Abstract On 2nd April, 1917, the then president of the United States of America, Woodrow Wilson, declared war on Germany for what he considered a direct threat to the United States' security. This move has been criticized on a number of grounds. This text examines some of the reasons put forward by those opposed to the decision to get America involved in the European war.
United States' Involvement in the First World War
America's Involvement in the First World War
The president is well aware that Americans often face the temptation to disengage from the rest of the world, especially when the issue at hand has to do with military involvement. I, personally, expected Americans to recoil from President Wilson's proposal to join the European war and fight against Germany, first, because they usually "are skeptical about military adventures in general," (McManus, 2013) and secondly, because the United State's direct interest in this intervention was not clear. Could this issue have been more of a bona fide problem, rather than a forthright (direct) threat?
Let us first clear something up. President Wilson claimed that the leadership in Germany is self-centered, and completely insensitive of the interests of its people. That its warfare acts had to be stopped, because the peace and freedom of the world was at stake. But this was nothing new. The issue of threatened world peace had not just arisen. It had began back when Germany's government rejected the United States peace offers, and resumed its indiscriminate submarine attacks, leading to the collapse of the diplomatic negotiations between President Wilson and Germany's leadership (Doenecke, 2013).
This, coupled with Austria' failed attempts to restore the collapsed talks, ought to have been an early indication that President Wilson's attempts to arrange a peace statute would most likely be unsuccessful. If threatened world peace was the real motivation behind America's intention to get involved in the European war, then the intervention should have began at this point and not necessarily after the attacks, precisely, on American trading vessels.
President Wilson, in his declaration of war, claimed that there was need to protect the honor of the United States. Realists, however, held a contrary opinion. For instance, Kennan (as cited in Doenecke, 2013) is of the opinion that America's decision to join the war has little to do with guarding its honor. The overriding aim is to ensure that Germany did not defeat Britain. This is legitimate, given the strong cultural and business ties between the two nations. However, leveraging of human fear to facilitate the advancement of particular goals not only destabilizes people's ways of life, but also defies the basic principles of good public governance.
Is it possible that the president's decision to get America involved in the European war was power-driven? Save for the submarine attacks on American vessels, there had been no evidence of direct (immediate) threat. Smith (as cited in Doenecke, 2013) argues that President Wilson feared that the world's power-balance would be destroyed, if Germany emerged victorious. Are such power benefits supposed to override the core responsibility of statehood - the protection of citizens' rights?
One of the costs likely to result from the country's involvement in this war is increased hostility towards U.S. citizens of German ancestry. It is, always, crucial to weigh the expected benefits against the associated costs. After all, the state may not have a duty to retain its power-position, but it obviously has a duty to protect all its citizens.
Ambrosius (as cited in Doenecke, 2013) argues that America would have been better off maintaining its neutrality in the war because it lacked "a coherent policy towards European conflicts" (p.66). Link (as cited in Doenecke, 2013) posits that there is a risk of causal sequence given that U.S., as inert as it is, will be fighting " a militaristic and imperialistic Germany - triumphant, strident, and in effective control of Europe from the English channels to the Urals" (p.66).
The country's decision to join the European war has seen a complete mobilization of, not only the population, but the overall economy as well. Food, materials, munitions, money, and the soldiers of course, have to be provided; everyone has to play their part in ensuring that the overall goal - winning the war - is realized. There has been massive pressure on the financial credit facilities, as "loans and credits previously somewhat restrained by considerations of neutrality, opened up fully for the Allied Powers" (Kidner, 2012, p. 772). The recent past has seen significant reduction in the lending rates, and the release of more money to aid in the relevant production. I am saddened, however, by the fact that we may be so pre-occupied that we do not realize that life continues, even after this war. We may only realize this when the dust settles. The government will, of course, demonstrate that it is in control - through relevant public policy - but in the end, the individual U.S. citizen bears the brunt of this war.
You’re 86% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.