Was the United States justified in its decision to declare war on Germany in World War one?

Answer 1

No, there was no reason for America to enter WW I, and to this day, no credible historian can present a really good argument for it.

It remains one of history's mysteries. Some suggest Wilson was mentally ill, which may have some weight but of course he alone could not have propelled the US to war.

Probably propaganda, US business interests, and Americn naiveity and innocence got us involved.

WW I influenced all other wars. When the Americans insisted on invading Europe early on, in 1942 or 43, George Marshall was admonished: "It's no use trying to convince us. You are arguing against the slaughter on the Somme".

This is probably why France has no more stomach for war---too many millions of dead soldiers.

Answer 2

I would say No on all grounds legal and moral, The reasons for Britain and France to go to war with Germany and the Austria-Hungarian Empire was purely political and all parties were as guilty as another. The British and Germans actually only got involved because of treaty obligations from a legal stand point since the original parties were the French and Austria-Hungary over the Serbs; Russia and Britain was bound by treaty to France and Germany to A-H. The American pretext to enter the war was based on the sinking of the Lusitania but that was justified for reasons that have been outlined before. The British had complained about German subs sinking unarmed ships without warning, unrestricted submarine warfare, and the Germans had halted it, then the British hid guns on "unarmed" ships so when the submarine would surface to check the ship for contraband war goods it would open fire on the submarine and sink it so the Germans resumed unrestricted submarine warfare in the decllared war zone. The Lusitania was sunk within that war zone, the Germans had publically said it would be a target and identified the war zone, it was carrying contrband (small arms ammunition which was publically loaded and reported in U.S newspapers (odd thing to do) and listed on the ships manifest, the British do claim that they had not armed her but they also denied arming the Queen Mary which was later proven to be false and they admitted they had but still claim not the Lusitania though it was scheduled to be armed once it got back to England. So it was legally a legitimate target based on being in the war zone and known to be carrying war goods; the arming point is actually moot. If I was suspicious I would almost believe the British used the Lusitania as a target and hoped it would be attacked to give the Americans a reason to go to war; it was not going well for the French, British in the West it was a stalmate and the Russians were basically out of it with the revolts with the army and problems with the communist inside Russia which would free up thousands of German and A-H troops to assist against the British and French so it actually worked out well for them. The answer in No and those are the reasons.

Answer 3

Politically, No.

Strategically, No.

The Lusitania was torpedoed for carrying war materiel, which it in fact was. No foul. If American civilians are stupid enough to sail into a war zone, they're responsible for their own losses.

Allies? One of our "Allies" had burned the white house down a century before.

The Allied powers were on the ropes. Without American support, the Allies would have collapsed. The French and British Armies were on their last manpower reserves, and their Generals just kept wasting lives for no reason. The German battlefield successes were a constant. American reinforcements turned the tide, no doubt.

There is a historical precedent for pulling Frances nuts out of the fire. After all, without them we would have never become a nation. When Pershing arrived, he marched his expeditionary force to the tomb of Laffayette, and pronounced to the French people "Laffayette, we are here!"

We have paid that debt, twice over.

The point of the war debt that England and France owed us is also a good one. Shoulda not given them any credit during their war. Let that be a lesson, politicians of the future.

I guess my answer is therefore no, and we should have not extended credit to combatants on either side, either. We should have followed Washington's advice against foreign entanglements.

Answer 4

Wilson's campaign slogan in 1916 was "He kept us out of the war." Yet soon after his inauguration, he asked Congress to declare war.

The US' entry into the war was strange - the justifications at the time do not quite seem to measure up.

What I think is a plausible theory is that there were some fears within the Wilson Administration that the Allies might collapse. If this were to happen, what would be done about all the debt that they had gone into to finance their war? If the true reason for US entry into the war was to protect American business and financial interests, then the answer to your question is yes.

Answer 5

No not really. Yes Germany sank the Lusitania and yes they tried to get Mexico to side with them but neither worked. Even Churchill in latter years remarked that we didn't need to be there because the war was almost played out by all sides and an armistice probably would have happened in 1917 instead of 1918.

Answer 6

Whoa I am shocked to see so many ridicules answers. We went to war over the Zimmerman telegram which has been officially declassified so you can actually read it for yourself. That is the reason we joined the war against Germany.

Answer 7

We should have stayed out of it. But the politicians want to expand up and out. At the time most Americans actually wanted to support Germany.

Answer 8

i would say that since germany sank a luxury liner killing way too many americans in 1915, we were more than justified in helping to end that war

Answer 9

Yes

Answer 10

Disdain for the Kaiser's helmet was well known in 1914. he U.S. waited as long as we could, but by 1917, our allies needed our help. By then, the Kaiser was only wearing a beret due to the metal shortage in France, which is why the French wear them today.