Mr. Konrad should stick to Spanish and small computers. His history leaves a bit to be desired.
......World War I was the greatest folly by far to befall Western civilization. The second greatest folly was America entering the catastrophe.....
RIGHT!!!!
WW2 was merely an extension of WW1. WW1 has cast it’s long shadow on the issues before us today.
Between 1914-1945 Europe lost forever its best genetic stock. Much of the remnant is pathetic. The best image of the decadence that remains was a picture in 2015 of a German male clad in a dress smiling broadly and waving a hearty welcome to the Muslim migrants walking unopposed into what had been Germany. Never again should brave young Americans die on their behalf.
I have never been able to read much about the mindless slaughter called World War I. Even Hitler and Stalin, as almost totally evil as they were, would not allow the use of poison gas. And the British general who ordered the attack across no-man’s land and 20,000 soldiers killed in one morning.
Konrad’s predictions as to the results of the U.S. staying out of WWI are filled with guess work and wishful thinking.
The anonymous author assumes that the British and French would have won the war without the US, not a good assumption. Germany defeated Russia decisively, put their ally Lenin in power, and could transfer their army to France. Unrestricted submarine warfare could have easily starved Britain out of the war.
The US had to choose between entering the war or allowing a probable German victory. Did the US make the correct choice? We will never know, because we will never know what would have happened otherwise.
My grandfather, Edward P Smith came out of the trenches to serve the Army of Occupation. He survived the gas, the awful trench warfare. He hardly mentioned it to my dad. After all he went through he must have been brokenhearted to see the beginning of WW2 and his son have to go. We still have his helmet.
From what little I have read about the politics surrounding the start of the war, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand was the most idiotic single act of all.
It seems that the Archduke was in favor of many of the reforms that the people of the Austro-Hungarian empire desired. That included more autonomy for the Serbs.
If the assassin had failed and the Archduke ascended to the throne the history of Europe might be much different.
Maybe.
Mr. Konrad should know that the British cut the trans Atlantic cable from the continent to America at the very start of WWI.
This insured that only the British version of events got much play in the United States.
Imagine a terrorist organization that killed 3,000 Americans in one day, and the leader of the terrorists getting free harbor in a country that refused to give up this terrorist. Would America invade and take him?
Yup. We call the place Afghanistan.
But for sake of argument, imagine this terrorist, rather than killing all those people, personally assassinated the President Elect of the Unite States, and then fled to Afghanistan who then refused to give him up to justice? Would we still invade? I think so.
The same thing started WWI.
A Bosnian Serb killed the heir to the Austrian-Hungarian (AH) throne, and then fled to Serbia, who refused to give him up. Finally, AH invade Serbia. Russia mobilized against AH, Imperial Germany mobilized against Russia, France mobilized against Imperial Germany, and the British did the same due to a treaty with France.
And then it was on.
Stupidest reason to have a global war, ever.
Serbia should have been destroyed for not giving up the murderer. And nothing else. Russia had a treaty with Serbia, BUT Serbia did a very bad thing, and the Russians should not have stood by their treaty because the Serbian government was MAD.
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.
Lots of sweeping conclusions about what would and would not have happened if the USA had not entered WW1. All can be disputed.
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).
The war also changed the balance of voters to women. Women are more likely to trade liberty for perceived security ie vote socialist.
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.
I have a feeling that the same will be said someday of the Korean War as well. Only that intermission was a lot longer.