Should the U.S. have gone to war in 1917?

[Ringel05]

I've seen this type of OP before.

It always gets back around to:

DA JOOOOOOOOOS!!

That's because, it always is...the Jews.

No folks, you can't make this stupid shit up, it actually believes what it's spouting.....

 

[Thunderbird]

Yes, but long term Germany was not the undisputed hegemon. Russia served as a counterweight.

Never said Germany was, but under Kaiser Wilhelm II, German policies became expansionist and hegemonistic to the extent that her neighbours became alarmed enough to destroy Bismark's alliance system that had kept the peace in Europe since the 1870's. Kaiser Wilhem's biggest mistake was to start building blue water navy; Britain may have tolerated a Germany dominating mainland Europe, but we would never toleratwe a challenge to our naval supremacy.

Though the Soviet navy did surpass the British navy. And the Soviet air force did surpass the British air force.

Not until after 1945 when the British Empire contracted rapidly, not really relevant to 1914

When did the German navy surpass the British navy?

I'm suggesting that the British should have tolerated German pretensions because Germany balanced mighty Russia.

 

[Thunderbird]

Germany attacked our shipping, which at the end of the day that is all that was necessary. Not to respond to such attacks is to forfeit your sovereignty. Respecting U.S. neutrality never seemed to occur to the morons who insisted on dragging us into their wars. Babbling about who we sold stuff to is even more moronic; we can sell whatever we want to whoever we want, too bad if some gimps don't like that.

The British violated neutrality too!

The Blockade and Attempted Starvation of Germany

 

[Correll]

Would a Victorious Germany/Austria-Hungarians/Ottomans have been bad for American Interests or made the world a worse place?

Would a much larger German Empire be a problem for the US?

 

[Thunderbird]

I've seen this type of OP before.

It always gets back around to:

DA JOOOOOOOOOS!!

That's because, it always is...the Jews.

No folks, you can't make this stupid shit up, it actually believes what it's spouting.....

Instead of name-calling why not show us how intelligent you are by refuting posts #3 and #4.

If you can.

 

[Thunderbird]

Would a Victorious Germany/Austria-Hungarians/Ottomans have been bad for American Interests or made the world a worse place?

Would a much larger German Empire be a problem for the US?

No. A victorious Germany would have served as a counterweight to Russia.

 

[Correll]

Would a Victorious Germany/Austria-Hungarians/Ottomans have been bad for American Interests or made the world a worse place?

Would a much larger German Empire be a problem for the US?

No. A victorious Germany would have served as a counterweight to Russia.

Russia was pretty far away from US interests.


The Ottomans did the Armenian Genocide. Would them winning had been a good thing for US?

 

[Thunderbird]

Would a Victorious Germany/Austria-Hungarians/Ottomans have been bad for American Interests or made the world a worse place?

Would a much larger German Empire be a problem for the US?

No. A victorious Germany would have served as a counterweight to Russia.

Russia was pretty far away from US interests.


The Ottomans did the Armenian Genocide. Would them winning had been a good thing for US?

The Young Turks were awful, but a world dominated by the British and the Soviets was awful too.

 

[Ringel05]

I've seen this type of OP before.

It always gets back around to:

DA JOOOOOOOOOS!!

That's because, it always is...the Jews.

No folks, you can't make this stupid shit up, it actually believes what it's spouting.....

Instead of name-calling why not show us how intelligent you are by refuting posts #3 and #4.

If you can.

Three words will do it; Interpretive revisionist history.

 

[Correll]

Would a Victorious Germany/Austria-Hungarians/Ottomans have been bad for American Interests or made the world a worse place?

Would a much larger German Empire be a problem for the US?

No. A victorious Germany would have served as a counterweight to Russia.

Russia was pretty far away from US interests.


The Ottomans did the Armenian Genocide. Would them winning had been a good thing for US?

The Young Turks were awful, but a world dominated by the British and the Soviets was awful too.

How was British dominance bad for the US? (the soviets wereN'T dominating shit till after WWII.)

 

[Thunderbird]

Would a Victorious Germany/Austria-Hungarians/Ottomans have been bad for American Interests or made the world a worse place?

Would a much larger German Empire be a problem for the US?

No. A victorious Germany would have served as a counterweight to Russia.

Russia was pretty far away from US interests.


The Ottomans did the Armenian Genocide. Would them winning had been a good thing for US?

The Young Turks were awful, but a world dominated by the British and the Soviets was awful too.

How was British dominance bad for the US? (the soviets wereN'T dominating shit till after WWII.)

How would a victorious Germany have threatened the U.S.?

 

[Correll]

Would a Victorious Germany/Austria-Hungarians/Ottomans have been bad for American Interests or made the world a worse place?

Would a much larger German Empire be a problem for the US?

No. A victorious Germany would have served as a counterweight to Russia.

Russia was pretty far away from US interests.


The Ottomans did the Armenian Genocide. Would them winning had been a good thing for US?

The Young Turks were awful, but a world dominated by the British and the Soviets was awful too.

How was British dominance bad for the US? (the soviets wereN'T dominating shit till after WWII.)

How would a victorious Germany have threatened the U.S.?

Might not like the US presence in the Philippines, near it's new SE asian colonies, or it might have a problem with the Open Door China policy of the US.

 

[Picaro]

Would a Victorious Germany/Austria-Hungarians/Ottomans have been bad for American Interests or made the world a worse place?

Would a much larger German Empire be a problem for the US?

Certainly it would have; Wilhelm II was a nutjob, and winning the war would only have made him even more acquisitive. Russians have always been imperialistic as well. Both Germany and Russia were still feudal states, and WW I can be looked at as the last gasp of feudalism in Europe. Europe was stable and doing fine under Bismarck's 'balance of power' diplomacy, no war was necessary and Germany didn't need imperialist expansion just to suit the ego of one little over-privileged brat, it was also doing fine and a major modern industrial and economic power. The Ottomans were a dead culture, nothing for them to contribute to anybody, other than the role they played as a hedge against Russian imperialism. No Muslim states ever contribute anything except genocide and pedophilia havens for homosexual sex tourists like Gore Vidal and others.

 

[Challenger]

Yes, but long term Germany was not the undisputed hegemon. Russia served as a counterweight.

Never said Germany was, but under Kaiser Wilhelm II, German policies became expansionist and hegemonistic to the extent that her neighbours became alarmed enough to destroy Bismark's alliance system that had kept the peace in Europe since the 1870's. Kaiser Wilhem's biggest mistake was to start building blue water navy; Britain may have tolerated a Germany dominating mainland Europe, but we would never toleratwe a challenge to our naval supremacy.

Though the Soviet navy did surpass the British navy. And the Soviet air force did surpass the British air force.

Not until after 1945 when the British Empire contracted rapidly, not really relevant to 1914

When did the German navy surpass the British navy?

I'm suggesting that the British should have tolerated German pretensions because Germany balanced mighty Russia.

That's not the point, Germany was technologically and industrially already rivalling if not surpassing Britain, the actual numbers of ships weren't important, it was both the intent and the capability that alarmed the Admiralty. Regardless of anything else, a German threat to British naval supremacy, threatened the existance of the British Empire and such an existential threat could not be ignored or tolerated.

Russia was allied with France to keep Germany in check, more accurately the Triple Alliance of Germany Austro-Hungary and Italy in check. Britain tolerated the balance of power this created UNTIL, the Kaiser started to build a blue water navy in direct challenge to the RN. This was a monumentally stupid and short sighted thing to do as it effectively wrecked the cordial relations we had with Germany up to that time and was bound to drive Britain into an eventual alliance with France.

 

[Challenger]

Germany attacked our shipping, which at the end of the day that is all that was necessary. Not to respond to such attacks is to forfeit your sovereignty. Respecting U.S. neutrality never seemed to occur to the morons who insisted on dragging us into their wars. Babbling about who we sold stuff to is even more moronic; we can sell whatever we want to whoever we want, too bad if some gimps don't like that.

The British violated neutrality too!

The Blockade and Attempted Starvation of Germany

No we didn't. A blockade, formally declared, is a valid tactic in time of war and is not considered a violation of neutrality. Germany declared such a blockade in 1915, but withdrew it due to US protests. Re-declaring it in 1917, was considered a causus belli by the USA. The German blockade would have severely damaged US trade with Britain and France, major trading partners and both sides knew this.

 

[eagle1462010]

Germany attacked our shipping, which at the end of the day that is all that was necessary. Not to respond to such attacks is to forfeit your sovereignty. Respecting U.S. neutrality never seemed to occur to the morons who insisted on dragging us into their wars. Babbling about who we sold stuff to is even more moronic; we can sell whatever we want to whoever we want, too bad if some gimps don't like that.

The British violated neutrality too!

The Blockade and Attempted Starvation of Germany

No we didn't. A blockade, formally declared, is a valid tactic in time of war and is not considered a violation of neutrality. Germany declared such a blockade in 1915, but withdrew it due to US protests. Re-declaring it in 1917, was considered a causus belli by the USA. The German blockade would have severely damaged US trade with Britain and France, major trading partners and both sides knew this.

The Blockade and the sinking of U.S. Merchants ships along with the Zimmerman note gone public ENRAGED the U.S. and considered it an ACT OF WAR............And the rest is history.

In regards to English and German Navies.........England knew it could not allow German to challenge them on the Seas.......which was why the German Navy was virtually destroyed at the end of the War by agreement.

Showed the superiority of English Navy. Their battle tactics showed Germany that their Navy was outmatched and OUTSKILLED in Naval Warfare. Germany was beaten in their one Major attempt to break the blockade against Germany.

 

[Picaro]

No we didn't. A blockade, formally declared, is a valid tactic in time of war and is not considered a violation of neutrality. Germany declared such a blockade in 1915, but withdrew it due to US protests. Re-declaring it in 1917, was considered a causus belli by the USA. The German blockade would have severely damaged US trade with Britain and France, major trading partners and both sides knew this.

Blockading a country's ports is recognized as an act of war everywhere, regardless of whether any shots are fired or not. I can't think of a time when it wasn't. We also protested the British blockades of the Baltic ports ourselves. Germany didn't respect the neutrality of anybody on the high seas, except those ships known to be carrying goods to their own countries or neutrals trading with Germany.

The Allies never violated the Netherlands' neutrality during WW I, even though they were making a killing importing food for themselves from the rest of the world while selling Germany almost their entire agricultural production.

 

[Picaro]

David Stephenson's Cataclysm is an excellent book on the politics of WW I. Nobody should still be claiming it was an 'accidental war' in this day and age, nor should there be any more doubt about Wilhelm II being responsible for starting it. He was on the road to war the second his father died and his dismissal of Bismarck.

From a larger view It was the last gasp of feudalism in Europe, not only for Germany but the Tsarists state and several others. It was probably inevitable that it would take a particularly nasty war to end it, and unfortunately due to Wilson's incompetence and untrustworthyness as an 'ally', with his several attempts at making a unilateral peace with Germany in secret and getting caught at it repeatedly the war was cut short, and Germany propagandists were allowed to peddle the fiction they didn't lose the war, but were 'betrayed at Versailles', a fiction that left the stage clear for 'WW I, Part II', aka 'WW II'.

 

[Thunderbird]

No. A victorious Germany would have served as a counterweight to Russia.

Russia was pretty far away from US interests.


The Ottomans did the Armenian Genocide. Would them winning had been a good thing for US?

The Young Turks were awful, but a world dominated by the British and the Soviets was awful too.

How was British dominance bad for the US? (the soviets wereN'T dominating shit till after WWII.)

How would a victorious Germany have threatened the U.S.?

Might not like the US presence in the Philippines, near it's new SE asian colonies, or it might have a problem with the Open Door China policy of the US.

Germany is in the middle of Europe and surrounded by hostile nations. Why would Germany pick a fight with the U.S.?

 

[Thunderbird]

Both Germany and Russia were still feudal states

Germany was a feudal state?

pedophilia havens for homosexual sex tourists like Gore Vidal and others.

Are the rumors true about Vidal?