German Emperor Wilhelm II planned attack on the United States

[Dom Pedro II]

Forget it... I was working on a rebuttal, but its not even worth it.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Zkribbler

Two centuries have shown that no nation, however strong, can enrage the American people and hope to emerge victorious.[/I]

I guess those Vietnamese guys didn't enrage you, they just ticked you off a bit?

[Imran Siddiqui]

IIRC in 1900 the British were still busy hating the French and Americans

By 1900, the US and UK were allies. The UK's stated policy was to have a navy as large as the next two largest navies. This broke down in the 1890s when the Germans and Americans started building up. However, the Brits realizes that the Amis would be on their side, so they did not worry too much about falling behind on their 2 navy plan. By that time the Brits and Americans were friendly.

[Dom Pedro II]

IIRC in 1900 the British were still busy hating the French and Americans (remember, they sided with the Confederacy in the U.S. Civil War), and were quite cozy with the Germans, as the House of Hanover and the House of Windsor were practically the same people. So, the British might have interfered with a German invasion of the U.S., but only to ensure that they got their piece of the pie.

I'm sure the German military could have defeated the U.S. Army of the time, but the supply lines would be far too long to garrison the place effectively. It would have been a short occupation.

Well, this I will add to though. The British were certainly leaning toward recognizing Confederacy, but that's a far cry from siding with them. Anglo-American relations have always (even during strenuous times) been rather understanding. After the Revolution, Britain was one of our top trading partners, after the War of 1812, in the crisis of 1840, during the Civil War, the Alabama Affair, Venezuela afterwards cooperation was usually pretty strong. There has never really been true national hatred between these countries even if their diplomatic goals often brought them near war.

The British still hated the French though, and who could blame them?

I wouldn't go as far to call the Germans and Brits cozy in 1900. They were strong trading partners, true, and they did not necessarily have any existing troublesome relations, but Britain was rather worried about Germany's increasing role as the European military juggarnaut. True, the Kaiser Wilhelm loved his dear grandma Victoria, but she was dead by 1901 anyway, and he HATED his uncle who succeeded her in England.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
I guess those Vietnamese guys didn't enrage you, they just ticked you off a bit?

The North Vietnamese never attacked American soil, so no, they never ticked us off.

In fact, there was more resentment against the election-stealing, dope-smuggling leadership of the South Vietnamese.

[Dom Pedro II]

I guess those Vietnamese guys didn't enrage you, they just ticked you off a bit?

For six thousand years old, I'd certainly hope you'd be the voice of reason around here. Thanks for needling him where I was too disgusted to act.

[chequita guevara]

Zkribbler, Mexico didn't attack the US. We attacked them.

[Dom Pedro II]

chegitz guevara : Yes, we did attack the Mexicans first as a matter of fact. We also declared war on Britain in 1812 first eventhough a favorable diplomatic offer was on its way by boat to America as the declaration of war was on a ship to England.

We also goaded the Japanese into attacking us by placing numerous embargoes on them and diplomatically antagonizing them for years leading up to December 7th, 1941. Of course, I sort of feel that the Japanese needed to be dealt with given the horrific atrocities they were inflicting upon Chinese and other Asian occupied peoples.

As for the Tripoli campaign, it was a brief, well-though-out, focused attack upon a rather poorly organized group of thieves. Organization and well-defined goals win wars, not Americans (although they do on occasion ).

And France... French privateers plundering American privateers and vise versa. I remain unconvinced.

Tripoli and France hardly represent the American resolve since both affected only an unquantifiable fraction of the population in terms of home front mobilization of society, economy, military, or otherwise.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
chegitz guevara : Yes, we did attack the Mexicans first as a matter of fact.

...north of the Rio Grande.

As for the Tripoli campaign, it was a brief, well-though-out, focused attack upon a rather poorly organized group of thieves.

Other than ignoring the point I was making (unjustifiable attacks on American shipping enraged the American people), you're wrong saying the war was brief (1801-1805) and you're wrong saying ti was well thought out (our stategy was to blockade but only the Enterprise was small enough to venture into the shallow coastal waters; our land invasion ended up stranded at an oasis, and, if I recall, in the four years of war, we had three different commanders.)

French privateers plundering American privateers and vise versa. I remain unconvinced.

French privateers were not plundering American privateers because we had no privateers at the time. We were at peace.

But I was inaccurate in saying it was the privateers that enraged the American public. That came later--when Talleyrand's agents (Mssrs X, Y & Z) offered to stop the raids if the U.S. would pay bribes to Talleyrand and another French official. The war cry was "Millions for defense but not one cent for tribute!"

[Dom Pedro II]

Yeah, but the Mexicans said the border was at the Nueces River. So its a border squabble.

[Felch]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
Tripoli and France hardly represent the American resolve since both affected only an unquantifiable fraction of the population in terms of home front mobilization of society, economy, military, or otherwise.

Not to mention the most simple fact of all: It was FRANCE! France hardly represents anything except incompetent military commanders and even more inferior civilian administrations.

When your greatest leader was from a recently conquered Italian island, you've got problems.

[Imran Siddiqui]

When your greatest leader was from a recently conquered Italian island, you've got problems.

*cough* Louis XIV *cough* Charles Anjou *cough*

[Ecthy]

north of the Rio Grande...

The silliest remark I've ever read, alongside with comments by other... yes, American posters... grow up, folks

Anyway, I think that if the US was going to spare her coastal population as much as possible, Willi might have succeeded wth his canal plans, if it wasn't for the British maybe. If they were going to fight until the end, though, he wouldn't have standed a chance, for they had the short distance.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II



For six thousand years old, I'd certainly hope you'd be the voice of reason around here. Thanks for needling him where I was too disgusted to act.

You completely missed the point didn't you. The whole reason the American population was never behind the Vietnam war was that the Vietnamese never attacked the US first. His point was when others attack the US first we tend not to give up and not to forgive. Next time, read it without getting all indignant. And

Please excuse the US for trying to take some of the means in which the Japanese people raped and slaughtered the Chinese and Korean people. It was really horrible of us to do that wasn't it?

Oh and welcome back to the OT. It's been a while.

[Sprayber]

As for the original topic of the thread.


I think the Germans would have had more sucess if they had just attacked Panama. If they would have attacked American cities, then the people would have demanded a protracted war of revenge. If they simply attacked Panama, then maybe they could have gotten the US government to accept it. But not if New York and Boston were burning.