Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 21, 2019, 05:25:52 am
News: 2020 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: Gustaf, afleitch, Hash, Kenny-chan kawaii princesu)
  World War I (search mode)
Pages: [1] 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 3714 times)
Virginian87
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,604
Political Matrix
E: -3.55, S: 2.70

« on: August 09, 2005, 12:57:33 pm »

World War I was not a disaster for us.  On the contrary, it saw the US taking its rightful place in the international community.  Wilson, along with T. Roosevelt and McKinley, was a key US president in bringing the US into modern times.  Ou rinvolvement sped up the end of the war and broke a 2-year long stalemate.  Wilson was an excellent president and a visionary, unless you hate income taxes (16th Amendment).  I know his 1916 slogan was "He kept us out of the war," but the increasing distraction of the war in Europe coupled with the German disruptions of our trans-Atlantic trade made it necessaary to go to war.  By the way, French demands prevailed at the Treaty of Versailles, so don't blame it on Wilson. 

Too bad the Republicans were too hell-bent on staying out of League of Nations and isolating ourselves from the world.  World War II might not have happened had we been a member of the League.
Logged
Virginian87
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,604
Political Matrix
E: -3.55, S: 2.70

« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2005, 06:27:56 pm »


Why do you say that?  I'm not criticizing you, I'm just curious.
Logged
Virginian87
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,604
Political Matrix
E: -3.55, S: 2.70

« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2005, 10:55:47 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.
Logged
Virginian87
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,604
Political Matrix
E: -3.55, S: 2.70

« Reply #3 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
Virginian87
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,604
Political Matrix
E: -3.55, S: 2.70

« Reply #4 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
Virginian87
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,604
Political Matrix
E: -3.55, S: 2.70

« Reply #5 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
Virginian87
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,604
Political Matrix
E: -3.55, S: 2.70

« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2005, 08:20:51 am »

To those here who oppose imperialism so much, may I point out that it brought Western know-how and innovations like railroads and telephone/telegraph systems to many underdeveloped countries.  Had the British not been in India, there would be no unified nation today.  There are so many different peoples in India with different languages, that without English as a common language there would be hardly any unity.  Without imperialism, Hong Kong and Singapore would be rice paddies, diamonds would probably not have been dicovered in South Africa, and to a lesser extent, the Middle Eastern oilfields never would have been discovered.  Sure imperialism has some harmful effects over time, but in many ways it was useful. 

While we're on the subject of imperialism's problems, what's your opinion of American imperialism in the Caribbean, Philippines and Pacific (Hawaii and other islands)?  We didn't just go in and take it peacefully, you know.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
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