One War

¶ … packet primary source documents drawn historical periods covered chapters 18-21 Give Me The historical situation that produced this primary source written by John Reed in April of 1917, "Whose War" was America's imminent participation in World War I. It is noteworthy that the author alludes to the two factors that most readily led to America's involvement in this martial affair -- the Zimmerman Telegram (which he refers to twice as the "note") and the sinking of United States ships enacted by German submarines.

There certainly appears to be a bias in evaluating the context of this source -- Reed was considered a "radical" and is definitely anti-war at a time in which patriotism and support for war was exceedingly high. Thus, this source reads like a piece of journalism that was written to attempt to alert people to the incongruence and atrocities associated with America's impending actions.

The author's major point in writing this document is to convey the fact that American involvement in World War I will ultimately be detrimental to the country and to the vast quantities of people who live within it. Thus, he has included the rhetorical question in the title of the document, and his assertion that it is not "my" war, nor "our" war. The "our" he is referring to, of course, are the vast majority of Americans who will be exploited in this martial encounter.

These include those individuals who will kill and be killed for others on the front lines, despite the fact that they will not be "paid a living war." It also includes the severe limitation of civil liberties, which are manifest in a variety of ways, perhaps most colorfully in the fact that war results in "poor men sent to jail for long terms without trial, and even without any change.

Peaceful strikers, and their wives and children, have been shot to death, burned to death…." Additionally, the author's principle point includes the fact that there are vast amounts of hypocrisy associated with the war, and an imbalance in the socio-economic results of such belligerence. In terms of hypocrisy, the author addresses the fact that the media is attempting to portray the Allies and the U.S.

(which has been sending a great deal of monetary support and supplies to them) as so-called 'good guys', despite the fact that they are just as guilty as the Germans of committing travesties.

In fact, the author even states that "Russian atrocities were shown to be more dreadful than German." Moreover, the author elucidates the fact that that this war, like most major international conflicts, is only a means of widening the socio-economic class divide in which the rich will "steadily become richer, and the cost of living higher, and the workers proportionally poorer." These facts reinforce his primary theme that the war is not his, nor that of the average American who is like him.

In conveying this point, the author's language and rhetoric employs a copious amount of sarcasm -- particularly in the introductory paragraph in which he is subtly deriding various mechanisms of patriotism which are signaling impending U.S. involvement in the Great War. However, it is important to realize that this tone of sarcasm is not only to subtly belittle those who advocate the opposite stance of the author, but is also deployed by him to convey a sense of despondency.

He is attempting to convince people of the futility or of the disadvantages that U.S. involvement in Word War I will bring, yet he is also resigned to the fact that his actions will not be able to change anything regarding U.S. involvement. Thus, he uses a series of rhetorical questions at the end of the document ("Why is England allowed to attempt the avowed starvation.