• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

100 Years Ago The US Declares War on Germany

I have a feeling that if the US didnt join in the war the Germans would have been able to negotiate better terms, perhaps the Kaiser might have even stayed in power.

No American involvement doesn't solve Germany's biggest problem: the fact that it is literally being starved to death by the British blockade. The German government spent the entire war sharply divided and unable to handle the growing crisis of food and material shortages. Once thousands of Germans start dying the German state is certain to collapse as communist revolutions flair up.

Which admittedly leaves the Entente in the somewhat odd situation where Britain and France are just kind of sitting there waiting for a new German government to establish itself, while the German Army they've fought for four years disintegrates before their eyes, not fully defeated, but serving a nation-state that no longer functionally exists.
 
Considering that it was pretty much even odds whether France or Germany would bow out first, and England wasn't much better off.....yeah, I'd say the flood of American troops "saved the day."

I understand how history is written in American textbooks. It's all part-and-parcel with the 50's era effort to present an image of America, a presentation that became so entrenched that is was/is unpatriotic to question it. If you want to know the truth about WW1 and how it was resolved, I suggest you read this...,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days_Offensive

And follow up the footnotes. That's how you use Wikipedia, click on the footnotes.
At the end of the article you'll find this link...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada's_Hundred_Days

But it's probably more warm and fuzzy to just go with what your textbooks say.
 
I understand how history is written in American textbooks. It's all part-and-parcel with the 50's era effort to present an image of America, a presentation that became so entrenched that is was/is unpatriotic to question it. If you want to know the truth about WW1 and how it was resolved, I suggest you read this...,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days_Offensive

And follow up the footnotes. That's how you use Wikipedia, click on the footnotes.
At the end of the article you'll find this link...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada's_Hundred_Days

But it's probably more warm and fuzzy to just go with what your textbooks say.

I get that you Canadians have a chip on your shoulder because you feel unappreciated because most people think of you as nothing more than America's hat, but another couple battles like that one and there wouldn't have been anybody left to send back to Canada.
 
I get that you Canadians have a chip on your shoulder because you feel unappreciated because most people think of you as nothing more than America's hat, but another couple battles like that one and there wouldn't have been anybody left to send back to Canada.

Are you aware that US forces use "double tap" missile strikes? That means they wait till rescue workers and ambulances arrive and begin to dig the wounded out of the rubble and hit it again. That means that you may be a worker or even a family member. You may be close enough to hear the screams of those who are still alive, buried in rubble, but you dare not go to their rescue until enough time has passed that you can hope there won't be another missile.

While you may have no respect, or even contempt, for Canadians - take heed. If it weren't for the Commonwealth of Nations, of which Canada is part of, the U.S. would have lost (hilariously) bad to the Japanese in the Pacific Theatre. The Philippines? Solomon Islands? Guadalcanal? Those were all major movements by the Commonwealth - spearheaded by Britain, Canada and Australia - to assist the U.S. in their resistance against the Japanese... You really think someone that we had to RESORT TO NUCLEAR BOMBARDMENT AGAINST TO DEFEAT would have had any trouble with the under-trained, lackadaisical, under-equipped and undisciplined U.S. forces of the WWII-era?

Hilarious.
 
No American involvement doesn't solve Germany's biggest problem: the fact that it is literally being starved to death by the British blockade. The German government spent the entire war sharply divided and unable to handle the growing crisis of food and material shortages. Once thousands of Germans start dying the German state is certain to collapse as communist revolutions flair up.

Which admittedly leaves the Entente in the somewhat odd situation where Britain and France are just kind of sitting there waiting for a new German government to establish itself, while the German Army they've fought for four years disintegrates before their eyes, not fully defeated, but serving a nation-state that no longer functionally exists.

Well the moment Russia went to the Bolsheviks the British blockade wasn't that effective anymore. If America had stayed neutral the Germans could have held out and all sides would have eventually made peace.
 
Well the moment Russia went to the Bolsheviks the British blockade wasn't that effective anymore. If America had stayed neutral the Germans could have held out and all sides would have eventually made peace.

Not at all. The Brest-Litovsk act seemed good on paper but in reality it did almost nothing to alleviate the German situation other than freeing up several hundred thousands of troops. Tensions in Poland and open revolts and fighting in Ukraine meant that the Germans were unable to effectively reap the economic benefits of the treaty. The Russian withdrawal ended up just tying down a million German troops which couldn't have been transferred without effectively giving up all that territory, negating the very purpose of the treaty itself. In fact, some historians argue that it actually hurt Germany to accept that treaty.
 
Are you aware that US forces use "double tap" missile strikes? That means they wait till rescue workers and ambulances arrive and begin to dig the wounded out of the rubble and hit it again. That means that you may be a worker or even a family member. You may be close enough to hear the screams of those who are still alive, buried in rubble, but you dare not go to their rescue until enough time has passed that you can hope there won't be another missile.

While you may have no respect, or even contempt, for Canadians - take heed. If it weren't for the Commonwealth of Nations, of which Canada is part of, the U.S. would have lost (hilariously) bad to the Japanese in the Pacific Theatre. The Philippines? Solomon Islands? Guadalcanal? Those were all major movements by the Commonwealth - spearheaded by Britain, Canada and Australia - to assist the U.S. in their resistance against the Japanese... You really think someone that we had to RESORT TO NUCLEAR BOMBARDMENT AGAINST TO DEFEAT would have had any trouble with the under-trained, lackadaisical, under-equipped and undisciplined U.S. forces of the WWII-era?

Hilarious.

Are you aware that despite your fantasies, US forces do not purposefully target aid workers? The idea is to hit jihadist forces who move in to strip the corpses of weaponry and ammunition.

:lamo

Bull****. The commonwealth forces who were on Guadalcanal weren't Canadians at all, but Aussies and New Zealanders. And even then, the US Navy, US Army and US Marine Corps contributed the bulk of allied soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines in the combat zone. The Phillippines was a mostly US and Filipino effort, with some Australian pilots and ships. In the Solomans again, US forces were supplemented by ANZAC troops.

You've confused Canada with Australia and New Zealand. That's ****ing pathetic.

Well bud, considering that the Japanese humiliated your beloved Commonwealth forces at a number of battles prior to the US victory at Midway, most notably the fall of Singapore.....

"Under-trained" "lackadaisical" "under equipped" "undisciplined".

You do realize the M1 Garand was arguably the best semiautomatic rifle of the war, right? And despite you spouting every stereotype of American troops.....pretty much ever, the United States' forces played the key role in driving the Empire of Japan back.
 
Are you aware that despite your fantasies, US forces do not purposefully target aid workers? The idea is to hit jihadist forces who move in to strip the corpses of weaponry and ammunition.

:lamo

Bull****. The commonwealth forces who were on Guadalcanal weren't Canadians at all, but Aussies and New Zealanders. And even then, the US Navy, US Army and US Marine Corps contributed the bulk of allied soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines in the combat zone. The Phillippines was a mostly US and Filipino effort, with some Australian pilots and ships. In the Solomans again, US forces were supplemented by ANZAC troops.

You've confused Canada with Australia and New Zealand. That's ****ing pathetic.

Well bud, considering that the Japanese humiliated your beloved Commonwealth forces at a number of battles prior to the US victory at Midway, most notably the fall of Singapore.....

"Under-trained" "lackadaisical" "under equipped" "undisciplined".

You do realize the M1 Garand was arguably the best semiautomatic rifle of the war, right? And despite you spouting every stereotype of American troops.....pretty much ever, the United States' forces played the key role in driving the Empire of Japan back.

Your insinuations are laughable, and equally as pathetic as the insinuations you accuse of being accurate are. Jesus ****ing Christ dude, if you have a bias at least ****ing admit it. I'll let Grand Mal finish off your Americanist ass.
 
100 Years Ago The US Declares War on Germany

WWI was a a preventable war that led to all kinds of horrors later in the 20th century. unfortunately, people today have largely forgotten about it, leading us to make the same mistakes again and again.
 
Your insinuations are laughable, and equally as pathetic as the insinuations you accuse of being accurate are. Jesus ****ing Christ dude, if you have a bias at least ****ing admit it. I'll let Grand Mal finish off your Americanist ass.

Grand Mal seems utterly uninterested in supporting your desperate, laughable misinterpretation of history.

You can't even get the basic facts right. Why should anybody listen to your fantasies?
 
You played down the role of the U.S. in winning World War One. The victory in the Battle of Belleau Wood, in which 1,811 U.S. Marines were killed, is only one example of how this country contributed to winning a war that Europeans had started. The victory there was important enough that one of the large amphibious ships the Marines used until about ten years ago was named after the battle. I hope that one day the name will be used for a new ship for the Marines.

Hey Shipmate.

The Marines do not use Navy ships, the navy does. And the Marines are overseen by the Dept. of the US Navy.

;)
 
Hey Shipmate.

The Marines do not use Navy ships, the navy does. And the Marines are overseen by the Dept. of the US Navy.
;)

Agreed as to all that. The U.S. Navy, the oldest of all our military services, runs all our warships--no matter who they are transporting. But I'll bet the Navy is damned glad it can always count on the U.S. Marines, which are its ground forces. In turn, I'll bet they are both damned glad they can always count on the U.S. Army, the U.S. Air Force, and the U.S. Coast Guard. Here's a toast to all of them!
 
Imagine if McKinley had not been assassinated and we never had the progress---ive GOP Roosevelt .

Here is the real irony of President Roosevelt.

Like his cousin, he was a lifelong Democrat. But for the time he was a Liberal Nationalist Democrat, not to be confused with the modern Democratic Party. But in both is running for Governor and later Vice-President, he picked the Republican Party more for reasons of practicality than blind party obedience.

Later in life he would try to make the Republicans more Progressive, which failed and led to a schism that floundered the party for years and created a short lived third party, the Progressive Party (commonly called the "Bull Moose Party").

And I am surprised nobody has yet to mention the reason the US got into the war in the first place, the Zimmermann Telegram.

We intend to begin on the first of February unrestricted submarine warfare. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal of alliance on the following basis: make war together, make peace together, generous financial support and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. The settlement in detail is left to you. You will inform the President of the above most secretly as soon as the outbreak of war with the United States of America is certain and add the suggestion that he should, on his own initiative, invite Japan to immediate adherence and at the same time mediate between Japan and ourselves. Please call the President's attention to the fact that the ruthless employment of our submarines now offers the prospect of compelling England in a few months to make peace.
Signed, ZIMMERMANN

This was from Arthur Zimmermann, Foreign Secretary of the German Empire to the Mexican President, through the German Ambassador to Mexico, Heinrich von Eckardt. The two threats (unrestricted submarine warfare and promoting an invasion from Mexico) was the match that lit the outrage of the US and caused it to enter the war.

And while I do believe that the war would have ended the same way without the US joining in, it would have likely added another 2-4 years to the duration of the war. And if that had happened, the death toll would likely have been much-much higher.

That is because in the wake of the Great War, you had a scourge sweep the world that would kill far more people than the war ever did. The Spanish Flu Outbreak of 1918 came right as the war was winding down, and it was the worst plague in history.

It is estimated that over 500 million were infected, and with 100 million dying, that gives it a mortality rate of 1 in 5. The flu is one of the great unknown tragedies of the 20th century, many never having heard of it. A great many older cemeteries in the US and around the world have mass graves for the victims of this disease. And much of the aid in recovering was ironically from soldiers. A great many fighting in the trenches had caught an earlier strain of the disease, and were immune after it mutated to it's more deadly version.

102805_ak_science01.jpg


Much speculation that it first jumped to humans on the battlefield, likely from pigs kept near the battlefield for food (the Spanish Flu, Swine Flu, and H1N1 are different names/strains of the same disease). And it was an illness that swept both sides of the conflict, but likely mutated when it started to spread in the more densely populated cities.

Now imagine what the death tolls worldwide would have been like if the huge numbers of immune soldiers were not available to fight it through the rest of 1918 and 1919.

This is why when I examine history, I see it as a chain of cause and effect. And one of the biggest changes to come out of the war ultimately was the start of modern military medicine. The advances in just the prior 50 years were huge.
 
I can't believe that no one wrote about this today, with 15 minutes but on April 6, 1917 the US declared war on Germany, entering World War I. Sparking major societal change in the US that can still be felt today. The first American shots of the war happened hours later on Guam.

There have been many WWI anniversiries celebrated since 2014, all over Europe. My HS US history was very scant on WWI, a war which changed Europe socially like a cyclone. It really did usher in progressive politics which had been simmering since the mid 1800's.
 
Back
Top Bottom