WWI...your take...

[ACStrider]

My question is a big hypothetical regarding WWI. WWI was not nearly as clear cut as WWII. In WWII there was clearly a good/bad side, and there's nothing like a bombing like Pearl Harbor as incentive to go to war. In WWI there were a lot of Americans who were pro-German and despite the propaganda out there, the German government was not much different from the other governments in Europe. I'm not regreting that we got involved, but if the Germans hadn't sought potential Mexican support, what would your take on joining the war have been? I'm just curious as to the opinions out there.

[lcjjdnh]

Well, you also can't forget the sinking of the Lusitania, an unarmed cruise ship, by the Germans played a large factor in having the U.S. join the war.

[ACStrider]

Well, although the sinking of the Lusitania did agitate relations, that occured over a year before the US eventually entered the war. So that played a role, but didn't prove the deciding factor. It wasn't until the Zimmerman note that even the opponents to war decided that war as necessary and inevitable. So, hypythetically speaking, if there was no Zimmerman note, what would your position have been?

[HornedFrog Purple]

I think that and the Zimmerman telegram in which Germany promised aid for Mexico to attempt to take back Arizona and Texas sealed it for our direct involvement. As to why it happened in the first place, there are a number of reasons involving treaties, backstabbing of treaties, economics and a whole bunch of other things that are rather complicated.

My personal opinion is it was the first war of economics.

[BishopMVP]

The Lusitania is ridiculous if you actually look at it. They were transporting arms to Britain and France to fight against the Germans in it, and the Germans even took out a full-page ad in the New York Times saying basically we are going to sink this ship, don't sail on it. The fact that the US Gov't managed to use that to stir people up for war is sublime. Also, I remember hearing something about questions regarding whether the Zimmerman Telegram was realor if it was faked by someone. Anyone know more about that?

[ACStrider]

I would disagree on one point. I think that WWI wasn't the first war of economics. I believe that to some degree all wars are wars of economics. Nothing is a motivational impetus like national survival, and most nations go to war because they feel that there is something to be gained whether that be economic stability at home (free from terrorist raids to put it in modern terms) or to gain significant resources (Japan invading the SE Asiatic islands in WWII). It was interesting that you mention that, though. It certainly made me stop and think.

[HornedFrog Purple]

I guess I should have rephrased as the first global war of economics as opposed to region? It my opinion it certainly was a factor, most of the treaties were economic based and it would take 2 hours to separate them all.

[Tarkus]

This is a pretty succint summation of the events of that time.

"America did not want to get involved in the war. We had long been in a state of neutrality and isolationism. Large populations of Germans and Irish didn't want to get involved in their countries disputes or battles.

The sinking of the Lusitania increased tensions between the United States and Germany, however other factors were involved. President Woodrow Wilson won reelection in 1918 under his slogan of He Kept Us Out of War. Tensions though gradually increased as more Americans were killed on boats in European waters.

Additionally, The British Secret Service in 1917 intercepted the "Zimmerman Telegram". This was a telegram sent from the German Foreign minister to the German Ambassador in Mexico. In the telegram the Germans offered Mexico the states of Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona to Mexico if they would keep America wrapped up and out of the war in Europe. When President Wilson broke off relations with Germany because of unrestricted submarine warfare they released the information.

Five more American ships were sunk by April 1917 without warning. President Wilson asked for Congressional approval to declare war and received permission to proceed. The Selective Service Act was passed in May, and American troops were drafted. The first Americans to arrive in France were the American expeditionary forces, led by Gen. John J. Pershing who arrived in June. Col. Douglas Mac Arthur, in charge of the famous Rainbow Division arrived in November."

Tarkus

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

There weren't really a good and bad side in WWI or as in all wars.
It depends on the ideology of each side . I mean to the Iraqi's we a re the bad guy ...and vise versa .

[ACStrider]

Yes, yes, Tarkus. I appreciate that, and it's good to know that you know your history. What I haven't heard from anyone yet, and mabye I didn't phrase this very well, is this...If you were to put yourself back in their era, and there was no Zimmerman note, would you find yourself in support for or opposition to American involvement in the conflict and why? Points for: strong ties to England and France, merchant and passenger ships under attack, and future knowledge that you save France and possibly England (many forget that the German navy was nearly equilivant to the English) from German rule. Points against: isolationist tradition, no clear moral better side, and future knowledge that the outcome would lead to another World War. There may be other points there as well. Ok, sound off!

[Tarkus]

Well, I would have said yes until you threw in the save France part.

Tarkus

[ACStrider]

lol...WWI is clearly a more problematic war from our perspective then WWII. It's arguable as to which German war machine had a greater chance of succeeding. Many see the power of the German blitzkreig in WWII, but consider that in WWI, Germany and Austria-Hungary forced Russia to an armistace and came within probably one week's offensive from forcing France to surrender as well....whether or not that would be a bad thing.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

If I am not mistaken our involvement in the war tipped the sides of victory towards the Allies .

[ACStrider]

Yes, that is true. The French army was on the verge of shattering. The German army was starting to break the French line. The US had been in the war for several months but, like our army in WWII, our standing army was virtually nothing. By the time that we actually got forces together and across the pond, it was very much in the nick of time. It's like giving a spot to your weight lifting partner...if you simply give a finger support it can swing the whole process. This isn't to say that we only gave a finger support, but we came at the crucial moment and turned the tide and proved enough to place the war firmly in the hands of the Allies.

[HornedFrog Purple]

If you were to put yourself back in their era, and there was no Zimmerman note, would you find yourself in support for or opposition to American involvement in the conflict and why?

That would be hard to say because the information available to me as a citizen at the time would have been limited and even more subject to localization. Knowing what I have read now from various sources, I would have definitely supported involvement.

[Fritz]

i dont think TV has much programming dedicated to an incomlete and biased view of the Great War. How in the world am I supposed to give you an opinion?

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by ACStrider
Yes, yes, Tarkus. I appreciate that, and it's good to know that you know your history. What I haven't heard from anyone yet, and mabye I didn't phrase this very well, is this...If you were to put yourself back in their era, and there was no Zimmerman note, would you find yourself in support for or opposition to American involvement in the conflict and why? Points for: strong ties to England and France, merchant and passenger ships under attack, and future knowledge that you save France and possibly England (many forget that the German navy was nearly equilivant to the English) from German rule. Points against: isolationist tradition, no clear moral better side, and future knowledge that the outcome would lead to another World War. There may be other points there as well. Ok, sound off!

So what you are really asking is if the Zimmerman note/Lusitania incidents hadn't occurred, would the U.S. have been involved.

The U.S. was always involved in the war, as a neutral, that is how it made the most profit wise.

To most of those people, back in the day, war was an exciting prospect, it was considered noble and honorable, until waves of flesh began to be cut down by machine guns, battles were fought over inches in trenches strewn with bodies, parts of bodies, raw sewage, that would flood with gore, blood and water in rains. Tanks at their most primative would be easy targets for massive artillery and poison gas was used in mass quantities.

WWI is the reason why WW2 occurred, not so much because the rage of how Germany was treated after the war, but that Europe as a whole, decided that compromise was far better than war, and let Hitler get away with so much. WWI beat the excitement of war out of all Europeans save for a small bunch, it is why most are against the U.S. involvement against Iraq, appeasement is easier, and the less brave route.

This is not saying that I completely agree with the motivations against Iraq.

Getting back to WWI and U.S. involvement, I think there were many political and media figures who knew it was bad for Germany to win the war, Germany would be the only power, and the fact that Germany, England, and France were turning men into meat while Russia suddenly became Communist was another greater fear, the Red Scare.

WWI also differs in that it was a war among nobles, the last of its kind, it was the last gasp of imperialism.

So I feel that the media and the government would've become more involved, even at the expense of popularity, but by yellow journalism, heigtening the fear of what was going on, with the Lusitania, with the Zimmerman incident, it was an easy excuse to get involved, and Blackjack Pershing brought in the troops, but the tactics of the war were so crude, run at fortifications, get chopped up, then fend off counterattack, chop them up, etc...

I don't know if I answered any of this...I'd try again, but I'm tired.

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER
I mean to the Iraqi's we a re the bad guy ...and vise versa .

Just like the Afghani's. They really despise us in Afghanistan after we imperially conquered their country and oppressed them. I'm sure the average Iraqi will feel the same way in 3 months.

[Buddy Grant]

Originally posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER
There weren't really a good and bad side in WWI or as in all wars.
It depends on the ideology of each side . I mean to the Iraqi's we a re the bad guy ...and vise versa .

Even WW2 was not all black and white at that time, many prominant Americans sided with Hitler & Germany throughout the 1930's, and even after the war began.