WW1 would have happened anyway. Anyway, on the whole topic of battleships in general, they were a pointless and ridiculous wasteof resources, and none will ever be used again.

I'm making record time!
If only I had someplace to be...

WW1 seems an entirely useless war. Two aliances (central powers and allies was it?) happily existing. Now Archduke Ferdinand gets shot by sombody who might have belonged to the "other side" so the entire continent got dragged in by the aliance, nation by nation. Germany didn't seem to mind though.

Anyway, the surrender was handled so badly it had a good hand in causing WW2. Made me think very little of Our president at the time... Wilson was it?

Woodrow Wilson. Yes. Well, don't think too poorly of him. Although, you're right, he did lose the confidence of his own constituents but the politics of that day were just as nasty as anything you see or read about today.

He did not agree with Clemenceau on the final terms of peace exacted upon Germany. Wilson knew that it would be ruinous to the civilian population but the French premier was not going to back down at all. And Clemenceau had the "advantage" so speak of representing the country that carried the brunt of all the savagery that was inflicted in that War. He wanted to keep America's newly earned position at the table of powers and to exert what he believed would be a beneficial influence of American thinking in the world arena. Post WW1, he pushed for the League of Nations and got it going only to be humiliated by his own country's refusal to join the League.

Pre WW1, the USA was not yet a big influential power in world affairs. Part of that was self-caused: Your US history texts should make note of the tremendous resistance, domestically, against getting involved in what was seen to be "European" politics. The point would be that, except for America...mainly, the rest of the world pretty much was being run by the imperial European powers. These "Isolationists" believed that America's proper role was to leave the old world behind and mind its own business. This put the US in less of an influential role at the end when America went to war in WW1.

Before and after WW1, the US had essentially a castrated military capability. Military spending being expensive and such spending requiring taxes to support them, Congress routinely voted down military spending before WW1 and after WW1. Basically, the US was not willing to maintain its ability to exert its foreign policy overseas by limiting very radically, its military capabilities.

I agree, i always felt that Wilson got an unfair rep from history, but he had to bridge a diplomatic chasm beween collective international responsibility for sorting out the armistice and trying to set up mechanisms for avoiding another such war, and domestic isolationist traditions and sentiments embodied in the Monroe doctrine, despite his own internationalist tendencies. He's been quite improperly labelled a hypocrite and a a vacillator and not having the courage of his own convictions, all of which are untrue. Still, had he been able to force his will both at the Armistice table and by getting the US into the League, subsequent history might have been very different.

French inisistence on crippling reparations and the emasculating of Germany were indeed a primary cause of the rise of Nazism and the Second War, just as French revanchism in the decades after the Franco-Prussian was a major source of the polarisation of power blocs in pre-WW1 Europe. I ronically, if Germany had NOT pursued an imperialistic policy abroad in trying to gain colonies (place in the sun) and therefore not presented a challenge to the Royal Navy, it's possible that Britain might well have given the Germans a free hand in Europe (except for the issue of Belgium)

EDIT: Bah. Taw beat me

Wilson did a heck of a job during the war years. He ran the country smoothly despite military demands for material and sold the war to a population that didn't want it, all through various agencies and a few very insightfull people. I laud him for that, but the way he handled the peace process is what gets me.

True, he meant well, but he screwed up his own plans (which were admirable btw) at the table with France and England by chosing his delegation from people who shared his views... democrats... and congress had a republican majority. Hence, they wouldn't aprove it. He refused to compromise with the republicans on the 14 points and League of Nations.

Not that it helped that the other powers embarased Germany and esentialy stole land from Russia, who wasn't at the confrence. Made a mess of the whole thing and fueled Nazism like Taw said.

I've often thought that if Hitler had been content to bide his time rather than Blitz through Europe he might have gotten away with much more. And yes, in retrospect attacking England was a big mistake. Hurt Guring's air force pretty bad.

Edited by - Warlord Bob on 2/19/2004 1:01:05 PM

Yes, but had his attacks against England had been successful, Hitler would have removed one of the greatest threats to his power. Therefore, he probbaly felt that it was worth the risk.

Modern Weaponary...

does this count?

You know very well that catapults, etc were discussed in my "Weaponry" thread. Stop spamming up my topic! *Thwacks Leon*.

Speaking of someone else's mention of battleships being obsolete before they served.....

The London Naval Conference Treaty set up a lot rules about who got to have how many battlewagons, etc. Anyone want to talk about how those terms came about?

not ignoring you, ed, just gotta post this. Has anyone else been watching the BBC2 dramatisation of Dunkirk this week? isn't it excellent!