Student Question

Do you agree the U.S. had a moral obligation to intervene in World War I for democracy?

Quick answer:

The U.S. entry into World War I is debated regarding its moral obligation to promote democracy. Some argue the intervention was driven by economic interests and historical ties rather than a moral duty. President Wilson framed the war in idealistic terms, aiming to create a democratic world order. However, critics note the Allies' own undemocratic practices and colonialism, suggesting the U.S. lacked a genuine moral obligation to intervene for democracy.

Expert Answers

An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

Personally, I do not believe that the United States did have any such obligation.  Furthermore, I do not believe that the US intervened in the war for moral or humanitarian reasons.

In my view, the United States entered the war more for economic reasons than for moral or humanitarian reasons.  Even before the war, the US did much more business with the Allies than with the Central Powers.  After the war began and Britain (illegally) blockaded Germany, this disparity in trade became even greater.  The US actually had an economic stake in helping the Allies win the war.  I would argue that this economic stake (along with things like political and historical ties) made the US enter the war.

In addition, it is hard to believe that the US actually entered the war to make the world safe for democracy.  This was not a war that was based on political...

Unlock
This Answer Now

Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.

Get 48 Hours Free Access

ideology.  The French and English were democratic, it is true.  However, the Russians were on the Allied side and were one of the least democratic countries in Europe until the Tsar was overthrown in 1917. In fact, Russia was probably more of an autocratic state than Germany before the Tsar left power. The Italians also had a monarchy, though their king was not as powerful as the Russian tsar.  In short, this was not a Cold War style struggle between democracy and autocracy.

Even if we assume that the US did enter the war to fight for democracy, I still do not think that we had an obligation to do so.  The US does not have infinite resources.  It is also not capable (as we have seen to our sorrow) of fixing the world’s problems.  We have no obligation to spend lives and wealth in a vain attempt to make the world a better place.  It may be that we have an obligation to intervene when we see a clear case of moral or humanitarian outrage that it is within our power to solve.  However, WWI was not such a situation.  I would argue that we had no obligation to enter that war.

References

Approved by eNotes Editorial
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

Did the U.S. have a moral obligation to enter WWI to "make the world safe for democracy"?

President Wilson, as was his wont, presented the case for war in stridently moralistic terms. For better or worse, he had a clear vision for how he wanted the world to look: a world of independent nation-states bonded together by the solvent of democracy. In that sense, it was absolutely necessary for the United States to get involved in World War I. Only America had the wealth, power, and diplomatic influence necessary to build the kind of world Wilson envisaged.

Foreign policy often veers wildly between self-interest and high ideals, and this was one moment in history in which the latter prevailed. Of course, it would be naive to pretend that self-interest wasn't a factor in America's entry into the war; business interests were especially concerned at the damage that German submarine warfare was doing to American trade. But there can be no doubting the sincerity of Wilson's moral convictions or the tenacity with which he held them. The United States' entry into World War One may not have been sufficient to make the world safe for democracy, but in my opinion it was a necessary first step.

Approved by eNotes Editorial
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

Woodrow Wilson outlined our reasons for going to war in very idealistic terms. He basically said it was our moral and humanitarian responsibility to make the world safer for democratic governments and to make this the last war ever. These are very difficult goals to achieve and therefore quite risky to suggest.

War is a very complicated event. There are so many different factors that motivate a country to do things that may lead to war. There are so many variables beyond our control. This makes it very hard to accomplish moral and humanitarian objectives. We can’t control what other countries want to do, either internally or externally. We can’t control whom they choose as their leader. We can’t control how they set up their government. We can’t control the actions they decide to take. Thus, setting lofty goals based on our beliefs and values may be very difficult to achieve. It is hard to impose a moral and humanitarian belief system on others, especially if they don’t share our goals and values. Thus, it was very risky for President Wilson to portray our goals for World War I in moral and humanitarian terms.

Approved by eNotes Editorial
An illustration of the letter 'A' in a speech bubbles

Did the U.S. have a moral duty to join WWI to "make the world safe for democracy"?

In April 1917, Wilson asked Congress to declare war on the German empire in order to "make the world safe for democracy."  While democracies tend to be the most peaceful form of government, as people are not likely to risk their lives in war unless absolutely necessary, America did not have a moral and humanitarian reason to "make the world safe for democracy."  In April 1917, America joined the Entente side in the war as an "associated power," not an ally.  This meant that Wilson still tried to maintain the moral high ground that America was not in this war for any type of gain.  However, it is a farce to think that America was defending democracy in this war.  Britain, France, and Belgium all had extensive colonial holdings in Africa--these colonies were ruled brutally by Europeans.  Russia was still in the war in 1917 on the Entente side--Russia was an autocracy with the power of the state fully vested in Czar Nicholas II and his Romanov family.  America joined the war to protest German unrestricted submarine warfare and Germany's Zimmerman note, but America did not go to war to make the world safe for democracy.  America does not have a moral obligation to promote democracy all over the world--it is nearly impossible to force a democracy on a group of people who are not prepared to institute it.  Given what happened at the Versailles Treaty, the world was even less safe for democracy than when America entered the war in 1917.  

Approved by eNotes Editorial