Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I confess I do not that much about WW1, but I did read an excellent book that I can recommend to anyone:
The Guns of August by Barbara W. Tuchman. (It won the Pulitzer Prize)
Concerning the comparison of present day US cities and Nazi Germany, I must agree with Nolefan34 that to equate the two is indeed beyond comprehension.
US was always closer to UK and France than Germany thru out the wars in Europe that had gone on for decades even before WWI. Much more in common than the German system.
Yeah right! I'm sure s Nazi controlled Europe would have been a real pleasure to live in!!!
Small Germany would never be able to hold down an entire region. Probably not even the Slavic population.
Nazis were defeated by the relentless sacrifice by Eastern Europeans. Not some lazy Americans that sat around and played baseball. Short of the USA joining Nazi Germany, the Americans have ZERO influence on War in Europe.
Hitler lost WW2 when he was unable to persuade Poland to join him. It would have truly ended if France and England did what their treaty promised.
This warning was printed adjacent to an advertisement for Lusitania's return voyage.
umm, like... HELLO ?
What has Lusitania got to do with anything?
She was sunk in 1915, and the US did not go to war over it. War only came two years later, after several American (not Allied) merchantmen had been sunk without warning, including at least two that were carrying only ballast at the time, and iirc sailing away from Britain, so there was no question of contraband.
Even had they carried contraband, it would have cost Germany nothing to refrain from torpedoing them. Those early submarines could carry only a modest supply of torpedoes, so that even under nominally "unrestricted" warfare, the vast majority of sinkings would still have to be done as before, by cruiser rules. Even had this resulted in one of them getting away (by no means certain), the unused torpedo would not have been wasted, but employed to sink some British or other vessel. So the total tonnage sunk would have been unchanged.
It was physically impossible for the subs to torpedo all merchantmen, so the only question was which ones wouldn't be. All that was achieved by torpedoing American vessels was to saddle Germany with another enemy without increasing the total number of kills.
There were other factors too such as U.S. corporatism and big money interests. The U.S. realized they stood a lot to gain economically by entering the war in 1917, while it stood to lose in the event of a German victory. An Allied victory meant the status quo while a German victory meant a takeover of Europe.
Not really relevant as in March/April 1917 hardly anyone expected a German victory. Except for a few Brits "in the know" about the full extent of GB's naval and financial problems, most people thought the Allies were winning.
Insofar as Wilson had any motive for going to war other than the ostensible ones (U-boats and the Zimmermann Note) it was not fear of a German victory, but of an Allied one without US participation. This would have meant America (ie Wilson) being left out of the peace talks, and that of course would never do <g>.
Small Germany would never be able to hold down an entire region. Probably not even the Slavic population.
Nazis were defeated by the relentless sacrifice by Eastern Europeans. Not some lazy Americans that sat around and played baseball. Short of the USA joining Nazi Germany, the Americans have ZERO influence on War in Europe.
Hitler lost WW2 when he was unable to persuade Poland to join him. It would have truly ended if France and England did what their treaty promised.
Jesus Holy Christ, dude!
Anyway, I think the Zimmerman telegraph and the general affinity for the British and French made all the difference. I don't think we would have joined the war to support the CP in any event. We would have just stayed out of it.
Anyway, I think the Zimmerman telegraph and the general affinity for the British and French made all the difference. I don't think we would have joined the war to support the CP in any event. We would have just stayed out of it.
The "affinity" for GB and France had worn thin by late 1916, due to British blacklists and like measures against US firms. See Devlin Too Proud to Fight and Doenecke Nothing Less than War for good accounts of this.
In any case, had the US favoured Germany there would have been no need to declare war. Just cutting off exports to the Allies would have sufficed.
Even without the Zimmermann telegram, don't you think the Mexicans could have inferred by themselves that:
A -- If Mexico sided with Germany, and
B -- If the USA entered the war on the side of the Allies, and
C -- If Germany win the war, then
D -- Territory captured by the USA from Mexico would have been ceded back to Mexico as a spoil
Furthermore, if Mexico has sided with the Allies and the USA with Germany, and if the Allies had won, guess what would have happened? The Southwestern USA would have been restored to the victorious Mexicans.
The Zimmermann telegram merely underlined the obvious, but happened to state it from the perspective of German optimism. For all we know, a British telegram reminded Mexico of the reverse scenarioi, but Wilson just did not happen to have that intercepted message.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.