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

[eagle1462010]

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 they pick a fight with the U.S.?

Germany avoided hitting U.S. ships for a very long time, even as we assisted enemies of Germany, which were allied to us. They did it near the end when they were desperate and decided it didn't matter anymore. They wanted to hit the supply lines of England and that happened to be us.

They knew should we enter the War......it would change the balance in the ground War in Europe, and quite possibly cause them to lose the War. Which in fact it did. They were Losing already and knew it..............desperate people tend to try desperate measures.

 

[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?

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.

Blaming the Kaiser's "acquisitiveness" rings false when one considers that the victorious Brits stripped Germany of ALL it's overseas imperial possessions.

 

[Correll]

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 they pick a fight with the U.S.?

In the scenario of a Central Powers victory, they would have a strong ally to the South, and be larger and more powerful with the addition of lands seized from, at least the Russians, if not the French.


In the context of Imperialism, they would certainly use that military power to increase economic opportunities for their nation.

 

[Thunderbird]

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.

But think of the Russian threat! Are you familiar with the Great Game?

Britain's naval preponderance was overwhelming.

The Pity of War p. 84

 

[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

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.

Quote: The British policy was in contravention of international law on two major points.

Link: The Blockade and Attempted Starvation of Germany

Why do you feel the British had the right to stop the U.S. from selling food to Germany?

 

[cnelsen]

unfortunately... the war was cut short,

You people are something else.

 

[Correll]

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.

But think of the Russian threat! Are you familiar with the Great Game?

Britain's naval preponderance was overwhelming.

The Pity of War p. 84

WAS overwhelming. And was not likely to remain so.

 

[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.

Blaming the Kaiser's "acquisitiveness" rings false when one considers that the victorious Brits stripped Germany of ALL it's overseas imperial possessions.

Since that is what it was, it can't possibly 'ring false'. nobody owed Germany an overseas empire, just because Wilhelm II wanted to have like his British cousins. He was handed some colonies to amuse himself with, but as usual with appeasements they only worsened the situation and made the little turd even more aggressive.

 

[Picaro]

unfortunately... the war was cut short,

You people are something else.

Yes. The failure to formally occupy Germany after its defeat created a whole host of problems, including the anarchy that left the crumbled state powerless against the rise of private armies on both the left and the right, especially the gangsters Hitler put together as his private army.

 

[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?

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.?

Obviously Germany would have continued to rattle sabres everywhere, just as it was doing in Europe; they would have been a destabilizing annoyance everywhere, as long as Wilhelm II was in control of the German military and foreign policy as Emperor.

 

[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?

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.

Blaming the Kaiser's "acquisitiveness" rings false when one considers that the victorious Brits stripped Germany of ALL it's overseas imperial possessions.

Since that is what it was, it can't possibly 'ring false'. nobody owed Germany an overseas empire, just because Wilhelm II wanted to have like his British cousins. He was handed some colonies to amuse himself with, but as usual with appeasements they only worsened the situation and made the little turd even more aggressive.

My point was that his desire for imperial expansion was the norm for the time, as demonstrated by British and French and even US, imperial war gains after they won.

 

[Picaro]

My point was that his desire for imperial expansion was the norm for the time, as demonstrated by British and French and even US, imperial war gains after they won.

And he deliberately started a war over it. Like I said, nobody else was obligated to kiss his ass over it and pander to his ego.

 

[Correll]

My point was that his desire for imperial expansion was the norm for the time, as demonstrated by British and French and even US, imperial war gains after they won.

And he deliberately started a war over it. Like I said, nobody else was obligated to kiss his ass over it and pander to his ego.

The Conventional Wisdom of the time was that the way to advance your people's interest was to be a more successful imperial power.

Was it ego, or was he, from the perspective of the time, doing his job as leader of Germany?

IMO, the cause was the very idea of Imperialism, and looking for a single individual to blame is dangerously misleading.

 

[Picaro]

My point was that his desire for imperial expansion was the norm for the time, as demonstrated by British and French and even US, imperial war gains after they won.

And he deliberately started a war over it. Like I said, nobody else was obligated to kiss his ass over it and pander to his ego.

The Conventional Wisdom of the time was that the way to advance your people's interest was to be a more successful imperial power.

Was it ego, or was he, from the perspective of the time, doing his job as leader of Germany?

IMO, the cause was the very idea of Imperialism, and looking for a single individual to blame is dangerously misleading.

No, it isn't 'misleading'; Wilhelm II had sole control of the military and foreign policy as a feudal power. So was the Russian Tsar. It was their personal decisions that mattered. Wilhelm I and Bismarck had rejected an imperialist policy, and they did so on purpose; blaming fashion for it is what is dangerously misleading, and this case it was key to Hitler's rise and the false gambit that Germany was somehow 'cheated' at Versailles that contributed a major factor to WW II.

 

[Challenger]

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.

But think of the Russian threat! Are you familiar with the Great Game?

Britain's naval preponderance was overwhelming.

The Pity of War p. 84

I admit I've never read The Pity of War, but I've read other books by Furguson, who though interesting has some unorthodox and provocative views. If the write up you link to is based on what is contained in the book then there's already a huge error, "indeed, the total British fatalities in that single battle—some 420,000—exceeds the entire American fatalities for both World Wars". Is incorrect, the official casualty reports of the Somme offensive state there were 419,654 dead, wounded and missing.

As for the Great game, Britian contained any and every Russian attempt towards India and by 1907 the "Great Game" was effectively over. Russia was never a threat to Britain.

 

[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.

Quote: The British policy was in contravention of international law on two major points.

Link: The Blockade and Attempted Starvation of Germany

Why do you feel the British had the right to stop the U.S. from selling food to Germany?

Interesting article, regardless of legal niceties, however, a blockade is not a violation of neutrality. Neutral ships can be stopped and searched for contraband or sunk if they fail to stop when ordered. if correct, what you have is a British "war crime" not a violation of neutrality, which was my point.

 

[Thunderbird]

 

[Challenger]

...and your point is?

 

[Thunderbird]

John Bassett Moore, professor of international law at Columbia wrote: "what most decisively contributed to the involvement of the United States in the war was the assertion of a right to protect belligerent ships on which Americans saw fit to travel and the treatment of armed belligerent merchantmen as peaceful vessels. Both assumptions were contrary to reason and to settled law, and no other professed neutral advanced them."

America Goes to War

These ships often carried munitions.

 

[Thunderbird]

Here's Secretary of State Lansing: On the 4th of this month the German Ambassador called my attention to the fact that on two occasions German submarines were attacked and fired upon by British passenger steamers. While these may be isolated cases the fact that such vessels are attacking submarines makes it difficult to demand that a submarine shall give warning and so expose itself to the heavy guns carried by some of the British passenger vessels.

Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, The Lansing Papers, 1914–1920, Volume I - Office of the Historian