Danzig |
07-18-2014 12:45 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydb
(Post 987485)
Um - no - not suggesting that at all. I was simply stating that there is precedent for casualties in an attack, prior to which were not part of the hostilities, leading eventually to involvement in a war. I had remembered that history teachers cited "unrestricted submarine warfare" as the cause of our involvment - and the Lusitania sinking the primary event of that rationale.
Having said that, Danzig's post about the Zimmerman telegram makes a much more concrete case, and the Lusitania sinking would be of lesser importance. Apparently my high school history teacher generalized a bit too much.
Independent of all this theory, I would say the opposite - we ought to steer clear of a confrontation with the Russians if we can avoid it.
PS. Good luck to you as well in Saratoga. And everyone else. Wishing our guys many big ticket winners.
|
yeah, it's a common myth, that we entered due to that boat sinking. some people started calling for us to enter due to the boat being torpedoed, but it wasn't enough to warrant entering the war.
in '17, germany felt they were on the cusp of winning, with good reason. they thought a few more months of very tough action on their part would end it.
so, after several times of them increasing strikes on shipping, only to have us make them stop, the ramped it up again. they figured by the time we got word that shipping was once again an issue, and if we tried to do anything, it would be too late.
but then the zimmerman note came to light. we'd been having issues with mexico (where pershing and patton had been, taking on pancho villa) already.
mexico would never have done what germany wanted, but it was one too many things germany had done.
we went in, turned the tide, and that was that.
i sometimes wonder, tho....what if we'd not gotten involved then? the changes to history would have been astonishing.
|