Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Germany foreign policy world war 2
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Germany foreign policy world war 2
Your Imperial Highness, in order to move forward to revitalize the National Security Strategy, our interests and objectives need to be reexamined within the new domestic and international context. The morale of the German people is slipping, our food supply is limited, and the economy is tanking. Additionally, the UK has intercepted the telegram from Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmerman to Mexican Ambassador Heinrich von Eckhart. It is not known how the United States will respond to this information. The interests of the Empire, physical security, economic prosperity, value preservation, and value projection, remain. However, our objectives: colonial expansion, and recognition as a world power, however, must be reexamined. The Empire does not …show more content…
Our diplomatic relationships should be enduring and not end simply because we are entrenched in war. We must communicate with the UK, France, the Balkan states, Russia, and the US. Otto Von Bismarck insisted on alliances with Russia and Austria, which we have since lost. Russia is now fighting against us and our Allies, we need to make mending this relationship a priority since Russia threatens our physical security as a large geographical nation to our East. Our other priority should be to reconcile relations with the US after the interception of the telegram urging Mexico to begin a war with the US. By appeasing US relations we can insure they do not send troops to support the UK. A US backed army can make or break the results of the war. Along with Diplomatic measure, our information and intelligence are strategic aspects that can win the war for the Empire. The intelligence on the US can aid in our preparation for battle. Our morale is sinking but increased propaganda and promotion of our values and objectives can revitalize our soldiers and citizens to support the war effort. Our purpose in the war is diminishing in the eyes of our citizens and therefore is of utmost important to
Admiral Stark’s strategic assessment and recommendations in the “Plan Dog” memorandum set the stage for Allied Coalition military strategy in Europe. He did this by presenting an operational assessment between conducting war alone or with allies. In his memorandum, he presented four courses of action for entry into the war and one reclama that predominantly supports Great Britain without entry into WWII. He also identifies different uses of national power instruments to maintain United States interest in the western hemisphere and discusses how United States strategy includes efforts to prevent the disruption of the British Empire.
American taking part in imperialism gained its motion from both economic and cultural justifications that stemmed from America's history of expansion; American imperialism only varied slightly in the first few generations of presidents as we will explore sampling from Theodore Roosevelt's presidency on into Woodrow Wilson's presidency. American's previous western expansion became the breeding grounds for American imperialistic justification. Though cultural justifications were used to keep the public interest in support of imperialism economic justifications were viewed as more important throughout the history of imperialism, even in uniting the similarities of Theodore Roosevelt's and Woodrow Wilson's imperial agendas.
In conclusion, the United States' neutrality policy in World War One gradually slipped away. With many controversies surrounding international law and Germany's inability to comply with their Sussex Pledge, the neutral position gradually disappeared. The U.S. began to see just cause for entering the war on the British side. They could only hope that this war would be "the war to end war."
After the exhausting efforts required in WWI the United States and Great Britain were war weary. This war weariness affected the political climate and manifested through extreme budget reductions in military expenditures. Military institutions of both countries continued training and sought to prepare for the Second World War. The contrast between the preparation of the navies of the United States and Great Britain represent a remarkable dichotomy of the interwar period; with the US a model of innovation and Great Britain remarkably complacent. The reasons why can be explained in how the two countries saw the threat after World War One, their assessment where the potential naval conflict would arise and what capabilities their own navy would need to be successful in the next war.
One main focus of Washington’s farewell address was to alert the citizens of the U.S. that America should not get involved in foreign relations, especially with the flare between the French and the British. He wanted America to stay neutral in foreign matters and not hold long term alliances with other nations. He stated “Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation.” He included how it is unwise for America to implicate itself with artificial ties. Washington believed that if America did conduct with foreign nations then they would influence people as well as government to act as they wanted. In other words, Washington encouraged Americans to take advantage as a new union and avoid as much political affairs with others.
The main objective of English imperialism was to spread economic influence, values and laws to different countries. The motivations of imperialism were to create merchant policy that only favors political class of the English imperialism and voters so that they can get reelected. The motivations comprised the willingness to control social class, to control foreign trade, to make money, acquire cheap labor, and dominate over America using political powers. The motivations were also based on the willingness to gain power over nations with a variety of resources (Peter, 2002). Power is authority; therefore English imperialism thought, by gaining power over different nations will make it succeed in
Imperialism is the policy of a state aiming at establishing control beyond its borders over people unwilling to except such control. Because of this unwillingness imperialist policy always involves the use of power against its victims. It has therefore often been considered morally reprehensive, and the term has been employed in international propaganda to discredit an opponent’s policy. In the Nineteenth Century America, this was conveyed as the awakening of economic and political values. Principally, the goal was to seize the market of raw materials for its cultural gains and to create dominion by appealing to a wide range of people. Even though the import business is an important source of capital and worldwide gain, it also is the main factor in separating classes of people from their moral and traditional values. For this purpose, the Anti-Imperialist was formed in 1899 to neutralize the economic and political views of the Imperialists. Even though Anti-Imperialists are against domination, American Imperialism was widely accepted because imperialists viewed expansionism and foreign trade as the solution to military empowerment, cultural superiority, and the accumulation of new markets.
Sagan believes that World War I was brought on by “the political objective and alliance commitments of the great powers” (Sagan, 1986 153). This instability between alliances that shaped the war was referred to as “chaingaining” or the pressure put on a state when it must “support allies’ adventurism or risk being left alone” (Downes, Lecture 10 February 20th). Additionally, the alliances were not stable because of the ambiguity within them, also known as the “deterrence failure” (Downes, Lecture 10 February 20th). For example, the United Kingdom was unclear about whether they would go to war and kept their “military commitment” within the Triple Entente, a secret (Downes, Lecture 10 February 20th). Both strategy and alliances influenced the stability of this
At a local and state level, first responders have a considerable amount of risks responding to an international terrorist event on US soil. Depending on the magnitude of the terrorist threat, first responders must gather information of the threat to reduce the risks associated with that terrorist event. These risks could come in many forms that could disrupt the quality-of-life within communities and our nation.
The events of 9/11 showed us the importance of national security. The attack highlighted the weakness in identifying and denying asymmetrical style attacks against the United States. Port security, along with aviation, ground transportation, customs and other realms of security have seen their share of changes after 2001. In regards to seaborne trade, more than 95 percent of the nation's imported cargo moves through America's 361 seaports each year, and the maritime industry contributes more than $1 trillion to America's annual gross domestic product (Chris, para. 16). The United States port system and that of the worlds is one of the most vital transportation nodes when talking about volume, capacity, and revenue. To strengthen this vital
The year 1898 was a landmark in the transition of the United States from a republic to an imperial power. By the early 1890s, the United States had become the world’s leading agricultural and industrial nation. The country was now able to compete militarily internationally with the other great powers (Ries and Weber 4). It had enough muscle to successfully engage in foreign expansion, otherwise known as imperialism. Many citizens had mixed feelings about the United States becoming an imperialist country. Many farmers and manufacturers were in favor of imperialism so that foreign markets can absorb their growing surpluses (Ries and Weber 4). However, others wondered why the U.S. would want to follow Europe’s powers in imperialism.
Churchill’s stated: “I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines.” He also states “Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organization will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples. This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States of America”. He expressed the need for them to come together and remain a union. In retrospect they would benefits from them. “Fraternal association requires not only the growing friendship and mutual understanding between our two vast but kindred systems of society, but
This review aims to evaluate and discuss this ‘neo-imperialist’ strategy, both from an extrinsic and intrinsic point of view. It also aims to evaluate the alternative strategies proposed by the author.
National security undeniably has a preponderant place in the political, economical and military agenda of each state. Therefore, the state has a paramount responsibility in the contexts of its own domestic and transnational security. Whatever may be the way the state adopts in order to protect itself and its citizens, it needs to be accord with an international system. In this sense the state tends to follow a specific model in terms of international relations. Focuses in the case of western societies in general, and more specifically the United States as the iconic model of the western world, states tend to favour a realist perspective in terms of national security. Albeit, what is exactly the realism theory in the national security field? According to Glaser the realist view proposes the achievement of most high standard quality of national security focused on the acquisition of superior grades of power among the relative states sparking the idea of the presence of an anarchical international system .
Terrorism will happen again regardless of how prepared the U.S. thinks it may be. This means that it is the country’s job to ensure that there is a continuation of measures that should be taken to fight against terrorism. Others believe that the U.S. is fully prepared for another terrorist attack and that enough has been done. The question at hand is, should the U.S. still be concerned about terrorism. The United States needs to be concerned about terrorism to prevent tragedies like 9/11 from happening again, to address problems with domestic terrorism, and to improve homeland security.