The Role of the United States in World War 1 - Essay Example

World War ID] [Lecturer] The World War I started in 1914 and ended in 1919. It brought with it not only political instabilities for the European nations but also a message of death and hatred amongst the masses. Leaders enjoyed having their whims at others’ disposal while the poor were simply left to their own fates. The World seemed to have a “jungle rule” kind of situation all of a sudden. It looked like as if the new century has dawned on these people an alarum of what is more to come and what worse can there possibly be in store for them. There were certain reasons which led to the outbreak of this very war and there were the formation of the Central and Allied Alliances which eventually went a long way in lengthening the duration of the war. (Harvey, 1993) Meanwhile, the Western and Eastern fronts within Europe were formed up as well as an eruption of a combat on the sea front started to take place. Apart from this the mighty role of United States in this war zone and throughout the duration of the war is also a significant one and is duly addressed in this paper. Indeed there were victories as well as losses for all the parties in this war but the war in itself was a mere defeat for the humanity as so many mothers lost their children, so many women became widows and thousands of kids lost their parents. The tale has no positive ending attached with it, nonetheless. The victory brought laurels for the victors while the defeat turned wrong on the losers’ heads. There were plenty of battles within the war itself, at different fronts and on many boundaries for the sole purpose of maintaining a rule which was there to be accepted by all and sundry. This Great War eventually resulted in the Balfour Declaration as well as the Arab revolt, which was basically aimed at the Turks and the prospective offensive action on the part of the United States in the post-war state of affairs. The Russian Revolution also took place due to this very war and ultimately Germany collapsed thus leaving an ever-lasting impact on both the victorious and the losing parties, but from different perspectives altogether. (Jahn, 1995) There were undoubtedly a number of suave and diplomatic mistakes as far as this war is concerned. All the mistakes that will get attention here comprise of the overall tactical and strategic errors committed by either Russia in the backdrop of attacking the Germans or in the form of the ever-resilient foreign policy constituted by the Germans time and time again. Firstly, there was a lack of general foresight and ineptitude amongst the policy makers and the people at the helm of affairs in the government who went out of their way in supporting the European nations’ at war. There is no shadow of a doubt that the common people living in the different European nations had their reservations on having a war in the first place but the diplomatic and tactful relations that were there between the governments of these countries actually forced them into giving birth to this blunder – World War I. It was indeed the people within the European continent who came out as losers while the rulers had all sorts of fables to tell at their disposal. (Peterson, 2007) It is also worth mentioning that Europe, at the particular moment of time was not being led by able and capable men, starting from Franz Joseph to King Wilhelm II. None of these men actually wanted to have a war that would entail their region only rather their interest was curtailed in trying their utmost to increase the fold of war in all continents of the world and more than that those places where their personal benefits (with respect to each country) actually lied. Franz Joseph was appropriately unwilling and ashamed with the start of this war as he knew that such a war would not only be a disaster for the conquered people but also the ones who will, at the end of it, turn out to be victorious. The military associations that cropped up with the isolation of Germany as a nation, being separate from all other European ones were a diplomatic mistake from the very offset. The different leaders who passed on the orders and commandments of doing the same as well as issuing orders to initiate the war had made a fatal error which had no ‘easy way to get out of’, as far as the German people and its government were pertained with. Another diplomatic mistake that was the zenith of this war was that the arms were employed at all times and under all conditions which really rose peoples’ feelings against the people who actually initiated the war. Thus, an arms race somehow or the other set in within the different countries who had staged the war or were the victims of the attacks carried out by the coalitions. Each one of these tried their utmost to gain superiority than the other one of its rival or neighboring country. Diplomatic and mundane mistakes did not end here though, in fact they protracted in the same fashion whereby royal and imperial fights within the government regimes as well as battlefields started to take place within these countries. These fights were also amongst the people at the highest posts within the governments. These added as the part and parcel of World War I and there were no shortcomings as far as the losses are concerned. (Pearce, 2003) Last but not the least, a scantiness for a foreseeable future for the people of these countries was also very much drafted out as an immediate need as it were the peoples of these nations who were eventually having losses rather than any particular set form of government. There is no doubt that German and Russian governments did fall flat out in World War I but the main failures in the course of this war were the people, including those who did not even know what the war was all about and the reason or rationale for having one, in the first place. The historians and researchers related with studying the Great War have no quandaries about this war’s evasion that could have taken place, even before it actually started. Several other forms of reasoning have also been given from time to time in the wake of this Great War which suggest that it could have been easily changed from its set course of offence had the authorities and the governments of Germany, Great Britain and France shown a bit more resilience and apt attitude towards actually doing something for the betterment of the European region, rather than turning 360 degrees around and begin a war altogether. (Higham, 2003) There are however a number of aspects on which we can condone the reasons, one such being the changing foreign policy of German towards the negative side and the rationales on which this war actually started due to Germany’s offensive attitude. This war in turn imposed its brutalities on all concerned, be it on any commoner within the European region or any small or big government that was in power at that moment of time. However, there are also several other issues, which focus on why the four years on the western front might not have been due to the Generals´ blemish and frailties, as far as imposing a war on the European territories was concerned. These faults hold ground in the fact that the Generals within the European regimes did not adopt the specific strategies that lay in the path of the new technology. Apart from this, the nature of hollowness within the kind of battle warfare as well as a general sense of evil and wrongly knit-out understanding attached with employing the new technology were just the reasons of the Generals’ restrain from using their full potential ability. (Kane, 2007) There is no doubt in the fact that Germany was the strongest military power in the continent of Europe after the period of unification. Its location geography wise was largely due to the two big military powers, so there was all the more rationale for the diplomacy to prosper and indeed flourish in this European zone. Bismarck wanted to be sure from all fronts that no one dared to attack Germany. This held true for all the alliances as well that had set their eyes on attacking the territories of Germany with an association that was well crafted out from the very beginning. Bismarck in the year 1879 fabricated a concealed coalition himself with Austria-Hungary and after that in the year 1881, Bismarck went ahead and signed a treaty that was amongst Russia, Austria and herself. This was indeed remarked as the Alliance of the Three Emperors that were governing the respective nations at the time. In a year or so, by about 1882, Italy also made all-out efforts to join this coalition which was successful which eventually turned this into a three-way federation. A stable and dependable foreign policy was set about under the leadership of Bismarck in Germany. This was made possible because of his anti-imperialistic stance as well as his maintaining diplomatic viewpoints on all significant levels and issues. Germany thus, somehow or the other achieved to stay in upright and virtuous relations with just about everyone except France. The reason for this was that France was nevertheless angry and wanted to avenge its defeat that it had to swallow in the year 1870. (Miall, 1921) Thus, Bismarcks anti-imperialistic methodology closed the gaps between the European states which were more or less imperialistic themselves because they were furious at Germany as well and had by then planned an association or a sort of federation that would go all-out against Germany. By the year 1888, King Wilhelm II was designated as the King of Prussia, much of Bismarck’s policies and endeavors abruptly changed. King Wilhelm changed the law on its head, which was now supposed to burden the Socialists so they could win the assist the lower class. In a decade or so, by 1890s, the Social democrats were chosen as the ones who had to lead the Parliament plus the Socialism factor within the democrats also started to increase from top to bottom in the government ranks of Germany. These two men - Bismarck and Wilhelm, however collided on a number of issues, the top one being the imperialism issue. Eventually, Bismarck was before long compelled to leave his post so that the King Wilhelm II could now propose his own dictum as he wished to, in his own right and manner. (Cecil, 1996) Germany declared war on Russia in the beginning of 1914. The reason for this was that Austria and Hungary, who were part of a coalition with Germany, actually did not approve of the Serbian parties, which were then a part of Prussia taking over their reigns as well as getting more developed than themselves. (Bodo, 2004) This declaration of war also ignited in German troops to move over the French and Belgian territories so that they could by force and might capture the mentioned nations and occupy their lands. The other reason for doing so was that Germany knew about the French involvement in the Triple Alliance that it had already done up with Russia and thus was very much against the same. French, on the other hand, knew about the German plans and they got ready to prepare for a long fight with Germans and its coalition forces. They knew Germany was then going to invade its land and make all sorts of endeavors to put the government of the time under check. After this, Germany invaded France through the somewhat neutral ally of the time – Belgium. Germans were ordered by the English authorities to forfeit this invasion, as doing so would eventually result in a big war. The English said this because they themselves were close allies of France. They wanted the Germans to leave Belgium with immediate effect. Germans did not comply with Great Britain’s request, which eventually forced the latter to attack and declare a war against Germany. (Carty, 2008) References Bodo, Bela. (2004). Paramilitary Violence in Hungary after the First World War. East European Quarterly, Vol. 38 Carty, Tom. (2008). World War I Posters: Thinking Critically about History and the Media. Social Education, Vol. 72 Cecil, Lamar. (1996). Wilhelm II - Vol. 2. University of North Carolina Press Harvey, A. D. (1993). First World War Literature. History Today, Vol. 43 Higham, Robin. (2003). Researching World War I: A Handbook. Greenwood Press Jahn, Hubertus F. (1995). Patriotic Culture in Russia during World War I. Cornell University Press Kane, Robert B. (2007). Almanac of World War I. Air Power History, Vol. 54 Miall, Bernard. (1921). The Kaiser vs. Bismarck: Suppressed Letters by the Kaiser and New Chapters from the Autobiography of the Iron Chancellor. Harper Pearce, Robert. (2003). The Origins of World War I. History Review Peterson, Larry. (2007). The Economics of World War I. The Historian, Vol. 69 Word Count: 2,044 Read More