What caused the United states to join WW1?

Question

How did the United States get involved in WW1?

Answer 1

Germany siad they would rape them and thier families so they decided to revolt. no what im sayin?

Answer 2

Adam: All those things were good but that is not why the US got into the war...


Okay so the US was selling goods and stuff to both sides, the allied and the bad guys. When the Lustania sank and the British started to put american flags on their ships the US started to get upset. If it wasn't for some quick thinking by the British the US could have very easily gone on the side of Germany, remember at this time they weren't these awful guys that there were in WWII, But yes the British fibbed a little and there is still debate if the Zimmerman telegram was really what it was. The british knew that without more help they would be screwed and the Germans did NOT want the US to go in on the side of the Ally because then they would be screwed and the US was trying to stay out of it. Well the British "intercepted" this telegram and ran as fast as they could to the US to tell them about how bad the Germans where and how they had to get in.
It was another year before the US had soldiers on the ground and they were there for 7 months before the war ended.

Answer 3

Our involvement in WWI was activated by two main things, German U-boats sinking foreign ships, and the proposed alliance between Germany and Mexico. Germany started sinking many non-military ships in the Atlantic ocean and up until the French steamliner "Sussex" and U.S. didn't do anything. After the sinking of the Sussex, the U.S. and Woodrow Wilson took a stance and said Germany must stop the sinking of these ships and made them abide by a "Sussex Pledge" in doing so. The sussex was a French ship but had Americans on board so we were obligated to act. That was on main reason. The other main reason was the Zimmerman Telegram. The Zimmerman telegram was a telegram sent from a German government official (Zimmerman) to Mexico proposing an alliance with them against the Americans and in return, Mexico would get back the lands they lost in the Mexican Cession in the Mexican-American war (Which is present day New Mexico, Arizona, and most of California). After this was intercepted by British officials and handed over to the United States, The U.S. put its foot down and entered the war on the side of the Triple Antente (Britain, France, and Russia). Hope that explains it!

Answer 4

A German Sub sank the Luistania pasenger liner. Woodrow Wilson demanded that the Germans end the attacks on civilian ships. Germany attempted to get Mexico to join as an ally and that became exposed. Then with Wilson unable to achieve a compromise over the submarines attacking civilian ships the Germans attacked three merchant ships. Wilson then asked for Congress to declare war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_1

Answer 5

The sinking of the Lusitania and the Zimmerman telegram where the Germans urged the Mexicans to attack the US in exchange for Texas and California.

Answer 6

Short Answer?

German unrestricted U-Boats attacks on US ships.

Zimmerman telegraph.

Answer 7

After the sinking of the Lusitania.

Answer 8

The German policy of unrestricted submarine warfare.

Answer 9

The Nazis sending a torpedo to the "Titanic" ship that sunk and killed 123 americans.

Answer 10

I just learned this in US history class. im in 9th grade.

Archduke Franz Ferdinand was killed, and basically everyone had a treaty with or against everyone else, so the world became involved.



On June 28, 1914, Gavrilo Princip shot and killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austria-Hungarian throne, and his wife, in Sarajevo after purchasing a sandwich. Princip was a member of Young Bosnia, a group whose aims included the unification of the South Slavs and independence from Austria-Hungary (see also: the Black Hand). The assassination in Sarajevo set into motion a series of fast-moving events that escalated into a full-scale war. However, the ultimate causes of the conflict were multiple and complex.


Arms races
The naval arms race that developed between Britain and Germany was intensified by the 1906 launch of HMS Dreadnought, a revolutionary warship that rendered all previous battleships obsolete. (Britain maintained a large lead over Germany in all categories of warship.) Paul Kennedy has pointed out that both nations believed in Alfred Thayer Mahan's thesis that command of the sea was vital to a great nation.

David Stevenson described the armaments race as "a self-reinforcing cycle of heightened military preparedness", while David Herrman viewed the shipbuilding rivalry as part of a general movement towards war. However, Niall Ferguson argues that Britain’s ability to maintain an overall advantage signifies that change within this realm was insignificant and therefore not a factor in the movement towards war.

Plans, distrust and mobilization
Closely related is the thesis adopted by many political scientists that the war plans of Germany, France and Russia automatically escalated the conflict. Fritz Fischer and his followers have emphasized the inherently aggressive nature of the Schlieffen Plan, which outlined German strategy if at war with both France and Russia. Conflict on two fronts meant Germany had to eliminate one opponent quickly before taking on the other, relying on a strict timetable. It called for a strong right flank attack, to seize Belgium and cripple the French army by preempting its mobilization.

After the attack, the German army would then rush to the eastern front by railroad and quickly destroy the more slowly mobilizing military of Russia.

In a greater context, France's own Plan XVII called for an offensive thrust into Germany’s industrial Ruhr Valley which would cripple Germany’s ability to wage war.

Russia’s revised Plan XIX implied a mobilization of its armies against both Austria-Hungary and Germany.

All three created an atmosphere where generals and planning staffs were anxious to seize the initiative and achieve decisive victories. Elaborate mobilization plans with precise timetables were prepared. Once the mobilization orders were issued, both generals and statesmen alike understood that there was little or no possibility of turning back or a key advantage would be sacrificed. Furthermore, the problem of communications in 1914 should not be underestimated; all nations still used telegraphy and ambassadors as the main form of communication, which resulted in delays of hours or even days.


Militarism and autocracy
President of the United States Woodrow Wilson and other observers blamed the war on militarism.[2] The idea was that aristocrats and military elites had too much control over Germany, Russia and Austria, and the war was a consequence of their desire for military power and disdain for democracy. This was a theme that figured prominently in anti-German propaganda, which cast Kaiser Wilhelm II and Prussian military tradition in a negative light. Consequently, supporters of this theory called for the abdication of such rulers, the end of the aristocratic system and the end of militarism — all of which justified American entry into the war once Czarist Russia dropped out of the Allied camp.

Wilson hoped the League of Nations and universal disarmament would secure a lasting peace. He also acknowledged variations of militarism that, in his opinion, existed within the British and French political systems.


Economic imperialism
Vladimir Lenin asserted that the worldwide system of imperialism was responsible for the war. In this, he drew upon the economic theories of Karl Marx and English economist John A. Hobson, who had earlier predicted the outcome of economic imperialism, or unlimited competition for expanding markets, would lead to a global military conflict.[3] This argument proved popular in the immediate wake of the war and assisted in the rise of Marxism and Communism. Lenin argued that large banking interests in the various capitalist-imperialist powers had pulled the strings in the various governments and led them into the war.[4]


Trade barriers
Cordell Hull believed that trade barriers were the root cause of both World War I and World War II, and designed the Bretton Woods Agreements to reduce trade barriers, and thus eliminate what he saw as the root cause of the two world wars.


Ethnic and political rivalries, both old and new
A localized war between Austria-Hungary and Serbia was considered inevitable due to Austria-Hungary’s deteriorating world position and the Pan-Slavic separatist movement in the Balkans. The expansion of such ethnic sentiments coincided with the growth of Serbia, where anti-Austrian sentiment was perhaps at its most fervent; Austria-Hungary had occupied the ethnically Serb province of Bosnia-Herzegovina since 1878 and formally annexed it in 1908. The nationalistic sentiments also coincided with the decline of the Ottoman Empire, which formerly held sway over much of the region. Imperial Russia supported the Pan-Slavic movement, motivated by ethnic and religious loyalties, dissatisfaction with Austria (dating back to the Crimean War, but most recently concerning a failed Russian-Austrian treaty) and a century-old dream of a warm water port.[5]

As for Germany, its location in the center of Europe led to the decision for an active defense, culminating in the Schlieffen Plan. At the same time, the transfer of the contested Alsace and Lorraine territories and defeat in the Franco-Prussian War influenced France’s policy, characterized by revanchism. The French formed an alliance with Russia and a two-front war became a distinct possibility for Germany.