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

[KrazyHorse]

Doesn't matter, chegitz. It comes down to the fact that the British weren't doing the same amount of harm to the US that the Germans were. Amercans of the time felt like Germany was pushing them around, and they decided to do something about it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by orange
pre-International Law (which, as Che pointed out, arose after this war)

I'm not 100% on this. I think the Geneva convention started before the war. Everything else, IIRC, was a result of the war: League of Nations, Kellog-Briand, etc. Heck they even outlawed war . . . I wonder if that's why the US no longer declares war?

[David Floyd]

The Lusitania wasn't a US ship.

Please excuse my wording error - I think my meaning was fairly clear. We weren't trying to smuggle weapons into Germany on GERMAN ships, primarily b/c said ships were sunk, interned, or in port, and the Brits wouldn't let us anyway, they would respond as the Germans did.

Who cares? We obviously went along with it. We're not in the wrong for selling weapons to britain. It's legally untouchable - c'mon, where's the pacifist liberal inside you on this one? You can sell weapons to someone, and they can use it to kill people, and that DOESN'T make you responsible for the destruction cuased by those weapons pre-International Law (which, as Che pointed out, arose after this war)

OF COURSE it's legally untouchable, but it's morally horrible.

So because Britain did something wrong, it's ok that Germany did something wrong as well? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Clearly not, but thanks for pointing out that the British were also in the wrong, what with their claiming ocean that they didn't own and starving German civilians and whatnot

[KrazyHorse]

Oh, and I'm not trying to demonize WWI Germany. They acted no more immorally than, for example, France in the buildup to and conduct of the war. I'm simply pointing out that siding with Britain was more in tune with the people of the US than siding with Germany. Eventually the US felt threatened enough by German actions that they decided to do something about it.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
How is my stance pro-government? I'm simply saying Germany was justified in firing on cargo ships carrying contraband, and that morally no one should have sold to any belligerent.

pro government intervention, I said.

Germany wasn't justified on firing at cargo ships because they were carrying goods to market. The ships were carrying civilian passangers, as well. How is it moral to fire on these ships, it's no different (at the time) than if their holds were full of bananas.

Yes. And we didn't know "for sure" that the Japanese were bombing Pearl Harbor

That statement makes no sense at all.

Could be, but a)my argument is more a moral one, and b)I'm fairly certain there were still various treaties and agreements.

No, it's not. And if you think there were, why don't you find a source to prove it rather than scratching your head and saying "I think"?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Please excuse my wording error - I think my meaning was fairly clear. We weren't trying to smuggle weapons into Germany on GERMAN ships, primarily b/c said ships were sunk, interned, or in port, and the Brits wouldn't let us anyway, they would respond as the Germans did

I'm not questioning the morality of German sub warfare; I'm pointing out that Americans of the time felt their sovereignty being threatened due to German policies and tactics, and not because of some giant propaganda machine Wilson was running.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Doesn't matter, chegitz. It comes down to the fact that the British weren't doing the same amount of harm to the US that the Germans were. Amercans of the time felt like Germany was pushing them around, and they decided to do something about it.

That's a matter of perception. More harm came to the US out of entering the war than the Germans inflcted upon us as neutrals. In this case, Britain caused us great harm, by pushing and pushing us to become belligerents. If British ships had acted "lawfully" when stopped by U-boats, then they wouldn't have had to resort to sneak attacks.

BTW, IIRC, arms shipments to combatants were illegal in the US. Hence the point about the Lusitantia carrying contraband. This is one of the things Wilson pushed towards the middle of the war, trying to keep us out of it. (It's been a long time since I've thought about this war from a US perspective, so it's coming to me in bits )

[David Floyd]

KH,

Oh, and I'm not trying to demonize WWI Germany. They acted no more immorally than, for example, France in the buildup to and conduct of the war. I'm simply pointing out that siding with Britain was more in tune with the people of the US than siding with Germany. Eventually the US felt threatened enough by German actions that they decided to do something about it.

Yes, both sides acted very immorally.
BUT, "the US feeling threatened" was primarily due to government propaganda.

orange,

Germany wasn't justified on firing at cargo ships because they were carrying goods to market. The ships were carrying civilian passangers, as well. How is it moral to fire on these ships, it's no different (at the time) than if their holds were full of bananas.

Maybe, if the ship was American. It wasn't - it was a British ship properly classified as a war target carrying war material.

No, it's not.

Yes, I am making a moral argument. In my opinion, it was immoral to sell war material to Britain and suppress German humanitarian warnings.

[David Floyd]

I'm not questioning the morality of German sub warfare; I'm pointing out that Americans of the time felt their sovereignty being threatened due to German policies and tactics, and not because of some giant propaganda machine Wilson was running.

The two are very definitely interconnected. The US public wouldn't have felt threatened unless Wilson played the Germans up as a threat to America.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
OF COURSE it's legally untouchable, but it's morally horrible.

Sorta like selling automatic weapons to a mob boss?

Clearly not, but thanks for pointing out that the British were also in the wrong, what with their claiming ocean that they didn't own and starving German civilians and whatnot

I never said they weren't.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
BUT, "the US feeling threatened" was primarily due to government propaganda.

Administration policy was to keep us out of the war. On the sly, they may have looked the other way while the Brits smuggled war materials out. However, the primary propagandists for America's entry into the war were the Brits, the Hearst papers, and the Republican Party. Teddy Roosevelt was keen on using the war as an excuse to seize Germany's colonies.

Personally, if the German's hadn't had been so desperate as to start unrestricted submarine warfare, it's unlikely the US would ever have entervened. The Germans knew it was likely to bring us into the war, but they were making a gambit that they could starve Britain and France just enough before Yanks came over, that they'd be able to win the war.

[David Floyd]

Sorta like selling automatic weapons to a mob boss?

Yes, selling automatic weapons to mob bosses is perfectly Constitutional, but if you know they are a mob boss I'd call the action immoral. I'm glad we agree on this totally unrelated issue

I never said they weren't.

So if both sides acted equally immoral, how in hell can you support selling weapons to either of them? It's a tad inconsistent, right?

[KrazyHorse]

David, the Germans were maneuvering Mexico against the US, and revisionism won't change the fact that the American public was rightly concerned about the possibilities this entailed, and would have been no matter what the position of the government was. You can shout "propaganda" all you want, but it won't alter the circumstances.

Tell me what the average American would want to do today if China signed a treaty with Mexico which contained a provision whereby Mexico would attack the US.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Yes, I am making a moral argument. In my opinion, it was immoral to sell war material to Britain and suppress German humanitarian warnings.

Ever think that the Wilson administration supressing those ads was more of a way to keep the US public away from war fever? I mean, the thought of Americans being killed on civilian ships after the Germans give a 'warning' via newspaper? You don't think that would cause a stir? Especially since, IIRC, Americans had already been killed in such incidents (though not on the same scale)

Is it also immoral then to sell weapons in peacetime? Or what about on a smaller scale - selling weapons to people who intend on committing crimes? Or known criminals? What if the US was selling these weapons to Britain because Britain wanted them for 'self - defense'. Isn't that the same thing as a person buying a hand gun for self defense?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
So if both sides acted equally immoral, how in hell can you support selling weapons to either of them?

Because we have the right to sell to whoever we wish whenever we wish.