The documents that are going to be analyzed present different views on the role that the United States should play during World War I. The text called War is A Blessing; Not a Curse emphasizes the need to intervene into this military conflict that engulfed entire Europe. In turn, in his speech, Robert LaFollette points out that it was wiser for America to refrain from taking any part in these events. It is necessary to examine these arguments more closely.
Overall, the supporters of the U.S intervention argue that this war represented the conflict between democracy and tyranny. In particular, the authors of this article believe that it was the duty of the United States to protect liberty and fight autocracy (“War Is a Blessing, Not a Curse” unpaged). Apart from that, the writers note that the king of Prussia Wilhelm II was a brutal enemy of the country.
His international policies could pose a threat to the national security of the United States. However, the authors do not specify how exactly Germany could threaten American interests. This is one of the main points that the make. Furthermore, the advocates of this strategy believe that in this way, the United States can eventually bring improvements to the lives of many nations.
In this case, one can speak primarily about the elimination of autocracy. Moreover, the intervention could eventually stop the war and save many lives. Finally, this strategy might help the country become a global leader. These are the main elements of the argument in favor of military intervention.
In turn, Robert LaFollette tries to explain why it was not rational to intervene in this war. In his opinion, the participation in this war could divert the attention of the government from many domestic problems which required close attention. Moreover, American politicians could not accurately estimate the maximum duration of this war.
Furthermore, LaFollette attempts to refute the arguments according to which this war was a struggle between barbarism and democracy. In particular, this author notes that some countries representing Entente could not be called democracies.
For example, England is described as “a hereditary monarchy” (LaFollette unpaged). The same thing can be said about Russia. Finally, this politician believes that the decision to intervene contradicts the will of the people.
In my opinion, the views of Robert LaFollette are more convincing. First of all, he demonstrates that the war in Europe was caused by the conflict of interests, and it was reasonable to say that this conflict was driven by some ideals such as freedom or democracy. It should be mentioned that Entente or the triple alliance of Great Britain, Russia, and France could also call the coalition of good will.
The problem is that this alliance was very unstable. Therefore, the U.S. intervention could threaten the international interests of the country in the long term. It seems that this approach is much more realistic. This is the main issue that can be identified.
This discussion indicates that the decision to enter a military conflict inevitably entails a great number of risks. Furthermore, it is not always possible to determine which side of the conflict has moral superiority. The documents that have been analyzed illustrate the complexity of the U.S. position during World War II as well as conflicting interests that had to be considered.
Works Cited
LaFollette, Robert. It has no popular support, n. d.
War Is a Blessing, Not a Curse: The Case for Why We Must Fight, n. d.