Posted on 11/18/2017 5:48:48 AM PST by Kaslin
World War I was the greatest folly by far to befall Western civilization. The second greatest folly was America entering the catastrophe. The totalitarian rebounds that followed were consequences that could have been avoided.
I am not excusing German militarism, which indeed played a major part. The kaiser was arguably mentally ill, with dreams of martial glory and building an empire.
He had ignored the advice of Bismarck, who, though militarist himself, had enough sense to limit his territorial ambitions. Bismarck knew that Germany was surrounded on all sides and that it is not good to provoke rivals. So the kaiser pressured Bismarck to resign. The kaiser wanted Germany to have her "Place in the Sun."
The problem was that the sun was already owned by the British, and it never set on their empire.
Now, to be sure, British complaints about German militarism rang hollow when Britain sought a navy as big as her next two competitors combined, and when the British Empire owned a quarter of the planet, against the wishes of most of its inhabitants. The French Empire was similarly culpable, though not quite as large. Nor can the French be excused of the charge of militarism. After her defeat in the Franco-Prussian War, France went on an arms-building binge. Her policy toward Germany was "revanchism" – revenge.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Two “ Progressives”, Wilson and Roosevelt, both promised to keep us out of war, got the votes and promptly took us to war. Both provoked our entry with belligerent moves against our opponents.
Another lie by “Progressives.
I agree, not a good assumption at all. After Verdun, the French army was teetering on the edge of mutiny. The British were not in much better shape after the bloodletting of the Somme. And Passchendaele literally dragged the Canadians down into the mud and blood.
Our entry was a bit late but from a psychological viewpoint it must have been a blow to German hopes on the Western Front. True, they were also approaching exhaustion, but they had kicked the Russians' butts and perhaps could have transferred armies to the west. All of that is not to diminish the sacrifice of the French and British, who had endured three years of horrible war. With American troops committed, the Germans may have sensed their advantage in knocking Russia out of the war was considerably blunted.
So, who knows? Armchair historians a century after the fact have a lot of leeway in pushing their viewpoints.
“Never again should brave young Americans die on their behalf.”
Agreed.
We have pulled their fat out of the fire twice now.
If we go back we own whatever we take.
I would prefer we not go back at all.
Lots of sweeping conclusions about what would and would not have happened if the USA had not entered WW1. All can be disputed.
That's true.
But what cannot be disputed is that what did happen - the treaty of Versailles - was a calamity.
I was unaware of how well the British managed the public opinion/propaganda weapon during WWI until I started having conversations with an acquaintance who turned out to be quite the serious student of obscure history. I ended up doing a little reading of my own simply because I was a bit skeptical, but in the end, I came to the conclusion that the British were just as duplicitous as the Germans, but better at concealing it... and they had far more friends in America's high places than the House of Hohenzollern.
Mr. niteowl77
A German victory in WW I would have been incomparably better than the actual outcome.
WW II, not so much.
“To deny that the Civil War was about slavery is naked sophistry.”
To deny there were far greater issues than slavery at the time is naked sophistry and ignorance of history. Slavery was a component, but by no measure did the north go to war to end it.
Personally, I consider Wilson and FDR among our worst presidents, and both were significantly medically and mentally incapacitated for critical portions of their terms, propped up by their wives and staff, ala Weekend at Bernie’s.
I am also enough of a realist to know that choosing sides in international affairs is often an exercise in avoiding the “area of maximum badness.” Pure righteousness rarely fields a team.
On the other hand the isolationist point of view is usually so naive, simplistic, and impractical as to demand a total suspension of disbelief.
The die was cast for the American Civil War at the birth of this nation when our Founders, against their better judgement and often their personal beliefs, allowed for slavery. The Two Thirds Compromise was essentially the signed contract for the Civil War.
The collapse of hereditary monarchies, was guaranteed by the Industrial Revolution. The questions to be answered were “when” and “how,” not “if.”
At some point, American entry into both World Wars became inevitable. Again, the questions were “how,” and “when,” not “if.”
As much as because God appears to look out for drunks, little children, and the United States of America, as anything else, we joined the better of the two sides, with a much clearer distinction in WW II than WW I.
As the lone remaining superpower, we are far too cavalier in our use of our Military power, at the expense of our Diplomatic, Information, and Economic power.
The purpose of our military is to kill people and break things in waging and winning our wars. The military solution is generally the worse solution until it is the only solution.
Our military would be far more effective and we would have to fight far fewer wars, if the United States had a policy that our military involvement would only end with the unconditional surrender, and if necessary, total annihilation of our enemy. Negotiations would be limited to us dictating terms AFTER the enemy surrender.
We would be involved in far fewer armed conflicts, our “presence” and “show of force” deployments would be extremely few, far less costly, and far more effective. Most importantly, when we spoke softly, our Diplomatic power would be greatly enhanced.
Democrats tend to get us into all our wars.
War of 2812, Madison (DR) (which became (D)).
Civil War, Buchanan (D). (He started the process, Lincoln inherited a mess)
WWI, Wilson, (D).
WWII, FDR (D).
Korea, Truman (D).
Vietnam, Kennedy (D).
Very true
Almost all of my family emigrated from Germany to the US between 1848 and 1878, and wound up in the thriving German-American communities in Brooklyn.
They lived German lives up to 1914, just as the Irish, Italians, and Jews of the period lived their own ethnic lives.
By 1920, that was almost all gone.
I was brought up with family traditions around Christmas, food, and other things that were totally German, but were never called that - it was just the way we did things.
We were not Lutherans, but my grandmother, every Christmas Eve, went alone to a Lutheran church for midnight mass.
The one weak spot was the love my mother had for “Stille Nacht” on Christmas Eve, to which she knew the words by heart. As I now know, HER grandparents spoke German at home and used a German Bible right up to 1948, when her grandfather died.
My grandfather was estranged from his brother, who was a big “war hero” because he went off to fight Kaiser Bill. I now wonder if that was the basis of their estrangement. I will never know.
I'm not a genetic expert. Could it be argued that the men who survive a war may have traits (intelligence, strength, cunning, strong immune system, etc.) that their perished brothers lacked? Also, as compared to the death of men, few women die in wars. Genetically, women carry forward the genetics of their ancestors - male and female.
I may be wrong, but I don't know that wars have killed off the "courageous" genes but rather men are being indoctrinated to believe a lie about themselves and men in general.
We could argue nurture vs nature in regard to the state of western men. I'm inclined to believe that nurture (anti-masculine indoctrination) is the bigger problem.
I believe that you are referring to Douglas Haig.
“To deny that the Civil War was about slavery is naked sophistry.”
It was about Lincoln’s desire to retain an all powerful central government and deprecate the states. Slavery was a peripheral issue eventually used by the north as a political weapon. Slavery was only about 10-20 years from dying a natural death with the coming industrial revolution. 700,000 lives needlessly sacrificed. Every bit a crime of biblical proportions as was WW1. Alas, Lincoln succeded....witness today’s wonderful all powerful federal central government. All carnage can be laid at the feet of a handful of wretched politicians.
The war also changed the balance of voters to women. Women are more likely to trade liberty for perceived security ie vote socialist.
Well stated thank you
And if we think the elites that were toppled in the French Revolution and WW1 have gone away...they are still around and are the puppet masters of globalism...
Then along comes Trump...
Never forget that WWWI was sparked by a group of MUSLIMS who assassinated Archduke Francis Ferdinand in Sarajevo!
“The kaiser was arguably mentally ill, with dreams of martial glory and building an empire.”
That is the stupidest thing I’ve ever read about WWI.
England and France had much larger empires than Germany, who arrived late to the world-wide land-grab. When WWI started, Germany as a country was 43 years old. The German military (similar to that developed 25 years alter for WWII) was geared towards a war on the continent; even the fleet was designed for battle in the North Sea & Baltic. There was nothing “global” about Germany’s military strength in either war (no carriers, long-range bombers, etc.); they never threatened most of the world at all.
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.