So, some people would argue that America was too slow to enter World War 1 and that had WW1 started a few years earlier then Roosevelt or Taft would have entered almost immediately. Roosevelt and his successor Taft were both active interventionists who changed American Foreign Policy greatly during their time in office where as Wilson was far more of a pacifist who was supported by Jennings Bryan, again a very passionate pacifists.
While America actually entered the war on April 6th 1917 they did not mobilise their troops unti the Spring of 1918, with the war ending in November of 1918 you could argue that America's influence actually ended World War 1. Therefore leading to the question, if they had entered the war a few years earlier, for example when German Torpedoes attacked the civilian liner the RMS Lusitania in 1915, then the loss of life would not have reached the 37 million lives that it did by the end of World War 1.
Was it America's infuence that ended the war or was it due to end soon anyway? Some would say it was due to end as the new tanks and planes that were being used in the war was making the difference to break trench warfare and the naval blockade on Germany was having the desired effect. This naval blockade was driving Germany to poverty, starvation and desperation and made their eventual demise a certainty however long it took.
But the fresh soldiers coming from America with different tactics, better supplies, health and financial support surely had an impact both on creating actual results and an improvement in morale among allied troops.
If you were to compare the reaction to America's involvement in modern conflicts and how many people feel they are too quick to involve themselves in foreign conflicts, has America learnt its lesson in moving too slowly to enter a war for which they are inevitably going to be involved. Better to enter a conflict early on and end it quickly than wait for death and destruction to act?
Was it America's duty to support Europe based on their financial capabilities and for moral reasons?
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI think the article makes several good points however personally I don't think America knew exactly what their impact would be if they entered earlier. Their army was made up of volunteers and if they had entered earlier, into a war that did not directly concern them, it would have caused a substansial loss of American life which the government was not willing to risk. While it can be argued that the war may have entered earlier it may have caused it to carry on for longer as well. If America had joined, Germany might have sent it's note to support Mexico in a rebellion sooner which would have created extra problems for them. As to your supposition that America had the power to save millions of lives had it entered earlier, at the beginning it wasn't their war to fight so why would they get invovled? Even after the sinking of the Luitsana which did cause American lives to be lost it was an attack against the British not the Americans.
I don't think America had the right power in the world at that time to be strong enough to take the moral high ground and decide what was right. While politically America had grown, within the cuontry there were still many people who resented involvment in foreign business. Today they are quicker to enter conflicts but I believe the maojrity of that is due to their high political power in the modern world and they have so many links to other countries it is not beneficial for them to be idle in dangerous conflicts. They also have a position of setting an example as one of the most powerful countries in the world and they are expected to help out in conflicts.
Although bear in mind these are just my opinions
H :)
I think that America did have responsibilities to help and support Europe seeing as they were in good economical well being. They also had responsibilities, i think, because they got themselves involved initially by sending warforce, like gunpowder and so once they got involved they had put themselves into a situation where they were allied with Britain.
ReplyDeleteHowever, i also think that it would have been a smart move for America to have stayed uninvolved. Wilsons idea was to create peace and get rid of warfare. By America then getting involved it was sending mixed messages. If America wanted peace, then they should make their stand by not getting involved.
Emily.
I do not agree that America should have entered the war earlier, I think the decision to try to keep the USA as neutral and anti war as possible was reasonable and Wilson's ideology of living peacefully is a view majority of the population would have wanted. The fact that they also entered late and weren't eager to become enemies and fight; lead them to having a leading role in the decisions of the Treaty of Versailles and they potentially were the least to blame for all the damages of world war one. I agree with your points, however as what was brought up the German's attack on the Lusitania in 1915 was aimed towards the British as it was thei ship and not an American made one. I think the war was due to end at some point, whether or not it would be soon after it had ended or months, prehaps years later, it would eventually had come to an end. However I think with the new fresh involvement of the Americans into a war where both sides were damaged and running out of money, soldiers to fight, and weapons to use, the USA brought new munition with purpose to end the war finally and brought new troops to help fight against the Germans.
ReplyDeleteR.
I do think that America had a responsibility in supporting Europe as they were in a good Economic state. America got themselves involved by sending warforce so once they were involved even if it was in a small way they still had a Duty as they were allied with Britian. However i think that by getting them selves involved they were going against what Wilson's ideas were about creating peace and getting rid of warfare. The Naval Blocade prevented trading which put the enemy into a decreased economic state alongside with money used for the war and less food from other countries getting to their population and fighting army. So overall i think americas late involvment in the war changed how the war ended, and who won.
ReplyDelete