6 ms·

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 R

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 10y 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 10y 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 10y ago
    It's said that the first shot fired by the British Empire in WW1 was from Fort Nepean, Australia.
  - flukus 10y ago
    Not during WW1 it wasn't, calling a Scotsman English wasn't an issue at the time.
    - afarrell 10y ago
      Really? When did the Scots start to develop a notion of having a unique national character that made them non-English?
      - flukus 10y 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 10y ago
    Serious question, what would be the analogous comparisons for "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom?"
    - rmckayfleming 10y ago
      Great Britain is the island. So an analogy would be North America and United States of America. Roughly of course.
    - aninhumer 10y ago
      I guess an analogous comparison would anything that forgets that Hawaii and/or Alaska exist when referring to the US.
- hardlianotion 10y ago
  No, the US broke a stalemate. The Germans were near Paris for most of the war - the location of Paris is what makes the Schieffen plan attractive. The US took a year or so to get onto a War production footing, but then her production started to force the issue. In combat, US helped to stem the German 1918 spring offensive, and were most decisive in the final offensive.
vacri 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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.

autokad 10y 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 10y 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 10y ago
  It's said that the first shot fired by the British Empire in WW1 was from Fort Nepean, Australia.
- flukus 10y ago
  Not during WW1 it wasn't, calling a Scotsman English wasn't an issue at the time.
  - afarrell 10y ago
    Really? When did the Scots start to develop a notion of having a unique national character that made them non-English?
    - flukus 10y 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 10y ago
  Serious question, what would be the analogous comparisons for "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom?"
  - rmckayfleming 10y ago
    Great Britain is the island. So an analogy would be North America and United States of America. Roughly of course.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    I guess an analogous comparison would anything that forgets that Hawaii and/or Alaska exist when referring to the US.
hardlianotion 10y ago
No, the US broke a stalemate. The Germans were near Paris for most of the war - the location of Paris is what makes the Schieffen plan attractive. The US took a year or so to get onto a War production footing, but then her production started to force the issue. In combat, US helped to stem the German 1918 spring offensive, and were most decisive in the final offensive.

vacri 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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 10y 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.