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

[Thunderbird]

Churchill authorized British ships to fly neutral flags.

He hoped to get neutral ships sunk.

 

[Thunderbird]

Wilson armed American merchant ships and provided Navy crews to man the guns. The crews were authorized to fire on German submarines.

Information for Ship Owners Concerning the Armed Guard Program, 3/13/1917

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Historians Jonathan Shneer and James Gelvin have acknowledged that the British leadership supported Zionism in order to persuade American Zionist leaders to push the U.S. into WW I. Here’s a quote from Gelvin’s The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War: “Two of Wilson's closest advisors, Louis Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter, were avid Zionists. How better to shore up an uncertain ally than by endorsing Zionist aims?” Zionist leaders like Samuel Landman admitted their role in entangling the U.S. in war: the best and perhaps the only way (which proved so to be) to induce the American President to come into the War was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilise the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis. Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists, having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret "gentleman's" agreement of 1916

ISRAEL IS OUR SHIELD

Judeophobe traitors run cover for the jihad. The dormant Islamic threat to civilization was well known by the wise in 1917. The sole reason the Jewish homeland was established was as a decoy to the next reign of terror.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

In order to have a balance of power with the British Empire, French Empire, and Russian Empire, Germany needed to annex the Germanic-speaking countries of Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Germany lost both world wars because it was too small.

 

[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.

In order to have a balance of power with the British Empire, French Empire, and Russian Empire, Germany needed to annex the Germanic-speaking countries of Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Germany lost both world wars because it was too small.

the Nazis knew their economic plan was going to be complete failure by 1936. they needed to plunder their neighbors to stay in power. As for stripping Germany of its overseas colonies, that's what happens when you start a war you can't win, and besides American foreign policy was to end European colonial rule all over the world, in favor of free trade and independent states, long before Hitler came along, and that policy continued after WW II as well.

 

[Thunderbird]

The sole reason the Jewish homeland was established was as a decoy to the next reign of terror.

Could you explain this?

 

[Thunderbird]

As for stripping Germany of its overseas colonies, that's what happens when you start a war you can't win,

It is inappropriate to blame Germany alone for starting WW I.

and besides American foreign policy was to end European colonial rule all over the world, in favor of free trade and independent states, long before Hitler came along, and that policy continued after WW II as well.

Not really.

 

[Picaro]

As for stripping Germany of its overseas colonies, that's what happens when you start a war you can't win,

It is inappropriate to blame Germany alone for starting WW I.

Yes, it is, very much so. Wilhelm II is very much the cause of WW I, and nobody else.

Not really.

Yes, really. Both the 'free market' Republicans and the wing of the Democratic Party behind FDR advocated it.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The sole reason the Jewish homeland was established was as a decoy to the next reign of terror.

Could you explain this?

ALLAHCAUST

For 1200 years, Islam had been bent on world conquest. The most recent attempt at that had been led by the Turks and ended after their defeat in World War I. It had gotten all the way to Vienna, where it peaked on SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH, 1683. Wise European leaders predicted that a new jihad would arise, and that it would be led by the Arabs. Because Europe was severely weakened by World War I and also lost its will to fight, this jihad could not be crushed unless two infidel outposts, Israel and Lebanon, were established deep in what the Arabs claimed was totally their own territory.. So the establishment of those two decoys was purely a military strategy and had nothing to do with the reasons you are told. Of course, the West could not tell the Arabs outright how little it believed that peaceful coexistence was ever possible with such a hostile and fanatic religion.

 

[Doc1]

How did the United States become entangled in World War I?

The United States was sucked into the Great War (World War I) 100 years ago in 1917. The war did not serve American interests, rather the interests of certain British and American elites. Said elites employed propaganda to trick Americans into supporting the war.

Consider the efforts of:

1) Zionists

2) War Profiteers

3) Progressives who used Wilson and then discarded him after they got their war

4) The British

The only reason Wilson was elected was because of his willingness to be a stooge of the Elites. He agreed to facilitate the implementation of the Federal Reserve and the income tax, they in turn agreed to get behind his campaign.

 

[Thunderbird]

The sole reason the Jewish homeland was established was as a decoy to the next reign of terror.

Could you explain this?

ALLAHCAUST

For 1200 years, Islam had been bent on world conquest. The most recent attempt at that had been led by the Turks and ended after their defeat in World War I. It had gotten all the way to Vienna, where it peaked on SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH, 1683. Wise European leaders predicted that a new jihad would arise, and that it would be led by the Arabs. Because Europe was severely weakened by World War I and also lost its will to fight, this jihad could not be crushed unless two infidel outposts, Israel and Lebanon, were established deep in what the Arabs claimed was totally their own territory.. So the establishment of those two decoys was purely a military strategy and had nothing to do with the reasons you are told. Of course, the West could not tell the Arabs outright how little it believed that peaceful coexistence was ever possible with such a hostile and fanatic religion.

Europe felt threatened by the Arabs back in 1919?? Don't be ridiculous.

 

[Doc1]

The sole reason the Jewish homeland was established was as a decoy to the next reign of terror.

Could you explain this?

ALLAHCAUST

For 1200 years, Islam had been bent on world conquest. The most recent attempt at that had been led by the Turks and ended after their defeat in World War I. It had gotten all the way to Vienna, where it peaked on SEPTEMBER ELEVENTH, 1683. Wise European leaders predicted that a new jihad would arise, and that it would be led by the Arabs. Because Europe was severely weakened by World War I and also lost its will to fight, this jihad could not be crushed unless two infidel outposts, Israel and Lebanon, were established deep in what the Arabs claimed was totally their own territory.. So the establishment of those two decoys was purely a military strategy and had nothing to do with the reasons you are told. Of course, the West could not tell the Arabs outright how little it believed that peaceful coexistence was ever possible with such a hostile and fanatic religion.

Europe felt threatened by the Arabs back in 1919?? Don't be ridiculous.

I'm afraid so.

"No war has had as big an impact on the modern Middle East as the First World War, which lasted from 1914-1918. The war signaled the end of the Ottoman Empire, a major world power since the fifteenth century, and the final victory of Western European imperialism. In the aftermath of the war, almost the entire Muslim world was occupied by foreign forces, something that had never happened before, not during the Crusades, the Mongol invasion, or the Spanish Reconquista. One of the most important (and most debated) aspects of WWI was the revolt of the Arabs against the Ottoman Empire. Was this revolt a manifestation of overwhelming Arab resistance to the Turkish Ottoman Empire, or just a small band of warriors who did not represent Arab sentiment at large?"

The Arab Revolt of World War One

 

[Doc1]

I love History, the problem with it though is that you have to be careful where you get it from. The first issue is that the winners always get to write it that means there are some inherent biases included. Then you have Howard Zinn and Oliver Stone revising it to fit their narratives, so you have to careful and diligent in deciding which ones to use.

 

[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.

In order to have a balance of power with the British Empire, French Empire, and Russian Empire, Germany needed to annex the Germanic-speaking countries of Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Germany lost both world wars because it was too small.

The British Empire was not based on the size of the British Islands.

Hell, neither was the French.

It was about their industry and navies. Germany was well on it's way to fixing that.

Russia? Russia lost plenty of wars when it was far, far bigger than it's enemies.

 

[Thunderbird]

Yes, it is, very much so. Wilhelm II is very much the cause of WW I, and nobody else.

"Both authors put a stake through the heart of a common narrative that has Germany mobilizing first so as to spring the preventive war its generals had long advocated. It didn’t."

‘The Sleepwalkers’ and ‘July 1914’

Yes, really. Both the 'free market' Republicans and the wing of the Democratic Party behind FDR advocated it.

Britain and France were U.S. allies. Did FDR push Churchill to take apart the British Empire?

Remember many progressives favored imperialism.

 

[Doc1]

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.

In order to have a balance of power with the British Empire, French Empire, and Russian Empire, Germany needed to annex the Germanic-speaking countries of Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Germany lost both world wars because it was too small.

The British Empire was not based on the size of the British Islands.

Hell, neither was the French.

It was about their industry and navies. Germany was well on it's way to fixing that.

Russia? Russia lost plenty of wars when it was far, far bigger than it's enemies.

Yup, it was about power and the projection there of.

 

[Thunderbird]

The Arab Revolt of World War One

So Europe was threatened by Muslims despite the fact that "almost the entire Muslim world was occupied by foreign forces, something that had never happened before".

 

[Doc1]

The Arab Revolt of World War One

So Europe was threatened by Muslims despite the fact that "almost the entire Muslim world was occupied by foreign forces, something that had never happened before".

Yup, it's pretty much the same right now and look at how effective they are.

 

[Doc1]

The ebb and flow of History is at it's core determined by the evolution and distribution of the weaponry being used at any given point in time.

 

[Thunderbird]

The Arab Revolt of World War One

So Europe was threatened by Muslims despite the fact that "almost the entire Muslim world was occupied by foreign forces, something that had never happened before".

Yup, it's pretty much the same right now and look at how effective they are.

At present Europeans are threatened by mass immigration. This was not a significant problem in 1919.