WWI, Why America?

[Ned]

About the submarines. IIRC, the Germans initially stopped the vessels and allowed them to debark on lifeboats before sinking them with cannon fire from their deck guns.

Then the Brits began concealing cannons and other heavy weapons on their commercial shipping. The Germans responded with a shoot first policy and later with the use of torpedos while submerged as the Brits became more effective.

Still later, Americans began arming their own commercial vessels.

The bottom line, there was an actual war going on at sea between the US and Germany long before a formal declaration of war. The US refused to respect the German quarantine and went out of its way to support Britain and undermine Germany long before the Zimmerman note.

The Zimmerman note was the last straw in a deteriorating situation.

But if one goes back to why the US chose to support the Brits, it had to be Belgium and the propaganda/stories that came out of what happened there.

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Yep. Someone else was unable to resist, so Belgium was morally wrong even though they were not only capable, but obligated.

Obligated: to Britain and France? Or to whom?

Morally wrong?

Why yes. Hitler was insane when the allies advanced across the borders of Germany to order the war to continue to the last German and to destoy everyting in the allies' path. That could not have won the war for Germany and everone knew it. All it would have done and indeed do was to kill a lot of Germans and to destroy Germany for no good reason whatsoever.

You will agree with this much, I assume; but will not agree with it with it if you substitute the name Albert for Hitler.

Just war concepts include more than just a "just" cause. It includes the high likelyhood of victory. Otherwise such a war is a useless gesture at best and complete insane folly at worst. The ruler who brings such on his people is either a mad man, or in the pay of his betters.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned
About the submarines. IIRC, the Germans initially stopped the vessels and allowed them to debark on lifeboats before sinking them with cannon fire from their deck guns.

Then the Brits began concealing cannons and other heavy weapons on their commercial shipping. The Germans responded with a shoot first policy and later with the use of torpedos while submerged as the Brits became more effective.

Still later, Americans began arming their own commercial vessels.

The bottom line, there was an actual war going on at sea between the US and Germany long before a formal declaration of war. The US refused to respect the German quarantine and went out of its way to support Britain and undermine Germany long before the Zimmerman note.

The Zimmerman note was the last straw in a deteriorating situation.

But if one goes back to why the US chose to support the Brits, it had to be Belgium and the propaganda/stories that came out of what happened there.

You mean that it has to be or you have been full of **** for 3 or 4 threads now, right?

It couldn't have anything to do with invading countries that were not involved, right?

It couldn't have anything to do with killing American citizens by sinking ships, could it?

It couldn't have anything to do with America identifying interests with other democracies vs autrocracies? Naww, couldn't be.

Why, it must have been posters!

[Drake Tungsten]

That poster would be sooo much better if Oz was represented by a koala, NZ by a kiwi, India by a ManLionSnake and Canada by a beaver...

[Ned]

NYE, there was no need to invade Belgium had it remained neutral. But it chose to side with Britain and France.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Being on the way to France helps too (and catching the French off guard by coming from the Belgian border rather than the German one)

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned


Obligated: to Britain and France? Or to whom?

Morally wrong?

Why yes. Hitler was insane when the allies advanced across the borders of Germany to order the war to continue to the last German and to destoy everyting in the allies' path. That could not have won the war for Germany and everone knew it. All it would have done and indeed do was to kill a lot of Germans and to destroy Germany for no good reason whatsoever.

What is the meaning of this gibberish. Hitler? WW1? I think he was a corporal. What of it?

You are really breaking down, Ned.

Incidently, a neutral has an obligation to enforce it's neutrality, especially when it is recognised by international treaty. You do know something about agreements and laws, being a lawyer and all, right, Ned?

You will agree with this much, I assume; but will not agree with it with it if you substitute the name Albert for Hitler.

Oh, I see. You are equating Belgian defiance in '14 with Nazi ideas of national suicide in '45.

I suppose you can't see a difference between a hopeless cause with no help possible in a war that destroyed countries and peoples on one hand and dedication to the basis for a nation's existence when supported by signatories to the treaty that served as midwife to the birth of the nation on the other.

Just war concepts include more than just a "just" cause. It includes the high likelyhood of victory. Otherwise such a war is a useless gesture at best and complete insane folly at worst. The ruler who brings such on his people is either a mad man, or in the pay of his betters.

I don't think you have the feigntest clue what the word 'just' means.

Oh, and Belgium as well as it's government and people survived. The Nazi regime did not, and Germany barely escaped a very dark fate in the wake. A good comparison?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
That poster would be sooo much better if Oz was represented by a koala, NZ by a kiwi, India by a ManLionSnake and Canada by a beaver...

There are those versions, but not as 'young lions.'

*puffs out chest* < intended effect

I can't find them again though, dammit!

Oz is a roo, NZ a kiwi, India an elephant, and Canada a moose. I can't recall SA.

[Drake Tungsten]

Moose? Please. We all know the beaver is Canada's national animal...

[notyoueither]

I think Canada is the bad ass on the far left, looking really pissed off and ready to take down Krauts by the multitude.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Moose? Please. We all know the beaver is Canada's national animal...

I only report what I saw.

[Drake Tungsten]

I think Canada is the bad ass on the far left, looking really pissed off and ready to take down Krauts by the multitude.

Given the order of the country names, Canada must be the second cub from the left, the one with the frightened expression cowering behind bad-ass Australia. Very accurate...

[notyoueither]

nm

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

I think Canada is the bad ass on the far left, looking really pissed off and ready to take down Krauts by the multitude.

Given the order of the country names, Canada must be the second cub from the left, the one with the frightened expression cowering behind bad-ass Australia. Very accurate...

You have it all wrong!

Oz is the wimpy one hiding under dad's testicles.

[Drake Tungsten]

Oz is the wimpy one hiding under dad's testicles.

That's India...