Now ask why we took a side.
We had far more trade (and thus other entanglements) with the UK.
A mere 5% of Germany's imports and but 7% of Germany's exports were with N. America (that would include Mexico and Canada as well)
One of the outstanding features of this war is its amazing demonstration of the economic power of England. Once Sir Walter Raleigh said that the nation which controlled the shipping of the world controlled the trade of the world and so the world itself. Sir Walter Raleigh stated the principle; the proof was in the great European War.
England at the outset of the war owned over half the merchant shipping in the world. This she withdrew from all service that might aid her enemies. She controlled the marine insurance business. The withdrawal of English companies from participation in the underwriting of risks on German-American trade was one of the obstacles to the recovery of that trade. The London discount market, through which most of international trade had been financed, was withdrawn from the service of England's enemies.
All this was a legitimate use of British economic power. For a belligerent to forbid trading with the enemy is as old as Tar itself. But England went further than this. We see uses of her power that strike us as more novel. The British naval power was used so to threaten with starvation the neutral nations of Europe that they agreed not only not to allow goods to pass through their territories in transit to Germany, but they even agreed not to supply Germany with their own products. Neutral merchants submit their books to English accountants who satisfy themselves that none of the neutral imports are resold into Germany.
Early in the war the British cut the German cable, leaving us largely dependent on British and French cables for communication with northern Europe. When Italy entered the war, our dependence was complete. No message to European neutrals is allowed to reach its destination if the British censor imagines that it refers to a transaction that may be benefiting Germany. Sweden has complained that this exercise of the censor's imagination has seriously impaired her legitimate trade with us. In August, 1915, the packers were in Washington complaining of the cable censorship. They complained that, after creating the Netherlands Oversea Trust and designating it as the sole consignee for our exports to Holland, Britain was refusing to let our cables reach even the Trust.
These cases represent unprecedented interference with the course of neutral trade. And yet Americans do not excite themselves unduly because of what Britain is doing to Denmark or Holland, even though it is our exports which are there being subjected to British supervision.
Another set of cases comes nearer. Some of them are detailed in this chapter. Rubber from the British empire was withheld from the American trade until Americans signed an agreement not to manufacture rubber goods---from any rubber whatever---for the enemies of England. So with wool. So with tin.
Because of a blockade which we do not recognize, we are cut off from imports from Germany, and we face serious industrial disturbance through the failure of the potash and dyestuffs supply.
We already have seen that the Admiralty forced our copper exporters to place in its hands the direction of our copper trade. The Liverpool Cotton Exchange now apparently blacklists all Americans who do not sign an agreement not to deal with the enemies of Britain.
It is indicated by Great Britain to the steamship lines carrying our exports that American shipments to neutral countries, if approved by British consuls, are less likely to be detained. Steamship lines refuse to take shipments until they are so approved. British consuls in American ports are engaged in accepting affidavits from American shippers that none of our exports for neutral countries will get through to Germany; though in our official protest to England we assert that for us to accede to the purpose of the ineffective British blockade would be to violate our neutral obligation to trade with both belligerents.
It is impossible to reach this point without feeling that our American sovereignty is involved.
More at:
https://net.lib.byu.edu/estu/wwi/comment/Clapp/Clapp5.htm
Same question, same answer.
There is no free trade with communist countries, they use trade warfare.
Free trade and its necessary dependencies require that communism be contained or suppressed, or that we submit to communism.
Entangling alliances created by trade ties.
More trade created entangling alliances.
More trade imperialism seeking resources cheaper than they could be obtained at home to benefit the rootless cosmopolitan international trade class and their pursuit of global government.
We interfered in Iraq's trade, that's entirely different from protectionist tariffs.
And, again, the reason we did so was because we were entangled in trade for cheap foreign oil and other trade connected entanglements.
International trade on any significant scale causes wars, it has throughout history.
And when it doesn't it causes integration and drift towards centralized tyranny and global government, like the EU.
The U.S. would be better off without the CIA's entangling alliances.
