Friday, October 29, 2010

Why The U.S. Shouldn't Have Entered WWI

Most people will argue that the main reasons we got involved in WWI was Germany's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare, the Zimmerman Telegram, cultural ties to the Allies, and to protect the massive amount of money invested with the Allied Powers. However, they are overlooking some obvious facts.
As for the policy of unrestricted submarine warfare and the sinking of the H.M.S Lusitania which Colin Tonelli brought up, he forgot to mention how the Germans published adds in popular newspapers next to travel adds warning people to not go to Europe. The adds clearly laid out the dangers of traveling in a war zone, and especially traveling on a ship belonging to England. And, the Germans were partially justified for sinking the ship, as it was carrying munitions in a flagrant disregard of the rules of war, as it was a passenger ship. Even though Wilson said we would enter the war if Germany continued to practice unrestricted submarine warfare, the event we used as evidence, the Lusitania, was a ship carrying munitions to England, so Germany had to sink it to save German lives.
Although the Zimmerman Telegram inflamed public unrest and resentment of Germany, the expectation of Mexico to go to war with the U.S. is laughable. Just prior to WWI, we had a segment of the military in Mexico pursuing Pancho Villa. If a country allows another to have a substantial military presence in their own country and does nothing about it, how will they expect to beat us in a war? Mexicans can also look to conflicts like the Spanish American War, our numerous Latin American interventions, and how we beat them handily in our last Mexican War and realize that it is an unwinnable war. Because of this the telegram should not have been taken seriously.
Although many more people in the United States had cultural ties to England, there were also many people who had ties to Germany and the Central Powers. To say that the U.S. had cultural ties to England is a massive generalization of the U.S. The ties to England were more apparent because more educated and wealthy individuals were tied to England economically and culturally.
Our economic interests would never have had to be protected if our bankers and money-lenders honored our nuetrality in the first place. We lent billions of dollars to the Allies and only 27 million to the Central Powers. If we were truly nuetral, our trade should have been more evenly balanced with both sides of the conflict.
However, the most obvious reason we shouldn't have gotten involved was the size and strength of our military. It was pitifully small and its officers were mostly old veterans waiting to retire. Once we entered we had to set up a draft and quickly train and ship soldiers over to Europe. Although the country might have been ready for war, the military was not.

9 comments:

  1. I also agree with Andrew's ideas about the war. I think it was wrong for the United States to enter the war. By joining the war, the United States was breaking more than a few past policies regarding foreign affairs. Along with the oblivious disregard to the Monroe Doctrine, which states that the United States would stay out of the eastern hemisphere if the Europeans would stay out of the western hemisphere. The United States also broke its long standing policy, encouraged by George Washington, to stay out of European affairs. We should not have engaged in the war directly, it was fair enough to aid in the war, offering munitions and war loans, but we should have done it, as Andrew suggests, equally. The numbers that Andrew rattles off show a heavy favoritism to the Allies. We were literally banking on an Allies victory, putting us in a position that American bankers should never have put the country in.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Replies
    1. why is this guy up at 5:24 AM reading stuff about history?

      Delete
  3. lol just like my dickkkkkkkkkk

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sick. but the first comment was good.

    ReplyDelete