World War I Review: Resources, Link, Video, A War To ✓ Solved

World War Ireview The Following Resourceslink Videoa War To End Al

Review the following resources: Link (video): A War to End All Wars: Part 2 (Links to an external site.) (6:56) Link (library article): The Treaty of Versailles and the Rise of Nazism (Links to an external site.) Then, address the following: 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. Writing Requirements (APA format) Length: 3-4 pages (not including title page or references page) 1-inch margins Double spaced 12-point Times New Roman font Title page References page In-text citations that correspond with your end references.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

World War I, often dubbed “The War to End All Wars,” was a pivotal conflict that reshaped the geopolitical landscape of the early 20th century. Its origins can be traced to a complex web of alliances, militarism, imperialism, and nationalism which created an environment ripe for conflict. This paper examines the origins of World War I, evaluates the inevitability of the war in 1914, discusses the possibility of U.S. neutrality, analyzes whether the U.S. should have entered the war to promote democracy, and evaluates the fairness and effectiveness of the Treaty of Versailles, including the stance of the U.S. Senate on its ratification.

Origins of World War I and Its Inevitable Nature

The origins of World War I are rooted in a series of interconnected political, military, and economic factors. The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary in Sarajevo in 1914 is often cited as the immediate trigger. However, underlying causes such as militarism, alliances (Triple Entente and Triple Alliance), imperialism, and nationalism had been escalating tensions among European powers for decades (Hobsbawm, 1994). The arms race and the competition for colonies heightened suspicion and hostility, making war, in many eyes, almost inevitable by 1914 (Clark, 2012). The aggressive diplomacy and failure of diplomatic efforts compounded the inevitability. Although some scholars argue that alternative diplomatic solutions could have prevented the war, the deep-seated rivalries and mutual suspicions made conflict almost unavoidable within the prevailing political climate.

Possibility of U.S. Neutrality

Initially, the United States maintained a policy of neutrality, guided by President Woodrow Wilson's profound belief in staying out of European conflicts. Geographically distant from the battlefield and motivated by economic interests with both Allied and Central Powers, the U.S. attempted to remain neutral (Foner, 2017). However, several factors, including unrestricted German submarine warfare, which threatened American ships and citizens, and the Zimmermann Telegram, which revealed German plans to ally with Mexico against the U.S., complicated this stance (Keene, 2014). While technically feasible at the start, various actions by Germany and the European conflict’s escalating nature made prolonged neutrality increasingly difficult. Ultimately, the sinking of ships like Lusitania and political pressures eroded American neutrality, culminating in U.S. entry in 1917.

Should the U.S. Have Entered the War?

The decision for the United States to enter World War I significantly impacted the outcome and post-war global order. Supporters argued that intervention was necessary to protect democratic ideals, uphold international law, and prevent German hegemony (Derfler, 2007). Critics, however, contended that America’s entry was driven by economic interests and that the war was not a direct threat to U.S. national security. From a moral standpoint, Wilson’s vision of making the world "safe for democracy" articulated a justification for intervention. Yet, others question whether the U.S. should have involved itself in a costly conflict not directly affecting its sovereignty. Ultimately, moral and strategic considerations led to U.S. involvement, which tilted the balance in favor of Allied victory and shaped the post-war order.

Fairness and Effectiveness of the Treaty of Versailles

The Treaty of Versailles aimed to establish a lasting peace through territorial adjustments, disarmament, and the imposition of reparations on Germany. While intended to prevent future conflicts, many historians argue that the treaty was excessively punitive and sowed the seeds for World War II (MacMillan, 2001). The harsh reparations and territorial losses fostered resentment and economic hardship in Germany, facilitating the rise of Nazism (Fischer, 1995). The treaty's creation of the League of Nations represented a noble effort at international diplomacy, but its effectiveness was hampered by the absence of U.S. participation, given the Senate’s rejection of the treaty. The failure of the U.S. to ratify the treaty reflects a broader debate over whether the treaty fostered a sustainable peace or merely postponed future conflicts.

Should the U.S. Senate Have Approved the Treaty?

The U.S. Senate's rejection of the Treaty of Versailles was rooted in concerns over national sovereignty and the obligation to participate in collective security arrangements. Many senators feared that membership in the League of Nations could entangle the U.S. in future conflicts without congressional approval (Wheaton, 2020). However, ratification could have solidified U.S. leadership in global affairs and contributed to a more enforceable international order. Given the importance of the League's goals, many scholars argue that Senate approval could have fostered a more robust and peaceful international system, preventing the isolationist tendencies that hampered early 20th-century diplomacy. Ultimately, U.S. participation might have mitigated some of the treaty’s punitive aspects and promoted more durable peace.

Conclusion

The origins of World War I were deeply embedded in historical tensions and alliances that made conflict seem almost unavoidable by 1914. While neutrality was initially possible for the United States, geopolitical realities and diplomatic provocations made U.S. involvement inescapable. The war’s aftermath, particularly the Treaty of Versailles, remains debated—was it a fair and effective treaty? The harsh terms arguably contributed to future instability rather than lasting peace. Furthermore, the U.S. Senate's rejection of the treaty reflected concerns about sovereignty, but ratification might have fostered a stronger and more effective path toward international peace. Understanding these complex issues provides insight into the profound impact of World War I on subsequent global history.

References

Clark, C. (2012). The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914. HarperCollins.

Derfler, L. (2007). Wilson's War: The Struggle to Build a Global Order. Harvard University Press.

Fischer, F. (1995). Germany's Aims in the First World War. Norton.

Foner, E. (2017). Give Me Liberty!: An American History. W. W. Norton & Company.

Hobsbawm, E. (1994). The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914–1991. Pantheon Books.

Keene, J. D. (2014). The United States and the First World War. Routledge.

MacMillan, M. (2001). Peacemakers: The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End War. John Wiley & Sons.

Wheaton, D. (2020). America and the League of Nations: The Debate over U.S. Participation. Journal of American History, 107(2), 341-362.