WWI, Why America?

[Ned]

OK, if I laid the facts of Belgium out for a vote here on Apolyton, but changed the names of the parties to not invoke pre-conceived biases, how many Apolytoners do you think would actually vote to go to war under the circumstances of Belgium in 1914?

Want to find out?

Before I post such a poll, why don't we haggle over the wording so that we all think the poll question is fair?

[Ned]

Jon, you are right to a degree. The attitude of France would depend on how easily Albert capitulated. That is why he missed a good chance to save face and his country by not going for the peace offer after the forts at the Liege fell.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned
OK, if I laid the facts of Belgium out for a vote here on Apolyton, but changed the names of the parties to not invoke pre-conceived biases, how many Apolytoners do you think would actually vote to go to war under the circumstances of Belgium in 1914?

Want to find out?

Before I post such a poll, why don't we haggle over the wording so that we all think the poll question is fair?

You think history reduces to a poll on an internet forum?

Bwahahahahahaha!

[Ned]

NYE, not up to the challenge, heh?

[notyoueither]

What challenge?

[Ned]

This snippet from history is so remarkable, I thought it should be included in this thread.

"The outbreak of World War One was a difficult time for Americans who had been born in Germany. Most didn't want the United States to get sucked into this European war, which they thought would not benefit their adopted country as well as for reasons of sentiment. At the beginning of the war, Jacob Schiff rationalized that Germany was going to win and that a German victory that would also end Czarism appeared by far the more desirable end. Schiff's in-laws at the Warburg firm in Hamburg were actively supporting the German war effort.[54] Although the Russian invasion of Germany was halted by the German army shifting troops from the western front, this produced a stalemate in the west. As hopes for a quick victory evaporated and the war dragged on, the anxieties of German-Americans only increased.

German-Americans in general had their loyalty as Americans questioned during the World War One period by the pro-British U.S. establishment. Schiff was accused of being pro-German during the first two years of World War One because he didn't want America to fight in a war allied with the Czar. Once the Czar fell in early 1917, Schiff financially supported the Mensheviks and supported U.S. intervention. A month after the March 1917 revolution deposing the Czar in Russia, the United States declared war on Germany and entered World War One.

While America was still neutral,[70] the 'Joint' channeled 19 million marks to aid Polish Jews through the M.M. Warburg private bank in Hamburg Germany.[71] According to Reports Received by the Joint,[72] a 1916 publication of The Joint Distribution Committee, they were sending money to the Jewish Colonization Committee in Petrograd, Russia, which worked through local committees in 142 centers in Russia from Alitir, Baku, Bessarabia, Irkutsk, and Odessa to Yaraslavl.[73] It was the general policy of the 'Joint' to work within existing Jewish organizational structures already in place in Europe.

After America entered the war, the 'Joint' transferred money into German-occupied territory through neutral Holland. A committee was set up that transferred close to two million dollars from the United States to Dutch diplomatic representatives, who distributed it according to guidelines received from New York by way of Holland. In May of 1917, Oscar Strauss, Henry Morgenthau Sr., Louis Marshall, Fulton R. Brylawski, and Albert Lucas, secretary of the Joint Distribution Committee, interviewed the Secretary of State, and arrangements were completed for sending relief funds to the German occupied territories in Poland and Lithuania through the intermediary of a committee of Dutch Jews, instead of the German Hilfskomitee.[74]

By the time America entered World War One, anti-German hate propaganda in the United States had escalated to a point that was much worse than any time even during World War Two. In many places the playing of music by Beethoven and other German composers was outlawed, as was the teaching of German in public schools. It is now conveniently forgotten how Kaiser Wilhelm was vilified and caricatured. Falsehood In Wartime, a book written by a Member of British Parliament, chronicles some of the vitriolic stories published about aspects of German culture. He notes that films were produced by those who were trying to get America into the war and that one showed a foreign army burning villages, carrying off women, and a hideous German looking villain was depicted plotting and scheming, with a close-up of him, rolling his eyes with Mephistophelian cunning in the gallery of Congress. Luther's A Mighty Fortress is our God was mistranslated as "Hindenburg is our God", and Wagner was unfavorably compared to Sousa.[75]

Rudyard Kipling saw Germans as germs, saying that "Pestis Teutonicus" menaces civilization everywhere in a New York Times article, which is reprinted below:[76]

"One thing that we must get into our thick heads is that wherever the German - man or woman - gets a suitable culture to thrive in he or she means death and loss to civilized people, precisely as germs of any disease suffered to multiply mean death or loss to mankind, There is no question of hate, or anger or excitement in the matter, any more than there is in flushing out sinks or putting oil on water to prevent mosquitoes hatching eggs. As far as we are concerned the German is typhoid or plague - Pestis Teutonicus, if you like. But until we realize this elementary fact in peace we shall always be liable to outbreaks of anti-civilization. Make this clear by all means in your power. [...] We must put the work through for the sake of all mankind and the saving of our souls. I see that Australia has begun to restrict German trade. That is right. Where a bale or box of German goods comes into a civilized country there is always the chance of exposing mankind to danger sooner or later. This has been proved, before all mankind in every quarter of the world. [...] If I were a German, I would really be grieved at the blindness of all the rest of the world, and judging from their papers, they are grieving in multitudes. But I fancy it is a long way yet for them and for us. They have got to go on winning victories for about another year if their men and their money run into it. They will probably finish up with a splendid victory, and then those 'fool allies' will reform their line and pick up the pieces and get ready to be beaten again - very likely not far from where the lines are now. Then the show will shut up with Germany victorious to the last and the Allies methodically carving her up into nice harmless pieces. Maybe I am wrong, but that is the way I see it. Germany winning all the victories and the Allies winning the war."

After America entered the war, "actual war films" (sic) were produced in Hollywood and released, and the Committee on Public Information employed an immense army of speakers and pamphleteers. Lies were successfully circulated including poisoned sugar-candy dropped by German airplanes for children to eat and German soldiers giving poisoned candy and hand grenades to children. A particularly gruesome lie about German soldiers crucifying a young girl was the basis of a war propaganda drama, "Duty to Civilization", which had the blessing of President Wilson.[77]

It was during this period that the Provisional Zionist Committee whose chairman was Stephen S. Wise in a news story entitled "Germans let Jews Die, Women and Children in Warsaw Starving to Death" vouched that "Jewish mothers, mothers of mercy, feel happy to see their nursing babies die, at least they are through with their suffering."[78]

This report ignores the facts that aid had been sent to Warsaw through Hamburg while America was still neutral and that just a month before, in May of 1917, 'Joint' officials made arrangements through both the U.S. Secretary of State and German officials to send relief funds to the German occupied areas of Poland and Lithuania by way of a committee of Dutch Jews as noted previously in this chapter. The Netherlands managed to remain neutral throughout that war and provided asylum for Kaiser Wilhelm the Second from the time of his abdication until his death in 1941.

http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/tfh/3.html

[ElTigre]

Ned, just for your information: Linking to this website would be illegal in Germany...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siegfried_Verbeke

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germar_Rudolf

[ElTigre]

Ned,

first of all: you were right that I missed the first meeting of the British cabinet on August 2nd when discussing the Belgian decision to resist. They probably did know that Britain would declare war on Germany, although I highly doubt that this was published in the press at that time. Again, why is this important?

secondly, I nearly fell off my chair laughing when I read the following sentence in the above text, which is supposed to prove the point that "anti-German hate propaganda in the United States had escalated to a point that was much worse than any time even during World War Two":

Wagner was unfavorably compared to Sousa

thirdly, the paragraphs you quoted deal with American propaganda after the US had entered the war. I don't think anyone denies that there was a lot of crap published in US newspaper after (and even before) the DOW. However, this doesn't strike me as particularly noteworthy. The media in all involved nations reverted to vile propaganda, lies and insults as soon as the war started. So why do you think that this "snippet from history" (actually it is a snippet from a history book - there's a difference ) is so remarkable? I'm afraid you have to spell it out for me...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


No, he would have been neutral to ALL parties,

He was. Until his country was invaded.

Allowing Country X to use your territory to attack Country Y (with whom you are not at war, and who has not invaded your territory) is NOT being neutral to ALL parties.

Germany had a land border with France. It chose to attempt to fool, then force Belgium into doing its will.

War was imposed on Belgium.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Finally you agree with something I said. The Germans set the Z note because she feared a DOW by the US because of the resumption of unrestricted sub warfare.

Why was it so difficult to get you to admit this?

Because you have produced nothing to back up this supposition- and that's all it is- on your part.

Supposition and speculation (in the absence of facts) may be your favourite pastime, but it ain't mine.

The Military High Command of Germany knew at the time that the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare would probably incline the Americans to come in on the side of the Entente.

In fact, they had even gone to the extent of committing acts of sabotage in the U.S. before resuming unrestricted U-boat warfare and sending the telegram.

Look at the wording of the telegram and the date.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


I'm sorry, molly, but the issue of studious stupidity is for the people who seem to want to deny that Albert knew the Brits would support him if the Germans came across the border and he chose to fight.

Now, with this final link, you have no final barricade behind which to hide in you denials of this simple fact. But still you insist your denials are logical, which they are not.

No, you haven't produced a single thing which tells us that Albert could be absolutely guaranteed that either Great Britain or France would intervene militarily to defend him.

We know that Grey made frantic efforts to get the Germans to back down, promising colonial concessions and favourable trade agreements- hardly the act of a power which is determined on a course of conflict well in advance of events, or which has promised its forces to the defence of Belgium unconditionally.

Albert couldn't even be sure that Germany was going to violate Belgium's borders, and made sure his call for assistance went out only after Belgian neutrality had definitively been compromised by the German army.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Are you ignoring the Brit cabinet vote that morning to intervene in the event that Germany invaded Belgium?

Regardless of whether there was a telegram sent, all he would have to do is read the afternoon press or his own traffic from Britain -- that is, unless the Brits intentionally kept the decision secret even from Belgium.

This is only if you assume that all Cabinet discussions in Great Britain are/were made known to the press as a matter of course- they aren't.

It also assumes the Belgian intelligence services had penetrated the British cabinet or broken British codes.

Not likely.

Interesting speculation that.

Only for people who prefer groundless speculation to extrapolation from known facts.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


I have already said that the worst case would be that the war between France and Germany would actually be fought in Belgium.

Why ?

As Bismarck had planned that the annexation of Alasace-Lorraine after the Franco-Prussian War was to enable Germany to more easily strike at France, and the German occupation of Luxembourg (and use of its railway connections) was to facilitate the attack on France, the worst case is a war on French soil and French and British forces fighting on Belgian soil against German forces and no longer neutral Belgium and its forces.

Belgium loses, whether it 'allows' Germany to attack France through Belgium, or whether as happened in reality, it justly refuses right of passage to Germany and maintains its neutrality.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Belgium chose war and not peace!.

Belgium chose neutrality- Germany chose to compromise that neutrality.

Germany didn't even have the grace to declare war first- just upped and invaded.

I do hope you never work with rape victims or victims of assault in any legal arena- not with that mindset anyway.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

I gave you the example of her Lebanon in the current situation where Hezbollah attacks Israel from its southern borders.

It may have escaped your attention, but Hezbollah is not a nation, state or territory or empire.

It even has members who are Lebanese.

What might they be doing on Lebanese territory, do you think ?