Why does Howard Zinn say USA joined and fought in World War One?

Question

What were his reasons on why the USA joined the war?

Answer 1

With Zinn it's an easy guess. For him EVERY American war must at bottom be about some powerful group in society keeping or gaining power, and profiting financially.

From his own mouth:
"President Wilson lied about the reasons for entering the First World War, saying it was a war to "make the world safe for democracy," when it was really a war to make the world safe for the rising American power"
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/58/18364

Here's HIS take on the whole period of this rising power:

"After 1890, we moved out into the Caribbean and the Pacific, as far as the coastal waters of China. That story is too well known to recount in detail: the "splendid little war" with Spain; the annexation of Hawaii, and the Philippines and the ugly war of extermination against the Filipino rebels; the taking of Puerto Rico and the establishment of a protectorate over Cuba; the shrewd creation of a Republic of Panama, pulling the site for a canal from under Colombia; the waves of marines into the Caribbean-Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua; the bombardment and occupation of Vera Cruz; in the meantime the concern with profit and influence in China and Japan by the judicious use of gunboats, dollars, and diplomacy. With World War I we became a banker of the world; with World War II we spread military bases onto every land mass, every ocean in the world, intervened openly or stealthily in Greece, Lebanon, Guatemala, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Korea, Vietnam. . . . "
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/AggressiveLiberalism_HZOW.html

And here is another person's explication of the Zinnian view of our entry into the First World War -- note the importance of MONEY:

"This war was not about the United States. It was about European Alliances. It was about Nationalism, Imperialism and Militarism. The United States did not need to be involved. But there is an obvious contradiction to this neutrality with the delivery of supplies. This contradiction leads many to believe that Wilson was looking for a reason to get involved in the war.... but the US interest in the war was more about the future of the US Economy and less about the immediate defense of its citizens.

"The United States would not stand to see Britain defeated by Germany. The United States' economy relied heavily on foreign markets to the tune of $3.5 billion. Britain was seen as a country that needed loans and the American companies like JP Morgan and Company were just what Britain needed.

"Additionally, industrialists realized that involvement in the war would mean increased production and sale of their resources. Tycoons of steel, railroads, gun powder, automobiles and banks were sure to benefit from the US involvement in the war. "
http://blog.pennlive.com/americanhistory101/2007/04/too_proud_to_fight_us_involvem.html

(I will add that while Zinn may raise questions some try to avoid I utterly disagree with his selective and often irresponsible use of evidence. His view is absurdly black-and-one, very one-sided [as he himself proudly admits]. Of COURSE, economic interests come into play... but it is at best cynical and simplistic to reduce it all to that.)

Answer 2

Howard Zinn should be compulsory reading for every history student, particularly US ones.
A brilliant and courageous man.
A

Answer 3

Maybe because America did participate in Wolrd War One as ally of Britain France Italy?

Peace

Answer 4

Undoubtedly, the German declaration in January 1917 that it would employ Unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic and would sink any ships that provided weapons or supplies to Britain and the Allies.

However, it was the infamous Zimmerman Telegram - the German suggestion that Mexico should invade Texas - that really got Americans angry.