He is also arguing that the American public is, actually, losing the war. They are living in a time of relative peace, as he describes, which allows for only a fractured and idolized understanding of what war truly meant. Moreover, the American public is “losing the war,” and its realistic legacy over time, while the world never truly won the war to begin with. Sandlin’s argument unfolds in such a way that addresses both connotations of his title. He pragmatically outlines the psychological limitations of modern Americans, while contrasting them with the widespread trauma of a global
Is the Treaty of Versailles to blame for World War Two? Yes, the treaty of Versailles did cause World War Two as it caused Germany to lose land, made Germany pay reparations, had Garmany take the blame for the war, and restricted Germany’s army. The first way the Treaty of Versailles caused World War Two is that Germany lost land. As shown in Doc A, Germany lost Alsace and Lorraine, and with the lost land Germany also lost forty percent
English commanders underestimated the size of the American continent and the lack of infrastructure. In other words, they had poorly map skills. They also underestimated the colonists; they did not have a logical war aim. In addition, supplying the British army was much more difficult task because they had to import the food from Britain and the British had never succeeded in blockading the American ports. Moreover, Britain suffered from national debts throughout the war.
This caused the country to begin to go into a terrible state. Roosevelt also decided to enforce the New Deal Act, but this only caused the country to go into more debt. The New Deal also only helped about fourteen percent of the people in America and was ultimately not worth the debt it put America into. Roosevelt put America into a fragile state that was beginning to fall apart due to his ignorance to the laws and presidential rules. In the end, Roosevelt consolidated much too much power.
Several factors prompted this decline such as: several economic problems, the rise of other trade routes, the European hunger for expansion, and weakness in the Ottoman government Furthermore, the Ottoman Empire was both politically and militarily strong, yet, it was too traditional and could not keep up with worldwide changes and modernity through time. Europe and the West were rapidly moving forward innovatively while the Ottomans stayed in their place for too long. All these problems led to the empire being less centralized in Europe. Simply, the Great Powers of Europe took advantage of this situation and allied to completely end the rule of Ottomans. To further affect the empire, European powers chose an Ottoman strength and turned it into a weak point.
Americans initially favored neutrality, but events like the sinking of the Lusitania and the Zimmermann telegram provoked the U.S. to join the war in support of the Allies (Shi and Tindall 754-757). Less obvious factors, such as nationalism, imperialism, and business opportunity, also contributed to the war. The war ended in 1918 after immense bloodshed, but President Wilson failed to get the Treaty of Versailles ratified by the Senate (Shi and Tindall 773). As a result of the war, Europe was significantly weakened, harsh punishments were imposed on Germany that later led to WWII, and America emerged with a strong economy as a dominant world power (Shi and Tindall
Document 2 shows the state the empire became too large, it was hard to control, as well as the introduction of Christianity. The expansion was a factor because it became very expensive to maintain which made the empire split it up into an eastern and western empire, that caused the west empire to weaken and strengthened the east empire. This made the government raise taxes, in an attempt to regulate the economy, but then citizen started purchasing fewer goods. In all this made people lose jobs and get laid off. Christianity was a factor because it replace the roman polyesthic religion that viewed the emperor as the god.
Another advantage for the British was the ineffectiveness of the American’s defense strategy, which had many weaknesses. The American’s defense was made of three lines that were widely separated, so they could not give each other support, and were easily susceptible to being outmaneuvered by the British (83). All these strategies, advantages, and disadvantages are just some of the reasons why the British were successful in their attack. As a result, the British were able to burn the Capitol, the White House, the Library of Congress, the War Office, and the Navy Yard in their attack. However, after the British were victorious the British made efforts to be respectful with their treatment of the locals.
General Clinton’s inaction after General Washington’s force departure guaranteed the historical unfolding of the Siege of Yorktown. The largest contributor to this British disaster lay in the lacking of an analytical apparatus, which could have effectively processed and utilized British intelligence. General Clinton chose to focus more on salvation in the form of reinforcements from Britain than on the immediate steps he could implement in his intelligence war fighting function to cement victory. This overreliance on an ineffective logistical support chain, combined with poor strategy, toxic leadership, and indecisiveness, resulted in an overly defensive positon. This ineptitude set the stage for the loss of British populace support, costing him the war of attrition.
Consequently, the goods exported from U.S. reduced because of that hindrance. The naval strength of England was significant because it prevented other countries from supplying to the colonies. The result was that the smuggled, as well as the inexpensive imports, became costly and