- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Interventionism in the Spanish American War is why we have the obligations we have today
Posted on 1/1/18 at 11:59 am to cwill
Posted on 1/1/18 at 11:59 am to cwill
quote:
Germany wasn't going to win even if the US hadn't intervened.
False. Right before the U.S. intervened, Russia surrendered. The Germans were ready to focus all of their attention on the Western Front. Without the U.S. bringing a wave of fresh, unbloodied troops to northern France, the attrition suffered by the French and British units likely would have caught up with them. Verdun in Spring 1917 was a disaster for the allies. The French were starting to face widespread mutinies in their ranks throughout every major offensive in the summer of 17. I don't see the allies winning the 3rd Battle of Ypres without those American troops.
Without American intervention, France likely would have been forced to sue for peace at some point in 1918.
The better question is, would a German victory in WWI with America remaining neutral during the war have been a net positive or negative for the world?
This post was edited on 1/1/18 at 12:08 pm
2
Posted on 1/1/18 at 12:08 pm to I B Freeman
This really goes for humanitarian reasons too . We have to get past this idea that we can “ save” humanity from itself . I mean , if all the other Democracies put their money where their mouth is I’d disagree but since they don’t...
Posted on 1/1/18 at 12:14 pm to I B Freeman
I really don't have nearly as much disdain for the Spanish American War as I do for many of the Wars of the 20th Century like Iraq and Vietnam. It was blatant opportunism. We were unabashedly Empire Building. We weren't pretending to be doing much of anything else.
We used it to create a vacation/sugar colony in Cuba, we needed the rubber in the Philippines to produce the tires for what would be the automotive revolution. We secured the Panama Canal, the greatest engineering feat in World History up to that point.
The Spanish American War secured the U.S. as not just a world economic power, but a world military power, and the premier power of the Western Hemisphere.
We used it to create a vacation/sugar colony in Cuba, we needed the rubber in the Philippines to produce the tires for what would be the automotive revolution. We secured the Panama Canal, the greatest engineering feat in World History up to that point.
The Spanish American War secured the U.S. as not just a world economic power, but a world military power, and the premier power of the Western Hemisphere.
Posted on 1/1/18 at 12:58 pm to kingbob
I think this needs to be said, and it's quite impressive, Germany pretty much took on the entire world twice in the 20th century - and came thisclose to pulling out the W.....both times.
Posted on 1/1/18 at 5:21 pm to kingbob
quote:
Verdun in Spring 1917 was a disaster for the allies. The French were starting to face widespread mutinies in their ranks throughout every major offensive in the summer of 17.
False in that it was a disaster for the French only. It was a disaster for the Germans too. The French did not break and the casualty numbers were about even with the allies having greater numbers to absorb the loss. The German general was sacked over the failure.
After the Russian peace Ludendorff who replaced falkenheyn put all the German chips in his spring offensive ahead of American intervention coming to bear. It failed because it was poorly planned and logistics of the day could not keep the German troops supplied - they literally and figuratively ran out of gas. That was the last gasp of the German hopes for “victory”.
Even before that, the German objective had shifted from victory envision in the von schliffen (sp?) plan to trying to force one of the allies to sue for peace. That was a big part of Verdun - it failed.
Possibly the greatest army ever assembled lost as soon as it got bogged down in Belgium when the war began. Germany is unfortunate in its geography....surrounded by hostiles with no defensive boundaries.
I’ll say this, without US intervention the treaty of Versailles would have looked much different...more fair, an actual negotiated peace perhaps.
Posted on 1/1/18 at 5:30 pm to TrueTiger
The Middle East would have been more stable for sure. Eventually the ottomans wouldnhave fallen, but then it would be fellow Arabs as the cause of their unrest and not British, French, and Zionist policies
Posted on 1/1/18 at 5:45 pm to I B Freeman
I think we have to pick our battles. There is merit in protecting allies who are under attack but we shouldn't be jumping for an excuse to enter into conflict.
Posted on 1/1/18 at 5:56 pm to Perfect Circle
quote:I once read some guy who'd been in the CSA as a kid was now in the army leading troops, and in one battle he kind of forgot himself in the heat of the moment, spurring his troops on: "C'mon boys let's get 'em, let's whip them Yankees!!"
This event more than any other, pulled the country together after the Civil War. The reason for America's involvement was somewhat manufactured, but many Americans fought in both wars.
Posted on 1/1/18 at 5:58 pm to Kafka
I heard that on Dan Carlin's podcast too.
Posted on 1/1/18 at 7:16 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Latter we were forced to intervene in WWI
The USA was not "forced to intervene" in WWI. The USA was supplying munitions to Great Britain as early as 1915. The Lusitania is now proven to have been shipping munitions to the British Vickers Armaments factory near Liverpool.
One year later, in 1916, which was a year before the USA declared war on Imperial Germany, a huge stockpile of explosives on the New York City docks being readied for export to the UK exploded in the Black Tom Explosion.
I have no idea why most Americans, after more than 100 years, still remain ignorant of the fact that the USA was providing war munitions to Britain starting in at least 1915 -- two years before declaring war on Germany.
Black Tom Explosion
You can chalk up US entry into WW1 to the USA's desire to get into the war while convincing the American people that it was because of Germany's U Boat war, which Britain said was illegal.
Why was Germany's unrestricted U Boat tactics in WWI illegal when both the USA and Britain used the same unrestricted U Boat tactics against Japan in WW2?
PS At the end of 1914, Britain was very short of explosives and munitions because of the expenditure of ammo in 1914 was exponentially greater than expected. This shortage lasted throughout 1915. If the USA had not supplied munitions to Britain in 1915, Britain may have had to seek peace with Germany. That's how short of munitions the Allies were in 1915.
This post was edited on 1/1/18 at 7:25 pm
Posted on 1/1/18 at 7:29 pm to Champagne
Well the Zimmerman telegram coupled with the sinking of the Lusitania made it politically impossible for Wilson to stay out.
We traded through third parties with Germany too early in the war.
We traded through third parties with Germany too early in the war.
Posted on 1/1/18 at 7:49 pm to I B Freeman
Impossible to stay out? Are you hearing yourself?
The Lusitania was carrying war munitions from the USA to the Vickers Armaments Factory in Liverpool. It was a legitimate war target. Of course, British propaganda tells us that it was an atrocity.
The Zimmermann Telegram? Why wouldn't Germany establish some plans for possible war with the USA when the USA had been exporting war munitions to Germany's enemies since 1915?
Germany was forced into planning for war vs the USA since it was obvious that the USA was doing everything it could to make sure that Germany's enemies had all the munitions they needed to continue the war. The USA's entry was always in the cards and the USA was helping the Allies less than a year after war began in August, 1914.
I love the Truth and the truth is that US history must find a way to shed the influence of British War Time Propaganda.
Now, I am not certain WHY the USA was totally committed to Britain winning WWI, but, it's true. Unrestricted Sub Warfare is said to be a main reason but, maybe that's just a pretext, because both the USA and Britain waged unrestricted sub war vs Japan less than 30 years after WWI. Besides, the USA knew that it was secretly shipping war munitions to Britain, even on passenger liners like the Lusitania.
Maybe the USA was committed to Imperial Germany's loss because of of the harsh way that the invading Germany Army treated the rare Belgian or French civilian partisan fighter that would occasionally take a pot shot at a German supply sergeant way behind the lines. The German policy back then was to take Reprisal measures that included shooting people and burning property. They were very harsh and maybe that's the explanation.
Some say it was because Britain owed the USA lots of money.
The Lusitania was carrying war munitions from the USA to the Vickers Armaments Factory in Liverpool. It was a legitimate war target. Of course, British propaganda tells us that it was an atrocity.
The Zimmermann Telegram? Why wouldn't Germany establish some plans for possible war with the USA when the USA had been exporting war munitions to Germany's enemies since 1915?
Germany was forced into planning for war vs the USA since it was obvious that the USA was doing everything it could to make sure that Germany's enemies had all the munitions they needed to continue the war. The USA's entry was always in the cards and the USA was helping the Allies less than a year after war began in August, 1914.
I love the Truth and the truth is that US history must find a way to shed the influence of British War Time Propaganda.
Now, I am not certain WHY the USA was totally committed to Britain winning WWI, but, it's true. Unrestricted Sub Warfare is said to be a main reason but, maybe that's just a pretext, because both the USA and Britain waged unrestricted sub war vs Japan less than 30 years after WWI. Besides, the USA knew that it was secretly shipping war munitions to Britain, even on passenger liners like the Lusitania.
Maybe the USA was committed to Imperial Germany's loss because of of the harsh way that the invading Germany Army treated the rare Belgian or French civilian partisan fighter that would occasionally take a pot shot at a German supply sergeant way behind the lines. The German policy back then was to take Reprisal measures that included shooting people and burning property. They were very harsh and maybe that's the explanation.
Some say it was because Britain owed the USA lots of money.
This post was edited on 1/1/18 at 8:02 pm
Posted on 1/1/18 at 8:12 pm to Champagne
To this day, I believe Wilson faked the Zimmerman note because he was not sure the sinkng of the Lusitania would be enough. He wanted to drag the U.S. into socialism, and a World War would provide all of the necessary preconditions.
Posted on 1/1/18 at 8:16 pm to kingbob
The USA powers-that-be was dead set on making certain that Britain and France won WWI and it's proven that the USA was exporting war munitions to Vickers as early as 1915.
Why? I don't know the real reasons. Maybe you are right. Your idea is as closer to the truth that the British War Time Propaganda that's accepted for the truth by just about every American today.
Why? I don't know the real reasons. Maybe you are right. Your idea is as closer to the truth that the British War Time Propaganda that's accepted for the truth by just about every American today.
Posted on 1/1/18 at 8:22 pm to Champagne
I think it has a lot to do with the Federal Reserve, which was established by Wilson, and the proposed League of Nations, another Wilson pet project. Wilson was a socialist globalist progressive way before his time.
Posted on 1/1/18 at 8:32 pm to kingbob
Yeah, kingbob, the true reason why the USA was totally committed to Allied victory from the start of the war was probably because of money.
But that's not the way that it is taught in US history classes, is it? They still teach lies and propaganda when it comes to US history in our schools and colleges, especially US history in the 20th century.
At least we know the whole truth about US history in the 19th century!
But that's not the way that it is taught in US history classes, is it? They still teach lies and propaganda when it comes to US history in our schools and colleges, especially US history in the 20th century.
At least we know the whole truth about US history in the 19th century!
Posted on 1/1/18 at 8:50 pm to cwill
quote:
Germany wasn't going to win even if the US hadn't intervened.
That's not the point though. We kinda had to get involved militarily towards the end of WWI. We had a vested interest in Great Britain and France coming out as the victors in the war because we had put so much money into the war that if they don't win, we wouldn't have gotten back. WWI more than anything, shifted the world financial power from London to New York.
I wish we would've taken the virtues that Washington and John Quincy Addams took on foreign policy when it comes to Europe more seriously, though and didn't go abroad searching for monsters to slay. But it's hard to say that because two of the Entente countries were using us to finance their war.
Posted on 1/1/18 at 9:18 pm to I B Freeman
quote:
Interventionism in the Spanish American War is why we have the obligations
I’m not arguing for meddling in others’ affairs, but there are examples where not taking action has had negative consequences. For example, as a result of the Spanish American War we had a few opportunities to determine the form of the government in Cuba, and primarily through inaction we allowed the fiasco that’s been there for generations.
Posted on 1/1/18 at 9:25 pm to TheHarahanian
quote:
I’m not arguing for meddling in others’ affairs, but there are examples where not taking action has had negative consequences. For example, as a result of the Spanish American War we had a few opportunities to determine the form of the government in Cuba, and primarily through inaction we allowed the fiasco that’s been there for generations.
Or propping up a tin-pot dictator through interventionism led to a communist revolt? There's no way you can argue we were "hands off" in Cuba.
Posted on 1/1/18 at 9:26 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
That's not the point though.
My response/comment was narrow - as to who would win the conflict. Nothing more.
This post was edited on 1/1/18 at 9:27 pm
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News