quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Hey I am with Sanity here. I want to go back to the good old days when repub presidents could strike up the old fleet(s) and go to a couple wars for reasons found cut, whole cloth...out if thin air. No peace prizes for them.

We all know that the modern day repub presidents are the real pros at going to war, knowing full well that the record of all history including American, is written in blood...somebody elses blood. Hell. might as well make some real money while were at it too.

Wilson. Good Republican. FDR (not that I blame him here, of course): Another Republican. JFK: Ditto.

Now, if you mean really modern, yes, there have been more Republicans around to clean up the appeasement mess left by Dems (Jimmy, even Bill Clinton who didn't eliminate bin Laden when he could have). But as I remember, Billy was real big on Bosnia. Didn't see the Republicans jonesing for that.

In 2017, we'll need another Republican to clean up the mess left by Obama (Strength Through Weakness - real Zen of him).

"Appeasement mess"? Are you referring to Reagan and his dealings with Iran?

Historically, Democrats don't believe in appeasement. However, some Democrats believed that wars should be fought to benefit America, not other countries (or corporations). Wilson didn't go to war until he felt that America was threatened. FDR didn't go to war until America was actually attacked. There was at least an American-centered reason for entering those wars, since we were dealing with countries with the military capability to actually be a danger to us.

So, in cases where there were far-off wars against countries which had no capability of threatening the United States, some people might understandably wonder why we're going to war in such instances.

The justifications for such wars involve entering some kind of Bizarro alternate reality involving "domino theories" and other such specious arguments from people who can't even find their own State on a map.

If there's no good reason for going to war, then there's no good reason. Accusing others of "appeasement" would be putting the cart before the horse, because you still have to establish that there's a good reason for going to war, which no one has actually provided yet.

And Wilson's "justifications" were a fabrication (Zimmerman note) and an American ship getting sunk when deliberately going into a war zone. (and almost certainly using the passengers as human shields to transport war supplies)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Hey I am with Sanity here. I want to go back to the good old days when repub presidents could strike up the old fleet(s) and go to a couple wars for reasons found cut, whole cloth...out if thin air. No peace prizes for them.

We all know that the modern day repub presidents are the real pros at going to war, knowing full well that the record of all history including American, is written in blood...somebody elses blood. Hell. might as well make some real money while were at it too.

Wilson. Good Republican. FDR (not that I blame him here, of course): Another Republican. JFK: Ditto.

Now, if you mean really modern, yes, there have been more Republicans around to clean up the appeasement mess left by Dems (Jimmy, even Bill Clinton who didn't eliminate bin Laden when he could have). But as I remember, Billy was real big on Bosnia. Didn't see the Republicans jonesing for that.

In 2017, we'll need another Republican to clean up the mess left by Obama (Strength Through Weakness - real Zen of him).

"Appeasement mess"? Are you referring to Reagan and his dealings with Iran?

Historically, Democrats don't believe in appeasement. However, some Democrats believed that wars should be fought to benefit America, not other countries (or corporations). Wilson didn't go to war until he felt that America was threatened. FDR didn't go to war until America was actually attacked. There was at least an American-centered reason for entering those wars, since we were dealing with countries with the military capability to actually be a danger to us.

So, in cases where there were far-off wars against countries which had no capability of threatening the United States, some people might understandably wonder why we're going to war in such instances.

The justifications for such wars involve entering some kind of Bizarro alternate reality involving "domino theories" and other such specious arguments from people who can't even find their own State on a map.

If there's no good reason for going to war, then there's no good reason. Accusing others of "appeasement" would be putting the cart before the horse, because you still have to establish that there's a good reason for going to war, which no one has actually provided yet.

And Wilson's "justifications" were a fabrication (Zimmerman note) and an American ship getting sunk when deliberately going into a war zone. (and almost certainly using the passengers as human shields to transport war supplies)

One thing that wasn't a fabrication was Germany's announcement that they would resume unrestricted submarine warfare in early 1917. That was the primary reason indicated in Wilson's speech to Congress asking for a declaration of war. The Zimmerman note was only given a passing mention and hardly considered important at all. But unrestricted submarine warfare hindered US Freedom of the Seas, something which has been a cornerstone in our overall defense policy. Freedom of the seas was also a significant issue which brought about the War of 1812. (Of course, one might question our justifications behind that war, too.)

But overall, even from the very beginning of this Republic, we never really liked it when anyone messed with our ships. So, Wilson's justifications were simply following precedents which had already been set in US foreign policy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

Hey I am with Sanity here. I want to go back to the good old days when repub presidents could strike up the old fleet(s) and go to a couple wars for reasons found cut, whole cloth...out if thin air. No peace prizes for them.

We all know that the modern day repub presidents are the real pros at going to war, knowing full well that the record of all history including American, is written in blood...somebody elses blood. Hell. might as well make some real money while were at it too.

Wilson. Good Republican. FDR (not that I blame him here, of course): Another Republican. JFK: Ditto.

Now, if you mean really modern, yes, there have been more Republicans around to clean up the appeasement mess left by Dems (Jimmy, even Bill Clinton who didn't eliminate bin Laden when he could have). But as I remember, Billy was real big on Bosnia. Didn't see the Republicans jonesing for that.

In 2017, we'll need another Republican to clean up the mess left by Obama (Strength Through Weakness - real Zen of him).

"Appeasement mess"? Are you referring to Reagan and his dealings with Iran?

Historically, Democrats don't believe in appeasement. However, some Democrats believed that wars should be fought to benefit America, not other countries (or corporations). Wilson didn't go to war until he felt that America was threatened. FDR didn't go to war until America was actually attacked. There was at least an American-centered reason for entering those wars, since we were dealing with countries with the military capability to actually be a danger to us.

So, in cases where there were far-off wars against countries which had no capability of threatening the United States, some people might understandably wonder why we're going to war in such instances.

The justifications for such wars involve entering some kind of Bizarro alternate reality involving "domino theories" and other such specious arguments from people who can't even find their own State on a map.

If there's no good reason for going to war, then there's no good reason. Accusing others of "appeasement" would be putting the cart before the horse, because you still have to establish that there's a good reason for going to war, which no one has actually provided yet.

And Wilson's "justifications" were a fabrication (Zimmerman note) and an American ship getting sunk when deliberately going into a war zone. (and almost certainly using the passengers as human shields to transport war supplies)

One thing that wasn't a fabrication was Germany's announcement that they would resume unrestricted submarine warfare in early 1917. That was the primary reason indicated in Wilson's speech to Congress asking for a declaration of war. The Zimmerman note was only given a passing mention and hardly considered important at all. But unrestricted submarine warfare hindered US Freedom of the Seas, something which has been a cornerstone in our overall defense policy. Freedom of the seas was also a significant issue which brought about the War of 1812. (Of course, one might question our justifications behind that war, too.)

But overall, even from the very beginning of this Republic, we never really liked it when anyone messed with our ships. So, Wilson's justifications were simply following precedents which had already been set in US foreign policy.

The Zimmerman note may not have been mentioned in official debates but it was played up massively to the public.
The return to unrestricted submarine warfare was the direct result of the British Q-ship program which made it impossible for the Germans to play by the rules.
They had made many efforts to avoid sinking non combatants, but as anyone as astute as you would surely know the British made a practice of moving war materials via "non-combatant" ships like the Lusitania. And the submarines were sinking ships trying to run the blockade. But you know that. I do not claim that Wilson was a war monger, largely he was duped by the British. You do remember his slogan when he ran for re-election in 1916 don't you? "He kept us out of war"

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

Do we know for sure that the Zimmermann Telegram definitely was a fake? I'm having trouble finding a source that says that.

And if it was a fabrication, did Wilson know it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

Do we know for sure that the Zimmermann Telegram definitely was a fake? I'm having trouble finding a source that says that.

And if it was a fabrication, did Wilson know it?

100% certain no.
Answer this, who had a better motivation to create it, the Germans or the Brits.
It makes no sense at all for the Germans to have sent it. The last thing they wanted was to bring the U S into the war. For the British on the other hand we represented millions of fresh bodies for the trenches.
As for whether Wilson knew it was fake, I doubt it, one of his great weaknesses was that he trusted the British, so it is unlikely that he addressed the question.
I too currently have the same problem getting conformation. But in earlier generations it was an accepted fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

Do we know for sure that the Zimmermann Telegram definitely was a fake? I'm having trouble finding a source that says that.

And if it was a fabrication, did Wilson know it?

100% certain no.
Answer this, who had a better motivation to create it, the Germans or the Brits.
It makes no sense at all for the Germans to have sent it. The last thing they wanted was to bring the U S into the war. For the British on the other hand we represented millions of fresh bodies for the trenches.
As for whether Wilson knew it was fake, I doubt it, one of his great weaknesses was that he trusted the British, so it is unlikely that he addressed the question.
I too currently have the same problem getting conformation. But in earlier generations it was an accepted fact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Except for not being elected President, sure.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

Do we know for sure that the Zimmermann Telegram definitely was a fake? I'm having trouble finding a source that says that.

And if it was a fabrication, did Wilson know it?

100% certain no.
Answer this, who had a better motivation to create it, the Germans or the Brits.
It makes no sense at all for the Germans to have sent it. The last thing they wanted was to bring the U S into the war. For the British on the other hand we represented millions of fresh bodies for the trenches.
As for whether Wilson knew it was fake, I doubt it, one of his great weaknesses was that he trusted the British, so it is unlikely that he addressed the question.
I too currently have the same problem getting conformation. But in earlier generations it was an accepted fact.

We, the English, were certainly adept at passing off half-truths and outright lies as fact to the Americans. You are quite right in that we were starving the Germans into submission through a blockade but the Germans never thought to use this as a propaganda tool - this is why they don't win wars.

On the Zimmerman thing, we like to play games and when we win we like to broadcast it. In the event it was an English ruse, then it would be common knowledge over here; it isn't common knowledge by no stretch of the imagination.

Woodrow Wilson? He was absolutely right. The league of nations was only part of the grand scheme. At the heart of what he proposed was democracy, anti-militarism and self-determination.

Who said he ever envisaged that forcing countries into a democratic state with no history of democracy, such as Germany, would lead to immediate and eternal peace? I doubt very much he ever conceived of such a thing. I'm sure he felt he was progressing things along, which in actual fact he did, and certainly not providing the solution to the world's ills.

Oh, and the main reason the Americans came into the war was because your financial system could not afford us to lose that war. You needed us to win for economic reasons.

Problem being, we didn't win. We were almost bankrupt after WW1. Went from the world's leading financial system to near ruin in four short years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Worse yet you (meaning Europeans, largely the French) imposed a "peace treaty" that virtually assured WWII.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

US entry was something the Allies dreamed of (more for the extra warm bodies than anything) and only the British were cleaver enough for a ploy like this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

US entry was something the Allies dreamed of (more for the extra warm bodies than anything) and only the British were cleaver enough for a ploy like this.

The British Government wanted the Americans involved for more than just a few warm bodies.

The Americans had financial and industrial clout, and this was probably the main reason seeing as at the outset of WW1 you were like us in that you had a small standing army but unlike us your weapons were outdated. The Americans spent most of their time in France being trained rather than in the front line.

Or possibly just as important was the morale factor.

Britain, France and Germany had been fighting one another to a standstill with catastrophic battles. At Verdun 335,000 French killed and similar numbers of Germans. At The Somme 300,000 British killed and more Germans.

Add to this the various other battles with huge casualty lists, then yeah, everyone was scraping around looking for an advantage.

The threat of at least a million soldiers coming from the US was enough to boost the Allies and scare the Germans, even though it was known that the Americans wouldn't be battle ready for some time.

The Germans would have lost the war without US soldiers, but it is highly debatable as to whether the Germans would have lost without US money/loans.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I did not cover all of those things because I didn't want to do a thesis on WWI here, what with it not being the subject of the thread. Very little in history is simple and to even try to delve into all of the ramifications would bore most people on here to death. Yes the "great" offensive of 1918 would have led to the eventual defeat of the Germans, and yes the U S manpower never appeared in such numbers as to be decisive. Their impending appearance forced the Germans to take risks which gave the British the chance to gain ground (and I don't mean land). The physical effects of our involvement were moderate, the effect on the moral of both sides was immeasurable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

deleted

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

deleted

Sometimes a post such as that, is the most profound statement one could make.

Jus sayin

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

deleted

Sometimes a post such as that, is the most profound statement one could make.

Jus sayin

Yeah, I put a lot of effort into the preparation, deliberated over the execution; and upon hitting the "OK" button was nervous as to how it would be received. Particularly in light of the time I'd invested in its conception. The last thing I needed was a bad review.

Having re-read it I'm quite pleased with it, and your feedback provides the confirmation I need that the three hours I took to put that post together was time well spent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I did not cover all of those things because I didn't want to do a thesis on WWI here, what with it not being the subject of the thread. Very little in history is simple and to even try to delve into all of the ramifications would bore most people on here to death. Yes the "great" offensive of 1918 would have led to the eventual defeat of the Germans, and yes the U S manpower never appeared in such numbers as to be decisive. Their impending appearance forced the Germans to take risks which gave the British the chance to gain ground (and I don't mean land). The physical effects of our involvement were moderate, the effect on the moral of both sides was immeasurable.

I wouldn't underestimate the contribution made by American money.

The French fought the war almost by themselves for the first two years, as we had a small standing army of 100,000 soldiers - although highly professional and made the Germans look like a right bunch of idiots at Mons when far greater numbers of Germans couldn't shift the British Army. I think the German commander at the time said something like: "we have been beaten, and by the English, who we'd laughed at". The British only retreated because the French withdrew first and with British flanks hopelessly exposed there was no other option.

But, 100,000 just wasn't enough when the French and Germans were putting out millions, so a whole new British Army had to be created and trained made up of civilians - cooks, accountants, shop keepers - that sort of thing.

The French would possibly have been unable to keep it going without financing. And, that financing came from us because our credit rating meant we could borrow huge amounts of money. And a substantial portion of that money was loaned to us by the US.