P7 | APUSH | Wiley |Activities & Sources on WWI, D___ Name:A. When Would You Go to War?

Situation 1: War Breaks Out, 1914 War breaks out in Europe between the Triple Entente (Britain, France, Russia;

though Britain is not yet in the fight) and Central Powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary); other countries and imperialized peoples are joining the fight as well, in hopes of being on the winning side and gaining territory/independence; trench warfare develops; the futile nature of the war quickly becomes apparent

Disputed issues have nothing to do with the U.S. Both sides want to buy American goods President Wilson issues the following message:

“Every man who really loves America will act and speak in the true spirit of neutrality, which is the spirit of impartiality and fairness and friendliness to all concerned. The people of the United States are drawn from many nations, and chiefly from the nations now at war. It is natural and inevitable that there should be the utmost variety of sympathy and desire among them with regard to the issues and circumstances of the conflict. Some will wish one nation, others another, to succeed in the momentous struggle. It will be easy to excite passion and difficult to allay it. I venture, therefore, my fellow countrymen, to speak a solemn word of warning to you against that deepest, most subtle, most essential breach of neutrality which may spring out of partisanship, out of passionately taking sides. The United States must be neutral in fact, as well as in name, during these days that are to try men's souls.”

A. What should the U.S. do? (Sell to both sides? … only one? … not to either? etc.)

Britain’s blockade of Germany, beginning in 1914, will prevent the U.S. from trading with the Central Powers; the U.S. continues to trade with the Allied Powers although the U.S. condemns their blockade, since it violates international law, which protects the right of nonbelligerents to trade with warring countries

Situation 2: German Invasion of Neutral Belgium (Part of Schlieffen Plan), 1914 Germany attacks and quickly defeats Belgium, a small neutral nation, so as to beat France in the West before heading East to beat

the Russians Gruesome stories appear in American newspapers about the atrocities committed by the Germans against the people of the

defeated country (some are true, some are exaggerations—like the yellow journalism seen in the lead up to the S-A-C War, 1898) Britain, who has close ties to Belgium, joins the fight

B. What should the U.S. do? (Nothing, since it doesn’t concern the U.S. / U.S. committed similar atrocities themselves in the Philippines? Issue statement condemning their actions? Declare war?)

America does not make a move here

Situation 3: British Blockade and German Unrestricted Submarine Warfare, 1914-15 Britain has blockaded the ports of Germany since the start of the war; Britain’s blockade violates international law, which protects

the right of nonbelligerents to trade with warring countries; the blockade effectively prevents U.S. trade to Germany (and will result in the starvation and death of approximately 500,000 German civilians)

Germany, in desperation, uses submarines to attack all ships sailing to and from the ports of Britain without warning (unrestricted submarine warfare), beginning in 1915; Germany hopes to use submarine warfare to disrupt the flow of supplies from the U.S. to England, so as to weaken and defeat the British; they declare the area around the British Isles a war zone—neutral powers are warned

Neutral U.S. ships, which are protected by international laws, are sunk by German submarines on their way to Britain

C. What should the U.S. do?

America continues shipping war materials to the British

1

When Would You Go to War? (1-2) Crime of the Ages Cartoon (3) Wilson’s War Message (3-4) Diverging Explanations on Why the

US Chose War (5-6) Wilson’s 14 Points (7) Wilson’s League of Nations Covenant

(8-10) Treaty of Versailles/League of

Nations DBQ Materials (10-12)

Situation 4: Sinking of the Lusitania , 1915 A German submarine sinks a luxury liner, the Lusitania, belonging to Britain (it was carrying war

materials) Over 1000 passengers drown, including 120+ vacationing Americans, who were advised not to

travel on any ships from the nations at war by Secretary of State William Jenings Bryan Germany’s action violates international law, which calls for warning ships and providing for

passengers’ safety before sinking them (unless they fail to stop)

D. What should the U.S. do?

President Wilson sends a “stern” letter to the Germans:

“In view of recent acts of the German authorities in violation of American rights on the high seas which culminated in the torpedoing and sinking of the British steamship Lusitania on May 7, 1915, by which over 100 American citizens lost their lives, it is clearly wise and desirable that the government of the United States and the Imperial German government should come to a clear and full understanding as to the grave situation which has resulted. The sinking of . . . the American vessels Cushing [and] Gulflight by a German submarine, as a result of which [several] American citizens met their death; and, finally, the torpedoing and sinking of the steamship Lusitania constitute a series of events which the government of the United States has observed with growing concern, distress, and amazement. Recalling the humane and enlightened attitude hitherto assumed by the Imperial German government in matters of international right, and particularly with regard to the freedom of the seas; having learned to recognize the German views and the German influence in the field of international obligation as always engaged upon the side of justice and humanity; . . . the government of the United States was loath to believe - it cannot now bring itself to believe - that these acts, so absolutely contrary to the rules, the practices, and the spirit of modern warfare, could have the countenance or sanction of that great government. . . .”

Situation 5: Resumption of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare, 1917 After urging from President Wilson, Germany had promised (1915) to stop sinking liners without first warning them and providing

for passengers’ safety (what international law had codified), but they disregard their promise and resume unrestricted submarine warfare on neutral American ships in 1917

Germany is desperately searching for a way to end the stalemate and achieve decisive victory—they gamble that they can starve Britain into defeat before America can mobilize for war (they know the U.S. is going to be furious at their resumption of USW)

E. What should the U.S. do?

President Wilson condemns, but doesn’t take action; continues sending war materials to the British

Situation 6: The Zimmerman Note, 1917 America learns that Germany was planning to ask Mexico to aid in an attack against the U.S. if America decides to enter the war,

so that the U.S. would be kept out of Europe In return, parts of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona (which the U.S. had won from Mexico following the Mexican-American War of

1846-1848) would be returned to Mexico The note, along with the sinking of several other U.S. merchant ships, causes a sensation in the U.S. – the people [finally?] want

war! (despite the fact that Mexico is in no position to fight the U.S.; civil wars have ravaged the country for decades)

"We intend to begin on the first of February unrestricted submarine warfare. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal of alliance on the following basis: make war together, make peace together, generous financial support and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. The settlement in detail is left to you. You will inform the President of the above most secretly as soon as the outbreak of war with the United States of America is certain. . . . Please call the President's attention to the fact that the ruthless employment of our submarines now offers the prospect of compelling England in a few months to make peace." Signed, ZIMMERMANN (German foreign secretary to the German ambassador in Mexico)

F. What should the U.S. do?

About a month and a half later, President Wilson delivers his war message to Congress; days later, Congress declares war on the Central Powers

2

B. “Crime of the Ages” cartoon from the Chicago Tribune, 1914 (when war broke out and isolationist sentiment was strong in the U.S.)

1. What was the cartoonist trying to say to the American public?

2. Whom does each country blame for the start of the war? Why?

3. What are the men looking to? What do you think that represents?

C. Wilson’s War Message to Congress, 1917 (about 1.5 months after the Zimmerman Note)

[Recently,] . . . I officially laid before you the extraordinary announcement of the Imperial German Government that . . . its purpose to put aside all restraints of law or of humanity and use its submarines to sink every vessel that sought to approach either the ports of Great Britain and Ireland or the western coasts of Europe or any of the ports controlled by the enemies of Germany within the Mediterranean. That had seemed to be the object of the German submarine warfare earlier in the war, but since April of last year the Imperial Government had somewhat restrained the commanders of its undersea craft in conformity with its promise then given to us that passenger boats should not be sunk and that due warning would be given to all other vessels which its submarines might seek to destroy, when no resistance was offered or escape attempted, and care taken that their crews were given at least a fair chance to save their lives in their open boats. . . . I was for a little while unable to believe that such things would in fact be done by any government that had hitherto subscribed to the humane practices of civilized nations (i.e. international law). . . .The present German submarine warfare against commerce is a warfare against mankind. . . When I [last] addressed the Congress . . . , I thought that it would suffice to assert our neutral rights with arms . . . . But armed neutrality, it now appears, is impracticable. Because submarines are in effect outlaws when used as the German submarines have been used against merchant shipping, it is impossible to defend ships against their attacks. . .

3

There is one choice we cannot make, we are incapable of making: we will not choose the path of submission and suffer the most sacred rights of our nation and our people to be ignored or violated. . . With a profound sense of the solemn and even tragical character of the step I am taking and of the grave responsibilities which it involves, but in unhesitating obedience to what I deem my constitutional duty, I advise that the Congress declare the recent course of the Imperial German Government to be in fact nothing less than war against the Government and people of the United States. . .

What this will involve is clear. . . . It will involve the organization and mobilization of all the material resources of the country to supply the materials of war and serve the incidental needs of the nation in the most abundant and yet the most economical and efficient way possible. . . It will involve the immediate addition to the armed forces of the United States already provided for by law in case of war at least 500,000 men, who should, in my opinion, be chosen upon the principle of universal liability to service, and also the authorization of subsequent additional increments of equal force so soon as they may be needed and can be handled in training. . .

While we do these things, these deeply momentous things, let us be very clear, and make very clear to all the world what our motives and our objects are. Our object . . . is to vindicate the principles of peace and justice in the life of the world as against selfish and autocratic power and to set up amongst the really free and self-governed peoples of the world such a concert of purpose and of action as will henceforth ensure the observance of those principles. Neutrality is no longer feasible or desirable where the peace of the world is involved and the freedom of its peoples, and the menace to that peace and freedom lies in the existence of autocratic governments backed by organized force which is controlled wholly by their will, not by the will of their people. We are at the beginning of an age in which it will be insisted that the same standards of conduct and of responsibility for wrong doing shall be observed among nations and their governments that are observed among the individual citizens of civilized states.

We are glad . . . to fight thus for the ultimate peace of the world and for the liberation of its peoples, the German peoples included: for the rights of nations great and small and the privilege of men everywhere to choose their way of life and of obedience. The world must be made safe for democracy. . . We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion . . . . [W]e shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts -- for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free. . .

Note: Four days after the speech, Congress overwhelming voted for a declaration of war.

4. What reasons are cited in Wilson’s call to arms? What, surprisingly, is not mentioned?

5. How do you suspect a Filipino would respond to Wilson’s war message?

6. To what extent are progressive impulses apparent in Wilson’s speech?

4

D. Excerpts from EDsitement, National Endowment for the Humanities: Diverging Interpretations of Why the U.S. Went to War

Note: All explanations are plausible. You want to consider which carried the most weight.

7. Organize “answers”

into most

convincing/important to least convincing/important and provide a brief explanation in the space below.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

LEAST CONVINCING/IMPORTANT

MOST CONVINCING/IMPORTANT

5

E. Wilson’s Fourteen Points, 1918

Summary: President Wilson set down his 14 points speech as a blueprint for world peace that was to be used for peace negotiations after World War I. The speech was read 10 months before the war’s end. In the speech, Wilson directly addressed what he perceived as the causes for the world war by calling for the abolition of secret treaties, a reduction in armaments, an adjustment in colonial claims in the interests of both native peoples and colonists, and freedom of the seas. Wilson also made proposals that would ensure world peace in the future. For example, he proposed the removal of economic barriers between nations, the promise of “self-determination” for those oppressed minorities, and a world organization that would provide a system of collective security for all nations. Wilson’s 14 Points were designed to undermine the Central Powers’ will to continue and to inspire the Allies to victory. The 14 Points were broadcast throughout the world and were showered from rockets and shells behind the enemy’s lines.

When the Allies met in Versailles to formulate the treaty to end World War I with Germany and Austria-Hungary, most of Wilson’s 14 Points were scuttled by the leaders of England and France. To his dismay, Wilson discovered that England, France, and Italy were mostly interested in regaining what they had lost and gaining more by punishing Germany. Germany quickly found out that Wilson’s blueprint for world peace would not apply to them. However, Wilson’s capstone point calling for a world organization that would provide some system of collective security was incorporated into the Treaty of Versailles. This organization would later be known as the League of Nations. Though Wilson launched a tireless missionary campaign to overcome opposition in the U.S. Senate to the adoption of the treaty and membership in the League, the treaty was never adopted by the Senate, and the United States never joined the League of Nations. Wilson would later suggest that without American participation in the League, there would be another world war within a generation.

Speech:

Introduction: It will be our wish and purpose that the processes of peace, when they are begun, shall be absolutely open and that they shall involve and permit henceforth no secret understandings of any kind. The day of conquest and aggrandizement is gone by; so is also the day of secret covenants entered into in the interest of particular governments and likely at some unlooked-for moment to upset the peace of the world. . . . We entered this war because violations of right had occurred which . . . made the life of our own people impossible unless they were corrected and the world secure once for all against their recurrence. What we demand in this war, therefore, is nothing peculiar to ourselves. It is that the world be made fit and safe to live in; and particularly that it be made safe for every peace-loving nation which, like our own, wishes to live its own life, determine its own institutions, be assured of justice and fair dealing by the other peoples of the world as against force and selfish aggression. All the peoples of the world are in effect partners in this interest, and for our own part we see very clearly that unless justice be done to others it will not be done to us. The program of the world's peace, therefore, is our program . . . .

XIV: A general association of nations must be formed . . . for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike. . . . [W]e feel ourselves to be intimate partners of all the governments and peoples associated together against the Imperialists. . . . For such arrangements and covenants we are willing to fight and to continue to fight until they are achieved; but only because we wish the right to prevail and desire a just and stable peace such as can be secured only by removing the chief provocations to war . . . .

8. Had the Allies supported Wilson’s vision for the post-war world, as outlined in his 14 points, how might world history have been different?

6

9. Does Wilson’s message square with his own foreign policy? Revisit U.S. Imperialism & Foreign Policy to 1914 document.

F. League of Nations Covenant, 1919

Wilson drafted the League of Nations Covenant for League members. He was deeply saddened by the Senate’s rejection of the League.

In order to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security

by the acceptance of obligations not to resort to war, by the prescription of open, just and honourable relations between

nations, by the firm establishment of the understandings of international law as the

actual rule of conduct among Governments, and by the maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect for all treaty

obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another,

Agree to this Covenant of the League of Nations. Article I:

Any fully self-governing State, Dominion or Colony not named in the Annex may become a Member of the League if its admission is agreed to by two-thirds of the Assembly, provided that it shall give effective guarantees of its sincere intention to observe its international obligations, and shall accept such regulations as may be prescribed by the League in regard to its military, naval and air forces and armaments.

Any Member of the League may, after two years' notice of its intention so to do, withdraw from the League, provided that all its international obligations and all its obligations under this Covenant shall have been fulfilled at the time of its withdrawal.

Article III: The Assembly may deal at its meetings with any matter within the sphere of action of the League or affecting the peace of

the world. At meetings of the Assembly each Member of the League shall have one vote, and may have not more than three Representatives.

Article IV: The Council shall consist of Representatives of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, together with Representatives of

four other Members of the League. These four Members of the League shall be selected by the Assembly from time to time in its discretion.

Article V: [D]ecisions at any meeting of the Assembly or of the Council shall require the agreement of all the Members of the League

represented at the meeting.

Article VII: All positions . . . in connection with the League, including the Secretariat, shall be open equally to men and women.

Article VIII: The Members of the League recognise that the maintenance of peace requires the reduction of national armaments to the

lowest point consistent with national safety and the enforcement by common action of international obligations. The Council, taking account of the geographical situation and circumstances of each State, shall formulate plans for such

reduction for the consideration and action of the several Governments.

7

After these plans shall have been adopted by the several Governments, the limits of armaments therein fixed shall not be exceeded without the concurrence of the Council.

The Members of the League undertake to interchange full and frank information as to the scale of their armaments, their military, naval and air programmes and the condition of such of their industries as are adaptable to war-like purposes.

Article X: The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and

existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled.

Article XI: Any war or threat of war . . . is hereby declared a matter of concern to the whole League, and the League shall take any

action that may be deemed wise and effectual to safeguard the peace of nations.

Article XII: The Members of the League agree that, if there should arise between them any dispute likely to lead to a rupture they will

submit the matter either to arbitration or judicial settlement or to enquiry by the Council, and they agree in no case to resort to war until three months after the award by the arbitrators or the judicial decision, or the report by the Council.

Article XIII: The Members of the League agree that they will carry out in full good faith any award or decision that may be rendered,

and that they will not resort to war against a Member of the League which complies therewith. In the event of any failure to carry out such an award or decision, the Council shall propose what steps should be taken to give effect thereto.

Article XIV: The Council shall formulate and submit to the Members of the League for adoption plans for the establishment of a

Permanent Court of International Justice. The Court shall be competent to hear and determine any dispute of an international character which the parties thereto submit to it.

Article XVI: Should any Member of the League resort to war in disregard of its covenants . . . it shall . . . be deemed to have committed

an act of war against all other Members of the League, which hereby undertake immediately to subject it to the severance of all trade or financial relations, the prohibition of all intercourse between their nationals and the nationals of the covenant-breaking State, and the prevention of all financial, commercial or personal intercourse between the nationals of the covenant-breaking State and the nationals of any other State, whether a Member of the League or not.

It shall be the duty of the Council in such case to recommend to the several Governments concerned what effective military, naval or air force the Members of the League shall severally contribute to the armed forces to be used to protect the covenants of the League.

The Members of the League agree, further, that they will mutually support one another in the financial and economic measures which are taken under this Article, in order to minimise the loss and inconvenience resulting from the above measures, and that they will mutually support one another in resisting any special measures aimed at one of their number by the covenant-breaking State, and that they will take the necessary steps to afford passage through their territory to the forces of any of the Members of the League which are co-operating to protect the covenants of the League.

Article XXII:

To those colonies . . . which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant. The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position

8

can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories [“mandates”] on behalf of the League.

Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire [the Middle East] have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory.

Other peoples, especially those of Central Africa, are at such a stage that the Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory under conditions which will guarantee freedom of conscience and religion, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, the prohibition of abuses such as the slave trade, the arms traffic and the liquor traffic, and the prevention of the establishment of fortifications or military and naval bases and of military training of the natives for other than police purposes and the defence of territory, and will also secure equal opportunities for the trade and commerce of other Members of the League.

There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness . . . [etc.], can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population.

Article XXIII:

Subject to and in accordance with the provisions of international conventions existing or hereafter to be agreed upon, the Members of the League: (a) will endeavour to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour for men, women, and

children, both in their own countries and in all countries to which their commercial and industrial relations extend . . .

(b) undertake to secure just treatment of the native inhabitants of territories under their control; (c) will entrust the League with the general supervision over the execution of agreements with regard to the

traffic in women and children, and the traffic in opium and other dangerous drugs; (d) will entrust the League with the general supervision of the trade in arms and ammunition with the

countries in which the control of this traffic is necessary in the common interest; (f) will endeavour to take steps in matters of international concern for the prevention and control of disease.

10. Which articles do you agree with? Which do you have reservations about? Why?

11. For what reasons did the U.S. Senate oppose Wilson’s League of Nations?

G. Treaty of Versailles/League of Nations DBQ Materials

When you see liberal or conservative used in these sources/questions, the context is view of change (new change is liberal vs. support for the status quo and/or backwards change is conservative).

12. What is Borah’s main argument? Do you find it convincing? Why or why not? Is it conservative or liberal?

9

13. Why would a liberal in 1919 object to the Treaty of Versailles? What specific claims could be added to this source to strengthen its argument?

14. Why was Wilson so adamant about Article X? Was he being unreasonable? Why or why not?

Article X: The Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League. In case of any such aggression or in case of any threat or danger of such aggression the Council shall advise upon the means by which this obligation shall be fulfilled. (Section called for assistance to be given to a member that experiences external aggression.)

15. How does Hoover’s message present a compromise? Is the compromise a good one? Why or why not?

The “reservations now passed” mentioned in this source refers to the removal of Article X from the LON covenant of the TOV.

10

16. What is the message/perspective of the cartoon? How does the cartoonist likely feel about the League of Nations debate?

Cartoon Summary: Uncle Sam is marrying a woman who has “Foreign Entanglements” written on her dress. The officiant is reading from a text titled, “League of Nations.” The officiant says: “If any man can show just cause why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak.” The man breaking through the glass is the U.S. Senate, armed with the Constitution.

17. Was Wilson correct in his assertion about the founders? Why or why not?

18. What is your reaction to Keynes’ comments?

11

19. What, ultimately, led to the defeat of the Treaty of Versailles in the U.S. Senate? Was it the strength of oppositional forces, both liberal and conservative, the ineptitude and stubbornness of President Wilson, or something else? Which sources support your claim? Which contradict your claim?

12