us history: american entry into wwi and wwii?
824868
I am not going to answer that question for you because that seems like a homework question - but as I normally do I will give you websites so that you can read find out the answers for yourself (I am sure that is what your teacher would want you to do - answer this question yourself - plus you wont learn the answer well if I just tell you it).\n\nFor WWI go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war_one#Causes\n\nFor WWII go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_Two#Causes\n\nNeutrality Acts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_Acts\n\nGood Luck!!!
1049167
Can't say for Germany, as I have never looked into it, but I would assume that they have similar standards as the US does.  US requires legal entry into the US, a bona fide address and a permanent US address for a non citizen to join the military.  Military service can help to expedite someones citizenship, but does not guarantee it.
161369
http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/web03/atlases/great%20war/great%20war%20%20pages/great%20war%20map%2001.htm\n\ngreat map\n\nand here is just europe:\nhttp://www.flholocaustmuseum.org/history_wing/assets/room1/WW1_Map_1914.jpg
348159
You've got a ton of stuff happening during the first half of the century.  Everything involving both world wars, the first flight, the Bolshevik Revolution, the San Fransisco Earthquake, the stock market crash, the depression on both sides of the Atlantic, lots of stuff.\n\nWhat are you interested in?  It helps a lot if the subject is interesting to you.  Do you want something military, cultural, political, technological, scientific?
128087
US President Woodrow Wilson and his administration were determined not to define the U.S. as an ally. But United States declared war on Germany on the grounds of German violations of American neutrality by attacking many international carriers, and was not at war with the Ottoman Empire at all. Therefore, the U.S. entered the war as an "associated power", rather than a formal ally of France and Britain, and maintained that distance through the war and the Paris Peace Conference, 1919.
771205
World War I/Great Depression
753964
In 1823, in his his 7th annual State of the Union Address, President John Monroe stated that the U.S. no longer recognized the right of any European Power to colonize in the Americas.  He further stated that the U.S. would remain neutral in any conflict between European Powers, or between a European Power and it's colonies, unless the latter was in the Americas, in which case the U.S. would consider the war an attack on itself.  We started ignoring that one in WW1 and have never looked back, the Falklands Conflict between Britain and Argentina was a clear violation, we didn't bat an eye.  Given the technology available even as far back as WW2, that kind of isolationism simply isn't an option any more.  Be nice if it was, I agree, but it ain't.
281877
Wow, just ignore the previous post. Someone has their wars mixed up.\n\nThe United States was neutral during WWI because they felt that this was a European conflict, and none of their business. What drew us into the war was a German U-boat attack on a US ship.
302131
US tried to stay neutral for a while.  The US didn't like the unrestricted sub warfare, so after attacks on American merchant ships, Wilson declared war on Germany.
292076
That's eaasy and absolutely evident:\nthesis: post-WWI-growth\nantithesis: Great depression\nsinthesis: Roosevelt's politics \ngood luck!
568989
WWI began in 1914.  Germany is regarded as the primary agressor, but nationalist sentiments played a big role in all European countries, and there was great enthusiasm for the war on all sides.  Germany was allied with Austria-Hungary and Turkey (then known as the Ottoman Empire) against Britain, France, Russia, Italy, and later the United States (Japan also made small contributions on the allied side in order to seize German overseas posessions).  The U.S. entered in 1917, after Germany adopted a policy of unresctricted submarine warfare which was striking at U.S. shipping interests (including the supply of munitions to Britain) and inflicting civilian casualties.  The war ended on November 11th 1918. The uneasy peace which followed set the stage for all the major 20th century problems, from WWII, to the rise of communism, to the Balkan Wars, to the current tensions in the middle east. Bummer.
688641
WWI started in 1914 with the assisination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Serbia, US military involment started in 1917\nWWII (I assume that what you mean) started in 1939 with Germany invading Poland, US commits troops in 1941, after the bombing of Pearl Harbor
849243
Agree or disagree with the American contributions in the first and second world wars, one thing is certain. The Us is not capable of engaging in a conflict to support its own interest and sustaining the resolve required to win. We have surrendered to liberal heresy and are doomed to suffer the fate of a weak and conviction-less nation.
1164170
Someone in a forum wrote that it first came about in the US in a novel in 1921, and was also related to fighter jets in WWI. I don't know how valid this is, but feel free to check it out at the link below.
251139
An extract from President Wilson’s speech to Congress requesting US entry into WW1:\n\n…Peace cannot be had without concession and sacrifice. There can be no sense of safety and equality among the nations if great preponderating armaments are henceforth to continue here and there to be built up and maintained…\n\nAnd in holding out the expectation that the people and government of the United States will join the other civilized nations of the world in guaranteeing the permanence of peace upon such terms as I have named I speak with the greater boldness and confidence because it is clear to every man who can think that there is in this promise no breach in either our traditions or our policy as a nation, but a fulfillment, rather, of all that we have professed or striven for.\n\nThe world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty. We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make. We are but one of the champions of the rights of mankind. We shall be satisfied when those rights have been made as secure as the faith and the freedom of nations can make them. \n\n\nThe entire text of the speech can be found at: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ww18.htm
165876
There are speculation to the fact. But that is all they are; speculations. There is no hard proof to support it. The closest would be the Zimmerman Telegram from 1917. It was sent to the Mexican government and, if the US entered the war, ask if Mexico would join Germany and pursuade Japan to attack the US. In return, Mexico would get back Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico.
618764
Actually, some of your assertions are just incorrect, specifically the idea that the combatants in Europe were ready to give up and have a victor-less peace. I have read in at least two different places that, had the USA not brought in fresh troops, the Western Allies were willing to last until at least 1921 before another major offensive.\n\nThe impetus that brought the USA into the war, the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare, was ordered by Field Marshall Hindenburg over the objection of both the Kaiser and the Reichstag. This was not a 'few petty ships' but had serious loss of life and was a direct challenge to the concept of both the rules of war on the sea and the rights of neutral nations (this is applicable even today, note the United States re-flagging of Kuwaiti tankers).\n\nIf Germany was ready for a victor-less peace as you suggest, they were in a perfect position to lead by example at Brest-Litovsk. Instead, Germany had set up a system of puppet governments along Russia's western frontier with the intention of the war lasting many years longer. The terms at Brest Litovsk were far more harsh than the terms at Versailles, regardless of what anyone claims, and if the Germans had spent less money and energy on cheating (yes, cheating before Hitler came to power!), Germany could have met its obligations with much fewer repercussions. The entry of the United States did not make German defeat a certainty because the amount of troops the United States would put into the field (2 million) would not replace the amount of soldiers withdrawn from the war with the surrender of Soviet Russia and the crushing of Rumania and Serbia. Ludendorf had ordered the 1918 offensive out of panic, and had directed it just as badly. If, instead, he had rescinded the order for War Socialism and allowed German industry to make windfall profits off of the war again as they had before 1916, Germany would have been fine.\n\nIn 1914, Russia had not yet declared war on anyone, but had instead issued an order for a partial mobilization supporting Serbia which freaked everyone out. When Nicholas refused to back down, that was when Germany declared war on Russia, not the other way around.\n\nHowever, three German judges in 1923 could have averted World War II, and they had all the evidence they needed to do it. Hitler had repeatedly said that the Weimar Republic had to be destroyed, and he took action in his Putsch. The first charge leveled against Hitler in the aftermath was treason, which as an Austrian national would have required Hitler to be deported immediately. By his words and by his actions, he was most certainly guilty, but one of the three judges was an admirer of Hitler's.