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

[Thunderbird]

American entry into World War I - Wikipedia

Sinking of American merchant ships[edit]
In early 1917 Berlin forced the issue. Its declared decision on 31 January 1917 to target neutral shipping in a designated war-zone[91] became the immediate cause of the entry of the United States into the war.[92]Five American merchant ships went down in March. Outraged public opinion now overwhelmingly supported Wilson when he asked Congress for a declaration of war on April 2, 1917.[93]

Yes

You know anybody can edit Wikipedia.

The British violated the rights of neutrals when they imposed a blockade on the Central Powers, a blockade which starved thousands. Many Middle Americans strongly opposed sending their sons to die in that pointless mess. Many Irish and German Americans opposed involvement.

 

[whitehall]

#5 the French. WW1 was nothing but the continuation of a European squabble that was going on for the better part of a thousand years. There were little or no U.S. interest at stake and Wilson actually told Americans that he would never send their sons to fight in a foreign war. Maybe Wilson didn't send the Doughboys to fight for France. Maybe his wife sent them after his debilitating stroke which democrats (and the media) managed to hide from U.S. citizens. The harsh surrender terms dictated to Germany and the lack of any method for ensuring that the terms would be complied with led to the emergence of the Nazi party. The ironic thing is that we had to do it all over within a couple of decades under another democrat president with a disorganized foreign policy. According to the remarkable book "In the Garden of the Beasts' about the U.S. ambassador to Hitler's Germany, FDR wasn't alarmed by the Nazi regime. He continually pestered the U.S. Ambassador to deal with Germany's war debt owed to U.S.

 

[Thunderbird]

The British blockade killed hundreds of thousands of Germans.

Quote: This was what Lord Devlin frankly calls "the starvation policy" directed against the civilians of the Central Powers (particularly Germany), the plan that aimed, as Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty in 1914 and one of the framers of the scheme, admitted, to "starve the whole population — men, women, and children, old and young, wounded and sound — into submission."

Link: The Blockade and Attempted Starvation of Germany

Why should the U.S. have backed corrupt and brutal British elites?

 

[eagle1462010]

American entry into World War I - Wikipedia

Sinking of American merchant ships[edit]
In early 1917 Berlin forced the issue. Its declared decision on 31 January 1917 to target neutral shipping in a designated war-zone[91] became the immediate cause of the entry of the United States into the war.[92]Five American merchant ships went down in March. Outraged public opinion now overwhelmingly supported Wilson when he asked Congress for a declaration of war on April 2, 1917.[93]

Yes

You know anybody can edit Wikipedia.

The British violated the rights of neutrals when they imposed a blockade on the Central Powers, a blockade which starved thousands. Many Middle Americans strongly opposed sending their sons to die in that pointless mess. Many Irish and German Americans opposed involvement.

I didn't edit it. Is it wrong..............Did they sink our ships..............Millions had already died by then..........a blockade starved thousands............compared to this.

 

[whitehall]

The media writes the history books and the the democrat/liberal media justified or explained away every military adventure and every example of genocide or negligence and every mistake and insane foreign policy flubs without question during the bloody 20th century as long as democrats were in power.

 

[Thunderbird]

I didn't edit it.

I didn't say you did.

Is it wrong..............

If the U.S. had followed a policy of neutrality we could have avoided war.

Millions had already died by then..........a blockade starved thousands............compared to this.

What is your point? If the British had stayed out of the war, we would have seen a short War of 1914 instead of a civilization destroying world war.

 

[Challenger]

I didn't edit it.

I didn't say you did.

Is it wrong..............

If the U.S. had followed a policy of neutrality we could have avoided war.

Millions had already died by then..........a blockade starved thousands............compared to this.

What is your point? If the British had stayed out of the war, we would have seen a short War of 1914 instead of a civilization destroying world war.

Unfortunately that was never going to happen. British foreign policy for the previous 200+ years was the prevention of any one European power becoming hegemonic over Europe; maintaining a balance of power was critical to this policy. We could not allow Germany to defeat and humiliate France, coupled with the German voilation of Belgium's neutrality and seizing Belgium's Channel ports which was seen as an existential threat to Britain herself at the time.

It's a fascinating period from which we could learn many lessons for today.

 

[Thunderbird]

I didn't edit it.

I didn't say you did.

Is it wrong..............

If the U.S. had followed a policy of neutrality we could have avoided war.

Millions had already died by then..........a blockade starved thousands............compared to this.

What is your point? If the British had stayed out of the war, we would have seen a short War of 1914 instead of a civilization destroying world war.

Unfortunately that was never going to happen. British foreign policy for the previous 200+ years was the prevention of any one European power becoming hegemonic over Europe; maintaining a balance of power was critical to this policy. We could not allow Germany to defeat and humiliate France, coupled with the German voilation of Belgium's neutrality and seizing Belgium's Channel ports which was seen as an existential threat to Britain herself at the time.

It's a fascinating period from which we could learn many lessons for today.

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

 

[Thunderbird]

Among the plutocrats pushing for war were J.P. Morgan, Daniel Guggenheim, and the DuPonts.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[cnelsen]

I've seen this type of OP before.

It always gets back around to:

DA JOOOOOOOOOS!!

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

 

[cnelsen]

WW1 is not the only war we were conned into.

There was also WWII, Korea and Vietnam. And every time the Democrats used slaves to do the fighting.

That is why the Democrats have earned the moniker "party of slavery".

Not to mention Iraq.

 

[cnelsen]

It's a fascinating period from which we could learn many lessons for today.

But won't.

 

[Thunderbird]

The progressives love war because war leads to control from a centralized authority.

What Are We Fighting For? by John Dewey 1918

In short, the war, by throwing into relief the public aspect of every social enterprise, has discovered the amount of sabotage which habitually goes on in manipulating property rights to take a private profit out of social needs. Otherwise, the wrench needed in order to bring privately controlled industries into line with public needs would not have had to be so great.

 

[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

 

[Challenger]

It's a fascinating period from which we could learn many lessons for today.

But won't.

True.

 

[Picaro]

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.

 

[Picaro]

Considering that Americans hated Jews at that period in time is awfully telling of the rhetoric being spewed in this thread..

Yes, 'America hated Jews' so much they let millions immigrate between 1880 and 1910. There is a vast difference between 'prejudice' and 'hate', but of course acknowledging that wouldn't serve left or right wing agendas and fake news. Jews were pretty good at prejudice themselves, and many still are, so it works both ways; not many 'hapless innocents' out there in Human Land.

 

[Picaro]

How about trade and cultural ties to Britain,

The U.S. traded with Germany as well. Millions of Americans had German ancestry.

the refusal of the Germans to stop sinking neutral American ships

The Lusitania was carrying munitions!

Secret of the Lusitania: Arms find challenges Allied claims it was solely a passenger ship | Daily Mail Online

German warning:

As of yet unproven.

Doesn't matter anyway, since the Germans sunk hundreds of neutral vessels before that; it was just a 'straw that broke the camel's back', and involved civilian passengers. Germany doesn't get to decide who we trade with in the first place, a fact most of the conspiratards choose to ignore.