8 ms·

Tying in the US seems a bit forced here. WWI as a result of Franco-Prussian war I can understand, US civil rights not-so-much. That Germany was 'destined' to l

• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• bluejekyll 9y ago
  The argument was that the US had gained a "defend the rights of man", i.e. Democracy, attitude because of the Civil War (though honestly with the early end of Reconstruction, I'm not sure it's valid). This attitude eventually encouraged the US to come directly into the War, though the US had been giving significant support to England and France prior to that point. I agree that it's weak though. And Britain is definitely the reason Germany wasn't capable of overrunning France. America at best made it clear that Germany could not win. While 120,000 troops lost by the US is far less than the Europeans, that is by no means a small number, especially considering such brief involvement. There really was no reason to ever believe the US would ever get involved in WWI. Even WWII there was no indication the US would actually enter the War directly until the Japanese forced the choice.
  • autokad 9y ago
    England definitely slowed Germany down but Germany was decidedly winning. Prior to US involvement, the front line was quite close to Paris. After, it was just over the border of Germany, and then as you said, they knew it was over. US' involvement was huge.
    • jonathonf 9y ago
      > England Britain. Along with contingents from most of its Empire. (Saying "England" when you mean "Britain" is like saying "Texas" when you mean "U.S.A.")
      • caf 9y ago
        It's said that the first shot fired by the British Empire in WW1 was from Fort Nepean, Australia.
      • flukus 9y ago
        Not during WW1 it wasn't, calling a Scotsman English wasn't an issue at the time.
        • afarrell 9y ago
          Really? When did the Scots start to develop a notion of having a unique national character that made them non-English?
          • flukus 9y ago
            Well, obviously it was centuries ago but it has ebbed and flowed since then. For the 20th century though a lot of Scottish nationalism originated in the Scottish renaissance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Renaissance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Renaissance).
      • foobarian 9y ago
        Serious question, what would be the analogous comparisons for "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom?"
        • rmckayfleming 9y ago
          Great Britain is the island. So an analogy would be North America and United States of America. Roughly of course.
  • vacri 9y ago
    If the US's involvement was because of 'defend the rights of man', it sure took it's time getting properly involved. It doesn't even really make sense, because it's not like the Germans were going to enslave the French if they won.
    • Clubber 9y ago
      During WWI and WWII, the US made a fortune selling armaments to the allies and then joining the war towards the end. In WWII we claimed an equal share of the spoils, at least in Europe. England, France, US and the USSR split the spoils of WWII but the USSR definitely deserved 3/4 of it for their sacrifice. I always akin it to tag team wrestling. The first guy beats the other team almost silly, then tags out and the fresh guy comes in fresh and finishes them off.
      • flukus 9y ago
        World wars aren't a 1 on 1 fight though. WW1 was a 3 on 2 fight and the US involvement early would have made it 4 on 2, tipping the scales considerably.
        • Clubber 9y ago
          Yes, but the US was staunchly isolationist during that period (since it's founding). In fact, the founding fathers wrote extensively about not getting involved in European wars; military isolationism was in our DNA. That's hard to believe today. Wilson actually campaigned on an anti-war platform (as did FDR).
          • vacri 9y ago
            > military isolationism was in our DNA ... You mean apart from the Indian wars which annexed territory, the Mexican-American war which annexed territory, and the Spanish-American war which annexed territory? Then there was the War of 1812, where the US tried and failed to annex Canadian territory. Or the Barbary wars. The US not wanting to involve itself in internal European wars does not mean it was militarily isolationist. The US has been projecting military power beyond its borders pretty much since its inception. Military power projection is in the US's DNA, not isolationism.
  • hackuser 9y ago
    > Even WWII there was no indication the US would actually enter the War directly until the Japanese forced the choice. That seems like conventional wisdom, but the U.S. started a large military build-up before Pearl Harbor. The military draft began in 1940. And of course the U.S. was actively supporting the UK through lend-lease. There were still isolationists in Washington and even prominent supporters of Hitler in the public sphere (if you ever wonder how misguided people can be, remember that), but certainly there were many indications that the U.S. would enter the war.
    • bluejekyll 9y ago
      No debate on any of those points. But, until Pearl Harbor and the Philippines there was no clear pretext for the US to declare war. And had they not attacked, it's not clear that FDR could have gotten congress to declare war. Some of those prominent supporters were significant industrialists like Ford, they would have fought intervention by all means. After Pearl Harbor, there was no debate.
      • hackuser 9y ago
        I've heard that too, but how did the draft, Lend-Lease, and the build-up get passed through Congress before Pearl Harbor if there wasn't sufficient support? Maybe the first and third were seen as necessary to protect a neutral country? Or being short of declaring war, they were less objectionable? But I'm just guessing ...
        • bluejekyll 9y ago
          My guess is that most people were already aligned with the Allies, and there was money to be made. I think the arguments for Germany were less of a "let's join Germany" and more of a "let's just not get involved", thereby seeding the European continent to Germany. But, yes the US had a constant stream of arms being supplied to Britain and Russia during the period before the war.
        • jcranmer 9y ago
          > I've heard that too, but how did the draft, Lend-Lease, and the build-up get passed through Congress before Pearl Harbor if there wasn't sufficient support? Lend-Lease had fairly staunch resistance, as it basically shredded any pretense of neutrality. The draft and the military build-up were supported in large part due to neutrality--the need to have a sufficiently strong military to deter potential aggression (this was the strategy of Switzerland). When FDR extended the draft term from 12 months to 18 months, it passed by a single vote in the House.
  • stevefolta 9y ago
    > Even WWII there was no indication the US would actually enter the War directly until the Japanese forced the choice. ...and even then, it wasn't entirely clear that the US would enter the European war, until Hitler declared war on the US.
  • caf 9y ago
    There really was no reason to ever believe the US would ever get involved in WWI. On the contrary, I think it is exceedingly likely that the US will always intervene (if it has the capacity to do so) if a single military power looks like taking over most of Europe. It's why the US intervened in both WWI and WWII, and created NATO.
• jcranmer 9y ago
  Having read a lot of books on the lead-up to WWI, and a few more on the conduct of WWI myself, I must say that the entire thesis comes across as rather forced. First off, it's rather well-known that Germany's fear of a two-front war and encirclement led to much of its preliminary war plan. On the other hand, the circumstances that led up to such a scenario were not preordained from its construction. It was largely a result of the early 20th century Germany managing to piss off just about everybody else with amazingly inept foreign diplomacy. In particular, Germany decided to give up its relationship with Russia, which France eagerly took advantage of and bound the two countries fairly close together. Germany's naval race with Britain also did much to antagonize it for no real gain. Also, Alsace-Lorraine is much oversold as a cause of war. It's true that France did want Alsace-Lorraine back. But many in France were not prepared to go to war to actually achieve that aim. Instead, the situation in France post-Franco-Prussian War was to try to find allies that could help divert German attention, and their allies were the Russians who needed lots of help to even minimally qualify for that role and the British who went to rather great lengths to try to avoid actually fulfilling their commitment when August 1914 came around (Germany marching through Belgium gave Britain the political cover to actually commit). As for whether or not Germany could win, that's a difficult what-if to answer. The Schlieffen Plan was, in the abstract, a masterpiece of precision planning and timetabling. But the plan also had very little room for change if things didn't work out. Belgium put up an unexpectedly fierce resistance, Austria-Hungary had a surprisingly hard time in Serbia, and Russia was doing better at first than Germany expected. In the end, the German momentum and logistics chain was incapable of carrying them to Paris, which completely ruined their plans and any hope of a quick end to the war. And Germany was completely unprepared for that scenario (to be fair, no one else was).
  • rustynails 9y ago
    Your version is a somewhat closer reflection of the version of what is taught in school today (ie. there is no magical 1869). However, the actual conflict was sparked over Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand's assassination. You excluded some fundamental points that help understand a much broader series of issues (namely, a very late unification of Germany causing upset in many alliances, region-wide instability beyond Germany and a crumbling Austro-Hungarian empire desperate to cling to power). As an example, read Aethelric's post here as it is important in explaining the seeds that set Germany as it was in 1869. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1v3vk8/why_did_germany_and_italy_unite_so_late_compared/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1v3vk8/why_d... The region we now know as Germany was a series of small towns with mostly independent rule. With instability (especially crumbling of the Austro-Hungarian Empire), Germany established formal alliances quickly as the political climate grew in intensity. Franz Ferdinand was shot, the European states fought and the US (with late entry) injected fresh ideas, troops and supplies, which decisively turned the tides of a messy war. So, 1869 was more like a traffic light that triggered the car crash. Without understanding the history, you can't really understand each participant's trajectories or motives. To limit the answer to "1869" is only slightly more informative than limiting the answer to "Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand's assassination".
• sytelus 9y ago
  I still don't get how Franco-Prussian war was the cause for WW-I after nearly 45 years. Sure, French were pissed off with Prussia in 1870 but then almost two generations passed by before WW-I. The whole article talks about France and Germany as if they are each single person fighting with other and waiting for 45 years to take revenge. Lots of things changes during two generations - governments, art, politics, economies... So connecting dots like this doesn't make any sense.
  • tannhauser23 9y ago
    Germany's annexation of Alsace-Lorraine was a source of ongoing resentment by the French. As was France's loss of its status as the dominant land power in Europe. War was not inevitable, but the unresolved issues from the Franco-Prussian war ensured that the two dominant continental powers would be enemies. France's desire to be secure against Germany leads it to form an alliance with Russia, which then puts Germany in a terrible situation of being surrounded by two great powers. You're right, it's not like two people held a grudge for 45 years, but the war made it likely that the two nations would fight each other again.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • r00fus 9y ago
      And then the Treaty of Versailles went on to cause the forced repairations and subsequent hyperinflation and depression in Germany leading to the Nazi takeover and WW2.
      • Clubber 9y ago
        An interesting anecdote, France weathered the world depression of the 30s much better than other countries because they kept getting reparation payments from Germany.
        • r00fus 9y ago
• veddox 9y ago
  > Tying in the US seems a bit forced here. Absolutely. Obviously the Civil War did play a role (there's nothing in history that isn't connected in some way), but trying to set it up as a major cause of WW1+2? No thanks. To me, the whole article seems to be the author trying to shoehorn history into his idea that the events of the year 1866 would somehow predestine the next half century. He brings up some interesting observations, but his main thesis doesn't hold water.
  • quirkafleeg 9y ago
    It's not even a case of "blowback" - such as could be argued about 19th century US imperialism and militarisation in Asia leading to it being dragged into WWII by Japan - his argument seems little more than the USA became a united country in 1866, and that united country would later show up five minutes before the end of two world wars to show Europe how it's done, saving everyone's ass[1]. By that reasoning, everything the USA has been involved in stems from "1866". Or various British Acts of Union led to two world wars. Or the Magna Carta, or the French Revolution, or anything before 1914 that involved any of the participants. Furthermore, even if we un-ironically believe "1866" led to the US cavalry riding to everyone's rescue in two world wars, that is the end result, not setting the stage. I know some people love to believe everything must revolve around the USA, but trying to argue that the two greatest events of the 20th century actually stemmed from 19th century internal American politics that meant relatively little to Europeans even at the time seems pretty desperate. [1] Before anyone downvotes for this interpretation of what he wrote, he literally states the following simplistic, insulting garbage about WWI (where US involvement was barely more than symbolic): "[the USA] would intervene to defeat Germany just in the nick of time". I wonder how he feels about the USSR intervening to defeat Japan just in the nick of time in WWII.
    • xenadu02 9y ago
      The US Civil war did preserve a powerful United States but its impact was probably much greater in showing how modern wars would be fought, with much less lining up with muskets and firing in orderly lines and far more repeating rifles and rapid movements. You could also say Sherman's march presaged "total war". Railroads and steam power changed logistics forever. The transition was far from complete though.
• BurningFrog 9y ago
  As I remember The Guns of August, The British government was not aware that its military had promised the French assistance, and did not intend to participate in the war until informed about it. I imagine some rather awkward conversations took place.
  • jcranmer 9y ago
    The military talks were revealed to the British Cabinet during the Second Moroccan Crisis, a few years before WWI started.
• herewulf 9y ago
  Yes, Britain. We take it for granted today but Britain and France being allies was quite an amazing thing. They had been traditional enemies for about 800 years (let's not forget about the Napoleonic Wars earlier in the century either). The Crimean War in 1853 saw them united against a common enemy - Russia. The Crimean War was also significant because Austria-Hungary, though not much of a belligerent, turned on Russia which left them without allies when facing Prussia in 1866 and of course the two Empires were critically still enemies when the Archduke was assassinated. One can keep going backwards in history with cause and effect, but for the two points above, I like to see the Crimean War as the turning point of the European alliances that were in place at the start of "the Great War".
  • caf 9y ago
    In the long run, Britain will always tend to ally against the dominant continental power. This is because Britain's enduring interest is to ensure that western Europe doesn't unite under one power, as this would threaten Britain itself. Before German unification, the dominant continental power was usually France. (I believe this is also why Britain joined the EU in the first place - it's not a threat if Britain has a seat at the table.) The upshot of this is that Britain was always going to enter WWI once it looked bad for France - if not Belgium, some reason would have been found.
    • woodandsteel 9y ago
      >In the long run, Britain will always tend to ally against the dominant continental power. Without that, the modern era would probably never have happened. That is because one state would have probably converted Europe into an empire, dominated by a single culture and religion, instead of the great competition of ideas and technologies that happened because there were so many independent states.
      • Thimothy 9y ago
        One could argue that the Europe of the many states only lead to the horrors and suffering of the world wars, while a multiculturaly diverse but politicaly uniform Europe, built by, say, Napoleon, could have been a United States of Europe. Not being a bunch of countries inflicted so many different nationalisms has worked pretty nicely for them.