Since this is interesting…

that anonymous post before was by me grmpf… how comes that every thread “degenerates” into a communism/capitalism thread?

yourbuttocks,

You seem to be implying that America wouldn’t be so great if it had been brought up in a communist system. Rest assured, America would still be great if it were communist, if not even better. :smile:

Without America, Germany would have conquered Europe, and Japan would have conquered Asia. Are you supposing that if America were communist, it wouldn’t have entered the war even if Pearl Harbor was attacked? Also, would capitalism have been the only way America and her Allies could’ve achieved victory in WWII? Certainly not. Look at the Soviet Union. The USSR deserves much of the credit for the Allies defeat of Nazi Germany, probably more so than Britain and USA combined. Now I find this interesting since USSR was “communist.” Now imagine how much more powerful USSR would be if it was truly Communist and under an able body leader(s) that didn’t kill off all his best generals in bloody purges (Stalin).

Now off to WW1,

1. Economically prop up Britain and France? Now the way you say this, we intend to save these countries by flooding it with capita instead of sending manufactured goods, raw materials, and produce which are the cornerstone of the communist economic system?
2. So how does capitalism directly cause us to reduce the effectiveness of Germany’s submarine blockade? What, are we to use capita to make them not shoot our ships?
3. Again, how would USA being communist prevent US troops from being sent to help the Allies. In Russia we saw literally 10’s of millions of soldiers willing to die for the Motherland.
4. Provide a moral boast? Yes, lets fight for the glory of capitalism and not democracy.

F_alk,
That is because Communist is the driving point of society!! Hahahaha j/k :0

In this topic, mini_phreek sort of started this whole debate on communism, even though his reference was only used to answer Yanny’s questions. I think that a mention to communism wouldn’t be nearly as bad. It’s just that whenever somebody brings up communism, most people are liked “Oooooo Bad.” Then they post some half-hearted attempt at disproving communism, so as a supporter, it is in your position to rebuff and rebuttal. This in turn leads to more attacks on communism (and some pretty Q&A), which results in more counter post and then attacks on capitalism. So the cycle is really endless. :sad: I don’t mind because through conversations like these, you learn a lot not only about the other person’s stance and information, but your own at the same time. So this free exchange of ideas actually leads to higher learning.

“Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.” - Aldolf Galland
“The create? The create matters not. It is the man who pilots the create that truely counts” -

[ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-05-19 20:50 ]

To Yanny and Yourbuttocks,

Since I was on the topic Wattersonism, let’s see how the wholesale murder of people (both young and old) might not seem so evil.

Scene Opens up in a Office Floor

Frank (working at his computer): Yawwnn…
Frank: I’m going to get some coffee, Ted. Want any?
Ted: No Thanks, Frank.
Frank (walking toward the coffee machine): Tum te ta ta tum…

BLAM!!! (A shot from across the room hits Frank across the back)

Frank: Gakkkk!!
Women: Aieee!!! They got Frank!
Ted: Run!!

As the people leave, we soon see Deer walking out of the elevator from across the room with rifles in their hands.

Deer1: You got ‘im!
Deer2: He’s a big one, too!
Deer3: Nice shot, Bamb.’
Bambee: Somebody get the camera!

The scene now shifts to young Calvin who is giving this fictional story to the his whole classroom.

Calvin: “…Needless to say, Frank’s family was upset when he didn’t come home that night, but everybody understood that the human population had doubled in just two generations to six billion, so some thinning of the herds was necessary to prevent starvation.”

I wouldn’t exactly have called US’s involvement in WWI laughable? Without US, Germany and Austria-Hungary would’ve triumphed. And if USA were on the Central Powers side, for sure they would’ve won the war. America furnished the Allies with food, weapons, ammunition, and oil, the freed up human resources from farms and factories to fight in the war. You are also forgetting how much the psychological effect of America and its seemly endless supply of manpower and reserves had on demoralizing the Germans.

I think that US had some sincerely good intentions after WWI, other than just seeing the Kaiser dethroned. However the resulting disillusionment and isolationism was caused mainly by the US Senate, Wilson bullheaded idealism, and the leaders of the European Allies that had turned their backs to the American people.

yourbuttocks: Japan did not do that much in WWI. They were on the allied side. America thus did not “prevent” Japan from taking Asia there.
TG: I love your deer posting! It is so right, and yet we don’t want to see it.

:smile:

In a long drawn out war, I might be inclined to agree with you. However, a big role America played in WWI was furnishing the Allies (Britain in particular with War Supplies).

In Germany’s case, they decided on a last ditch 1918 Spring Offensive once Russia had been knocked out of the war. This enabled the Germans to transport their soldiers from the Eastern Front and use them in the offensive in France. They planned to attack Allied forces at three points along the front-line: Arras, Lys, and Aisne.

Meanwhile, British soldiers had became disillusioned and weary after their defeat in the offensive at Passchendaele, costing them 310,000 casualties and forcing them to withdraw and rebuild. Italy had also met defeat at Caporetto in October 1917 with 300,000 men and most of its trench artillery lost during the Caporetto Offensive.

At first the German Army had considerable success and came close to making a decisive breakthrough in taking Paris, forcing France out of the war. However, Allies forces managed to halt the German advance at the Marne in June, 1918. This was largely due to over 85,000 American soldiers participating in the battle, many of them stopping the heart of the German advance at Chateau-Thierry. After suffering 168,000 casualties during the battle, the exhausted German soldiers were forced to retreat.

“Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.” - Aldolf Galland
“The crate? The crate matters not. It is the man who pilots the create that truely counts.”

[ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-05-21 16:16 ]

Another Message Prepared by the Prime Ministers of Great Britain, France, and Italy, Versailles, June 2, 1918 proves the need for American reinforcements

“We desire to express our warmest thanks to President Wilson for the remarkable promptness with which American aid, in excess of what at one time seemed practicable, has been rendered to the Allies during the past month to meet a great emergency. The crisis, however, still continues. General Foch has presented to us a statement of the utmost gravity, which points out that the numerical superiority of the enemy in France, where 162 Allied divisions now oppose 200 German divisions, is very heavy, and that, as there is no possibility of the British and French increasing the number of their divisions (on the contrary, they are put to extreme straits to keep them up) here is a great danger of the war being lost unless the numerical inferiority of the Allies can be remedied as rapidly as possible by the advent of American troops. He, therefore, urges with the utmost insistence that the maximum possible number of infantry and machine gunners, in which respect the shortage of men on the side of the Allies most marked, should continue to be shipped from America in the months of June and July to avert the immediate danger of an Allied defeat in the present campaign wing to the Allied reserves being exhausted before those of the enemy. In addition to this, and looking to the future, he represents that it is impossible to foresee ultimate victory in the war unless America is able to provide such an army as will enable the Allies ultimately to establish numerical superiority. He places the total American force required for this at no less than 100 divisions, and urges the continuous raising of fresh American levies, which, in his opinion, should not be less than 300,000 a month, with a view to establishing a total American force of 100 divisions at as early a date as this can possibly be done. “We are satisfied that General Foch, who is conducting the present campaign with consummate ability, and on whose military judgment we continue to place the most absolute reliance, is not overestimating the needs of the case, and we feel confident that the Government of the United States will do everything that can be done, both to meet the needs of the immediate situation and to proceed with the continuous raising of fresh levies, calculated to provide, as soon as possible, the numerical superiority which the Commander in Chief of the Allied Armies regards as essential to ultimate victory.” A separate telegram contains the arrangements which General Foch, General Pershing, and Lord Milner have agreed to recommend to the United States Government with regard to the dispatch of American troops for the months of June and July.”

Signed
CLEMENCEAU
D. LLOYD GEORGE
ORLANDO

As you can see, the Allies were in dire need of American troops.

“Only the spirit of attack, born in a brave heart, will bring success to any fighter aircraft, no matter how highly developed it may be.” - Aldolf Galland
“The crate? The crate matters not. It is the man who pilots the create that truely counts.”

[ This Message was edited by: TG Moses VI on 2002-05-22 22:07 ]

On 2002-05-21 11:26, Yanny wrote:
The US tipped the scale in favor of the Allies, but the Allies were by no means on the Verge of defeat. Britain was as strong as ever, Greek and Italian Armies were blunting Austria Hungary, and Germany had all but lost all of it’s resources abroad.

Germany lost all its colonies in the first months of the war, they never were a decisive factor. I would say, the entry of the US into the war just forced the germans to make their last offensive (which was, compared to others, pretty successful), with the freshly transfered troops from the eastern front, in a not so planned manner as otherwise could have been possible.
The Austrian troops were on mutiny even before they saw the first american soldier, true. But: i wouldn’t call a battle of less than two weeks “bluntering” and i don’t think that the Greek plated any major role in the war (can you give me your sources for that?). In Austria, the inner problems of the monarchie were decisive, not the military situation. In short words: Germany could not win the war, after the allied forces started the first major tank offensive at Amiens, but they still were not beaten, and for a total defeat like in WWII, it would have costed a lot of soldiers lifes on both sides.

Your right about Austria. Out of the remaining powers, Austria or France would’ve fell next depending on the outcome of the Spring 1918 Offensive. However, up until then Austria still played a major role in the war. For instance, in October 1917 nine Austrian and six German divisions launched an attack on a lightly defended stretch of the front at Caporetto. Aided by misty conditions the assault took the Italians by complete surprise and the lost of 300,000.

Fighting Germany would resulted in many more causalities especially since the Western Front never covered more than Eastern France. However, seeing the writing on the wall, the Germans knew they were defeated and might be able to secure a favorable armistance under Wilson’s 14 Points Plan.

First, of all, I said that if America didn’t exist, the Central Powers would have Won WW1. Britian was already bad off, and with no America the subs would have been hammering Britian harder. By 1918 Russia was deafeated, Serbia was occupied, Britian was almost bankrupt, Much of the French Army had mutinied. Why do you think American troops were needed so badly?

As for Japan, by 1914 Japan had siezed Korea and Taiwan, it used the war as an excuse to sieze land in China. Japan wuld have begun it’s drive even earlier with a pacified USSR, nonexsistent U.S. defeated Britian, and China still in Civil War

On 2002-05-22 15:47, yourbuttocks wrote:
As for Japan, by 1914 Japan had siezed Korea and Taiwan, it used the war as an excuse to sieze land in China. Japan wuld have begun it’s drive even earlier with a pacified USSR, nonexsistent U.S. defeated Britian, and China still in Civil War

Even earlier than 1914? Well, Korea and Taiwan were chinese, therefore the Japanese already were seizing land in china, without any Great War. The decline of China was used by all imperialistic nations to grab a few colonies there. And saying they would have started “even earlier” with a pacified russia etc. What you say there is the would-be-state of 1919, without US interference in the Great War. That is much later that 1914 and would not at all have had any difference for China.

Actually the way it was that out of the remaining Powers in the War, Britain was the best off out of the bunch. It did not suffer as many food shortages and treason, which America played a large part in solving. Even if Britain was bankrupted, chances are America would still have provided for the country in different forms of Lend-Lease or Destroyers for Bases. Like you said, French soldiers often mutinied. I believe that out of the greater Western Front, the French Army suffered the most surrenders and desertions. Germany was also starting to crack due to food in munitions shortages. The lack of explosives and ammunition was partly made up due to a German scientists (can’t recall his name) who was actually a Jew! The defeat of Russia did prove a huge psychological boast to the Germans who no longer had to fight a two front war.

On 2002-05-22 11:38, Yanny wrote:
My History Textbook says Greek forces pushed the Austrian forces back through all of Serbia.

Does it say, when? Did it mention that the Allies first occupied Greece in 1917 in response to the successes of the central powers on the balkans?