You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: World War I
polluxlm wrote:League of Nations was the precursor to the UN, and that was created as a response to WW1. The reason it failed was because the US didn't want to become a member.
The only reason?
It was doomed to fail from the start with or without US participation.
Not the only reason, the main reason. And it might have been doomed to fail, but without WW1 even attempting it was an impossibility.
Off topic, but its funny how the world hates the US interfering in its affairs but when something doesn't go as planned without US involvement, they're blamed for it.
*Trying to think of a major conflict without US participation*
IMO its natural for the world to want to unite after a global conflict. What's the other option....more war? I just don't think there's a conspiracy behind it. If there was, it was a terribly planned one. The UN has a horrific track record and usually makes conflicts worse.
Considering it took 3 world wars for it to happen, I don't know. Either way nukes changed that so now we just bomb countries that don't have them instead. The US and NATO have invaded quite a few countries since 1945, and initially the public support was usually there.
The track record is horrible yes, it is a bloated bureaucracy after all. But terribly planned? Your own defense secretary admitted not long ago that NATO and the UN now decide when the US goes to war. Of course that's simplifying things. The decision to go to war isn't really made at NATO or the UN, but it certainly isn't made in Congress either. That's a huge change.
France and Britain lost their empire.
Countries that overextend themselves to that point deserve to lose it.
They weren't overextended, they fought 3 huge wars without any real gains. Brittain just recently paid off their WW1 debts.
German nationalism got obliterated.
Hmmm.....I wonder why?
Because rich industrialists in the west funded the political ascent of a deranged radical. It's easy to blame Hitler but guys like him had always been around, they'd just not been allowed in the political arena until then.
The US and Russia became ideological empires both amassing unprecedented military machines. Today they are both debt ridden, secular and fascist entities.
I think the US and Russia are civilization's last two empires. I cant imagine the EU, China, an emerging power in Africa, or a united Middle East(new Ottoman Empire) taking their place. Even if the US and Russia both suffered a depression, no one can step into the breech because as you pointed out, the military deterrent is simply too massive.
Yep and that's the point. With no nations left to withstand it, enter world government. Mission accomplished.
Back to WWI....
Should the US have entered this conflict earlier? Learned something last night that I didn't remember. In the early stages of the war, Germany considered bombing the Panama Canal and taking it to control the shipping lanes. Another plan scrapped earlier than that was bombing the east coast of the US. Would US intervention over such a threat have altered the war due to intimidation alone? How many enemies could Germany have endured that early in the conflict? Another moment of entry for the US would have been when Germany and the British were battling near the Falklands. I realize the US was not a major military power at that early on, but even a token force may have altered the outcome.
Not by intimidation alone. Though with a great production potential the US was not a huge power at the time. Their participation would surely tip the scales in the Ententes favor, but there's no way the Germans would leave the trenches at that point. The war might have ended sooner, but the cost of life and materials would probably not be much different. Possibly greater as rookie US troops try and storm hardened German defense lines (as they eventually did, and it wasn't pretty).
They should have stayed out of it altogether. The outcome of the war would have little to no effect on US domestic affairs. Nor was Germany the aggressor or any form of "evil empire" in that war. It was just a continental squabble for dominance provoked forth by external reasons, not by any design from a particular nation or leader.
Another question....
Would the European powers abandoning their African colonies and instead focused on their own turf have made any difference, or would this simply have created a massive vacuum for the Ottoman Empire to expand even further? That Armenian genocide is without a doubt the most evil event of WWI and if Flagg reads this thread......yeah this "chicken hawk" would have entered the conflict much sooner.
The Ottoman's were dead at this point, the war itself being the final blow to their empire. If they had survived, going to war with Brittain or Germany by seizing their colonies would surely not have been the first thing on their minds.
We did mop up duty and brought the horror to an end. Had the US never entered the conflict, those trenches the size of the Great Wall of China would still be there, filled, and in a stalemate.
So yeah....we had an influence on the outcome of the war.
If the US stays out likely Germany wins the war when France surrenders and Brittain sues for peace. This would probably not take very long either. Discipline in the french army was hanging by a thread in the final days of the war. If any part of the line had cracked the whole thing would have went down like a house of cards.
I'd say whoever pulled the coup in Berlin is the most responsible for ending the war, although that situation was largely precipitated on the US involvement in the war.
Re: World War I
I got schooled on WWII from ages 10-13 and then since I took History as a class in school got taught "Road to WWI", WWI, Rise of Hitler and Road to WWII.
WWI isn't as talked about today because History is written by the victors. WWI did not have a great influence from the US (they only joined for the 2nd half). The allies would not have won WWII without the help of the US, and as the United States have pretty much been the world's biggest superpower since then and as mentioned earlier WWII has more "iconic" moments, it's not a surprise it's more talked about.
On top of that Hitler is the best heel there is, was and ever will be.
Haha, you gotta admit... the guy knew how to do a good work.
Re: World War I
Not the only reason, the main reason. And it might have been doomed to fail, but without WW1 even attempting it was an impossibility.
*Trying to think of a major conflict without US participation*
I was referring to the failure of the LON. I can assure you, I'm not ignorant of the fact the US has to intervene in major hot spots to bring an end to conflicts.
In recent times, we were about to be blamed for the conflict in Libya after enforcing the no fly zones, bombing the shit out of the place, Special Ops on the ground to help the "rebels", pull out, give it to Europe, then they complain and ALL the major EU countries were on the verge of pulling out making it the cluster fuck of the century but the perfect timing of Gadafi's capture and execution prevented the EU humiliation and a likely US reentry into the conflict.
The US and NATO have invaded quite a few countries since 1945, and initially the public support was usually there.
Other than the "police action" in Korea and the post Cold War conflicts(Bosnia, Afghanistan and Libya), I cant think of any NATO conflicts. Out of the three I listed, only one of those was technically an invasion. Iraq isn't considered a NATO conflict. IMO calling them NATO invasions is laughable. NATO participation? Yes. NATO wars? NO.
I do get your overall point though. NATO went from a strictly defensive alliance and in the mid 90s-present is more interested in offensive action(hello Syria). One of the reasons I want the US to pull out of NATO. The reason for its creation no longer exists and the EU has its own defense force.
The US and/or a select group of its allies(as Bush would call them "a coalition of the willing") can be at any global hot spot within hours and that capability does not rest on the survival of NATO. In fact, the incompetency of NATO has reared its ugly head many times over the decades, Reagan's strike against Libya the PERFECT example. Don't even need to bring up the Balkan fiasco.
When NATO countries wont allow its main ally use of its air space during a conflict, Reagan should have told the alliance to fuck off. Cold War obviously the only reason it didn't happen. Would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when Reagan was told several NATO countries refused to allow overflights of Euro airspace on the way to Libya. We practically had to fly around the world to strike a country, lengthening the action in what would have been a very quick strike if NATO would have allowed its protector to do what was necessary. I'm tellin ya....Europe is lucky that someone like me has never been president.
The track record is horrible yes, it is a bloated bureaucracy after all.
Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, and MANY other "safe havens" that turned into killing zones are reason enough for the implosion of the UN.
But terribly planned? Your own defense secretary admitted not long ago that NATO and the UN now decide when the US goes to war.
I don't believe it no matter who says it. That's called blowing smoke up the world's ass. The UN has never had the ability to decide US intervention in conflicts(Reagan even said something along the lines of "Fuck the UN") and the insane powers that Bush and Obama have created not just through the Patriot Act but Executive Orders gives them virtual unlimited power to wage war, even bypassing the War Powers Act, and none of their power relinquishes any US sovereignty or UN access to US forces. The US can and will support UN actions in certain regions, but its our choice, not theirs.
WE decide what NATO does and lead the alliance, not the other way around. Libya a perfect example of this. If the UN/NATO controlled US foreign policy, the US would not have been allowed to pull out of Libya and hand it over to countries that had no idea what to do when we left. UN was worthless in Rwanda, so why didn't they force a US invasion? Because Clinton wasn't going in there under any circumstances(a mistake IMO).
If you want to read a book on the complete failure of the UN, I HIGHLY recommend this book....
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= … wPOqnZHnpw
They weren't overextended, they fought 3 huge wars without any real gains. Brittain just recently paid off their WW1 debts.
Instead of concentrating all their forces in Europe for WWI, they spread them out to defend portions of their African colonies. I would consider that overextending their forces.
Yep and that's the point. With no nations left to withstand it, enter world government. Mission accomplished.
If true, out of the US and Russia, which country capitulates? Neither. Instead of a one world government, I think the world is more likely to divide into 2 or 3 major blocs in the future.
The outcome of the war would have little to no effect on US domestic affairs. Nor was Germany the aggressor or any form of "evil empire" in that war. It was just a continental squabble for dominance provoked forth by external reasons, not by any design from a particular nation or leader.
I agree there was no evil empire in WWI. The war never should have occurred as there was little to no reason for it.
I do disagree about the US. Our entry was needed.
The Ottoman's were dead at this point, the war itself being the final blow to their empire. If they had survived, going to war with Brittain or Germany by seizing their colonies would surely not have been the first thing on their minds.
Ottoman's certainly on their last legs but they had plans to retake Egypt and Libya and they also had the major powers trying to get them to take sides(especially Germany). Had their been a vacuum in the region, their fate may have taken a different course.
If the US stays out likely Germany wins the war when France surrenders and Brittain sues for peace. This would probably not take very long either. Discipline in the french army was hanging by a thread in the final days of the war. If any part of the line had cracked the whole thing would have went down like a house of cards.
I'd say whoever pulled the coup in Berlin is the most responsible for ending the war, although that situation was largely precipitated on the US involvement in the war.
That sounds pretty spot on.
