English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

7 answers

Well, Wilson preferred for the US to remain "neutral in thought in action". Throughout the early phases of the war, the US sold armaments to both sides, although over time they would sell more to the Allies. However, the US had more in common (ideologically, etc.) with Britain and the Allies than with the Central Powers. In addition, they began to have a financial stake in an Allied victory as they began to finance the Allied war effort through loans.

Of course we all know about the infamous sinking of the Lusitania (May 1915) that nearly brought the US and Germany to blows, but was warded off through some fancy diplomacy when the Germans agreed to abandon their policy of unrestricted submarine warfare after killing some 128 Americans (1,198 total civilians) in this incident. The Germans stayed true to their word and obeyed cruiser rules for over 1.5 years. However, in January 1917, the British blockade reached its peak of effectiveness and the German population was starving. The government and military were under increasing civilian pressure to do something to relieve the misery of the people and so after considering their options, Germany once again declared unrestricted submarine warfare in February 1917. The knew this would bring the US into the war but hoped they could "starve Britain into submission within 5 months" ... before the US could mobilize to full strength. [Note: US had troops in France by May and they declared war in April].

The US was naturally furious, and following the disclosure of the Zimmerman Telegram (where Germany probed Mexico as to whether they would join the Central Powers and fight against the US should the US join the Allies - in exchange Germany offered NM, AZ, TX upon a Central Powers victory to Mexico) and the sinking of the Liconia... the President that "kept us out of the war" (election slogan, March 1917) declared war on Germany in April 1917.

So lots of factors. Hope this helps.

2007-01-29 12:10:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Inceasing numbers of American ships were being lost to unrestricted submarine attacks by German Uboats. Greatly to Woodrow Wilson's dismay, American sentiment as well as the Zimmerman Telegram had much to do with leading the US into the war. By April 1917, even after arming US Merchant ships with naval gun crews as a stop gap measure, Wilson signed a declaration of war. For nearly 3 years, American was able stay somewhat neutral. Not even the loss of the Lusitania had as much impact as the USS MAINE did in 1898 as a cause for war.

2007-01-29 00:52:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

The Bankers in the U.S. had so much invested in the Allies, it would have been a big financial loss if they lost the war. Money talks. With Russia quitting the war, Germany's chance of victory was good. Though Wilson campaigned on peace, he had to see the Allies won to protect American investment.

2007-01-29 01:12:39 · answer #3 · answered by Adi 2 · 1 0

War take place when security of a nation is threatened and leading cause is the last straw in camels back or when one gets pushed to the wall or boat get to a point of sinking

2007-01-29 00:47:43 · answer #4 · answered by evertalall 4 · 0 1

D the sinking of the Lusitania they took objection to germany's use of limitless U-Boat conflict methods. The Germans tried to take care of it through saying that The Lusitania became wearing conflict supplies certain for the beligerent countries of France and Britain and they were interior their precise to attack it. hence of the attack some American civilians died and hence u.s. became thrust into the conflict.

2016-10-16 06:14:49 · answer #5 · answered by warrenfeltz 4 · 0 0

Sinking of the ship Lusitania

2007-01-29 01:40:54 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Sinking of the Lusatiana (excuse the spelling)

2007-01-29 00:40:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers