World War one

[Devos10]

Ok this may seem very random but i thought it would be ok to be put in the politics section. Do you think America was justified in entering WW1?

[Engelsman]

America's little interference ended because the Germans kept attacking American ships. They joined to stop this. There joining was justified because they were saving the lives of American citizens, the fact that they were also helping the Brits and Frogs was a consolation.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 12/17/06 09:29 PM, Dynastyff11 wrote: Ok this may seem very random but i thought it would be ok to be put in the politics section. Do you think America was justified in entering WW1?

You mean like having numerous Civilian naval ships attacked by the Germans with losses of Civilian life.

Yeah, I think that we were pretty dam justified going in.

[cellardoor6]

The thing is though. The US assisted the Brits and French when the Germans were actually trying to seek peace with the US. Only when the US started shipping over massive amounts of aide to the French and British did Germany start attacking civilian US merchant fleets.

Also, technically, the US went against its own isolationist policy by even giving aide to the allies. So it didn't really do anything wrong morally by entering the war. But the US did go against its own policy and public opinion by doing so.

Also, the US barely even used our navy in WWI. The US provided ground troops to defeat Germany on the ground, it wasn't really just an act of self-defense of naval vessles.

I dont know, its hard to decide if it was justified on certain grounds.

But what pisses me off is that in those days, people around the world criticized the US for NOT getting involved in other nations' business. The accused the US of not caring about the welfare of other nations.This lasted until the end of WWII.

But now, when the US has a proactive aproach in world politics, everyone accuses the US of sticking its nose in other people's business and joining fights that don't involve us. Then, when we ask for help in our current conflict from countries who 60 and 90 years ago begged us to help them; they declare that they don't want to get entangled in our affairs, and decide not to participate to the best of their ability.

I just love how the world works. If the US doesn't do something, its evil, if the US does do something its evil, regardless of the context. Its just always the negative side of the story that is given precedent over the positive in coverage by the world media.

[ViolentAJ]

Cellardoor6, an interesting point, and I agree with you there.

It is a good thing that the US entered WW1 though. Had the war continued, there is a chance that Mexico would have entered the war on the side of the Central Powers (Germany's side, the "Baddies"). I'm sure that the US could have wiped mexico out, but the war would have certainly hit closer to home.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 12/17/06 10:57 PM, ViolentAJ wrote:

It is a good thing that the US entered WW1 though. Had the war continued, there is a chance that Mexico would have entered the war on the side of the Central Powers (Germany's side, the "Baddies"). I'm sure that the US could have wiped mexico out, but the war would have certainly hit closer to home.

Pleaze.

We had already invaded Mexico once three years ealier.

If Mexico entered it would have been 1847 all over again.

[YHWH]

At 12/17/06 10:57 PM, ViolentAJ wrote: (Germany's side, the "Baddies").

I really don't see any clear-defined moral axis in WWI. If anything, the Allies were being a bit extreme in the Treaty of Versailles, which we all know lead to WWII

[zzzzd]

The problem with WW1 there wasn't really a 'bad' side like there was in WW2. Both sides
were imperialistic. There weren't much in the way of values for soldiers lives. The amount of Good British, Canadian, Australian etc common soldiers who were treated like shit an used for cannan fodder by imcopetent pompus officers.
And the Amount of Black soldiers america used for the dirty work an Cannon Fodder.

It was 20th century weapons used with 19th century tactics.

[cellardoor6]

At 12/18/06 04:25 AM, zzzzd wrote: The problem with WW1 there wasn't really a 'bad' side like there was in WW2. Both sides
were imperialistic. There weren't much in the way of values for soldiers lives. The amount of Good British, Canadian, Australian etc common soldiers who were treated like shit an used for cannan fodder by imcopetent pompus officers.

So could you possibly say that the US was the only political entity that fought for non-imperialistic reasons? Considering it joined as an Associated power with the allies only due to Germany attacking American civilian ships and trying to turn Mexico against the US? I think so.

Just admit it, it will make you feel good.

And the Amount of Black soldiers america used for the dirty work an Cannon Fodder.

Thats bullshit. First of all, most of the operations that took place in which Americans were used for cannon fodder were when US forces were commanded by French or British commanders. Not until General Pershing took command did Americans actually control their own troops at higher than brigade level. Then, when Pershing took command of American and French forces he4 conducted the largest single successful operation in WWI when over 200 square miles was reclaimed during the Meuse-Argonne offensive. This was one of the few battles in which the Germans actually suffered equal or more casualties.

Also, people always say that black soldiers were used as human shields when actually more whites fought per capita than blacks and had more casualties per capita than blacks in every single war the US has fought since the Civil War.

In WWI only 13% of the American troops that fought in Europe were African American, when African Americans made up about 15% of the US population at that time.

Its only black activists who think that blacks should be immune from military service that spread the myth that blacks take the brunt of the war.

It was 20th century weapons used with 19th century tactics.

[zzzzd]

I'm not attacking america, No america was one of the nations which werent Imperialistic, But I'm talking about the leading powers. France, Russia, Germany, Turky and Britain.
But then Britain declared war because Germany was invading neibouring countries.

America had a fairly small role compared to the larger forces (although it was one of the larger of the smaller forces) and wasn't tactically superior in anyway or better trained.
And America did use blacks in the front line more. I'm not being anti-america thats what it was like in those days, you cant deny it. It was only 50years since america had abolished slavery.

' Lions led by Donkeys'

[cellardoor6]

At 12/18/06 06:21 AM, zzzzd wrote:

And America did use blacks in the front line more. I'm not being anti-america thats what it was like in those days, you cant deny it. It was only 50years since america had abolished slavery.

Dude you seriously need to do some research before you say that misguided crap.

In WWI and WWII it was US military policy to avoid putting blacks on the front lines if possible because they were considered to be genetically inferior and uncapable of fighting as courageously as whites.

The US forces in Europe in WWI were all organized under the American Expeditionary Force. Out of the 350,000 blacks that served in it (compared to over 3 million whites) only 1/5th of them served in combat, while 2/3rds of whites served in combat.

Go here and read it for yourself. But if you don't consider Wikipedia to be credible. Then read the footnotes and go to those links and see for yourself.

Or just click here for a second source.

Black Americans were only used extensively in the front lines when the French commanded them.

So there goes another unfounded misconception by a Brit who likes to point the finger at the US for things that the US didn't do.

[cold-as-hell]

At 12/18/06 08:04 AM, SevenSeize wrote: You guys are doing a great job with this debate, but he really was just looking for someone to give him answers to an essay question. He PMed me. :)

What!!! Thats not right!

Why the hell didnt I think of that when I was at school

[Devos10]

rofl seven seize! Well i'm not really trying to cheat on an essay but Newground's opinion is interesting.

[SolInvictus]

WWI never happened, it was all an elaborate hoax devised by trenches to gain recognition, power and historical significance.

[MortifiedPenguins]

I did this type of thing for Sophmore year Thesis paper on how WW1 was so revolutionary and marked a turning point in society, military and technologically.

Got an A on it.

[Dre-Man]

At 12/17/06 09:29 PM, Dynastyff11 wrote: Ok this may seem very random but i thought it would be ok to be put in the politics section. Do you think America was justified in entering WW1?

Um, they blew up one of our ships, naw, we never should have gotten involved there!
:Did you actually ask that question when knowing what started WWI? I hope not...

[Bolo]

At 12/17/06 10:35 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: I just love how the world works. If the US doesn't do something, its evil, if the US does do something its evil, regardless of the context. Its just always the negative side of the story that is given precedent over the positive in coverage by the world media.

You know what, cellardoor? That's the price of being the world's sole superpower. We're going to take the blame for everything that goes wrong, and take the credit for everything that goes well. We're the world's whipping boy, but we're also the whip.

[tawc]

At 12/17/06 10:35 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

But now, when the US has a proactive aproach in world politics, everyone accuses the US of sticking its nose in other people's business and joining fights that don't involve us. Then, when we ask for help in our current conflict from countries who 60 and 90 years ago begged us to help them; they declare that they don't want to get entangled in our affairs, and decide not to participate to the best of their ability.

In WW1 an WW2 Countries begged every Neutral country to join there side it was total war you dick. And theres a differnece between nowadays and 90 an 60 years ago there were to world fuckin wars on.

Fuckin grumpy bastard

[emmytee]

Russia started WW1 by mobilising her troops when Austria attacked serbia. We get told at school that there was basically an Austrian conspiracy to get the archduke shot, but there is no real evidence for that other than they sent him on a bad day. When Germany saw a million Russian soldiers on their borders, they had to do something. Germany also declared war on France. At this point, the UK was neutral. Germany then tried to 'sneak into' france by invading Belgium, claiming the Uk (allied to belgium) would not go to war over a scrap of paper. WELL GUESS AGAIN FRITZ!! But seriously, we went to war to defend our small allies from invasion. We rock. But you cannot really blame Germany for getting jumpy when the Russian army just showed up on their doorstep, or for attacking American ships, who were giving their enemies (us) guns.

World war 2, however, was 100% on them.

[ViolentAJ]

At 12/18/06 05:38 PM, UnusQuoMeridianus wrote: WWI never happened, it was all an elaborate hoax devised by trenches to gain recognition, power and historical significance.

Bah. Why would trenches need WW1 to prove their significance when Robert E. Lee used them to great effect during the Civil War?

[reviewer-general]

At 12/17/06 11:52 PM, The-Towelie wrote:

At 12/17/06 10:57 PM, ViolentAJ wrote: (Germany's side, the "Baddies").

I really don't see any clear-defined moral axis in WWI. If anything, the Allies were being a bit extreme in the Treaty of Versailles, which we all know lead to WWII

Very true.......everyone makes a fuss about GERMANY being in the war only because of what we know happened afterward (WWII for those of you with your heads stuck in your asses). Germany only entered WWI because they had an agreement with the Austrians to aid them if war broke out. Germany was only supporting her allies.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 12/17/06 10:26 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 12/17/06 09:29 PM, Dynastyff11 wrote: Ok this may seem very random but i thought it would be ok to be put in the politics section. Do you think America was justified in entering WW1?

You mean like having numerous Civilian naval ships attacked by the Germans with losses of Civilian life.

Yeah, I think that we were pretty dam justified going in.

Yes, there's also the issue of the german pact with mexico. Historians asume that germany was going to give some of americans land back to the mexicans if they help fight america, (it was some kind of intercepted letter, which really got america afriad, and angry.)

[altanese-mistress]

The Zinnerman Telegraph specifically stated that Germany would help Mexico in a war against America in order to keep the nation from interfering in Europe's war. America intersepted the telegraph before Mexico even knew it was coming, and thus declared war. Seems pretty justifiable to me.

[random8982]

At 12/18/06 08:19 PM, ViolentAJ wrote:

Bah. Why would trenches need WW1 to prove their significance when Robert E. Lee used them to great effect during the Civil War?

Trenches actually proved to be a significantly horrible idea in WWI because they proved to be an aboslutely miserable way to conduct a battle. It led to diseases and even death because there was no way out of them. Going 'over the top' would pretty much result in death by machine gun fire while in the Civil war, battles typically lasted 2-3 days which wasn't anywhere near long enough for widespread disease to take hold.

[cellardoor6]

At 12/18/06 06:38 PM, tawb wrote:

At 12/17/06 10:35 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

But now, when the US has a proactive aproach in world politics, everyone accuses the US of sticking its nose in other people's business and joining fights that don't involve us. Then, when we ask for help in our current conflict from countries who 60 and 90 years ago begged us to help them; they declare that they don't want to get entangled in our affairs, and decide not to participate to the best of their ability.

In WW1 an WW2 Countries begged every Neutral country to join there side it was total war you dick. And theres a differnece between nowadays and 90 an 60 years ago there were to world fuckin wars on.

First of all, the US didn't need to even assist the allied powers in WWI. The US was far away from any trouble and Austria-Hungary, Germany, Ottoman Empire, and Japan all wanted to have peace with the US.

The US had no personal incentive either way but decided to back the powers that Americans felt were closer to their values and were more justified.

But now, when Europe feels that its better for its own interests to just sit at the sidelines while the US pulls all the weight, they refuse to assist to the best of their ability. And other than the UK and the Netherlands, the European NATO allies are basically doing the least possible amount of work they can yet still maintain the illusion that they are fulfilling their NATO oaths.

Its fucking pathetic how treacherous the Europeans are. They criticized the US so many times for not assisting them even. Then when the US assisted it wasn't even paid back for WWI and WWII in which the US provided massive amounts of aide, lost hundreds of thousands of troops, and received absolutely NO reparations from the Europeans. Nor did the US receive any repayment for the billions and billions the use poured into post-WWII Europe and Asia. The US basically saved Europes ass, and only asked for plots to bury American war dead in return.

But now, when the US askes for assistance, all the Europeans shirk from their duties and pussy out like the cowardly, selfish, back-stabbing heathens that they are

Fuckin grumpy bastard

Damn straight. But its funny, when Europeans complain about the its not considered being grumpy bastards, its considered to be "righteous intellectual rebellion blah blah blah"

[Oblivia]

The only thing that went horrible at the end of The Great War was because Woodrow Wilson wasn't able to settle an agrrement with everyone in Europe, the United States Congress went against Wilson's idea because it wasn't suppose to be our problem to begin with. Since Woodrow wasn't able to do anything in Europe (mainly because of a stroke), Britain and France wanted to be the biggest assholes on the face of the planet by using the Treaty of Versallis which forced Germany to take all the blame to pay over billions of dollars (it was worth way more than it sounds now) of war damages, though the reality of it was that the war was everyone's fault (except the US) to begin with. The reason why France wanted to help out Czarist Russia was because France wanted to get revenge on Germany (because the French had ego-driven retarded leaders) and how Britain got involved was because they had a defense treaty with the Netherlands and Belgium where as Germany went through in order to attack France... again.

[the-sharpshooter]

um, Zimmerman telegram, anyone?

[Devos10]

Yes the Zimmerman telegram was an important factor like the unrestrictive submarine warfare. ......

On the first of February we intend to begin submarine warfare unrestricted. In spite of this, it is our intention to endeavor to keep neutral the United States of America.

If this attempt is not successful, we propose an alliance on the following basis with Mexico: That we shall make war together and together make peace. We shall give general financial support, and it is understood that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona. The details are left to you for settlement....

You are instructed to inform the President of Mexico of the above in the greatest confidence as soon as it is certain that there will be an outbreak of war with the United States and suggest that the President of Mexico, on his own initiative, should communicate with Japan suggesting adherence at once to this plan; at the same time, offer to mediate between Germany and Japan.

Please call to the attention of the President of Mexico that the employment of ruthless submarine warfare now promises to compel England to make peace in a few months.

Zimmerman
(Secretary of State)

[LoneFalcon1989]

Who cares if they were justified?!??!? It was the right thing to do!

[cellardoor6]

At 12/19/06 11:30 PM, LoneFalcon1989 wrote: Who cares if they were justified?!??!? It was the right thing to do!

Um...

If it was justified, then it was the right thing to do.

What you just said would be like saying "Who cares if it was unjustified, it was the wrong thing to do!"