The U.S. & The Great War

[Liason]

I would like to present a simply suggestion and see if any others see it as valid. Simply, "If the U.S. Government had possessed and exercised better control over their media and general populous during The Great War, would its involvement in 1917/+ have been avoided, or at the very least been postponed?".

Also, "Do you think that the U.S. would still have risen to its current stature if it had /not/ gotten involved in The Great War, and if it had kept it's neutrality, would it have involved itself in future wars?".

[Dodeca]

I would like to present a simply suggestion and see if any others see it as valid. Simply, "If the U.S. Government had possessed and exercised better control over their media and general populous during The Great War, would its involvement in 1917/+ have been avoided, or at the very least been postponed?".

It was the reason the public was against the war that the Government had to press really hard with propaganda to enter it.

The US entered the war for a variety of reasons. Here are some summaries of explanations given by WikiAnswers Contributors.
Submarine Warfare and the Lusitania
There were unauthorized German submarines along the US East coast. Germany's resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in the spring of 1917 provided the final straw for US politicians, and America declared war.
The first and foremost answer would be the sinking of the Lusitania, an British cruise/transport ship, bound for Britain from New York. The German U-boat ring sought to sink all supply ships headed for Britain in order to starve the island. It sank the Lusitania as part of its efforts. 1195 people died, including 128 Americans.
The Lusitania's sinking was the biggest influence on the American decision to enter the war. German submarine warfare (the Lusitania is included in this) sunk many ships over several years.
Had it not been for the Lusitania, the US would have stayed out of the War.
Economics
Some say the "bankers" were involved.
The U.S. had huge economic investments with the British and French. If they were to lose, then they would not be able to pay the U.S. debt back (amounting to about two billion dollars while Germany only borrowed a mere 27 million).
If Allies could not pay back all the loans made to them by the American bankers, the US's economy could collapse.
France and England were financing their war with US loans. In addition, they were buying massive amounts of arms from the US on credit. The US wanted to make sure that it got paid back. Germany also purchased arms, but in a much more limited fashion.
Politics
Propaganda from both sides influenced the American decision.
Woodrow Wilson did not want to go to war but when Teddy Roosevelt decided to run for another term, Wilson felt threatened and announced that there would be a preparedness program and possibly that the country would go to war.
By entering the war, the US got to flex its muscles on the world stage and establish itself as a world power.
After both sides of the Mexican civil war demanded that our troops leave and public opinion badly swayed against US intervention in Mexico, Wilson had no choice but to withdraw. By having the threat of Germany helping Mexico fight back against him, Wilson knew he had to take action. He couldn't go back into Mexico because the American people would not allow it. He really had no beef with Germany, he just wanted to save face before Mexico could fight back.
Ideology
President Wilson wanted to make the world safe for democracy ("Wilson's War Address to Congress").
It was partly for idealistic reasons (propaganda was not seen as an evil until after the Great War). The occupation of Belgium and the sinking of the Lusitania changed a lot people's minds in the US about Germany.
There was more to it than just the submarine warfare and the sinking of the Lusitania although those were the formal and legalistic reasons for declaring war. I think that over time a moral sense had developed that Britain and France were fighting the good fight for freedom against a genuine evil. If that sense had not existed I think the US would have let the Lusitania pass. As it was, it was nearly two years after she was sunk that we finally did declare war.
Zimmerman Telegram
Other points influenced entrance to the war, but the Zimmerman Telegram (sometimes called the "Zimmerman note" or "Zimmerman telegraph") finally pushed the US to war. The Zimmerman Telegram was sent from the German foreign secretary to the German Ambassador to Mexico. It stated the following:
On the first of February, 1917, submarine warfare will be reinstated unrestrictively.
The US has to stay neutral.
Germany proposes an alliance with Mexico on the following basis: If the US goes to war, Mexico must fight on the home front in an financially supported alliance with Germany; If Mexico agrees to fight, they will reconquer New Mexico, Texas and Arizona.
The telegraph was intercepted by British Intelligence and transmitted to the American government by the Brits.
This infuriated Americans. It was the same sort of alliance that plunged Europe into war.
Other WikiAnswers Contributors agree:
The clincher was "discovery" of the Zimmerman Telegram (it was de-coded by the British and forwarded to US diplomats; with obvious self-interest on the part of the Brits).
Problem regarding the Lusitania as a reason (cause) for American entry
Twenty-two months plus passed between the sinking of the Lusitania in May 1915 and U.S. entry into World War 1 in April 1917. In view of this it is very hard to see the Lusitania as a cause of American entry. It no doubt did much to turn American public opinion against Germany, but that's a different matter. It really seems that the idea that the Lusitania was a cause or the #1 reason is a myth. Is anyone really claiming that the U.S. waited for 22-23 months to respond to the sinking of the Lusitania? Pull the other one ...

[Liason]

It was the reason the public was against the war that the Government had to press really hard with propaganda to enter it.

The US entered the war for a variety of reasons. Here are some summaries of explanations given by WikiAnswers Contributors.
Submarine Warfare and the Lusitania
There were unauthorized German submarines along the US East coast. Germany's resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in the spring of 1917 provided the final straw for US politicians, and America declared war.
The first and foremost answer would be the sinking of the Lusitania, an British cruise/transport ship, bound for Britain from New York. The German U-boat ring sought to sink all supply ships headed for Britain in order to starve the island. It sank the Lusitania as part of its efforts. 1195 people died, including 128 Americans.
The Lusitania's sinking was the biggest influence on the American decision to enter the war. German submarine warfare (the Lusitania is included in this) sunk many ships over several years.
Had it not been for the Lusitania, the US would have stayed out of the War.
Economics
Some say the "bankers" were involved.
The U.S. had huge economic investments with the British and French. If they were to lose, then they would not be able to pay the U.S. debt back (amounting to about two billion dollars while Germany only borrowed a mere 27 million).
If Allies could not pay back all the loans made to them by the American bankers, the US's economy could collapse.
France and England were financing their war with US loans. In addition, they were buying massive amounts of arms from the US on credit. The US wanted to make sure that it got paid back. Germany also purchased arms, but in a much more limited fashion.
Politics
Propaganda from both sides influenced the American decision.
Woodrow Wilson did not want to go to war but when Teddy Roosevelt decided to run for another term, Wilson felt threatened and announced that there would be a preparedness program and possibly that the country would go to war.
By entering the war, the US got to flex its muscles on the world stage and establish itself as a world power.
After both sides of the Mexican civil war demanded that our troops leave and public opinion badly swayed against US intervention in Mexico, Wilson had no choice but to withdraw. By having the threat of Germany helping Mexico fight back against him, Wilson knew he had to take action. He couldn't go back into Mexico because the American people would not allow it. He really had no beef with Germany, he just wanted to save face before Mexico could fight back.
Ideology
President Wilson wanted to make the world safe for democracy ("Wilson's War Address to Congress").
It was partly for idealistic reasons (propaganda was not seen as an evil until after the Great War). The occupation of Belgium and the sinking of the Lusitania changed a lot people's minds in the US about Germany.
There was more to it than just the submarine warfare and the sinking of the Lusitania although those were the formal and legalistic reasons for declaring war. I think that over time a moral sense had developed that Britain and France were fighting the good fight for freedom against a genuine evil. If that sense had not existed I think the US would have let the Lusitania pass. As it was, it was nearly two years after she was sunk that we finally did declare war.
Zimmerman Telegram
Other points influenced entrance to the war, but the Zimmerman Telegram (sometimes called the "Zimmerman note" or "Zimmerman telegraph") finally pushed the US to war. The Zimmerman Telegram was sent from the German foreign secretary to the German Ambassador to Mexico. It stated the following:
On the first of February, 1917, submarine warfare will be reinstated unrestrictively.
The US has to stay neutral.
Germany proposes an alliance with Mexico on the following basis: If the US goes to war, Mexico must fight on the home front in an financially supported alliance with Germany; If Mexico agrees to fight, they will reconquer New Mexico, Texas and Arizona.
The telegraph was intercepted by British Intelligence and transmitted to the American government by the Brits.
This infuriated Americans. It was the same sort of alliance that plunged Europe into war.
Other WikiAnswers Contributors agree:
The clincher was "discovery" of the Zimmerman Telegram (it was de-coded by the British and forwarded to US diplomats; with obvious self-interest on the part of the Brits).
Problem regarding the Lusitania as a reason (cause) for American entry
Twenty-two months plus passed between the sinking of the Lusitania in May 1915 and U.S. entry into World War 1 in April 1917. In view of this it is very hard to see the Lusitania as a cause of American entry. It no doubt did much to turn American public opinion against Germany, but that's a different matter. It really seems that the idea that the Lusitania was a cause or the #1 reason is a myth. Is anyone really claiming that the U.S. waited for 22-23 months to respond to the sinking of the Lusitania? Pull the other one ...

Allied Media was used to incite the public towards war. If the government had more control over the public and Media, I am initially proposing that the war could have been postponed or avoided entirely.

[Causa Mortis]

I would like to present a simply suggestion and see if any others see it as valid. Simply, "If the U.S. Government had possessed and exercised better control over their media and general populous during The Great War, would its involvement in 1917/+ have been avoided, or at the very least been postponed?".

Also, "Do you think that the U.S. would still have risen to its current stature if it had /not/ gotten involved in The Great War, and if it had kept it's neutrality, would it have involved itself in future wars?".

"possessed and exercised better control"? What does that even mean - that government should have controlled public debates in the media because, erm, thoughts are dangerwous?

US relative power shares are today a direct result of overwhelming productivity advantages and because, for whatever reason, its been at the forefront of every revolutionary innovation since the late 1800s. That innovation is what continues to distinguish the United States from other powers even as per person incomes converge.

These productivity advantages and innovation gaps were present in the US before the first world war and were strikingly apparent by the end of the second. I don't see where any argument exists that the US economy was significantly more productive as a result of WW1. It simply adopted highly efficient forms of production and organization during this period, and everyone else has basically copied the essential parts and have had income convergence since then.

---------- Post added 03-02-2010 at 04:53 PM ----------

Allied Media was used to incite the public towards war.

So what. If their ideas were bollox, then people would have seen through them quickly. "Allied propaganda" had merit, withstood counterchallenges, and it was persuasive.

INTJf is a great example of a market place of ideas - people propose ideas, others support or challenge those ideas, and bad ideas are quickly beaten out of the market on any number of epistemic grounds. No thought cop is necessary for us to recognize bollox - it happens spontaneously because we're generally educated and critical thinkers, not because we're tainted by dangerwous characterizations of fact as determined by a central authority.

[reb]

it's just my general recollection, but german history from the time they became a nation would point to their continued aggression until such time as they were brought under control. perhaps the u.s. could have stayed out of it, but my impression is that there was too much economic wealth at stake, and the u.s. has never wanted a strong nation state that would oppose it, such as germany or u.s.s.r..

the pathetic attempts at keeping china from becoming the powerhouse it now is should provide an interesting counterpoint to a study of german aggression. evidently, our 'leaders' have no clue how to deal with more subtle forms of warfare than germany preferred.

the media in general is only the flapping gums of what 'leaders' want the people to hear. i would submit that most of the media has always been under control, since perhaps the invention of the radio and somewhat widespread use in the 20s or so. this is likely something straight out of 'the revolutionaries' rule book'-control the media.

[Causa Mortis]

it's just my general recollection, but german history from the time they became a nation would point to their continued aggression until such time as they were brought under control. perhaps the u.s. could have stayed out of it, but my impression is that there was too much economic wealth at stake, and the u.s. has never wanted a strong nation state that would oppose it, such as germany or u.s.s.r..

This is a micharacterization. Germany as a country came together much the same way that the US did; with wars, subtle diplomacy, shady diplomacy, and economic power. Russia came together the same way during the 1400-1700s, as did France and Spain in the 1400s and England prior to that. There's nothing particularly aggressive about German history generally until after Versailles.

The US has gone to great lengths to promote strong states in the UK, France, and post war Germany and Japan. More importantly still - its held China's hand through the WTO and globalization for a half a dozen different reason. The notion that the US is this uber-machiavellian state doesn't have merit - of the 5 hegemons (Alexander's Greece, Rome, Spain, England, and the US), it looks rather principled in comparison to all except perhaps Alexander's Greece, and its hegemony has been clearly preferable on humanitarian grounds to its challengers (Nazi Germany, Tojo's Japan, the USSR, Islamic facists, and now China).

the pathetic attempts at keeping china from becoming the powerhouse it now is should provide an interesting counterpoint to a study of german aggression. evidently, our 'leaders' have no clue how to deal with more subtle forms of warfare than germany preferred.

China's "powerhouse" summarized:
1. people are getting indoor plumbing
2. China owns about 8% of a single year's GDP in US treasuries that they can't sell because it would tank their growth
3. if it sustains itself for another 40 years, they might have something resembling a US standard of living

the media in general is only the flapping gums of what 'leaders' want the people to hear.

Really - Obama is high on Faux News? Bush was high on Olberman, Stewart and company?

[Liason]

So what. If their ideas were bollox, then people would have seen through them quickly. "Allied propaganda" had merit, withstood counterchallenges, and it was persuasive.

INTJf is a great example of a market place of ideas - people propose ideas, others support or challenge those ideas, and bad ideas are quickly beaten out of the market on any number of epistemic grounds. No thought cop is necessary for us to recognize bollox - it happens spontaneously because we're generally educated and critical thinkers, not because we're tainted by dangerwous characterizations of fact as determined by a central authority.

I see your point, but as an example, the incident with the Lusitania was heavily over blown by the media. The Germans bought an entire page ad from the TIMES warning no Americans to board it, yet the media over-blew it entirely and incited the public.

[Dodeca]

I see your point, but as an example, the incident with the Lusitania was heavily over blown by the media. The Germans bought an entire page ad from the TIMES warning no Americans to board it, yet the media over-blew it entirely and incited the public.

I wonder why. :deal:

[SShack]

Looking at the practicalities of the matter, setting aside any moral question of whether it would be right or wrong to do so, what makes you think the government is or was capable of "controlling" the media in the U.S.?

The media is not one singular entity. As a most recent example, even though a number of major media outlets bought the Bush Administration's arguments for action against Iraq, a number of media outlets were skeptical and and some papers editorialized against military action.

While some nations have been successful in consolidating the media under government control and influence, I don't see how it would be possible in the size and fragmentation of American culture to do it here, even back then. Even in periods of American history where there have been significant amounts of conformity among major media in compliance with the government's wishes, there are always some who refuse to cooperate.

[Liason]

Looking at the practicalities of the matter, setting aside any moral question of whether it would be right or wrong to do so, what makes you think the government is or was capable of "controlling" the media in the U.S.?

I would like to present a simply suggestion and see if any others see it as valid. Simply, "If the U.S. Government had possessed and exercised better control over their media and general populous during The Great War, would its involvement in 1917/+ have been avoided, or at the very least been postponed?".

Also, "Do you think that the U.S. would still have risen to its current stature if it had /not/ gotten involved in The Great War, and if it had kept it's neutrality, would it have involved itself in future wars?".

I did not say that I thought it could, I said If it had.

[SeaCzar]

I would like to present a simply suggestion and see if any others see it as valid. Simply, "If the U.S. Government had possessed and exercised better control over their media and general populous during The Great War, would its involvement in 1917/+ have been avoided, or at the very least been postponed?".

Certain parts of the media was raging for war almost from the start of the conflict in 1914. When the Germans sank the Lusitania, it went to a fever pitch. Woodrow Wilson's mind was dead set against getting into the conflict. Hind sight is 20/20, but this was unfortunate for the United States and indeed the rest of the world. Early and active participation would have avoided many of the ensuing disasters of the 20th century, namely communism and the Second World War, the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, etc, etc. Tens of millions died as a result of this short sightedness.

The Zimmermann Telegraph and the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare by the Germans finally forced Wilson's hand. Had the Lusitania done so earlier, its arguable that the history of the 20th century would not have been such a bloody affair.

Also, "Do you think that the U.S. would still have risen to its current stature if it had /not/ gotten involved in The Great War, and if it had kept it's neutrality, would it have involved itself in future wars?".

Yes. If the world is to live in peace, it needs a power, or a balance of power to do so. Sea power is key, and the reason that there was no "great war" between the Napoleonic Wars that ended in 1815 and the start of the Great War in 1914 is because Great Britain ruled the world's oceans. The United States cannot exist as an economic powerhouse without promoting its interests politically.

[Causa Mortis]

I see your point, but as an example, the incident with the Lusitania was heavily over blown by the media. The Germans bought an entire page ad from the TIMES warning no Americans to board it, yet the media over-blew it entirely and incited the public.

So what? The Germans were completely out of line with the Lusitania - it wasn't an ambiguous event, and the marketplace for ideas found the counterargument lacking.

And if anyone in office seriously started talking about regulating ideas in the media, I'm reaching for my gun - free thought, free speech, and a marketplace for ideas is a big part of why the West surged 1500-2000 while the Middle East and China, previously well ahead of the West, descended into 500 years of self-indulgent stagnation. Its why we're talking about a "Chinese miracle" when about half now have indoor plumbing at home.


And even if we do accept that the media played a significant role in shaping the US decision to enter WW1, you still have not established how the US benefited from its involvement. It was expensive, it lost a lot of quality human capital, it didn't gain any territory or money as a result, and it interjected several forms of destabilization into the US economy, some of which - like gross excess production in farming and tighter Federal Reserve controls - contributed to the Great Depression.

[SeaCzar]

This is a micharacterization. Germany as a country came together much the same way that the US did; with wars, subtle diplomacy, shady diplomacy, and economic power. Russia came together the same way during the 1400-1700s, as did France and Spain in the 1400s and England prior to that. There's nothing particularly aggressive about German history generally until after Versailles.

I have to take issue here. German foreign policy under the Kaiser, and after Bismarck, was very aggressive. There was a naval arms build up to try take naval supremacy from the British. The German army was also built up to fight a war on two fronts. Despite the flourishing economic scene in Europe at this time (even Russia was becoming relatively prosperous and industrializing), politically, Europe was a powder keg.

[Liason]

So what? The Germans were completely out of line with the Lusitania - it wasn't an ambiguous event, and the marketplace for ideas found the counterargument lacking.


It was told that americans should not board that ship. Not to get on it since they were bombing it/planning to bomb it. It was simply an accident that it hit a coal bunker and blew it to smitherines. How was this out of line?

[Causa Mortis]

It was told that americans should not board that ship.

Asian-brand sheeple logic much? The Germans did not have the ability to tell Americans what ships they could and could not board. Attacking the ship was wrong, the media portrayed that, the German counterarguments were weak, the US entered the war.

And even had it not been, the US current relative power share wouldn't have changed much and may have actually been higher, with US technology being the driver behind relative US dominance, and, rather irionically, free speech and a marketplace for ideas one of a handful of key factors in that technological gap.

It was simply an accident that it hit a coal bunker and blew it to smitherines. How was this out of line?

So its somehow OK that I kill a man because I was only trying to beat him to a bloody pulp?

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 01:56 PM ----------

I have to take issue here. German foreign policy under the Kaiser, and after Bismarck, was very aggressive. There was a naval arms build up to try take naval supremacy from the British. The German army was also built up to fight a war on two fronts. Despite the flourishing economic scene in Europe at this time (even Russia was becoming relatively prosperous and industrializing), politically, Europe was a powder keg.

And US history wasn't remarkably bloody from 1776-1848? And French history isn't remarkably bloody from the late 1300s until the late 1400s? And Spanish history isn't remarkably bloody from the early 1400s until the mid 1500s? Forming big countries is ugly. Germany from Bismark to the start WW1 was not particularly violent. Versailles...well that would have made most countries violent.

[shytiger]

The sinking of American merchant ships by German U-boats doesn't seem like something you can keep quiet about, besides which, even totally trying to control public opinion as he did after the declaration of war, opinions of those in the government would surely have pressed Wilson into the war. He could, I suppose, have done what Adams did during the quasi-war with France and just renegotiate and renegotiate.

[Liason]

Asian-brand sheeple logic much? The Germans did not have the ability to tell Americans what ships they could and could not board. Attacking the ship was wrong, the media portrayed that, the German counterarguments were weak, the US entered the war.


So its somehow OK that I kill a man because I was only trying to beat him to a bloody pulp?

Firstly, I said they told the Americans that they should not board. Not that they could not. It is the difference between fair warning and a command. Given the warning, the Americans were responsible for their own actions and suffered for their actions accordingly.

Secondly, protocol was that the submarine surface and signal that they were going to blow the ship up. Then they have a period of waiting where the ship will be allowed to evacuate into life boats, [the titanic is near unique in its case] and then blow the ship up. They fired a warning shot to slow them down, and accidently hit the coal bunker. They had not the technology then to aim so accurately on purpose.

Lastly, I see not why you are becoming so heated? You are attempting to turn this into an argument, whilst only gleaning information from myself and shooting off accusations. If you would please, take a step back and realize that this thread was started in order to find others viewpoints on a hypothetical situation, and not to debate semantics or views. More of free response question than any sort of debate. I suggest such a course of action.

[SeaCzar]

The U-20 that sank the Lusitania had only one torpedo left when the ill fated ship appeared in its scopes. Lieutenant Schwieger, captaining the U-20 ordered the torpedo fired, knowing full well that his target was the Lusitania.

The second explosion was unlikely due to coal dust in the emptied bunkers. It is widely believed now that the secon explosion was in one of the steam boilers, or perhaps the tubes feeding the steam to Lusitania's engines.

And US history wasn't remarkably bloody from 1776-1848? And French history isn't remarkably bloody from the late 1300s until the late 1400s? And Spanish history isn't remarkably bloody from the early 1400s until the mid 1500s? Forming big countries is ugly. Germany from Bismark to the start WW1 was not particularly violent. Versailles...well that would have made most countries violent.

Versailles was and still is a profound failure, whose consequences are still being felt today (the Balkans, Iraq. the Middle East).

I would still argue that the 20th century was the most violent on record, and on a global scale. WWI wiped out an entire generation in Britain, France, Germany, Russia and what was Austria-Hungary. WW2 made this slaughter look like a day at the beach. Russia alone lost more than 26 million people. Its estimated that Mao's forced collectivization of agriculture cost another 100 million. Germany's extermination camps killed over 12 million, including 6 million Jews.

I'll take the Middle Ages in France over the 20th century any day.

[Ray9]

I agree that the threat of Mexico allying itself with Germany was the major reason for the US entering the war. If America had held back, German-financed and inspired incursions into the United States from south of the border would have surely occurred if Germany got the upper hand in Europe. Had the US remained neutral it would have eventually been fighting a war on its own soil so the logical response was to fight the Germans in Europe. The media at the time did a good job of getting this point accross to the citizenry and it was this, not submarine attacks on merchant vessels that swayed public opinion. The mistake that was made after Gemany was defeated was instead of helping them rebuild and restore their economy the focus was on punishment and sanctions. This led to Hitler as we all know.

[LaoTzu]

I'll take the Middle Ages in France over the 20th century any day.

I see your point on this, but I think that it had more to do with advances in weaponry...the degree of slaughter in the 20th century. I think humanity is better off in these times than at any point in history.... teetering on the brink at all times, but still better off.

The OP assumes that war was inevitable because of public opinion... Reality is, it was the other way around.


Executive Order 2594
The Committee on Public Information (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), also known as the CPI or the Creel Committee, was an independent agency of the government of the United States created to influence U.S. public opinion regarding American participation in World War I. Over just 28 months, from April 13, 1917 to August 21, 1919, it used every media available to create enthusiasm for the war effort and enlist public support against foreign attempts to undercut America's war aims.

There is some talk of censorship of the press through this program...and some denial. The fact is, with a huge media machine in place, and about 75,000 volunteers (by war's end)... there would be no need for active censorship. The press would censor itself, for fear of running against wide (and rabid) opinion. Also, the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act put a damper on speech.... :/

[Metzger]

Asian-brand sheeple logic much?

So its somehow OK that I kill a man because I was only trying to beat him to a bloody pulp?


Causa Mortis, stop using Straw Man arguments and taking things out of context, srsly.

Attacking the ship was wrong, the media portrayed that, the German counterarguments were weak, the US entered the war.

It is well known fact that the Lusitania was loaded to the brim with supplies.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

SEE: $200,000+ worth of ammunition, $60,000+ military goods.

What business did that have being on an alleged passenger ship?

[eagleseven]

What business did that have being on an alleged passenger ship?
America was selling Britain military supplies. Along with the rifle ammunition, there were 1,959 passengers on board.

The Germans knew sinking the ship was an act of war, and they did not hesitate.

[Metzger]

The Germans knew sinking the ship was an act of war, and they did not hesitate.

In what way is sinking a military vessel --during wartime-- an act of war? The second the ship began carrying that manner of supplies it became a legal military target. The whole reason the Germans sunk the ship was because they suspected it was carrying military suppies, and guess what, it was. Both your points are wrong.

Also, the sinking of the Lusitania, a British vessel(who they were at war with, in case you didn't know), could in no way be a valid Casus Belli for the Americans.

[LaoTzu]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



Good times.

[eagleseven]

In what way is sinking a military vessel --during wartime-- an act of war? The second the ship began carrying that manner of supplies it became a legal military target. The whole reason the Germans sunk the ship was because they suspected it was carrying military suppies, and guess what, it was. Both your points are wrong.
It was carrying American-made military supplies.

Also, the sinking of the Lusitania, a British vessel(who they were at war with, in case you didn't know), could in no way be a valid Casus Belli for the Americans.
Which is why we didn't declare war until the discovery of the Zimmerman telegram.

In case you didn't know, Germany was planning a dual Mexican-Japanese invasion of the US in 1917. We uncovered their plan, and declared war in April of 1917.

[Aronnax]

I would still argue that the 20th century was the most violent on record, and on a global scale. WWI wiped out an entire generation in Britain, France, Germany, Russia and what was Austria-Hungary. WW2 made this slaughter look like a day at the beach. Russia alone lost more than 26 million people. Its estimated that Mao's forced collectivization of agriculture cost another 100 million. Germany's extermination camps killed over 12 million, including 6 million Jews.

I'll take the Middle Ages in France over the 20th century any day.

That's because you're considering gross values rather than probability of personal harm. For the average human the 20th century was more more peaceful and prosperous than any point in recorded history.

[Metzger]

It was carrying American-made military supplies.

Which were headed to Britain, to give to British troops, to kill German soldiers.

Which is why we didn't declare war until the Zimmerman telegram.

You still haven't proven how the sinking of the Lusitania was an act of war.

In case you didn't know, Germany was planning a dual Mexican-Japanese invasion of the US in 1917. We uncovered their plan, and declared war in April of 1917.

Cool. Still doesn't help your argument.

[Aronnax]

You still haven't proven how the sinking of the Lusitania was an act of war.


Killing 128 US civilians on a passenger liner is going to get bad results.

[Metzger]

Killing 128 US civilians on a passenger liner is going to get bad results.

See point #1.

The fact remains however, as the ship was British, the Germans attacked a British ship, giving the Americans no jurisdiction as far as a Casus Belli is concerned, which is why they needed the Zimmerman Telegram in the first place.

[eagleseven]

Which were headed to Britain, to give to British troops, to kill German soldiers.
So? Would it change if said transport was carrying American rations that would feed British troops? Or American fuel that would supply British battleships?

You still haven't proven how the sinking of the Lusitania was an act of war.
Proven? Do tell how you prove anything in international relations?

Simply put, if you shoot at another country's merchants, expect that country to respond.

[Metzger]

So? Would it change if said transport was carrying American rations that would feed British troops? Or American fuel that would supply British battleships?


Actually yes, because neither of those are so blatantly violating the rules of warfare.

Proven? Do tell how you prove anything in international relations?

Why don't you tell me? You clearly stated it was an act of war, so how do you intend to explain your words? That is all I am asking, for some proof, evidence, something logically backed maybe.

Simply put, if you shoot at another country's merchants, expect that country to respond.

Ahhhh, so now it's a merchant ship? What are you trying to do here, prove my point for me?

[Aronnax]

See point #1.

The fact remains however, as the ship was British, the Germans attacked a British ship, giving the Americans no jurisdiction as far as a Casus Belli is concerned, which is why they needed the Zimmerman Telegram in the first place.



The home port of the ship really doesn't matter. Casus Belli is just a fancy way to say "rationalization used to justify mass murder". Killing that many civilians is enough justification for most nations to wage war and certainly was for large sections of the US.

The Zimmerman Telegram forced Wilson's very reluctant hand but the public support was there after the sinking of the Lusitania.

[Metzger]

Killing that many civilians is enough justification for most nations to wage war and certainly was for large sections of the US.

A similar situation would be if some American tourists went to no-man's land and were consequently mowed down by machine gun fire. What did they expect?

[Aronnax]

A similar situation would be if some American tourists went to no-man's land and were consequently mowed down by machine gun fire. What did they expect?

What did the guy behind the machine gun expect the US to do?

[eagleseven]

Actually yes, because neither of those are so blatantly violating the rules of warfare.
Do the rules of warfare allow you to target the trading partners of your enemy? This is precisely what Germany did when they declared unrestricted submarine warfare.

Why don't you tell me? You clearly stated it was an act of war, so how do you intend to explain your words? That is all I am asking, for some proof, evidence, something logically backed maybe.
The logic is simple.

Casus belli (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) - an event or action that justifies or allegedly justifies a war or conflict

After the sinking of the Lusitania, the American populace demanded war. Thus, it was a casus belli, by definition.


Ahhhh, so now it's a merchant ship? What are you trying to do here, prove my point for me?
If Germany was interested in peace, they would have apologized and avoided American merchants from then on. Instead, Germany continued to attack, sinking a total of seven American ships before we finally declared war.

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 11:41 PM ----------

A similar situation would be if some American tourists went to no-man's land and were consequently mowed down by machine gun fire. What did they expect?
That recently happened off the coast of Somalia, and we sent in the Navy SEALS.

[Metzger]

What did the guy behind the machine gun expect the US to do?

How could they think of that? They looked just like British soldiers to him.

Do the rules of warfare allow you to target the trading partners of your enemy? This is precisely what Germany did when they declared unrestricted submarine warfare.


Yes. Britain and her allies did it the entirety of the war, they even shot down ships carrying nothing but foodstuffs. Germany had every right to at least shoot down ships carrying military supplies.

If Germany was interested in peace, they would have apologized and avoided American merchants from then on. Instead, Germany continued to attack, sinking a total of seven American ships before we finally declared war.

Why should they apologize for sinking ships carrying contraband? If anything the Germans were in their rights to declare war on America for this.

It's one thing to sink a ship carrying luxury items for trade, but if it's carrying contraband like the Lusitania was, it's fair game.

[eagleseven]

Yes. Britain and her allies did it the entirety of the war, they even shot down ships carrying nothing but foodstuffs. Germany had every right to at least shoot down ships carrying military supplies.
Did Britain complain when said countries returned fire? This was a world war.

Why should they apologize for sinking ships carrying contraband? If anything the Germans were in their rights to declare war on America for this.
Both the German Empire and the USA had casus bellis, I agree.

No doubt, this was why Germany was planning a dual Mexican-Japanese invasion of the US (which luckily never came to fruition).

[Causa Mortis]

Firstly, I said they told the Americans that they should not board. Not that they could not. It is the difference between fair warning and a command. Given the warning, the Americans were responsible for their own actions and suffered for their actions accordingly.

If you leave your house tomorrow, I will rape your wife and burn down your home. Ergo if you leave your home tomorrow and I rape your wife and burn down your home, you are responsible for your own action. That about right?

Lastly, I see not why you are becoming so heated? You are attempting to turn this into an argument, whilst only gleaning information from myself and shooting off accusations. If you would please, take a step back and realize that this thread was started in order to find others viewpoints on a hypothetical situation, and not to debate semantics or views. More of free response question than any sort of debate. I suggest such a course of action.

If you can't handle someone questioning bad ideas, then don't participate in the marketplace for ideas. This isn't Asia or your California classrooms where bad ideas get equal or state-sanctioned time, this is a free exchange of ideas. No personal comments were made, grow some thicker skin.

[Metzger]

Did Britain complain when said countries returned fire? This was a world war.

Exactly, so why did America think they could sell shit to the British and get away with it?

Both the German Empire and the USA had casus bellis, I agree.

What is your point here other than trying to contort mine?

[thod]

A lot of people do not even know that the US had any involvement in that war. The casus belli was not so important. That the allies were going to win was clear to all at the time of entry The US involvement in the final campaign did not change the outcome. Thus I prefer a different explanation. The US, being pragmatic, wanted to be on the winning side. It brings about good relations with those who will be in power anyway. They would have backed Germany just as firmly if they were going to win.

This was quite different in WW2 where Germany had the upper hand and US involvement was crucial to the outcome.

[eagleseven]

Exactly, so why did America think they could sell shit to the British and get away with it?
We gambled that Germany didn't want war with the US. We bet wrong.


What is your point here other than trying to contort mine?
My point is that when the bullets start flying, principles like the casus belli are thrown out the window. The Germans had motivation to attack us, and we had motivation to attack them. Thus, we proceeded to slaughter each other.

Looking back, we can nitpick the details, but our nitpicking has no real effect on global politics.

Case in Point: After 9/11, Americans wanted blood. We can nitpick the particulars now, but back in 2001, the American population demanded the War in Afghanistan. What we say today isn't going to change this, nor will it change such events in the future.

[Metzger]

Case in Point: After 9/11, Americans wanted blood. We can nitpick the particulars now, but back in 2001, the American population demanded the War in Afghanistan. What we say today isn't going to change this, nor will it change such events in the future.


First you compare the German sinking of the Lusitania to the actions of the Somalian pirates, now this? You are comparing the sinking of the Lusitania to 9/11. Since the World Trade Center wasn't housing military weaponry or in the middle of a war zone this is an extremely shitty point due to its irrelevance. Of course the American people were outraged, it was an outright attack on civilians for the sake of killing civilians, it wasn't about a war.

Here's a thought: don't terrorists usually hide behind civilians? Conclusion: The American/British governments were really terrorists :rolleyes: because they used civilians as moral padding for their supply ships.

[eagleseven]

First you compare the German sinking of the Lusitania to the actions of the Somalian pirates, now this? You are comparing the sinking of the Lusitania to 9/11. Since the World Trade Center wasn't housing military weaponry or in the middle of a war zone this is an extremely shitty point due to its irrelevance. Of course the American people were outraged, it was an outright attack on civilians for the sake of killing civilians, it wasn't about a war.
From Osama bin Laden's perspective, it was about the First Gulf War.

Here's a thought: don't terrorists usually hide behind civilians? Conclusion: The American/British governments were really terrorists :rolleyes: because they used civilians as moral padding for their supply ships.
Since when did the German Empire care about moral padding, whatever that is?

---------- Post added 03-04-2010 at 03:37 PM ----------

The village of Paschendale, before and after WWI:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Did any side give a damn about civilians?

---------- Post added 03-04-2010 at 03:40 PM ----------

Paschendale Attack (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[Angel1]

Bottom line is that between the Lusitania sinking and the Zimmerman Telegram, the US public and government had had enough. No amount of media censorship would have kept the US out of the war in the long run. If the US had been delayed, ultimately the threat of the German Navy against the United States Navy would have forced America's hand (this is saying that the Zimmerman Telegram wasn't sent at all).

The Zimmerman Telegram, however, was the real clincher for ensuring war between the US and WWI Germany. Simply put, the Zimmerman Telegram was a threat to bring war to US territory and this was an unacceptable threat.

Once the war started, the only way that the US could have avoided the conflict was if it had been a swiftly fought conflict.

Europe right before WWI had Serbia allied with Russia, Russia allied with France, France allied with Great Britain, and Great Britain allied with Belgium among numerous other respective alliances. Austria was allied with Germany among numerous other alliances on that side. When the Serbian assassinated basically the last of Emperor Franz Joseph I family (following natural deaths and some executions), Austria was not going to accept anything less than Serbian humiliation for reparations. Simply put, Europe was a tender box. When Europe went up in flames, that threatened British Naval supremacy. British naval supremacy was at the time considered to be beneficial to the US. Actually, in the late 1800s/early 1900s Great Britain exempted the US from their unilateral policy have having a navy larger than the combined navies of the two next largest navies. By the time of WWI, the US and UK had an increasing convergence of interests.

Given the circumstances, I seriously doubt that the US would have allowed the UK to be invaded or marginalized by Germany. In the politics of the time, both the US and the UK wanted each other to be strong, but neither wanted the other to be too strong. The relationship was still forming/being built. Relations between the US and UK were strong enough that the US would eventually have gotten into WWI, but it was not until the 1930s that US last created a war plan for fighting the United Kingdom.

[Ray9]

Given the circumstances, I seriously doubt that the US would have allowed the UK to be invaded or marginalized.

Don't be too sure. The American public had no stomache for war and generally regarded what was going on as a European problem.

[Angel1]

I didn't say that Americans would necessarily be happy about getting into the war, but if Great Britain had been defeated or her navy marginalized then the US would inevitably have gotten into conflict with Germany when they turned their attention to the Americas. Simply put, the Royal Navy worked to our favor. It is my contention that a relatively strong United Kingdom (especially Royal Navy) was favorable enough to US interests (with our territories and in the Americas) that their being overrun and/or marginalized would ultimately have been seen by Americans as their problem. Would they have wanted the war? I don't truly believe that Americans have ever wanted a war for wars sake (okay, maybe the Mexican and Spanish-American wars). It's been all the consequences of not fighting or the result of acts of war that have pushed us into war. In the case of WWI, I contend that the consequences of not fighting would have begun to been felt before the UK could be completely overrun or marginalized and that this realization would have drawn Americans to reluctantly support war. Reluctant support, however, would have done nothing to hamper the populaces efforts to win the war (because they would seek to win the war very quickly). Had it gotten to this point, Germany may well have been left in power over mainland Europe or most of mainland Europe, but the UK would have been defended and her navy would have remained a potent forced to be dealt with by potential enemies (frequently enemies of both the UK and the US).

[Metzger]

Since when did the German Empire care about moral padding, whatever that is?

The village of Paschendale, before and after WWI:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Did any side give a damn about civilians?


Well this is an interesting copy+paste from Wikipedia, but if you read my post more than once you'd realize I was being sarcastic.

Anyways, my point was already made: the Americans/British were just as full of shit as the Germans, just thought I'd make that clear since Causa Mortis was being mostly one-sided in his arguments.