Skip to main content

In A People's History of the United States, why does Howard Zinn feel that Wilson made a flimsy argument for entering World War I?


"War is the health of the state," the radical writer Randolph Bourne said, in the midst of the First World War. Indeed, as the nations of Europe went to war in 1914, the governments flourished, patriotism bloomed, class struggle was stilled, and young men died in frightful numbers on the battlefields-often for a hundred yards of land, a line of trenches. --Chapter 14, Page 350, A People's History of the United States



Howard Zinn outlines his arguments for why World War I was fought in the opening paragraph of Chapter 14 (referenced above). The nationalism that was created by the Great War benefited the elite political and financial leadership of the various countries involved. Socialism, which was gaining momentum in Europe, as was class struggle, took a backseat to mobilizing for war. Zinn believes that World War I was fought for the gain of the industrial capitalists of Europe in a competition for capital and resources. He states that humanity itself was punished by the sheer death and destruction of the war for no benefit.


The United States, behind Woodrow Wilson as president, had pledged neutrality. Wilson would change his stance as the war raged on. The US economy was hitting a low point when the war started. By supplying Great Britain and France with munitions, the American economy was gaining momentum. Germany, for its part, did not want her enemies being supplied with materials for war and started to torpedo American ships. Wilson used these attacks on American ships as a justification for warfare. He made the following statement:



"I cannot consent to any abridgment of the rights of American citizens in any respect. . . ." Page 361, A People's History of the United States



This statement, of course, does not make sense. The reason that it does not make sense is because the British were infringing on the rights of American merchants throughout the war. The fact that the United States benefited economically through trade with Britain would preclude the possibility of war with the Allied Powers.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.