Does World War I end in a compromise peace without U.S. entry into this war?

[WolfBear]

If the U.S. would have remained neutral, does World War I end in a compromise peace?

For the record, I am thinking of a scenario where the U.S. remains neutral but still provides whatever loans, et cetera the Entente/Allies need.

[jerry kraus]

Post by WolfBear
If the U.S. would have remained neutral, does World War I end in a compromise peace?
For the record, I am thinking of a scenario where the U.S. remains neutral but still provides whatever loans, et cetera the Entente/Allies need.

Almost certainly, yes. By 1916 all sides were considering some means of ending the pointless conflict. Churchill even speculated in the 1930's that it would have been much better if the U.S. had never gotten involved, because a negotiated peace would have reduced the likelihood of a demagogue like Hitler coming to power in Germany.

[Rob]

Cite for the Churchill statement?

[jerry kraus]

Post by Rob
Cite for the Churchill statement?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/803803/posts?page=51

[The Old Man]

Post by jerry kraus

Post by Rob
Cite for the Churchill statement?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/803803/posts?page=51

Considering that Churchill set up the events for the Lusitania sinking (a ship that was carrying war materials in violation of previous agreements) knowing that three were Americans aboard by pulling the escorts ships, and making himself scarce for the day, I somehow doubt this.

Regards,
John Braungart

[Alex Milman]

Post by The Old Man

Post by jerry kraus

Post by Rob
Cite for the Churchill statement?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/803803/posts?page=51

Considering that Churchill set up the events for the Lusitania sinking (a ship that was carrying war materials in violation of previous agreements) knowing that three were Americans aboard by pulling the escorts ships, and making himself scarce for the day, I somehow doubt this.

And, anyway, the link starts with asking if the quote is legitimate and, judging by the replies, there are serious doubts.

[jerry kraus]

Post by The Old Man

Post by jerry kraus

Post by Rob
Cite for the Churchill statement?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/803803/posts?page=51

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by The Old Man
Considering that Churchill set up the events for the Lusitania sinking (a ship that was carrying war materials in violation of previous agreements) knowing that three were Americans aboard by pulling the escorts ships, and making himself scarce for the day, I somehow doubt this.
Regards,
John Braungart

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, during the first world war Churchill was praying to God that the Americans would enter the war, of that there isn't the slightest question. But, whoever expects professional politicians to be consistent, particularly over a period of decades? Churchill's policies on Imperialism switched 180 degrees from his early days in the Liberal party to his periods as Prime Minister decades later. He was largely anti-imperialist when he started out, but he ended up being the last lion of British Imperialism.

Obviously, Churchill would have had no choice but to deny the quotation, by the time World War Two actually broke out. There is no question that this quotation was actually published by highly reputable journalist William Griffin as Churchill's exact words.

https://www.winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-152/griffin-and-churchill-another-view/

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by WolfBear
If the U.S. would have remained neutral, does World War I end in a compromise peace?
For the record, I am thinking of a scenario where the U.S. remains neutral but still provides whatever loans, et cetera the Entente/Allies need.

Snag is that all loans prior to 1917 were secured on property in North America. But this was largely used up by 1917 so there couldn't be further loans unless Americans were willing to subscribe to unsecured ones - most unlikely as long as the US remained neutral. Even after war was declared, take up of the First Liberty Loan was poor until the government propaganda machine started promoting it as essential to the war effort - which they couldn't have done if they were not *at* war.


Mike Stone, Peterborough, England.

[jerry kraus]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by WolfBear
If the U.S. would have remained neutral, does World War I end in a compromise peace?
For the record, I am thinking of a scenario where the U.S. remains neutral but still provides whatever loans, et cetera the Entente/Allies need.

Snag is that all loans prior to 1917 were secured on property in North America. But this was largely used up by 1917 so there couldn't be further loans unless Americans were willing to subscribe to unsecured ones - most unlikely as long as the US remained neutral. Even after war was declared, take up of the First Liberty Loan was poor until the government propaganda machine started promoting it as essential to the war effort - which they couldn't have done if they were not *at* war.
Mike Stone, Peterborough, England.

Interesting Mike. So, you're suggesting that American entry into the War -- WWI -- was entirely a capitalistic economic convenience, that was utterly unrelated to either American political or military necessity? I think you might actually be right about that, but, it's a very controversial position. Care to elaborate on that a bit further, it might be rather significant, you know. Also, related references from online sources would be quite interesting, I think. At least to me, anyway.

[m***@gmail.com]

Post by jerry kraus

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by WolfBear
If the U.S. would have remained neutral, does World War I end in a compromise peace?
For the record, I am thinking of a scenario where the U.S. remains neutral but still provides whatever loans, et cetera the Entente/Allies need.

Snag is that all loans prior to 1917 were secured on property in North America. But this was largely used up by 1917 so there couldn't be further loans unless Americans were willing to subscribe to unsecured ones - most unlikely as long as the US remained neutral. Even after war was declared, take up of the First Liberty Loan was poor until the government propaganda machine started promoting it as essential to the war effort - which they couldn't have done if they were not *at* war.
Mike Stone, Peterborough, England.

Interesting Mike. So, you're suggesting that American entry into the War -- WWI -- was entirely a capitalistic economic convenience, that was utterly unrelated to either American political or military necessity? I think you might actually be right about that, but, it's a very controversial position. Care to elaborate on that a bit further, it might be rather significant, you know. Also, related references from online sources would be quite interesting, I think. At least to me, anyway.

Not sure what you mean. It was related to the sinking of US merchant ships, reinforced by the revealing of a certain telegram. No one proposed going to war in order to continue making loans. Indeed, until the resumption of USW only a few hotheads wanted to go to war at all.

...

Mike Stone, Peterborough, England.

Always drink upriver from the herd.

[jerry kraus]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by jerry kraus

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by WolfBear
If the U.S. would have remained neutral, does World War I end in a compromise peace?
For the record, I am thinking of a scenario where the U.S. remains neutral but still provides whatever loans, et cetera the Entente/Allies need.

Snag is that all loans prior to 1917 were secured on property in North America. But this was largely used up by 1917 so there couldn't be further loans unless Americans were willing to subscribe to unsecured ones - most unlikely as long as the US remained neutral. Even after war was declared, take up of the First Liberty Loan was poor until the government propaganda machine started promoting it as essential to the war effort - which they couldn't have done if they were not *at* war.
Mike Stone, Peterborough, England.

Interesting Mike. So, you're suggesting that American entry into the War -- WWI -- was entirely a capitalistic economic convenience, that was utterly unrelated to either American political or military necessity? I think you might actually be right about that, but, it's a very controversial position. Care to elaborate on that a bit further, it might be rather significant, you know. Also, related references from online sources would be quite interesting, I think. At least to me, anyway.

Not sure what you mean. It was related to the sinking of US merchant ships, reinforced by the revealing of a certain telegram. No one proposed going to war in order to continue making loans. Indeed, until the resumption of USW only a few hotheads wanted to go to war at all.
...
Mike Stone, Peterborough, England.
Always drink upriver from the herd.

The "roaring twenties" would never have happened without U.S. entry into the war, and the Americans knew it. "All Wars are Economic" -- Karl Marx.

[Pete Barrett]

Post by jerry kraus
The "roaring twenties" would never have happened without U.S. entry into
the war, and the Americans knew it.

They might have known in in the 1920s. They couldn't have known it when
they went to war.

Post by jerry kraus
"All Wars are Economic" -- Karl
Marx.

He might have said it. Doesn't mean he was right.

[jerry kraus]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by jerry kraus
The "roaring twenties" would never have happened without U.S. entry into
the war, and the Americans knew it.

They might have known in in the 1920s. They couldn't have known it when
they went to war.

Sure they did, Pete. Everyone knew about the enormous economic boom that immediately followed the U.S. Civil War. It's not like American economists only started making the equation between war and economic growth following the Depression and the Second World War.

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by jerry kraus
"All Wars are Economic" -- Karl
Marx.

He might have said it. Doesn't mean he was right.
--
Pete BARRETT

[Pete Barrett]

Post by jerry kraus

Post by Pete Barrett
They might have known in in the 1920s. They couldn't have known it when
they went to war.

Sure they did, Pete. Everyone knew about the enormous economic boom
that immediately followed the U.S. Civil War. It's not like American
economists only started making the equation between war and economic
growth following the Depression and the Second World War.

Perhaps they should have gone to war a bit earlier then, since it makes
so much economic sense. In fact why didn't they start it in the first
place? That would have made even more sense.

For that matter, why did Wilson campaign in 1916 with the slogan 'He kept
us out of the war'? Much better to campaign with the slogan 'Vote for me,
and I'll make everyone prosperous by joining the current war as soon as I
can find an excuse'. How could he lose?

[jerry kraus]

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by jerry kraus

Post by Pete Barrett
They might have known in in the 1920s. They couldn't have known it when
they went to war.

Sure they did, Pete. Everyone knew about the enormous economic boom
that immediately followed the U.S. Civil War. It's not like American
economists only started making the equation between war and economic
growth following the Depression and the Second World War.

Perhaps they should have gone to war a bit earlier then, since it makes
so much economic sense. In fact why didn't they start it in the first
place? That would have made even more sense.

Actually, Pete, the business community DID want to go to war earlier, but, since the German was the second language of the U.S., there was considerable public opposition, and they didn't want to have another U.S. Civil War over it, despite the fact that that ALSO would have been good for business! Also, it's hard to get most people to fight and die simply for money. You have to dress it up a bit.

Post by Pete Barrett
For that matter, why did Wilson campaign in 1916 with the slogan 'He kept
us out of the war'? Much better to campaign with the slogan 'Vote for me,
and I'll make everyone prosperous by joining the current war as soon as I
can find an excuse'. How could he lose?

Same answer. Too many Germans in the U.S. Also, there really was no vital national interest at stake -- other than war breeding prosperity -- so, very difficult to mobilize national will on the issue. That's why the U.S. ultimately lost the Vietnam War -- that is, people simply refused to go on fighting just for money.

Post by Pete Barrett
--
Pete BARRETT

[The Old Man]

Post by jerry kraus
That's why the U.S. ultimately lost the Vietnam War -- that is, people simply refused to go on fighting just for money.

Not quite. They refused to go on fighting in order for some INSIDERS to make money. LBJ's old lady, Lady Bird made millions (sent in her name for both of them) from General Dynamics, among others and note, they didn't have a dog in that fight.
Why should I send my kids so you can make millions and all I get is either a lousy body-bag or a kid in a wheelchair? Especially when I get to see somebody get killed every night on the nation news?

Regards,
John Braungart

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 07:11:52 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus
Actually, Pete, the business community DID want to go to war earlier, but, since the German was the second language of the U.S., there was considerable public opposition, and they didn't want to have another U.S. Civil War over it, despite the fact that that ALSO would have been good for business! Also, it's hard to get most people to fight and die simply for money. You have to dress it up a bit.

Post by Pete Barrett
For that matter, why did Wilson campaign in 1916 with the slogan 'He kept
us out of the war'? Much better to campaign with the slogan 'Vote for me,
and I'll make everyone prosperous by joining the current war as soon as I
can find an excuse'. How could he lose?

Same answer. Too many Germans in the U.S. Also, there really was no vital national interest at stake -- other than war breeding prosperity -- so, very difficult to mobilize national will on the issue. That's why the U.S. ultimately lost the Vietnam War -- that is, people simply refused to go on fighting just for money.

Are you seriously suggesting there was a threat of a German uprising
in the United States during 1914-18?

There are millions of people with surnames that originated in Germany
(including me - my male forbear came to the US around 1720) but that
doesn't mean any affinity for the Deutsches Reich.

Who do you think was going to lead the charge? Junior officers like
Eisenhower or "von Nimitz"?

[jerry kraus]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 07:11:52 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus
Actually, Pete, the business community DID want to go to war earlier, but, since the German was the second language of the U.S., there was considerable public opposition, and they didn't want to have another U.S. Civil War over it, despite the fact that that ALSO would have been good for business! Also, it's hard to get most people to fight and die simply for money. You have to dress it up a bit.

Post by Pete Barrett
For that matter, why did Wilson campaign in 1916 with the slogan 'He kept
us out of the war'? Much better to campaign with the slogan 'Vote for me,
and I'll make everyone prosperous by joining the current war as soon as I
can find an excuse'. How could he lose?

Same answer. Too many Germans in the U.S. Also, there really was no vital national interest at stake -- other than war breeding prosperity -- so, very difficult to mobilize national will on the issue. That's why the U.S. ultimately lost the Vietnam War -- that is, people simply refused to go on fighting just for money.

Are you seriously suggesting there was a threat of a German uprising
in the United States during 1914-18?
There are millions of people with surnames that originated in Germany
(including me - my male forbear came to the US around 1720) but that
doesn't mean any affinity for the Deutsches Reich.
Who do you think was going to lead the charge? Junior officers like
Eisenhower or "von Nimitz"?

Well, Horny, let's just say that a unilateral declaration of war against Germany by the U.S. in 1914 wouldn't have gone over too well, at all. The U.S. isn't Canada, Americans really don't like the government pushing them around. Bear in mind, Congressional elections occur every 2 years in the U.S., so if the President Wilson declares War against Germany in August or September 1914, the U.S. electorate would simply have elected a Congress in November 1914 that would have defunded the War, and Wilson would have been impeached and sent to prison. Absolutely guaranteed.

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:05:06 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus

Post by The Horny Goat
Are you seriously suggesting there was a threat of a German uprising
in the United States during 1914-18?
There are millions of people with surnames that originated in Germany
(including me - my male forbear came to the US around 1720) but that
doesn't mean any affinity for the Deutsches Reich.
Who do you think was going to lead the charge? Junior officers like
Eisenhower or "von Nimitz"?

Well, Horny, let's just say that a unilateral declaration of war against Germany by the U.S. in 1914 wouldn't have gone over too well, at all. The U.S. isn't Canada, Americans really don't like the government pushing them around. Bear in mind, Congressional elections occur every 2 years in the U.S., so if the President Wilson declares War against Germany in August or September 1914, the U.S. electorate would simply have elected a Congress in November 1914 that would have defunded the War, and Wilson would have been impeached and sent to prison. Absolutely guaranteed.

Well Canada didn't declare war in 1914. Canada and the Dominions were
at war automatically by virtue of being in the British Empire.

In 1939 due to the 1931 Statute of Westminster each Dominion had to
separately declare war (Australia hadn't actually ratified it yet but
nevertheless voted to declare war - and due to time zones did it
before the UK!).

In fact 1939 is the ONLY time the Canadian parliament has ever
declared war. The mentality in Canada was totally changed between 1914
and 1939 - my grandfather tells me school kids in Vancouver were
taught 'The British Grenadiers' and 'Rule Britannia' in 1912-14 - that
wouldn't have happened 25 years later.

As for elections during wartime Britain didn't have one between 1935
and 1945, Canada had elections in 1940 and 45, can't remember
Australia but they had 2 wartime elections one of which meant a change
in government. (I don't include Britain 1940 since that was a change
of leader not a change of governing party though one of Churchills
first acts was to seek a coalition with Labour and one of those terms
was a promise of a general election within 3 months of the end of the
war in Europe)

[The Old Man]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 07:11:52 -0700 (PDT), jerry kraus

Post by jerry kraus
Actually, Pete, the business community DID want to go to war earlier, but, since the German was the second language of the U.S., there was considerable public opposition, and they didn't want to have another U.S. Civil War over it, despite the fact that that ALSO would have been good for business! Also, it's hard to get most people to fight and die simply for money. You have to dress it up a bit.

Post by Pete Barrett
For that matter, why did Wilson campaign in 1916 with the slogan 'He kept
us out of the war'? Much better to campaign with the slogan 'Vote for me,
and I'll make everyone prosperous by joining the current war as soon as I
can find an excuse'. How could he lose?

Same answer. Too many Germans in the U.S. Also, there really was no vital national interest at stake -- other than war breeding prosperity -- so, very difficult to mobilize national will on the issue. That's why the U.S. ultimately lost the Vietnam War -- that is, people simply refused to go on fighting just for money.

Are you seriously suggesting there was a threat of a German uprising
in the United States during 1914-18?
There are millions of people with surnames that originated in Germany
(including me - my male forbear came to the US around 1720) but that
doesn't mean any affinity for the Deutsches Reich.
Who do you think was going to lead the charge? Junior officers like
Eisenhower or "von Nimitz"?

With Edward Richenbacher and Franz Luke flying side by side with von Richthofen and Goering.

Regards,
John Braungart

[Alex Milman]

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by jerry kraus
The "roaring twenties" would never have happened without U.S. entry into
the war, and the Americans knew it.

They might have known in in the 1920s. They couldn't have known it when
they went to war.

Post by jerry kraus
"All Wars are Economic" -- Karl
Marx.

He might have said it. Doesn't mean he was right.

Of course, Marx as an authority on pretty much anything exists mostly in the minds of his followers. However, "to conduct a war you need 3 things: money, money and money" had been allegedly said by an acknowledged expert in the area, Raimondo Montecúccoli. :-)

[Pete Barrett]

Post by Alex Milman

Post by Pete Barrett

Post by jerry kraus
The "roaring twenties" would never have happened without U.S. entry
into the war, and the Americans knew it.

They might have known in in the 1920s. They couldn't have known it when
they went to war.

Post by jerry kraus
"All Wars are Economic" -- Karl
Marx.

He might have said it. Doesn't mean he was right.

Of course, Marx as an authority on pretty much anything exists mostly in
the minds of his followers. However, "to conduct a war you need 3
things: money, money and money" had been allegedly said by an
acknowledged expert in the area, Raimondo Montecúccoli. :-)

Obviously, you need money to conduct a war - other experts had discovered
the fact long before Montecuccoli, and behaved accordingly. But I don't
think that's what Marx meant, somehow!

[Dean]

Post by jerry kraus

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by jerry kraus

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by WolfBear
If the U.S. would have remained neutral, does World War I end in a compromise peace?
For the record, I am thinking of a scenario where the U.S. remains neutral but still provides whatever loans, et cetera the Entente/Allies need.

Snag is that all loans prior to 1917 were secured on property in North America. But this was largely used up by 1917 so there couldn't be further loans unless Americans were willing to subscribe to unsecured ones - most unlikely as long as the US remained neutral. Even after war was declared, take up of the First Liberty Loan was poor until the government propaganda machine started promoting it as essential to the war effort - which they couldn't have done if they were not *at* war.
Mike Stone, Peterborough, England.

Interesting Mike. So, you're suggesting that American entry into the War -- WWI -- was entirely a capitalistic economic convenience, that was utterly unrelated to either American political or military necessity? I think you might actually be right about that, but, it's a very controversial position. Care to elaborate on that a bit further, it might be rather significant, you know. Also, related references from online sources would be quite interesting, I think. At least to me, anyway.

Not sure what you mean. It was related to the sinking of US merchant ships, reinforced by the revealing of a certain telegram. No one proposed going to war in order to continue making loans. Indeed, until the resumption of USW only a few hotheads wanted to go to war at all.
...
Mike Stone, Peterborough, England.
Always drink upriver from the herd.

The "roaring twenties" would never have happened without U.S. entry into the war, and the Americans knew it. "All Wars are Economic" -- Karl Marx.

I'm not sure how Americans in 1917 knew that entering the war would result in the "roaring twenties". The U.S. was doing just fine staying out of the war until Germany had the twin provocations of unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmerman Telegram. For the latter, you could also implicate the UK since they intercepted the cables and notified the Americans.

[jerry kraus]

Post by Dean

Post by jerry kraus

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by jerry kraus

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by WolfBear
If the U.S. would have remained neutral, does World War I end in a compromise peace?
For the record, I am thinking of a scenario where the U.S. remains neutral but still provides whatever loans, et cetera the Entente/Allies need.

Snag is that all loans prior to 1917 were secured on property in North America. But this was largely used up by 1917 so there couldn't be further loans unless Americans were willing to subscribe to unsecured ones - most unlikely as long as the US remained neutral. Even after war was declared, take up of the First Liberty Loan was poor until the government propaganda machine started promoting it as essential to the war effort - which they couldn't have done if they were not *at* war.
Mike Stone, Peterborough, England.

Interesting Mike. So, you're suggesting that American entry into the War -- WWI -- was entirely a capitalistic economic convenience, that was utterly unrelated to either American political or military necessity? I think you might actually be right about that, but, it's a very controversial position. Care to elaborate on that a bit further, it might be rather significant, you know. Also, related references from online sources would be quite interesting, I think. At least to me, anyway.

Not sure what you mean. It was related to the sinking of US merchant ships, reinforced by the revealing of a certain telegram. No one proposed going to war in order to continue making loans. Indeed, until the resumption of USW only a few hotheads wanted to go to war at all.
...
Mike Stone, Peterborough, England.
Always drink upriver from the herd.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Dean

Post by jerry kraus
The "roaring twenties" would never have happened without U.S. entry into the war, and the Americans knew it. "All Wars are Economic" -- Karl Marx.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Dean
I'm not sure how Americans in 1917 knew that entering the war would result in the "roaring twenties". The U.S. was doing just fine staying out of the war until Germany had the twin provocations of unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmerman Telegram. For the latter, you could also implicate the UK since they intercepted the cables and notified the Americans.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The U.S. was doing just fine in 1939 and 1940 economically, too, as the result of WWII. But, they did a lot better economically during, and following the war. The equation between war and economic growth was certainly well understood by U.S. economists at least since the time of the U.S. Civil War, and its corresponding economic boom. Hence, the Vietnam War, and the booming 1960's.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by jerry kraus
Interesting Mike. So, you're suggesting that American entry into the War -- WWI -- was entirely a capitalistic economic convenience, that was utterly unrelated to either American political or military necessity? I think you might actually be right about that, but, it's a very controversial position. Care to elaborate on that a bit further, it might be rather significant, you know. Also, related references from online sources would be quite interesting, I think. At least to me, anyway.

Not sure what you mean. It was related to the sinking of US merchant ships, reinforced by the revealing of a certain telegram. No one proposed going to war in order to continue making loans. Indeed, until the resumption of USW only a few hotheads wanted to go to war at all.

Don't know about that - pretty much continuously since the Civil War
US policy has been 'we believe in making a fortune through trade and
will fight anyone anywhere who tries to interfere with that'

The only difference since 1945 is that the preferred policy is trade
agreements rather than troops and ships.

[s***@yahoo.com]

The link to the Churchill site was very helpful.
My 7th grade civics teacher said the US wanted in the war, and chose the west because it was easier to get to.