USA in World war one
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Modern History
Forum Discription: World History from 1918 to the 21st century.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=33351
Printed Date: 13-May-2024 at 01:51
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: USA in World war one
Posted By: Azita
Subject: USA in World war one
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2013 at 07:42
|
I mentioned some points in another thread regarding the Us involvement in World war one. Here are some points for discussion if you care to do so. The US loaned Britain some $10bn, $8.7bn Britain then loaned to her allies. US trade with Germany between 1900 - 1914 was between $1bn and $2bn each year U.S. exports to Europe rose from $1.479 billion dollars in 1913 to $4.062 billion in 1917 Soon after the war began Britain, France, and their allies set up a naval blockade of Germany and Austria. Even food was contraband. The Wilson Administration complained bitterly. In 1917, the U.S. Congress gave U.S. citizenship to Puerto Ricans so they could fight the war. When the US 1st, 2nd, 26th and 42nd divisions arrived in 1917 they went to the Lorranie region of French to learn the basics of soldiering. Many did not even have rifles. Only in January 1918 were they sent to the trenches and that a quite sector, there to train in trench warfare, this was by the French 47th Chasseur Alpine Division. Pershing had sent single battalion at a time to the "front line" for experience. For 10 days at a time, 3 US soldiers were killed. American industry could not (initially) retool for production of planes, tanks or heavy guns. These were supplied by the French and British. Of the 3,500 heavy guns the AEF had in France 477 were American made.( and only 130 of those were actually used) The AEF was armed almost exclusively with French Machine guns and rifles until July 1918, when the BAR came into service. The Americans were NOT British/French allies, and initially refused to amalgamate their troops with them. March 21st 1918 the German big push at the Somme failed ( just) with horrific casualties on both sides. The US army did nothing to assist the British, A division was sent to replace a French Division from a quiet sector, that HAD gone to aid the British. In April 1918 The US held a quiet sector in St.Mihiel, the Germans attacked, the Americans performed so badly Pershing was infuriated. The http://www.roangelo.net/angelo/#Meuse-Argonne - Meuse-argonne offensive was the largest U.S. engagement. It began 26 September 1918 and ended 11 November 1918. In the three weeks fighting, the battle deaths of Americans numbered 18,000, a daily average of about 1,000 The USA was only involved in heavy fighting for 110 days Total casualties: USA 205,690. France 4,266,000 Britain 1,663,435
Total Dead: USA 116,708 France 1,397,800 Britain 886,939 I don't denigrate in ANYWAY the bravery of the US troops, the suffering and misery they were subjected too was horrific. As for
I lived and worked in Belgium for some time, I suspect I visited these cemeteries far more times than your good self. I was and will always be very moved. ------------- I did never know so full a voice issue from so empty a heart: but the saying is true 'The empty vessel makes the greatest sound'. |
Replies:
Posted By: Azita
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2013 at 07:46
|
Oh why do i seem to have 2 embedded links for ipads!!!!! Not my doing i assure you. ------------- I did never know so full a voice issue from so empty a heart: but the saying is true 'The empty vessel makes the greatest sound'. |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2013 at 09:44
|
What is the source your using here? ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Azita
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2013 at 10:44
|
Aside from my own MA studies. Professor John Ramsden Professor Timothy Taylor Professor Niall Ferguson Professor David Stevenson The teaching company The modern scholar Wikipedia And a few other lectures and courses i have on my computer. If members were interested i have some of these works in PDF format. Can i post files?
------------- I did never know so full a voice issue from so empty a heart: but the saying is true 'The empty vessel makes the greatest sound'. |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2013 at 10:53
|
Send RC an example of said link viz pm. If he approves...then your best bet is to either insert same link, when appropriate, to thread content or to establish a nexus to your comments in the thread. Or start a thread in the generic sub forum identifying it as a depository for info-links-sources etc on a specific subject. ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2013 at 13:04
|
Azita, some points: Well, that was part of it. But it was more closely related to the defense of the Panama Canal and came as a result of lobbying on the part of the Island's pro-American parties. No Puertorrican units served in Europe in WWI. Your: " The Americans were NOT British/French allies, and refused to amalgamate their troops with them." Untrue: Several Black American regiments were placed under French command shortly after their arrival and were well regarded by the French. Also, the Second American Corps (27th and 30th Inf Divs) was paired with the Australian Corps for the assault on the Hindenburg Line in 1918, serving under General Monash, an Australian General. (Source for the latter: "With Guts and Bayonets" Yves Fohlen, Publishing Services press, 2001) Also, troops were generally not"amalgamated" in WWI. Each nation had its assigned sectors and it forces generally fought in those sectors. Your "The AEF was armed almost exclusively with French Machine guns and rifles until July 1918, when the BAR came into service." True: The Lewis machingun had been invented by an American (as had the Maxim/Vickers), but the Chief of Ordnance despised and loathed the inventor and did everything to block its adoption. The result was that American forcesgenerally used inferior French light machineguns. Your: The US army did nothing to assist the British, A division was sent to replace a French Division from a quiet sector, that HAD gone to aid the British. Again, the "Guts and Bayonets" book above. Obviously your source erred. The idea to pair the Aussies and American came from the British Fourth Army, GEN Henry Rawlinson. Oh, you forgot to mention that the great majority of American dead died from Influenza, and not combat.
------------- Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2013 at 14:04
| ...became super power. |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2013 at 19:17
|
There were also American pilots who flew under French command: the Lafayette Squadron
------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2013 at 20:51
|
Nick, while your post is correct on its face the Americans in the Lafayette squadron were legally members of the French Air Force, subject to all their laws,etc. Their status was no different from Americans enlisted in the Foreign Legion, i.e., Cole Porter. They were thus part of the French effort, and not the American one. ------------- Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì |
Posted By: TITAN_
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2013 at 13:56
| I guess we all agree that in WW1, US aid came to Europe just a few months before the end of the war... |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 04-Mar-2013 at 19:07
True, but they still played a vital role by overwhelming the Germans ------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Azita
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2013 at 07:29
That is of course undoubted. DO you consider the "method" that the USA achieved this honourable? Or do the ends justify the means? Nick, i thought i had demonstrated that in fact militarily the USA were NOT vital in the defeat of Germany. ------------- I did never know so full a voice issue from so empty a heart: but the saying is true 'The empty vessel makes the greatest sound'. |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2013 at 10:03
|
For evaluation and research efforts about American prescence and contributions, see: Ions, Edmund, Woodrow Wilson - The Politics of Peace and War (1977). Kennedy,
David, M., Over Here: The First World War and American Society (1980). http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/dwyer3.html - http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/dwyer3.html http://millercenter.org/president/wilson/essays/biography/5 - http://millercenter.org/president/wilson/essays/biography/5 http://www.loc.gov/rr/main/ww1/books.html - http://www.loc.gov/rr/main/ww1/books.html
------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: Mountain Man
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2013 at 10:50
|
" The Americans were NOT British/French allies, and initially refused
to amalgamate their troops with them." It wasn't a question of being an ally; it was issues about who would command that got in the way. Given the horrendous track record of the French, American commanders were reluctant to be commanded by the French generals. Can't say I blame them. The French army, after all, was mutinying over the staggering casualty rates that yielded nothing. A great deal of effort has been given to pointing out that America came in during the final days of the war, and implying that we were therefore not supportive, or that we somehow didn't "measure up". Some points that need to be kept in mind: 1. It wasn't our war in the first place; therefore, we were under no obligation whatsoever to get involved at all. 2. Woodrow Wilson ran on an isolationist platform, and he risked angering the American people, still very isolationist, by dragging them into a foreign war they did not want. 3. Unless there were clairvoyants everywhere with crystal balls, no one knew at the time when the war would end. It could have gone on much longer for all the Allies knew, which was why the French and Britsh were so desperate to bring in America, a source of fresh bodies for the meat grinder. 4. The blame for the staggering losses and poor results lies entirely with France and Britain, nations mired in outmoded tactics and unable to adapt to the realities of the new, modern warfare. The inability of the Allies to defeat Germany on two fronts and despite a crippling naval blockade is a damning indictment of their failures, not America's. There is a classic statement that bears remembering and repeating: "The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same things over and over again and expecting to get different results" Millions and millions of fine young men were lost because of the sheer insanity of the French and British leadership. And although America came late to the war, American soldiers performed admirably, winning not just battles but the admiration of the French and British soldiers as well. But few stop to realize that the reason American soldiers did so well was precisely because we were not a part of the stagnant military thinking of the European armies, and were therefore able to adapt to the new technologies better. We did not have to un-invent the wheel in order to re-invent it., Without American intervention, WWI would have dragged on a lot longer, and probably would have collapsed with all sides unable to continue due to the losses and the sheer costs. However, a continuing stalemate would most likely have led to a settlement other than the disgraceful Treaty of Versaille, and might have avoided WWII in the end. So Britain and France sowed the seeds for their own involvement in a second World War by demanding the entrance of America. As the Chinese so elegantly put it; "Be careful. You may get what you wish for." ------------- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
Posted By: Azita
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2013 at 11:47
|
if Britain and France were so inept, why did the usa get their troops trained by the French in their tactics? Wilson sat back , made the Usa rich on the war, complained the Usa couldn't trade with Germany then when it was clear who would win the war, jumped in with his untrained ill equipped army to get a seat at the big table, which he then ran away from. How well would you access the Us troops performance In April 1918 at St.Mihiel? ------------- I did never know so full a voice issue from so empty a heart: but the saying is true 'The empty vessel makes the greatest sound'. |
Posted By: Mountain Man
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2013 at 13:56
When evaluating America in WWI we must remember at all times that America never wanted to be in that war in the first place. When Wilson reluctantly agreed to take America into the war in defiance of the will of the America people, there was a great deal of catching up to be done before we could even consider getting started. We did quite well under the circumstances. ------------- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
Posted By: Azita
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2013 at 09:44
So we agree then that the usa sent untrained troops to fight in the war which was one of the points i made.
but this thread is about america.
so the usa did sit back and watch whilst making money, again that was my point
i have, and you are correct in what you say, but THIS thread is about america.
So the usa did use the war to make profit, whilst millions died.
So why was Pershing so angry then?
This thread is about the usa
Agreed, america just wanted to profit from the war , without having its men die. which was my point. FWIW if you start a thread about Britain & France in WW1, i would enjoy that, and i suspect agree with much of what you say regarding them. But this thread was about america. Please dont take it so personally, the large bold print is easyer to read, but i get the feeling it is an expression of anger, there really is no need. Regards Azita ------------- I did never know so full a voice issue from so empty a heart: but the saying is true 'The empty vessel makes the greatest sound'. |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2013 at 09:56
There is no appearance in screenplay without former predictive end Azita.Screenplay writers have been main "actors" in history till it's beginning.Names are those we are missing here.  Guessing game is your topic here.Let us guess it! |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2013 at 12:00
|
''So we agree then that the us sent untrained troops to fight in the war which was one of the points i made.'' No..... the following is what you posited. ''if Britain and France were so inept, why did the us get their troops trained by the French in their tactics?'' _______________________________________________________________________________________ The difference for the amateur is subtle, Misleading and generally or deliberately leads to revisionist efforts and presentation, based on a desire to support a prior bias or agenda. Not for the professional military historian or Combat Arms Officer however. And the answer is obvious; presuming; you did any research on the recent, prior WW1, operational record of US forces. You should probably begin with post ACW and concentrate on the Indian Campaigns. And then the expansionism of US interests in the Cuba and Puerto Rico campaigns during the Spanish-American War. The campaign in the Philippines. US Marine operations in the 'Banana Wars' etc. Consequently the glaring and, again obvious conclusion, is that; during those most recent campaigns the tactics-doctrine were not the same. Nor was the operational capability and doctrinal concepts of mobility and manuever limted, to a damaging signficance, given the varying terrain and lack of use of extensive field fortifications. Even though, in certain circumstances terrain and weather, climate, disease and sanitary conditions and resultant casualties; did prove daunting. And in certain incidences the armaments and tech used. And especially by US opponents. As a result, A retraining for operations in Europe, to be more historically accurate, and in particular 'trench warfare' operations in western Europe became a necessity. Which, by Americans, had not been extensively conducted since the ACW...and developing doctrine had subsequently avoided for mobility and non static operational concepts. That those on the scene practicing it; would become trainers needs no further qualification. Whether they were correct doctrinal and tactical concepts is another thread. To assume US forces were not trained however in the standard doctrine and tactics of the day insofar as their military experience had developed, in the theaters in which they operated, is insulting to the force standardization efforts of the day. Thus your conjecture-statement that they were not trained, which by inference, includes; basic soldier skills, drill, marksmanship, and the use of combined arms operations, engineering operations, use of artillery and the ongoing development of air assets is false. Why? Because your overgeneralizing...in an effort to support your premise. Inadequate research is no apologia. But an objective comparative analysis of the force operational record is. You posed: ''How well would you access the Us troops performance In April 1918 at St.Mihiel?'' He responded. He then further gave you examples of excellent performance viz ''But how would you evaluate Belleau Wood? The Marne? Cantigny?''. You attempted counter with: ''This thread is about the usa''. And? Those fights included US Troops. Consequently your either avoiding his contention that their performance was good, given the short time they were in theater and also as a result of retraining in allied and conventional theater operational doctrine; all the while maintaining their own concepts of unity of command, mobility and non static ops where practicable......or you should review your history. Either way once again your anti-americanism bias is showing. Why? 1. ''Because your overgeneralizing...in an effort to support your premise. 2. ''Inadequate research is no apologia.'' 3. '' The difference for the amateur is subtle. Misleading and generally or deliberately leads to revisionist efforts and presentation based on a desire to support a prior bias or agenda. ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: Azita
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2013 at 12:19
Forgive me , i genuinely don't understand you here. ------------- I did never know so full a voice issue from so empty a heart: but the saying is true 'The empty vessel makes the greatest sound'. |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2013 at 14:25
|
Tell us their names Azita,"countries" are their alibis!There are always alphas that decide "in the name of God".They invented Divide et impera to rule that way.(i am not convinced still about planet's name where they came from of course!) |
Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2013 at 19:09
|
Medenaywe, are you saying that Hollywood war films are the reason the Americans beleive they won WWII singlehanded? ------------- Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains! |
Posted By: Mountain Man
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2013 at 00:38
No, we agree on nothing except your dislike for America, and your annoying habit of cherry-picking history to support your dislike. So far you have slandered my nation repeatedly with your innuendos and allegations, and offered zero proof despite numerous requests that you provide, whch means you have no proof and therefore nothing further worth discussing. You didn't even know that the names I gave you - Belleau Wood, et al, were American actions during WWI; you actually told me that I should stick to talking about America, when I was talking about America all long and you didn't even know it. Game, set and match. We through here. ------------- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2013 at 00:41
|
Dunno about that...most young gen 4xers Amerikans don't know a damn thing about WW2; let alone WW1. Cosequently it's extremely doubtful they believe it was won 'single handed' by the USA. ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: Mountain Man
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2013 at 00:43
It probably has had a lot to do with it. Hollywoody has a very narrow view of history, and although the film industry has been accused of many things over the years, they have never been accused of having much interest in historical accuracy. Our educational system isn't blameless in this, either. History mostly teaches us about America's role in the various wars, will either overlooking or downplaying the roles of other nations. That being said, America was a major contributor to the victories in WWII, something largely left out of the "histories" taught by other nations. Remember U-571? Too bad I'm done with college - your idea would make a terrific thesis.  ------------- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
Posted By: Azita
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2013 at 03:50
Why does it annoy you? And i dont dislike the USA, just some of its history, IS concentrating on a specific event in history cherry picking then? if so we all do it.
It is only slander if is not true. As for proof I did quote my numerous sources, did you check them out? Tell you what, i have 4 lectures in PDF format, can i email them to you?
Sorry you are correct, i didn't even bother to check as I was so sure you were on a justification by criticism rant, my mistake, i apologise.
Giving up? Without disproving my original comments. shame. PLEASE don't keep getting so upset, its a history forum, as such do YOU consider I should NOT discuss American history? Regards Azita ------------- I did never know so full a voice issue from so empty a heart: but the saying is true 'The empty vessel makes the greatest sound'. |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2013 at 08:40
Iraq Gold Hollywood did before invasion on Iraq!You can follow American "propaganda" on movies and predict what does follows next also! Secrecy on highest level they have.It is a good recruitment toy,movie |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2013 at 09:50
|
Why does it annoy you?He's a big guy.... he can answer for himself. But it's annoying because it's obvious and amateurish and you have a known track record on other venues for this stuff. And in many cases, as far as I'm concerned, has proven to be inaccurate or deceptive. Argumentative and repetitive for no reasonably significant purpose and quasi-inflammatory. That's my member response. My Mod response is: It's getting close to a Coc violation as a hidden form of trolling and anti-nationalism. So my recommendation is: you improve on your semantic representation of your bias. Or suffer the consequences.If that's not clear enouigh....PM the Admin-owner for clarification.
------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2013 at 11:34
|
WWI began in 1914. Even those who were alive and present at the time had a hard time figuring out why and how the war started.
The US was a quiet inward looking society at the time. We had 2-3 years of watching what looked like Europe losing it's mind. The US was isolationist with good reason. It was only after the violence started to effect us via "unrestricted subamarine warfare" that Wilson was able to bring us into it.
First hand experience with the carnage was elemental in the extreme isolationist views prior to WWII. This was expressed in the press with the phrase "No more involvement in Europe's wars".
In short, in 1915 we in the US wanted no parts of Europe's "Insanity".
------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2013 at 11:46
|
Officially the name Belleau Wood, no longer exists. The French officially changed the name to-
Bois de la Brigade Marine.
------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2013 at 11:59
|
On the subject of training, the US forces were trained to aim at individual targets. [The US was largely rural, most of the men were used to hunting with a rifle at long range]
The German troops were trained to put down a field of fire, not aiming at a particular target. When the Germans first attacked the Marine positions at Belleau wood, they were driven back by chillingly accurate rifle fire at 800 yards. And with, I might add, the very accurate Springfield 1903 rifle, made in the US.
I realize that making up stuff is more fun than sticking with actuality, but when it comes to stuff like this, get it right.
------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2013 at 12:12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtiz4YJKc9o - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtiz4YJKc9o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUOgI20kct4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUOgI20kct4  ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: Azita
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2013 at 13:15
could you tell me what rifle the US 27th Division were issued? or perhaps what the US 369th, 370th, 371st and 372nd regiments where issued? ------------- I did never know so full a voice issue from so empty a heart: but the saying is true 'The empty vessel makes the greatest sound'. |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2013 at 13:23
|
To my knowledge there were 2 rifles issued, an American manufactured version of the Enfield and the Springfield 1903.
The Browning MA1917 water cooled replaced the French Chaut Chaut.
The sidearm issue was the Colt 1911 Cal. 45. It has stopping power, the Wembly just looked good.
------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2013 at 13:41
|
http://www.history.army.mil/books/Lineage/M-F/index.htm - http://www.history.army.mil/books/Lineage/M-F/index.htm For general descriptions of armaments and vehicles, aircraft and ships in theater; see: http://www.militaryfactory.com/world-war-1/weapons.asp - http://www.militaryfactory.com/world-war-1/weapons.asp
------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2013 at 15:28
|
CV, the first 2 links are dead. ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2013 at 18:23
Strange. I can get them at will. Well they are good links giving a good history on the 27th ID. Try working around them by going to the 'New York State Division of Military and Naval Affairs: Military History.' Once there search for the '27th Division world War One'. My apologies to all concerned. For info on the other regiments see: http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/detached.htm - http://www.worldwar1.com/dbc/detached.htm http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/192-93rd-infantry-division/ - http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/192-93rd-infantry-division/ http://www.history.army.mil/topics/afam/93div.htm - http://www.history.army.mil/topics/afam/93div.htm Torrence, Gerald. Men of Bronze: African American Soldiers valor and sacrifice made history on the battlefields of World War I. Armchair General Magazine (Vol.VIII Issue 2 – May 2011). p.42 ------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |
Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2013 at 23:21
|
Red Clay, be careful in presuming that most of the AEF was armed with the M 1903 Springfield. I've recently seen an article that claims the rifle of three quarters of the AEF was the M 1917 Enfield, and that this was the rifle that Alvin York used. As I recall the old Gary Cooper movie, it was a M 1903 Springfield, but I didn't take into consideration that in the 1930s, when many such movies were made, the M-1903 Springfield was the standard rifle of the U.S. Army. Azita's finally reading his histories, and cherry picking the Black units issued French weapons and equipment, which undercuts his original claim that American troops were not allies and we never supported either British of French commanders in the field. Also, I'm not so sure how quiet we were. We were in and out of Nicaragua between 1909 and 1933. I believe we hung their president in 1912, We landed troops in Verzcruz, Mexico, where Dugout Dougie tried to get himself a Medal of Honor in 1914. Smedly D. Butler received a Medal of Honor for his actions in Haiti in 1915, which we occupied that year. In 1916 we moved into the Dominican Republic, and closer to home, if farther from Washington, we sent Pershing into Mexico to punish Pancho Villa for an attack on Columbus, New Mexico by elements of his armies. Not to mention that the Cavalry had been operating along the border to secure it from such raids for some time prior to that, and remained on the border until WWII.
------------- Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2013 at 00:49
|
It seems as if it's thought that the US should have entered WWI in 1915. Why? To repeat my above post, we, the US watched Europe piss away an entire Generation in 2 years. A substantial portion of the population wanted to stay out of it. Why not stand off, and deal with both sides? We had a perfect model in Britain during our Civil War.
Azita is partially right about Wilson bringing the US into the war, I say partially, because she distorts his motivations.
Let me make this clear, I hold Wilson to be the worst thing that happened to the US since the Civil War. But not for his handling of the War.
Misguided, Quixotic perhaps, but sincere in his effort. He was an idealist. He was appalled at the loss of life, and in his mind wanted to outlaw war. He was also very sick, and his health started to fail him when he needed his strength most. He didn't run away, his campaign for the 14 points sapped his strength to the point of exhaustion. It's an accepted fact now, that for the later months of his Admin. Mrs. Wilson ran the ship.
I can produce many sources for all of this. Azita, I despise Wilson for the Racist sob he definitely was, but history is history, and in it's best and most useful form is agenda free and influences balanced and controlled.
Otherwise, it's just a random collection of rumor and anecdotes.
------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2013 at 01:16
My exact statement was-
To my knowledge there were 2 rifles issued, an American manufactured version of the Enfield and the Springfield 1903.
I only left out the M1917 desig. Hey, some of the rear and support troops were toting the Kragg 1898. I'm aware that the declaration of war caught us completely unprepared. The 1903 was adopted as the standard rifle for the Army in 1904, there just wasn't enough of them in 1917.
With a couple exceptions, we tended to limit our activities to the Western Hemisphere, and on a scale dwarfed by WWI
And you don't think that the Zimmerman Letter had as much to do with Pershings presence as Pancho Villa?
------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Azita
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2013 at 05:16
Cherry picking or not, you agree that The French supplied the US with rifles that was simply my point.
NOT allies, were "associate powers"
did not say this, I said "initially" the USA refused to amalgamate troops BTW has anyone looked at the works of the 4 leading WW1 historians i named? Has anyone read their works? As i have said i can supply the lectures i drew my comments from.
I would have thought the Northern states would be VERY grateful that Britain did NOT Join the war, with the South ------------- I did never know so full a voice issue from so empty a heart: but the saying is true 'The empty vessel makes the greatest sound'. |
Posted By: Ollios
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2013 at 02:34
|
What is the exact ending date of WW1? Do you accept the date of Armistice with Germany(1918) as the eand of the war? or peace agrements. The last one was "Treaty of Sevres"(1920). However it didn't actualize. The war had been contiuning until Treaty of Lausanne was signed in 1923. Turkey, according to Sevres Treaty  European(and also USA) powers sent their troops to make it real. Occupation of Turkey  During the years between 1918-1923, nearly 20 USA battle ship was in Ottoman territorial waters. The names of them are here: http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrk_Kurtulu%C5%9F_Sava%C5%9F%C4%B1_ve_ABD - http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrk_Kurtulu%C5%9F_Sava%C5%9F%C4%B1_ve_ABD (Turkish wikipedia-Turkish Independence War and USA)  Amercan and Greek soilders in Bandırma (1920)  US ship was located near the sultan's palaca in Istanbul (1920) and also USA destoyers bombed Turkish city:Samsun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Samsun - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Samsun ------------- Ellerin Kabe'si var, Benim Kabem İnsandır |
Posted By: lirelou
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2013 at 10:50
|
In re: "The French supplied the US with rifles that was simply my point." Then what was the point of your poorly stated point? Lets see, the U.S. manufactured hundreds of thousands of rifle in WWI, and armed three quarters of the AEF with the American Enfield, and the remaining quarter with 1903 Springfields. Several regiments of African-American troops fighting under French command were issued French rifles. Did the French do so because American manufactured rifles were inferior? Or did they do so because arming U.S. troops under their command greatly simplified re-supply?.If you deduced the former, or drew the conclusion that the Black troops had arrived in France sans fusils, then you were mistaken. All you have to do is consider what it would have taken the French military supply system to purchase relatively minor quantities of .30 calibre (30-06) rimless rounds for the few American regiments under their command, versus siimply re-issuing them French rifles chambered for the 8 x 50mm rimmed cartridge which the majority of French rifles and machineguns used. (Not to mention the fact that the French, bien sur, considered their cartridge to be the superior performing one.) Again, what was your point? You are correct in that the U.S. entered the war as an "Associated Power", which merely means we were not formally members of the Entente. Are we beating to death an obscurity? I subscribed to the French history journal "Historia" for many years and never saw American troops described as the "associated power soldiers". They were always listed as among the Allies. I'm sure the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were more particular in their documents, but the French public missed the distinction, judging from the banners in the streets. The arrival of U.S. troops was a major boost to the morale of the French public.
------------- Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì |
Posted By: medenaywe
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2013 at 10:52
|
No matter what do you thing about it Olios,USA stood behind Turkey,part that left behind Great Empire.All other combinations could have led toward bigger disaster for Turkey."Appetites" of others were greater than Empire had had to give.Russia on Bosporus?France&Germany&Britain influence decreased after it."Too many cooks spoil the broth"! |
Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2013 at 11:23
I would have thought the Northern states would be VERY grateful that Britain did NOT Join the war, with the South You admit then, that Britain sat back and supplied both sides, and profitted handsomely. ------------- "Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces". Unknown. |
Posted By: Ollios
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2013 at 04:18
*USA never was supportive against young Turkish Rebuplic or Ottoman Empire. They didn't really fight but as I posted before they were not exactly neutral. *Russia on Bosphorus is not a option. Russia has already collapse in that time (1917 revolution). Indeed, death of many French-English soilders(Crimea War) who died for Ottomans (and of course own benefits), they wouldn't easily let the russians take the Istanbul. *Still today's US-TR relationship is just based on obligation for benefits. ------------- Ellerin Kabe'si var, Benim Kabem İnsandır |
Posted By: Mountain Man
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2013 at 16:59
Was there any specific reason why America should have been supportive of the Ottoman Empire? I seem to recall that Turkey and several other nations in that region were engaged in a great deal of genocide back in the day. Why would you expect America to support national policies that went against American beliefs? What would be the pro quid pro? Has Turkey always supported American beliefs? That's an easy one to answer: No. ------------- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? |
Posted By: Azita
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2013 at 06:58
|
That phrase is very telling, almost as if im "on trial " here for daring to oppose the common American view of WW1. Have you found a small of topic way to score a point against me, instead of discussing the original topic? So the USA DID sit back in WW1 and profit from the
slaughter, and this was because the British and French did the same in the ACW?
Even though the usa did not actually want them to join the war. Ok then. YES Has this thread really come down to these type of comments? Added to these:-
Really why is it that when an american even gets a whiff of some suspected criticism they go of the deep end, casting about for any justification and misdirection then can. If you take another look at my original comments i made no personal criticism , i just point facts taken from 4 of the worlds leading WW1 historians. I have even apologised when i have got a point wrong, no other member seems to acknowledge when they are mistaken MY only personal comment was:-
Oh! and again, has anyone read the works i cited as my original sources?
------------- I did never know so full a voice issue from so empty a heart: but the saying is true 'The empty vessel makes the greatest sound'. |
Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2013 at 13:44
|
My evaluation is.... that apparently your 'getting back', in their opinions, what you attempt to 'give out'. At this point still no violations. The fact you have apologised when in grievous error is commendable...shows a possibility of willingness to learn the actual facts and objectivity...not spout revisionist twaddle. And as your not objectively qualified to determine whether...... ''Really why is it that when an american even gets a whiff of some suspected criticism they go of the deep end, casting about for any justification and misdirection then can.'' .....or casting about for justifications or misdisrection...if they were I'd warn them for trolling....that is language that's merely going to incite possible resentment or disdainment or them ignoring your theorems not interest. Your best bet? Quit sniveling over your rejections and opposition and carry on. Avoid quasi-inflammatory statements such as those id' in red above....try capitalizing the word American. For this is the world of history blogs; where qualifications and credentials and life experience and, that does include a nationalist appreciation, preferably objective, matters. Iow. that actually does mean more then just being able to pontificate an anti-American or other, bias or agenda. And if that's what their perceiving..... the burden then..... is on you..... to prove the counter not them. As for your sources? There is no automatic requirement they either examine or commend or reject them...anymore then you might theirs. Theirs might be as good or better. It is always preferable in objective examination but not a requirement...if the tone of discussion, in their opinion has gone beyond their interest. Because like it or not you are indeed "on trial " here by any and all; to determine your objectivity, your factual basis and accuracy. And, your ability to communicate your intent and theories without deliberate bias. Without directly or necessarily or purposely causing discontent and disruption and flammatory exchange on the forum that results in negative reaction. That burden is also yours. As it is for any member new or established. Or there's always the alternative...you don't like the reaction....go elsewhere and try again. Either way...your not going to succeed here as long as the opposition perceives your attitude and agendas as anti-nationalistic. So work on that tact. Not on the self described feelings of persecution.
------------- "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" S. T. Friedman Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true' |