Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 24, 2019, 03:55:07 am
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (General) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: Gustaf, afleitch, Hash, Eli Gorbinsky)
  World War I
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Poll
Question: President Wilson:
#1[American] did the right thing by going to war  
#2[American] did the wrong thing by going to war  
#3[non American] did the right thing by going to war  
#4[non American] did the wrong thing by going to war  
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 39

Author Topic: World War I  (Read 3644 times)
Platypus
hughento
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21,464
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 10, 2005, 08:37:38 am »

Did the right thing.

From Australia's perspective, it's a bit more clear cut. We were also on the other side of the world, but we were still very much British then, and England was still reffered by many to be 'home'. We were one of the first nations to declare war, and we sent more troops per capita then any other allied nation-without conscription-to a war that didn't directly affect us. It might seem stupid in a modern context, but the empire came first back then. As a reward, Australia had a 'baptism of fire' so to speak, both on the western front and in the middle east (most notably gallipoli), and we proved ourselves as a nation.

I find the Australian contribution at Versailles rather amusing. Our PM, Billy Hughes, was Welsh, as was the British PM (Lord George). They shouted at eachother in welsh about nobody knows what, because no-one else in the entire palace spoke welsh. Also, he was one of the major opponents of Wilson's internationalism ideas and was probably, after the french, the person who wanted to punish the 'bloody krauts' the most. As a reward, Australia got a colonial empire...Papua Cheesy

as to the poll question; yes, the US should have been involved. Earlier.
Logged
KillerPollo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,984
Mexico


Political Matrix
E: -3.15, S: -0.82

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: August 10, 2005, 08:39:16 am »

Did the right thing.

From Australia's perspective, it's a bit more clear cut. We were also on the other side of the world, but we were still very much British then, and England was still reffered by many to be 'home'. We were one of the first nations to declare war, and we sent more troops per capita then any other allied nation-without conscription-to a war that didn't directly affect us. It might seem stupid in a modern context, but the empire came first back then. As a reward, Australia had a 'baptism of fire' so to speak, both on the western front and in the middle east (most notably gallipoli), and we proved ourselves as a nation.

I find the Australian contribution at Versailles rather amusing. Our PM, Billy Hughes, was Welsh, as was the British PM (Lord George). They shouted at eachother in welsh about nobody knows what, because no-one else in the entire palace spoke welsh. Also, he was one of the major opponents of Wilson's internationalism ideas and was probably, after the french, the person who wanted to punish the 'bloody krauts' the most. As a reward, Australia got a colonial empire...Papua Cheesy

as to the poll question; yes, the US should have been involved. Earlier.

Nice post
Logged
Virginian87
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,604
Political Matrix
E: -3.55, S: 2.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 10, 2005, 09:00:29 am »

pretty much every European power was Imperalist back then, but in different ways.

As for the treaties... Germany's territorial losses (especially to Poland) were entirely justified. The problem was French greed over reperations.

Thank you.  It's good to see someone with some sense when it comes to history.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,510
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 10, 2005, 11:17:56 am »

I find the Australian contribution at Versailles rather amusing. Our PM, Billy Hughes, was Welsh, as was the British PM (Lord George). They shouted at eachother in welsh about nobody knows what, because no-one else in the entire palace spoke welsh. Also, he was one of the major opponents of Wilson's internationalism ideas and was probably, after the french, the person who wanted to punish the 'bloody krauts' the most. As a reward, Australia got a colonial empire...Papua Cheesy

Ah yes... Billy Hughes... how many political parties was he in at various stages in his career? Something like 6 in total IIRC...
At one stage he produced a comically distorted map showing pretty much all of the islands north of Australia touching Australia... Grin
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58,265
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: August 10, 2005, 11:20:39 am »

pretty much every European power was Imperalist back then, but in different ways.

As for the treaties... Germany's territorial losses (especially to Poland) were entirely justified. The problem was French greed over reperations.

Thank you.  It's good to see someone with some sense when it comes to history.
Not to mention English.
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 86,875
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: August 10, 2005, 12:19:41 pm »

It is worth pointing out the US never really did enter the war on the side of the Allies. It simply declared war on Germany, but did not join the Allies. Much like Finland was only at war with the Soviets in WWII.

The Lusitania and other Germany actions is what caused that, and it seems too many Americans today think it was justified because of the Lusitania. What usually is not mentioned is that:

1-the Lusitania was carrying contraband military cargo
2-the Germans took out ads in major US papers giving warnings
3-the British would've done the exact same thing had it been a German liner

All sides were nasty imperalistic powers at the time, and considering what Britain had done in South Africa less than 15 years ealier, and what they were still doing in India and continued to do after the war, I'd argue they were definately worse than the Germans in this regard.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,510
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: August 10, 2005, 12:32:23 pm »

It is worth pointing out the US never really did enter the war on the side of the Allies. It simply declared war on Germany, but did not join the Allies. Much like Finland was only at war with the Soviets in WWII.

U.S troops were fighting on the same front as French or British troops you know...

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wrong. Genocide was never really practiced even by the worst Cecil Rhodes type; it was in some German colonies though. Germany was also imperialist within Europe; the treaty of Brest-Liovsk is a good example...

And however bad the adminstration of India was (and it was dire) it was actually one of the *better* run colonial posessions (as hard as that might be to believe) at the time... much better than (say) the Dutch East Indies or French West Africa.
Logged
Richard
Richius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,371


Political Matrix
E: 8.40, S: 2.80

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: August 10, 2005, 12:35:04 pm »

As for the treaties... Germany's territorial losses (especially to Poland) were entirely justified. The problem was French greed over reperations.
Explain how Danzig, a city with 95% German population, being given to Poland is justified.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,510
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: August 10, 2005, 12:44:50 pm »

Explain how Danzig, a city with 95% German population, being given to Poland is justified.

Danzig wasn't given to Poland; it was basically made into a Free City under the protection of the League of Nations. Why do you think there are now two major ports in that area?
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 86,875
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: August 10, 2005, 12:47:32 pm »

Wrong. Genocide was never really practiced even by the worst Cecil Rhodes type; it was in some German colonies though. Germany was also imperialist within Europe; the treaty of Brest-Liovsk is a good example...

And however bad the adminstration of India was (and it was dire) it was actually one of the *better* run colonial posessions (as hard as that might be to believe) at the time... much better than (say) the Dutch East Indies or French West Africa.

What German colonies? I don't know much about German colonialism.

And what you say there about the other powers might be true, but since the French are one of them it kind of proves the point that the Allies weren't really much better. And the single worse European colonizer was Belgium, simply because of what happened in the Congo. Now THAT was definite genocide. And they were on the Allies.
Logged
Richard
Richius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,371


Political Matrix
E: 8.40, S: 2.80

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 10, 2005, 12:49:12 pm »

Explain how Danzig, a city with 95% German population, being given to Poland is justified.

Danzig wasn't given to Poland; it was basically made into a Free City under the protection of the League of Nations. Why do you think there are now two major ports in that area?
Rephrase: Why was this taken away from Germany?  Justify it.
Logged
Virginian87
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,604
Political Matrix
E: -3.55, S: 2.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 10, 2005, 01:07:24 pm »

What German colonies? I don't know much about German colonialism.

Take a look at one of my posts on the last page.
Logged
NYGurl
texasgurl24
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,085
Japan


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: August 10, 2005, 02:41:09 pm »


Why do you say that?  I'm not criticizing you, I'm just curious.
We were helping to perpetuate the imperialism of the Allies.

Ummm...Perhaps you haven't seen a map of the world pre-1914.  Germany colonized half of Samoa, northern New Guinea (why do you think the islands around there are called the Bismarck archipelago?), and what is now Tanzania and Namibia and part of Cameroon.  Austria-Hungary had ruled over several European ethnicities against their will (Czechs, Slovenians, Croats, and others come to mind) and suppressed these cultures.  The Ottoman Empire suppressed the peoples of the Middle East who weren't Turks.  So next time, check your history.  Imperialism was by no means limited to the Allied Powers.
The German "Colonies" were all useless that's why they got them.
And i did read up on my history when i got my history degree.
I think you missed my point.
Logged
Virginian87
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,604
Political Matrix
E: -3.55, S: 2.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: August 10, 2005, 02:44:50 pm »


Why do you say that?  I'm not criticizing you, I'm just curious.
We were helping to perpetuate the imperialism of the Allies.

Ummm...Perhaps you haven't seen a map of the world pre-1914.  Germany colonized half of Samoa, northern New Guinea (why do you think the islands around there are called the Bismarck archipelago?), and what is now Tanzania and Namibia and part of Cameroon.  Austria-Hungary had ruled over several European ethnicities against their will (Czechs, Slovenians, Croats, and others come to mind) and suppressed these cultures.  The Ottoman Empire suppressed the peoples of the Middle East who weren't Turks.  So next time, check your history.  Imperialism was by no means limited to the Allied Powers.
The German "Colonies" were all useless that's why they got them.
And i did read up on my history when i got my history degree.
I think you missed my point.

What was your point?  You said we were helping to perpetuate the imperialism of the Allies.  We would be perpetuating imperialism had we taken either side.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,442


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: August 11, 2005, 06:27:45 am »

Imperialism was mostly still  a good thing by that time, I suspect (with some exceptions - like Congo).

On the issue, I voted it was a good thing. It doesn't seem like anyone here takes an itnerest in the reason for joining the war, which was that a) the Germans renewed their indiscriminate submarine policy of sinking ALL ships, including civilian American ones such as Lusitania, thus killing hundreds of American citizens and b) Germany tried to enter a pact with Mexico, conspiring against the United States. Finally, Germany with their inferiority complex and world domination dreams more or less instigated the war (yeah, it was mostly Austria's fault, but to some extent also Germany's)

Finally, though the war was a silly one America's entrance probably shortened it and prevented a lot of suffering.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,442


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: August 11, 2005, 06:32:04 am »

We should have entered the war on Germany's side Tongue

IIRC, all they wanted in a peace treaty was Alasce (sp?) & Lorraine, compared to the Allies' barbaric Treaty of Versailles (sp? darn French place names Tongue)

First, I'm going to point out that the bulk of Alsace-Lorraine had been annexed to Germany in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1.  While there were some (relatively minor) claims of French territory by Germany, there were not the subject of annexation.  Luxemburg and Belgium were however being considered for incorporation into the Second Reich.  This was the the sticking point for the British; centuries of strategy of the British were to Keep the low countries out of the hands of any great power.

One reason that the Germans wanted to annex what they did, and not all of France, was that Alsace-Lorraine was German speaking.

Second, Imperial Germany was not all that Imperialistic.  It entered the race for colonies late in the 19th Century.  Bismarck was actually opposed to colonialization and to a large navy to defend them.  What they had was exceptionally underpopulated and not profitable.  Most of Germany's colonies were overrun prior to the American entry.

Third, the Zimmerman note was basically a proposed alliance with Mexico that was predicated on the case of the US declaring war on Germany.  The reason Germany thought it was likely was that they were preparing to restart unrestricted submarine warfare.

The US wanted to be in a position where it send ships to the UK (and sell the cargos) and not enter a battle zone.  We balked at being shot at when we entered a war zone.

Yes, I would have opposed our entry into World War I, the Germans would have won and the Social Democrats (then including German Communists).  There numbers were growing and I would have expected a constitutional crisis in Germany after the war.

Didn't read this page at first. Wink Good to see someone else straightened this out. Smiley

I'm sure you're aware of the Spartacist uprising in the early 20s? That might have happened, but in some other form.

I agree on territorial claims. France wanted to retake territories that Germany had taken in a previous war. Germany, on the other hand, wanted to expand further.
Logged
KEmperor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,459
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: August 11, 2005, 06:13:09 pm »
« Edited: August 11, 2005, 06:17:09 pm by AFCJ KEmperor »

Wrong. Genocide was never really practiced even by the worst Cecil Rhodes type; it was in some German colonies though. Germany was also imperialist within Europe; the treaty of Brest-Liovsk is a good example...

And however bad the adminstration of India was (and it was dire) it was actually one of the *better* run colonial posessions (as hard as that might be to believe) at the time... much better than (say) the Dutch East Indies or French West Africa.

What German colonies? I don't know much about German colonialism.


Africa:
German Kamerun
German East Africa (now Burundi, Rwanda, and Tanzania)
German South-West Africa (now Namibia)
German Togoland

Asia and the Pacific:
German Samoa (assigned to New Zealand after war)
New Guinea and Nauru (assigned to Australia)
Various German islands in the Pacific north of the equator (which were assigned to Japan)
 --Mainly the modern countries of Palau, Micronesia, Marshall       
   Islands, and the Northern Marianas.

Also, the German coastal possessions and sphere of influence in China were ceded to Japan.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32,869
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: August 11, 2005, 06:36:41 pm »


Africa:
German Kamerun
German East Africa (now Burundi, Rwanda, and Tanzania)
German South-West Africa (now Namibia)
German Togoland

Asia and the Pacific:
German Samoa (assigned to New Zealand after war)
New Guinea and Nauru (assigned to Australia)
Various German islands in the Pacific north of the equator (which were assigned to Japan)
 --Mainly the modern countries of Palau, Micronesia, Marshall       
   Islands, and the Northern Marianas.


Most of these were very sparcely populated.  84% of the population of the Germany Empire lived in Germany proper; 84% of the landmass was in the colonies.  The Germans had to organize native Africans in East Africa to quell an Arab rebellion. 

It really wasn't much of an Empire.
Logged
KEmperor
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,459
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.00, S: -0.05

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: August 11, 2005, 06:48:05 pm »


Africa:
German Kamerun
German East Africa (now Burundi, Rwanda, and Tanzania)
German South-West Africa (now Namibia)
German Togoland

Asia and the Pacific:
German Samoa (assigned to New Zealand after war)
New Guinea and Nauru (assigned to Australia)
Various German islands in the Pacific north of the equator (which were assigned to Japan)
 --Mainly the modern countries of Palau, Micronesia, Marshall       
   Islands, and the Northern Marianas.


Most of these were very sparcely populated.  84% of the population of the Germany Empire lived in Germany proper; 84% of the landmass was in the colonies.  The Germans had to organize native Africans in East Africa to quell an Arab rebellion. 

It really wasn't much of an Empire.

Yes, Germany got the sh**tty colonies because it entered the game late.  It wanted to have the type of colonies France and Britain had, and if they had won the war, they certainly would have.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29,442


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: August 11, 2005, 07:41:42 pm »

Wrong. Genocide was never really practiced even by the worst Cecil Rhodes type; it was in some German colonies though. Germany was also imperialist within Europe; the treaty of Brest-Liovsk is a good example...

And however bad the adminstration of India was (and it was dire) it was actually one of the *better* run colonial posessions (as hard as that might be to believe) at the time... much better than (say) the Dutch East Indies or French West Africa.

What German colonies? I don't know much about German colonialism.

And what you say there about the other powers might be true, but since the French are one of them it kind of proves the point that the Allies weren't really much better. And the single worse European colonizer was Belgium, simply because of what happened in the Congo. Now THAT was definite genocide. And they were on the Allies.

Belgium wasn't really part of the allies. They just got overrun by Germany, (despite the fact that German had pledged to defend Belgium against invasions...)
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 86,875
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: August 11, 2005, 08:18:22 pm »

Imperialism was mostly still  a good thing by that time

Imperialism is NEVER a good thing with one exception: Britain in Northern Ireland. I 100% support that. Otherwise I oppose all imperialism.
Logged
A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,808
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: August 11, 2005, 08:21:29 pm »

Imperialism is never a good thing, with some exceptions: anything I like is an exception. I 100% support that. Otherwise I oppose all imperialism, because of course, I'm so consistent and not hypocritical in any way at all.
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 86,875
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: August 11, 2005, 08:25:41 pm »

I only support British imperalism in Northern Ireland because they are protecting the Protestants there from the horribly authoritaraian and mysgonistic government on the rest of Ireland. Although it has been improving.
Logged
Defarge
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,601


Political Matrix
E: -3.13, S: -0.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: August 12, 2005, 12:08:36 am »

Right thing.  With German soldiers redeploying from the eastern front, the allies would have lost.  A Central Powers victory could potentially have been disastrous from a historical standpoint, as the great European Democracies would probably become fascist states, like the Weimar Republic.
Logged
Vincent
azpol76
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 454
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: August 12, 2005, 12:16:05 am »
« Edited: August 12, 2005, 12:19:31 am by Vincent »

I only support British imperalism in Northern Ireland because they are protecting the Protestants there from the horribly authoritaraian and mysgonistic government on the rest of Ireland. Although it has been improving.
uggh MONSTERS!!!!!!!! ahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

anyway....

Certainly there must be some other form of imperialism that you would like but have just overlooked.

At any rate you clearly dont oppose imperialism in principle.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC