Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search
! THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia.
Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting
Conservlogo.png

Post Your Thoughts

yes...

Yes


Yes. Three major factors could contribute to this. One being that our allies were about to fall to the seemingly unstoppable German war machine. Two, the Germans and their allies were sinking ships carrying American citizens. We had every right in the world to go forward and protect not only our allies, but our own citizens. Three, we were experiencing a slump in our economy and needed something to drive the prices back up. --Goose 13:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Goose a few thoughts. 1. Generally a nation isn't consitered an "ally" until, say, a treaty is signed. France, Russia and England were not our allies before 1917. 2. Unrestricted German submarine warfare is a legitamate reason to go to war. 3. You have found a great economic principle. When your economy is slumping, nothing like a short victorious war to drive those prices back up. Goose, your arguments frighten me. Kdude, if that is your real name, I sure haven't heard any indication that the Mexican government was A: capable or B: crazy enough to declare war on us. They were embroiled in a brutal civil war at the time and utterly incapable of posing a credible threat to us AND THEY KNEW IT. (Come to think of it, we invaded them during WWI hunting for Pancho Via, so they would have been justified in declaring war, but that's another issue.) Sincerely, Parcival

Yes. Another reason not listed above is that in early 1917, Germany's foreign secretary, Arthur Zimmermann, sent a coded telegram to Germany's ambassador to Mexico promised that if Mexico declared war on the United States, Germany would help give back Mexico the territories it lost (Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico, also known as the Mexico Cession) in the Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo which ended the Mexican-American War. --Kdude50 16:54, 17 March 2007

Whoa, whoa, settle down a bit here, all of this Hitler nonsense is crazy. The American economy went up right after the war, but then got hit by a huge depression. Then, guess what, none of the programs they made helped. What saved the American economy? World War 2 is what saved the United State's economy. Sincerely,Bmama

no...

Because the Americans brought the so called 'Spanish flu' with them and that fearful disease managed to kill off nearly 20 million mostly young European citizens far more than were actually killed by the war. Of course it wasn't in any way meant. If the American soldiers had not been crowded together in their vast training camps perhaps the virus would not have developed and the many Americans who died from this pandemic would also have been saved.

If the Europeans would have settled their issues on there own, there would have been a tie in the end, or maybe Austria/Germany would have won. In that case Hitler would not have arisen and WWII would never have occured, many Eastern European countries wouldn't have suffered communism.--Jack Ketch 06:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Hitler wouldn't have risen to power in Germany had it not been forced to pay war reparations as declared in the Treaty of Versailles. Woodrow Wilson didn't want to punish Germany as harshly as our allies did but no one really listened to Wilson. This is an example of Europeans settling their issues on their own which in turn caused WWII. Also, another example Europeans settling their issues on their own is when The Black Hand assassinating Archduke Franz Ferdinand which started WWI. So clearly your argument about letting Europeans settling their issues on their own is faulty.--Kdude50 22:12, 22 March 2007
Kdude, you need read more closely what I wrote. My point is that Germany wouldn't have lost the war if the United States wouldn't have supported UK and France. So there would have been no need for reparations, ergo: no Hitler!--Jack Ketch 12:46, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

There was no reason for America to interfere. THis was just a case of Russian imperialism in the Balkans and xenophobia towards Germany. Germany's creation in 1871 and subsequent rise to power alarmed many of the old school Metternich balance-of-power European political strategists. Germany's military buildup was not out of aggression, but rather out of Wilhelm's fear of war by way of aggression from Russia. His fear was justified. America's excuse for entering the war - Germany's sinking of ships was ridiculous. Americans were warned that ships entering the war zone around Britain took the risk of being sunk. Also the Lusitania was carrying weapons aboard bound for Britain. The Germans had to sink it. Everyone needs to get over this phobia of Germany. In this war, they were the good guys. neocorporatist

So can we conclude the Wilson administration, illegally arming Britain like in the Lusitania incident, was akin to the Reagan administration illegally arming the Contras in the 1980s, only in the Lusitania incident American lives, including that of children and infants, were being used a hostages to insure safety of passage for the illegal contraband? RobS 23:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I mostly think we should of stayed because of what could have been avoided. If Germany had won Hitler would have remained a painter instead of trying to take over Europe. This would be because Germany would not have gone into a depression where they would look for any kind of change. The British and the French would not have divided up the Ottaman empire for their own means. Three Ottoman provinces were combined to form modern day Iraq leading to three groups who hate each other. This could have all been avoided if the U.S whose arrival turned the tide of the war would have stayed out. CARNESJW

Ya but if Xerxes would've lost at Thermopylae what you just outlined may have been a different story, too. RobS 22:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't think Germany would have won "but for" the U.S. The entry of the U.S. into tht war, in my estimation was just the last nail in the coffin for the Kaiser. We may have accelerated the end of the war, but Germany didn't have the resources to pull it out. They might, however, have been able to stretch the war out long enough to force a settlement on better terms than they did, this (possibly) preventing the rise of Hitler (though virulent anti-Semitism and an oddly powerful sense of cultural superiority was rampant in Germany for a long time before the Nazis, who merely seized on them, so who knows whether a better settlement would really have prevented the rise of Nazism). JesusSaves 03:56, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

- No, because the Germans attacked Britain. Americans died on the Lucitania, but the Germans were targeting the UK and not the US. At that time, the US was weak but Britain could easily have defended itself with no American help whatsoever. American involvement in WWI was just a waste of lives. NickA 23:30, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

Do not forget that the Lusitania went down back in 1915; the issue was resolved for two years between the US & Germany, until further ship sinkings became blatant. Still, as pointed out, US entry was a disaster since it gave personal motivation to "the Little Corporal" himself and national motivation to the German people--notably after harsh reparations & the infamous inflation that the Weimar government used to make the reparations worthless; worthless to the allies but making the Mark worthless as well!!

CW Miller PhD 28 Aug. 2011

Personal tools