America should have never gotten involved in world war 1

I will now analyze the consequences that the proposition has brought up as per my plan in round two. Surprisingly enough, there were more misconceptions and misunderstandings that the proposition made than when I initially read it. There are also some factual errors that may be partially due to the fact that the proposition did not spend enough time analyzing what he was talking about, but rather than taking it out here I will anaylze his argument line by line. Rebuttal - Unrestricted submarine warfare, the 'Zimmerman telegram', the American economy and the 'Suxxex Pledge'I will tie in the responses he made in round three with the arguments he made in round two so that I can cover everything the proposition has addressed. First of all, the proposition has completely sugarcoated the fact that Germany had violated the pledge, stating that they were 'merely trying to defend itself' when they decided to resume attacks on American vessels. Perhaps to some extent we all can agree that sinking the Lusitania may have been an act of instinct to prevent supplies from reaching their enemies, but Germany had REASSURED the United States that they will not continue any more atrocious acts such as what happened with the Lusitania and they went back on their promise. This in itself severed the already shaking ties between the United States and Germany and the US was in no position to continue trusting Germany any further. A pledge is a serious promise that has to be upheld, it would have been a complete mistake for Germany to believe that the United States was going to go easy with that pledge being broken in the first place. And here is where things really got ridiculous, when the proposition stated that 'we let profit guide us' when he blames the United States continuing to trade during the period where the Suxxex pledge was enacted. It was clear the proposition took no regard to analyze the impact it had on the US economy and if he won't, I will. The United States economy benefited greatly from trade, much of their trade centered with the European powers including Britain, France and Germany before and during the period of the Great War. [A] The United States could not have completely cut off trade with a few nations and resume trading with others if it wanted to keep its neutrality during the war and it certainly could not afford to stop trade with European nations completely. It was important for the national interest of the United States which was acknowledged by President Wildrow Wilson that there were fears by American manufacterers and suppliers that a boycott would happen if it completely stopped trade during the war. Especially since they had gotten reassurance from Germany (at the time) that no more merchant vessels would be sunk, there was no reason the United States government could make to the people as to why trading would still have to be stopped. Hence, the United States cannot be put to blame for the fault Germany made and to add on to that it was essential to the US economy anyway that they had to continue trade. Hence, the proposition will have to prove to all of us as to why the United States should not have pursued their national interests in trading with Europe especially when Germany had reassured them at the time. Addressing the points he made about the Zimmerman telegram, in addition to the fact that the proposition has spread misconceptions and incomplete information around he has also become slightly ironic. He states that 'There is absolutely no reason for America to be concerned with that telegram' when I had already pointed out in the previous round that the diplomatic relationship between Germany and the United States was already bad by this point and this telegram was never going to be taken lightly. It is easy sometimes to say from the comfort of one's own computer a hundred years after the incident happened that there was nothing that the United States should have been concerned about because we know exactly what happened in the years after that telegram was sent. But when you are living those moments at the time it is not easy to reach the same conclusion, because no one had any idea exactly what would happen in the wake of the Zimmerman telegram. And the United States government was certainly not unjust when they decided that there was a great threat that should not have been ignored simply because Germany was trying to 'protect itself' as the proposition has put it. The irony also comes when he justifies that Germany had a reason to protect itself but the United States did not have the same reason to act in defence of its own interests. So saying 'America is not the only country that matters' is ironic when he advocates that Germany is the only country that is. Rebuttal - Consequences of the warThis is where the proposition has presented the greatest quantity of exaggerated statements and misconceptions. Most of what he said was bloated to make it seem that everything that happened after the war was almost entirely the fault of the Americans. I will agree that US involvement did contribute to what happened in the years after, but not to the extent and definetely not for as many things as the proposition clames they are. Lets take this step by step. 'It is here where American troops arrived and began a counter-offensive, which would eventually push Germans out of France, leading to an end to the war'This happened in actuality, but it completely ignores what 'would have' happened if the Americans never got involved and instead focuses on what actually happened. Yes, the counter offensive pushed the Germans out of France, but even by the time the Germans used the Michael Offensive (Or the Spring Offensive) as a desperate means of breaking through allied lines Germany was already exhausted. The British blockade of their port was already starving Germany past their fifth year and morale was falling in Germany as well. American involvement was only really a morale boost more than a tipping point, but that is not what I am trying to argue here. The argument is that Germany was in any case streched beyond limits after four years of war, the Offensive alone lost them 239,800 men and regardless of what would have happened their economy was already in ruins and Germany was likely going to lose the war anyway. Keep in mind that it was not only American troops that got involved, but also Canadian and Australian troops as well, there were more factors than just American involvement that lead to German defeat, hence using this as a reason why the US should not have gotten involved is slightly exaggerated. [B] [C]'The fact the the allies won, caused the harsh terms of the treaty of Versailles'This is not even relevant to the debate, because here the proposition is now arguing that despite what justified reasons the US had for joining the war such as the breaking of the Suxxex Pledge and the Zimmerman telegram, it would have all still been blamed on the US because the allies winning the war was apparently a terrible thing. You may as well have renamed this debate to 'Would the world have been better if Germany had won World War One? ' So the proposition wants to argue that the allies should never have won the war because of the 'harsh terms of the treaty of Versailles' but then makes no connection to how this links with the United States apart from the fact that their involvement led to allied victory. First of all, the United States was not the one who decided to impose harsh terms on Germany, on the contrary the US even went so far as to help fund Germany to repay the reperation payments. It was France that pushed for harsh terms on Germany because of the damage it suffered at the hands of the German forces in France during the Great War. [D] The United States was never the sole dictator in the factors that led up events such as the Second World War as the party was made up of the 'Big Three'. But among some of the more ridiculous things the proposition he has said, he further adds insult to injury by proceeding to blame every single future war on the United States getting involved in the First World War. As I explained before, the United States was not the sole factor that led up to these incidents and it is completely ridiculous to pin all the blame on one event. I myself can easily blame the assassination of Franz Ferdinand or even the War of Independence as an event that caused all the future conflicts the world faced as well. The argument that the proposition is trying to make the main contention in this debate is a hopeless hypothetical scenario that the world would have been a better place had Germany won the war that requires no evidence to back it up and runs on the whole 'What if' assumption and it completely ignores all the other important arguments such as whether or not the US had justified reasons to join the war in the first place which I have effectively proved, it makes you wonder why he even bothered addressing the causes in the first place if he was simply going to bring this argument up. That is why I will spend no more space on the proposition's accusations that the US caused World War Two, the fall of the Ottoman Empire or even the Arab-Israeli war which he hinted at. Especially since it falls under the rather ridiculous premise that all these events could have been averted if Germany won the war. Hence I conclude my response regarding the consequences of the war and my defence of the causes that led to the US getting involved and as far as I see it the proposition has a lot of things to address which I won't allow him to get away with here in the final round. Over to you. Sources -[A] - . http://www.ushistory.org...[B] - . https://www.awm.gov.au...[C] - . http://alphahistory.com...[D] - . http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...