How Woodrow Wilson Broke Europe

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: How Woodrow Wilson Broke Europe

#16

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 06 May 2015, 13:33

Hoist40 wrote:... Or are you next going to blame WW1 on Wilson?????
Was not Wilsons invasion of Mexico at Vera Cruz in 1914 the start of WWI? :wink:

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: How Woodrow Wilson Broke Europe

#17

Post by Terry Duncan » 06 May 2015, 14:05

chronos20th wrote:Poland was a nation to which A-H was sympathetic.
Only once war made Polish independence a necessity, up to that point A-H had tried to stiffle the Polish independence movement, indeed shutting down the Austrian parliament when those unpleasant 'minorities' looked likely to dominate too much.
chronos20th wrote:"Czecho-Slovakia" was invented and proclaimed by ourselves against the advise of other British politicians to please Wilson and done in America.

With disasterous results.
The Czechoslovak state was proclaimed on 28th October 1918, end returned its first president on 14th November 1918, and had little to do with Wilson or the Entente, they only approved it post-facto in the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye on 10th September 1919. This was the result of the actions of the Czech and Slovak people, and their long held desire to have their own state as the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian empire became inevitable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovakia#Foundation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_ ... %281919%29


glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: How Woodrow Wilson Broke Europe

#18

Post by glenn239 » 06 May 2015, 18:12

Terry Duncan wrote:People often overlook the obvious, even going so far as to claim that the Czechoslovak and Polish states were created by Versailles, when a brief examination of events show their own populations declared independence from Austria and Germany long before any delegates met at Versailles, so that some people like to blame Wilson is hardly an indication of it being correct to do so.
The Hungarian defection ended the empire. So what if Wilson tells the Hungarians that if they stay in the Empire they get to keep their borders, and if they leave the Empire they'll lose half their territory?

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: How Woodrow Wilson Broke Europe

#19

Post by Terry Duncan » 06 May 2015, 18:24

What if Wilson declares he is a blue alien space bat and will only go home if the Hungarians agree to be rules from Luxembourg?

The Hungarians dissolved the Dual Monarchy before the war ended, and long before any treaty recognising Hungary as a seperate entity began. The Hungarians had come close to this a few times after 1848, long before Wilson came onto the scene, so the Hungarian desire for their own state is hardly his responsibility. Is it your suggestion that the Hungarians only dissolved the union with Austria because Wilson didnt tell them to stay within it? Do you have anything to suggest that if Wilson had told the various peoples of the A-H empire to remain within that structure, they would have done as he said?

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: How Woodrow Wilson Broke Europe

#20

Post by glenn239 » 06 May 2015, 22:57

Terry Duncan wrote:What if Wilson declares he is a blue alien space bat and will only go home if the Hungarians agree to be rules from Luxembourg?
Well, if he were an alien he'd not be eligible to be President and probably not be a bat either, as these are too tiny in brain size to evolve space faring technology.
The Hungarians dissolved the Dual Monarchy before the war ended, and long before any treaty recognising Hungary as a seperate entity began.


The Allied Powers had the capacity to mandate the continuation of the Empire, if it was so desired by the Allies that it continue - the powers with territorial claims were either aggressor nations (Italy, Rumania) or were powerless and in exile (Serbia) with the Sarajevo attack as leverage. So it wasn't like the leverage wasn't available for Wilson if he'd wanted it, right? Unfortunately, the Allies collectively were too stupid in 1918 to figure out that in the long run only Germany and Russia benefited from the destruction of Austria.
Is it your suggestion that the Hungarians only dissolved the union with Austria because Wilson didnt tell them to stay within it?
My observations was that if Wilson had wanted the Austro-Hungarian Empire to continue, then the British probably come along and an offer to Hungary could have been of a sort that caused it to stay in the Empire. As for the Czechs, well, even after the dissolution of the Empire and defeat in Italy, the Emperor's rump Army of Italy was still available to march on Vienna, had it been desired. But there was no point because the Allies had mandated the dissolution of the Empire, so the Allies rewriting the Austrian constitution to give the Czechs parity with Hungary and Austria - wasn't going to happen.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: How Woodrow Wilson Broke Europe

#21

Post by Terry Duncan » 06 May 2015, 23:57

glenn239 wrote:Unfortunately, the Allies collectively were too stupid in 1918 to figure out that in the long run only Germany and Russia benefited from the destruction of Austria.
Nobody was in a position to fight a war to preserve the Hapsburg empire, and why should they have been given it had done so much to cause the war in the first place. It didnt matter a damn who would benefit, nobody was in a position to fight a war in Central Europe to prevent people from having their own states.
glenn239 wrote:My observations was that if Wilson had wanted the Austro-Hungarian Empire to continue, then the British probably come along and an offer to Hungary could have been of a sort that caused it to stay in the Empire. As for the Czechs, well, even after the dissolution of the Empire and defeat in Italy, the Emperor's rump Army of Italy was still available to march on Vienna, had it been desired.
What happens when the Hungarians and Czechs point out that they have already formed their own states and have no desire to return to Hapsburg dominance? If you rule out the Hapsburgs, then who is the governing body for this amalgamated state where the various peoples do not generally like each other, speak the same languages, or want to be part of some super-state experiment that nobody is able to inflict upon them?

Graeme Sydney
Member
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
Location: Australia

Re: How Woodrow Wilson Broke Europe

#22

Post by Graeme Sydney » 07 May 2015, 01:57

Who is John R. Schindler anyway. Sounds like another loopy far right conspiracy theory blogger to me.

http://blackbag.gawker.com/the-crazy-em ... 1610203101

....with a present day agenda......

"Woodrow Wilson’s intervention in the Great War made any compromise peace utterly impossible, however. He used the righteous rhetoric of the progressive academic he was, even when it was not altogether connected to reality (here comparisons to the current occupant of the White House, another progressive academic with an ideological bent, are unavoidable). "

Even allowing that it is a 1000 word essay his history is pretty half arsed and cherry picked and his assessments unreliable.

"Only the Western Front was seriously still in play, and there the fighting had been essentially static for years. Without American military participation in France beginning in the summer of 1918, it is difficult to see how the British and French could have managed any major offensive operations in an effort to push back the Germans, who occupied much of France and nearly all of Belgium. Therefore some sort of compromise peace would have had to happen, as both sides were utterly exhausted — militarily, politically, and economically."

".......the fighting had been essentially static for years....
." While the front line might be static the fighting and the strategic balance wasn't.

"......as both sides were utterly exhausted — militarily, politically, and economically.
" Both sides were exhausted but only Germany was utterly exhausted. It is surprising what you could still buy in gay old Paris in 1918, anything from food to cocaine. In grim old Berlin you would be lucky to find a sausage.

Others here have already pointed out his many flaws in history, logic and conclusions (but not all of them and I haven't the time :) ).

favedave
Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 10 Aug 2011, 17:55

Re: How Woodrow Wilson Broke Europe

#23

Post by favedave » 14 May 2015, 03:46

Graeme, Ditto.

chronos20th
Member
Posts: 849
Joined: 24 Jan 2004, 19:44
Location: UK.

Re: How Woodrow Wilson Broke Europe

#24

Post by chronos20th » 18 May 2015, 23:31

I'msorry lads, but whether I agree with it or not, this assessment of Woodrow Wilson is still being debated by American historians and politicians after 100 years.

But whether you accept it or not, without WW deciding to enter the war there will be a nasty outbreak of peace. Lord Lansdowne, the Minister Without Portfolio, will be being pushed on the train at Victoria Station, London ,to go to Switzerland to discuss "The Kaiser's peace Offer" with KGV's uncle the Duke of Saxe-Coburg -Gotha aka the Duke of Albany, Queen Vic's third son, and sign an armistice.

Britain was not in apposition to continue the war without American supplies and loans.

However in November 1018 both civilian and military leaders that the war would continue, they expected it to do so till 1920, the most optimistic estimate being May, but probably September. Colonel House had to be sent to blackmail the Allies with the threat of a separate peace with the US.

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: How Woodrow Wilson Broke Europe

#25

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 19 May 2015, 02:51

No one forced the Serb's to assassinate Franz Ferdinand, no one forced Russia to support Serbia, No one forced Britain to support Belgium. No one forced them rich US citizens to get on the Lusitania, and no one forced Churchill and the UK Government to fill it full of munitions. And of course, no one forced Wilson to declare war.

As to Wilson bankrupting Europe, no they did that themselves, by borrowing from banks to fight a meaningless war. The main cause of that was Britain declaring war. Without the UK , France would have backed down, and then, Russia, which would have fallen into civil war anyway.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: How Woodrow Wilson Broke Europe

#26

Post by Sid Guttridge » 19 May 2015, 13:04

Hi chronos,

In writing, "Britain was not in apposition to continue the war without American supplies and loans" you are mistaking the WWII situation for that pertaining in WWI.

Britain was perfectly capable of continuing WWI without either American supplies. In fact, it was the USA that needed Anglo-French expertise to equip its armies with heavy weaponry and aircraft in 1917-18, not the other way around.

Britain had massive investments in the USA that could have been dissolved, as they were in WWII. The provision of loans was indicative of the US recognition that it was likely to get its money back from the UK and France. One wonders how many loans Germany managed to raise in the USA in WWI?

Cheers,

Sid.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: How Woodrow Wilson Broke Europe

#27

Post by Sid Guttridge » 19 May 2015, 13:16

Hi Christophe,

Let's not overstate the case.

While divers have found that the Lusitania was clearly carrying .303 ammunition (estimated by them at 4 million rounds), there is no hard evidence of anything else. 4 million rounds (if an accurate estimate) sounds a lot, but in fact it would fill only a large domestic room.

Manifests indicate clearly that other munitions or their precursors were also carried, but they were degradeable and probably largely untraceable now.

Even on the most extravagant estimate, the 31,550 ton Lusitania was therefore far from "full of ammunition".

However, the presence of even the proven small arms ammunition ammunition did make Lusitania a legitimate target.

On the other hand, the Germans are unlikely to have known this when they fired at her. She was a target of opportunity too good to miss.

Cheers,

Sid.

chronos20th
Member
Posts: 849
Joined: 24 Jan 2004, 19:44
Location: UK.

Re: How Woodrow Wilson Broke Europe

#28

Post by chronos20th » 19 May 2015, 17:47

Unfortunately the situation was even worse in WW1 than inWW2.

because as was said in the '20's we had "overinvested" in 5 industries - coal, cotton, shipbuilding, bridge castings and railway equipment and failed to invest in the 2second Industrial Revolution" industries of electrical engineering, chemicals and vehicles we were not in a position to fight a long war. Even our steel production was much less than Germany and the US.

There is a whole literature around this.

This is why the Ministry of Munitions was created.

In its own history it states that without the steel imports alone from the US. there would have had to have been a negotiated peace by 1915.

His Majesty's Armed Auxiliary Cruiser Lusitania.

HMAAC Lusitania was armed with 12 six inch guns yet continued to carry passengers. You could go on a cruiser-liner and watch any action at first hand whilst crossing the Atlantic. It appears the torpedo hit the forward 6 inch magazine just below the bridge.

But what was Woodrow Wilson doing allowing passengers onto the ship ?

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: How Woodrow Wilson Broke Europe

#29

Post by Terry Duncan » 19 May 2015, 19:13

His Majesty's Armed Auxiliary Cruiser Lusitania.
You got that part mostly correct, although Lusitania was never taken up into the role she remained on Lloyd's registery as an AMC.
HMAAC Lusitania was armed with 12 six inch guns yet continued to carry passengers. You could go on a cruiser-liner and watch any action at first hand whilst crossing the Atlantic. It appears the torpedo hit the forward 6 inch magazine just below the bridge.
Lusitania was never fitted with guns, she had the mounting plates fitted to the decks but nothing else, and certainly did not have any magazines for 6" shells because of this. Even Wikipedia gives a good account, so why repeat long since discredited WWI German propaganda? The explosion matches almost perfectly that of a detonation of the coal dust in the bunkers, the location is correct for this as are the survivors accounts of the smoke and smell, but nothing at all like a cordite explosion.
But what was Woodrow Wilson doing allowing passengers onto the ship ?
Wilson had no say whatsoever in the matter, it was standard practice at the time to carry small arms ammunition on most ships, and what sgip to travel on was a matter for the passengers themselves.

If Schwieger had bothered to identify the ship before attacking her then her status as a possible AMC, or of her carrying ammunition, may have some validity, but as his own log records that he only identified the ship as she was sinking, it is perfectly clear that he was the one who committed the crime and was to blame for what happened.

Hoist40
Member
Posts: 215
Joined: 30 Oct 2009, 17:59

Re: How Woodrow Wilson Broke Europe

#30

Post by Hoist40 » 20 May 2015, 01:42

"""it is perfectly clear that he was the one who committed the crime and was to blame for what happened."""

What crime was that?

It certainly was not a violation of the rules of war. Churchill had himself already violated them when he ordered British ships to refuse to stop when ordered, and to ram or fire upon Germans submarines.

According to the link below, failure to stop caused a suspention of immunities and so a British ship could be fired on and sunk. If a merchant ship is ordered to act like a warship then its gets treated like a warship and can be sunk on sight.


Art. 49. Suspension of immunities. The exceptions considered in Articles 41 [ Link ] , 42 [ Link ] , 45 [ Link ] , 46 [ Link ] , 47 [ Link ] and 48 [ Link ] cease to be applicable if the vessels to which they refer participate in the hostilities in any manner whatsoever or commit other acts which are forbidden to neutrals as unneutral service.
The same suspension occurs if, summoned to stop to submit to search, they seek to escape by force or by flight.

https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf ... enDocument

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”