America doesn't join WWI, who wins?

[Jaron]

Nobody wins a war. Everyone loses.

[grumbler]

Nobody wins a war. Everyone loses.

You're just mad because there is no Jaron option! 







Actually, so am I.

[Sheilbh]

Agreed.  The Allies were breaking, but the Central Powers were broken.

And you are right that adding Wilson to Lloyd-George is turning a cretin's presence into a cretin's congress.  Without Wilson present in Paris, DLG and Clemenceau would have created a treaty not even their own people could sign off on.  Certainly, there would have been none of the League of Nations bullshit, and so no delusions about the efficacy of "collective security."  Eventually, as at Vienna, the losers would have to be allowed to sit at the table, and the resulting negotiations could have led to a real peace, rather than the mere armistice that came out of the historical Versailles Diktat.

Clemenceau's no cretin

But I think you're right. There's a great story of the negotiations that led to Irish independence. Eamon de Valera met with Sir James Craig, leader of the Ulster Unionists, who asked him 'are you going to see Lloyd George alone?'

'Yes', replied Dev.

'Are you mad?' said Craig, 'Take a witness. Lloyd George will give any account of the interview that comes into his mind or that suits him.'

In retrospect he was correct.

[grumbler]

BTW, Churchill said in The World Crisis that, absent a US entry into the war, the Germans would have won.

If the Russian Revolution had occurred in January instead of in March, or if, alternatively, the Germans had waited to declare unlimited U-boat war until the summer, there would have been no unlimited U-boat war and consequently no intervention of the United States. If the allies had been left to face the collapse of Russia without being sustained by the intervention of the United States, it seems certain that France could not have survived the year, and the war would have ended in a Peace by negotiation or, in other words, a German victory.  Had Russia lasted two months less, had Germany refrained for two months more, the whole course of events would have been revolutionized.  In this sequence we see the footprints of Destiny.  Either Russian endurance or German impatience was required to secure the entry of the United States and both were forthcoming.

p. 684

[Siege]

Nobody wins a war. Everyone loses.

You sure?
Ask all the winners throughout history.
I fuckinguarantee you they will not agree with you.

[Valmy]

Nobody wins a war. Everyone loses.

You sure?
Ask all the winners throughout history.
I fuckinguarantee you they will not agree with you.

And even if they do I bet the losers wouldn't.

[jimmy olsen]

Nobody wins a war. Everyone loses.

You sure?
Ask all the winners throughout history.
I fuckinguarantee you they will not agree with you.

Most, maybe. Not all though.

A bunch of winners (Americans) are arguing in Raz's thread that we shouldn't have fought in WWI.

[Valmy]

We didn't have much of a choice once the Zimmerman telegram broke.  The Germans just did not leave us a choice.  IMO the Germans just should have figured it was inevitable and went whole hog with the U-Boat campaign, though I guess that plan didn't work that great in WWII.

[Habbaku]

We didn't have much of a choice once the Zimmerman telegram broke.  The Germans just did not leave us a choice.

[Valmy]

We didn't have much of a choice once the Zimmerman telegram broke.  The Germans just did not leave us a choice.

Seriously?  This is all I get after all these years?  Not even the decency of explaining your position?

[DontSayBanana]

A bunch of winners (Americans) are arguing in Raz's thread that we shouldn't have fought in WWI.

Because the argument could be made that we bandwagoned and did not actually "win" WWI.

Yes, there was the submarine warfare.  But the Zimmermann telegram amounted to a fait accompli- the Germans couldn't afford the offer they made to the Mexicans, and they had to have realized the disparity in military between our two countries.  At best, if the Mexicans accepted, it might have been a stall tactic.

Personally, I believe the Allies' resources had been exhausted far too greatly by the time of our entry into WWI for our involvement to even have had an accelerating effect.  So the American narrative painting us among the "winners" of WWI is pure hubris.

[garbon]

We didn't have much of a choice once the Zimmerman telegram broke.  The Germans just did not leave us a choice.

Seriously?  This is all I get after all these years?  Not even the decency of explaining your position?

JK.

[Habbaku]

We didn't have much of a choice once the Zimmerman telegram broke.  The Germans just did not leave us a choice.

Seriously?  This is all I get after all these years?  Not even the decency of explaining your position?

I was on my iPad at the time.   

The Zimmermann Telegram as an excuse to send hundreds of thousands of soldiers overseas and to expend billions of dollars doesn't pass the smell test for me.  Do you really view Mexico as a serious threat to US security at the time, enough to where we need to send troops to France to fight them?  The Germans were making an attempt to push the USA out of the quasi-war we were already in--what with our massive support of the Entente--with them and were grasping at straws in an attempt to do so.  The threat simply wasn't credible and the Germans absolutely did "leave us a choice."  It's the same choice the USA always has--whether going to war with a perceived threat is worth it or not. 

Going to war over a farce like Zimmermann simply wasn't worth the cost and did not contribute to our security in any meaningful way.

[Siege]

Zimmermann Telegram wacked Martin.

[CountDeMoney]

  Lulz, good one, Siegey.

Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"
Zimmerman Telegram: "-.-- . .- ...."
Dispatcher: "OK, we don't need you to do that."