America Joins WWI

             In the years leading up to 1914, Europe was charged entanglement of alliances and resentment. The majority of countries across the continent made pacts to defend one another in the event of an attack. Imperialism over the past decades created tension between countries like Germany and Great Britain, the former wishing to become a global influence and the latter with colonies around the world. Deep rooted ethnic ties in the Balkans pitted the Austro-Hungarian Empire against Serbia. As one country bulked their navy and armies, other nations followed suit, feeling threatened.  Leading up to World War I, peace was precariously balanced, needing only a slight nudge to bring it all down. 

              The assassination of the archduke of the Austro-Hungarian Empire by Serbian nationalists started war between Austro-Hungary and Serbia, followed quickly by Russia, Germany, Britain, and France and many others. The first World War had started. 

              President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, preached neutrality, citing the precedent set from the birth of the nation and the distance between the European struggles and the United States. American neutrality also allowed the US economy to thrive with businesses able to trade freely with the warring nations in need of supplies and goods. Although America might have been neutral, there were still many who felt strong ties to European countries, and the geological proximity and cultural similarities of some of the Allies lead Americans inevitably do more business with the Allies. 

              German U-boat attacks, specifically on the British passenger ship, the Lusitania, increased tensions between America and the Central powers. The Germans wished to have unrestricted submarine warfare, but agreed to stop their attacks if the United States helped to dismantle the British blockade which they deemed unfair and the United States as partisan for allowing. 

              Neutrality almost worked the United States, but a note was obtained from the German minister in Mexico that encouraged Mexico to join the Central Powers and attack the United States increased American hostility towards the Germans. Wilson had already ramped up the American army and navy in preparation for war. 

              On April 4, 1917, Congress voted to declare war on Germany.

Corinne McCabe

In-Class Imperialism Simulation

We've recently finished a simulation game in class based on Imperialism and its values. We were only given a certain amount of resources, which can also be bought over the course of the game, and the ending goal, which is to reach security for the state. At the beginning of the simulation, people were trying to figure who had what resource and how much of it and what alliances that each group wanted to make. This portion is a reference to real life, a couple years or decades before wars break out. Each country, represented by groups in the simulation, wants to figure out what the other countries have, whether they'll be a potential threat in the future, and whether if that particular country would be willing to forge an alliance with them or a peace treaty (regarding trade, not waging war, or other kinds of terms so that they don't go to war against each other). This aspect of the alliances and/or treaty was represented by pieces of paper with terms on it, signed by both groups (countries) and given to the teacher. Of course, in the real world, the countries' representative or leader would be the ones to negotiate the terms and announced to the world or kept private. And depending on people's choices, the game (the war) could last short or long depending on when people started to wage war on other groups.

Near the end of the simulation, 3 groups teamed up against group 1 with the thought of taking out the weaker countries or just whichever countries that seemed to prove as a threat to them, which turned out to be group 1, with the highest amount of artillery and soldiers. When they commenced with this decision, the groups didn't exactly think it through enough because even though they thought their number of soldiers could overwhelm group 1, they didn't (assumed here) think that the ships and artillery would play a bigger role compared to soldiers in terms of power. The results ended up with the four groups, who were involved, in anarchy, leaving group 2 and 3 in unstable condition. This situation most likely wouldn't have happened in real life, since the majority (maybe all) of the countries would want to be advantageous when going into a war, they would have to consider all aspects, such as soldier number, artillery, ships, air forces, etc, and dominating by a large amount over the opponent (or so they presume that they do) in order for them to win.

In conclusion, the class came up with a couple theories on how each country would operate when time of war is near: some countries may want to eliminate either the weakest countries at the early stages (so they won't grow to become a threat later on or form alliances with other countries that could contribute to other countries' advantages, or choosing to remain neutral to everyone and have a peace treaty for not attacking each other and everyone could just live in harmony.

The Causes of World War I: The European Powder Keg

Many people today have rather spotty knowledge pertaining to the reason for the first world war.  This is because there was no clear single reason for the war, but rather many smaller, somewhat convoluted causes.  In 1914, President Woodrow Wilson's trusted advisor, Edward House, was sent to Europe to investigate the tension between European powers.  What he learned is that Europe was quite clearly on the brink of war, and it needed "only a spark to set the whole thing off".  Historians referred to Europe during that day as a "powder keg", or a barrel of gunpowder, prone to explode at any second.

On June 28, 1914, the spark that House had referred to arrived.  On that morning, Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife visited the capital of Bosnia, which was a province of Austria-Hungary at the time.  While driving through the city, a terrorist suddenly threw a bomb on to the car which Ferdinand and his wife, Sophia, were driving.  Fortunately, the bomb missed the car, so the archduke and his wife continued their tour of the city.  However, a second terrorist by the name of Gavrilo Princip open fired on the car later that day, killing both Ferdinand and Sophia.

At this time in the early 20th century, Europe had an intricate system of alliances between nations, many of these said alliances promising to back other nations in war, should one arise.  Due to this complicated system, when Serbia and Austria-Hungary went to war, several nations took sides and joined in on the conflicts to stick to their treaties.  Among those who sided with Serbia were the Russians, the French, and the British.  The German decided to side with the Austrio-Hungarians.  These superpowers going to war caused a quick escalation due to factors such as nationalism (a sense of pride for one's own country) and militarism (a desire to have the strongest military) and led to what is today known as World War I.

Imperialism of America

Though when we usually think of imperialism, we think about Great Britain, France taking Canada and the scramble for parts of Africa, but what we do not realize that America has been imperialist as well.  Since WWI and WWII, most empires have been extinguished from existence, but the ideals of imperialism are still around.  

Mr. Stewart has given us the example of the hat maker.  He makes too many hats for the American population to buy, but if the US owns a colony somewhere else, since the US controls their economy and government they can force them to only buy hats from the hat maker person.  Part of the reason why we are at war with the Middle East is quite similar.  Before 9/11 we were in a period of peace, but since that event happened we have had an excuse to go to war somewhere.  If there is no war, the companies making machinery and guns and ammunition are not making any money.  So, we have interfered with political issues that have nothing to do with the US in attempt to use up the products made by these companies so they can make money.  

Another reason why countries take over one another is for resources.  European countries all fought over for parts of Africa because they had many resources including people that they could take as slaves.  An example of America taking over other countries for resources is Cuba.  Due to the Spanish-American war, ownership of Cuba was at stake.  The US wanted Cuba because they had sugar plantations, and if the US took control of Cuba then they would also control the sugar trade and make a lot of money.  

When we think of imperialism we think of Great Britain and other large worldly powers, but I personally have never heard anyone say that America is an imperialist country that follows those ideals. When America was first being formed, people forcefully took land away from Native Americans, like how any other imperialist country would.  I think the idea that America was never imperialist should be changed.

George Armstrong Custer "The American hero" (Brendan Gutierrez)

George Armstrong Custer was born December 5th, 1839, in Ohio 22 years before the start of the civil war. George Custer graduated last in his class at west point and was later called to fight for the union in the civil war where he became an effective cavalry commander and eventually became a Major general. After the union won the war Custer the U.S. volunteer service was mustered out and he looked looked for other positions and he was offered the rank of adjutant general of the Mexican leader Benito Juarez who later won the conflict with France on the 5th of may 1862, leading to the creation of the Cinco de mayo celebration. But Custer had refused as he would have had to resign completely from the U.S. army. When he returned to the Army he was reverted to captain and Lieutenant colonel of the 7th cavalry regiment. When accompanying Major general Winfield Scott Hancock duty in 1866 he left his post to visit his wife and when the campaign ended, Custer was arrested and suspended. Custer was released early when he was requested by Major general Sheridan for another campaign against the Native tribes. After locating the group of native tribes Custer decides to fight the group instead of waiting fort the very needed back up. After being heavily outnumbered by the natives Custer and his men could not escape.Following his death many plays and movies were written and created after curster and his final battle giving him a last legacy that may not be entirely based on truth.

Imperialism and The United States

The United States has always wanted to expand its borders to “create new opportunities”. There have been many instances, especially in the “Western Hemisphere” which spanned from Samoa to Brazil. The U.S. “protects” these countries only when it politically or economically beneficial to the U.S.. While it could be argued that the U.S. has helped many of these countries, it can also be said that the U.S. needs to focus more on itself and less on the politics of other countries.

The U.S. even went to war with Spain because we wanted to have Cuba think highly of us so we could call in some favors later on. A similar situation happened with the country of Santa Domingo. Theodore Roosevelt did not want the Europeans in the Western Hemisphere , so when Santa Domingo could not pay back its debts, the U.S. took over Santa Domingo and got the money for Europe. That way the Europeans did not have to intrude on the Western Hemisphere and violate the Monroe doctrine.

Having said all of this, I have a few questions that I imagine are mostly opinion based. Did the U.S. actually help the countries that they fought in the name of? Is the U.S. too powerful since, at least in the 1900s, they seemed to think they had control over all of the Western Hemisphere? Were there good intentions behind the U.S. helping the countries around it? Or was this "help" simply for the United State's gain?

Realism vs. Idealism in U.S. Foreign Policy (Adrienne Mitchel)

Since the 1800s U.S. foreign policy, or the principles, practices, and goals that directs a nation in its relationships with other countries, has been greatly influenced by two differing schools of thought — realism and idealism. Realism is built on the idea that relations with other countries should be based on promoting national self-interest, and foreign policy should have practical goals which benefit America. In contrast, idealism is built on the idea that ideals and values should impact countries’ relationships, and foreign policy should advocate America's founding ideals (democracy, liberty, and rights) to improve the world for all people, not just American people. In a nutshell, realism, a more practical but more selfish vision, stresses the importance of benefiting America, and idealism, a less practical but more selfless vision, stresses the importance of benefiting the whole world. To better understand the differing viewpoints of a realist and an idealist, I will provide two examples of events that occurred in American history and explain how each school of thought felt about it.

When President Thomas Jefferson doubled the United State’s territory by buying the Louisiana territory from France, it became evident that expansionism became a new goal for U.S. foreign policy. Realists were in favor of expansionism because it made the United States more secure by ridding the nation of foreign threats on its borders, as well as giving the U.S. more growing room. Idealists were also in favor of expansionism, but for a different reason than realists — idealists believed that the United States must expand its democracy and founding ideals around the whole world, a belief called manifest destiny. 
The Mexican War, fought between the United States and Mexico over Texas, came to end with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, in which Mexico recognized the U.S. Annexation of Texas as well as giving the U.S. a huge region of land from Texas to California. Realists were extremely satisfied with results, as the United States increased its territory by approximately one third and consequently Mexico lost about half of its territory. However, idealists believed the Mexican War was an unnecessary and unjust land grab because they believed the rights of the Mexican people were violated. 

After reading this overview of of the difference between realism and idealism, which school of thought do you think should have more influence in U.S. foreign policy?