Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

USA in World war one
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Azita View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 13-Oct-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 162 		  Quote Azita Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: USA in World war one
    Posted: 08-Mar-2013 at 05:16
Originally posted by lirelou


Azita's finally reading his histories, and cherry picking the Black units issued French weapons and equipment,

Cherry picking or not, you agree that The French supplied the US with rifles that was simply my point.

Originally posted by lirelou

which undercuts his original claim that American troops were not allies ,


NOT allies, were "associate powers"

Originally posted by lirelou

and we never supported either British of French commanders in the field.

did not say this, I said "initially" the USA refused to amalgamate troops

Again , im not a "he"

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.

Originally posted by red clay

We had a perfect model in Britain during our Civil War.

Did Lincoln want Britain to join the war then? seem to remember that he went out of his way to prevent this, even sending aid to British textile workers.
I would have thought  the Northern states would be VERY grateful that Britain did NOT Join the war, with the South





Edited by Azita - 08-Mar-2013 at 05:21
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'.
Back to Top
Ollios View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22-Feb-2011
Location: Diyar-ı Rum
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1130 		  Quote Ollios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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 (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

 

Edited by Ollios - 09-Mar-2013 at 02:36
Ellerin Kabe'si var,
Benim Kabem İnsandır
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 26-Mar-2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 528 		  Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.


Edited by lirelou - 09-Mar-2013 at 11:05
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
medenaywe View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar
Master of Meanings

Joined: 06-Nov-2010
Location: /
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17084 		  Quote medenaywe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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"!Big smile
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226 		  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2013 at 11:23
Originally posted by red clay

We had a perfect model in Britain during our Civil War.

Did Lincoln want Britain to join the war then? seem to remember that he went out of his way to prevent this, even sending aid to British textile workers.
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.
Back to Top
Ollios View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22-Feb-2011
Location: Diyar-ı Rum
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1130 		  Quote Ollios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Mar-2013 at 04:18
Originally posted by medenaywe

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"!Big smile


*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
Back to Top
Mountain Man View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 16-Aug-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 873 		  Quote Mountain Man Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Mar-2013 at 16:59
Originally posted by Ollios

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.


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?
Back to Top
Azita View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 13-Oct-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 162 		  Quote Azita Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2013 at 06:58

Originally posted by red clay

You admit then,

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:-

 

Originally posted by lirelou

 Then what was the point of your poorly stated point?

 

Originally posted by Mountain Man

[ Game, set and match.  We through here.

 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:-

 

Originally posted by Azita

 I don't denigrate in ANYWAY the bravery of the US troops, the suffering and misery  they were subjected too was horrific. 

 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'.
Back to Top
Centrix Vigilis View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar

Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392 		  Quote Centrix Vigilis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.


Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 11-Mar-2013 at 14:11
"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'

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.