Posted on 04/23/2011 8:53:56 PM PDT by freepguy
I'm trying to get the facts that show why the USA got into WW1. As I can tell, Wilson was president. The US was neutral...did not want to get involved. Britian and the Allied Powers were losing the war against the Central Powers. The Balfour Declaration promised a Jewish state in Palestine. The Lusitana was armed and ordered to attack German U-boats. Propaganda was created to convince American populace that Germany needed to be conqered.
Can anyone help me get more info on the subject?
Thanks. FG
The Kaiser was the figure-head. The German High Command ruled Germany in WWI. I can give you a list of which German generals were the dictators during that war if you want.
Like all UK liners of the time, the Lusitaina was built for rapid conversion to Armed Mechant Cruiser. Had mounts for 12 6” guns.
There is some reporting that the Titanic did not slow down for ice warnings because its maiden voyage was also its engineering shakedown trials for RN service and the RN observers wanted to get the speed-trials done...
European powers had been killing each other quite well for centuries with no help from us and by our throwing our weight on the side of the Brits, we upset the balance of power and set the stage for an unjust peace, Adolph Hitler and a Second World War.It was definitely a strategic blunder to enter that war. Also never talked about is the huge number of American casualties in the short time we were in that war.
Also, people do not realize how small the active US Army was at that time. If Mexico had moved fast enough, they could have been victorious in the early phases...
Everything said about keeping us out of the war was a lie to get reelected in 1916. Everything said in justification of entering the war was a lie also. It is true that the Germans sank the Lusitania. But where is it written that American citizens are somehow entitled to travel through a declared war zone on a vessel belonging to one of the belligerents carrying war supplies and publicly ordered to ram enemy submarines demanding surrender? As for the Zimmerman note, it is simply ridiculous to imagine that the Mexican government would have acted on it. Someone in the German foreign office was having delusions. And anyway if the US government had really believed there was a conspiracy for Mexico to invade and recapture the western United States then it isn't clear how fighting Germans in France was going to stop them. Shouldn't we have invaded Mexico?Good points.
It is hard to believe that America would have benefited in ANY way from a German victory.If America had stayed out of the war there wouldn't have been a German victory. There would have been a stalemate and a negotiated settlement that didn't include a destructive "peace" leading to the rise of Hitler.
Not quite correct.
The ceeded territory was turned into countries or given to other countries, the USSR reconqured the Caucases [ceeded from Ottomans], Ukraine and Belorus in the 1920s and tried for Poland [peacetreaty there in 1925].
The Baltics [independent] and Moldova [Romania] were not recovered by the USSR until 1940/1945.
True enough.
Lenin claimed once to never have read the treaty before signing it.
He always intended to regain those territories and the rest of Europe as well.
But a strong Germany could have prevented that - but, Germany could have also fallen to the communists and moved that fight even further west earlier...
Note entirely correct.
Lusitaina was configured with mounts for 12 6” guns.
U-Boats of the time were surface vessels with the limited ability to submerge. Most merchant sinkings were by the deck-gun as it was more dependable than the torps of the time...
Don’t worry. John Belushi said
So too! In “1941”
And Belorus, Ukraine, plus parts of Czechoslovakia and Romania. And from the territories of the Ottomans: Trans-Caucases Republic [Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan].
(PS...Did u know John Kerry was a hero in that war too??)Yes. It's a little-known fact that Kerry is to humble to publicize:
He spent Christmas of '17 in Cambodia.
Chris-Craft it ain’t!
Not so true, the new German Stormtrooper tactics and the 1 million men freed up from the east probably would have broke the French without the new US troops arriving.
1918 is sometimes described as a race between the redeploying german forces and the arriving US forces...
[Note: The Stormtrooper inflitration tactics combined with armor and air are the origins of the WWII Blitzkrieg tactics.]
I did my thesis on this subject.I have a question on a related subject and since you've obviously done a bit of reading on these things I'll ask you:
I've often heard it stated that Hitler blamed Germany's defeat in WWI on the German Jews, that they "stabbed Germany in the back". Obviously Hitler was a demented lunatic, but what was he referring to? Did he claim that there were Jews in the German government/military who got Germany into a two-front war? (Just curious.)
The Soviet Union was born because the Germans wanted Russia out of the war.
They shipped Lenin into Russia to cause a revolt in exchange for Russia leaving the war.
The ripples of WW1 are still be felt to this day.
Wilson and the USA was making a lot of cash arming the Brits and the French. Maybe this was Wilsons way of saying”thank you”?
So you’re saying Germany could have taken France. Even if you’re right, that wouldn’t have brought them anywhere near taking England. Hitler didn’t even try that decades later with a brand new non-exhausted military.
So it still would have meant stalemate, don’t you think?
John Quincy Adams, too:
... But she [the United States of America] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
Regards,
Yes, in the year 2011, it is easy to see...
But what foreseeable benefits would a U.S. engagement have had in 1918? I mean: Apart from the fact that the Wilson Administration, in keeping with its hidden agenda, provoked/engineered and/or instigated the overt casus belli?
Regards,
No. England would have negotiated - they were exhaused. And with France in German control, the blockade would have been broken. The UK government of the time was not Churchilian and the UK empire was not truely threatened...
The US AEF was the only reason that the Germans failed in 1918. Keep in mind that European Divisions had been reduced to 10,000 men each due to manpower shortages by then. The fresh US divisions had 25,000 men each.
Of note: The mistake the Germans made in 1914 was the Plan they followed. They would have been better off staying defensive against France and concentrating on Russia. That would have kept UK out of the war since Belgium neutrality would not have been violated and Germany would not have attacked France.
The UK treaty with France was defensive - if France attacked Germany - no treaty. The UK’s official reason for declaring war on Germany was the violation of Belgium neutrality - the UK was one of the signatories to that neutrality treaty.
Thus there would have been no blockade and Russia would have fallen. France would have wasted troops charging into MGs and probably given up with the fall of Russia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.