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

[David Floyd]

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.

It was official policy because Wilson wanted reelection

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.

True, BUT not only was unrestricted sub warfare justified, as you pointed out earlier, the US intervening over this issue shows to a degree that Wilson was not isolationist at heart and needed an excuse, just as FDR did (which is a different discussion). If Wilson truly didn't want war, why would he make unrestricted sub warfare an issue?
Ah! Because of US ciivilians on British/French ships!
Which begs the question, why not take steps to warn US civilians from boarding ships headed to Europe, and why suppress German warnings?

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
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

Not unrelated. I wanted to see why, when your ideals are completely based on so called 'morality' you oppose restriction of firearms sales in the US, yet support restriction of firearms sales internationally during a time when there was no overarching authority. I would say that is the inconsistency here.

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?

Support? I haven't supported it, I've simply said that it was legal and that you can't possibly blame Wilson or his administration for 'causing us' to go to war, when it was clearly German aggression that forced us to become involved. There is no Wilson propoganda to get us into this war, he wanted to keep us out, and I don't think you can prove otherwise.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
David, the Germans were maneuvering Mexico against the US,

It was a non-existent threat. Mexico was in the middle of revolution, and wouldn't have been a threat even if she weren't. It was a diplomatic insult, which gave us -50 relations and a causi belli for 12 months.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
It was official policy because Wilson wanted reelection

That's BS. TR, not 10 years earlier, was a war hawk to the core, and he was one of the most popular presidents EVER at the time. It wasn't about reelection, it was about beliefs. He upheld his beliefs, and the people agreed with him. Else why didn't the Us enter the war in 1915 after the election was secured?

True, BUT not only was unrestricted sub warfare justified, as you pointed out earlier, the US intervening over this issue shows to a degree that Wilson was not isolationist at heart and needed an excuse, just as FDR did (which is a different discussion).

It doesn't show that at all. It shows that the US was not going to be attacked by another nation, have its neighbors coerced into allying against them, and lose any and all trade on an entire continent, where the largest markets in the world existed. Wilson and the US were forced into that war, and for once we actually DIDN'T do anything wrong before getting involved in it.

If Wilson truly didn't want war, why would he make unrestricted sub warfare an issue?
Ah! Because of US ciivilians on British/French ships!
Which begs the question, why not take steps to warn US civilians from boarding ships headed to Europe, and why suppress German warnings?

To prevent US citizens from becoming overly frightened, on an issue they felt the Germans had no right in declaring?

[David Floyd]

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)

Oh, OK, let US civilians die in order to prevent *possible* outrage over their deaths?
Or he could have just said, "Look. I highly recommend not traveling on British or French ships headed to Europe. It is not safe." Very simple. No one gets upset - people don't get upset over travel advisories to Sudan, do they?

Is it also immoral then to sell weapons in peacetime?

No. Self defense is legitimate.

Or what about on a smaller scale - selling weapons to people who intend on committing crimes? Or known criminals?

This is irrelevant.

[quote]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?[quote]

If the Brits were concerned with self defense, they could have sat behind their nice, fat fleet and not even gone into France.
Then again, why even enter the war at all?
Answer - they were NOT worried about the defense of Britain, they were worried about France and Belgium.


KH,

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.

Right. True concern about the same Mexico that couldn't control Pancho Villa. The same Mexico where we landed in Veracruz in 1917 and they didn't do a damn thing. Not a credible threat, except maybe to the Brownsville PD.

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.

Laugh really hard, that is if Mexico didn't do it first.

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

Circular argument

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It was a diplomatic insult, which gave us -50 relations and a causi belli for 12 months.

I think that you've played too much EU.

[orange]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It was a non-existent threat. Mexico was in the middle of revolution, and wouldn't have been a threat even if she weren't. It was a diplomatic insult, which gave us -50 relations and a causi belli for 12 months.

I don't know how true that is. And even still, it was bringing the European War over to the Western Hemisphere. I liked the China-Mexico example given earlier. Sure, Mexico is no huge threat. But the fact that the war could be brought to our southern flank changes a WHOLE lot in with peace of mind.

[Ramo]

WWI was essentially about colonial and nationalistic conflicts. It would've happened with or without Franz Ferdinand's assassination.

I forget the guy's name that screwed it up,

Moltke [the younger].

but it has been said that a German victory in WW1 would have save the world a steaming heap of trouble, and victory would have resulted from a full right hook.

I disagree. I'd wager that a German victory would only lead to a reverse Versailles Treaty a French "Hitler."

The Schlieffen plan was brilliant, but it made two major assumptions that caused it to fail.

A) It assumed British neutrality.
B) It assumed US neutrality.

but it was otherwise a damn good plan, and a solid one at that. Damn limeys and yanks, always ruining : points to avatar : 'our' fun

Not at all. The Schlieffen Plan would've worked great if Moltke didn't distort it so badly. First, he weakened the right wing because he was too proud to lose any ground. Then he attempted a pincer while the French gov't was on the verge of collapse, but was ended up slaughtered. Then he sent several divisions from the right wing to the Russian front despite knowning that the situation was under control.

Wilson was indeed an isolationist

Wilson was actually fairly internationalistic, considering all of his banana wars insuring American colonialism, and later his League of Nations.

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

If it wasn't forged by Britain.

The basic fact is that Wilson didn't start the war against strenuous objections from the people of the US;

Umm.. Wilson ended up locking up thousands of anti-war protesters.

[David Floyd]

Not unrelated. I wanted to see why, when your ideals are completely based on so called 'morality' you oppose restriction of firearms sales in the US, yet support restriction of firearms sales internationally during a time when there was no overarching authority. I would say that is the inconsistency here.

It isn't inconsistent. I already granted the problem was not legal, but moral

Support? I haven't supported it, I've simply said that it was legal and that you can't possibly blame Wilson or his administration for 'causing us' to go to war, when it was clearly German aggression that forced us to become involved. There is no Wilson propoganda to get us into this war, he wanted to keep us out, and I don't think you can prove otherwise.

Of course I can't. I can just point at facts and state my interpretation, much as you're doing.

That's BS. TR, not 10 years earlier, was a war hawk to the core, and he was one of the most popular presidents EVER at the time. It wasn't about reelection, it was about beliefs. He upheld his beliefs, and the people agreed with him. Else why didn't the Us enter the war in 1915 after the election was secured?

He lacked an excuse - he needs Congress, ya know

It doesn't show that at all. It shows that the US was not going to be attacked by another nation, have its neighbors coerced into allying against them, and lose any and all trade on an entire continent, where the largest markets in the world existed. Wilson and the US were forced into that war, and for once we actually DIDN'T do anything wrong before getting involved in it.

Funny - it was the British, not the Germans, who prevented US trade with most of continental Europe

To prevent US citizens from becoming overly frightened, on an issue they felt the Germans had no right in declaring?

I see - Wilson felt the Germans had no right to attempt to protect American civilians. Interesting argument with all sorts of branching out and extension possibilities

[David Floyd]

If it wasn't forged by Britain.

Good point.

I don't know how true that is. And even still, it was bringing the European War over to the Western Hemisphere. I liked the China-Mexico example given earlier. Sure, Mexico is no huge threat. But the fact that the war could be brought to our southern flank changes a WHOLE lot in with peace of mind.

Hey, you just validated the start of WW1! Germany felt threatened by a huge Franco/Russian mobilization on BOTH flanks in response to Germany backing up an ally which was the original wronged party, and took steps. Brilliant!

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Ramo
If it wasn't forged by Britain.

Oh, come on! I think someone's read too many conspiracy theories.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Oh, OK, let US civilians die in order to prevent *possible* outrage over their deaths?
Or he could have just said, "Look. I highly recommend not traveling on British or French ships headed to Europe. It is not safe." Very simple. No one gets upset - people don't get upset over travel advisories to Sudan, do they?

I believe the Wilson administration gave Germany a solution to the problems associated with the Lusitania incident, that all German ships attacking English or American merchant ships would give a warning before destroying the ship, so that the passangers could safely abandon and escape. Germany later retracted its pledge after expanding unrestricted submarine warfare.

No. Self defense is legitimate.

This is irrelevant.

Glad you can pick and chose what arguments you want to refute.

Right. True concern about the same Mexico that couldn't control Pancho Villa. The same Mexico where we landed in Veracruz in 1917 and they didn't do a damn thing. Not a credible threat, except maybe to the Brownsville PD.

It's still a nation that would be against the US. The US didn't want any type of war, even a small one with Mexico, especially when Germany was the one expanding the submarine warfare and cutting deals with other powers.

Circular argument

Another dodge

[Ramo]

I don't know how true that is.

che is absolutely correct. Mexico was in the midst of a revolution at the time. Tierra y libertad!

[Ramo]

Oh, come on! I think someone's read too many conspiracy theories.

IIRC, it's a very credible theory, actually. I think it was in my history textbook.

[David Floyd]

I believe the Wilson administration gave Germany a solution to the problems associated with the Lusitania incident, that all German ships attacking English or American merchant ships would give a warning before destroying the ship, so that the passangers could safely abandon and escape. Germany later retracted its pledge after expanding unrestricted submarine warfare.

Che already explained this had to do with the fact that merchies would ram U-Boats.

Glad you can pick and chose what arguments you want to refute.

Fine. Selling weapons to a known criminal who will commit criminal acts is certainly immoral - but not illegal.

It's still a nation that would be against the US. The US didn't want any type of war, even a small one with Mexico, especially when Germany was the one expanding the submarine warfare and cutting deals with other powers.

You're using the word "power" very loosely, but in any event the Zimmerman note was not an offer to immediately ally and go to war against the US - it was simply where if America goes to war with us, you go to war with them. Sorta like the British/French guarantee of Poland, or, perhaps even more accurately, NATO, neither of which you would oppose. Consistency, consistency

Another dodge

I took his comment to be an intentional smart-ass circular argument that neither desired nor merited a response. Excuse me for my transgressions and allow me to rectify this travesty:
My argument is moral, not legal.