American Lives-One million Gone!

Should America have lost One Million soldiers to bring total defeat to Germany(WWI)?

  • YES, to avoid the known ills caused from WWI..

    Votes: 1 25.0%
  • NO, the ills were bad form WWI but the world survived

    Votes: 1 25.0%
  • Other, maybe there another way..

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Don't Know, the wimp answer..

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • they should have stayed at home and mind their own business in the first place

    Votes: 2 50.0%

  • Total voters
    4
  • Poll closed .

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,738
Reaction score
4,570
Wilson feared the commies... gives us the right wing dictator or he's our "SOB" policy...

LINK: https://www.americanforeignrelation...e-great-war-and-the-bolshevik-revolution.html

President Wilson saw Bolshevism as a mistake that had to be resisted and corrected. He believed that the revolution in Russia was worse than anything represented by the kaiser, and that the Bolsheviks were a "group of men more cruel than the czar himself." A communist regime meant, according to Wilson, "government by terror, government by force, not government by vote." Furthermore, it ruled by the "poison of disorder, the poison of revolt, the poison of chaos." It was, the president believed, the "negation of everything that is American" and "had to be opposed." Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby reiterated Wilson's points when he set out the official United States policy of not recognizing the communist government in Moscow in August 1920. Colby wrote that U.S. policy was based on the premise that the "present rulers of Russia do not rule by the will or the consent of any considerable portion of the Russian people." The Bolsheviks had forcefully seized power and were using the "machinery of government … with savage oppression to maintain themselves in power." Moreover, the "existing regime in Russia is based upon the negation of every principle of honor and good faith, and every usage and convention underlying the whole structure of international law." It was, therefore, "not possible for the government of the United States to recognize the present rulers of Russia."

Snip... We back dictators...

The upheavals of World War I also led to a reevaluation of American views on right-wing dictatorships after the war. Republican policymakers rejected Wilson's criticism of autocracy and sought to back any individual or group they thought could ensure order and stability while opposing communism and protecting U.S. trade, investments, and interests. Beginning in the 1920s, American policymakers developed and institutionalized the logic, rationale, and ideological justifications for U.S. support of right-wing dictatorships that has influenced American policy ever since.

Snip... looked who we backed

American officials first articulated their emerging rationale for supporting right-wing dictatorships in response to the post–World War I events in Italy. The United States came to support the fascist regime of Benito Mussolini based on a view that there was a Bolshevik threat in Italy and that the Italian people were not prepared for democratic rule.

Snip...

This logic and rationale was quickly extended to other right-wing dictatorships, often after the overthrow of democratic governments, that were perceived to meet all of the qualifications for U.S. support: promise of political stability, anti-Bolshevism, and increased trade with the United States. The quest for order in a framework acceptable to Washington led the United States to support Anastasio Somoza Garcia in Nicaragua, General Maximiliano Hernández Martínez in El Salvador, Fulgencio Batista in Cuba, and Francisco Franco in Spain, and the Fourth of August regime in Greece during the interwar years.

You should read the rest of the article and see how we justified or how it helped us ruled parts of the world without using direct military intervention...

The LINK: https://www.americanforeignrelation...e-great-war-and-the-bolshevik-revolution.html
 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,235
Reaction score
3,477
Look waht I found need to read form the right wing CATO Institute... they agree with you.. we should have stayed out... even thou is was our loan the the new Russian government that kept them in the war... "We basically said no money no war" to the young Russian government... They would have sued for peace... but they wanted the money... so the commies come in a sue for peace because the Russian army collapsed... they get to trash Wilson. too... It is worth a read they say the pro war crowd lost credibility after the war which leads to the Isolationist of the 1930's...

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/mayjune-2014/woodrow-wilsons-great-mistake
good one, but (and here is cato cato, of course) for some reason (whatever those might be*) the author totally 'forgets' the role the oberste heeresleitung had with expediting one certain mr vladimir ilyich ulyanov to a place where he could be of use to germany.

and this endeavour certainly was no reaction to the us entering the war. for a reader not knowing their stuff mr ulyanow seems to have been in place at all times. he was not - he was in switzerland and the ohl got him to russia in time.

---

*obviously someone wants to pin the rise of communism to the democrat woodrow wilson instead of the rather rightwing ohl.
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
Look waht I found need to read form the right wing CATO Institute... they agree with you.. we should have stayed out... even thou is was our loan the the new Russian government that kept them in the war... "We basically said no money no war" to the young Russian government... They would have sued for peace... but they wanted the money... so the commies come in a sue for peace because the Russian army collapsed... they get to trash Wilson. too... It is worth a read they say the pro war crowd lost credibility after the war which leads to the Isolationist of the 1930's...

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/mayjune-2014/woodrow-wilsons-great-mistake
The bankers can fight to secure their loans but they shouldn't use other people's sons to fight their wars. I will read the link later.
Kirk's Raiders
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,738
Reaction score
4,570
he was not - he was in switzerland and the ohl got him to russia in time.
The Germans return Lenin to Russia... I think the issue is we should have let the Russians bow out of the war. I understand our motives but the best interst of the Russians was to exit the war.

*obviously someone wants to pin the rise of communism to the democrat woodrow wilson instead of the rather rightwing ohl.
I agree blaming our entry into the war to the rise of communism...
 

rittmeister

trekkie in residence
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
5,235
Reaction score
3,477
When you read it you will see it the isolationist that brought on the rise of dictators in the 20th century...
hä?

the piece states it's the interventionists - without the us disturbing the end of the world war (no numbering) there would have been no hitler to appeace in the first place.
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
When you read it you will see it the isolationist that brought on the rise of dictators in the 20th century...
The US happily supported many dictaitors and overthrow democratically elected governments in Chile, Guatemala and Iran. The US encouraged South Vietnamese generals to overthrow and assassinate the President of South Vietnam in 1963. All of those countries would of been better off with out US intervention.
Isolationist is a derragatory term. A nation can engage in normal trade and diplomatic ties with out using military force to achieve it's objectives.
Kirk's Raiders
 
Top