What themes stood out most to you in the assigned readings and lecture this week? What questions did the lectures and readings raise for you? Please post your responses in the comment section below.
One interesting theme from this week was the role alliances played in the start of World War I, as well as in the eventual involvement of America in the war. While international commitments made within the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance entangled most of Europe in the war, the Zimmerman telegraph and Germany's proposed backing of Mexico played a role in US involvement.
Another theme that really stood out to me from the lecture this week was the rise of pacifism and how deeply it influenced American society. Learning about pacifist religious movements and the effect on draft exemption applications was really interesting.
One question I had was about the pacifist response to the Red Scare and Palmer's harsh treatment of supposed Reds?
An interesting theme from this week's discussion was the role that the various ethnic groups played in the start of World War I. I find it interesting that Austria-Hungary's empire would attempt to hold itself responsible for such a variety of ethnic groups that didn't have much in common. This obviously put them at a much higher risk for conflict and made it easier for them to collapse. I wonder how English and French citizens felt when they were forced to join a war that was declared by Russia?
The theme which I found particularly interesting this week was the alliances such as the Triple Entente between Britain France and Russia, and Triple Alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy in the lead up to WWI and how this affected the relations between countries. It is arguable that they were a major factor in the cause of the war, as Russia felt compelled to protect the Slavic peoples against the treatment by Austria Hungary after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, leading the other countries into the conflict by association. I also thought it was interesting that following this, after the events of the First World War, Wilson’s idea of a League of Nations proposed one larger alliance.
1. Were the alliances mostly effective as a protective measure or did they only succeed in widening the scope of the war and causing tension?
2. Were the countries of each alliance more motivated to enter WWI by their obligation to their allies or by ulterior motives (such as the land conflicts between Germany and France at Alsace-Lorraine or Germany and Britain in Africa)?
Something that I found interesting this week was the dynamics behind the outbreak of the First World War. The formation of alliances played a critical role and I was intrigued by how such a random string of events led to the the outbreak of what was one of the largest conflicts in history (and certainly the largest conflict of the time). The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was obviously a problem between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, but thanks to the alliances and Russia's desire to protect Slavic people, it spread much farther than I would have expected. America's entry to the war also seemed to occur by chance with the sinking of American ships and the Zimmerman telegram. This made me think how easy it would have been to avoid a conflict of this size. If this specific conflict had been avoided, would the political situation in Europe had caused another to break out?
This week we learned about the progressive movement as it related to foreign relations in America at the beginning of the 19th century until World War I. To a large extent the progressive era saw a commitment to the the principles of the Monroe Doctrine on behalf of the presidents, starting with McKinley's involvement in the Spanish-American War. Given their newfound industrial might, the US by the end of the 1800's had the necessary means to enforce the principles of the Monroe Doctrine using military force as demonstrated by McKinley. Roosevelt then significantly contributed to this ideal with his corollary to the Monroe Doctrine that the US would intervene in the affairs of any Latin American country if they were struggling or acting incorrectly so as to prevent involvement from outside the Western Hemisphere. Wilson also was committed to Monroe Doctrine ideas as shown by his decisions with various affairs in Mexico during his presidency. At this time however, America was still considered isolationist and did not necessarily want to be involved in foreign affairs, although this seemed to not apply to Latin America. This brings the question of whether the US only wanted to be involved with foreign affairs where they had complete control of the situation due to military might (like in Latin America) as opposed to being involved in affairs where they were not in control (like in Europe)?
This week we learned about World War 1 abroad and at home. While the trouble and complex issues in Europe were brewing, the United States was still in a period of progressive reform. However, several factors urged the United States into the war with Europe. Those most influential are Germany's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare (including the sinking of the Lusitania) and the Zimmerman Telegram. These influences brought America into the messy tangle of the European conflict, which Wilson was unprepared to face. Also, at home, there was a massive influential movement of pacifism in the country, that made people not only wish we had peace, but actively oppose the draft and get out of physically fighting in the war. This was mainly stemming from religious movements in the country. Also, with the revolution in Russia, there was the first large movement of the red scare, pushed on by mostly Palmer. He shut down newspapers and cast suspicion on different ideological groups. My question is this: Did this instance of foreign intervention, while facing intense criticism from pacifists, pave the way for a future of foreign intervention? And how did Wilson's misunderstanding in the conflict (alliances, etc) and in the peace talks lead to such a harsh treaty of Versailles?
This week, I was very interested by our look into the United States foreign policy in the Progressive era. I knew that Roosevelt had a strong, protective, interventionist foreign policy, but I did not fully appreciate how much Wilson involved the country in international issues (outside of World War I of course). His major involvement in the affairs of South American affairs does fit in with the period of imperialism though. I was also interested by the forces that drove the isolationist policy that America took early in the war. I knew about the culture of isolation of the time, but had never heard of the role of major pacifist movements. When Dr. Dickerson started talking about this, I was reminded of the struggle of Sergeant Alvin York, who was denied his conscientious objector status. I still want to learn how the alliances in the war developed and shifted as the war went on, because I know that Italy did very little for either side that it supported and that, at some point, the Ottoman Empire became heavily involved.
An interesting topic that came up this week was the idea of pacifism in World War I. This was the first time that pacifism comes up in society, and the main source was from historic peace churches like the Quakers and the Mennonites. There was an unprecedented outpouring of the holy spirit in this time all while the first world war is occurring. A question that comes up for me is the United States army and how they react to this outpouring of religious pacifism.
The theme that stood out to me the most this week was how distant WWI was from America, yet how relevant it became to us. The reasons the war originally started and the reasons we got involved (to maintain safe ocean travel and the Zimmerman Telegram) were drastically different. I found it interesting how one thing tied into another and dominoed until we became implicated. I also found it interesting how Germany supposedly asked Mexico for help and how the US reacted. It raised two questions for me. 1. Why Mexico and not the US? The US had a greater military force. 2. Was it actual fear that prompted our response? Or was it a pride issue, did we not want to let Mexico or Germany question our authority as a leading nation at the time?
One theme that stood out to me this week was the multiple ethnic groups and the roles they played in the start of WWI. Austria-Hungary's empire had such a variety of ethnic groups that didn't have much in common. This caused tension and soon this tension lead to conflict and that finally lead them to collapse. How did the countries in the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente feel about supporting each other?
A theme that stood out to me this week was the pacifist movement. Until this time there had been pacifists in the past, but never a broad-based, serious sentiment. Religion helped to spread the movement across the nation, specifically the Pentecostals. In 1906 there was the Azusa Street revivals in Los Angeles. In these revivals there was unprecedented outpouring of presence of the Holy Spirit in the form of speaking in tongues. This religious pacifism was "experiential rather than cerebral". Not even the pacifists were safe, however, during the Red Scare of 1919. There was a clamp down domestically on radicals and suspicion spilled over onto pacifists.
This week, I found the effects of World War I on American society to be most interesting. Although the war was fought abroad, it drastically changed social relations at the time. Labor groups gained federal support because of the sheer demand for production. Women achieved advancements in the suffrage and temperance movements, and race relations intensified. My question is: Why were the 1920s so different from the post war period in the 1950s in which women were pushed into the domestic sphere?
One interesting theme from this week was the role alliances played in the start of World War I, as well as in the eventual involvement of America in the war. While international commitments made within the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance entangled most of Europe in the war, the Zimmerman telegraph and Germany's proposed backing of Mexico played a role in US involvement.
ReplyDeleteAnother theme that really stood out to me from the lecture this week was the rise of pacifism and how deeply it influenced American society. Learning about pacifist religious movements and the effect on draft exemption applications was really interesting.
One question I had was about the pacifist response to the Red Scare and Palmer's harsh treatment of supposed Reds?
An interesting theme from this week's discussion was the role that the various ethnic groups played in the start of World War I. I find it interesting that Austria-Hungary's empire would attempt to hold itself responsible for such a variety of ethnic groups that didn't have much in common. This obviously put them at a much higher risk for conflict and made it easier for them to collapse. I wonder how English and French citizens felt when they were forced to join a war that was declared by Russia?
ReplyDeleteThe theme which I found particularly interesting this week was the alliances such as the Triple Entente between Britain France and Russia, and Triple Alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy in the lead up to WWI and how this affected the relations between countries. It is arguable that they were a major factor in the cause of the war, as Russia felt compelled to protect the Slavic peoples against the treatment by Austria Hungary after the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, leading the other countries into the conflict by association. I also thought it was interesting that following this, after the events of the First World War, Wilson’s idea of a League of Nations proposed one larger alliance.
ReplyDelete1. Were the alliances mostly effective as a protective measure or did they only succeed in widening the scope of the war and causing tension?
2. Were the countries of each alliance more motivated to enter WWI by their obligation to their allies or by ulterior motives (such as the land conflicts between Germany and France at Alsace-Lorraine or Germany and Britain in Africa)?
Something that I found interesting this week was the dynamics behind the outbreak of the First World War. The formation of alliances played a critical role and I was intrigued by how such a random string of events led to the the outbreak of what was one of the largest conflicts in history (and certainly the largest conflict of the time). The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was obviously a problem between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, but thanks to the alliances and Russia's desire to protect Slavic people, it spread much farther than I would have expected. America's entry to the war also seemed to occur by chance with the sinking of American ships and the Zimmerman telegram. This made me think how easy it would have been to avoid a conflict of this size. If this specific conflict had been avoided, would the political situation in Europe had caused another to break out?
ReplyDeleteThis week we learned about the progressive movement as it related to foreign relations in America at the beginning of the 19th century until World War I. To a large extent the progressive era saw a commitment to the the principles of the Monroe Doctrine on behalf of the presidents, starting with McKinley's involvement in the Spanish-American War. Given their newfound industrial might, the US by the end of the 1800's had the necessary means to enforce the principles of the Monroe Doctrine using military force as demonstrated by McKinley. Roosevelt then significantly contributed to this ideal with his corollary to the Monroe Doctrine that the US would intervene in the affairs of any Latin American country if they were struggling or acting incorrectly so as to prevent involvement from outside the Western Hemisphere. Wilson also was committed to Monroe Doctrine ideas as shown by his decisions with various affairs in Mexico during his presidency. At this time however, America was still considered isolationist and did not necessarily want to be involved in foreign affairs, although this seemed to not apply to Latin America. This brings the question of whether the US only wanted to be involved with foreign affairs where they had complete control of the situation due to military might (like in Latin America) as opposed to being involved in affairs where they were not in control (like in Europe)?
ReplyDeleteThis week we learned about World War 1 abroad and at home. While the trouble and complex issues in Europe were brewing, the United States was still in a period of progressive reform. However, several factors urged the United States into the war with Europe. Those most influential are Germany's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare (including the sinking of the Lusitania) and the Zimmerman Telegram. These influences brought America into the messy tangle of the European conflict, which Wilson was unprepared to face. Also, at home, there was a massive influential movement of pacifism in the country, that made people not only wish we had peace, but actively oppose the draft and get out of physically fighting in the war. This was mainly stemming from religious movements in the country. Also, with the revolution in Russia, there was the first large movement of the red scare, pushed on by mostly Palmer. He shut down newspapers and cast suspicion on different ideological groups. My question is this: Did this instance of foreign intervention, while facing intense criticism from pacifists, pave the way for a future of foreign intervention? And how did Wilson's misunderstanding in the conflict (alliances, etc) and in the peace talks lead to such a harsh treaty of Versailles?
ReplyDeleteThis week, I was very interested by our look into the United States foreign policy in the Progressive era. I knew that Roosevelt had a strong, protective, interventionist foreign policy, but I did not fully appreciate how much Wilson involved the country in international issues (outside of World War I of course). His major involvement in the affairs of South American affairs does fit in with the period of imperialism though. I was also interested by the forces that drove the isolationist policy that America took early in the war. I knew about the culture of isolation of the time, but had never heard of the role of major pacifist movements. When Dr. Dickerson started talking about this, I was reminded of the struggle of Sergeant Alvin York, who was denied his conscientious objector status. I still want to learn how the alliances in the war developed and shifted as the war went on, because I know that Italy did very little for either side that it supported and that, at some point, the Ottoman Empire became heavily involved.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting topic that came up this week was the idea of pacifism in World War I. This was the first time that pacifism comes up in society, and the main source was from historic peace churches like the Quakers and the Mennonites. There was an unprecedented outpouring of the holy spirit in this time all while the first world war is occurring. A question that comes up for me is the United States army and how they react to this outpouring of religious pacifism.
ReplyDeleteThe theme that stood out to me the most this week was how distant WWI was from America, yet how relevant it became to us. The reasons the war originally started and the reasons we got involved (to maintain safe ocean travel and the Zimmerman Telegram) were drastically different. I found it interesting how one thing tied into another and dominoed until we became implicated. I also found it interesting how Germany supposedly asked Mexico for help and how the US reacted. It raised two questions for me. 1. Why Mexico and not the US? The US had a greater military force. 2. Was it actual fear that prompted our response? Or was it a pride issue, did we not want to let Mexico or Germany question our authority as a leading nation at the time?
ReplyDeleteOne theme that stood out to me this week was the multiple ethnic groups and the roles they played in the start of WWI. Austria-Hungary's empire had such a variety of ethnic groups that didn't have much in common. This caused tension and soon this tension lead to conflict and that finally lead them to collapse. How did the countries in the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente feel about supporting each other?
ReplyDeleteA theme that stood out to me this week was the pacifist movement. Until this time there had been pacifists in the past, but never a broad-based, serious sentiment. Religion helped to spread the movement across the nation, specifically the Pentecostals. In 1906 there was the Azusa Street revivals in Los Angeles. In these revivals there was unprecedented outpouring of presence of the Holy Spirit in the form of speaking in tongues. This religious pacifism was "experiential rather than cerebral". Not even the pacifists were safe, however, during the Red Scare of 1919. There was a clamp down domestically on radicals and suspicion spilled over onto pacifists.
ReplyDeleteThis week, I found the effects of World War I on American society to be most interesting. Although the war was fought abroad, it drastically changed social relations at the time. Labor groups gained federal support because of the sheer demand for production. Women achieved advancements in the suffrage and temperance movements, and race relations intensified. My question is: Why were the 1920s so different from the post war period in the 1950s in which women were pushed into the domestic sphere?
ReplyDelete