The Aftermath of World War 1
World War 1 was a war that started after the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary was assassinated. Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary fought against Russia, France, Great Britain and others. This war involved both trench and warfare chemical warfare. The peace treaty was signed in 1919 after the German emperor gave up the throne and Austria-Hungary collapsed. World War 1 was somewhat justifiable because it was a last resort, a defense from external attack, but it was not just because the peace treaty did not have a just resolution and was not fair to all sides.
The U.S. were attacked first and had the right to defend their country. The United States had been transporting goods to their allies in Europe. But several of their ships had been bombed by the Germans. President Wilson gave a warning to the Germans after these attacks. “The US will hold Germany to a strict accountability for property or lives lost.” (Digital History) . He is saying that the U.S. will respond to any damages to property or people killed. They will try to retaliate for what happened. Former president Theodore Roosevelt felt that Wilson was too lenient on the Germans and should have done more. He accused the president of “cowardice and weakness” (American Nation, 363) because he did not act on this soon enough. Zinn believed that “it was unrealistic to expect that the Germans should treat the U.S. as neutral in the war, when the US had been shipping a great amount of war materials to Germany’s enemies.” (Zinn, 362). He also felt that the U.S. was provoking Germany. The U.S. were not listening to Germany and were disobeying their orders to stay out of the war. But Germany were the first ones to attack, so the United States had the right to defend their land.
After Germany had tried to make Mexico join the war, there was nothing else the U.S. could do. The U.S. realized that the Germans were going to great lengths to fight the U.S. Germany was willing to send spies, blow up U.S. ships, and try to provoke Mexico. The only way the U.S. could stop this was to join the war. The Germans had promised to give Mexico their lost land in the Mexican-American War back if they fought the U.S. “In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal/alliance on the following basis: make war together, make peace together, generous financial support and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.” (Digital History). Germany had gone behind the U.S’s back and had tried to provoke war between the U.S. and Mexico. The U.S. had the right to attack Germany for trying to start the war. After the diplomatic relations with Germany had been broken, they continued to attack the U.S. “Wilson followed through on his threat to break off diplomatic relations. He also ordered the arming of American merchant ships sailing into the war zone. Nonetheless, German torpedoes sank five American ships.” (American Nation, 363). Germany wouldn’t accept peace and last resort for the U.S. was to attack. The U.S. could not remain neutral or get peace and could only attack. Zinn believed that even without these actions by the Germans, the United States would have still fought in the war.“American Capitalism needed international rivalry- and periodic war-to create an artificial community of interest between rich and poor, supplanting the genuine community of interest among the poor that showed itself in sporadic movements.” (Zinn, 363). The U.S. as Zinn said may have wanted to fight a war, but they declared war to protect themselves, not for their own gain. After the Zimmerman note, the only way to stop the German aggressions was to join the war.
One reason why World War 1 was not just was because of the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty took away most of Germany's land and it would lead to them wanting it back in World War 2. Lloyd George a delegate at the treaty felt that this treaty would lead to more harm than good. “You may strip Germany of her colonies, reduce her armaments to a mere police force and her navy to that of a fifth rate power: all the same in the end if she feels that she has been unjustly treated in the peace of 1919, she will find ways of exacting retribution from her conquerors.” (Digital History). This quote is convincing, because what he said would come true. Because of this bad treaty, Germany would try to take it’s land back in World War 2. President Wilson had tried to improve the treaty but had been unsuccessful. “Too bad he went, say some historians. Others say it would have been worse if he’d stayed at home. Everyone agrees: Wilson didn’t get what he wanted.” (A History of US, page 16). The treaty was a failure and nobody got what they wanted. Wilson’s 14 points were never able to happen and was not able to just get peace. No one side totally agreed on the treaty, but both the French and British were able to gain land and give harsh repercussions to the Germans. “Britain gained some German colonies and the German navy was destroyed” and “France got Alsace-Lorraine, German colonies, harsh reparations and a tiny German army.” (bbc.uk). These countries were satisfied with the treaty by these circumstances. This argument is not convincing as even though they were satisfied by these actions, both sides were not happy with the other parts of the treaty. Overall this treaty was not good for all sides and they all agree that it was done improperly and was an unjust resolution to the war.
Overall the U.S. had very good reasons to join World War 1. Germany had kept pushing the U.S. and they were left with no options other than to fight back. The Treaty of Versailles however was the worst decision made in the war. I believe that the treaty was unfair to Germany and should have been changed. The treaty was also a major factor in leading to World War 2. As Germany wanted to regain the territory they had lost because of this treaty. I think that World War 1 was necessary and that the U.S. followed most rules of a just war.
Work Cited
Boyer, Paul S., and Paul S. Boyer. Holt American Nation. Austin: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 2003. Print.
Hakim, Joy. A History of US. New York: Oxford UP, 1999. Print.
"UH - Digital History." UH - Digital History. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 Dec. 2013, http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/.
Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States: 1492-2001. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print.
BBC News. BBC, n.d. Web. 03 Dec. 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/ir1/opinionsrev2.shtml.