7 ms·

And it meant that there was a precedence for taking up arms for equality and freedom...for a war that would, "make the world safe for democracy," as President W

by jimmyk 10y ago

And it meant that there was a precedence for taking up arms for equality and freedom...for a war that would, "make the world safe for democracy," as President Woodrow Wilson put it in 1917 when he requested a declaration of war on the German Empire. What was the German Empire doing to threaten equality, freedom, and democracy that France and England and the US weren't also doing? The argument that the US entered because it declared itself to be in favor of those ideals is quite a stretch.

danteembermage 10y ago
Wilson in his speech asking for American involvement in the war cited the injustice of submarine warfare more than anything, so I agree this point at least seems to fall flat.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  German submarine warfare upset the US because they sank some US shipping at considerable loss of life, rather than because of any inherent moral flaw. Had they steered clear of civilian shipping (trickier than it sounds because some military ships disguised themselves as merchant marine vessels) or at least avoided sinking anything that was likely to belong to the US, things might have turned out very differently. Moral arguments in political speeches should not be taken at face value, since their inclusion is for emotional arousal rather than reasoned analysis.
neaden 10y ago
Germany invaded the neutral country of Belgium and killed about 60,000 civilians in Belgium, looted and burned cultural artifacts, and conscripted laborers. That in combination with unrestricted submarine warfare really did mean German conduct in the war was far crueler then the Allies.
- whack 10y ago
  Both of the things you mentioned, were things that Germany was forced into doing, as a matter of survival. For example, Germany had no intentions of conquering Belgium. They simply wanted to travel through Belgium in order to reach France, and put an end to the war early on. This was something they were necessarily required to do, because they were sandwiched between both France and Russia, and hence, couldn't afford to fight a prolonged war. Germany offered Belgium neutrality and immunity as long as they were allowed to pass unimpeded through their highways, but Belgium instead refused and actively tried to kill the German soldiers passing through. Hence why Germany then had to wage war against Belgium. For more nuance on this topic, check out Dan Carlin's very detailed podcast on WW1. http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-50-blueprint-for-armageddon-i/ http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-50-bluepri...
  - neaden 10y ago
    Are you serious? Invading a neutral country, burning the the entire village of Louvain, executing 6,000 civilians in reprisal strikes were all things Germany was forced into doing? Belgium actively tried to German soldiers because they were being invaded! That's a reasonable response to being invaded! I have no idea how you can write something like this.
    - llukas 10y ago
      What Germans did in Belgium is inexcusable. However, knowing what Belgians did in Africa in XIX/XX century I do not have much pity for them.
      - neaden 10y ago
        There is definately a legitamate argument that WW1/2 were essentially the West using the lessons they learned from colonialism on each other. This is pretty explicit in WW2 with Hitler's plan to ethnically cleanse and colonize Eastern Europe. At the same time, the horrible atrocities Belgium committed in the Congo don't make the murder of civilians any more inexcusable.
      - thinkmilitant 10y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
        llukas 9y ago
        Doesn't apply here. You seem to think otherwise - why? I explicitly say that what Germans did is inexcusable.
    - pharrington 10y ago
      in which you learned why war is hell
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    > Both of the things you mentioned, were things that Germany was forced into doing, as a matter of survival. Germany wasn't forced into anything. They still had the option of not starting the war at all. > ... but Belgium instead refused and actively tried to kill the German soldiers passing through. Hence why Germany then had to wage war against Belgium. "Passing through"? They were invading. (Yeah, they were intending on just passing through, but they were still invading to do so.) Belgium was actively trying to kill German troops? Yeah, that's the way it goes when you march your army into another country without their permission. This is why Germany then had to wage war against Belgium? Putting troops across the border was already an act of war against Belgium. Given that Germany insisted on starting the war by invading France, these were things that Germany was "forced" to do in order to have the best chance to win. But not invading France was actually an option.
- jimmyk 10y ago
  German conduct in the war was far crueler then the Allies Even if we grant that the German Empire was more cruel in waging war, which I am by no means prepared to do, the war did not take place in a vacuum. If the purpose of America entering the war was to make the world safe for equality, freedom, and democracy, then the conduct of the belligerents outside of the war is totally fair game. To that point, I'm sure I don't have to remind you how Great Britain had been treating its colonies for hundreds of years.
- georgemonck 10y ago
  "That in combination with unrestricted submarine warfare really did mean German conduct in the war was far crueler then the Allies." Both Britain and Germany tried to prevent the US from shipping arms and supplies to the other country, via whatever tools they had available. The US either chose to not even try to ship supplies to Germany, or if they did, since British naval power was in the form of ships,so they could turn away US merchant-ships without blowing them up. But with US shipping supplies to Britain, the only tool Germany had available was the submarine warfare, which is a much blunter tool. From the perspective of an American citizen, I think that the 'unrestricted submarine warfare' pretext was bogus. The US should not have shipped supplies to either side, and then there would have been no submarine warfare against US ships.
  - cardiffspaceman 9y ago
    Follow the money. The financial aspect of the war was interesting in itself, if you can bear finance as an intellectual subject at all. [1] I haven't studied this very deeply but of course the Morgans are involved. Modern wars (starting from around the 18th century) all involve a financial angle and though I feel that certain bankers were criticized for racist reasons, the assistance of bankers in providing and retiring war debt is important. I think it would be likely that my studies would end up supporting the idea that the American side was hoping to fund or supply that which could be conveniently funded or supplied without actually fighting. [1]http://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_finance_great_britain_and_ireland http://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_finance...
- mrbabbage 10y ago
  > unrestricted submarine warfare Just like America in the Pacific during WWII, eh http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/juddoeni.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/juddoeni.asp
- WalterBright 10y ago
  It turns out the Lusitania was filled with arms after all. It's like painting a red cross on the roof of your military supply depots.
  - vkou 9y ago
    Actually, it's more like using civilians as human shields.
- vkou 9y ago
  You don't think the Entente killed civlians, looted, or conscripted laborers from occupied territories? (Even if we ignore the broader context of how they treated their colonies!) Also, while Germany was carrying out unrestricted submarine warfare, the Royal Navy was busy - literally starving - Germany, with its unrestricted naval blockade. Their justification was that soldiers eat bread - therefore, bread has a military purpose, and can be blockaded.
WalterBright 10y ago
The recent PBS series "The Great War" goes into considerable detail about the forces that influenced America into siding with England and France. Well worth watching.
vacri 9y ago
If the US really was working from a 'rights of man' angle that the article suggests, it would have invaded Belgium a couple of decades earlier for what it was doing in the Congo. The whole 'world cop' angle is such a fabricated myth; the US never goes to war on principle, only for its own benefit, like any other country.

by jimmyk 10y ago

danteembermage 10y ago

Wilson in his speech asking for American involvement in the war cited the injustice of submarine warfare more than anything, so I agree this point at least seems to fall flat.

anigbrowl 10y ago
German submarine warfare upset the US because they sank some US shipping at considerable loss of life, rather than because of any inherent moral flaw. Had they steered clear of civilian shipping (trickier than it sounds because some military ships disguised themselves as merchant marine vessels) or at least avoided sinking anything that was likely to belong to the US, things might have turned out very differently. Moral arguments in political speeches should not be taken at face value, since their inclusion is for emotional arousal rather than reasoned analysis.

neaden 10y ago

Germany invaded the neutral country of Belgium and killed about 60,000 civilians in Belgium, looted and burned cultural artifacts, and conscripted laborers. That in combination with unrestricted submarine warfare really did mean German conduct in the war was far crueler then the Allies.

whack 10y ago
Both of the things you mentioned, were things that Germany was forced into doing, as a matter of survival. For example, Germany had no intentions of conquering Belgium. They simply wanted to travel through Belgium in order to reach France, and put an end to the war early on. This was something they were necessarily required to do, because they were sandwiched between both France and Russia, and hence, couldn't afford to fight a prolonged war. Germany offered Belgium neutrality and immunity as long as they were allowed to pass unimpeded through their highways, but Belgium instead refused and actively tried to kill the German soldiers passing through. Hence why Germany then had to wage war against Belgium. For more nuance on this topic, check out Dan Carlin's very detailed podcast on WW1. http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-50-blueprint-for-armageddon-i/ http://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-50-bluepri...
- neaden 10y ago
  Are you serious? Invading a neutral country, burning the the entire village of Louvain, executing 6,000 civilians in reprisal strikes were all things Germany was forced into doing? Belgium actively tried to German soldiers because they were being invaded! That's a reasonable response to being invaded! I have no idea how you can write something like this.
  - llukas 10y ago
    What Germans did in Belgium is inexcusable. However, knowing what Belgians did in Africa in XIX/XX century I do not have much pity for them.
    - neaden 10y ago
      There is definately a legitamate argument that WW1/2 were essentially the West using the lessons they learned from colonialism on each other. This is pretty explicit in WW2 with Hitler's plan to ethnically cleanse and colonize Eastern Europe. At the same time, the horrible atrocities Belgium committed in the Congo don't make the murder of civilians any more inexcusable.
    - thinkmilitant 10y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
      - llukas 9y ago
        Doesn't apply here. You seem to think otherwise - why? I explicitly say that what Germans did is inexcusable.
  - pharrington 10y ago
    in which you learned why war is hell
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  > Both of the things you mentioned, were things that Germany was forced into doing, as a matter of survival. Germany wasn't forced into anything. They still had the option of not starting the war at all. > ... but Belgium instead refused and actively tried to kill the German soldiers passing through. Hence why Germany then had to wage war against Belgium. "Passing through"? They were invading. (Yeah, they were intending on just passing through, but they were still invading to do so.) Belgium was actively trying to kill German troops? Yeah, that's the way it goes when you march your army into another country without their permission. This is why Germany then had to wage war against Belgium? Putting troops across the border was already an act of war against Belgium. Given that Germany insisted on starting the war by invading France, these were things that Germany was "forced" to do in order to have the best chance to win. But not invading France was actually an option.
jimmyk 10y ago
German conduct in the war was far crueler then the Allies Even if we grant that the German Empire was more cruel in waging war, which I am by no means prepared to do, the war did not take place in a vacuum. If the purpose of America entering the war was to make the world safe for equality, freedom, and democracy, then the conduct of the belligerents outside of the war is totally fair game. To that point, I'm sure I don't have to remind you how Great Britain had been treating its colonies for hundreds of years.
georgemonck 10y ago
"That in combination with unrestricted submarine warfare really did mean German conduct in the war was far crueler then the Allies." Both Britain and Germany tried to prevent the US from shipping arms and supplies to the other country, via whatever tools they had available. The US either chose to not even try to ship supplies to Germany, or if they did, since British naval power was in the form of ships,so they could turn away US merchant-ships without blowing them up. But with US shipping supplies to Britain, the only tool Germany had available was the submarine warfare, which is a much blunter tool. From the perspective of an American citizen, I think that the 'unrestricted submarine warfare' pretext was bogus. The US should not have shipped supplies to either side, and then there would have been no submarine warfare against US ships.
- cardiffspaceman 9y ago
  Follow the money. The financial aspect of the war was interesting in itself, if you can bear finance as an intellectual subject at all. [1] I haven't studied this very deeply but of course the Morgans are involved. Modern wars (starting from around the 18th century) all involve a financial angle and though I feel that certain bankers were criticized for racist reasons, the assistance of bankers in providing and retiring war debt is important. I think it would be likely that my studies would end up supporting the idea that the American side was hoping to fund or supply that which could be conveniently funded or supplied without actually fighting. [1]http://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_finance_great_britain_and_ireland http://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/war_finance...
mrbabbage 10y ago
> unrestricted submarine warfare Just like America in the Pacific during WWII, eh http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/juddoeni.asp http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/juddoeni.asp
WalterBright 10y ago
It turns out the Lusitania was filled with arms after all. It's like painting a red cross on the roof of your military supply depots.
- vkou 9y ago
  Actually, it's more like using civilians as human shields.
vkou 9y ago
You don't think the Entente killed civlians, looted, or conscripted laborers from occupied territories? (Even if we ignore the broader context of how they treated their colonies!) Also, while Germany was carrying out unrestricted submarine warfare, the Royal Navy was busy - literally starving - Germany, with its unrestricted naval blockade. Their justification was that soldiers eat bread - therefore, bread has a military purpose, and can be blockaded.

WalterBright 10y ago

The recent PBS series "The Great War" goes into considerable detail about the forces that influenced America into siding with England and France. Well worth watching.

vacri 9y ago

If the US really was working from a 'rights of man' angle that the article suggests, it would have invaded Belgium a couple of decades earlier for what it was doing in the Congo. The whole 'world cop' angle is such a fabricated myth; the US never goes to war on principle, only for its own benefit, like any other country.