• 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

Carjosse

Carjosse

Sit Nomine Digna
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
16,508
Reaction score
8,172
Location
Montreal, QC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
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.
 
Carjosse said:
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.
Click to expand...

Change in the US? The war redrew the global map and set the stage for everything which has happened since.
 
Carjosse said:
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.
Click to expand...

One of the most colossal ****ups in known human history.
 
NIMBY said:
Imagine if McKinley had not been assassinated and we never had the progress---ive GOP Roosevelt .
Click to expand...
We will never know. However, TDR was a young man and very popular and hard to believe that he would have not been elected President at the ripe old age of 50. And 2 terms would take him to 1917 and probably a different response in WW1. Hard to predict whether he would have gotten involved in the family dispute in Europe-basically royals bickering. But he probably would not have allowed such a disastrous peace agreement.
Unfortunately the lying racist Wilson was President instead.
 
Eric7216 said:
We will never know. However, TDR was a young man and very popular and hard to believe that he would have not been elected President at the ripe old age of 50. And 2 terms would take him to 1917 and probably a different response in WW1. Hard to predict whether he would have gotten involved in the family dispute in Europe-basically royals bickering. But he probably would not have allowed such a disastrous peace agreement.
Unfortunately the lying racist Wilson was President instead.
Click to expand...

I was going to respond until I read your last sentence .
 
Eric7216 said:
We will never know. However, TDR was a young man and very popular and hard to believe that he would have not been elected President at the ripe old age of 50. And 2 terms would take him to 1917 and probably a different response in WW1. Hard to predict whether he would have gotten involved in the family dispute in Europe-basically royals bickering. But he probably would not have allowed such a disastrous peace agreement.
Unfortunately the lying racist Wilson was President instead.
Click to expand...

I would not say it was royals bickering, I would say the largest cause of the war was militarism, nationalism, and incompetent leadership. All of that can be exemplified by Conrad von Hotzendorf:
182908-004-E201F292.jpg


This man was the one who pushed the Austro-Hugarian emperor to declare war. He is also one of the worst military leaders in history, directly responsible for the deaths of millions through sheer incompetence.
 
Carjosse said:
I would not say it was royals bickering, I would say the largest cause of the war was militarism, nationalism, and incompetent leadership. All of that can be exemplified by Conrad von Hotzendorf:
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. Hadn't heard of the guy. My son had a history teacher in HS who was British and who called WW1 a royal family squabble and I liked that idea. But there are the things you mentioned. And the power vacuum of the decline of the Ottoman Empire.
 
Eric7216 said:
Thanks for the info. Hadn't heard of the guy. My son had a history teacher in HS who was British and who called WW1 a royal family squabble and I liked that idea. But there are the things you mentioned. And the power vacuum of the decline of the Ottoman Empire.
Click to expand...

He lead an assault into the Carpathian Mountains, during the winter, without any winter equipment, outnumbered by the Russians, three times. The Austro-Hungarians were the worst military force in the war: poorly trained, under-equipped, and poorly lead. If it was just a war between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, Serbia probably would have won. They invaded Serbia at the speed of a bicycle.


Skip to 5:40

The Great War Channel goes over the war week by week 100 hundred years later. Might like it.
 
NIMBY said:
I was going to respond until I read your last sentence .
Click to expand...

Why? because he told the truth?

both allegations against Wilson are verifiable
 
Carjosse said:
I would not say it was royals bickering, I would say the largest cause of the war was militarism, nationalism, and incompetent leadership. All of that can be exemplified by Conrad von Hotzendorf:
182908-004-E201F292.jpg


This man was the one who pushed the Austro-Hugarian emperor to declare war. He is also one of the worst military leaders in history, directly responsible for the deaths of millions through sheer incompetence.
Click to expand...

Let's face it, everyone wanted war, not just him. Tsar Nicholas Romanov was an incompetent fool who decided to mobilize his troops when advised not to. The Kaiser was another moron who wanted to build a fleet of battleships which alienated Britain to ally with France. The list goes on and on.
 
Eric7216 said:
We will never know. However, TDR was a young man and very popular and hard to believe that he would have not been elected President at the ripe old age of 50. And 2 terms would take him to 1917 and probably a different response in WW1. Hard to predict whether he would have gotten involved in the family dispute in Europe-basically royals bickering. But he probably would not have allowed such a disastrous peace agreement.
Unfortunately the lying racist Wilson was President instead.
Click to expand...

a bad time for America during Wilson's term

16th amendment
17th amendment




Wilson himself faults

federal reserve act

He famously promised that the world “would be made safe for democracy.”...yet Wilson makes it known in his own book, America was not interned to be a democracy.

Woodrow Wilson in his book Division and Reunion (pg 12), wrote that "The Federal government was not by intention a democratic government. In plan and in structure it had been meant to check the sweep and power of popular majorities...

In 1912 Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic candidate for president, promised fairness and justice for blacks if elected. In a letter to a black church official, Wilson wrote, "Should I become President of the United States they may count upon me for absolute fair dealing for everything by which I could assist in advancing their interests of the race." But after the election, Wilson changed his tune. He dismissed 15 out of 17 black supervisors who had been previously appointed to federal jobs.........

The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow . Jim Crow Stories . Segregation in the U. S. Government | PBS
 
It's a good thing we got there when we did. We saved the day.
 
Carjosse said:
I would not say it was royals bickering, I would say the largest cause of the war was militarism, nationalism, and incompetent leadership. All of that can be exemplified by Conrad von Hotzendorf:

This man was the one who pushed the Austro-Hugarian emperor to declare war. He is also one of the worst military leaders in history, directly responsible for the deaths of millions through sheer incompetence.
Click to expand...

Naw...it was stupid entangling alliances that caused it. If everyone had minded their own business and kept to themselves it would have remained a war between 2nd rate powers. Once Russia started mobilizing, Germany didn't really have much of a choice left because they couldn't fight a two-front war.
 
PoS said:
Let's face it, everyone wanted war, not just him. Tsar Nicholas Romanov was an incompetent fool who decided to mobilize his troops when advised not to. The Kaiser was another moron who wanted to build a fleet of battleships which alienated Britain to ally with France. The list goes on and on.
Click to expand...

And Britain still didn't really want to get into it until Germany used Belgium in an attempt to circumvent French fortifications. Britain had a hard alliance with Belgium to protect their sovereignty, which was a good enough of an excuse for the pro-war faction to win out.
 
Fishking said:
Naw...it was stupid entangling alliances that caused it. If everyone had minded their own business and kept to themselves it would have remained a war between 2nd rate powers. Once Russia started mobilizing, Germany didn't really have much of a choice left because they couldn't fight a two-front war.
Click to expand...

Or they could have just left Austria-Hungary learn the hard way you cannot just invade whoever you want. The alliances contributed to it but the alliances would never have been necessary if Austria-Hungary did not declare war.
 
Eric7216 said:
Thanks for the info. Hadn't heard of the guy. My son had a history teacher in HS who was British and who called WW1 a royal family squabble and I liked that idea. But there are the things you mentioned. And the power vacuum of the decline of the Ottoman Empire.
Click to expand...

I would not call it a family squabble, true most of the Kaisers relations had little tolerance for the blowhard, his being German was inconsequential. The man had terrible insecurities due to his withered arm, and a love hate relationship with his British kin. Once Victoria had died, she was the only one to get the man to heel, he went off the chain. You will have to excuse the Europeans for not celebrating Americas late entry into the war.
 
Carjosse said:
Or they could have just left Austria-Hungary learn the hard way you cannot just invade whoever you want. The alliances contributed to it but the alliances would never have been necessary if Austria-Hungary did not declare war.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a matter of invading whoever they wanted. It was a matter of their leader being assassinated.
 
I recommend the PBS just run, three part series on the US involvement in 'The Great War'. The world didn't have much of a takeaway from the whole ordeal. The peace treaty, really only an armistice, lasted less than twenty years. WWII officially began SEP 1939. But the run up began years before. (Trying to cover the mathematicians arguement, you see.)
 
Fishking said:
It wasn't a matter of invading whoever they wanted. It was a matter of their leader being assassinated.
Click to expand...

Wasn't quite that cut and dried, Fishking
 
apdst said:
It's a good thing we got there when we did. We saved the day.
Click to expand...

lolno.

The Spring Offensives were doomed the moment Ludendorff lost sight of his operational objectives and doomed the entire offensive to failure. The end result is Germany collapses into revolution, but still loses.
 
Fishking said:
It wasn't a matter of invading whoever they wanted. It was a matter of their leader being assassinated.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that Serbia had a superior army, and if Germany did not back Austria-Hungary, there is no way they would have declared war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom