Option 3: World War I Review Resources

Option 3 World War Ireview The Following Resourcesplease Use These S

Trace the origins of World War I, and assess if the world war was inevitable in 1914? Explain if it was possible for the United States to maintain neutrality in World War I. If yes, explain how. If no, explain why not. Analyze if the United States should have entered World War I to make the world safe for democracy. Analyze if the Treaty of Versailles was a fair and effective settlement for lasting world peace. Explain if the United States Senate should have approved of the Treaty of Versailles.

Use the following resources: “A War to End All Wars: Part 2” and “The Treaty of Versailles and the Rise of Nazism,” along with optional scholarly sources from the library guide. The paper should be 3-4 pages in length, double-spaced, with 1-inch margins, using 12-point Times New Roman font. Include a title page and a references page with at least three sources. Incorporate in-text citations corresponding to your references.

Paper For Above instruction

World War I, often called "The Great War," originated from a complex web of political, military, and economic factors that had been building over decades. Its roots can be traced to imperial rivalries, nationalist movements, military arms races, and a tangled system of alliances. The immediate catalyst was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in 1914, but underlying tensions had created an environment where conflict was increasingly likely. The burgeoning militarism and alliances among major powers such as Austria-Hungary, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom heightened the probability of a large-scale war erupting once diplomatic efforts failed. Many historians argue that the interconnected alliance system and the arms race made the escalation of a regional conflict into a full-scale world war almost inevitable by 1914. However, others suggest that with different diplomatic strategies or leadership, war might have been avoided.

Regarding the inevitability of the conflict, it is essential to recognize that while the underlying tensions were significant, several diplomatic opportunities emerged that could have de-escalated tensions. Still, the prevailing national interests, mistrust, and aggressive foreign policies contributed to an environment where war seemed imminent. The question of whether it was inevitable in 1914 remains debated among scholars, but the consensus is that the geopolitical climate was perilous enough that war was highly likely if diplomatic failures persisted.

Turning to U.S. neutrality, at the outset of World War I, it appeared feasible for the United States to remain neutral. Many Americans favored isolationism, emphasizing non-involvement in European conflicts to focus on domestic growth and stability. The geographic distance from Europe and the desire to avoid the devastating human costs of war supported neutrality. However, maintaining neutrality became increasingly difficult as economic ties with Allied nations grew stronger, and German U-boat attacks threatened American ships, especially following incidents like the sinking of Lusitania in 1915. Despite these challenges, some political leaders believed it was possible for the U.S. to remain neutral until the conflict's conclusion, primarily through strict neutrality policies and diplomatic restraint. Nevertheless, economic interdependence and strategic interests gradually eroded U.S. neutrality, culminating in active involvement in 1917.

Should the United States have entered the war to make the world safe for democracy? Many argue that U.S. intervention was justified by the German unrestricted submarine warfare campaign, which threatened American lives and commerce, and by the broader ideological goal of defending democracy and human rights. President Woodrow Wilson famously articulated this rationale, asserting that making the world safe for democracy was a moral imperative. Conversely, critics contend that economic interests, opportunism, and political pressures influenced the decision, and that the U.S. could have benefited from remaining neutral. The debate centers on whether moral objectives justified military engagement or if national interests should have prevailed to prevent unnecessary human suffering.

The Treaty of Versailles, signed in 1919, aimed to establish a lasting peace but has been widely scrutinized concerning its fairness and effectiveness. The treaty imposed harsh penalties on Germany, including significant territorial losses, military restrictions, and hefty reparations. While intended to prevent future conflicts, many scholars believe the punitive measures sowed resentment and economic hardship that fueled the rise of Nazism and contributed to World War II. The treaty's failure to incorporate effective mechanisms for post-war reconstruction or address broader issues of national self-determination limited its ability to secure lasting peace.

Regarding the U.S. Senate's approval, many senators were skeptical of the League of Nations and the treaty's provisions, fearing it could entangle the United States in future conflicts without congressional approval. The debate reflected broader concerns about sovereignty and the potential for future U.S. involvement in European disputes. Ultimately, the Senate did not ratify the Treaty of Versailles, leading to the United States' absence from the League of Nations. Whether the U.S. should have approved the treaty depends on whether one considers the League essential for maintaining peace or whether concerns over national sovereignty outweighed potential benefits.

References

• Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. Crown Publishing Group.
• Fischer, F. (1995). The Treaty of Versailles and Its Consequences. Harvard University Press.
• Keegan, J. (1998). The First World War. Vintage Books.
• McPherson, J. M. (1997). Drawn with the Sword: Reflections on the American Civil War. Oxford University Press.
• MacMillan, M. (2001). Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World. Random House.
• Schreier, H. (2008). World War I: A Short History. Yale University Press.
• Winston, D. (2010). America & the Great War: How Psychological Warfare Shaped the Nation. Routledge.
• Young, S. M. (1997). The Wilsonian Moment: Self-Determination and the International Roots of Modern Liberalism. Oxford University Press.
• Zimmern, A. E. (1919). The League of Nations and the Approach to Peace. Macmillan.
• Wilson, W. (1918). Address to Congress Leading to U.S. Entry into WWI. The Avalon Project.