Woodrow Wilson: The Will To Believe By Ross Kennedy

After winning the election of 1916 barring the slogan, “We kept us out of war!” Wilson began his “peace without victory” crusade. (Zieger, 44) He failed to identify the secret treaties that were entered between the Allies during the war and Germany’s unwillingness to concede anything from a war they did not lose. When it was apparent that a “peace without victory” would be unattainable all that was left was a catalyst and the United States

First, we will look at aspects of Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency as they pertain to issues of foreign policy and diplomacy. Famous for his “cowboy demeanor” and unwavering bravado, Roosevelt was once quoted talking about his diplomatic philosophy, noting that one should “speak softly and carry a big stick”. (Morrissey) This statement came to typify what pundits referred to as his “big stick ideology”, or a foreign policy founded in political realism, that operated on the notion of “peaceful”

No man can sit down and withhold his hands from the warfare against wrong and get peace from his acquiescence .” President Woodrow Wilson could not maintain neutrality after a series of events that threatened the interests of the US. Wilson knew that he would not have the support of a diverse American public upon entering the war, so he came up with a plan. He designed the Committee on Public Information to advertise pro-war propaganda. He needed to convince the people that an involvement in the war was needed “to make the world safe for democracy .” Propaganda was heavily used to mobilize the public opinion of a united war effort, and it was also an attempt on homogenizing a pluralistic nation. The positive effects of this use were it unified a heterogeneous society, and it was able to get the Americans to invest their time and effort on the war. The negative effects of this were it caused hatred to those who were of the enemies’ ancestry, and false advertising lead to a loss of many innocent lives.

After earning his master’s degree and Ph. D from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Famous historian William Appleman Williams of Atlantic, Iowa, wrote the book, The Tragedy of American Diplomacy in response to the rampant changing things happening around him. Enraged, Williams’ addresses several points with foreign policy being the main one. He encompasses several themes throughout his book such as American capitalism, the failure of American liberalism, and the Open door notes. These themes help convey his view on the matters at hand, which for a lack of a better term was pissed. Quite frankly, Williams’ gets straight to the point without being around the bush with his extremely biased views by going into depth about America’s morbid foreign policy.

Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt were two of America’s great presidents. This is why I feel that both men were equally important in what they did and said they would do. Both in their own ways have added a little of what makes this country what it is today. Both had their own beliefs of how reform, empowerment of the people and foreign policy should be accomplished. As president, the main goal was to do what they felt best for the American people. In doing so, how different could they really be?

David Kennedy’s Over Here: The First World War and American Society gives the reader an in depth description of American history during Americas involvement in World War I. The book covers from President Wilson’s war message to Congress on April 2, 1917 to the Armistice on November 11, 1918 pointing out major dilemmas within the country, whether they are political, social, or cultural. Kennedy starts the book out with a prologue that sets the scene. After the prologue, Kennedy jumps into explaining the war and the thoughts of the American people about the war that was carried into the battlefield. During this time, Wilson had just won his re-election of 1916, which was won by promising to keep America out of the war. So it was not hard to

Wilson is very upfront with his views in his piece American Exceptionalism. He means well with his comments on how great America is compared to other countries and their ways of life, but over steps more often than not. Yes, American a great place, there is plenty of incredible opportunities, but Wilson glosses over the faults of American a bit too causally. He is quick to jump to the stats about crime that benefit American such as “by the mid- 1980s, the criminal justice policies of the two countries had switched places. America, driven by popular pressure, increased the proportion of convicted offenders sent to prison while England reduced that proportion. Crime rates fell in America and rose in England. By the early 1990s, England

Wilson’s fourteen points summarise the quest for international cooperation in achieving and maintaining peace. However, this can be questioned as the first paragraph also suggests a self-centred approach taken by Wilson. The speech suggests that the USA is the only ones with the capacity to achieve such peace, the programme of the world's peace, therefore, is our programme; and that programme, the only possible programme. It reflects a world view and hierarchy, suggesting one big American alliance rather than an idea of international cooperation. This is also further illustrated on in Wilson’s speech, his concern for the safety of the USA is key in the way he treats countries such as Russia and Germany, and his disagreement with some of the terms in the Treaty of Versailles. In point six of the speech when dealing with Russia it talks of securing the best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world. Wilson was careful in how he achieved peace, as he wanted to maintain relationships with countries within Europe, whilst keeping USA dominance ad not upsetting France and Clemenceau who wanted harsh treatment of Germany. This is illustrated in point eight of Wilson’s fourteen points.

Well-known professor of American history, William Appleman Williams, crafts The Tragedy of American Diplomacy to illustrate that there is more to history than what meets the eye – more than what most Americans have been taught. He argues that there is a tragic past when the history of American diplomacy is analyzed. Throughout crucial periods of time in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Williams explores and analyzes instances in which American diplomacy was challenged, policy was deficient, actions were hypocritical and the structure of the system proven inconsistent.

As we approach the next Presidential election the topic of American foreign policy is once again in the spotlight. In this paper, I will examine four major objectives of U.S. foreign policy that have persisted throughout the twentieth century and will discuss the effect of each on our nation’s recent history, with particular focus on key leaders who espoused each objective at various times. In addition, I will relate the effects of American foreign policy objectives, with special attention to their impact on the American middle class. Most importantly, this paper will discuss America’s involvement in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War to the anticipated fulfillment of these objectives—democracy,

The Fourteen Points was a speech that was given by Woodrow Wilson to be used as peace negotiations after World War I. Woodrow Wilson was president at the time and the speech was broadcasted all over the world. There were fourteen points given in the speech, as the name implies. This was actually pretty unsuccessful because many of the countries wanted to punish Germany more so they only kept one point, the final one. This point established a league of nations.

Woodrow Wilson’s presidency was by many accounts one of the most successful in American history. Not only did his domestic affairs and reform policies give birth to the modern age of liberalism but his foreign policies would lead the United States to victory in World War I. This would in turn contribute to the United States involvement in world affairs.

The Vietnam War is widely regarded as the lowest point in the history of U.S. foreign affairs. It mercilessly dragged an unwilling country on a fatal ride for twenty years, all while receiving low approval ratings and high funding. The Vietnam conflict served as an optimum environment for the virus of controversy. No one has more experience with controversy than Heinz Alfred Kissinger. He is the ultimate pragmatist, as embodying his philosophy of realpolitik, a diplomatic ideology based on utilitarianism rather than international ethical standards. When one’s political calling card downplays the role of ethics in diplomacy, that individual is bound to garner a high profile reputation. Kissinger himself has lamented the national predicament during this conflict—squeezed between the ultimate rock, his duty to keep peace, and hard place, his duty to act with the approval of the American people. This predicament was rooted in an omnipresent opposition to Communism, as was America’s role in the entire Cold War. Cold War politics were politics of fear. That fear drove competition, which bred a certain variety of leader – a logical, calculating politician with regard for nothing but his country’s success. To avoid an uncontrollable spread of Communism through the westernized world, some moral casualties were strewn about the wayside. However, the American public had no trouble rolling up their collective sleeves to back this forward-thinking activist. In more recent years, some

a democrat it was his aim to not get involved with them. His and his

With the status of the country’s belligerency heavily in question, an apprehensive President Woodrow Wilson prepared to request from an unmotivated and unprepared country a declaration of war against Germany. After exerting every attempt possible to retain the peace and honor of the United States, the President was finally forced to choose between the two, in which he opted for the latter (Seymour 26). As he sat down to compose his congressional address proposing war, the uncertainty of his decision overwhelmed him. He confided to a member of his cabinet, Frank Cobb, that he had never been as unsure about anything in his life as the judgment he was making for the nation (Baker 506). Through a rhetorical analysis of Wilson’s points of