What Is The World Like If 'The Shot Heard Round The World' Is Never Fired?

[KrazyHorse]

Let me tell you what I see every time you post something about the US' involvement internationally:

"They were defending themselves and it doesn't matter what they did because we were to blame for it"

Adventurism might have played a large part in the US' problems worldwide, but not everything can be explained that easily.

EDIT: the smiley was rude. Sorry.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
First off, we both know that the US was selling war material ti Britain.

So what? Are we not allowed to sell weapons to other nations?

We also both know that the Zimmerman Note was essentially defensive in nature.

Yeah, right

Further, we both know that I hate Wilson, if nothing else, because of his internationalism.

I was previously unaware. But now I know. Figures.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
KH- True, but again this was due to US government propaganda and a failure to adequately warn US civilians against traveling in British ships that just so happened to be carrying war material, or other valid targets.

You don't think that the Zimmerman telegraph had anything to do with that?

[David Floyd]

I think it's clear that without US government propaganda or easily avoidable - by govt warnings - American civilian deaths, the US public wouldn't have supported war.

This lays the blame on Wilson, not the Kaiser.

And all the Zimmerman Note did was propose that IF the US declared war on Germany, Mexico would go to war with the US - hardly threatening to the US, if it didn't want to go to war.

We ARE to blame for almost every war we've fought, because we could have easily avoided it through diplomacy or accurately informing the US public of what went on.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The German embassy, for example, tried to take out ads in US papers warning that the Lusitania was a valid war target, but the Wilson Administration suppressed this, making Wilson, not Germany, responsible for US deaths on that ship.

So, the fact that Germany tried to warn US citizens that they were going to attack a ship with US citizens on it means that it's not their fault people died? They attacked a commercial ship, despite accusations that it was carrying weapons.

[David Floyd]

So what? Are we not allowed to sell weapons to other nations?

Come on. We were selling weapons to only one belligerent in a general European war.

[David Floyd]

It WAS carrying weapons and war material, such as artllery fuses.

Germany exercised its moral duty in attempting to prevent foreign, neutral civilians from traveling on a war target - why would the US government possibly act immorally to suppress that warning?

[KrazyHorse]

Come on. We were selling weapons to only one belligerent in a general European war

Not an issue. None of the other belligerents could challenge British supremacy on the high seas.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lancer
Anyone think that Russia might have had a communist inspired civil war by 1918 or 20 that would have allowed even a wimpy German general to implement the Schliffen plan as it was designed?

The war delayed the Russian Revolution by about two years. Remember, Russia had just gone througha failed revolution in 1905. By 1914, strike activity was at an all time high. Bolshevik influence in Russia was huge, and they were expecting a revolution in 1915. Had that happened, WWI, as we know it, may never have happened.

As generally happens, a revolutionary wave woul have been touched off. How it would have turned out is hard to know, since neither the working class nor the capitalist class was worn out by four years of the most horrific war.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I think it's clear that without US government propaganda or easily avoidable - by govt warnings - American civilian deaths, the US public wouldn't have supported war.

Even if the ads had been placed, you can't guarantee that no Americans would have been on the ship. And there would have been the same outcry when it was sunk.

And all the Zimmerman Note did was propose that IF the US declared war on Germany, Mexico would go to war with the US - hardly threatening to the US, if it didn't want to go to war.

Interesting how you leave out the part about unrestricted submarine warfare

We ARE to blame for almost every war we've fought, because we could have easily avoided it through diplomacy or accurately informing the US public of what went on.

sorry DF, that's just dreamworld idealism

[David Floyd]

Not an issue. None of the other belligerents could challenge British supremacy on the high seas.

A)We had no desire to sell war material to Germany
B)Britain wouldn't have let us, and would have committed acts of war to stop it
C)Totally irrelevant, anyway - we shouldn't have been selling to ANYONE.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by orange
So, the fact that Germany tried to warn US citizens that they were going to attack a ship with US citizens on it means that it's not their fault people died? They attacked a commercial ship, despite accusations that it was carrying weapons.

It was carrying weapons. One torpedo couldn't sink of ship of that size unless it hit a magazine.

As for the civilians, killing civilians is wrong, but if they wander into a war zone, they must accept the responsibility that they may get shot. This is why I don't go into war zones.

[David Floyd]

Wow. Che and I at least partially agree.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Come on. We were selling weapons to only one belligerent in a general European war.

So what? We can sell weapons to whoever we want to, and deny our markets to anyone we want to as well, wouldn't you agree?

And yes, I know it was carrying weapons. Accusations was the wrong word, but I was speaking of 'before' the attack, meaning they assumed it was carrying weapons (which it was...)

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
C)Totally irrelevant, anyway - we shouldn't have been selling to ANYONE.

Why not? It's our stuff, we can sell it to whoever we want to.