Talk:Nye Committee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject History (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Initial comments[edit]

The second paragraph seems at odds with the actual Nye Report. Without any accusation of npov or the like I think it would be good to:

  1. find a better source for the Nye Report
  2. find some minutes from the comittee sessions
  3. expand the article so a better "conclusion" can be drawn

PeterGrecian 15:55, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I corrected the false info that stated the Nye Committee did not find fault with the arms industry. Source for the correction: Women for Peace by Marlene Targ Brill (1997).

Citations Needed[edit]

This article should report the conclusions of others on this controversial topic and needs expanding, especially with citations.

There are two aspects to the enquiry. 1) was the arms industry corrupt 2) did the arms industry influence the American entry into the 2nd World War.

On the first www.mtholyoke.edu says 'American munitions companies investigated have at times resorted to such unusual approaches, questionable favors and commissions, and methods of "doing the needful" as to constitute, in effect, a form of bribery of foreign governmental officials or of their close friends in order to secure business'.

On the latter www.senate.gov] says "Committee members found little hard evidence of an active conspiracy among arms makers".

It would be also good to find another source for the Nye Report.PeterGrecian 13:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Questionable Objectivity[edit]

I stumbled across this article and was a little surprised that there was so little about the Nye Committee. I wrote my undergraduate history thesis on the Nye Committee, and, in the process, combed through hundreds of pages of committee testimony, dozens of era newspaper articles, and all of the (few) books and other scholarly works on the subject. Although my conclusions were indeed my own, there are a few objective problems I have with the article as it currently exists. The specific passage I find questionable:

It found that bankers had pressured Wilson to intervene in the war in order to protect their loans abroad. Also, the arms industry was at fault for price fixing and held excessive influence on American foreign policy leading up to and during World War I.

These were certainly some of the assumptions the committee (and general public) had when the investigation first began. However, the official conclusions of the committee failed to include any significant link between bankers and the war (especially as to whether the bankers had any affect on Wilson's decision to go to war). Regarding the arms industry, the committee found countless incident of "unethical behavior" (e.g., bribes, selling weapons against peace agreements, selling weapons to questionable states), to say that the committee found that "the arms industry...held excessive influence on American foreign policy" goes beyond the committee's findings and, more importantly, overlooks the nuance of the varying industries, industrialists, etc. While some certainly do interpret the committee's findings in such a way, it is essential to note that such is indeed an interpretation, and that there are sources which conclude otherwise. In other words, if you are going to make such a conclusion beyond the text of the committee's actual findings (which is linked to the article), it needs to be sourced.

I am in the process of digging up all of my old research, and I will make significant additions to the article ASAP. However, I am a WikiNovice, so please forgive my mistakes while I begin the learning process. Republicandor (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)