Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 20th, 2017, 06:32 AM   #11

David Vagamundo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Atlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 3,481

One of the bedrock principles of US policy from the very beginning (well, at least since just before the War of 1812) has been freedom of navigation on the high seas for US shipping. To give up on that, as you suggest, would have been for the US to give up on one of its bedrock principles.

And of course, every nation has the right to self defense; German U-Boats had attacked American shipping, and the US had the right to try to stop it. I understand your argument in another thread that the British were just as bad (although I disagree), but the British were not torpedoing American shipping without warning.

A book I am reading right now, Alexander Watson's Ring of Steel (https://www.amazon.com/Ring-Steel-Ge.../dp/0465018726 argues that the decision to launch unrestricted submarine warfare was the worse strategic mistake of Germany, as it brought the US into the war. The Germans knew of the risk but thought it would not happen.
David Vagamundo is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 20th, 2017, 06:34 AM   #12
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: Florida
Posts: 164

Quote:
Originally Posted by Menshevik View Post
I don't see how this makes sense. Is there an agenda here?

It's up to any given country's leadership to decide if trade with a nation that is at war is worth the risk.
With political corruption, bribes, interest groups and propaganda, why should it be left to the government? What is their risk?
Divinespark is offline  
Old December 20th, 2017, 06:37 AM   #13

Menshevik's Avatar
VIVE L' EMPEREUR
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: The People's Republik of Kalifornia.
Posts: 8,542

Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinespark View Post
With political corruption, bribes, interest groups and propaganda, why should it be left to the government? What is their risk?
Yup, sounds like an agenda....... together with your signature:

"What is war? In a short sentence it may be summed up to be the combination and concentration of all the horrors, atrocities, crimes, and sufferings of which human nature on this globe is capable…" - John Bright


Menshevik is offline  
Old December 20th, 2017, 06:49 AM   #14
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: Florida
Posts: 164

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Vagamundo View Post
One of the bedrock principles of US policy from the very beginning (well, at least since just before the War of 1812) has been freedom of navigation on the high seas for US shipping. To give up on that, as you suggest, would have been for the US to give up on one of its bedrock principles.
Freedom of travel is not a "bedrock principle" of the United States. It was largely impressment that bothered the United States which is the kidnapping of citizens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Vagamundo View Post
And of course, every nation has the right to self defense; German U-Boats had attacked American shipping, and the US had the right to try to stop it. I understand your argument in another thread that the British were just as bad (although I disagree), but the British were not torpedoing American shipping without warning.

A book I am reading right now, Alexander Watson's Ring of Steel (https://www.amazon.com/Ring-Steel-Ge.../dp/0465018726 argues that the decision to launch unrestricted submarine warfare was the worse strategic mistake of Germany, as it brought the US into the war. The Germans knew of the risk but thought it would not happen.
The British were not torpedoing American ships because they didn't have to do it. They controlled US diplomacy all throughout the world war because of anglophiles like Colonel House and incompetent diplomats like Robert Lansing. If the United States actually pressed the British to stop the blockade and refused to do business with them then Britain would actually have dropped the blockade. This has been admitted by Sir Edward Grey. But the United States were too attached to Britain (and too incompetent) and more indifferent to Germany to actually pursue that avenue. It is not surprising (but still regrettable) that Germany upon making the Sussex pledge with the United States realized that the US was not truly interested in being a neutral power. They never were neutral, at least in the offices of government. The people of the US were largely conflicted over the whole dilemma even during the Lusitania affair. So with the US giving arms and supplies to Britain, not forcing the blockade issue and with the advent of merchant ships being operated by naval seaman and being equipped with stationary guns on their hull and being told to ram submarines that presented themselves according to the Sussex pledge that both countries agreed to (thereby rebuking everything that made them neutral merchant ships), again it is not surprising that Germany reintroduced unrestricted submarine warfare. Unrestricted sub warfare wasn't a mistake, it was a correction that came too late when Germany realized that they were never going to keep the United States out of war because they were already at war to begin with.
Divinespark is offline  
Old December 20th, 2017, 06:50 AM   #15
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: Florida
Posts: 164

Quote:
Originally Posted by Menshevik View Post
Yup, sounds like an agenda....... together with your signature:

"What is war? In a short sentence it may be summed up to be the combination and concentration of all the horrors, atrocities, crimes, and sufferings of which human nature on this globe is capable…" - John Bright


Your signature holds an agenda too...so bye?
Divinespark is offline  
Old December 20th, 2017, 06:54 AM   #16

Menshevik's Avatar
VIVE L' EMPEREUR
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: The People's Republik of Kalifornia.
Posts: 8,542

Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinespark View Post
Your signature holds an agenda too...so bye?
Not really analogous, but yes..... bye.
Menshevik is offline  
Old December 20th, 2017, 06:55 AM   #17

David Vagamundo's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2010
From: Atlanta, Georgia USA
Posts: 3,481

Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinespark View Post
Freedom of travel is not a "bedrock principle" of the United States. It was largely impressment that bothered the United States which is the kidnapping of citizens.



The British were not torpedoing American ships because they didn't have to do it. They controlled US diplomacy all throughout the world war because of anglophiles like Colonel House and incompetent diplomats like Robert Lansing. If the United States actually pressed the British to stop the blockade and refused to do business with them then Britain would actually have dropped the blockade. This has been admitted by Sir Edward Grey. But the United States were too attached to Britain (and too incompetent) and more indifferent to Germany to actually pursue that avenue. It is not surprising (but still regrettable) that Germany upon making the Sussex pledge with the United States realized that the US was not truly interested in being a neutral power. They never were neutral, at least in the offices of government. The people of the US were largely conflicted over the whole dilemma even during the Lusitania affair. So with the US giving arms and supplies to Britain, not forcing the blockade issue and with the advent of merchant ships being operated by naval seaman and being equipped with stationary guns on their hull and being told to ram submarines that presented themselves according to the Sussex pledge that both countries agreed to (thereby rebuking everything that made them neutral merchant ships), again it is not surprising that Germany reintroduced unrestricted submarine warfare. Unrestricted sub warfare wasn't a mistake, it was a correction that came too late when Germany realized that they were never going to keep the United States out of war because they were already at war to begin with.
Please give me a citation or citation to support any of this. Thanks.

And keep in mind that Wilson had recently won reelection on the platform "He kept us out of war." Was Wilson lying?

Last edited by David Vagamundo; December 20th, 2017 at 06:57 AM.
David Vagamundo is offline  
Old December 20th, 2017, 06:56 AM   #18
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: Florida
Posts: 164

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Vagamundo View Post
Please give me a citation or citation to support any of this. Thanks
Which parts would you like me to cite?
Divinespark is offline  
Old December 20th, 2017, 06:59 AM   #19

TotalAaron's Avatar
No Relation. to stalin
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Hunnic Empire
Posts: 4,424
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinespark View Post
Which parts would you like me to cite?
all of it i imagine
TotalAaron is online now  
Old December 20th, 2017, 07:03 AM   #20
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2017
From: Florida
Posts: 164

Quote:
Originally Posted by TotalAaron View Post
all of it i imagine
I will happily return tonight when I have access to my books on the subject and cite all of my claims. I hope it is not all for naught because I would hate to cite all of this and people change the argument.
Divinespark is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
confronting, desire, war



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Latching on fragments - rather than confronting the wider picture Brisieis Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 4 December 17th, 2014 06:11 AM
That demon, male desire corrocamino Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 35 July 26th, 2011 06:22 PM
How can we create a personality we desire? coberst Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 7 November 3rd, 2009 04:40 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.