Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Mikebert is right about who won the wars. The world wars were the collapse and fall of the 500-year old European colonial and great-power system that had ruled the world. Europe as the world's power center fell. What replaced it has been successor powers (such as the USA, China, Japan, Russia, Brazil, India, arguably even the EU) in a developing global system. The League of Nations and the UN that emerged from the world wars are the start of a world-governing body. This is a new age that will last another 400 years before the next civilization crisis begins.

I guess it takes boomers today to have a correct historical perspective.

Actually, it was just the inclusion of nations like the USA, Canada, and Australia into the European power system, and some conjoining of the Eastern and Western power structures. I wouldn't include Russia, Brazil, China or India as great powers, they're more resources we exploit than actual world powers. It's another case of the world coming under a single authority even as people hopelessly try to splinter that and take chunks of it for themselves.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

... I think you answere your own question below:
If they are bright people, its hard to see how they are stupid. I think you are equating morality with intelligence in some ways here.

I never argued that the stupid ideas originated with stupid people. Actually, in cases where the few wish to rule the many without the use of physical force, narrow-minded emotional appeals are often a good substitute. That those appeals are based on hate mongering or lies of form or another doesn't degrade their power.

Originally Posted by Mikebert ...

I think it has always been the case. There are always self-interested men involved in public affairs. There are also public servants.

At the moment, there are not many public servants in political positions. That's the problem in a nutshell.

One shouldn't underestimate the value of America's logistical support nor the psychological impact of it's hundreds of thousands of fresh troops towards the end. Germany came very close to winning the war anyway, especially after the Russian Empire fell.

Besides, as Patton said, the point of war isn't to die gloriously for your country, it's to make the other bastard die for his. He was talking about the enemy, but it's just as true for your allies, as well. America definitely emerged as the top power after the war had bled the Europeans dry. It just took another 30 years to consolidate it formally.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

One shouldn't underestimate the value of America's logistical support nor the psychological impact of it's hundreds of thousands of fresh troops towards the end. Germany came very close to winning the war anyway, especially after the Russian Empire fell.

Besides, as Patton said, the point of war isn't to die gloriously for your country, it's to make the other bastard die for his. He was talking about the enemy, but it's just as true for your allies, as well. America definitely emerged as the top power after the war had bled the Europeans dry. It just took another 30 years to consolidate it formally.

A British perspective:



The women are talking about how the war is about to end and another push is about to go through, and then the Yanks show up unexpectedly.

And I just love this little parody that goes into the scene that you miss unless you listen closely:

"And we won't come back, we'll be buried over there."

For a play I wrote I decided to focus on America's involvement in WWI, I remember taking notes. In a big book on WWI, our involvement only covers two pages of a 200 note volume. In a 6 hour documentary on WWI going into vast details, American involvement only appears at the very end of the documentary in the last 20 minutes. (It's an American documentary)

Here's my notes of those last 20 minutes:

"Too Proud to fight" -- Woodrow Wilson said this when war erupted in Europe in 1914

US tried to be a champion for neutral nations and tried to bring the European powers together to negotiate a peace treaty in 1916

Spring of 1917, most of the US had no interest in the war

poisoning water supplies, kidnappings, industrial sabotage, and engaging in espionage via Labor Unions

Germany was seen as a dangerous autocratic monarchy which was an enemy to democracy and wanted to secretly undermine the United States

Zimmerman's telegraph tried to provoke Mexico and Japan to war with the US

Justification for war: an act of high principle and idealism and a crusade to make the world safe for democracy

June 5 1917 - Pershing arrives in France with the first Expeditionary force (untrained rash men)

July, Pershing moves his forces on orders from Allied command to sure up French gains after repelling overconfident German surge that had retreated.

One man describes that they practically/almost broke open a bottle of Champagne because they were so eager to move somewhere. "Had enough of this business of playacting, wanted to get somewhere where they could do some damage, and then get done and get back home."

French command told them they had advanced too far, Americans didn't move.

Germans and Americans exchanged pot shots, with the Germans taking defensive in a heavily wooded area that concealed their numbers, Germans attacked the American Left flank and were then repulsed. French order the Americans to take the woods, the Americans overconfident and ignorant of the amount of Germans before them eagerly did so. German machine gun fire came down upon them (they were hidden in the trees) and forced the advancing forces to scatter and get to the ground. Problem with this was you didn't know where the front was.

August 30th - the American first army was brought into being and was immediately employed south of Verdun and on the 12th of September the Americans drove the Germans from their positions and took prisoners and demoralized the Germans.

The armistice was signed that November.

So our record in WWI is one where we were mostly the "second-string" players who didn't get called in until the very end. And who was calling the shots? The French.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Kepi

Actually, it was just the inclusion of nations like the USA, Canada, and Australia into the European power system, and some conjoining of the Eastern and Western power structures. I wouldn't include Russia, Brazil, China or India as great powers, they're more resources we exploit than actual world powers. It's another case of the world coming under a single authority even as people hopelessly try to splinter that and take chunks of it for themselves.

I wouldn't say the world is under a single authority now. It was clear before that it was Europe as colonial overlord. Now it's a number of other states in an emerging global system. The British-settled ones you mention besides the USA are nowhere near as powerful as Russia, China, Brazil and India. The latter three have of course become powerful recently, and the USA and other former British colonies are becoming less dominant than they were at the start of this saeculum (The American High). But over the 500-year period we entered in the 1890s, some successor states (often former colonies) are becoming powerful more quickly than others, and others will probably arise. And Europe itself has transformed itself greatly from competing dominant imperial world powers to a peaceful and civilized union that is only one of many power centers. Truly, the 1890s-1910s was the most transformative moment in civilization, and the reverberations from that moment continued powerfully for a century. That is the world we still live in, and will live in for 400 more years.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Sorry, you guys were raised on a strict and limited diet of propaganda. The idea that America in any way "won" WW1 is not a common or popular historical opinion.

I'd say the consensus is that America's entry tipped the scales for the Allies to win, after 4 years of stalemate on the Western front. The Germans won in the East, but lost because America's entry won in the west. And the larger point is that Europe lost the war, and America won. None of the original combatants "won;" it was just a horrible foolish nightmare that was unnecessary, but happened because it was time for Europe to fall as imperial world leader. The foundations of that society were rotten, and the Great War was just a Revolution that toppled it. The internal and external conflicts were simultaneous and mutually-stimulated.

The other salient point is that America won the war and lost the peace, because the winning European powers were allowed to dictate terms. That led to World War Two and yet more destruction for Europe and its world position at the hands of the Axis holocaust, financially as well as militarily, including loss of colonies by the winning WWI powers.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I'd say the consensus is that America's entry tipped the scales for the Allies to win, after 4 years of stalemate on the Western front.

And I'd say this was the consensus, in American public schools: 30-40 years ago at the height of cold-war propaganda. British people tend to get a bit furious when you suggest America won the war while the Germans and French don't even think it's relevant to their current interests or the modern world. Insisting that we won a fight a hundred years ago is kind of pathetic in the same way as Al Bundy's high-school football stories... taken to an even more absurd extreme.

The other salient point is that America won the war and lost the peace, because the winning European powers were allowed to dictate terms. That led to World War Two and yet more destruction for Europe and its world position at the hands of the Axis holocaust, financially as well as militarily, including loss of colonies by the winning WWI powers.

And it wasn't just domestic resistance that disarmed Wilson at Paris in 1919. He walked in with an idealistic agenda and a lot of our victorious allies had no intention of ever using the 14 points beyond propaganda.

Besides, setting the terms of peace is like... the definition of winning a war. WW2? Sure. We won. WW1? No way. Our role in the fighting was incidental and our role in defining the peace was even smaller.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Sorry, you guys were raised on a strict and limited diet of propaganda. The idea that America in any way "won" WW1 is not a common or popular historical opinion.

The US was ONE of the winners of WW I because it was a member of the winning coalition. This should not be controversial.

I should think it is obvious that the US was in the best position after the war. Her nation was intact, she has suffered comparatevely litte compared the Britain and France and in the 1920's she enjoyed a prosperity that the other allies did not.

In this sense she was the big winner. When I say America won the war I mean they were on the winning side and they got the biggest prize. Since she was the only power who gained it was up to America to secure the peace. America fucked up the first world war; but they DIDN'T fuck up the second one. Now we are back to fucking up. Ah the saeculum.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

...but they DIDN'T fuck up the second one.

Hey Mike.

Any general thoughts on the Dawes Plan and Young Plan
i/r/t contributing to WWII(ie: Weimar's Economy)?


Prince

I make a point about logistics, psychology, and gains vs losses and you answer with a clip from a movie and an insistence that we didn't do a lot of fighting? I don't really think we are arguing about the same thing.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

And I'd say this was the consensus, in American public schools: 30-40 years ago at the height of cold-war propaganda. British people tend to get a bit furious when you suggest America won the war while the Germans and French don't even think it's relevant to their current interests or the modern world. Insisting that we won a fight a hundred years ago is kind of pathetic in the same way as Al Bundy's high-school football stories... taken to an even more absurd extreme.

It's just an historical fact. The fact speaks for itself; there's no need to insist on it. And it missed the relevant point that mikebert mentioned. America emerged from the war as the leading power. The war was not "won" by either side among Europeans. It was a huge loss for Europe, and both sides were at fault for it, not just the Germans and their allies. The war itself was a disaster that ended an era of civilization in which competing European powers colonized and dominated the world. It does not matter who "won" the war; that is NOT the historical point. Europe LOST because the war happened. That is the only relevant point.

And it wasn't just domestic resistance that disarmed Wilson at Paris in 1919. He walked in with an idealistic agenda and a lot of our victorious allies had no intention of ever using the 14 points beyond propaganda.

That's because Wilson represented the future while the European powers were stuck in a civilization that had just died.

Besides, setting the terms of peace is like... the definition of winning a war. WW2? Sure. We won. WW1? No way. Our role in the fighting was incidental and our role in defining the peace was even smaller.

Europe and all humanity lost the war. That's the only fact worth noting.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Sorry, you guys were raised on a strict and limited diet of propaganda. The idea that America in any way "won" WW1 is not a common or popular historical opinion.

While that is most certainly true, the point Mike seemed to be making might more clearly be stated as: The United States won from WWI. That is, of the various participants-to-whatever-degree, the US was the one to profit the most with the least expenditure. Pretty hard to dispute that, I'd say.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

While that is most certainly true, the point Mike seemed to be making might more clearly be stated as: The United States won from WWI. That is, of the various participants-to-whatever-degree, the US was the one to profit the most with the least expenditure. Pretty hard to dispute that, I'd say.

That I would agree with. Which is why I stopped after reading his clarification. Although his notion that since we were in the "best position" and therefore "should be the rightful leaders" disturbs me, but that's my own grizzle to chew.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

That I would agree with. Which is why I stopped after reading his clarification. Although his notion that since we were in the "best position" and therefore "should be the rightful leaders" disturbs me, but that's my own grizzle to chew.

~Chas'88

I didn't say rightful leaders. I said leader, or hegemon if you prefer this term. My point is the US was in a position to become hegemon after WW I. Since the US DID become hegemon after WW II, I don't think you can really dispute that the US had the resources to do the same thing after WW I. And if the US acted hegemonically after WW I like it did after WW II there would have been no further war with Germany because the correlation of forces would simply be too unfavorable for Germany. That's all I was saying, that it wasn't "lucky" that the saeculum shortened.

Hey guys.

I haven't been following the conversation from the beginning
(I have a rather short attention-span!), but have any of you
ever read The Nations At War:A Current History by Willis John Abbot?

I have a 1917 Edition in hardback right here in front of me.
I looked-up the book on the internet and apparently there
are a number of editions. There's some text on google books
from the 1918 Edition and, although I haven't A/B-ed it against
my Edition, I can tell the Introduction is different.
(I suspect the other early Editions would be different, as well.)


Prince

PS:
Anyway, if someone has a question or wants me to post the Introductions,
I'm willing to do that. I've always liked books that have a more first-hand
analysis/commentary to juxtapose against how the retelling of History is
altered over time(for whatever the result). Willis John Abbot(1863) would
be a Missionary-Prophet in S&H terms(so I guess it would be productive to
take that POV into account).

But then the US would have been in a 2T for WWI, not a 4T. This wouldn't have been the resolution, it'd have been a long bloody quagmire of a fight which probably would have completely drained our resources as well, if we'd been willing to get involved at all. Also, I would say that the US was in no position to be considered Hegemon, not because of potential industrial output or military prowess, but because at the time the United States wasn't held in a particularly high regard.

I'll direct this one to

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

, because of his book knowledge

, I was told in my survey of World History course that the US was not regarded as a world power by the rest of Europe until the end of WWII, largely merely because they were just not Europe. Did you find that sentiment as well?

Originally Posted by Kepi

But then the US would have been in a 2T for WWI, not a 4T. This wouldn't have been the resolution, it'd have been a long bloody quagmire of a fight which probably would have completely drained our resources as well, if we'd been willing to get involved at all. Also, I would say that the US was in no position to be considered Hegemon, not because of potential industrial output or military prowess, but because at the time the United States wasn't held in a particularly high regard.

I'll direct this one to , I was told in my survey of World History course that the US was not regarded as a world power by the rest of Europe until the end of WWII, largely merely because they were just not Europe. Did you find that sentiment as well?

Then there's also the fact that the world still relied on British Pounds to keep the money stable... After 1927 this situation changes as England asks the US to back it (because WWI debt defaulting becomes a "thing" in the 1920s), which is equivalent to a bunch of drowning swimmers grabbing onto a swimmer with a cramp come 1929.

One could argue thus, that once the US dollar began to "back" the British Pound, that at that point we took over as the economic "hegemon", if nothing else. Culturally, France still held that distinction. Militarily/Politically, Britain.

And yes, I've made many comparisons before to how this situation is similar to the 2009 situation where China has agreed to buy US debt and essentially keep us propped up. I know it's not a perfect parallel, but it's a shockingly eerie similar one.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Justin '77

While that is most certainly true, the point Mike seemed to be making might more clearly be stated as: The United States won from WWI. That is, of the various participants-to-whatever-degree, the US was the one to profit the most with the least expenditure. Pretty hard to dispute that, I'd say.

I'm still trying to figure out what America won. France & Italy won territorial concessions and control over colonies. Britain & France got reparations...

America wanted to extract concessions out of our victorious allies (limiting reparations, increasing self-determination for colonies) but we had very little influence on our allies and less ability to stop them from getting their demands.

Well... America did also want peace for the sake of trade. So I guess we won that... for a little while.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

I'm still trying to figure out what America won. France & Italy won territorial concessions and control over colonies. Britain & France got reparations...

America wanted to extract concessions out of our victorious allies (limiting reparations, increasing self-determination for colonies) but we had very little influence on our allies and less ability to stop them from getting their demands.

Well... America did also want peace for the sake of trade. So I guess we won that... for a little while.

America won world hegemony. It emerged from the war financially strong, while the European powers spent most of their human and financial resources on the war. The USA then backed out of its responsibilities and opportunities as the leading world power. The Western European nations (not the Eastern ones; they were done) could continue on with some colonies and military power for a decade, with reparations and loans. Then the Germans stepped in once the depression began. The French were quickly defeated once the war started up again (WWII). The British could do nothing but "defend our island, whatever the cost may be." So first the USA, and then after being invaded, the Soviets, stepped up and saved civilization, and then "the American High" and Cold War began. Meanwhile Britain and France could no longer maintain their colonies, and lost them in the post-war era. WWI was the turning point; the end of the hegemony of competing imperial European powers.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

America won world hegemony. It emerged from the war financially strong, while the European powers spent most of their human and financial resources on the war.

Britain had some economic problems in the 1920s, but that was largely self-inflicted due to debt & deficit concerns leading to monetary & fiscal policy resembling modern austerity. On the other hand, France had no such concerns and boomed right through the 1920s...

The USA then backed out of its responsibilities and opportunities as the leading world power. The European nations could continue on with some colonies and military power for a decade, with reparations and loans.

See, I disagree that the USA was in any such position to assume hegemony at the end of WW1. Even if there were political will to pursue such a course of action, American influence at the Paris conference was minimal. The treaty that the Republicans refused to sign off on was still the best one we were going to get, regardless of what they felt about it.

WWI was the turning point; the end of the hegemony of competing imperial European powers.

This narrative makes some sense.. in hindsight. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the popular opinion of 1919 (American, European, African, or Asian), would probably disagree. Strongly.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Britain had some economic problems in the 1920s, but that was largely self-inflicted due to debt & deficit concerns leading to monetary & fiscal policy resembling modern austerity. On the other hand, France had no such concerns and boomed right through the 1920s...

I think it was scarcely a boom, and it was propped up by loans and reparations.

See, I disagree that the USA was in any such position to assume hegemony at the end of WW1. Even if there were political will to pursue such a course of action, American influence at the Paris conference was minimal. The treaty that the Republicans refused to sign off on was still the best one we were going to get, regardless of what they felt about it.

That's true, we didn't have the power to dictate terms to Clemenceau and Co. I imagine if TR had been in power though, the USA could have exercized a big stick and changed how things went down in the 20s and 30s. We completely advocated our role; understandably; the Americans didn't want to be involved in war and militarism at that time. But the price of not acting then, I think, was the military-industrial complex of WWII and all the wars since.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The French were quickly defeated once the war started up again (WWII). The British could do nothing but "defend our island, whatever the cost may be." So first the USA, and then after being invaded, the Soviets, stepped up and saved civilization...

Holy shit. The ignorance, it burns....

The USSR began fighting Germany in June 1941 (though they were fighting the Japanese back in the summer of 1938). The US didn't start fighting until December of '41, and didn't start participating in the war in Europe until the summer of '43 on the island of Sicily -- right around the time that the USSR was fighting and winning the biggest armored fight in history at the same time as the most intense air battle in history (though they did participate in attacks in northern Africa as early as November '42). The US wasn't even dropping bombs on Germany until more than a year after the Soviets had been fully-engaged. America's hand in the war in Europe didn't even start until after the Soviets had won at Stalingrad and.

It was the Soviet Union that fought (and defeated) the armies of Germany. The Americans and the British generally contented themselves fighting and defeating the women and children of Germany.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Holy shit. The ignorance, it burns....

The USSR began fighting Germany in June 1941 (though they were fighting the Japanese back in the summer of 1938). The US didn't start fighting until December of '41, and didn't start participating in the war in Europe until the summer of '43 on the island of Sicily -- right around the time that the USSR was fighting and winning the biggest armored fight in history at the same time as the most intense air battle in history (though they did participate in attacks in northern Africa as early as November '42). The US wasn't even dropping bombs on Germany until more than a year after the Soviets had been fully-engaged. America's hand in the war in Europe didn't even start until after the Soviets had won at Stalingrad and.

It was the Soviet Union that fought (and defeated) the armies of Germany. The Americans and the British generally contented themselves fighting and defeating the women and children of Germany.

All true, though the Soviets made a good faith attempt on the women and children too, once they had the chance.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

All true, though the Soviets made a good faith attempt on the women and children too, once they had the chance.

Too true. Though unlike the Americans and the British, the Soviets' own women and children got a fair bit of it, too.

Originally Posted by Kepi

I'll direct this one to princeofcats67 because of his book knowledge: I was told in my survey of World History course that the US was not regarded as a world power by the rest of Europe until the end of WWII, largely merely because they were just not Europe. Did you find that sentiment as well?

Hey Kepi.

I went back over the conversation you guys are having and I'm not quite
sure how to respond. So, I told one of my Milly friends at the 7-11 my
opinion on this discussion, and he told me to tell you:

Sounds like a case of "too many chiefs, and not enough indians".

I agree.

I also asked him about this:

Originally Posted by Kepi

because of his book knowledge

...and he said for me to tell you:
He who relies soley on
"book knowledge" is short-sighted.

Ha! I seriously love that guy.


Prince

PS: I believe I can almost guarantee that there are plenty
of people on this website that are bigger readers than I am.
(I seriously don't consider myself a big reader, or anything).

Plus, I believe you guys are doing ok on your own, and can work it out
if need be. But, if you guys can't come to a concensus, I may be able
to offer some advice on how you might be able to.