intrigued, the soldier starts attending various peace meetings in secret until the war's belligerents agree to an armistice. The scene reinforced Wilson's assumption that the majority of Germans were good people yearning to be liberated from the Kaiser's rule.

	Figure 5: Production still from Whom the Gods Would Destroy. Moving Picture World, April 26, 1919, 531.

     The film's final act incorporated newsreel footage from the Paris Peace Conference to reconcile the fictional love story with current events. Images of Wilson and the formation of the League screened alongside Randall and Mathieu's wedding to symbolize peace prevailing over war and love prevailing over hate. This unabashed optimism echoed the tone of the opening scene. By positioning the film's love story between the birth of Christ and the League of Nations, the film suggested heavy-handedly that the two events were of equal importance in spreading notions of universal morality. Moreover, the sentiment echoed Wilson's actual foreign policy, which framed his administration as a Christ-like savior for Europe. Even though he is "not listed in the cast of characters," one journalist noted when reflecting on Wilson's "performance" in the film, "he is co-starring with Pauline Starke [and] Jack Mulhall"³² Because of the film's epic scale and relevance to the most pressing issue in foreign affairs, Macauley probably figured that he had all the requirements needed for a blockbuster. To ensure success, he hired Harry Reichenbach, one of the most successful promoters in the motion picture industry, to aid the film's publicity campaign.

     Reichenbach had a reputation for staging elaborate spectacles around films to intrigue the public and to ensure that their titles made newspaper headlines. He considered himself the "father of ballyhoo" and charged companies approximately $1,000 dollars a week for "exploiting, publicizing, attracting attention, and creating sensational manifestations for pictures."³³ He served as a press agent not only for leading performers like Rudolph Valentino and Douglas Fairbanks, but also for President Wilson on one of his diplomatic expeditions to Italy. During the war, Reichenbach worked with the Committee on Public Information to promote Wilson's image as a reliable ally. Reichenbach boasted that he had the "Italians ready to accept him as the greatest living statesman … they would bow down to him before they did to the saints."³⁴ Though the President approved of the work Reichenbach had done for his administration, many others, however, did not appreciate his exploits in the entertainment industry.

     For the release of Tarzan of the Apes (1918) and its sequel The Revenge of Tarzan (1920), Reichenbach hired animal trainers to book rooms at affluent New York hotels under the name T.R. Zann. He then gathered crowds of spectators to watch "Mr. Zann" shepherd live animals, such as chimpanzees and lions, to his room. Reichenbach's hosts were rarely notified in advance of such shenanigans and raised concern over ethics and public safety. After planning to stage a kidnapping in order to promote a Mexican bandit picture, Wilson was contacted to address Reichenbach's precarious methods. In response to his critics, Reichenbach once replied, "I spent $8,800 of my own money doing press agent work for President Wilson. … I deserved some return."³⁵ Despite his controversial antics, Macauley figured Reichenbach's tenacity was precisely what the film and the League of Nations needed in order to succeed.

     Reichenbach used his clout in Washington, D.C. and the motion picture industry to ensure that the major trade journals would cover the release of the film in detail. He needed coverage from trade journals because he thought too many conservative newspapers would ignore the film on account of its pro-League message. Since the fighting had stopped, Reichenbach also predicted that audiences would soon lose interest in rousing war films. "It's not a propaganda picture," he exclaimed adamantly, "it's not a war drama, but a picture that presents in a most dramatic way the foreseen manner in which a world peace was to be brought about."³⁶ Peace films, he assumed, were not only fashionable, but also profitable. Because the film's connections to the White House were a convenient selling point, Reichenbach organized advanced screenings for members of the National Press Club. He wanted to advertise the film's "intense moral lesson" to diplomats, correspondents, and government officials.³⁷ The media buzz in Washington, D.C. also helped legitimate his rigorous letter-writing campaign.

     From the Macualey production office, Reichenbach had approximately ten thousand letters mailed per week directly to the homes of individuals affiliated with the peace movement. He worked closely with dozens of pacifist and peace organizations to ensure that participants received personal invitations. By the time of the film's release, Reichenbach and his associates claimed they had sent over two million letters. "No film in recent history," Reichenbach argued, "has been promoted to a greater or more far reaching extent."³⁸ The letters advertised the plan to premier the film simultaneously in at least one hundred major cities around the world, including New York, Paris, London, Rome, and Rio de Janeiro.³⁹ In each city, Reichenbach communicated with leading activists who sympathized with the film's plea for the League of Nations. The League to Enforce Peace (LEP) was particularly involved in the campaign and endorsed the film routinely in its publications and amongst its four hundred thousand members.

     The League to Enforce Peace was one of the most vocal and influential organizations to advocate for the formation of the League of Nations and the World Court. Prominent politicians and businessmen, such as William Howard Taft, Elihu Root, Edward Filene, and Alexander Graham Bell founded the organization in 1914 as a reaction to the emerging violence in Europe. Charles Macauley was heavily involved in the organization and served as Vice-Chairman for its Information Committee.⁴⁰ Macauley and Reichenbach understood that support from the organization's founders would prove useful in promoting the film. The LEP brought together Democrats and Republicans in a grassroots effort to petition for the creation of an intergovernmental organization dedicated to the pursuit of world peace. Such an organization, the LEP leadership assumed, would work with the Permanent Court of International Justice at The Hague to strengthen the United States' role in international arbitration.⁴¹ The organization stressed the need to formulate international law through an international parliament composed of elected officials from member states. Though the LEP emphasized internationalism, it championed the United States as the world's premier moral compass. "The great issue before us," one member of the LEP asked, "is, therefore, the Americanization of the world or the Europeanization of America."⁴² Many LEP leaders embraced Wilson's belief that the end of the war represented the world at a vital crossroads. There were only two paths, they insisted, "Utopia or hell."⁴³

     The LEP was a relatively conservative organization overall. The leadership by and large embraced time-honored interpretations of manifest destiny and believed that world peace hinged on the spread of American democratic and free market ideals. Though the LEP was critical of the war, it did not align itself with the many anti-war and pacifist groups that had advocated an immediate ceasefire. Most members pined for the swift defeat of the Central Powers and supported Wilson's decision to join the allied war effort. "The League to Enforce Peace," read an official statement in 1914, "is not a stop the war movement. It contemplates a league of nations to be set up after the present war."⁴⁴ Consequently, the LEP's mission matched the plot and message of Whom the Gods Would Destroy perfectly.

     Like most peace organizations, the LEP leadership recognized the value of using film in supporting their cause. In 1917, John Freuler—President of the influential conglomerate Mutual Film Corporation—articulated much of the LEP's treatment of film in its weekly bulletin. Freuler's article, "The Motion Picture as an Influence for World Peace," echoed the thesis he had put forth in a handful of other influential publications, including The World Court and Advocate of Peace.⁴⁵ "Provided due liberty is permitted by governments," he argued, "films will bring about a feeling of international fellowship such as has never hitherto been approached."⁴⁶ Freuler embraced film as a means of acquainting distant societies with one another: "Wars are really just misunderstandings … the motion picture, which introduces to us and makes us familiar with all the peoples of the world is probably the greatest instrumentality toward sympathetic understanding between nations."⁴⁷

     Freuler assumed incorrectly that the conflicts in the Balkans, particularly the ones surrounding Serbian nationalism and the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, stemmed entirely from "a lack of neighborly feeling—an aloofness toward the family next door."⁴⁸ Freuler shared the LEP leadership's distaste for glorified depictions of war and welcomed the emergence of peace pictures. "Suppose the crying necessity for peace," Freuler preached, "could be brought to the attention of humanity through world-wide resources of the motion picture industry."⁴⁹ It was Macauley, an administrator for the LEP, who brought the organization into the promotion of Whom the Gods Would Destroy and embraced Freuler's guiding principle: "Let me make the world's film—I care not who wages its wars."⁵⁰ For Macauley, Whom the Gods Would Destroy was a manifestation of this sentiment.

     Nearly a week before the film's multi-city premier, Reichenbach organized a private screening in New York City for the executive board of the LEP. In attendance were William Howard Taft, Hamilton Holt, Oscar Straus, and many others.⁵¹ The board approved of the film and appreciated how "the picture shows in a vivid manner the blessing of peace as maintained by a League of Nations."⁵² The LEP leadership was also glad to see that their organization had actually appeared in the film. Footage captured by Macauley from the LEP's convention in Philadelphia was incorporated into the final reel. Audiences allegedly saw William Howard Taft signing the "Declaration of Interdependence" in the historic Independence Hall. The positive reception from the LEP foreshadowed that of the press.

     By most measures, Whom the Gods Would Destroy was a critical success. "If you want to see how much out-of-date war films have become," one reviewer wrote in response to the film's peace message, "see this sumptuous production."⁵³ Its relevance to current events, another reviewer noted, made it "the best box office attraction since The Heart of Humanity."⁵⁴ The reviewer for Motion Picture World ensured theatergoers that the film was thankfully "not of the propaganda type, but is an excellent argument for world leagues."⁵⁵ Others ignored the underlying call to activism and applauded the film simply because it was "full of action and wonderfully well-staged."⁵⁶ Though it was not the highest grossing film of the year, it did come close to matching attendance records at several theaters. In fact, the film was popular enough that it continued to screen in select locations for fifteen months after its initial release date, a rare occurrence in that era. Even though "war pictures were out of fashion," one critic surmised, "there was a dramatic story entirely apart from the war."⁵⁷ The film dovetailed with Wilson's campaign for the League of Nations and helped drum up support.⁵⁸ However, it was never enough to extinguish the vocal opposition.

     Most American representatives, regardless of party affiliation, actually supported the formation of the League. Even Henry Cabot Lodge—the de facto Republican Senate Majority Leader—approved with only a few reservations. "The United States," Lodge argued, "is the world's best hope, but if you fetter her in the interests and quarrels of other nations, you will destroy her powerful good, and endanger her very existence."⁵⁹ He shared the concern of many Republicans, as well as Democrats, that the dubious nature of Article X in the League's covenant would work against the immediate interests of Congress. Moreover, there was concern that the United States would be responsible for a disproportionate amount of the League's finances. Ardent critics, like Republican Senators George Norris and William Borah, who the press dubbed the "Irreconcilables," promoted an image of the League's headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland as an overbearing bureaucracy bent on controlling Washington, D.C. To counter these exaggerated claims, the League to Enforce Peace (LEP) organized a series of speaking events, which included screenings of Whom the Gods Would Destroy, to convince prominent Republicans that membership in the League was not only cost effective, but also advantageous for American businesses looking to invest in European markets. The LEP also argued that the details of the covenant were minor issues that should not distract from the League's greater potential to eliminate war. When it seemed as if enough Republicans were willing to accept the covenant so long as Article X had a caveat acknowledging that Congressional approval was needed before member states could declare war, the LEP leadership pleaded with Wilson to concede.

     Wilson, however, was stubborn and adamantly refused to negotiate the provisions of membership. He wanted to commit the United States fully to the League's covenant as it had been drafted at Versailles in order to establish its newfound status as "the savior of the world."⁶⁰ Lodge agreed that the war had demonstrated the need for the United States to take on a greater role in world affairs. However, he contended that the global nature of the League would undermine the Monroe Doctrine and shift the focus of American foreign policy too far away from the western hemisphere. The debate intensified as Whom the Gods Would Destroy made its initial theatrical run. During these months, reporters and politicians started increasingly to discuss cinema as an integral component to the formation and success of the League.⁶¹ "You may be sure," Wilson remarked, "I shall value the support of the theaters and the motion pictures for the League of Nations as a very potent help."⁶²

     Wilson's fondness for the film industry generated the attention of studio executives at Paramount Pictures, Metro Pictures, and Fox Film. Movie moguls were favorable to Wilson's politics and hoped that the League would create new opportunities to produce and distribute films throughout Europe.⁶³ When they assumed that the United States' membership in the League was imminent, they began delicately to incorporate pro-League messages into some of their advertising campaigns. Many of these were nearly identical to those of Whom the Gods Would Destroy. Paramount Pictures, for example, re-released and rebranded the war propaganda film Hearts of the World (1918) as "a vivid reason for the League of Nations."⁶⁴ By aligning themselves with Wilson and the League, they wanted to distinguish themselves from their competitors and show their customers that they were always on the "right side" of history. Another advertisement for Paramount Pictures made this explicitly clear. "Words won't make a League of Nations," it stated confidently, "but understanding will." After suggesting that the public had bestowed the company with the authority to speak for nation's best interests, the advertisement continued, "The motion picture accepts the responsibility … to be the chosen instrument by which harmony is brought to all the races of the earth." When the name Paramount is seen, the advertisement assured, "you are in league with the greatest harmonizing force humanity knows."⁶⁵ It would be easy but wrong to dismiss this lofty rhetoric as little more than empty grandstanding. Many executives at Paramount did genuinely believe in Wilson's crusade and assumed that films would indeed help bring about a safer, better world. A reporter for The Film Daily described the sentiment at Paramount accurately:

The success of the League of Nations will depend in a large measure upon the abolishment of narrow creeds and prejudices, and the motion picture camera is expected to be the gun which will hold sway over the hundreds of millions who will be guided by the League of Nations.⁶⁶

     If the United States was at the center of the League's operations, it was easy to imagine a handful of American studios wielding the "gun" of the world's film business. They were after all far larger and more profitable than those in Europe. "Naturally," one reporter quipped condescendingly, "America, the master hand of the motion picture, is called upon to lead in this [League of Nations] work."⁶⁷ To ensure that leaders from within the film industry recognized the humanitarian and financial possibilities that the United States' membership would bring, Woodrow Wilson commissioned William Fox, the President of Fox Film, to travel to Europe as an affiliate of the League and gauge the possibility of building international production facilities. One of the goals was to create "after-the-war dramas" that could "weld together the bonds of unity that President Wilson's League of Nations is destined to promote."⁶⁸ Just a few weeks after these projects began, though, Wilson suffered a series of devastating strokes that forced him to retreat from the public eye and discontinue his activism for the League. While confined to the White House, Wilson continued to receive film-related inquiries. Unaware of the severity of his condition, the renowned British publicist and film producer Charles Higham reached out to Wilson and offered to finance a League propaganda film that he could outline as he saw fit.⁶⁹ However, as opposition to the League mounted steadily, such film activities were put on hold. 

     In March 1920, nearly one year after the release of Whom the Gods Would Destroy, the Senate voted on the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles and the League's covenant. The preceding months were heated and one reporter even joked that the source of all this Washington bickering must have been "a clause in the League of Nations that will make further theatrical wars impossible."⁷⁰ Though the comment was made in jest, it reflected how embedded film had become within discussions over the fate of the League. After lengthy deliberation, the final tally was forty-nine votes for ratification and thirty-five opposed. All in all, Wilson was seven votes short of receiving the two-thirds needed for ratification. It was a major blow but the fight was not yet over. If the United States had any chance of clinching its membership, Democratic presidential candidate James Cox, a strong supporter of Wilson's foreign and domestic policies, needed to defeat the Republican candidate Warren G. Harding in the upcoming presidential election.

     Harding was not an overtly charismatic or forward-thinking man but he did have a number of valuable allies in the Republican establishment. Henry Cabot Lodge, who had a personal dislike for Wilson, coached Harding and helped him craft a platform based heavily on anti-League sentiment. Moreover, he had the support of the media-savvy Will Hays. Before becoming the head of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA), Hays served as Chairman of the Republican National Committee. Despite pressure to run for office himself, he had allied with Lodge and agreed to manage Harding's campaign. Like Wilson, Hays also understood the persuasive potential of motion pictures.⁷¹ He had studied Wilson's successful campaigns in 1912 and 1916 and adopted many of his strategies. With Wilson unable to secure a third term nomination at the Democratic National Convention, Hays knew that he could use film to help sway votes away from the capable and admirable Cox. By pushing Harding's image and message into thousands of movie theaters across the country, Hays created a powerful campaign based on a promise to "return to normalcy." Of course, normalcy did not include a spot for the United States on the League's roster. To counter the deluge of pro-Harding newsreels and media coverage, the independent studio Harry Levey Productions released Uncle Sam of Freedom Ridge (1920), a manipulative and unapologetic work of propaganda for the Democratic Party.⁷²

     Whom the Gods Would Destroy was on the vanguard of a budding market for films that promoted the League of Nations and internationalist ideals. Following this trend, Uncle Sam of Freedom Ridge boasted that it was an explicit and desperate plea for the United States to join the League. Based on Margaret Prescott Montague's best-selling novel of the same name, the film promised audiences that it would "voice the feelings of millions" and help "bring a new fellowship into the world."⁷³ Many Americans were already familiar with the story since a serial version was widely distributed in a variety of major newspapers. Woodrow Wilson's friend and advisor Bernard Baruch, a stockbroker and former chairman of the War Industrial Board, personally paid for the story's mass publication. In addition, Baruch donated $49,000 to help fund the film version after speaking with George White, the director of the Democratic National Committee, and several members of Cox's campaign. News of their collaboration infuriated Republican Congressman Frederick Britten and Senator William Kenyon, who led an investigation into the matter to see if White and the Democratic Party had violated any corruption charges.⁷⁴

     The negative press benefitted the Harding campaign as rumors began to spread that Baruch and White had received massive payouts from undisclosed British interests.⁷⁵ The charges were eventually dropped and Baruch insisted that he had acted entirely as a private citizen and a "friend of the League of Nations."⁷⁶ The incident brought a degree of controversy to the release of the film, especially because it loosely entangled Woodrow Wilson. Wilson had claimed earlier that Montague's story was the finest work to come out of World War I and "breathes of a patriotism so pure and wholesome as to make all the other things of life seem of little consequence."⁷⁷ Of course, Wilson's brief stint in literary criticism had little to do with recreation and leisure. He knew that he needed all the support he could muster in order to sway public opinion in favor of the League. If he had to tug at Americans' heartstrings with sentimental propaganda, so be it.

     Unlike Whom the Gods Would Destroy, Uncle Sam of Freedom Ridge did not actually detail any of the operations or activities of the League. Instead, it was a dramatic reimagining of the sentiment in Wilson's famous plea to the Senate in 1919, where he argued that the League had come into existence with the hand of God. "Dare we reject it," Wilson asked, "and break the heart of the world?"⁷⁸ The film visualized this notion by depicting the final years of an old man who lives in a small, rural village with his son. When the war breaks out, the son proudly responds to the call of duty and enlists in the armed forces. After months of combat the son is tragically killed in action. When news of his death returns home, the old man, now referred to as Uncle Sam due to his activism at Red Cross and Liberty Loan functions, is overwhelmed with grief. However, what keeps him motivated is the proposal of the League, which he is certain will bring a permanent end to war. As the senators bicker over whether or not the United States should join the organization, Uncle Sam writes a letter to Washington detailing his plan to commit suicide if the League is vetoed. When the Senate does denounce the League, his heart breaks. To atone for this failure, he wraps himself in an American flag and shoots himself. News of his death captivates members of the public, who eventually force their representatives to secure the United States' membership.

     Fittingly, the first person to see the completed film was Wilson. A special screening was arranged at the White House nine days before its premiere at the lavish Selwyn Theater in New York City.⁷⁹ At that point, Wilson's health had deteriorated significantly, leaving him bedridden. Edith Bolling Wilson, his wife, had taken over his executive duties and was serving as the unofficial President, the first women in American history to assume such responsibilities. It is not certain if Wilson was able to respond to the film or offer any real feedback. In a unique example of life imitating art, Wilson, like the character Uncle Sam, had sacrificed his well-being for the formation of the League.

     The film's premiere served as an unofficial rally for James Cox and the Democratic cause. Notable progressives and League to Enforce Peace executives, including William McAdoo, George Creel, and Oscar Straus, gave speeches before the film and helped bolster its marketing campaign. In Washington, D.C., additional screenings were organized to coincide with the recently proposed League of Nations Day and Veterans Appeal Day.⁸⁰ The film's producers wanted to garner endorsements from servicemen and World War I veterans. As a result, they reached out to various veteran associations and invited their members to special screenings. Though the film fared fairly well at the box office and helped keep the benefits of the League at the forefront of the upcoming presidential election, critics found the film far more polarizing than Whom the Gods Would Destroy. Many praised the film as a powerful melodrama while others found it insufferable for anyone who did not wholly agree with its politics.⁸¹ Unlike Whom the Gods Would Destroy, the film did not cross party lines and few critics denied that it represented anything more than a desperate and last-minute attempt to save the League.

     One month after the film's release, millions of Americans cast their ballots for the presidency. Even with the additional support Cox had received from inside the film industry, Harding won in a landslide with 404 electoral votes and sixty percent of the popular vote. Uncle Sam of Freedom Ridge proved of little significance against Will Hays' greater, anti-League media blitz. On the surface, Hays seemed an unlikely candidate to help abolish any chance for the United States to follow suit with its allies. Like most Republicans, he actually believed in the central idea of the League and predominantly took offense at Wilson's guiding belief that "only the Democratic party was the sole protagonist of the peace."⁸² The refusal to join, according to Hays, stemmed not from a conflict of ideas, but of temperaments.⁸³ Hays argued that personal animosity between Wilson and a handful of Republican senators, particularly Henry Cabot Lodge, secured the opposition vote on ratification. Hays believed that both Wilson and Lodge were too arrogant, stubborn, and averse to cooperation, despite the fact that they both shared the same lofty worldview. "They were filled with high moralities," Hays exclaimed, "and the sense that the role of the United States was to be that of a deus ex machina, arbitrating the fate of the world from some Olympian height."⁸⁴ In the end, Hays figured it was Wilson's own hubris and bitterness that prevented the United States from joining the organization that had won him a Nobel Peace Prize. As Euripides had warned, "Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad."

     After Harding won the presidency, reports on the League of Nations gradually faded from media headlines. New releases replaced Whom the Gods Would Destroy and Uncle Sam of Freedom Ridge and these films drifted quietly into obscurity. In certain respects, Whom the Gods Would Destroy left a visible footprint on the history of anti-war cinema. It helped temporarily make the League of Nations a fashionable topic for the film industry but failed to actually secure the United States' membership. Director Frank Borzage, however, returned to its pacifist and idealist themes in two more successful films, A Farewell to Arms (1932) and Three Comrades (1938). As with Whom the Gods Would Destroy, prominent pacifist and anti-war groups in the 1930s, including the Women's Peace Party, incorporated the films into their outreach activities as a reaction to the rise of German aggression. Together, Borzage's trilogy of anti-war films demonstrated how the interests of business and activism could overlap successfully. However, by neglecting to preserve any complete prints of Whom the Gods Would Destroy, the studio and distributors ensured that the film would be relegated to the dustbin of history. Like the vast majority of films produced during the silent era, Whom the Gods Would Destroy will most likely never be seen again, making it impossible for scholars to fully understand its important—albeit mixed—legacy. And yet, this should not discourage scholars and students from studying silent films that archivists have categorized as "lost."

     According to the National Film Preservation Board of the Library of Congress, only fourteen percent of feature films made in the United States between 1912 and 1929 survive in their original form.⁸⁵ Since historical research is based on evidence, scholars have tended to focus their attention on those films that they can actually view. Though entirely reasonable, this impulse ignores thousands of important works that merit detailed examination, including Whom the Gods Would Destroy. Thankfully, the Media History Digital Library (MHDL), an open-access research tool, has created exciting new opportunities for historians and students to engage with lost silent films.⁸⁶  Based at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the non-profit initiative allows users to navigate easily through over two million pages of recently digitized film and media-related publications, such as trade journals, fan magazines, newspapers, and books. Previously available only in select libraries and archives, these sources are now available online in convenient, curated collections. Highlights include the Hollywood Studio System Collection (1914–1964), Fan Magazine Collection (1911–1963), and Early Cinema Collection (1903–1928). World historians will find the Global Cinema Collection (1904–1957), which contains extensive runs of trade journals from Europe, Asia, and Latin America, particularly beneficial. Using the MHDL's custom search platform, it is possible to view plot descriptions, story treatments, promotional materials, critical reviews, box office information, and still frames from countless films that have fallen through the cracks of the historical record. From these print materials, users can trace the journey of a film from its production to release and even gain a sense of its stylistic and aesthetic qualities. The MHDL has not only made the research of silent cinema far more egalitarian and accessible, especially for students, it has also ensured that lost films like Whom the Gods Would Destroy are not forgotten.

Alex Holowicki is an Assistant Professor of History at San Diego Mesa College. Correspondence to aholowicki@sdccd.edu

¹ Woodrow Wilson, Addresses of President Wilson (Washington D.C.: Washington Government Printing Office, 1919), 57.

² Ibid, 48.

³ Article X of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Available at: Avalon Project (accessed May 3, 2015).

⁴ "Whom the Gods Would Destroy," Exhibitors Herald, March 22, 1919, 8.

⁵ "Whom the Gods Would Destroy," The Moving Picture World, March 22, 1919, 1586–1587.

⁶ See: Franklin Giddings, "Whom the Gods Would Destroy," Independent, August 10, 1914.

⁷ "Woodrow Wilson: Campaigns and Elections: The Campaign and Election of 1912," Miller Center at the University of Virginia, 2017. Available at: millercenter.org (accessed June 5, 2017).

⁸ To Mary Allen Hulbert, August 25, 1912, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson Digital Edition. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, Rotunda, 2017. Originally published in The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, ed. Arthur S. Link, Princeton University Press. Available at: rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/WILS (accessed Jan 6, 2018).

⁹ The Old Way and the New, Universal Weekly, 1912, Library of Congress Motion Picture Collection, Motion Picture, Broadcasting, and Recorded Sound Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

¹⁰ Mark Benbow, "Wilson's Cartoonist: Charles R. Macauley and the 1912 Election," Journalism History, Volume 37, Issue: 4, Winter 2012.

¹¹ "President and Cabinet in Pictures," The Moving Picture World, April 26, 1916, 1376.

¹² Ibid.

¹³ "Motion Picture Portrait Studies President Wilson and His Cabinet—The United States Government in Action, Motion Picture News, September 30, 1916, 2069.

¹⁴ Macauley would revisit these ideas in Whom the Gods Would Destroy, but focused on the operations of the League of Nations instead of the White House.

¹⁵ "President and Cabinet in Pictures," The Moving Picture World, April 26, 1916, 1376.

¹⁶ Ibid.

¹⁷ After-Dinner Remarks in New York to the Motion Picture Board of Trade, January 27, 1916, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson Digital Edition. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, Rotunda, 2017. Originally published in The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, ed. Arthur S. Link, Princeton University Press. Available at: rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/WILS (accessed Jan 6, 2018).

¹⁸ Ibid.

¹⁹ Ibid.

²⁰ To Charles Raymond Macauley, November 5, 1917, The Papers of Woodrow Wilson Digital Edition. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, Rotunda, 2017. Originally published in The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, ed. Arthur S. Link, Princeton University Press. Available at: rotunda.upress.virginia.edu/founders/WILS (accessed Jan 6, 2018).

²¹ Charles Macauley, Humanity: A Drama in Four Acts (New York City, NY: The Motion Picture Forum, 1917), 7.

²² Ibid, 6.

²³ Ibid, 3.

²⁴ Ibid, 16.

²⁵ "Broadway to See Whom the Gods Would Destroy," Moving Picture World, March 15, 1919, 1516.

²⁶ "Whom the Gods Would Destroy," Motion Picture News, March 1, 1919, 1273. "Today and Tomorrow Only: Whom the Gods Would Destroy," Harrisburg Telegraph, November 4, 1919, 16.

²⁷ "Whom the Gods Would Destroy," The Glasgow Courier, November 14, 1919, 8.

²⁸ "Whom the Gods Would Destroy," The Moving Picture World, March 22, 1919, 1586–1587.

²⁹ "Whom the Gods Would Destroy," The Glasgow Courier, November 14, 1919, 8.

³⁰ "Opinion: Whom the Gods Would Destroy," Exhibitors Herald and Motography, June 1919, 809.

³¹ "Whom the Gods Would Destroy," Motion Picture News, March 22, 1919, 1763.

³² "President Wilson and Taft "Snapped" All Unawares," Star Tribune, August 31, 1919, 90.

³³ Glendon Allvine, "The Press Agent who is Paid $1000 a Month," Photoplay, August 1923, 51.

³⁴ Ibid, 117.

³⁵ "Tumulty Letter in Press Agent Inquiry," The New York Times, July 30, 1920.

³⁶ "Macauley Production Launched," Motion Picture News, March 1, 1919, 1333.

³⁷ Harry Reichenbach, "The Special Feature's Place, Motion Picture News, March 8, 1919, 1519. "Buys Special Feature," Exhibitors Herald and Motography, April 5, 1919, 30. "Picture Impresses National Press Club," Moving Picture World, May 24, 1919, 1178.

³⁸ "First National Purchases Special," Motion Picture News, March 29, 1919, 1978.

³⁹ "Wilson's Ideas Form Picture's Basis," The Moving Picture World, February 22, 1919, 1051. "Distributing One Hundred Prints," Motion Picture News, April 12, 1919, 2313.

⁴⁰ "League to Enforce Peace to Start Film Educational Work," The Washington Times, June 2, 1916, 11.

⁴¹ William Howard Taft, "The Proposal for a League to Enforce Peace: Affirmative" (1916). Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 3939. http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/3939 (accessed June 17, 2017).

⁴² The Declaration of Interdependence," The Independent, February 5, 1917, 202.

⁴³ Hamilton Holt, "When I Spoke for America in Rome," The Independent, October 26, 1918, 135.

⁴⁴ "Seek to Stir West For Peace League," New York Times, November 11, 1916, 8.

⁴⁵ John Freuler, "Freuler on the Film as an Institution," Exhibitors Herald, April 27, 1917, 21.

⁴⁶ John Freuler, "The Motion Picture as an Influence for Peace, The World Court, February 1917, 54.

⁴⁷ "Brief Peace Notes," Advocate of Peace, August 1916, 246.

⁴⁸ Freuler, 55.

⁴⁹ Ibid.

⁵⁰ Ibid.

⁵¹ "League to Enforce Peace to See the Macauley Film," Moving Picture World, April 12, 1919, 232.

⁵² "The League on the Screen," The League Bulletin, March 29, 1919, 382.

⁵³ "The Shadow Stage," Photoplay, September 1919, 118.

⁵⁴ "What the Picture did for Me," Exhibitors Herald and Motography, June 14, 1919, 59.

⁵⁵ "Whom the Gods Would Destroy a Timely Subject," Moving Picture World, March 22, 1919, 1691.

⁵⁶ "What the Picture did for Me," Exhibitors Herald and Motography, March 6, 1920, 94.

⁵⁷ "Cleaned Up on an Attraction Fifteen Months Released," The Moving Picture World, July 24, 1920, 459.

⁵⁸ Despite these accomplishments, it was not without controversy. An associate of the German government filed for an injunction with the New York Supreme Court against Macauley and Reichenbach to prevent them from screening or advertising the film any further. The plaintiff acted on behalf of Jeanne Luckemeyer, known in Germany as Countess Von Bernstorff, to seek $100,000 in damages. Luckemeyer was a German-American woman married to Count Johann Heinrich von Bernstorff, the controversial German politician who had served as Ambassador to the United States between 1908 and 1917. According to the plaintiff, the portrayal of the couple in the film unfairly held "the Countess up to ridicule." See: "News of the Film World," Variety, March 14, 1919, 44. "Would Restrain Film," The Film Daily, March 18, 1919, 1–2.

⁵⁹ Henry Cabot Lodge, "Treaty of Peace with Germany: Speech of Honorary Henry Cabot Lodge," August 12, 1919.

⁶⁰ Woodrow Wilson, Senate Documents: Addresses of President Wilson, vol. 11, no. 130, 1919, 206.

⁶¹ See: Digest of Pictures of the Week," Exhibitors Herald and Motography, March 22, 1919, 32. Martin J. Quigley, "Editorial Comment of the Week," Exhibitors Herald and Motography, April 19, 1919, 17. "Film Leader to Aid League of Nations," Exhibitors Herald and Motography, April 19, 1919, 20.

⁶² "Scarcity of Studios Indicates Big Year Ahead for Industry," Exhibitors Herald and Motography, March 29, 1919 21.

⁶³ "Rowland Returns with Glowing Report of Opportunity Abroad," Exhibitors Herald and Motography, July 1919, 50.

⁶⁴ "D.W. Griffith's Hearts if the World," The Film Daily, August 10, 1919, 20.

⁶⁵ "Words won't make a League of Nations—but understanding will," The Saturday Evening Post, May 3, 1919.

⁶⁶ "Foreign Plans," The Film Daily, July 1, 1919, 2.

⁶⁷ "Editorial Comment of the Week," Exhibitors Herald and Motography, April 19, 1919, 17.

⁶⁸ "Fox to Film Pictures in France and Belgium," Exhibitors Herald and Motography, May 3, 1919, 29.

⁶⁹ "English Producers Agree to Stay Out Of Exhibitor Field," Exhibitors Herald, June 26, 1920, 44.

⁷⁰ "Striking Humor," The New York Clipper, September 10, 1919, 13.

⁷¹ "St. Louis Notes," The Film Daily, October 22, 1920, 3.

⁷² "Baruch to Spend $49,000," The New York Times, October 20, 1920, 4.

⁷³ "Uncle Sam of Freedom Ridge," The Moving Picture World, October 2, 1920, 565. Robert McElravy, "Uncle Sam of Freedom Ridge," The Moving Picture World, October 9, 1919, 834.

⁷⁴ "No Evidence of Cox Charges," The Brattleboro Daily Reformer, September 1, 1920, 1–3. "White Has No Evidence to Sustain Cox," Evening times-Republican, September 1, 1920, 1.

⁷⁵ "Deny British Financed "Uncle Sam" Story," The New York Times, September 1, 1920, 3. "Hays Shows Costly Plans of Democrats to Elect Cox," New York Tribune, September 1, 1920, 1.

⁷⁶ "Harrison Links Baruch with League Propaganda," New York Tribune, September 2, 1920, 3.

⁷⁷ "Uncle Same of Freedom Ridge," The Film Daily, December 26, 1920, 86. "Levey Forms Company to Make Dramatic Productions," The Moving Picture World, September 11, 1920, 195.

⁷⁸ Address of the President of the United States to the Senate, July 10, 1919 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1919). Reprinted as "An Address to the Senate (July 10, 1919)," in Arthur S. Link, ed. et al., The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Vol. 61, June 19-July25, 1919 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989), 426–436.

⁷⁹ "Wilson Sees Levey Picture," The Moving Picture World, October 2, 1920, 676.

⁸⁰ "Patriotic Picture to Play Part in Appeal for Ideals," Moving Picture World, October 30, 1920, 1291.

⁸¹ "Uncle Sam of Freedom Ridge," Exhibitors Herald, October 16, 1920, 86. Robert McElravy, "Uncle Sam of Freedom Ridge," The Moving Picture World, October 9, 1919, 834. "Propaganda Picture Doubtful as to Entertainment," Motion Picture News, October 9, 1920, 2887.

⁸² Will H. Hays, The Memoirs of Will H. Hays (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1955), 212.

⁸³ Ibid, 187.

⁸⁴ Ibid, 223.

⁸⁵ David Pierce, The Survival of American Silent Feature Films: 1912–1929 (Washington, DC: Council on Library and Information Services and The Library of Congress, 2013), 1.

⁸⁶ The Media History Digital Library is available at: mediahistoryproject.org

Bibliography

Ambrosius, Lloyd E. Wilsonianism: Woodrow Wilson and His Legacy in American Foreign Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.

Cooper, John Milton Jr. Breaking the Heart of the World: Woodrow Wilson and the Fight for the League of Nations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Cortright, David. Peace: A History of Movements and Ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Knock, Thomas. To End All Wars: Woodrow Wilson and the Quest for a New World Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.

Lynch, Cecilia. Beyond Appeasement: Interpreting Interwar Peace Movements in World Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999.

Macmillan, Margaret. Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World. New York: Random House, 2003.

Ninkovich, Frank. The Wilsonian Century: U.S. Foreign Policy since 1900. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1999.

Reichenbach, Harry. Phantom Fame: The Anatomy of Ballyhoo. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1931 

Steigerwald, David. Wilsonian Idealism in America. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994.

Tooze, Adam. The Deluge: The Great War, America and the Remaking of the Global Order, 1916–1931. New York: Penguin Books, 2014.

Traxel, David. Crusader Nation: The United States in Peace and the Great War, 1898–1920. New York: Vintage Books, 2007.