Over there
April 6, 2017 4:16 AM Subscribe
100 years ago today the United States entered World War I Majorities in the House and Senate supported president Wilson's call to declare war on Germany.
For Wilson and his supporters, the reasons had been building up. There was debate and opposition.
Years later, voices in favor and against the American entry.
For Wilson and his supporters, the reasons had been building up. There was debate and opposition.
Years later, voices in favor and against the American entry.
Sure, you guys did OK in World War I, but where were you for World Wars A to H? I mean really - millions of people died, and all it led to was World War Z (the worst film of them all) and ... some tedious fuckwit on the internet making a pointless joke out of confusing a roman numeral for a letter. So, uh ... yeah. Vote #i quidnunc kid, I guess :-(
posted by the quidnunc kid at 6:03 AM on April 6, 2017 [9 favorites]
posted by the quidnunc kid at 6:03 AM on April 6, 2017 [9 favorites]
I think Woodrow Wilson was our last terrible Democratic President. Racist, initiated the Palmer Raids, promised to keep America out of war and then plunged straight in. He approached post World War I with idealism but let (or couldn't stop) Europe from carving up the Middle East and imposing war reparations. We are still feeling the consequences of the mistakes he initiated. Just think how long Trump's stupidity will outlive him.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:07 AM on April 6, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:07 AM on April 6, 2017 [5 favorites]
Garrison Keillor, "Argonne" from A Prairie Home Companion.
posted by Halloween Jack at 6:10 AM on April 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 6:10 AM on April 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
Even though it was long before I was born, I'm still nostalgic for the time when congress actually had to declare war before we sent troops off to invade other countries.
posted by TedW at 6:34 AM on April 6, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by TedW at 6:34 AM on April 6, 2017 [5 favorites]
You can watch the ceremony to commemorate the event today via Livestream.
posted by teleri025 at 6:40 AM on April 6, 2017
posted by teleri025 at 6:40 AM on April 6, 2017
Vote #i quidnunc kid, I guess :-(
I always knew you were imaginary.
posted by stevis23 at 6:47 AM on April 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
I always knew you were imaginary.
posted by stevis23 at 6:47 AM on April 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
World Wars A to H
I think some historians do consider, e.g., the Thirty Years War, and others, to be "world wars"
posted by thelonius at 6:51 AM on April 6, 2017
I think some historians do consider, e.g., the Thirty Years War, and others, to be "world wars"
posted by thelonius at 6:51 AM on April 6, 2017
For the history buffs, does Hitler ever rise to power if there had not been a WW1?
posted by Beholder at 6:57 AM on April 6, 2017
posted by Beholder at 6:57 AM on April 6, 2017
does Hitler ever rise to power if there had not been a WW1
No. WWI smashed the old empires (Tsarist Russia, Kaiserreich Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Ottoman) so thoroughly that completely new things came out of the remains. Without WWI with the US entering and the Germans losing the rest of the 20th century would have taken a dramatically different turn.
posted by graymouser at 7:16 AM on April 6, 2017 [5 favorites]
No. WWI smashed the old empires (Tsarist Russia, Kaiserreich Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Ottoman) so thoroughly that completely new things came out of the remains. Without WWI with the US entering and the Germans losing the rest of the 20th century would have taken a dramatically different turn.
posted by graymouser at 7:16 AM on April 6, 2017 [5 favorites]
As horrible as the gulf war in so many ways do take note that the 4000+ coalition total casualties would barely have been considered a "bad" day for WWI. Insane. The 1-200k+ Iraqi deaths would be "a" battle.
A book I'm reading "Lawrence in Arabia" is as much about the geopolitical issues and the oil and other characters churning the world up, it seems many were expecting a war, even eager (a glorious few months to consolidate powers, ha) by 1912/13 and no one anywhere had a grasp of change in technology, the film War Horse has an intense scene of an early battle where the cavalry makes a glorious charge across a field at dawn swords raised to route out, every single person/horse totally cut down, eliminated. Turns out folks on both side had some kind of machine gun and no one, nada, nobody had any idea of what that implied.
Beware of drones, self drivingcars tanks, and other unseen tech. Should we intervene in Syria, what could possibly go wrong.
posted by sammyo at 7:23 AM on April 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
A book I'm reading "Lawrence in Arabia" is as much about the geopolitical issues and the oil and other characters churning the world up, it seems many were expecting a war, even eager (a glorious few months to consolidate powers, ha) by 1912/13 and no one anywhere had a grasp of change in technology, the film War Horse has an intense scene of an early battle where the cavalry makes a glorious charge across a field at dawn swords raised to route out, every single person/horse totally cut down, eliminated. Turns out folks on both side had some kind of machine gun and no one, nada, nobody had any idea of what that implied.
Beware of drones, self driving
posted by sammyo at 7:23 AM on April 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
Alternative WWI history speculation: The Guardian, National Interest.
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:25 AM on April 6, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 7:25 AM on April 6, 2017 [5 favorites]
Aaaand, let's see what's on the History Channel today. From 9-10: a generic WWI documentary. From 10-4: Pawn Stars. From 4-midnight: Swamp People. Got it.
do take note that the 4000+ coalition total casualties would barely have been considered a "bad" day for WWI. Insane.
Yup. Just imagine: your previous war (Civil War, etc.) was generally fought with horses and slow loading guns. Then, all of a sudden, airplanes and chemicals. Holy fuck. No wonder it was considered the war to end all wars.
posted by Melismata at 7:47 AM on April 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
do take note that the 4000+ coalition total casualties would barely have been considered a "bad" day for WWI. Insane.
Yup. Just imagine: your previous war (Civil War, etc.) was generally fought with horses and slow loading guns. Then, all of a sudden, airplanes and chemicals. Holy fuck. No wonder it was considered the war to end all wars.
posted by Melismata at 7:47 AM on April 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
does Hitler ever rise to power if there had not been a WW1
What I have seen argued is that if the United States hadn't entered the war, thus tipping the balance in favor of the Entente, the eventual peace would probably have been much more equitable, the Central Powers not so horribly destroyed, and the ground of suffering and resentment upon which the Nazis later in fact rose would thereby not have been laid. A line of thinking that may suggest that it was the U.S., by its entry into WWI., that caused WWII, with all its horrors.
Historical causality and human behavior being as complicated, mysterious and unpredictable as they are, I am content to acknowledge a certain sense to such a counterfactual argument, without granting it the status of a historical truth.
(Also, I don't see how a failure of the U.S. to enter the war would have done anything to prevent the course of the Russian revolution. And the existence of a very large Communist country was a major condition for much of the war in the 20th century, whether as victim or international provocateur; even if Germany had emerged from WWI stronger and less badly punished than it did in fact and never succumbed to Nazism, it still would be easy to imagine that, by a slightly different logic, it would choose subsequently to go to war against the Soviet Union.)
posted by bertran at 8:01 AM on April 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
What I have seen argued is that if the United States hadn't entered the war, thus tipping the balance in favor of the Entente, the eventual peace would probably have been much more equitable, the Central Powers not so horribly destroyed, and the ground of suffering and resentment upon which the Nazis later in fact rose would thereby not have been laid. A line of thinking that may suggest that it was the U.S., by its entry into WWI., that caused WWII, with all its horrors.
Historical causality and human behavior being as complicated, mysterious and unpredictable as they are, I am content to acknowledge a certain sense to such a counterfactual argument, without granting it the status of a historical truth.
(Also, I don't see how a failure of the U.S. to enter the war would have done anything to prevent the course of the Russian revolution. And the existence of a very large Communist country was a major condition for much of the war in the 20th century, whether as victim or international provocateur; even if Germany had emerged from WWI stronger and less badly punished than it did in fact and never succumbed to Nazism, it still would be easy to imagine that, by a slightly different logic, it would choose subsequently to go to war against the Soviet Union.)
posted by bertran at 8:01 AM on April 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
No wonder it was considered the war to end all wars
Oh wait - really? I thought it was "the war to end all warts". Who, uh ... who were we fighting then? Not the Wart-People from planet Veruca-7? I dunno ... it just always seemed to me that if the whole world is going to have a war with someone, it would be with them damn Wart People. "Oh sure quidnunc there you go again razzin' on the Wart-People from outer space, maybe you should think how THEY feel for a change," I hear you say - but actually I HAVE thought about how they feel. They feel WARTY.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 8:03 AM on April 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
Oh wait - really? I thought it was "the war to end all warts". Who, uh ... who were we fighting then? Not the Wart-People from planet Veruca-7? I dunno ... it just always seemed to me that if the whole world is going to have a war with someone, it would be with them damn Wart People. "Oh sure quidnunc there you go again razzin' on the Wart-People from outer space, maybe you should think how THEY feel for a change," I hear you say - but actually I HAVE thought about how they feel. They feel WARTY.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 8:03 AM on April 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
I don't see how a failure of the U.S. to enter the war would have done anything to prevent the course of the Russian revolution.
I thought the question was about the war having happened at all, not whether the US entered it. I suspect that the three years of meatgrinder carnage preceding the Russian revolutions were part of what made them happen.
posted by Slothrup at 8:11 AM on April 6, 2017
I thought the question was about the war having happened at all, not whether the US entered it. I suspect that the three years of meatgrinder carnage preceding the Russian revolutions were part of what made them happen.
posted by Slothrup at 8:11 AM on April 6, 2017
Over here: Within days, the National Guard was patrolling the Boston waterfront for German spies (Boston being a key seaport and home to a Navy shipyard).
posted by adamg at 8:15 AM on April 6, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by adamg at 8:15 AM on April 6, 2017 [2 favorites]
does Hitler ever rise to power if there had not been a WW1
I thought the question was about the war having happened at all, not whether the US entered it.
Yeah, for this anniversary thread I was shifting speculation to 'Does Hitler come to power if the U.S. doesn't enter WWI?', a different though related question. Sorry for confusion.
posted by bertran at 8:21 AM on April 6, 2017
I thought the question was about the war having happened at all, not whether the US entered it.
Yeah, for this anniversary thread I was shifting speculation to 'Does Hitler come to power if the U.S. doesn't enter WWI?', a different though related question. Sorry for confusion.
posted by bertran at 8:21 AM on April 6, 2017
Just a reminder that PBS is running its long-promoted The Great War starting April 10th.
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:26 AM on April 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by Capt. Renault at 8:26 AM on April 6, 2017 [3 favorites]
Aftermath, Siegfried Sassoon, 1919
Have you forgotten yet?
For the world's events have rumbled on since those gagged days,
Like traffic checked a while at the crossing of city ways:
And the haunted gap in your mind has filled with the thoughts that flow
Like clouds in the lit heavens of life; and you're a man reprieved to go,
Taking your peaceful share of Time, with joy to spare.
But the past is just the same, - and War's a bloody game,...
Have you forgotten yet?...
Look down, and swear by the slain of the War that you'll never forget.
Do you remember the dark months you held the sector at Mametz, -
The nights you watched and wired and dug and piled sandbags on parapets?
Do you remember the rats; and the stench
Of corpses rotting in front of the front-line trench, -
And dawn coming, dirty-white, and chill with a hopeless rain?
Do you ever stop and ask, "Is it all going to happen again?"
Do you remember that hour of din before the attack,-
And the anger, the blind compassion that seized and shook you then
As you peered at the doomed and haggard faces of your men?
Do you remember the stretcher-cases lurching back
With dying eyes and lolling heads, - those ashen-grey
Masks of the lads who once were keen and kind and gay?
Have you forgotten yet? ...Look up, and swear by the green of the Spring that you'll never forget.
posted by corb at 8:36 AM on April 6, 2017 [12 favorites]
Have you forgotten yet?
For the world's events have rumbled on since those gagged days,
Like traffic checked a while at the crossing of city ways:
And the haunted gap in your mind has filled with the thoughts that flow
Like clouds in the lit heavens of life; and you're a man reprieved to go,
Taking your peaceful share of Time, with joy to spare.
But the past is just the same, - and War's a bloody game,...
Have you forgotten yet?...
Look down, and swear by the slain of the War that you'll never forget.
Do you remember the dark months you held the sector at Mametz, -
The nights you watched and wired and dug and piled sandbags on parapets?
Do you remember the rats; and the stench
Of corpses rotting in front of the front-line trench, -
And dawn coming, dirty-white, and chill with a hopeless rain?
Do you ever stop and ask, "Is it all going to happen again?"
Do you remember that hour of din before the attack,-
And the anger, the blind compassion that seized and shook you then
As you peered at the doomed and haggard faces of your men?
Do you remember the stretcher-cases lurching back
With dying eyes and lolling heads, - those ashen-grey
Masks of the lads who once were keen and kind and gay?
Have you forgotten yet? ...Look up, and swear by the green of the Spring that you'll never forget.
posted by corb at 8:36 AM on April 6, 2017 [12 favorites]
While the focus is on military details, there is still plenty of good demographic and political history found in HCH's 20 hours on the topic, here.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 9:11 AM on April 6, 2017
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 9:11 AM on April 6, 2017
People did know about machine guns; they were in all the armies of 1914, after all. The problem is that recent major wars had given a false idea of what war would be like. The Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871 "showed" that even wars between major powers could be quick. The war was also won by the German coalition despite the French having vastly better rifles and also primitive machine guns. Time and again the Germans carried excellent French defensive position through sheer offensive spirit. They bled for it heavily, but victory justified the losses. The war also featured a very successful offensive cavalry charge against vastly superior numbers, so that cavalry advocates could go "forget your theory: we have proof that we're still relevant!".
The Russo-Japanese War again saw an outnumbered attacker carry (primitive) trench networks and (scattered sections of) barbed wire backed by a few machine guns through a willingness to attack and suffer casualties, and again a war between major powers ended quickly.
People studied these conflicts relentlessly. They just didn't realize that it the real issue wasn't as much the technologies involved as the scale of their deployment. Hell, they actually drew some of the *right* lessons from these conflicts. For instance, everyone saw how great machine guns were in the Russo-Japanese War, and acquired more for their armies; in this case, it's learning the lessons of the previous war that actually helped cause some of the difficulties of the next.
Also, no one studied in the war colleges before WWI for the absurd scenario of "what if there was an unbroken line of fortifications in depth from Switzerland to the sea?". And then as fast as people learned offensive tricks to break this scenario unprecedented in history, the other side learned defensive tricks to mitigate them. So again, it's not about "not learning", it's the exact opposite, with each side rapidly adapting to the other in the most Darwinian environment possible.
posted by Palindromedary at 9:17 AM on April 6, 2017 [4 favorites]
The Russo-Japanese War again saw an outnumbered attacker carry (primitive) trench networks and (scattered sections of) barbed wire backed by a few machine guns through a willingness to attack and suffer casualties, and again a war between major powers ended quickly.
People studied these conflicts relentlessly. They just didn't realize that it the real issue wasn't as much the technologies involved as the scale of their deployment. Hell, they actually drew some of the *right* lessons from these conflicts. For instance, everyone saw how great machine guns were in the Russo-Japanese War, and acquired more for their armies; in this case, it's learning the lessons of the previous war that actually helped cause some of the difficulties of the next.
Also, no one studied in the war colleges before WWI for the absurd scenario of "what if there was an unbroken line of fortifications in depth from Switzerland to the sea?". And then as fast as people learned offensive tricks to break this scenario unprecedented in history, the other side learned defensive tricks to mitigate them. So again, it's not about "not learning", it's the exact opposite, with each side rapidly adapting to the other in the most Darwinian environment possible.
posted by Palindromedary at 9:17 AM on April 6, 2017 [4 favorites]
99 years and two days ago Robert Prager was lynched for being German.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:21 AM on April 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by entropicamericana at 9:21 AM on April 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
The Gatling gun saw some limited use at the Battle of Petersburg during the Civil War.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:38 AM on April 6, 2017
posted by kirkaracha at 9:38 AM on April 6, 2017
Isn't Lawrence in Arabia fascinating, sammyo?
posted by doctornemo at 10:53 AM on April 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by doctornemo at 10:53 AM on April 6, 2017 [1 favorite]
One site I relied on for this post has an item today about a young FDR's role in spreading the declaration.
posted by doctornemo at 12:30 PM on April 6, 2017
posted by doctornemo at 12:30 PM on April 6, 2017
❀
posted by Ogre Lawless at 2:40 PM on April 6, 2017
posted by Ogre Lawless at 2:40 PM on April 6, 2017
I'm still nostalgic for the time when congress actually had to declare war before we sent troops off
Nostalgic?! You should be outraged! Congress still has to declare war - they just haven't done so since 1941. And "we" do not send troops off to invade other countries. Only the President does that.
posted by Rash at 6:06 AM on April 7, 2017
Nostalgic?! You should be outraged! Congress still has to declare war - they just haven't done so since 1941. And "we" do not send troops off to invade other countries. Only the President does that.
posted by Rash at 6:06 AM on April 7, 2017
100 Years Ago Today, We Entered a War as Idiots. What did we accomplish?
In 1914, our army was tiny at a time when other nations had millions available. OK, fine, but two years later we were still tiny, despite the horrific war that was then two years old, being waged around the world, though mostly in Europe. It was a war that only a fool could think would not involve us eventually. But that same year we Americans re-elected a President at least in part on the basis of his campaign slogan, "He kept us out of war."posted by homunculus at 11:11 AM on April 7, 2017 [1 favorite]
Five months after his election, Woodrow Wilson led us into war.
We were not ready. Our officers were ignorant of the realities of modern combat, and our industry had no ability or strategy to transition towards supplying an expanded military. Even our government's understanding of things like domestic train lines and schedules was absolutely pathetic. We entered the largest war yet fought in human history as babies, and that cost a huge number of lives.
I would ask you to mull on that today, to remember those who died because of the stupefying "will of the people" just over 100 years ago. I do not want a militarized America. No, I do not like the idea that we "need" a bigger fleet or more F-35s. My stomach turns at the idea of handing such tools to people who do not understand, nor have ever experienced, war. If you pray, then pray for H.R. McMaster.
« Older Should you get the guacamole on your burrito? | On (wicked?) step-mothers Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by selfnoise at 4:49 AM on April 6, 2017