Alfred Thayer Mahan is an important historical figure in both American foreign policy and the development of American military (naval) strategy. In his significant works, The Influence of Sea Power Upon History and the subsequent The Influence of Sea Power Upon the Napoleonic Wars, Mahan posits the theory that, without a strong navy, a nation-state cannot defend its political and commercial interests. In his historical analysis, Mahan concludes that Great Powers ultimately fall due to their inability or unwillingness to either create or sustain a large navy. Moreover, a bi-coastal nation-state must have the strategic flexibility to cojoin its fleets at any given moment at any place. One can therefore conclude that the development of American foreign policy during the late 19th century was one centered on the development of the Navy, devoid of any secondary interests such as commercial or political. Lastly, the United States Navy, in foreign policy, remains the focus of the divergence of both American national interests and enunciation of the classic American ideology.
World War I is considered by many historians a significant war in terms of the American historical experience. Some historians see the American intervention in the war in April 1917 as pre-meditated, suggesting that President Wilson, along with his advisor, Colonel House, had already decided to enter the war on the Anglo-French side. The intervention was motivated by the national interest, illustrated by the war loans, the preservation of the Monroe Doctrine (1823), the purchase of the Danish Virgin Islands and the consequences of the Zimmerman Telegram. Some historical scholars, see the American intervention as an expression of Progressivism on the international plane. The removal of dictatorial regimes, the founding of the League of Nations, the right of “national minorities”, the creation of open diplomacy are examples of Wilson’s view to reform the international community. Some Marxist historians, on the other hand, see American intervention as a culmination of Wilson’s “points”, opposing Vladimir Ilyich Lenin’s revolutionary thesis which suggested that the war was an extension of capitalism, a means of making more money and the American desire to ensure that these capital markets would not be lost to an industrialized militarily empowered Germany. Such a war, of course, was fought at the expense of the people, aimed at preserving “bread and peace” for the selected some, not others allied to the Austro-German-Soviet causes, hence the meaning of the Soviet Revolution of 1917-1922. Lenin also noted that Wilson’s ideals for democracy were inimical to current events in America, such as production regulations, union/labor controls and ant-communist and political arrests against the government’s war effort. For American conservatives and disappointed “liberals”, one can conclude that “Wilsonianism” was self-contradictory, a progressivism that failed both at home and abroad and it took a world war to prove that tragic conclusion.
Just a paragraph both questions. The main question is bolded, the paragraph above is the context of it, just respond to the bolded since theyre both one question
0 comments