America enters the War, the controversy

There was no Pearl Harbour, no 911, yet the US decided to enter the War.
The official explanation was that with Germany's declaration of unrestricted submarine warfare, the US would practically be at war. Another argument was that Germany violated international law by waging unrestricted sub. warfare, yet Britain did the same thing earlier in the war by completely blockading Germany.
Fact is the US cut diplomatic relation with Germany the moment it declared unrestricted submarine warfare, yet the US entry in the war occured 2 months later. The amount of british ships sunk in that period by german u-boats grew at a high rate, so is it fair to say that the US got involved fearing Britain would be weakened by the attrition?

Very true, but consider the effect of each of these actions on the US. Britain cost the US trade with Germany, but made up for this with increased trade with Britain and her colonies. Britain wasn't sinking US ships. Germany was.

There was significant isolationist feeling in the US. The slaughter of WWI would deter any country that did not have truly vital interests at stake. It's not as if the US was about to be invaded. (German meddling in Mexico not withstanding) The ideological motives that existed in WW2 were much weaker in WW1. There were empires on both sides.

Also remember that Germany was the largest single source of immigrants to the US. Many of these were relatively recent, coming after the revolutions of 1848 (when my family came from Germany to the US) or later. It's not that they were not patriotic Americans, but most of them were not happy about going to war with their family's home country.

Yes, but this eliminates the idea that the US entered the war to uphold international law or principles. Its just another example of self interest covered in fancy talk about principles and ideals, in order to mobilise domestic support/morale.

At the time (end of 19th start of 20th century) there was plenty of talk about a special Anglo-Saxon relationship between America and the British Empire. There were serious articles and fiction books (some of which were close to prophetical) about it.
That friendship was obvious in practice too, in WWI, WWII. (and in the Global War on Terror nowadays).

I also think Hitler did learn something from this WWI experience. The fact that Britain could not be strangled without the US entering the war left only one possibility -- conquering the USSR, and made an ambitious naval policy unnecessary before that.

US senators presenting their arguments in opposition to Wilson's decision:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library...sp?document=602

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library...sp?document=649

edit - Robert M. LaFollette's message was edited due to its length, and some interesting parts were left out

This post has been edited by Imperialist on March 17, 2006 11:51 pm

Well, actually the Treaty of Ghent in 1814 (ended the War of 1812) ensured a lasting peace between the US and Great Britain.

As for WWI, in the beginning the US protested blockades by both sides saying they broke the neutrality acts by not allowing the US to trade with other countries. The sinking of the Lusitania angered many Americans but didn't get the politicians to act. What actually did was the Zimmerman Note which was the last draw. To promise a country former territory to declare war and invade (yes we were vunerable to invasion due to a very weak military) sort of ticked the public off which sent the ball in motion. We are told about the vote and that some members in Congress voted against it (if you paid attention and had a good teacher).

Without American troops and supplies, most likely the Entente would have had to seek a truce due to the Russian withdrawl in 1917/18 which freed many German and Austrian-Hungarian divisions.

Romania's contribution is what should be looked at. Whipped in a reasonable amount of time by the Germans, Austrians and Bulgarians but still gets territory at the Versaille Treaty meetings. Damn, to get beat and still come out on top is a little weird if you must say.

quote fixed by moderator

This post has been edited by dragos on March 18, 2006 03:46 pm

I wasnt sure about this so I did a quick search. The Germans promised to support Mexico's claims in case war errupted between America and Germany.

http://www.pittstate.edu/services/scied/St.../wwi/zimmer.htm

As for vulnerable to invasion - whose invasion? Mexico's? Germany was in no position to invade. And I dont think the US had much to fear from Mexico. There was a reason the military was weak -- powerful and quick invasions unlikely.

take care

Hi Imperialist,

The USA entered WWII because of Pearl Harbour. That is the basic fact of it. What is more, Germany declared war on the USA, not the other way around, so the USA can hardly be accused of being over eager to use Pearl Harbour as an excuse.

Why are you surprised that the USA's actions were governed by national self interest? That is what national governments are elected for. You should only be surprised if any national government doesn't put national self interest first.

Britain's blockade of Germany at the outbreak of war was materially and legally different from Germany's U-boat campaign. Germany conducted unrestricted U-boat warfare from the start. However, the British surface blockade initially consisted of the stopping and searching of all shipping, as Germany's U-boats should legally have done.

I would suggest that there was no close special relationship between the USA and UK at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Centuries. In fact the two states were rivals for dominance in the global maritime and economics spheres, just as Germany and Russia/USSR were competing to become the dominant land power on the Eurasian land mass. The UK was in relative decline and on the defensive towards the USA at that time. For example, in the 1890s the British could no longer support a major squadron in the Caribbean and the US Navy filled the vacuum. The historical connection between the two powers meant that unlike the Germans and Russians, who fought to the death over Eurasian land supremacy, the UK gradually abdicated its position to the USA peacefully. In 1914 the UK was still trying to maintain a fleet as powerful as the next two powers combined, but the Washington Naval Treaty of the early 1920s made the the UK and USA co-equal naval powers between the war.

The so-called "special relationship" is really something that grew during and after WWII.

Cheers,

Sid.

What actually sunk Lusitania (a vessel of 56000 tons) in 1915 was not the only one German torpedo hit, but the explosion with that occasion of the American ammunition secretly carried on a passenger boat, to the benefit of United Kingdom, in defiance with all international laws acting in that moment.

Selling ammunition to the U.K. was a gross breach of the American neutrality, and by using in secret passenger vessels for delivery made the whole matter illegal.

The propagandistic blow ("the German monsters kill civilians traveling on passenger vessels") was the beginning of the end for the German war effort, because while the German government put a hold to the submarine warfare against commercial vessels, until 1917, the British kept starving Germany with their blockade, between 1915...1917. In 1917, a desperate and starving German nation started the total submarine warfare - an excuse for president Wilson to drag the U.S. into war.

This post has been edited by Florin on June 05, 2006 04:49 am

Florin, the most likely cause for Lusitania's demise is actually a coal-bunker secondary explosion triggered by the torpedo hit, and not deflagration of the "secret" cargo, that can still be found, intact, at the wreck site.

The fact that Lusitania was carrying military cargo, thus making her a "legit" target is probably the reason US politicians were so reticent to act agressively against Germany despite the public outrage (that in turn was orchestrated by the "Pro-War" factions)

And, as far as I can see it, Wilson was always partial to going to war, but he was worried about re-election, so he pretended he wanted to barter a peace between Germany and Britain in late 1916 (all while secretly aiding the UK). After he won said elections, he was quick enough to say he didn't agree with the Kaiser's peace terms, drop the whole thing and start gearing up for hostilities, despite no formal declaration of war had been drawn up at that time. (In fact, German Naval Command waited until the start of 1917 to restart their "Unrestricted Submarine Campaign", in the vain hope that somehow, the peace talks would be resumed)

Meanwhile, German diplomats, who were actually struggling to reach an agrreement with Britain, since the noose of the Allied Blokade was tightening on their nation's neck, went into a state of frenzy, and it is at this time that the famous Zimmerman Telegram was concieved and sent. In my oppinion, this was a desperate bid to cover their behinds against an American involvement in the war, by securing an alliance with Mexico using as an incentive the potential territorial gains Mexico could get out of the whole deal, and not a plan to invade the USA, as many claimed afterwards*. The very start of the telegram mentions the fact that "Germany is most intrested in mantaining American neutrality" so the latter meaning was atributed to the text by allied spin-doctors, who siezed the opportunity to parade the letter in the media, with a clear intent of stirring up patriotic feelings in the general public, as well as casting Germany in the villan's role.
What is astonishing is the fact that the disclosing of the telegram's text to the american public on March 1, 1917 did not produce much response, while the latter apology by Zimmerman, published on March 3, that perplexically confirmed, in a totally un-diplomatic move, the basic meaning of the intercept sparked an uproar of Anti-German sentiment. So I'd say it was this blunder more than anything else that alowed Wilson and his acolytes to drag tyhe US in the Great War, so it should be marked as an auto-goal by the German Diplomatic Corps and most notably the German Secret Services, that failed to properly analyze the situation of the USA in the first place.

So, IMHO, with the notable exception of Belgium and Croatia, all the nations involved in WW1 walked to war voluntarily, and not because they had no choice, as some people try to imply about USA's involvent in the conflict.

*because, let's face it, the mexican army was in no shape for an invasion of the US, so probably Zimmerman's original idea was to forge an alliance with Mexico, send them some money (because although there was a lack of food and raw materials in Germany at the time, courtesy of the allied blockade, they still had a lot of gold left), then offer them as a juicy distraction to the American army, in the hope that somehow that would buy enough time to either break the stalemate on the Western Front or bring the Allies to the Negotiations Table with their "Unrestricted Submarine Campaign" before enough US troops would cross the Atlantic to affect the balance of force in Northern France. The Mexican diplomats were not stupid, so quite understandibly they would hear nothing about it...

This post has been edited by Wings_of_wrath on June 05, 2006 09:19 am

OK. In general I accept what you wrote.
I quoted the text above to remind that also Greece was pushed into war over her head, and they had no choice but to enter in it (I am talking about the landing of Sarrail and his troops, mostly to convince the politicians from Bucharest to do something.) Greece was also pushed into war against her will in WWII, but then it was a much more common story.

It is funny that the Ottoman Empire was very eager to enter in WW One, as ally of any of the side who would accept it. But either Germany, either France and Britain were very reluctant to accept the Turks as allies, and eventually the side was decided by a succession of events which is detailed in the books dedicated to WWI.

This post has been edited by Florin on June 05, 2006 04:19 pm

Right. I knew I'd forgotten something...
Indeed, Greece was dragged into WWI against her will, the same that happened in WW2.

As for the Ottomans, well, I'm pretty sure they were rearing to go to war, to try and get back at least some of their earlier posessions. And let's not forget that, at the time Turkey had a sense of renewed hope in its military might, with the siezing of the power by the "Young Turks" in 1908 and the reforms that followed. Of course, it won't be until the 1920's and Kemal Ataturk's rise to power, that the country will truly begin to align itself to the standards present in the western world, but still, despite the common oppinion of the Ottoman Empire as the "Sick man of Europe", I'd say they still had a lot of fighting spirit left in them... And, of course, some modern military technology, as the British and ANZAC troops found out at their expense during the abortive Dardanelles Campaign...

The matter of the alliance is simple: as mentioned above, France and Britain (and the rest of Europe) had very low oppinions on the turks, and that preconception made them laugh at a possible alliance with the Ottoman Empire, as well as severely underestimate it's military might during the campaign to force the Bosphorious Strait.
In fact, we can say the turks stood their ground, despite fighting on several fronts: The actions at Gallipoli were an Allied disaster, as was the British Campaign in Mesopotamia, that ended with the humiliating siege of Kut. As for the planned surprise attack in the Caucasus by Tzarist Russia, that quickly bogged down after some initial sucess (Enver Pasha's failure as a commander, most notably, had the Turks expelled from Armenia), and stable positions were held until Russia's departure from the conflict in 1917.
They also grappled with an Arab rebellion in the Middle East (I guess a gent by the name of Lawrence had something to to with that), and, despite being defeated in Palestine in 1917-18 (the loss of Jerusalem and the battle of Meggido), on the whole, Turkey did a lot better that was to be expected from a country that was suposedly "finished".
Of course that din't stop the Entente pressing humiliating peace terms on the Ottomans (the Treaty of Sevres), because after the defeat of Germany and Austria-Hungary, Turkey would now have been on her own against a vastly supperior force of allied soldiers.
But despite the diplomatic failures of the Sultan, Turkey was still not yet finished, as can be seen by Ataturk's private campaigns to throw out the French, British, Italian and Greek soldiers that had occupied some parts of the country following the Treaty of Sevres.
Still weak after WWI, both France and Britain whitdrew their forces from Turkey, as did the Italians after some persuation, but The Greeks launched a lightning campaign against Constantinople (the city's name was changed to Istambul in 1930) and made some intial progresss, before being met and terminally defeated at Sakarya in august 1921.

Okay, but enough wandering ouside of the subject- back to the discusion of America- as far as I know, the US had no involvement in the Middle East whatsoever during WW1. Or had they?

This post has been edited by Wings_of_wrath on June 06, 2006 09:12 am

Hallo Gentlemen.

I must enter a contradiction here;

A recent tv programme shown on the Discovery channel has shown there was NO AMMUNITION carried on the Lusitania, the Torpedoes ignited the highly volatile Coal Dust in the ships coal bunkers, (as the ship was nearing the end of her trans-atlantic journey her coal bunkers were nearly empty) the resulting explosion was the cause of the ship going down.

The programe also showed that despite a careful underwater survey of the wreck NO trace of any ammunition, bullets or shells etc was to be found, and before you suggest it no the British didnt remove it all of the wreck after she sank.

So another conspiricy theory gets SUNK!!!

Germany suffered because their Kaiser was interested in expanding his land locked empire, he always wanted an empire to equal the British and was not content with the small colonies in Africa and the East. And accepting an invite to join his cousin Franz Joseph of Austria in a war, seemed a way for him to realise his ambition.

Late in the war the German General Staff was running the show Kaiser Bill was reduced to a mere figure head, the top brass knew they were losing, but with propaganda deluded the German people into thinking otherwise, why was there starvation occuring in Germany?? because all the able-bodied farmers were put into the army and sent to the front, the women and old, unfit for war service men, left to tend the fields, also confiscation of foodstuffs, that were to be used to feed the army.

After their last ditch attempt to win in May 1917 lead Von Unruh to admit in early June 1917 " In truth the brilliant offensive had petered out".

But in June 1917 the first of the US troops stepped onto shores of France, thus sealing the fate of the Germans, Hundreds of thousands of fit fresh, young men from an inexhaustable supply in America, whereas the Germans had shot their bolt, down to scrapping the barrel, ever increasing desertions by troops being moved from the Eastern Front to the West.

The USA was a late enterant into a conflict which, having been up to that point largely, though far from exclusively, a European war, could now be fairly labeled a "World War".

An intially reluctant President and people had been persueded by a series of events and preasures that they could not stand aside.
Unrestricted submarine warfare by the Germans, adding to the shock of earlier, widely publicized events such as the sinking of the Lusitania, and the introduction of poison gas the impact of the infamous Zimmerman telegram which, intercepted and decoded by the British, appeared to show that the Germans were prepared to support Mexicam military and territoral ambition against thoseof the United States (the occupation of TEXAS was always a bone of contention between the Mexicans and the USA).

Yet while America had a substaintial Navy, she had no real modern army to send "over there" to Europe. As a recent American historian as written: "The cadre of professional soldiers was small, scattered over forts and garrisons in the USA and stationed in far-flung colonial outposts such as ones in the Phillipine Islands. . . . Divisions exsisted only on paper . . . in 1917, most of the eager soldiers would train with wooden mock-ups for rifles, machine guns and mortars, and some would go to France without the most rudimentry instruction in rifle assembly, care and cleaning, and marksmanship.

The much valued American right to bear arms did not automativally guarantee the nation a mass of competant sharpshooters.

Not unlike the British in 1914, America had to begin the process (in 1917) of reinventing herself as a twentieth-century belligerant, converting her industry to a war-footing with few, if any, blue-prints for exspansion. Also like British she had to turn herself into a land-power. In so doing she would face the difficult ordeal of joining a campaign in which the other players already had a three-year advatage in knowledge and experiance. Guts and enthusiasm would clearly not be enough.

A good book to read is MALCOM BROWNE's

The Imperial War Museum Book of 1918, The Year of Victory.

ISBN 0 330 37672 1

Trying to use one specific country's methods or reasons from past conflicts to give justification to modern conflicts wont work, all conflicts are different, with many options and variables.

Kevin in Deva.

Ranger, if you read my earlier post on the subject, you can see that I agree on the coal-bunker explosion as the cause of Lusitania's sinking.
However, I must disagree with you about the military cargo. I don't know about the documentary on Discovery Channel you saw, but a cargo of rifles, rifle amunition, shrapnel shell cases and fuzes* is recorded on the ship's manifest, albeit not in the "official" one filled before the ship's departure from New York, but on a second, "suplementary" one, filled by the port officials while Lusitania was 2 days into her trip. This was probably done for securty reasons, so that any potential spies would not know of the actual cargo she was carrying. Anyway, despite it's military nature, the goods she carried were of a rather inert nature (rifle cartriges are "unexplosive in bulk quantities" and tend to burn quietly rather than burst all at once), so if the torpedo had struck the cargo hold instead of the coal bunker, it is likely that no secondary explosion would have followed, and a lot more lives would have been saved.
The whole "German monsters sinking unarmed merchantmen" was mostly propaganda, because the captain of the Lusitania had orders to attack by ramming any U-boat that tried to stop her by ordering her surrender (there have been recorded incidents of such rammings being sucessful before the incident involving Lusitania), so I can certainly understand the reticence of Kapitanleutnant Schwieger to surface U-20 and signal the ship to stop...
Not to mention the fact there is a controversy involving the presence of at least two 4.7 inch guns on board Lusitania to be used "if the need arises", but since no material evidence about this armament exist beyond word of mouth, I tend not to take that into consideration.

*To be more specific, "4200 cases of Remington .303 rifle cartridges, a thousand rounds to a box, 1248 cases of 3 inch Shrapnel shells filled, eighteen cases of fuzes", and I recomend you read the article 'Riddle of the Lusitania" in the April 1994 issue of the reputed National Geographic Magazine, where they have photographs of some of the fuzes lying scattered at the wrecksite.

Why was there a food shortage in Germany? In terms of food, Germany was never self-suficient and relied masively on imports, and since the British Grand Fleet was busy confiscating any cargo bound for Germany, including food and medical supplies, this was the logical outcome. It had nothing to do with the quality of the work in the field, and soldiers ate little better than the general population.

You can read my oppinions on the matter in my earlier posts. IMHO, Wilson was never anti-war, and was just waiting for the most advantageous moment to step in and "save the day"- for it's implication in the Great War, the USA was awarded war reparations. Of course, he still had the problem of convincing Congress to do his bidding, but that was solved with a bit of shrewd media manipulation, as well as that collosal blunder made by Zimmerman on March3, of actually confirming that the intercepted telegram was genuine...

Well, the vast majority of soldiers were actually used as cannon fodder, so inexperience was not a problem... But you are right about this- the initial results of American troops in battle were mediocre at best, and both common soldiers and officers had to embark in a cras course of trench warfare 101 before being able to cope with the difficult conditions on the Western Front. However, as with the Soviet Union in WW2, quantity was more important thean quality, and it was the overwhelming mass of fresh US soldiers, coupled with the mounting pressure on the home front (riots and demonstrations regarding the lack of food) as well as ad-hoc strikes in the german personnel (the famous mutiny of the Hochseeflotte, for example) that finally brought Germany to its knees.

No they're not. While technology might change (a higher technological level accounts for more fatalities) the reasons behind confilcts are remacably similar, to the point of becoming boring. It's always some squalid story of greed, money and power, no matter where and when it takes place. Wars happen for one simple reason: There will always be idiots that will want something that belongs to the neighbour, and unfortunately, sometimes these idiots happen to be runnig countries at the time...

This post has been edited by Wings_of_wrath on June 06, 2006 08:48 pm

Hallo Wings_of_Wrath

Now I would like to see the Captain of a ship the size of the Lusitania try to engage a U-Boat in a collision course, the U-Boats would always, even on the surface remain of to either the Port or Starboard side of its hugh target, passenger liners were never noted for their ability to make quick course changes, requiring some kilometers of distance to come to a full stop (ie when the engines stop turning the ship is still moving, no brakes!!!). And I have never read or sen evidence of a ship the size of the Lusitania ramming a U-Boat in any war.

As for a cargo manifest being issued two days later! well lets hope the enemy dont have access to a wireless telegraph to signal the information back to the German Naval HQ, maybe they were using carrier pidgeons to transmit the intelligence.

So the great area of agricultural production known as Bavaria was producing nothing in WW1, just what food supplies had Germany to import into the country?? Fruit?
She had Dairy produce, Meat, Milk, Bread, all the grain she wanted from Europe coming up the Danube, the one thing she didnt have was enough raw materials to produce weapons, and keep the war industry going.

And of course if the British Grand Fleet was so busy confiscating all the food bound for Germany there would have been no need to send troops to France just starve the Germans into submission. Germany was in fact exporting more out than taking in of food produce.

Remember, Germany did not invade Belgium and France for food, it invaded to expand the Prussian Reich. And Germany which even during the course of the war was able to supply far better medical services to the Army than either France, Belgium, Britain, more German soldiers were treated for their wounds and then returned for duty than any other country involved in the conflict, so your statement about being keep short of medical supplies dosent hold up!

With regards Woodrew Wilson waiting to step in and save the day, surely they would have geared up their industry sooner, as it was they were still ill-prepaired for War.

And if the majority of the Americans were just to be used as cannon-fodder, how come this theory of mass over might didnt work with the poorly equipped, under armed, Romanian Army, surly a few mass banzi charges would have helped overwhelm the might of the Austro-Hungarian empire

Most of the very early American casualties came from inexperiance in trench warfare, they were having to learn what the Allies learned over a course of 3 years, the were brave, and quick to learn, but their National pride, caused them to make some foolhardy attacks, but, once the Americans got the hang of the style of fighting their intial casualty rate began to fall. They were also kept under an American commander and were never to be totaly under the control of the British or French. And it is true until the supplies began to arrive from the USA they had to use French and British equipment.

Kevin in Deva.

Well, I never said ramming from the part of Lusitania would be practical, but that was the order given to all British captains, and the Germans knew it. Albeit ramming from a ship the size of Lusitania seems unlikely, in the Admiralty fleet register she was marked as an armed auxiliary cruiser from December 1914 onwards, end even if her main armament of twelve 6-inch guns had not been installed yet, there was no way for the German commander to have known that. He just identified the ship as “either the Lusitania or Mauretania, both armed cruisers”, and shot a torpedo. He certainly wasn’t going to expose his sub to fire just to see wherever Lusitania was indeed armed.
In fact, there is an incident happening a few months after Lusitania that proves that submarines were at risk from traps set up by the British:
"On 19 August 1915 the British freighter NICOSIAN, hauling mules from New Orleans to England, was stopped by U-27 about seventy miles from Queenstown. The submarine fired a warning shot and the crew abandoned ship. The British ship BARALONG, ostensibly a cargo ship but in reality a Q-ship, came on the scene, flying an American flag (this is generally regarded, perhaps surprisingly, as legitimate ruse of war, provided the ship's true colours are displayed before she opens fire). When about a hundred yards from U-27 BARALONG raised her British colours and opened fire, sinking U-27. About six Germans, including the captain, were shot in the water. About six others boarded the deserted NICOSIAN. Royal Marines boarded NICOSIAN with orders to take no prisoners, and the defenceless German sailors were hunted down and shot. Although early British accounts denied that an atrocity had occurred, the incident was witnessed by neutral American mule-handlers from NICOSIAN who had no reason to invent such a story. [Bailey and Ryan, pp. 50-51; Devlin, pp. 413-18]"
Also, I believe there was a notion of tactics involved - Lusitania was travelling at almost 18knots when she was torpedoed, and her maximum speed was 21. U-20's speed was 15.4 knots on the surface, and 9.5Kts submerged, but she could only keep that speed up for one hour, before her batteries ran out. So in my mind, it's clear that had she known U-20 was there, Lusitania could have easily outrun her, so the only way Schwieger could have sunk the liner is a surprise attack.
On the other hand, Kapitanleutnant Schwieger was known to be an extremely cautious man, even bordering on the paranoid, as wel as pretty ruthless, since he earlier attacked a ship flying the Norwegian flag, as he assumed it to be a British merchantman in disguise.

You are forgetting, of course, this was WWI we are talking about. Wireless telegraphy was still in it's infancy and the only reliable way to communicate between the "old" and "new" continents was by the Trans-Atlantic Telegraph wires, and it was by this means that spies had to relay intelligence back to the Germany.
But anyway, the ruse of the "fake manifest" is quite simple, and has a psychological reason: a ship's manifest is a document prepared prior to a ship's leaving port, and aids in making sure that all cargo bound to go on that ship has actually been loaded, as well as aiding the port authorities keep track of what has been sent where.
And, of course, it's at this time that any spy would want to check the ship's manifest to see what it's carrying. However, were you to have cargo you do not wish other people to know about, but still wanted to keep track of, it's easier just to make an incomplete manifest when the ship departs, then add the missing items on a second, "supplementary" manifest, a few days later after the ship has sailed, because it's pretty unlikely that anyone will come and rifle trough the archives once the ship in question has left port, just in case there might have been items that were omitted from the original loading manifest. Add that ruse to a harbour where hundreds of ships load and unload daily, and it makes a very remote possibility for anyone to realise a new manifest has been drawn up, secure a way to transmit it over the Atlantic, have it reach German Naval HQ in time to mobilize any u-boats in the area to intercept the ship, all in the short three days needed for Lusitania to complete her journey...

I hope this answers your question:
"In 1850 Germany exported food-stuffs and raw materials, and imported manufactured goods; now [c. 1905] her principal exports are manufactured goods, and her imports are raw materials and foodstuffs. In this period she has changed from an agricultural to a manufacturing and commercial nation."
E.D. Howard, The Cause and Extent of the Recent Industrial Progress of Germany, 1907

The problem was that same with Romania after WW2: the rapid industrialization and urbanization of Germany in the late 19th century meant that less and less people were available to work the fields, so the agricultural production dwindled, while the industry was on the rise, and this was even before WW1 started.
As from the supplies coming up the Danube, where were they supposed to come from? Austria-Hungary, who had a food shortage problem of her own? Russia, that was at war with the Central powers? Romania, that entered the war on the side of the Entente? Not to mention the fact I find it highly implausible for anything bound for Germany to have passed trough the Romanian controlled section of the Danube, especially foodstuffs.

Also, about 135 ships of various sizes had their cargo confiscated by the British monthly in 1916, and as may of 800000 German civilians are known to have died from starvation in the last three years of the war. Put two and two together, and you get…

I don't remember making any statement about medical supplies, but I must tell you they lacked on both sides of the front, because the medical facilities that, before the war were at least adequate if not sufficient, were now under tremendous strain. And indeed, it's the Germans that managed to get the best medical services of the war, partly because of their better organization and the quality of their medical staff.

Like I said, he had a problem with the US Congress. Unless Congress agreed that the country should go to war, any action from his part would have been seen as highly suspect and inappropriate, and nothing would have been more stupid than try to prepare the American economy for the conflict before an official stance was drawn up, as it would have been a dead give away on his intentions to everybody, especially the Germans.
Oh, and by the way, his name is actually “Woodrow”.

First off: the Americans were used as cannon fodder pretty much like any other infantryman of WW1, as they were made to charge into the mouth of machine and large calibre guns.
Secondly: it was by sheer number that any breach would have been obtained on the Western front. It’s not as much 10000 men against 5000, it’s the notion of 1000 men with guns against a lot less men with guns. Since any man has an average of 2 arms that can hold only one rifle, you can begin to see how a number advantage can swing the tide of war your way…
Thirdly: I suppose that by “banzi” you actually mean “banzai”, a Japanese word literally meaning “ten thousand years of life”, that would have been used a cheer to express exuberance and as such would have been translated "Long life!" or "Hurrah!” It is improper to associate it with suicidal attacks just because Japanese soldiers had a habit of shouting "Tennouheika Banzai!"(天皇陛下万歳!) or “Long Live the Emperor!” before performing such acts… If I chose to crash my airplane onto an enemy battleship and shouted “Traiasca Romania!” while doing it, would that make it a “traiasca” or a “Romania” attack?
But back to the subject at hand… You can’t be serious!
Romania had managed to raise an army of 23 divisions, or as much as 643,000 poorly trained, poorly equipped troops, and the Central Powers had as much as 39 divisions (9 divisions in the Bulgarian-German-Turkish group, the rest German and Austrian) and even if those weren’t all battle hardened troops, and we had the help of 12 Russian Divisions (out of the grand total of 136 the Tsarist Army comprised) you can’t possibly suggest we had a distinct number advantage over the Central Powers…
As for the overwhelming theory… Well, that worked all right on the Eastern Front in WW2, when the Russians attacked the Romanian forces at the Don Bend... However, Romania had by no means a big enough force to sustain this kind of warfare, and especially this kind of casualty rate, despite its losses in WW1 being of at least 74% of all the men mobilised (535,706 including wounded out of 800,000 mobilised by the end of the war), third highest ratio after that of Russia and France. (By comparison, the Germans got 64.9%, with 7,142,558 killed or wounded out of 11 million soldiers)

Also, I agree with the rest of the message concerning the American casualties, and how after the initial disasters thay got the hang of it and managed to get their own casualty rate down.

This post has been edited by Wings_of_wrath on June 07, 2006 11:04 am