US entry into WW1 in 1915?

[MarkN]

Another problem the US would have had if it had gotten into WW I in 1915 is a very large anti-war movement. The US national WW I museum and Memorial has a presintation on this: "The Peace Coalition That Almost Kept the US from going to war".

To what extent was this American "anti-war movement" lobbying and demonstrating against America's existing financial, industrial, economic and political participation in the war? Was it really an "anti-war movement" at all or just a ploy to prevent America fighting the Germans?

There are a few books out there on the US anti-war movement I think the title of one is "War on War" or War Against War".

And yet, the reality was America was sustaining the war and sustaining the bloodshed - not trying to stop it. Americans were getting richer and richer as the war grew ever bloodier.

If the US got into WW I in 1915 there will less popular support for it than in 1917.

But America was a participant in WW1 from the get-go. It just wasn't sending troops to fight.

There was a significant isolationist bloc in the Midwest; the Square States as I call them were full of what H. L. Mencken called "uplifters" or Progressives. And Mencken was far from the only pro-German media personality in the era. Too, it's not widely remembered that Henry Ford was a peace activist in 1915. That said, the Lusitania Crisis was a near-run thing and with a different Secretary of State than Bryan it might have turned into direct US intervention in the war.

Was this "isolationist bloc" advocating and campaining for a true isolationist policy? One where America and its citizens had NOTHING to do with the war? No financing. No making war materials. No trade at all with the fighting parties? Or where they predominantly pro-Germans desperate not to see America go to war with their Vaterland?

[James A Pratt III]

Someone doesn't like my comments

If the Meuse-Argonne battle had kept going and had been as long as the battle of the Somme the US Army would have taken casualties similar to what the British suffered on the Somme or the French at Verdun.

As for the rest read up on books written by US historians on the US involvement in WW I

[South]

Good morning Antwony,

May I ask you to clarify / "flesh out" the international standards in re "real war". I just can't guess at the criteria in re the use of lethal force projection for political reasons. A couple of examples will help.

Plus:

I'm also missing the US pre-WWI lethality in re organized labor and its uniqueness. Here, too, I can't figure out the contrast - not saying it didn't exist; just need some examples to view the contrast.

Thanks in advance.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

[antwony]

Good morning Antwony,

Good morning to you as well Robert,

My name's actually Antony. The "W" is an acceptance of a semi- abusive nick name.

I I wrote a big reply long. The then internet failed me.

I'll get back to you on Monday, or maybe Tuesday.

You are welcome,

Antwony

[Sid Guttridge]

It would certainly have shortened the war, but perhaps not as quickly as one might think.

In both World Wars US industry was able to gear up for mass production of weaponry and munitions while still at peace thanks to Anglo-French orders.

Had the USA joined the war in 1915, its war industry would not have been as well developed by Allied orders as it was two years later and the mass arrival of US forces would probably have been rather slower than in 1917-18.

They would also not have been beneficiaries of the hard won experience and technical developments gained by the Anglo-French in 1916-17 before being committed, perhaps to their own Verdun or Somme.

I would guess that a US entry two years earlier in 1915 might have knocked a year off the war.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Aber]

Good morning Antwony,

May I ask you to clarify / "flesh out" the international standards in re "real war". I just can't guess at the criteria in re the use of lethal force projection for political reasons. A couple of examples will help.

Thanks in advance.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

A starting point:

Wars ranked by American combat deaths

World War II 291,557

American Civil War 212,938

World War I 53,402

Vietnam War 47,424

Korean War 33,746

American Revolutionary War 8,000

Iraq War/Afghanistan Wars 5,650

War of 1812 2,260

Mexican–American War 1,733

Second Seminole War 1,500+

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... ary_deaths

If you exclude the Civil War, then pre WW1 US combat deaths were minor in comparison to wars elsewhere.

[South]

Good morning Aber (Are you Antony ?) ,

KIA is the criteria re "real war" ? Not criteria like capture of territory, or resources or population ?

The North American land mass did not experience the large military formations such as the Napoleonic attack on Jena. The US did have rapid strike forces like those of Lord Raglan, Capt Nolan and the Earl of Cardigan - but the US cavalry and mounted dragoons did not charge into the Czar's heavy artillery.

Many US entries are omitted but the same principle mentioned above governs. Plus, besides huge formations (concur; only until the US Civil War did the US field this).

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

[South]

Good morning Aber and all,

An apology; I did not complete my last sentence and still transmitted.

It should read:

Besides huge formations, the US was just about always involved in warfare......from the acquisition of the Floridas, both West and Regular, to the Indian "savages" (Jefferson's term) and several domestic insurrections. Caribbean island "pacification" was ongoing.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

[Plain Old Dave]

The AHF tendency to equate casualty lists with military competency baffles me. Isn't the whole point of war to make the other fellow die a "glorious death" for his country?

Still, this is an interesting thread and is developing in ways I hadn't anticipated.

[antwony]

Someone doesn't like my comments

If that was directed at me, sorry buddy but I didn't mind your comments. My apologies if you thought I was disagreeing with you.

My comments were more directed at another American poster on this thread who, in different thread, claimed the US "won" WW1 and now on this thread is claiming the US Navy, an organisation that didn't learned till well in 1918, after over a years coaching by an actual navies i.e the RN and the French, how to hit moving targets, would have been anything more than useless at Jutland and that (somehow) a crushing victory of the Germans at Jutland would make much of a difference anyway.

Good morning Antwony,

May I ask you to clarify / "flesh out" the international standards in re "real war". I just can't guess at the criteria in re the use of lethal force projection for political reasons. A couple of examples will help.

Plus:

I'm also missing the US pre-WWI lethality in re organized labor and its uniqueness. Here, too, I can't figure out the contrast - not saying it didn't exist; just need some examples to view the contrast.

Thanks in advance.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

Good Afternoon Bob,

Should probably say sorry about the real war thing. But that other poster really annoys me.

A river runs through my hometown, in Australia. Guys from north of the river served in 1 Brigade, 1 Division in WW1, while guys from the south were, largely, scattered atound 3DIV. 1 Briagde suffered immense casualties in WW1, 3DIV less so.

Didn't actually make a huge difference in town, but the neighbouring communities to the south continued to prosper and develop after WW1. The towns to the north didn't so much stagnate, as shrink, as the communities' young ladies moved elsewhere as there was a serious shortage of young men in those areas post 1918.

WW1 was a "real" war for Australia. Have seen state based stats on casualties in the US Civil War. I know you know what a "real" war is.

I get annoyed when an ignoramus, quoting a single, extremely moronic source (Mosier) talks garbage about WW1. That's where the real war comment comes from.

Plus:

I'm also missing the US pre-WWI lethality in re organized labor and its uniqueness. Here, too, I can't figure out the contrast - not saying it didn't exist; just need some examples to view the contrast.

Thanks in advance.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

History of organised labour isn't really my thing, so unique probably wasn't the best word for me to use. The French had had a quite tumultous ~100 years preceding WW1 and know Marx wrote a lot about France.

But yeah, wiki's got a page on the other Virginia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: ... t_Virginia. Notice you list your location as eastern Virginia...

We know from what actually happened, that (the western members of) the Entente didn't really have serious labour issues.

From what I understand the AEF tried to limit the amount of volunteers and relied on conscription.

Presume the National Guards units, which had earlier been used as strike breakers were all volunteers.

Point I was hinting at was if the Pinkerton's, etc... weren't enough, a conscript army may not have been so effective at suppressing political dissent.

Antony

P.S. Eastern Virginia is the part the Carter Family's not from right? Is there much of a cultural divide from where you're from and places further back in the hills? Wiki doesn't have a page for "Labor disputes in Virginia".

[Kingfish]

Isn't the whole point of war to make the other fellow die a "glorious death" for his country?

No, it's to achieve the political goals set forth by the warring parties.

Death and destruction is just a natural by-product of that achievement.

[South]

Good morning Antony,

Appreciate replies.

A little off-topic but will keep comments brief so the thread does not drift away from any previously-introduced subject-matter.

The Battle of Blair Mountain (West Virginia) was America's second largest insurrection. It was a labor matter.

The US allowed volunteers to serve in Europe's WWI on a case-by-case- basis. The aviation historians will be familiar with the US volunteers joining the French.

US participation in WWI of 1914 onward also had low profile force projection in the Asian areas. US plans were to solidify positions in China and the Philippines in tandem with Japan's entry into Formosa/Taiwan and Korea. A major focus of the American binoculars was on the Russian maritime oblasts - The Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05 placed the US "on alert".

Past tense not accurate for the National Guard and strike-breaking. Yes, the National Guard was a volunteer force, with exceptions.

Virginia, less the 44 counties that became West Virginia in 1863, was a Byrd family governed state...until past the mid-20th century.

Historically there was a cultural divide between Virginia and West Virginia based on economic geography and what follows from this. Large farmlands from the coast to the mountainous areas required large labor forces and slaves were used. Rocky West Virginia did not have the large labor-intensive
areas; just small family farms (abbreviating much).

For further research note that grandson Jay Rockefeller IV, was a Governor of West Virginia and then a US Senator from West Virginia.

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA

[MarkN]

Isn't the whole point of war to make the other fellow die a "glorious death" for his country?

No. Definitely not.

[Plain Old Dave]

My comments were more directed at another American poster on this thread who, in different thread, claimed the US "won" WW1 and now on this thread is claiming the US Navy, an organisation that didn't learned till well in 1918, after over a years coaching by an actual navies i.e the RN and the French, how to hit moving targets, would have been anything more than useless at Jutland and that (somehow) a crushing victory of the Germans at Jutland would make much of a difference anyway.

Another baffling tendency here is the lack of understanding of seapower. Seapower isn't just winning battles at sea. While there were few if any Mahanians in the German Navy in WW1, they understood the "denial of the sealanes to the enemy" aspect and used it to exceptional effect with unrestricted submarine warfare, which OTL nearly won the thing for them. Another aspect of seapower is Maritime Presence; what has been called "showing the flag," An American division at Jutland wouldn't have to even engaged the Germans. Its presence could have served to dissuade the breakout effort, or just have slowed the breakout long enough for Jellicoe to react.

[South]

Good morning Plain Old Dave,

Compliments ,Dave. Nearly thought Admiral Mahan had moved from history to archaeology. Hadn't heard his name mentioned in a long time.

Many are not familiar with the USN's Admiral Mahan. Since I'm somewhat closer to his Naval Station Norfolk roll top desk, let me add a couple of notes here re Mahan.

Admiral Alfred Mahan (1840-1914) was a USN military strategist. His writing encouraged the US political establishment to dig the Panama Canal.

Mahan wrote "The Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660-1783" (1890) and "The Influence of Sea Power Upon the French Revolution and Empire, 1793-1812" (1892).

All those naval ratio treaties had Mahan "flavoring".

~ Bob
eastern Virginia, USA