What got the USA into WW1? ZOT needed.

myself | various | varios

[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

[kulthur]

Germany had the most to gain from fighting the British and French; what could France and Britain and gained from a land war in Europe, since the colonies were increasingly the field of economic competition? Germany had pursued colonial possessions for decades but had failed to capture much that was useful. Germany, as it constantly complained, was “land locked,” and “encircled.” It had “no choice” but to “attack first.” This is well-established German rhetoric. And it’s just the first example in a long line of such complaints - Hitler’s Sudeten Germans, the unreasonableness of the Poles, the Soviets’ insistence that the “bourgois imperialists” were “endangering the revolution,” and so on, down to the Islamists’ ridiculous claims today. The Germans, in fact, complained that its 80 millions were forced to live inside German borders, when it was clearly going to be much larger than France (so it said) and deserved something like “lebensraum,” particularly in Polish-Ukrainian territory.

The Kaiser’s courting of the Ottomans, particularly via the Berlin-Baghdad railway, as well as training the Turks’ modern army, began decades before World War 1 began. For an account of the Kaiser’s ostentatious visit to Ottoman Palestine, see the book Jerusalm 1913 - he sought to become the protector of the Muslims and made gestures about jihad to them (even as he made promises to the Jews there and in Germany).

It is also well-known that Britain had only a very small expeditionary force; it had nothing like the mammoth land army of the Kaiser or the strategic reserves of the Tsar. France did have a rather large army, but it was distracted by political crisis after political crisis. It was in no mood to simply attack Germany, which by then had clearly surpassed it in terms of economic and man power.

The Belgian atrocities of the Germans were the first propaganda opportunity for Britain and France, aside from the invasion of neutral Belgium itself. They burned down some library or other and were appalled that Belgians would resist, so they adopted terror tactics in limited cases. These of course were played up for all their worth by France and Britain.

I think this game of “who benefits?” is dangerous and not really that helpful. This also leads people to conclusions about “international banking” that make them sound like Lenin in his inaugural address upon the creation of the Comintern, among others.

Russia was teetering on the verge of ungovernability since 1905, a decade prior to the war, and was busy in its great game.

So in fact, according to the correlation of forces, Germany was pretty much the only power that had a real interest in starting a land war in Europe that it believed it could win.

[Aliska]

t's true. Columbus landed on the shores of the Scioto River. He left his boat here, too:

We had a replica of one of them dock here. I think it was the Pinto Bean one. Talked to the guys who built it and gave them a book with some information they didn't know about, can't remember now. My memory isn't so good.

Don’t worry. John Belushi said So too! In “1941”

That was a great movie. The year I was born. 3 months before Pearl Harbor.

The question was about WW I, not WW II, LOL.

I know that and will never live it down. I do get thrown off when I'm researching the I and II, but I think it was the Lusitania that threw me off. I have gaps in my historical knowledge, of course I'd heard of that ship, but never read much about it. Will it make up for it if I read the wrong book by Barbara Tuchman, Distant Mirror? I guess the bottom line is that i got my fill of reading about the concentration camps in WWII and never cared to read much about wars. See, I'm making excuses for myself.

No the Spanish American War started in Maine (ahem). Can we all pitch in and get you a nice American History book?

Kind of you to offer but I don't read books any more, too hard to concentrate. I read tons of them in the past. Have many nice ones sitting here I'll never get to.

Santa and Ana (the Clawsbys) and the Pinto Beano were the ships that brought Columbus to Ohio. The Alamo car rental came later.

LOL. You got me on that one, can't think of anything catchy to throw back at you.

You people can continue to have fun at my expense; I don't mind. Everybody needs a little levity these dreary days with all the bad news out there.

[Moltke]

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.)

It has always been my understanding that the Dolchstoßlegende was put forward by the German High Command against the Social Democrat party after 1918 to blame the loss of WW I on the overthrowing of the monarchy by "republican" forces "back home" (the "stab-in-the-back"). At that point it was perhaps only incidental that many Social Democrats were German Jews.

After 1933 the Nazi propaganda turned a major part of the blame on Jews, unfortunately.

Off-topic addendum: The German High Command of 1918 may have been correct. To this day the German Social Democratic Party has not stopped betraying the country. They are responsible for the 5-10 million muslims in Germany today. And no good will come from that.

[count-your-change]

Santa and Ana (the Clawsbys) and the Pinto Beano were the ships that brought Columbus to Ohio. The Alamo car rental came later.

My history teacher used to cry a lot but was never at a loss for words, bitter angry words, about what had she done in life to deserve a job of teaching a bunch of louts.

As for a little Levity, at my age all Levitys seem little, even the stone washed, “full figure”, stretchy style Levis.

[freepguy]

“After 1933 the Nazi propaganda turned a major part of the blame on Jews, unfortunately.”

Why would Germany do that?
Pls listen to this guy’s speach: http://benjaminhfreedman.blogspot.com/

Also, search for the transcript and investigate it for yourself. I have. Freedmans claims are almost impossible to accept...but they are true. I dug and dug and proved him correct. I’d be happy to send you what I found. It is absolutely mind boggeling.

[OrioleFan]

I actually had to look it up, because there were 2 stated admitted in 1912. We entered the war after that.

[oblomov]

Thank you for posting, kulthur. I hope you’ll post more often! I will check out the Fischer book.

Thanks also to everyone for a fascinating discussion.

[FW190]

"Even if Germany had won, the Spanish Flu, economic colapse, and revolutions would have still happened. Germany probably would not have had the resources to hold all of what it took..."

The fact that Britain & France kept the sea blockade of Germany enforced for 12 months following November 1918, causing over a hundred thousand German civilian deaths was more to blame for Germany's economic collapse.

And guess who drew up the present day boundries for the Mideast after 1918? That fat BasTURD Winston Churchill! Now the Limeys & Frogs have a country full of goat humpers!

Chickens coming home to roost anyone?

[arrogantsob]

That poignant poem tells a great truth. Not only did the governments blunder into that war (or were led into it by the Black Hand and the Russian Secret police, the Okhruna) but they never even released what their war aims were. Propaganda aside.

Wilson claimed our side was fighting for democracy.

[arrogantsob]

I can give you the same list. Only after the war had been lost did the Kaiser realize he wasn’t as necessary as he thought. But his support for the armaments program and overall jingoistic behavior for the prior 30 yrs were critical to the German High Command’s plans.

As better description is that the German people threw the Kaiser out and the Army would not restore him.

[Publius6961]

QUE? NO HABLA ENGLES CABRON.

Fascinating.
If that is a declarative sentence, the correct form is "No hablo Ingles, cabron."

If it was intended as a question, it should be, "No hablas Ingles, cabron?"

Si, hablo varias lenguas, enano.

[arrogantsob]

The military was closely involved with the paramilitary groups as well as the Thule Society. It had supported the party which became the Nazis during the war. I can't recall where this is discussed, it might have been “Der Fuhrer” by Konrad Heiden. But the point was that the military had been deeply involved in politics which disproves the common view that it was apolitical. Hitler did other dirty jobs for the Army including infiltration of leftist groups in order to point the members out for murder by the Secret Army of Murderers. His whereabouts where always known to the political organizations of the army.

If the army was willing to do just about anything they would be willing to throw up a Hitler if that was necessary. Its view of what was a necessity might have been different but the forces behind Hitler were extremely powerful.

I simply do not believe there would have been any incentive for the Germans to turn on an ally, Russia, when they were surrounded by a hostile world. And the Austro-Hungarian empire was dead on its feet like Turkey. It may well have staggered along for a decade but had no long term future after all it was the attack of nationalism which started the war in the first place. As a breeding ground of radicalism and antisemitism further outbreaks were inevitable. You might have seen a fascist takeover in Austro-Hungary.

After all the first fascist takeover was not in Germany but in Italy one of the “victors” in WWI. These ideas were in the air and used the prevalent antisemitism to recruit.

[arrogantsob]

Round two would have commenced as soon as Germany recovered and even stalemate would have left it more powerful than before the war relative to France and Britain.

We can’t say for sure what would have happened had we not entered but given the fact that Germany was a nation on the rise for the fifty years prior to the war and Britain had begun a slow decline betting on Britain was a losing proposition. Austro-Hungary would have offered no resistance to increased German power in central Europe either.

As I said it is hard to believe that America would have benefited in ANY way from a German victory. Even if that victory had been delayed a decade or so. I have seen nothing that makes me think that an increase in the power of the German Army at that time would be desirable for the world.

[arrogantsob]

How does the Brandeis appointment refute my statement? There were Jews as generals in the Union army and a Jew was the vice president of the Confederacy. George Washington’s chief spy was a Jew.

Did you think I said there were no Jews in America?

[arrogantsob]

Good post.

I think the preponderance of evidence (at least that I’ve seen) links the Black Hand to the Russian secret police. Both were fanatically Pan Slav and the Okhruna was notorious for using agents all around the world. And the Black Hand’s explicit and admitted motive in killing the Archduke was to start a European-wide war.

It isn’t that I would put it past the Kaiser to have him shot but it doesn’t quite seem convincing.

[arrogantsob]

Turkey was Germany’s ally. No one would deny that Britain wanted to use Zionism to weaken its enemy after the war started or that Zionism hoped to use Britain to accomplish its aims.

You asked about the role of Zionism in STARTING WWI and it had no role in that.

[Free Vulcan]

Bookmark. I’d like to add more but WWI is not an area I’ve read a great deal on. It’s fascinating though, you feel like there were chess pieces being moved around the board setting up for something bigger.

[arrogantsob]

That is Protocols of Zion crap. Fiction produced by the Okhruna and a writer attacking Napoleon the III.

[CougarGA7]

I'm curious as to how you are connecting the Balfour Declaration to America's entry into World War I. The reason I ask is because the United States Congress declared war on Germany on April 6th, 1917, a full 7 months before the Balfour Declaration was officially presented.

The Balfour Declaration was dated November 2, 1917. It is real short in fact here it is in total:

November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour

This statement didn't hit the American press until almost two weeks later when it was discussed in a November 14th New York Times article titled: "ZIONISTS GET TEXT OF BRITAIN'S PLEDGE; Balfour's Declaration Promises Defense of Jews' Rights in Palestine and Elsewhere."

At any rate, I'm just interested how you made the connection to your research into America's entry into the Great War.

As for resources to help with your research, I also recommend John Keegan's "The First World War" as well as Barbara Tuchman's "Guns of August". On top of that I recommend Jennifer D. Keene's "Doughboys, the Great War, and the Remaking of America". This book may not answer your question as to America's entry into the war, but it is a good work on attempting to tie the social and military aspects of that time period together. It provides a better sense of context as you look at other source material.

[okie01]

Let us not forget the Zimmerman Telegram.

Tuchman wrote a fine book about that event, too.