To what extent did the USA adopt a policy of neutrality between 1914 and
1917?
(25 marks)
Between 1914 and 1917, the USA was involved in many different affairs while Europe
was fighting World War One, and although claiming to have adopted the policy of
neutrality, it is very clear that their actions had a definitive bias towards the allies.
Neutrality could also be defined as being impartial or not having any kind of bias.
Although they claimed to be neutral through the Declaration of Neutrality in 1914,
Wilson’s campaign slogan, ‘He kept us out of war,’ and following the rules of
international law, events such as unrest, trade bias, and Wilson’s message to
congress attacking German-Americans it is clear that they were not neutral at all.
Ultimately, this was consolidated when they joined the war on the side of the allies in
1917, uncovering their bias that they displayed in preceding years too.
Primarily, it is clear that the Americans claimed to be neutral to avoid conflict and
hide their true biased intentions through trade and economic factors. Whilst they
verbalised that they were simply, ‘following the rules of the international law
regarding trade,’ that neutrals could sell to countries at war, their bias is blatant as
the allied borrowed over $10.5 million to help with the war efforts. This significant
amount of wealth would’ve been invested into war efforts, giving the allies a stronger
and secure side in the war with the support of the US. Further, it was calculated that
trade with the allies was ultimately worth 10x the amount of trade with the central
powers, an advantage that could significantly alter who had the upper hand in war as
the USA was somewhat of a superpower and had very significant wealth, resources
and trade links. This meant that with their mercantilist support, the allies would
thrive and have a significant advantage, which supports the idea that the states were
not neutral up until 1917. Considering this, statistics worsened as US trade with
Germany was only 1% the amount it was in 1914, significantly reducing the imports
and exports they received which would have a vast impact on the state of the
country. It resulted in Germany being weakened and at a disadvantage due to the
actions of the Americans who prohibited their resources they had access to. This
means it is plausible to argue that the US was not neutral and could not be
considered this as their biassed actions regarding trade had a huge impact on the
elevated state of the allied powers and the vast disadvantage of the central powers
during 1914-1917.
Additionally, there is further evidence to support the ideology that the Americans
were claiming to be neutral yet their actions contradicted this through Wilsons false
promises in his campaigns resulting in civil unrest throughout America. It can be
seen through his slogan ‘He kept us out of war’ that won him the deciding electoral
1917?
(25 marks)
Between 1914 and 1917, the USA was involved in many different affairs while Europe
was fighting World War One, and although claiming to have adopted the policy of
neutrality, it is very clear that their actions had a definitive bias towards the allies.
Neutrality could also be defined as being impartial or not having any kind of bias.
Although they claimed to be neutral through the Declaration of Neutrality in 1914,
Wilson’s campaign slogan, ‘He kept us out of war,’ and following the rules of
international law, events such as unrest, trade bias, and Wilson’s message to
congress attacking German-Americans it is clear that they were not neutral at all.
Ultimately, this was consolidated when they joined the war on the side of the allies in
1917, uncovering their bias that they displayed in preceding years too.
Primarily, it is clear that the Americans claimed to be neutral to avoid conflict and
hide their true biased intentions through trade and economic factors. Whilst they
verbalised that they were simply, ‘following the rules of the international law
regarding trade,’ that neutrals could sell to countries at war, their bias is blatant as
the allied borrowed over $10.5 million to help with the war efforts. This significant
amount of wealth would’ve been invested into war efforts, giving the allies a stronger
and secure side in the war with the support of the US. Further, it was calculated that
trade with the allies was ultimately worth 10x the amount of trade with the central
powers, an advantage that could significantly alter who had the upper hand in war as
the USA was somewhat of a superpower and had very significant wealth, resources
and trade links. This meant that with their mercantilist support, the allies would
thrive and have a significant advantage, which supports the idea that the states were
not neutral up until 1917. Considering this, statistics worsened as US trade with
Germany was only 1% the amount it was in 1914, significantly reducing the imports
and exports they received which would have a vast impact on the state of the
country. It resulted in Germany being weakened and at a disadvantage due to the
actions of the Americans who prohibited their resources they had access to. This
means it is plausible to argue that the US was not neutral and could not be
considered this as their biassed actions regarding trade had a huge impact on the
elevated state of the allied powers and the vast disadvantage of the central powers
during 1914-1917.
Additionally, there is further evidence to support the ideology that the Americans
were claiming to be neutral yet their actions contradicted this through Wilsons false
promises in his campaigns resulting in civil unrest throughout America. It can be
seen through his slogan ‘He kept us out of war’ that won him the deciding electoral
