Can we put that chestnut to rest?Admiral Halsey said:You mean like after the Lusitania was sunk?
How long would it take the Admiralty to come to its senses in the face of earlier USW?
Can we put that chestnut to rest?Admiral Halsey said:You mean like after the Lusitania was sunk?
Can we put that chestnut to rest?Lusitania was nothing but a convenient excuse. Germany offering to restore Texas to Mexico was what did it...
I do. It needs to be killed regardless. No offense intended.Admiral Halsey said:You do realize I was responding to another poster who said the moment a German sub sinks a ship with US citizens aboard it then the US is going to declare war.
You mean like after the Lusitania was sunk? It wasn't American citizens being killed from USW that pushed the US into war(though it didn't hurt it) but the money being lost by American businesses from it.
Can we put that chestnut to rest?Lusitania was nothing but a convenient excuse. Germany offering to restore Texas to Mexico was what did it...
How long would it take the Admiralty to come to its senses in the face of earlier USW?
The death of 1198 passengers and crew are not a convenient excuse, eider a chestnut, it's brutal murder !
It was not the 128 Americans were among the dead,
It was the way german Captain Walther Schwieger sank a defenseless Oceanliner and not help the Survivors who died of drowning or hypothermia.
This inhuman act of barbarism, was one reason why the Americans join the War.
Actually that's because the raider they feared was the friggin' Tirpitz - a ship whose sister had, after all, blown Hood to smithereens. That's a case of a raider theoretically able to eat the entire convoy alive.That they did this tells me that SOMEBODY (Pound?) in the Admiralty had this bright idea when they ordered PQ-17 to scatter.
The death of 1198 passengers and crew are not a convenient excuse, eider a chestnut, it's brutal murder !
It was not the 128 Americans were among the dead,
It was the way german Captain Walther Schwieger sank a defenseless Oceanliner and not help the Survivors who died of drowning or hypothermia.
This inhuman act of barbarism, was one reason why the Americans join the War.
Actually that's because the raider they feared was the friggin' Tirpitz - a ship whose sister had, after all, blown Hood to smithereens. That's a case of a raider theoretically (1) able to eat the entire convoy alive. (2)
...though the brain tumor probably didn't help. (3)
That's a somewhat facetious argument - it's the same as saying that because the adult population of the US are theoretically able to be conscripted then they're all legitimate war targets.Inhuman brutality? What about nearly half a million deaths from the Blockade of Germany.
Also the Lusitania was also carrying war materials which made it a valid target. And they didn't think it was defenseless as officially it was a AMC officially
While it was true that Lusitania had been fitted with gun mounts as part of government loan requirements during her construction, to enable rapid conversion into an Armed Merchant Cruiser (AMC) in the event of war, the guns themselves were never fitted. However, she was still listed officially as an AMC
1) Yes. Assuming it could find the convoy.
2) Which happened anyway. Old battleship men making old battleship judgements because they still can't get their heads around the dangers of aircraft and submarines.
3) I didn't want to sound ghoulish by bringing that up. It would be like mentioning Truman's or Reagan's senility. At least Pound had that as a legitimate excuse. General Short had none.![]()
Would it have been Roosevelt? After founding and running a competing party I'd be surprised if the Republicans just welcomed him back, especially after his splitting the vote helped Wilson win. Since Roosevelt seems to have been a supporter of Hughes I can't see him trying again but throwing his weight behind him. Although not knowing a great deal about American politics of the period I'd welcome being corrected if wrong.The 1916 presidential election would have been fought on the German question (Roosevelt/Root '16: "Hang the Kaiser!").
Would it have been Roosevelt? After founding and running a competing party I'd be surprised if the Republicans just welcomed him back, especially after his splitting the vote helped Wilson win. Since Roosevelt seems to have been a supporter of Hughes I can't see him trying again but throwing his weight behind him. Although not knowing a great deal about American politics of the period I'd welcome being corrected if wrong.
Inhuman brutality? What about nearly half a million deaths from the Blockade of Germany.
Also the Lusitania was also carrying war materials which made it a valid target. And they didn't think it was defenseless as officially it was a AMC officially
While it was true that Lusitania had been fitted with gun mounts as part of government loan requirements during her construction, to enable rapid conversion into an Armed Merchant Cruiser (AMC) in the event of war, the guns themselves were never fitted. However, she was still listed officially as an AMC
It's difficult to see both parties running Pacifist platforms in the same election cycle. YES, the GOP became very Isolationist after WWI, but it was only through the craven reversals of longstanding positions by the likes of Senator Henry Cabot Lodge that this happened.
In 1916, the Republicans were very much the party of Interventionism. I doubt that Teddy throws his hat in in 1916 though. Not after the humiliation of 1912. And Wilson showed that he had no problems with picking up the sword when it came time for him to do so. After all, OTL Congress DoW'ed the Central Powers just a few months after Wilson started his second term.
It's difficult to see both parties running Pacifist platforms in the same election cycle. YES, the GOP became very Isolationist after WWI, but it was only through the craven reversals of longstanding positions by the likes of Senator Henry Cabot Lodge that this happened.
That, & what it contained, was undoubtedly the proximate cause, not Lusitania: it's not like USG could admit they'd read the Telegram, nor how.Simon said:Rather than unrestricted submarine warfare the main factor seems to have been the Zimmerman telegram.
IMO, the issue is, what does the U.S. do in response to USW? The Germans had been meddling in the U.S., & Mexico, for awhile before ZT, with the aim of diverting U.S. efforts from aiding the Entente. If the U.S. provides more aid to the Entente due to USW (which seems likely, tho I'm by no means expert), it seems likely also the Germans will increase efforts to distract the U.S.--& we're back to ZT (by another name...).Simon said:Now Zimmerman actually mentions in it that Germany is going back to unrestricted submarine warfare, so if for some reason they were desperate enough to go back to it in 1916 do people think they would also make an approach to Mexico? There's also the question of even if they did of whether Gottlieb von Jagow, Zimmerman's predecessor as foreign minister for Germany, would be silly enough to admit it to the press or not.
A repeat of the election of 1912 would be crazy.
That, & what it contained, was undoubtedly the proximate cause, not Lusitania: it's not like USG could admit they'd read the Telegram, nor how.Lusitania was a convenient cover.
IMO, the issue is, what does the U.S. do in response to USW? The Germans had been meddling in the U.S., & Mexico, for awhile before ZT, with the aim of diverting U.S. efforts from aiding the Entente. If the U.S. provides more aid to the Entente due to USW (which seems likely, tho I'm by no means expert), it seems likely also the Germans will increase efforts to distract the U.S.--& we're back to ZT (by another name...).
It's harder to change OTL outcomes than it may look at first....![]()
My point exactly.Mikestone8 said:Lusitania was ancient history by the time of the ZT.
Very possible. However, the U.S. knows perfectly well how important British & French banking is to the survival of the U.S. banking system... That being so, I can't imagine the U.S. would let them fall, credit limits or no.Mikestone8 said:Actually, US help would have drastically declined, as the exhaustion of collateral would have prevented further loans being raised, hence curtailed imports from the US.
My point exactly.
Very possible. However, the U.S. knows perfectly well how important British & French banking is to the survival of the U.S. banking system... That being so, I can't imagine the U.S. would let them fall, credit limits or no.