Talk:American entry into World War I

Zimmerman telegram
This article features nothing about the Zimmerman telegram affair in 1917. This was one of the main reasons why the United States declared war on Germany and entered World War I, kind of strange that this article doesn't have even a brief description of that event. Some one should make changes, thanks.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the incident should be mentioned, although not necessarily because it was an actual "main reason" why the U.S. decided to enter the war. Historian932 (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * i added it Rjensen (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Where is Article History?
There is no article history from before this was moved from World War I, American Entry. The middle of the second paragraph of Decision for War has what looks like either gobledy-gook or vandaliasm but I cannot tell because there is no history back that far. I am missing something or should we get an admin or does no one really care we did it at this point? Chamberlian (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say it's moot at this point. There's been a whole lot of revision since. Poihths (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality in Tone?
Throughout there are statements that give the impression of bias. Particularly when referencing the Lusitania or reported atrocities in Belgium. Author's opinion seems to come through on a number of issues without specific backing from sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.151.20.108 (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The tone is decidely *not* neutral, I deleted and rewrote some of it but parts are still riduculous Germanophobic (and perhaps even worse, childishly simplistic). I will return and do some more reediting, especially in the haughty dismissal of arguments around the role of war loans to the Western Allies. The previous author mentions apocryphal stories by the British media about German atrocities in Belgium, and then uses them to explain why America found Germans' values to be "repugnant". [Btw I don't think s/he realized either that Germany had a much higher percentage of its population eligibile to vote than Great Britain, and how were Germans defined politically by the "suppression of minorities" in 1917? {Especially fighting against the British who created one of the world's largest empires ever?}]. One of the worst articles on an important historical subject I have seen in Wikipedia in years. Historian932 (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "ridiculous" "childish" "simplistic" are naughty words for a talk page, especially by some one who has not ciotes a single source for his own opinions. The goal here is to describe what various Americans felt in 1914-1917--and many different groups are covered, in each case with a footnote to a scholarly source. As for German "democracy", voters did indeed elect a civilian government but it did not make the decisions for war in 1917. And yes, by 1917 a clear majority (but not all) of Americans thought that Germany was repugnant, as all the RS attest. Rjensen (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Second Sentence in Opening Paragraph
...Is ridiculously unencyclopedic, not sourced, and not quantifiable. Jersey John (talk) 04:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You know what? Think I'll remove it. Removed. Jersey John (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Heavy hyperbole
The text reads, "The decision to try to sink every ship on the high seas was the immediate cause of American entry into the war." I believe that's a gross exaggeration; the Germans clearly intended to control the seas around Great Britain, but the idea of sinking "every ship on the high seas" is ludicrous; it envisions the Germans as intending to sink every ship on every ocean all around the world, and if taken literally, *even includes German ships.* Is there any reason that statement should not be completely re-written, or removed? Poihths (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * it's clear enough without assuming hyperbole. The u-boats were indeed ordered to sink every ship they spotted, if possible.  They were sent to specific high traffic locations in the Atlantic, and did not have the long-range capability of reaching, say, the Pacific.Rjensen (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Much better presentation of economic and commercial issues needed
I believe that both this article and its companion article (United States in World War I, American entry into World War I) are seriously deficient in discussing economic and commercial interests and the role they played in how the United States got into this war. Analyzing this history as purely a matter of moral outrage and public feeling just plain leaves too much out. I'm no expert in this area, but those who are really should devote some work to this in order to present a full picture. Trade relationships with Britain and Germany were very real and very important. Those war loans were very real and involved very important sums of money, especially in a banking system that had very few safeguards and safety nets. How a possible future German Empire including Britain, France and Spain would have behaved economically and commercially would have had huge consequences for American interests. This whole aspect needs to be explained. Perhaps extant research in this area is inadequate, but it needs to be explored. Poihths (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * historians have pretty well gone beyond that line of thinking. It played a minor role. The big banks that made loans to UK did not do so to make a profit--they risked losing all their money by so doing. There was no serious consideration by anyone in the US of "a possible future German Empire including Britain, France and Spain." Rjensen (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rjensen but would go further in the other direction and ask where is the history of the German industrialists and bankers who made huge fortunes despite being on the losing side of the war at the end?12voltlighting (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

RMS Lusitania
Shouldn't one mention that the RMS Lusitania was not only an unarmed passenger ship, but that it had indeed been delivering armament to Great Britain? From the article RMS Lusitania: "On 8 May Dr Bernhard Dernburg, a German spokesman and a former German Colonial Secretary, published a statement in which he said that because Lusitania "carried contraband of war" and also because she "was classed as an auxiliary cruiser" Germany had had a right to destroy her regardless of any passengers aboard. Dernburg further said that the warnings given by the German Embassy before her sailing plus the 18 February note declaring the existence of "war zones" relieved Germany of any responsibility for the deaths of the American citizens aboard. He referred to the ammunition and military goods declared on Lusitania's manifest and said that "vessels of that kind" could be seized and destroyed under the Hague rules.[44][45] Luisitania was indeed officially listed as an auxiliary war ship,[34] and her cargo had included an estimated 4,200,000 rounds of rifle cartridges, 1,250 empty shell cases, and 18 cases of non-explosive fuses, which was openly listed as such in her cargo manifest.[46][47] The day after the sinking, the New York Times published full details of the ship's military cargo.[48] Assistant Manager of the Cunard Line, Herman Winter, denied the charge that she carried munitions, but admitted that she was carrying small-arms ammunition, and that she had been carrying such ammunition for years.[49] The fact that Lusitania had been carrying shells and cartridges was not made known to the British public at the time.[50]" 130.83.197.173 (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It was common practice for passenger liners to carry cargo. Important items like food, medicine, and rifle bullets were needed at that time due to German hostilities.  Was the ship carrying troops? NO.  Was the ship stuffed to the gunnels with munitions?  No.  Was the ship filled to the rafters with explosives and headed on a suicide mission to blow some innocent German port to smitherines? No.  It was a typical passenger liner of the time carrying cargo and lots of innocent civilian passengers and crew.  You forgot to mention that the German Navy denied they sank the Lusitania for quite some time before finally admitting it.  The Captain of the Sub that sank her nearly lost his command and rank for disobeying orders.12voltlighting (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Dismal Article
This is one of the worst Wikipedia articles I've seen. Bloated with text, full of emotional, hyperbolic language and clear bias, and frequently disorganized. 73kb and still barely mentions the Zimmerman Telegram? Or that the Lusitania was carrying munitions in addition to passengers? The article also features walls of text with scant or no references. To be honest, I think it would't hurt to cut the article in half or even start over, drawing conservatively from the text as it exists now. Mxheil (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Amen to that. I've been chipping away at it here and there. Particularly spot-on is your comment about hyperbole and bias. I've met considerable resistance while working on this article, so any help would be appreciated. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Was just passing through hoping to read about the american presence in WWI and I came across tonnes of bias. See Navy Secretary Daniels section. What is this? Whole thing needs to simply be removed (or revamped entirely). Someone who might not see this as bias will lap this up.135.23.140.182 (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh the poor German Navy having to go about following orders murdering civilians and merchant mariners with their submarines that did not dare surface for fear of being attacked (and sunk!) by some gun-toting (Lutheran) German-hating merchant seaman, when the submarine was just surfacing in shipping lanes to say hello and maybe ask if they could borrow some tinned milk for their tea?12voltlighting (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * pretty dismal critique. Let's have the exact sentences that are "biased" (and in which way are they biased? or "emotional, hyperbolic language"  That's a hyperbolic complaint Rjensen (talk) 08:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Mistake?
"To preclude making any military threat Wilson made no minimal preparations for war and kept the army on its small peacetime basis despite increasing demands for preparedness. He did enlarge the Navy however."

When it says "made no minimal preparations for war", shouldn't one of the words -- either "no" or "minimal" -- be deleted?

(Also, I am not completely convcinced that the word "preclude" is used correctly in this sentence.) 86.128.4.167 (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * thanks for the sharp eye. I deleted "no". Wilson wanted to show the world that he did not have a weapon. Webster 3rd: " PRECLUDE implies a situation or condition or measures taken that effectively shut out all possibility of a thing's occurring or a person's doing something [example: 'provide the mechanism to assure that atomic energy is used for peaceful purposes and preclude its use in war.']  Rjensen (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making the fix. FYI: . 86.128.4.167 (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Rename "Old Stock" to "White Americans" (section 4.3 of article)
Old Stock has negative connotations and seems to violate the NPOV policy. It makes it sound as though these people are property/chattel and worthless, when they're not. Nobody is. I tried editing it today but another user switched it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by American President (talk • contribs) 02:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Old stock does not have negative implications--it means descendants of people in US in 1776 (as opposed to recent immigrants). It was prestigious to be old stock. The term was in common use in 1910s and today. cites: "the 'old stock' have great advantages in social and economic status;" [Social Forces 1933]; "migrants and their children have faced tremendous handicaps in their attempts to make their way in these fields dominated by old stock Americans" [American Political Science Review 1943]; " the Irish used electoral politics to wrestle control of city hall from old-stock Yankees" [PS 1996]; Rjensen (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Why don't you put that kind of explanation into the article? Just say it's a dated expression, common in the 1910s. Put in in quotation marks maybe... --BjKa (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * it's not an outdated expression. it's a technical term used by 21st century scholars. Here are good examples: 1)Becoming Old Stock: The Paradox of German-American Identity (2004) by Russell Kazal https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0691050155 2) 2014 book on Texas: "Growth, until the 1970s, came overwhelmingly from native natural increase, and from Old American stock, Texans or Americans whose grandparents were born within the United States."   3) 2002 book: "because the lower- class residents were limited in numbers, dependent on their wealthier seasonal neighbors, and often old-stock Americans, the summer people usually perceived the community as socially and economically ..."; 4) 2004 book: " Old-stock Americans, however, have not always celebrated immigration as a positive factor in American life"; 5) 2012 book: Novelist "James Gould Cozzens's disdain for fashionable liberal concerns and sympathetic portrayal of Old Stock Americans made him ..." Rjensen (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Title
I've been thinking that perhaps this article should be called "United States entry into World War I": Joefromrandb (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) ) It would be consistent with similar titles (United States in World War I, United States home front during World War I).
 * 2) ) Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, and using "American" for "United States" may be considered American-centric bias.
 * 3) ) There is an (admittedly small) potential for ambiguity; broadly construed, American could be considered to include numerous Central and South American belligerents.


 * The term is pretty standard and no one has objected to it here. Mexico played a role but I think Mexicans would object if Wikipedia considered them to be "American".  some major books by top publishers on wwi and wwII have used it in the title: 1) The reluctant belligerent: American entry into World War II by RA Divine - 1979 - Knopf;  Threshold of War: Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Entry into World War II by WH Heinrichs Oxford University Press- 1988; 3) Nothing Less Than War: A New History of America's Entry into World War I By Doenecke. (University Press of Kentucky, 2011;  4) likewise the top scholarly journal: American Entry into World War II: A Historiographical Appraisal" by WS Cole - Mississippi Valley Historical Review'' 1957 ;


 * No one is "objecting" to it now. I just feel that "United States" would be more precise and more in line with policy. Are you honestly saying that changing "American" to "United States" would be calling Mexicans "Americans"? Joefromrandb (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * you are the one saying " American could be considered to include numerous Central and South American belligerents."  That seems to say "American" in this article title includes Mexico. I think that's insulting to Mexicans.  Maybe the "United States of Brazil" makes the "United States" an ambiguous term when referring to countries. Rjensen (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah. You're far from stupid, and I find it astonishingly hard to fathom that you misunderstood my post to such an acute degree. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * well yes you do seem to have a hard time understanding alternative viewpoints. Rjensen (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "Alternative viewpoints", as in "I disagree with you about the best title for this article" are fine. I'm just not buying that someone with your education and literary accolades could so widely miss the mark as to what I was suggesting, particularly the bullshit about being "insulting to Mexicans". Joefromrandb (talk) 06:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I second your suggestion, per your three very valid arguments. --BjKa (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Arrival of troops in Europe
It took me quite some time to find out when exactly the first regular US soldiers arrived in France. Here's what I finally dug up: I think that is an important point that is missing from this article. Maybe someone would like to work it in somehow. --BjKa (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The first American troops, who were often called "Doughboys", landed in Europe in June 1917. However the AEF did not participate at the front until late October 1917, when the 1st Division fired the first American shell of the war toward German lines, although they participated only on a small scale. A formation of regular soldiers and the first division to arrive in France, entered the trenches near Nancy.
 * By June 1917, only 14,000 U.S. soldiers had arrived in France and the AEF had only a minor participation at the front in late October 1917, but by May 1918 over one million U.S. troops were stationed in France; though only half of it made it to the front lines.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American entry into World War I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060810061201/https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf to https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141101004800/http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/catalogs/series/pw.html to http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/catalogs/series/pw.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on American entry into World War I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130205043001/http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/WWI/parallelsToIraq.htm to http://www.is.wayne.edu/mnissani/WWI/parallelsToIraq.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212222252/http://www.ulstervirginia.com/woodrowwilson.asp to http://www.ulstervirginia.com/woodrowwilson.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000707012840/http://www.historyebook.org/ to http://www.historyebook.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20000707012840/http://www.historyebook.org/ to http://www.historyebook.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

About that revision
According to Wittke, the "leading expert on American ethnicity" whatever that means, the discrimination against German Americans during World War 1 was "one of the most difficult and humiliating experiences suffered by an ethnic group in American history" Does anybody think such a statement should be taken seriously? If Wittke was really such a credited person, isn't there anything more important he said about the topic that it can be replaced with? Dapperedavid (talk) 22:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Biased sources
The articles shows preference to sources spreading conspiracy theories about the "bankers and War" which is something popular in radical left-wing circles. It omits the widely known fact that the elites and burgeoise were against war based on the so called "moralism" and economic losses due to military conflicts (Which shows why war is unattractive to modern states). There's a lot of sources explaining the Irish Americans' influences in pacisfism and anti-war sentiments and their influences in media and elite groups. As well as many Republicans and conservatives, who were opposed to it based on their aversion to wars and conquests, that were chracteristics of aristocratic and unfree countries. There's documentaries and scholars mentioning the American opinion towards war, but the one which says that it "changed" in three years is well accepted here. The article is biased while exposing many conspiracy theories without discrediting such theories. I consider working, with more editors, on the bias and diversity of sources, as well as writing it in a non-biased style. Sawyersx (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Black Tom Explosion
Why does this article not mention the Black Tom Explosion when it was a major event? MaxwellWinnie102 (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

ww1
Throughout there are statements that give the impression of bias. Particularly when referencing the Lusitania or reported atrocities in Belgium. Author's opinion seems to come through on a number of issues without specific backing from sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.151.20.108 (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC) The tone is decidely *not* neutral, I deleted and rewrote some of it but parts are still riduculous Germanophobic (and perhaps even worse, childishly simplistic). I will return and do some more reediting, especially in the haughty dismissal of arguments around the role of war loans to the Western Allies. The previous author mentions apocryphal stories by the British media about German atrocities in Belgium, and then uses them to explain why America found Germans' values to be "repugnant". [Btw I don't think s/he realized either that Germany had a much higher percentage of its population eligibile to vote than Great Britain, and how were Germans defined politically by the "suppression of minorities" in 1917? {Especially fighting against the British who created one of the world's largest empires ever?}]. One of the worst articles on an important historical subject I have seen in Wikipedia in years. Historian932 (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

"ridiculous" "childish" "simplistic" are naughty words for a talk page, especially by some one who has not ciotes a single source for his own opinions. The goal here is to describe what various Americans felt in 1914-1917--and many different groups are covered, in each case with a footnote to a scholarly source. As for German "democracy", voters did indeed elect a civilian government but it did not make the decisions for war in 1917. And yes, by 1917 a clear majority (but not all) of Americans thought that Germany was repugnant, as all the RS attest. Rjensen (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2011 (UTC) 194.199.75.126 (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)