WW1 German sympathies in high US places?

[caesar novus]

I caught bits of a talk that seemed to have weighty claims about the near-alternate-history of US involvement with Germany in the last century: http://www.booktv.org/Program/10805/The+Ha...+Great+War.aspx has the video and future TV schedule. Apparently it is based on a bootleg copy of presidential correspondance whose official copy is withheld and was almost destroyed.

 

I will mention some half remembered themes to encourage some interested person to pursue it. If I have it wrong, remember that at least I have led you to the source. I am not going to pursue this because I don't yet have enough WW1 background info to sort out conflicting claims.

 

-Wilson was only president by a fluke when he declared war on Germany in WW1. He had almost lost to a nobody for his second term, and the popular Harding could have had the presidency then for the asking but for some reason bowed out.

 

-Harding was long term soul-mate to a rabidly pro German mistress (who spent part time in Berlin, tried to blackmail him into not voting for war, and joined a bunch of German mata-hari type spies outside US military camps). There was a lot of pro-German sentiment in the US, although not necessarily in Hardings case.

 

-The spying in US focused on ascertaining when the trainees would be ready to ship over, so that Germany could use all the time it could to build up the greatest possible assault and end the war before US could tip the stalemate the other way. This played out in the massive Leutendorf(sp?) attack which was almost successful if it hadn't exhausted troops from it's very progress, and left Hitler and the German populace unconvinced they had been properly beaten after their show of strength.

[Ursus]

There were plenty of people in the US - particularly of German descent - who held sympathy with Germany during WWI. After all, in the pre-Hitler era Germany was just another European country playing the Great Game. If you look hard enough on the internet you'll find pictures of pro-German rallies in the US from that era.

Edited November 5, 2009 by Ursus

[caesar novus]

There were plenty of people in the US - particularly of German descent - who held sympathy with Germany during WWI

Of course, but my point wasn't sympathies so much as acting on them... such as from a neutral or pro German US president. WW1 wasn't a battle of good vs evil with natural villains (although I gather it started mainly due to the German negotiator being sloppier and less war-averse than his counterparts in the initial diplomatic crises).

 

However as a stalemate WW1 was a powderkeg of possibilities for a fresh player such as US to make a splash on 20th century history. If it remained neutral, the US probably would have remained weak and uninfluential in the globe because gearling up for WW1 was a big learning process. Not sure about the fate of Europe... weren't many French troops in mutiny just before the Americans came?

 

It's probably unlikely that even a pro German president could have asisted the Axis side, because the British ruled/blocaded the seas. But a neutral or even weak pro Allies policy by a president other than Wilson would seem to exert a lot of leverage to change history, esp if you think of WW2 as cleaning up loose ends of WW1.

[sylla]

WW1 wasn't a battle of good vs evil with natural villains.

That seems to be an anachronic statement; arguably, for the people of the time (from any side) that's exactly what it was.

[Kosmo]

The US entered the war without serious reasons and that only strengthened later isolationism. This means that the US tipped the balance of power for the Entante but refused to keep it that way so the balance swung soon the other way.

And of course the cheap idealism of Wilson had far more devastating effects then any brutal expansionism because collective security it's a joke while his principles justified nationalism leading eventually to absurd separatism and ethnic cleansing. The man had no grasp of the complexities of ethnic relations and identities in places like Austria-Hungary.

[sylla]

The US entered the war without serious reasons and that only strengthened later isolationism. This means that the US tipped the balance of power for the Entante but refused to keep it that way so the balance swung soon the other way.

In hindsight, arguably most countries had no "serious reasons" for entering this war in the first place.

In any case, America had an obvious affinity with the UK and both countries had been de facto allies for some time.

Besides, the same as most other military powers, the US entered this war considering it was going to be a swift "back-before-Xmas" campaign for them.

And of course the cheap idealism of Wilson had far more devastating effects then any brutal expansionism because collective security it's a joke while his principles justified nationalism leading eventually to absurd separatism and ethnic cleansing. The man had no grasp of the complexities of ethnic relations and identities in places like Austria-Hungary.

Actually, the real influence of the US on the re-organization of the post-WWI Europe was extremely limited at best.

 

Wilson's idealism may have been cheap, but the centuries-long absurd separatism and ethnic cleansing in Central and Eastern Europe largely predated the Great War; in the famous words of Bismarck (1876) "The Balkans aren't worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier".

 

Besides, the cynical pragmatism of the European leaders (from any side) seems to have had no better grasp on the complexities of the ethnic relations and identities involved than the American president; just check out on the Treaties of Brest-Litovsk & Bucharest signed by the victorious Central Powers for the Eastern front (early 1918).

Edited November 9, 2009 by sylla

[caesar novus]

WW1 wasn't a battle of good vs evil with natural villains.

That seems to be an anachronic statement; arguably, for the people of the time (from any side) that's exactly what it was.

Obviously I meant WW1 didn't have such clear ethical polarization as WW2, that could motivate remote global players such as the US to put aside it's mixed allegiances and inhibitions to play war. 1930's Japan invasion of China, and Hitlers invasion of Poland etc was so over-the-top brutal and uncalled for. WW1 had more balanced moves, a little rough on Belgium and the Balkans perhaps, but more often in a tit-for-tat fashion. Meanwhile countries like Italy bargained with each side to see what rewards would come with an alliance (chunk of Austria eventually awarded to Italy).

 

WW1 seems to fiercely have that quality of how a butterfly's random movements has an expanding domino effect on bigger things. I thought this obscure book emphasized that, since it almost put Wilson out of the picture who like FDR campaigned for peace, but did all kinds of sneaky things to get into war. In hindsight, maybe it would have been best if only a very weak US participation was deployed, so that a more balanced Armistice came about. Could have easily happened, apparently.

Edited November 9, 2009 by caesar novus

[Kosmo]

In hindsight, arguably most countries had no "serious reasons" for entering this war in the first place

 

Actually most did. Austria started the war because of the state-sponsored Serbian terrorism and that it is still seen as a legitimate casus belli see NATO campaign in Afghanistan. Others were pulled into the war by treaty, moral obligation or to gain or to defend something important. US had none of these.

 

In any case, America had an obvious affinity with the UK and both countries had been de facto allies for some time.

 

That affinity did not meant much yet and there was no love between these countries after 2 wars and many crisis. There was definitely no de facto alliance between them.

 

Besides, the same as most other military powers, the US entered this war considering it was going to be a swift "back-before-Xmas" campaign for them.

 

If they believed that in 1917 after so many bloody battles and with an untrained and poorly equipped army they clearly had intelligence problems.

 

Actually, the real influence of the US on the re-organization of the post-WWI Europe was extremely limited at best.

 

The peace was based on Wilson's principles (with some unjust exceptions) but the declining US influence was largely because of US isolationism including the Senate rejection of Wilson's brainchild The League of Nations.

 

Wilson's idealism may have been cheap, but the centuries-long absurd separatism and ethnic cleansing in Central and Eastern Europe largely predated the Great War; in the famous words of Bismarck (1876) "The Balkans aren't worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier".

Bismark had a point but I fail to see yours. What separatism and ethnic cleansing in Central and Eastern Europe are you talking about? The movements against the ottomans in the Balkans?

 

Besides, the cynical pragmatism of the European leaders (from any side) seems to have had no better grasp on the complexities of the ethnic relations and identities involved than the American president; just check out on the Treaties of Brest-Litovsk & Bucharest signed by the victorious Central Powers for the Eastern front (early 1918).

 

The Europeans had an imperial logic and put little interest in making their conquests seem just but they did not have to alter the ethnic balance to justify their hold of a piece of land. Anyway, the Brest Treaty while was decried as unjust by Russian propaganda only gave lands that were not ethnically Russian and now none are part of Russia. Never heard of a Bucharest Treaty

 

Just check an ethnic map of Central Europe in 1914 and one of today and see in how many places what were then local majorities or pluralities and even minorities became 100% pure. No need to say how that happened. Of course, nationalism was not invented by Wilson but giving lands based on ethnicities and referendums gave some ideas to many people not only in Central Europe but in time everywhere. The WW1 peace treaties legitimized nationalism to an extent never before achieved.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Kosmo

[sylla]

Usus autem sum, ne in aliquo fallam carissimam mihi familiaritatem tuam, praecipue libris ex bibliotheca Ulpia, aetate mea thermis Diocletianis, et item ex domo Tiberiana, usus etiam [ex] regestis scribarum porticus porphyreticae, actis etiam senatus ac populi. 2 et quoniam me ad colligenda talis viri gesta ephemeris Turduli Gallicani plurimum invit, viri honestissimi ac sincerissimi, beneficium amici senis tacere non debui. 3 Cn. Pompeium, tribus fulgentem triumphis belli piratici, belli Sertoriani, belli Mithridatici multarumque rerum gestarum maiestate sublimem, quis tandem nosset, nisi eum Marcus Tullius et Titus Livius in litteras rettulissent? 4 Publ<i>um Scipionem Afric<an>um, immo Scipiones omnes, seu Lucios seu Nasicas, nonne tenebrae possiderent ac tegerent, nisi commendatores eorum historici nobiles atque ignobiles extitissent? 5 longum est omnia persequi, quae ad exemplum huiusce modi etiam nobis tacentibus usurpanda sunt. 6 illud tantum contestatum volo me et rem scripsisse, quam, si quis voluerit, honestius eloquio celsiore demonstret, et mihi quidem id animi fuit, 6 <ut> non Sallustios, Livios, Tacito<s>, Trogos atque omnes disertissimos imitarer viros in vita principum et temporibus disserendis, sed Marium Maximum, Suetonium Tranquillum, Fabium Marcellinum, Gargilium Martialem, Iulium Capitolinum, Aelium Lampridium ceterosque, qui haec et talia non tam diserte quam vere memoriae tradiderunt. 8 sum enim unus ex curiosis, quod infi[ni]t<i>as ire non possum, ince<n>dentibus vobis, qui, cum multa sciatis, scire multo plura cupitis. 9 et ne diutius ea, quae ad meum consilium pertinent, loquar, magnum et praeclarum principem et qualem historia nostra non novit, arripiam.

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[sylla]

Usus autem sum, ne in aliquo fallam carissimam mihi familiaritatem tuam, praecipue libris ex bibliotheca Ulpia, aetate mea thermis Diocletianis, et item ex domo Tiberiana, usus etiam [ex] regestis scribarum porticus porphyreticae, actis etiam senatus ac populi. 2 et quoniam me ad colligenda talis viri gesta ephemeris Turduli Gallicani plurimum invit, viri honestissimi ac sincerissimi, beneficium amici senis tacere non debui. 3 Cn. Pompeium, tribus fulgentem triumphis belli piratici, belli Sertoriani, belli Mithridatici multarumque rerum gestarum maiestate sublimem, quis tandem nosset, nisi eum Marcus Tullius et Titus Livius in litteras rettulissent? 4 Publ<i>um Scipionem Afric<an>um, immo Scipiones omnes, seu Lucios seu Nasicas, nonne tenebrae possiderent ac tegerent, nisi commendatores eorum historici nobiles atque ignobiles extitissent? 5 longum est omnia persequi, quae ad exemplum huiusce modi etiam nobis tacentibus usurpanda sunt. 6 illud tantum contestatum volo me et rem scripsisse, quam, si quis voluerit, honestius eloquio celsiore demonstret, et mihi quidem id animi fuit, 6 <ut> non Sallustios, Livios, Tacito<s>, Trogos atque omnes disertissimos imitarer viros in vita principum et temporibus disserendis, sed Marium Maximum, Suetonium Tranquillum, Fabium Marcellinum, Gargilium Martialem, Iulium Capitolinum, Aelium Lampridium ceterosque, qui haec et talia non tam diserte quam vere memoriae tradiderunt. 8 sum enim unus ex curiosis, quod infi[ni]t<i>as ire non possum, ince<n>dentibus vobis, qui, cum multa sciatis, scire multo plura cupitis. 9 et ne diutius ea, quae ad meum consilium pertinent, loquar, magnum et praeclarum principem et qualem historia nostra non novit, arripiam.

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[sylla]

Usus autem sum, ne in aliquo fallam carissimam mihi familiaritatem tuam, praecipue libris ex bibliotheca Ulpia, aetate mea thermis Diocletianis, et item ex domo Tiberiana, usus etiam [ex] regestis scribarum porticus porphyreticae, actis etiam senatus ac populi. 2 et quoniam me ad colligenda talis viri gesta ephemeris Turduli Gallicani plurimum invit, viri honestissimi ac sincerissimi, beneficium amici senis tacere non debui. 3 Cn. Pompeium, tribus fulgentem triumphis belli piratici, belli Sertoriani, belli Mithridatici multarumque rerum gestarum maiestate sublimem, quis tandem nosset, nisi eum Marcus Tullius et Titus Livius in litteras rettulissent? 4 Publ<i>um Scipionem Afric<an>um, immo Scipiones omnes, seu Lucios seu Nasicas, nonne tenebrae possiderent ac tegerent, nisi commendatores eorum historici nobiles atque ignobiles extitissent? 5 longum est omnia persequi, quae ad exemplum huiusce modi etiam nobis tacentibus usurpanda sunt. 6 illud tantum contestatum volo me et rem scripsisse, quam, si quis voluerit, honestius eloquio celsiore demonstret, et mihi quidem id animi fuit, 6 <ut> non Sallustios, Livios, Tacito<s>, Trogos atque omnes disertissimos imitarer viros in vita principum et temporibus disserendis, sed Marium Maximum, Suetonium Tranquillum, Fabium Marcellinum, Gargilium Martialem, Iulium Capitolinum, Aelium Lampridium ceterosque, qui haec et talia non tam diserte quam vere memoriae tradiderunt. 8 sum enim unus ex curiosis, quod infi[ni]t<i>as ire non possum, ince<n>dentibus vobis, qui, cum multa sciatis, scire multo plura cupitis. 9 et ne diutius ea, quae ad meum consilium pertinent, loquar, magnum et praeclarum principem et qualem historia nostra non novit, arripiam.

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[Kosmo]

And it gets bigger...

 

For me, a "good reason" is something that can't be solved with diplomacy and patience, excluding then almost all your quoted stuff;

Unfortunately, those politicians had different standards then you and mostly still do.

 

... regarding the US, they shared virtually all their spheres of influence with UK, especially in Latin America and the Far East. ...Do you actually mean the wars of 1776 & 1812? Check out your sources; there was a long history after that, and virtually just "love" after the American Civil War . US & UK were de facto allies at least since 1898.

My sources say that it was as best indifference and even mistrust. Can you give me some sources for these statements?

 

Again as most other military powers, the problem was not so much "intelligence" as misguided national pride; the same applied to the other later Allies, like Portugal, Rumania and Italy

Italy entered fairly early and Portugal did not play much of a part. Romania was counting on massive allied support and reinforcement to defend itself. No plans for marches on Viena or Berlin were made.

 

You seem to imply that the victorious European Allies were actually forced in any way to apply the 14 points; they weren't, period.

They used them from pure obvious opportunism, and if any of them actually believed in them, they were evidently more "brainchild" than Mr. Wilson.

Actually, they were. The most obvious example was forcing Italy to give up claims on Slovenia and Dalmatia, but there are other examples as well.

[Kosmo]

Among others; "Balkanization" is synonymous of separatism for a reason

The WW1 treaties spread an even worse kind of "Balkanization" to Central Europe and the Baltic region exactly because they were based on the right of self-determination of nations. That was my point! You're seeing the light!

 

the long history of the Gypsies is probably the best among many examples of local ethnic cleansing.

This is completely untrue. Gypsies still have a strong presence in all countries of this region and they were targeted systematically only by the Nazis. Jews and Germans are far better examples of ethnic groups that were virtually eliminated.

 

And Herr Bismarck had a point because of the timing of the quote (1876, i.e. long before 1914

Of course in 1876 wars and revolutions have started in the ottoman lands in the Balkans and Bismark's December declaration could mean that Germany had no wish to interfere with Russian war plans and the Russians attacked Turkey a few months later when the weather allowed it. And this eventually called for another British intervention to limit Russian gains.

 

No kidding ??? Let us try Wikipedia.

I was kidding (see the smiley). We learn about it in school.

That treaty could have been drafted by the Ancient Romans. It was simply imperialism, the winners annexing what they wanted without having any rights based on ethnic composition and also getting economic benefits. The Trianon Treaty on the other hand established Romania's western border giving it the lands where Romanians were a majority or the largest plurality. A vague ethnic border became a political border then a clear cut ethnic border.

[sylla]

And it gets bigger...

Usus autem sum, ne in aliquo fallam carissimam mihi familiaritatem tuam, praecipue libris ex bibliotheca Ulpia, aetate mea thermis Diocletianis, et item ex domo Tiberiana, usus etiam [ex] regestis scribarum porticus porphyreticae, actis etiam senatus ac populi. 2 et quoniam me ad colligenda talis viri gesta ephemeris Turduli Gallicani plurimum invit, viri honestissimi ac sincerissimi, beneficium amici senis tacere non debui. 3 Cn. Pompeium, tribus fulgentem triumphis belli piratici, belli Sertoriani, belli Mithridatici multarumque rerum gestarum maiestate sublimem, quis tandem nosset, nisi eum Marcus Tullius et Titus Livius in litteras rettulissent? 4 Publ<i>um Scipionem Afric<an>um, immo Scipiones omnes, seu Lucios seu Nasicas, nonne tenebrae possiderent ac tegerent, nisi commendatores eorum historici nobiles atque ignobiles extitissent? 5 longum est omnia persequi, quae ad exemplum huiusce modi etiam nobis tacentibus usurpanda sunt. 6 illud tantum contestatum volo me et rem scripsisse, quam, si quis voluerit, honestius eloquio celsiore demonstret, et mihi quidem id animi fuit, 6 <ut> non Sallustios, Livios, Tacito<s>, Trogos atque omnes disertissimos imitarer viros in vita principum et temporibus disserendis, sed Marium Maximum, Suetonium Tranquillum, Fabium Marcellinum, Gargilium Martialem, Iulium Capitolinum, Aelium Lampridium ceterosque, qui haec et talia non tam diserte quam vere memoriae tradiderunt. 8 sum enim unus ex curiosis, quod infi[ni]t<i>as ire non possum, ince<n>dentibus vobis, qui, cum multa sciatis, scire multo plura cupitis. 9 et ne diutius ea, quae ad meum consilium pertinent, loquar, magnum et praeclarum principem et qualem historia nostra non novit, arripiam. Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[Kosmo]

And it gets bigger...

It seems that is hardly needed.

As usual, we agree in far more than we differ; the same "light" seems to have been seen by both of us from long ago

 

It is Armistice Day and we indeed agree more then differ so I'll rest my case.