|
anarchyintheuk -> RE: Ok lets take America out of WW2. (6/29/2010 4:19:01 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bamilus
I should have specified:
When I said the USA was dragged into WW1 I meant that President Wilson and pro-war supporters pushed us to declare war. I think the Zimmerman telegram was definitely not worth declaring war on, and Wilson had provoked the Germans. While the British were trying to starve Germany with a blockade (and not only that, many British ships were told to don the flags of neutral countries so they wouldn't be attacked by German subs). Wilson couldn't understand that the Germans submarine warfare was started solely because of British attempts to blockade and starve the nation.
Britain (including Churchill) actively pushed for a belligerent US, because they knew neutral ships coming to Britain would soon lead to an accidentally sinking by a German submarine and bring the US into the war. To quote Churchill: "It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores in the hope of especially of embroiling the United States with Germany....If some of it gets into trouble, better still."
The Germans warned neutral ships and travelers that they could not guarantee their safety in war zones. This led to the numerous "blatant attacks", like the sinking of the Lusitania (not to mention that over 5,000 cases of ammunition were on board). Not only that, but the US put ridiculous demands on the German government, like asking that their submarines give warning and expose themselves to ARMED merchant ships so "innocents" don't die (while at the same time British armed merchants were attacking German ships with no warning). Wilson insisted that somehow American passengers had rights, even if they were on armed merchant ships in a warzone. Even back then armed ships were KOS in terms of international law.
WW1 was not black and white, good and bad. I'm not saying Wilson engineered a war, but there were MANY pressures (inside and out) for the United States to go to war against Germany. After a stalemate in the west for several years it was crucial that the Entente received new help before the Germans could defeat the Russians and move all their troops west. Britain did everything in its power to get the USA to join the war (ironic that Churchill did the same thing 20 years later).
Honestly, given how belligerent and nonsensical the US policy was in both wars (before any actual declarations) I am surprised at how hard the Germans tried to placate the US and prevent any accidental sinking. Yes, they did happen, but unlike what Wilson or FDR said, they were not apart of an intentional submarine warfare conspiracy against "neutral" United States ships carrying guns and ammo to the UK.
Couple of thoughts:
I don't see US policy as nonsensical prior to WWI. Sellers sell to buyers. Geography and relative naval power dictated who the buyers could be.
The Zimmerman telegram was only part of the reason for the US declaration of war. Unrestricted sub warfare was the other, bigger part of the reason. A US president just can't sit around and watch his citizens be attacked with impunity or w/o a response. Germany made a calculated risk that unrestricted submarine warfare would defeat Britain prior to the effective entry of the US (which they knew would eventually declare war because of the sinkings of US ships). They lost. Conspiracy theorists/tin-foil brigade members will also say the US couldn't afford for the Entente to lose for financial reasons. That's another subject.
The ideas of blockades and war zones are legal theories as much as military strategies. The former had a basis in law, the latter did not. German submarine warfare wasn't started in response to the British blockade. It was started in response to the form in which the blockade took shape, a distant blockade. The Germans expected a close-in blockade where subs would be useful in picking off RN ships to slowly whittle away the balance of power between the fleets eventually allowing the High Seas Fleet to engage the British on more equal terms. When the close-in blockade didn't develop the Germans were somewhat at a loss with what to do with their sumbarines.
I'm pretty sure that all countries recognized the Britain would blockade and try to starve out Germany immediately upon a declaration of war. There may have been moral qualms concerning it, but not legal ones.
The demands for warning prior to sub attacks were part of the cruiser rules established by international agreements prior to WWI. I don't know what ships that you're referencing that were attacked by the RN without warning but the RN did deploy Q-ships to to take advantage of the German sub's adherence to the cruiser rules. Iirc it was one of Churchill's ideas. Dirty/illegal but it didn't affect US lives or property so it was irrelevant to them.
One of Britain's cardinal policies was to maintain a balance of power on the continent. I think it was also in the US's interest to maintain it as well. Whether this factored into Wilson's thinking, I don't know.
|
|
|
|
