WWI, Why America?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That's not an American colony, nye.

Neither are we, dd.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Neither are we, dd.

Your softwood says otherwise.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quebec is what is holding back the country. If they could overcome the French infection and stop bribing them to stay. Canada might one day surpass Puerto Rico.

I think you underestimate how much the centuries-long English influence has affected the Anglos in Canada. They aren't confident and virile like you Americans; they're mere shells of real men. The Rosbifs are destructive scum and they've throughly crushed the testicles of your average Canadian...

One White House and Two World Wars
Do da, do da

Sorry, it's the Canadian version...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Your softwood says otherwise.

Harr, harr.

[ElTigre]

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

For the record, Ned bases this statement on the text he linked to in the OP. This text is a prize-winning historical paper written by a high school senior.

In this paper the author wrote the following sentence: "In reality, Belgium had secret agreements with Britain and France, and therefore maintained a covert pro-Ally stance." The author gives following reference for this statement: THE ILLUSION OF HISTORY: Americans in World War I by Thomas Fleming (2003), p. 50.

I do not know this historian, or any of his works. But here is an review of his book, and some choice quotes from it:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_7-8_35/ai_106096930

The Illusion of Victory is hyperbolic and so hostile to Wilson that it borders on the cartoonish. Fleming's Wilson was a coward, bull-headed and abusive, a mean-spirited commander-in-chief who was obsessed with keeping his grip on power. [...] The book, unfortunately, misses the chance to reconsider the war's causes and consequences and address the prevailing view that World War I was a debacle from start to finish. Chock full of hyperbole and ham-handed efforts to popularize a subject of serious historical inquiry, this book includes odd chapter titles ("Politics is Adjourned, Ha Ha Ha") and bald counterfactual assertions that the majority of readers will find unconvincing.

Another review:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20031101fabook82635/thomas-fleming/the-illusion-of-victory-america-in-world-war-i.html

[...] one of the most bitter attacks on Woodrow Wilson since William Bullitt and Sigmund Freud dissected his mental makeup […] The attack is so indiscriminate that the book often misfires. Even so, Fleming illuminates many aspects of Wilson’s character and career that conventional hagiographies skim over […] this book is more prosecutor’s brief than historian’s verdict.�

Ned, this story about an Anglo-French-Belgian Alliance is bull****. In Guns of August, p. 62 (German version), Barbara Tuchman mentions that the future commander of the BEF, Sir John French, visited Belgium in 1912 in order to obtain the permission to land British troops in Belgium immediately after a German violation of Belgium's borders. The Belgian reply was that even if German troops would violate her borders, the British government would have to wait until asked by the Belgian government to send troops. If British troops would land earlier, they would be shot at.

The Belgian government vehemently insisted on its neutrality, and made it perfectly clear that its army would fight against anyone violating its territory - including France and Great Britain. For another reference, see THE LONG FUSE: An Interpretation of the Origin of World War I by Laurence Lafore, second edition, p. 198.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
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.

Hind sight is 20/20. It's logical to believe that no one expected the Germans to limit themselves to solidly thumping the Entente and then go home, not by 1917.

[molly bloom]

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.

Ah yes, the university library of Louvain clearly posed a great threat to Imperial Germany... which is why it had to be destroyed!!!!!!


248 unarmed Belgian civilians died at Louvain, shot by German soldiers.

More were killed at Aarschot, Tamines, Andenne, Dinant, and Arlon; in France there were civilian non-com casualties in Longuyon, Nomeny and Gerbevillier.

The official German White Book of 1915 had to attempt to explain the casualties- this means that even German officials acknowledge that there was a death toll.


Based on German experience of the French levee en masse in the Franco-Prussian War, they assumed that there would be widespread francs-tireurs actions- but there weren't.

A German soldier's diary (he was in the 178th Infantry Regiment) tells of how 150-200 civilians were executed in Dinant allegedly for being guerillas/francs-tireurs.

Furthermore, he details the use of two handcuffed civilians as human shields in a march at night on August 26th 1914, and the shooting of villagers from Villers-sur-Fagne and the subsequent burning of the village.

Of course the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917 and the sinking of American ships and the loss of American lives did help sway American domestic opinion.

Hardly surprising really...

[molly bloom]

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

Well the sender of the note thought he sent it.

Are you saying you know better than Zimmermann himself ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


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

It was ?


Which revisionist site did you read that on ?

IhatetheBritishEmpirebeyondallreason.com ?

There is no 'even' about the shooting of unarmed French and Belgian civilians in WWI, it happened. The German government attempted to rationalise the actions of its troops in 1915, which means, as I've pointed out, that they acknowledged such deaths occurred.


Time to get back to this universe, Ned.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Exactly.

I read somewhere, I can find the quote if forum extremists demand it,

The only extremist I can think of offhand is the one who keeps downplaying Nazi warcrimes and the criminality of Hitler's regime.

And yes, we do expect sources and cites for your more ludicrous suggestions/allegations.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned
ElTigre, I didn't read it all, obviously.

Whaddagreatsurprise!!!!!


You missed the interesting item that your 'scholarly paper' was written by a high school student too.


Are we meant to believe she had special access to Belgian, German, French and British archives that no professional historians had ?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


I inferred this from the way things played out.

No you stated it as fact- even after I had earlier in the History Forum provided the text of what King Albert had proclaimed once German troops had crossed Belgian borders.

You prefer to believe a high school student from Florida quoting one source of dubious quality (which didn't go into any great detail) about this supposed 'secret' agreement between Belgium, France and Great Britain.

So secret was this agreement that no other historian, such as Simon Schama, or A..J.P. Taylor or Fischer or Niall Fergusson has found it.


Amazing, considering....

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Then how do you deal with the assertion in the OP's link that Belgium had secret alliances with Britain and France?

What was the detail of this secret treaty ?

Who signed it, where and when ?


It's a little thing called evidence, Ned.

I know you're kinda allergic to it, and prefer unsubstantiated allegations in a high school essay.

[molly bloom]

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.

The Germans introduced unrestricted submarine warfare in the North Sea at first.

American protests about American casualties (seamen, civilians and ships) halted this.

German fears about British and French abilities to go on fighting prompted the RESUMPTION of unrestricted submarine warfare, despite the German High Command's realisation that this would likely mean America entering the war against the Germans- they hoped that the loss of materiel and shipping would knock Britain and France out before the change in American attitude could be effective.

I believe I've quoted Tirpitz himself on this; I do believe you've chosen to ignore it.

No surprise there...

[Dr Strangelove]

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

Desperation and probably a flawed superficial analysis of the balance of power in North America. On the books the United States Army was considerably smaller than Mexico's army. The Germans probably failed to take into account the fact that Mexico was still engaged in a civil war and that much of Mexico's army was of dubious quality and loyalty. Mexico was so weak that onbly a few years earlier it had knuckled under to American pressure and had allowed an American army expedition free reign to persue the dissident Mexican commander Pancho Villa on Mexican soil. Mexico knew it didn't have the power to fight the US, but evidently some German government officials didn't appreciate that fact. After all, as I said above the Mexican army was larger than the US army.