How did entry into world war 1 change the role of the federal government?

Answer 1

The entry of the USA into World War I altered the impression given, up to that point, to the rest of the world, that the USA would happily see its allies put to the sword, as long as it could survive itself without problems.

Up to that time, in terms of war, the USA was known mainly for having the worst civil war of all time (with as many as 25,000 deaths on any given day). That's US citizens killing other US citizens at a rate even higher than they do today with "enlightened" gun laws.

By intervening in World War I when it was almost over, the USA established its policy, which lasted for most of the 20th century, of avoiding conflict, and letting its allies suffer horribly before they joined in when all combatant countries were sufficiently weakened to make that a "safe" policy.

Thus, when World War II began in the late 1930's, the USA once again sat on the sidelines and watched. Japan invaded China and most of South East Asia, while Germany and Italy had their way in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. After Hitler's attack on Russia failed (doomed for the same reason Napoleon's attack on Russia failed - Don't try that in winter!) and Rommel's forces (renowned as the best fighting forces in WWII) were repulsed by British, Australian, New Zealand and other Commonwealth countries at Tobruk, the USA decided that, with Germany and Italy seriously weakened by four years of war, they would join the conflict in 1941. But that decision was made only after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour.

Pearl Harbour was the attack which launched the USA into WW II. And it remains famous as a "massive" bombing raid. However, its real claim to fame is the unreadiness and ineptitude of the USA forces. The Pacific war had been going on for more than four years, and the USA had been very careful to avoid involvement. But, given this history, why was Pearl Harbour in such a vulnerable and unprotected state? All of the fighter aircraft huddled together in a single group so that the Japanese could destroy them all easily. All of the ships in harbour with virtually no defences against what was, after four years of Pacific war, surely an inevitable attack?

In any case, the attack on Pearl Harbour forced the USA into WW II. It could no longer sit on the sidelines and watch, as it had been doing for the previous four years.

But, while Pearl Harbour went into many history books as a "massive attack". it was not! Compared to most bombing raids during WW II (before and after the USA entry into the war), Pearl Harbour was a relatively minor bombing raid with a totally unexpected degree of success due mainly to American complacency.

Some time later the Japanese attacked Darwin, a small city in the north of Australia, used as a base for northern defences. Japanese bombing of Darwin was far more severe than Pearl Harbour, and Darwin's defences could not be compared to Pearl Harbour's, but the Australians were far more alert than the Americans in Pearl Harbour, and survived the attack in much better shape.

Embarrassment over the US government's role in these major disasters in the 20th century led to a massive change in the US government's approach to international conflicts.

After supporting Ho Chi Min in the latter days of WW II, taking no part in the rise of he Vietnamese against the French, and allowing Ho Chi Min to become a national hero, the USA government in the 1960s decided to oppose their previous ally and commence the "American War" (as it is known in Vietnam).

It was a horrible conflict, with the USA supporting the opponents of the groups it had previously supported. One would have thought that lessons would have been learned, but this is never the case with the US military.

So subsequent sad and sorry conflicts ensued, ending with the invasion of Iraq, allegedly looking for "weapons of mass destruction" and killing tens of thousands of Iraqis while doing so. All of this after UN appointed inspectors, who had been given access to requested sites, had reported that there WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!

Even though this was reported to the United Nations, the US President chose to ignore it, to ignore the UN resolutions, and to invade Iraq.

So thousands of lives were lost unnecessarily.

Then Iraq was "dumped" by the USA, because Russia had moved out of Afghanistan, and it was available for a new war. The USA policies which had delayed entry to most 20th century wars were now long gone, and so into the next war they went, with no sign of consideration for the local population. Of all those killed, most were civilians, old people, women and children, mown down by modern attack weapons.

George W, Bush defended himself on the ground that "regime change" was necessary in Iraq.

The rest of the world agrees - regime change was necessary, but in the USA, not elsewhere in the world.

Foreigners caught in Afghanistan were tortured in countries like Egypt and then moved to Guantanamo Bay, where that sort of treatment continued. Any American caught in warlike activities anywhere else in the world and held for more than a few days would justify an invasion and many, many deaths. A single American tortured would bring on another war, but the righteous Americans held their prisoners in Guantanamo Bay for over five years of torture without laying any charges against them. Many were released without charge, two or three were charged with minor offences and encouraged by threats to plead guilty, against the weight of evidence.

Come to think of it, the 20th century war history of the USA is not one to be proud of.