Rememberance Day

Just a reminder that tomorrow is Rememberance Day and this is the 100th anniversary of the Armistice. One has the option of attending a local Ceremony or at 11:00 am EST there is the Ceremony from the National War Memorial in Ottawa on CBC News Network. I'm not sure if it's available on a stream.

Big service at the arena here.

Ya know, I'm a pretty good history buff of WWII. I didn't know too much about WWI specifics (except how it started in 1914). Then I read a recent piece by Victor Davis Hanson and learned a lot, which led to further research. Well the U.S. turned the tide. But the aftermath was a disaster, leading to the mess in Germany and the rise of ... well you know the rest, leading up to WWII. But the thing is, if it wasn't for the US forces, world history could have been completely different in WWI. There was one specific battle that was influential, and that was the US Marines at Belleau Wood. Look it up. That turned the tide.

Also, if you're interested, look up the history of a certain William Donovan, marine officer during WWI. He received the "congressional" Medal of Honor for valor during the battle of Belleau Wood. Donovan went on to be the head of the OSS (precursor to the CIA) during WWII, after law school and a long successful career as a Wall Street attorney ... and personal friend of FDR. But it's the results that matters, doesn't it?

In reply to Gary :

I believe that I read it, but I'd like to be sure

Link?

In reply to Floating Doc :

What part of my post? Just look up any part of it to read a rich history of a forgotten era. And regarding "Wild Bill" Donovan ... many books have been written about him. And online. He's a legend.

Not to derail the Armistice/Veterans/Remembrance Day thread, but trying to identify one particular factor as the sole pivot around which an incredibly complex series of events turned is fraught with problems. You can make an argument for Belleau Wood being a turning point, but you can just as easily point to the effectiveness of the Allied naval blockade combined with the harsh Central European winter of 1917-18, or Allied access to the U.S. industrial base and credit, or a number of other things. While you can certainly say that things might have been different, it's a large leap from that to a decisive shift in results.

I am not much of an expert on WWI (I am far more up on WWII).  The entrance of the US seems to be pretty clearly the beginning of the end of war that was quickly reaching a breaking point (on both sides) and the US pushed Germany over the edge.  Russia had already sued for peace (they had there own rather significant internal issues), so the precedent was set.

Quandary:  If the US had NOT entered the war. The pressure may have been a bit more equal on both sides and with Russia already effectively bowed out. Is it possible Germany and Britain/France may have sued for peace (had enough) and as a result all sides (except for the US of course) would have had their fill of war for a while, changing the course of history and skipping the horribly destructive WWII.  I guess one could guess war would eventually break out again with the Bolsheviks going wack-a-doodle in Russia.

So, is it possible the US effectively CAUSED WWII? (I know it's a bit of a stretch, but an interesting thought)

In reply to aircooled :

Yes. But in hindsight, hard for us to say. Definitely, the early "Globalists" (Wilson being one) had a say in handing out the final decree. So how did that work out? Not so well in my opinion.

I have to say, as someone who pays attention to history and realizes it's importance, I am curious how well documented the importance of tomorrow will be?  Will it be on the news? (I am guessing... maybe)  Will there be any special programing? (very unlikely)  Will the History Channel happen to look at the big sign outside their building...

...looking up in the guide...

... it looks like the History Channel will be showing ONE episode of World War I: The First Modern War.... at 7:00 AM!!!...  then show two war movies... set in WWII!!, then move on to American Pickers in prime time!!

I will presume to speak a bit for the 10 of millions who died in the war.. F U  History Channel!  Know your place!!

Gary said:

In reply to aircooled :

Yes. But in hindsight, hard for us to say. Definitely, the early "Globalists" (Wilson being one) had a say in handing out the final decree. So how did that work out? Not so well in my opinion.

Explain.  Are you saying the peace decree would be partially dictated by Wilson and might be almost as punitive?  If so, with more equal pressure on both sides, I would expect a more "we all quite" type of armistice.  Without the US ever entering, would they really have much leverage?

I wanted to keep this out of the other thread even though the bar meme kinda got my goat.

But here is Victor Davis Hansons column in a very conservative daily Washington D.C. newspaper.

Forewarned is forearmed.  It's reasonable but it's on a website that might cause conniptions. 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/7/when-world-war-i-ended/

I also had the luxury of reading the piece by Hanson in print.  Goodness gracious but that is an ever dwindling luxury today.  Newspapers today and a hundred years ago.  I will admit to avoiding the two most recognized names still around but gollee I have to hunt to find the one broadsheet I can tolerate.  Times have changed indeed.  

aircooled said:

I am not much of an expert on WWI (I am far more up on WWII).  The entrance of the US seems to be pretty clearly the beginning of the end of war that was quickly reaching a breaking point (on both sides) and the US pushed Germany over the edge.  Russia had already sued for peace (they had there own rather significant internal issues), so the precedent was set.

Quandary:  If the US had NOT entered the war. The pressure may have been a bit more equal on both sides and with Russia already effectively bowed out. Is it possible Germany and Britain/France may have sued for peace (had enough) and as a result all sides (except for the US of course) would have had their fill of war for a while, changing the course of history and skipping the horribly destructive WWII.  I guess one could guess war would eventually break out again with the Bolsheviks going wack-a-doodle in Russia.

So, is it possible the US effectively CAUSED WWII? (I know it's a bit of a stretch, but an interesting thought)

France definitely had their fill of war for a while.  The "Lost Generation" isn't just a clever name.  Entire towns saw their able-bodied male adults go to war and not come back.  People like to make "sujrrender monkey" jokes but the truth of the matter is that France saw a significant portion of their population die in pointless battle a couple decades prior, resulting in not enough Able-Bodied Young Men to fight another major war, since people lying dead in fields in France and Belguim cannot raise children.

There is a good bit of truth to the idea that all sides on the Western Front were reaching exhaustion by 1917. The French had seen mutinies of whole units at Verdun, while Germany was increasingly constrained by supply problems. Britain was also in bad shape, but don't forget the one massive advantage that it held - as an island, it could always pull off the Continent and try to recoup; as long as it had access to trade with the US and the Empire, Britain would survive.

Another thing to consider is that none of the leaders who began the war had systemic change as an objective. WWI was the last 19th Century war - a war about territorial and prestige gains, not ideology. No one in the late summer of 1914 expected the war to end with anything but the same systems of government in place; only the borders might change. This had a significant impact on the way the war was fought, and of course opened the door to revolutionary movements in several countries as the scope and scale of the failure of these systems became apparent in 1918. Prior to the war European leaders were joined in common cause in suppressing revolution - 1848 had taught them that it spreads dangerously quickly; by the end of WWI, they were willing to risk encouraging it in their enemies' countries. If you want to talk about pivotal events, consider a future in which Germany had not successfully smuggled Lenin out of Switzerland and across the Russo-Finnish border to foment revolution.

Wilson was hardly a globalist prior to 1918. His 1916 reelection was marked by the slogan "He kept us out of war". US entry into the war came only because Wilson's hands were tied by his previous public statements over unrestricted submarine warfare and the public outcry over the Zimmerman telegram. His proposals were at odds with those of the leaders who had been fighting for years, with Wilson initially seeking "peace without victory" - simply, the quickest end to the fighting possible, an end to the slaughter, even if it meant no one side was victorious. This was, of course, completely unacceptable to any leader and any country that had suffered as much as the Europeans had by 1917. Only when Germany's borders were threatened did Ludendorff sue for peace, recognizing that, with victory out of reach, peace without victory (for anyone) looked pretty appealing. Wilson's globalist ideas were only truly voiced at the Paris Conference and afterwards, but with Clemenceau and Lloyd George out for blood, and an isolationist Republican Senate back home, they were doomed from the start.

In reply to 02Pilot :

Excellent summary!

Also, a very good rebuttal to the idea that Wilson's "globalist agenda" led to World War II.

The economically crippling reparations imposed upon Germany (which Wilson opposed) were instrumental in Hitler's rise to power.

The fact that we didn't repeat that mistake, and instead implemented a much less Nationalist and more globalist foreign policy has led to 70 years of Peace in Europe. 

OK, good info.  I was a bit suspicious about Wilson, I seem to remember him being a bit of an isolationist.  It does seem like, based on the summary above, if an armistice was reached between the European powers that it might be a bit less bitter one then the one that happened.

Of course, as also noted, the continuation of the rather strong nationalistic attitudes in Europe might have lead to another conflict.  Also interesting that the globalistic actions of the US in WWI and WWII (essentially unwillingly dragged into both) lead to a very globalist America that many would say got us into a LOT of trouble (and did a fair amount of harm to some others).

It is a bit hard to guess with alternative history though.  As an example I saw someone ask elsewhere (somewhat idealistically): what could have we done with all money spent in Iraq and Afghanistan? The answers where a lot about development and programs within the US. One of the answers probably should have said: pay for the many of billions of dollars of damage done by seemingly unending terrorist attacks. As noted, really hard to guess on such things though.

When studying history it is usually possible with sufficient time and research to work out the available alternatives in historical situations; it is then left to historians to argue over them. Factors that may be unknown for decades after the fact may turn out to have been important - for example, when discussing Pearl Harbor, how many people consider the devastating financial impact of the shocking and sudden collapse of the Japanese silk industry due to the introduction of nylon at the 1939 World's Fair in New York? I've studied the Pacific War for decades, as have many others, and the first time I saw this argued, analyzed, and published was in 2007.

Extrapolating past circumstances and trying to superimpose them over current ones is very popular and extremely problematic, as it is rarely clear what alternatives actually exist and how they are viewed from various perspectives when a situation is evolving. International relations is a chess game - those rare practitioners who can see several moves ahead will usually easily outmaneuver those who are contemplating their next.

aircooled said:

 

It is a bit hard to guess with alternative history though.  As an example I saw someone ask elsewhere (somewhat idealistically): what could have we done with all money spent in Iraq and Afghanistan? The answers where a lot about development and programs within the US. One of the answers probably should have said: pay for the many of billions of dollars of damage done by seemingly unending terrorist attacks. As noted, really hard to guess on such things though.

That example shows how hard it is to account for all the tendrils that snake throughout every element of life.

Would there have been terrorist activity to clean up if there wasn't an American presence in the middle East?  Without the presence, would Israel still exist, and if so, would it be due to one of the many conflicts of the 60's going nuclear? And so on, and so on...

It's kind of a fools errand, but can make for some really interesting discussions.

And as long as it is respectful, great ways to understand where, why, and what of it all.