What themes stood out most to you in the assigned readings and lecture this week? What questions did the lectures and readings raise for you? Please post your responses in the comment section below.
What stood out to me this week was the discussion of the Paris Peace Conference. It was interesting to read about the contrasting views that the countries had over what the major topics that needed to be discussed were. For the United States, Wilson was essentially concerned about one thing, and that was the creation of the League of Nations. He saw the League of Nations as having the potential to provide mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to all. The one thing I continue to question is why he pushed so strongly for the creation of the League of Nations? On the other hand, the European nations, including Great Britain and France, were primarily concerned about ensuring that Germany was penalized to the greatest extent. It appeared that they simply agreed to the creation of the League of Nations, so that they could talk about the other issues.
The thing that stood out to me this week was the complexity and the tangle among european countries during World War I. The Triple Entente and Triple Alliance were first formed to "make the world more stable", but in reality made it even easier to start large scale war, because any small friction could bring other allied countries into action. I am curious what would happen if two countries of the same alliance went into war, how would other countries react? Would the war be as large scale as World War I?
What stood out to me was how powerful the U.S. was becoming, within the country and as a world power. The federal government gained more control over the economic decisions of their country, in order to help the war effort. Progressives wanted the government to have more authority over businesses, and committees like the War Labor Policies Board and the War Industry Board gave workers more rights. As a world power, the US had began to assert it's dominance pre-WWI, but when it joined the Great War, it put itself in the midst of all the European fighting and became involved with European politics. The Monroe Doctrine, the Roosevelt Corollary, and new instances of American imperialism all helped put the US on center stage before their involvement with WW1, and the United States then continued to involve themselves in international affairs. My question is, would as many changes within America have occurred without the war effort?
What I found most interesting was from the readings was the editorial from the "North American Review" from April 1917. The United States throughout the past 100 years has justified a good amount of wars on the notion that we want to bring our ideas of liberty and democracy upon others. This editor was in favor of going to war and used this as one of his justifications, saying we owe it to our forefathers and must fight for freedom all over the world. World War I is one of the earlier examples of this, although you can see some of these American ideals in the Spanish-American War. A question I had from the lecture was, was there any upset seen by labor forces who were not at a factory that was being controlled by the government? Meaning, since the government forced laws limiting work hours and minimum wages on certain jobs that were necessary for the war effort, was there any backlash by those workers who were not at one of those jobs?
I thought the most interesting theme this week was the build-up to World War I. There was a variety of events happening on both sides of the Atlantic, including European alliances, arms building, American Progressivism, and even the emergence of the Pacifism movement which became popular by the end of the century. Although the United States initially wanted to remain neutral, it was dragged into the war by the (controversial) Zimmerman Telegram and German submarine warfare on American passengers. The main question I have is, would the political situation in Europe following World War I and subsequent buildup to World War 2 have changed if the United States had remained neutral?
I definitely thought the most interesting part of the reading was the intense nationalism present during the time period, especially during the peace conferences in Paris. To see Europe nearly destroyed in war, it is interesting to see that the nations deciding peace proceedings still looked only in their own best interests; for example, none of the countries wanted anything to do with Wilson's long term peace plans underlined by the League of Nations. My main question that we have not discussed much in lecture was to what extent was imperialism a cause of WWI?
In which ways did the Bolshevik Revolution and the Red Scare influence the USA government's decision to engage in war? The sentiments align with one of our more explicit justification: protection of our sea-faring citizens (protection of our citizens against harmful communists...). I'm wondering, though, if the presence of communism in our neighboring Latin-American countries had any influence on our war efforts. Did the Communist party in Mexico infringe our borders and push American fears to a new brink?
What most fascinated me during this weeks lectures and readings was the prevalence of land/political disputes in Europe as compared to the United States, learning the reasoning behind the United States' isolationist policy was enlightening. In addition, the prevalence of imperialism in the European states and the effects it had on their politics was rather extreme. I did not realize that imperialism is effectively what ruled the policy and foreign relations between nations during this time period. The large presence and arrival of pacifism and patriotism was interesting as well. The effect that pacifism had on the american perception of the war was massive, with people being conscientious objectors, refusing to fight. Despite this, what most interested me was the sudden surge of patriotism throughout the country in a fight half war across the globe. The leeway given by the NAACP in allowing black officers be trained in a separate facility is one such example, along with the establishment of decent wages and the 8 hour day. The war became a catalyst for social change in America, and this is most likely one reason behind the Red Scare. My question is, to what extent did the massive societal upheavals in Europe (particularly Russia) affect the policies of the federal government?
What stood out to me from the lectures this week was the growing involvement of the United States in the world stage and how the involvement in WWI affected the country on the home-front. With a growing army from thousands being drafted, religious peace groups emerged in denouncing any form of conflict while still helping to lessen the consequences of war such as treating wounded soldiers. US involvement in this massive war may be attributed to several factors, including German submarines destroying British vessels with American passengers on board and the Zimmerman telegram. My question is what were President Wilson’s goals in respect to the US joining the war? Did he want to actually defend the Monroe doctrine policy and European allies or did he simply desire to make America look like a stronger world power?
One topic I found interesting from the lectures and readings was that many important advancements in American society were only made possible by the war effort. Previously, the government had no incentive to get involved in race or labor affairs. Once these issues had the potential to harm the war effort, however, the government got involved to improve conditions and earn rights for many historically oppressed people. My question is if, once the ball got rolling, working conditions and personal freedoms continued to expand, or if it all went back to how it was before once there was no more pressure from the government to sustain the war effort?
I find this entire time period to be very interesting, so it is difficult for me to narrow it down to one specific point. However, I would have to say that the general idea that I find most interesting in this time period is the effects of the United States entry into World War I. Although the spanish america war allowed the U.S to flex its industrial and imperialistic muscles, the war still focused on the western hemisphere, especially nearby Cuba. With its entry into WW1, the U.S took on its first foray into a massive european war with direct U.S fighting outside of the western hemisphere (especially Europe). The effects of this not only include the involvement in WW2, but also involvement in foreign wars and a general interventionist attitude throughout the rest of the 20th century.
What i found most interesting about the lectures and readings was the great effect WWI had on American society. In order the fight the war, there had to be an augmentation of of federal power. The government took control of key industries and ensured that quotas were met. Also, the deadly impact of the war and great loss of life led to greater support for peace and pacifist groups. My question is: How will the aftermath of the war change American perspectives about foreign intervention and engaging in other wars?
I found it interesting how the United States largely excluded itself from the beginnings of World War I, despite its trend of Imperialist policies during this time period. One would think that the nation would try to prove itself as a formidable entity in the war, considering how they handled the Spanish-American War and the policies that president like Taft and Roosevelt had previously passed. Rather than fighting in the war initially, the United States instead supported the Triple Entente in a more discreet manner, like how they protected British ships from German submarines. I believe the US took this passive approach to European affairs at the beginning of WWI because at this time, the nation had only just began to become involved in foreign affairs. Even then, they only really dealt with other nations in the Western Hemisphere. I believe that at that point in time, the US was not willing to throw itself into the affairs of the very powerful European nations in the Eastern Hemisphere, and instead chose to take a more passive stance, which was possible up until they were provoked by Germany. Some questions I have is how did the US report the conflict in Europe, if they did at all, and how did US citizens react to the United States going to war?
What stood out to me this week was the discussion of the Paris Peace Conference. It was interesting to read about the contrasting views that the countries had over what the major topics that needed to be discussed were. For the United States, Wilson was essentially concerned about one thing, and that was the creation of the League of Nations. He saw the League of Nations as having the potential to provide mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to all. The one thing I continue to question is why he pushed so strongly for the creation of the League of Nations? On the other hand, the European nations, including Great Britain and France, were primarily concerned about ensuring that Germany was penalized to the greatest extent. It appeared that they simply agreed to the creation of the League of Nations, so that they could talk about the other issues.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that stood out to me this week was the complexity and the tangle among european countries during World War I. The Triple Entente and Triple Alliance were first formed to "make the world more stable", but in reality made it even easier to start large scale war, because any small friction could bring other allied countries into action. I am curious what would happen if two countries of the same alliance went into war, how would other countries react? Would the war be as large scale as World War I?
ReplyDeleteWhat stood out to me was how powerful the U.S. was becoming, within the country and as a world power. The federal government gained more control over the economic decisions of their country, in order to help the war effort. Progressives wanted the government to have more authority over businesses, and committees like the War Labor Policies Board and the War Industry Board gave workers more rights. As a world power, the US had began to assert it's dominance pre-WWI, but when it joined the Great War, it put itself in the midst of all the European fighting and became involved with European politics. The Monroe Doctrine, the Roosevelt Corollary, and new instances of American imperialism all helped put the US on center stage before their involvement with WW1, and the United States then continued to involve themselves in international affairs. My question is, would as many changes within America have occurred without the war effort?
ReplyDeleteWhat I found most interesting was from the readings was the editorial from the "North American Review" from April 1917. The United States throughout the past 100 years has justified a good amount of wars on the notion that we want to bring our ideas of liberty and democracy upon others. This editor was in favor of going to war and used this as one of his justifications, saying we owe it to our forefathers and must fight for freedom all over the world. World War I is one of the earlier examples of this, although you can see some of these American ideals in the Spanish-American War. A question I had from the lecture was, was there any upset seen by labor forces who were not at a factory that was being controlled by the government? Meaning, since the government forced laws limiting work hours and minimum wages on certain jobs that were necessary for the war effort, was there any backlash by those workers who were not at one of those jobs?
ReplyDeleteI thought the most interesting theme this week was the build-up to World War I. There was a variety of events happening on both sides of the Atlantic, including European alliances, arms building, American Progressivism, and even the emergence of the Pacifism movement which became popular by the end of the century. Although the United States initially wanted to remain neutral, it was dragged into the war by the (controversial) Zimmerman Telegram and German submarine warfare on American passengers. The main question I have is, would the political situation in Europe following World War I and subsequent buildup to World War 2 have changed if the United States had remained neutral?
ReplyDeleteI definitely thought the most interesting part of the reading was the intense nationalism present during the time period, especially during the peace conferences in Paris. To see Europe nearly destroyed in war, it is interesting to see that the nations deciding peace proceedings still looked only in their own best interests; for example, none of the countries wanted anything to do with Wilson's long term peace plans underlined by the League of Nations. My main question that we have not discussed much in lecture was to what extent was imperialism a cause of WWI?
ReplyDeleteIn which ways did the Bolshevik Revolution and the Red Scare influence the USA government's decision to engage in war? The sentiments align with one of our more explicit justification: protection of our sea-faring citizens (protection of our citizens against harmful communists...). I'm wondering, though, if the presence of communism in our neighboring Latin-American countries had any influence on our war efforts. Did the Communist party in Mexico infringe our borders and push American fears to a new brink?
ReplyDeleteWhat most fascinated me during this weeks lectures and readings was the prevalence of land/political disputes in Europe as compared to the United States, learning the reasoning behind the United States' isolationist policy was enlightening. In addition, the prevalence of imperialism in the European states and the effects it had on their politics was rather extreme. I did not realize that imperialism is effectively what ruled the policy and foreign relations between nations during this time period. The large presence and arrival of pacifism and patriotism was interesting as well. The effect that pacifism had on the american perception of the war was massive, with people being conscientious objectors, refusing to fight. Despite this, what most interested me was the sudden surge of patriotism throughout the country in a fight half war across the globe. The leeway given by the NAACP in allowing black officers be trained in a separate facility is one such example, along with the establishment of decent wages and the 8 hour day. The war became a catalyst for social change in America, and this is most likely one reason behind the Red Scare. My question is, to what extent did the massive societal upheavals in Europe (particularly Russia) affect the policies of the federal government?
ReplyDeleteWhat stood out to me from the lectures this week was the growing involvement of the United States in the world stage and how the involvement in WWI affected the country on the home-front. With a growing army from thousands being drafted, religious peace groups emerged in denouncing any form of conflict while still helping to lessen the consequences of war such as treating wounded soldiers. US involvement in this massive war may be attributed to several factors, including German submarines destroying British vessels with American passengers on board and the Zimmerman telegram. My question is what were President Wilson’s goals in respect to the US joining the war? Did he want to actually defend the Monroe doctrine policy and European allies or did he simply desire to make America look like a stronger world power?
ReplyDeleteOne topic I found interesting from the lectures and readings was that many important advancements in American society were only made possible by the war effort. Previously, the government had no incentive to get involved in race or labor affairs. Once these issues had the potential to harm the war effort, however, the government got involved to improve conditions and earn rights for many historically oppressed people. My question is if, once the ball got rolling, working conditions and personal freedoms continued to expand, or if it all went back to how it was before once there was no more pressure from the government to sustain the war effort?
ReplyDeleteI find this entire time period to be very interesting, so it is difficult for me to narrow it down to one specific point. However, I would have to say that the general idea that I find most interesting in this time period is the effects of the United States entry into World War I. Although the spanish america war allowed the U.S to flex its industrial and imperialistic muscles, the war still focused on the western hemisphere, especially nearby Cuba. With its entry into WW1, the U.S took on its first foray into a massive european war with direct U.S fighting outside of the western hemisphere (especially Europe). The effects of this not only include the involvement in WW2, but also involvement in foreign wars and a general interventionist attitude throughout the rest of the 20th century.
ReplyDeleteWhat i found most interesting about the lectures and readings was the great effect WWI had on American society. In order the fight the war, there had to be an augmentation of of federal power. The government took control of key industries and ensured that quotas were met. Also, the deadly impact of the war and great loss of life led to greater support for peace and pacifist groups. My question is: How will the aftermath of the war change American perspectives about foreign intervention and engaging in other wars?
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting how the United States largely excluded itself from the beginnings of World War I, despite its trend of Imperialist policies during this time period. One would think that the nation would try to prove itself as a formidable entity in the war, considering how they handled the Spanish-American War and the policies that president like Taft and Roosevelt had previously passed. Rather than fighting in the war initially, the United States instead supported the Triple Entente in a more discreet manner, like how they protected British ships from German submarines. I believe the US took this passive approach to European affairs at the beginning of WWI because at this time, the nation had only just began to become involved in foreign affairs. Even then, they only really dealt with other nations in the Western Hemisphere. I believe that at that point in time, the US was not willing to throw itself into the affairs of the very powerful European nations in the Eastern Hemisphere, and instead chose to take a more passive stance, which was possible up until they were provoked by Germany. Some questions I have is how did the US report the conflict in Europe, if they did at all, and how did US citizens react to the United States going to war?
ReplyDelete