WWI, Why America?

[Dauphin]

Yep, accidentally sit on it an you are in trouble.

[BeBMan]

Bah - UK propaganda.

[Dr Strangelove]

It was the Zimmerman telegraph that did it. Look, while it may be OK for the US to send an entire Army expedition across the border into Mexico to chase a revolutionary turned bandit, with reckless regards to the lives and property of the inhabitants of the region, it is not OK for Mexico to send and army across the border into the US to recover land lost 70 years earlier. What could be easier to understand?

[Ned]

Dr. Strangelove, but why, pray tell, did Germany send that note (if they in fact did)?

[chequita guevara]

The Allies owed us more and we couldn't let our debtors be destroyed. We wouldn't have gotten our money back.

[Ned]

At least the French of today understand British perfidity of that era. The director of the 2005 film, Joyeaux Noel, went over-the-top to demonstrate the total depravity of the British propaganda at the time. Here is a snippet from the Guardian's review:

"Joyeux Noël" is a reenactment of an actual historical event that took place on Christmas Eve in 1914. In the north of France, Scottish and French troops were in one trench and the enemy German troops were arrayed against them not more than 50 yards away--as was often the case in the Great War. That night, as they heard each other singing Christmas carols in each others' language, they were moved to stop fighting for a day and fraternize with each other.

...

"Over the next 24 hours, war comes to an end in the snow-covered, desolate no-man's land they are fighting to win control over. They show each other photos of wives and lovers, play soccer, drink each other's liquor and play cards.

Eventually reality sinks in and they are forced to return to killing each other. When the British high command learns of the key role of the Scottish chaplain in bringing about a truce, they ship him off to another unit. To put the troops back on the right track, a Bishop comes in and delivers a sermon on the need to exterminate the enemy. Although this is a minor role, veteran actor Ian Richardson turns in a memorable performance as the bloodthirsty priest. If a film audience had any doubt about the relevance of this film to the current political situation, it is put to rest by his sermon, which includes a reminder that the British are not like their barbaric enemies who attack civilians. It is like listening to Pat Robertson with an Oxonian accent."

http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/culture/MerryChristmas.htm

[ElTigre]

Originally posted by Ned
LotM, here is the journal of an American diplomat who was actually at Louvain. He witnessed some firefights with civilians and the Germans systematically burning the town, but no mass slayings or evidence of same.

The whole diary is replete with reporters and others traveling throughout the German-held Belgium. They are stopped. Their papers are checked. But never do any of them witness a civilian being mistreated let alone shot for no reason.

http://www.greatwardifferent.com/Great_War/Belgium/Diary_01.htm

There is no confirmation that any non combatants were deliberately harmed by the Germans anywhere in that diary.

That said, I do not doubt that the civilians who were shooting at the Germans were executed if they were caught.

http://www.greatwardifferent.com/Gre...m/Diary_01.htm

Oh really? This is from your own source:

According to the Germans themselves, the town is being wiped out of existence. The Cathedral, the Library, the University, and other public buildings have either been destroyed or have suffered severely. People have been shot by hundreds, and those not killed are being driven from the town. They are coming to Brussels by thousands, and the end is not yet.

[...]

Then we began to see more ghastly sights — poor civilians lying where they had been shot down as they ran — men and women — one old patriarch lying on his back in the sun, his great white beard nearly hiding his swollen face. All sorts of wreckage scattered over the street, hats and wooden shoes, German helmets, swords and saddles, bottles, and all sorts of bundles which had been dropped and abandoned when the trouble began. For three-quarters of a mile the boulevard looked as though it had been swept by a cyclone. The Porte de Tirlemont had evidently been the scene of particularly bloody business. The telegraph and trolley wires were down; dead men and horses all over the square; the houses still burning.

[...]

NOTE. — The foregoing is an impression of one afternoon at Louvain, taken from a journal written at the time. It was intended to pass on the question of responsibility for precipitating the orgy of murder and bestiality indulged in by the German army from the 25th of August until the 30th, when orders were received from Berlin to stop the destruction and restore public order.

Many subsequent visits to Louvain, and conversations with people who were there when the trouble began, have only served to strengthen the impression that the whole affair was part of a cold-blooded and calculated plan to terrorise the civilian population.

While we were there, it was frankly stated that the town was being wiped out; that its destruction was being carried out under definite orders. When the German Government realised the horror and loathing with which the civilised world learned of the fate of Louvain, the orders were cancelled and the story sent out that the German forces had tried to prevent the destruction, had fought the fire, and by good fortune had been able to save the Hôtel de Ville. Never has a Government lied more brazenly. When we arrived, the destruction of the town was being carried on in an orderly and systematic way that showed careful preparation. The only thing that saved the Hôtel de Ville was the fact that the German troops had not progressed that far with their work when the orders were countermanded from Berlin.

It was only when he learned how civilisation regarded his crimes that the Emperor's heart began to bleed.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The Allies owed us more and we couldn't let our debtors be destroyed. We wouldn't have gotten our money back.

Was there any real possibility of France and Britain being destroyed? Even under the maximal German war aims, France and UK are still nominally independent.

BTW, we didnt get paid back anyway. And we kept trying through the 20s, to limit the German reparations that would have been used by the allies to pay us back.

Not saying the debts werent PART of the motivation, but as the principle one, its a bit weak.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


Threatening?

When did Germany ever utter anything threatening towards the US before 1914?

What US possessions did Germany threaten?

If TR actually believed that Germany posed a military threat to the US that had to be dealt with by destroying her in war, then TR was certifiably nuts.

1. Threatening by its growing power, not by the utterance of threats.

2. Possesions. The US had annexed the Phillipines and Hawaii in part out of fear that the Germans would first. The US preempted that, but it confirmed a strategic rivalry

3. TR didnt call for Germany to be destroyed before 1914, or even in 1914, IIUC. But once war broke out, he was clear that it mattered to the US who won, and it was preferable the Brits did, and we should help them. You will note that the Western Allies did NOT destroy Germany at the end of WW1. The goal was to defeat Germany not destroy it. And yes, the terms were harsher in 1918 than they would have been in 1914. Thats what happens in extended wars of such a level of destructiveness as WW1.

4. Yes, some folks did think TR was nuts. For reasons unconnected to Germany and WW1. But I think he was a good kinda nuts, if he was nuts

[Straybow]

We obviously had to attack Germany to secure banana production and shipment continue without abatement.

[Drake Tungsten]

At least the French of today understand British perfidity of that era.

The French

[Colon™]

History forum.

[Heresson]

About Louvain - on the eastern front, Germans leveled to the ground Kalisz, the oldest polish city, despite lack of any troops inside - just to terrorise the civilians

Anyway, my opinion is - British - American relations were very good at this time and that is the clue.

[Ned]

Originally posted by ElTigre


Oh really? This is from your own source:

I also do not doubt that civilians not involved in the attacks were killed during the firefights. Thus the bodies were lying all about, not up against walls. I am not sure how a soldier distinguishes one civilian from another when civilians are doing the shooting.

But note, even if there were deliberale shooting of innocent civilians, that was halted as soon as the German government found out about it.

The destruction of buildings was deliberate. But even that was halted when orders came down.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



1. Threatening by its growing power, not by the utterance of threats.

2. Possesions. The US had annexed the Phillipines and Hawaii in part out of fear that the Germans would first. The US preempted that, but it confirmed a strategic rivalry

3. TR didnt call for Germany to be destroyed before 1914, or even in 1914, IIUC. But once war broke out, he was clear that it mattered to the US who won, and it was preferable the Brits did, and we should help them. You will note that the Western Allies did NOT destroy Germany at the end of WW1. The goal was to defeat Germany not destroy it. And yes, the terms were harsher in 1918 than they would have been in 1914. Thats what happens in extended wars of such a level of destructiveness as WW1.

4. Yes, some folks did think TR was nuts. For reasons unconnected to Germany and WW1. But I think he was a good kinda nuts, if he was nuts

Germany was a threat to Britain as a seapower and a threat to France as a land power. Those two were united against Germany even if no formal alliance had yet been inked. Belgium has apparently also signed up.

I have no idea why you think America was in a race with Germany and Germany alone to acquire foreign colonies. Britain and France were already far ahead of Germany in that regard. Besides, to think that Germany would annex the Phillippines and Hawaii if we didn't is almost ludicrous given the circumstances of their acquisition. Germany did not go to war against Spain did it?