What was the Samoa crises? It souunds vaguely familier.Originally posted by KwangTiger
Germany actually had a plan to bombard U.S. cities over that Samoa crisis.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I agree but during the war US got really annoyed by british behaviour with regards to US-ships. Imo Wilson wouldnt have gone into war without the german sub-attacks.
As far as the naval blockade of Germany is concerned, the British used American precedent of the American Civil War to justify their extensive searches on neutral shipping. So the Americans could not decently argue against that and they had little choice but to back down, even though some businessmen were upset.
As to the Amerivan intervention into the war:
Germany had developed a rather bad image at that time. There was the invasion of Belgium in breach of a treaty they had signed. Various atrocities commited by German Forces in occupied territories, in addition to their heavy handed occupation policies. The Zeppelin Raids. The sinking of the Lusitania, the Zimmerman telegram....
All this added disastrously for Germany's international image. And the war which had started as a European war like their had been many before was being turned into a struggle of democracy against German militarism and barbary in public opinion. Even though Russia was not a model of democracy itself.
There was abundant propaganda produced at this period on this subject and there are many exemples that should be available online.
So the Americans as a democracy found themselves more and more compelled to join their fellow democracies against the evil Germansin a fight to assert democracy, while at the same time they had growing economic ties with the allies wich owed them more an more money.
So the interests of Bussiness were matching those of morality and the Americans eventually joined the fray. But it was a gradual process with pressure mounting slowly till the U-boat offensive supplied the final spark.
However once the war was won disagreements apeared between the allies as to how the peace was to be settled......
As to the Amerivan intervention into the war:
Germany had developed a rather bad image at that time. There was the invasion of Belgium in breach of a treaty they had signed. Various atrocities commited by German Forces in occupied territories, in addition to their heavy handed occupation policies. The Zeppelin Raids. The sinking of the Lusitania, the Zimmerman telegram....
All this added disastrously for Germany's international image. And the war which had started as a European war like their had been many before was being turned into a struggle of democracy against German militarism and barbary in public opinion. Even though Russia was not a model of democracy itself.
There was abundant propaganda produced at this period on this subject and there are many exemples that should be available online.
So the Americans as a democracy found themselves more and more compelled to join their fellow democracies against the evil Germansin a fight to assert democracy, while at the same time they had growing economic ties with the allies wich owed them more an more money.
So the interests of Bussiness were matching those of morality and the Americans eventually joined the fray. But it was a gradual process with pressure mounting slowly till the U-boat offensive supplied the final spark.
However once the war was won disagreements apeared between the allies as to how the peace was to be settled......
Well the civil war is hardly a good example, as the UK did not recognize the CSA as an official government. For the UK to search USA ships going to Germany they would have to claim soverignty over central europe! That was a rather pathetic excuse, easilly argued against.
the US had to intervene because just as England did during 4 centuries, they had to prevent a united Europe frome arising.
By united I of course do not mean controlled by a single country form Gibraltar to Istanbul, but a Europe where a single country would have reached a level of power sufficient for all the other countries to be considered as vassals or satellites.
I am quite convinced that the US share The insularian mentality of the UK, and therefore consider or at least did consider that their security requires a Europe sufficiently divided. Had Germany won the WWI, it would have become the unique powerhouse of the continent, possibly grabbing large chunks of the French and British colonial empires in the process.
Beyond the fight against nazism and communism lies the same concern, united Europe weither nazi, kaiserist or communist would have been an unacceptable risk for US security.
Hear me here, I am not saying the US wants Europe to be divided, but it cannot accept it to be united or controlled by a power whose policy appears aggressive towards the US. Germany at that time was an aggressive country because it wanted to modify colonial spoil-sharing example : what they did in Morocco in 1905 and 1911, furthermore they wanted to become a global power, shown by their fleet development policy.
Being in control of Europe germany could have clashed with the US in many areas of the world, South America of course but Pacific ocean islands as well ( bismarck islands ).
Once the US perceived Germany as being the country with the most aggressive stance, it had to oppose them. Furthermore, the US allied a coalition of France and GB, making sure that it did not create a monster after the war by giving to much power to a single country. That it also why they were very suspicious towards France in the twenties, fearing it might try to establish itself as the central power in Europe.
By united I of course do not mean controlled by a single country form Gibraltar to Istanbul, but a Europe where a single country would have reached a level of power sufficient for all the other countries to be considered as vassals or satellites.
I am quite convinced that the US share The insularian mentality of the UK, and therefore consider or at least did consider that their security requires a Europe sufficiently divided. Had Germany won the WWI, it would have become the unique powerhouse of the continent, possibly grabbing large chunks of the French and British colonial empires in the process.
Beyond the fight against nazism and communism lies the same concern, united Europe weither nazi, kaiserist or communist would have been an unacceptable risk for US security.
Hear me here, I am not saying the US wants Europe to be divided, but it cannot accept it to be united or controlled by a power whose policy appears aggressive towards the US. Germany at that time was an aggressive country because it wanted to modify colonial spoil-sharing example : what they did in Morocco in 1905 and 1911, furthermore they wanted to become a global power, shown by their fleet development policy.
Being in control of Europe germany could have clashed with the US in many areas of the world, South America of course but Pacific ocean islands as well ( bismarck islands ).
Once the US perceived Germany as being the country with the most aggressive stance, it had to oppose them. Furthermore, the US allied a coalition of France and GB, making sure that it did not create a monster after the war by giving to much power to a single country. That it also why they were very suspicious towards France in the twenties, fearing it might try to establish itself as the central power in Europe.
Honestly the reasons for entering WWI are focused entirely on one man: Woodrow Wilson. He was a conservaive Democrat, formerly very isolationist, that proclaimed it was America's absolute and manifest destiny to always side with Democracies over autocracies. When Wilson brought America to the war a big demand of his was the removal of the Kaiser. You can point to "ulterior" motives Wilson might have had, but I don't think they are really accurate. Wilson was a college professor, an intellectual, he was not a practitioner of realpolitik he was a passionate idealist.
He believed that America's values were universally applicable, and that world wide democracy would eventually equal world wide peace. That was his justification for entering the war, you could always use that. It's really a position that CAN be argued pretty well (point to the fact that western democracies today have pretty much thrown away wars against one another that were so common during the period up to 1914), it's not a position that I personally believe in, but it is one that you can defend.
He believed that America's values were universally applicable, and that world wide democracy would eventually equal world wide peace. That was his justification for entering the war, you could always use that. It's really a position that CAN be argued pretty well (point to the fact that western democracies today have pretty much thrown away wars against one another that were so common during the period up to 1914), it's not a position that I personally believe in, but it is one that you can defend.
I think that preventing German hegemony or at least maintaining the current European balance of power was a significant factor in US intervention in WW1. Throughout the early years of the war the US had been making efforts to broker peace that would more or less retain the balance of power (though they did support some national aspirations such as a Polish sovereign state). But in late 1916, early 1917 when a momentum for peace was starting to build, the US baulked at German demands to make Belgium a virtual satellite state. The timing of the US's entry was also closely linked with events in Russia: the Russian army was on the verge of collapse, there was growing civil unrest within Russia, the Tsar had abdicated and Lenin (with the help of Germany and Austria) was on his way home to lead the revolution. Clearly Russia was about to self-destruct as a fighting force, which would swing the war in Germany's favour. Within a couple of weeks the US had declared war on Germany.
This is not to downgrade the importance of Germany's introduction of unrestricted submarine warfare. As soon as the German's sunk the first American ship under that policy, the US broke off diplomatic relations, and had declared war on Germany two months later.
As for the Zimmerman scheme with Mexico, I wonder how much of a factor that was. Firstly, wasn't it conditional on America going to war against Germany rather than a pre-emptive attack? Secondly, I'm not sure if the US regarded Mexico as much of threat - the idea of Mexico reconquering Texas, Arizona, New Mexico seemed ludicrous to a lot of people.
This is not to downgrade the importance of Germany's introduction of unrestricted submarine warfare. As soon as the German's sunk the first American ship under that policy, the US broke off diplomatic relations, and had declared war on Germany two months later.
As for the Zimmerman scheme with Mexico, I wonder how much of a factor that was. Firstly, wasn't it conditional on America going to war against Germany rather than a pre-emptive attack? Secondly, I'm not sure if the US regarded Mexico as much of threat - the idea of Mexico reconquering Texas, Arizona, New Mexico seemed ludicrous to a lot of people.
Maintaining the balance of power had absolutely nothing to do with the U.S. entering the war. Wilson was against the entire idea of a balance of power system, he felt it was flawed and he entered the war hoping to END that system and establish a system of collective security that would protect all nations.
I think the best place to look for an explanation concerning America's feelings towards a balance of power system would be found in Kissinger's Diplomacy.
I think the best place to look for an explanation concerning America's feelings towards a balance of power system would be found in Kissinger's Diplomacy.
You are exactly right about Wilson's opposition to the concept of "balance of power", ie the system of alliances that had created two power blocs. I concede that.
At the same time that Wilson was advocating a "concert/community of power" to replace the balance of power system, he was also calling for a "peace without victory", a "peace between equals". There's a contradiction here, because a peace between equals entails some kind of balance between the two sides.
I'd argue that with the war in progress, Wilson's immediate concern was with securing the peace, and the League of Nations concept to be organised later. A German victory would have, from the US point of view, prevented any hope of a "peace between equals". (The US would have hoped to have some influence over Britain and France - a mistaken hope as it turned out).
This is just my opinion, because at no point does Wilson - or anyone else in the US Govt - say that "we are going to war because the Central Powers are close to victory". I just believe it would have been a strong contributing factor towards their decision to enter the war.
At the same time that Wilson was advocating a "concert/community of power" to replace the balance of power system, he was also calling for a "peace without victory", a "peace between equals". There's a contradiction here, because a peace between equals entails some kind of balance between the two sides.
I'd argue that with the war in progress, Wilson's immediate concern was with securing the peace, and the League of Nations concept to be organised later. A German victory would have, from the US point of view, prevented any hope of a "peace between equals". (The US would have hoped to have some influence over Britain and France - a mistaken hope as it turned out).
This is just my opinion, because at no point does Wilson - or anyone else in the US Govt - say that "we are going to war because the Central Powers are close to victory". I just believe it would have been a strong contributing factor towards their decision to enter the war.
Wilson was looking to spread the ideas of democracy and collective security (which, unfortunately really was not one of the best ideas even concocted imo.)
He looked to Europe and he saw that the Central Powers winning would make it impossible for the spread of Democracy and the idea of collective security to be established in an international forum (the League.)
So, for that reason alone Wilson was against the Central powers winning the war.
However, Wilson did not intervene because he was afraid that a dominant Germany would control the continent, to him that was old balance of power politics. Wilson did not CARE which nation was the strongest in Europe, he did not care if one nation was vastly stronger than the others. Because he believed he could establish a system that would eliminate all aggression. His theories claim that no matter how Germany was after the war, the world under the league would believe in collective security and, with the force of the world behind it, would easily stop aggression from warmongering nations.
Wilson wanted the Germans to go back to Germany and stop fighting, he did not want the Allies to gain territory from the Germans, he was however FOR the Germans losing their Polish possession because Wilson believed in the policy of national self-determination. Wilson however was not in charge at Versailles, he had to compromise and he was willing to compromise on everything except the League, because he felt that the League could easily correct any wrongs of Versailles.
His views were perhaps not wholly wrong. But he was foolish to think that Collective Security would work without some system of enforcement, and the lack of enforcement is the reason why the League's brand of collective security ultimately failed.
He looked to Europe and he saw that the Central Powers winning would make it impossible for the spread of Democracy and the idea of collective security to be established in an international forum (the League.)
So, for that reason alone Wilson was against the Central powers winning the war.
However, Wilson did not intervene because he was afraid that a dominant Germany would control the continent, to him that was old balance of power politics. Wilson did not CARE which nation was the strongest in Europe, he did not care if one nation was vastly stronger than the others. Because he believed he could establish a system that would eliminate all aggression. His theories claim that no matter how Germany was after the war, the world under the league would believe in collective security and, with the force of the world behind it, would easily stop aggression from warmongering nations.
Wilson wanted the Germans to go back to Germany and stop fighting, he did not want the Allies to gain territory from the Germans, he was however FOR the Germans losing their Polish possession because Wilson believed in the policy of national self-determination. Wilson however was not in charge at Versailles, he had to compromise and he was willing to compromise on everything except the League, because he felt that the League could easily correct any wrongs of Versailles.
His views were perhaps not wholly wrong. But he was foolish to think that Collective Security would work without some system of enforcement, and the lack of enforcement is the reason why the League's brand of collective security ultimately failed.