Why we entered WW1 - The Lost Battalion (2001) Discussion

[–] Aartjuh 19 years ago

Went in and taught em a lesson

Not true! The german army stood fast against almost the entire world for the best part of 4 years. America simply was the final push that tiped the balance in favor of the entente. Also, the germans didn't help themselfs a great deal by launching a masive offensive in march of 1918 wich kost a lot of men and material.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] biocunsumer 19 years ago

wrong war

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] qwesaf 19 years ago

Meh Germany would have lost WW2 even if the USA didn't enter, the only D-Day outcome was that russia didn't take over europe.

WW2 is not the topic here but since you mentioned it: you are wrong about Russia. Russia would have lost the war if the US wouldn't have supplied it with food, trains, trucks, boots and other war goods worth $11 billion.. The Soviet Union had roughly twice the population size of the Third Reich, but one German soldier on average killed four Soviet soldiers - more than enough differencein the kill ration to safely finish the Commmunists off. Unfortunately The US stepped in and safed the Communists shortly before their downfall and a renewed offensive in Stalingrad with material and supplies form the US drove Hitler back from the essential oil springs he tried to capture on Soviet soil. Without the needed energy supply (oil synthesis from coal wasn't able to provide enough supplies for the Wehrmacht) and the complete destruction of the German homeland from allied bombings the Wehrmacht ultimately broke down in its fight against the Russians and the Soviet Empire rose from a regional player to world dominance. As such the Soviet Empire was a making of the US, as was the following resulting cold war and 50 years of oppression of Eastern Europe.

The US together with Britain and France have been Germanys biggest historical foes. Whiel the US public might have been consisted of a large number of German immigrants and/or people general neutral in their stance, the US adminstration was traditionally always closely tied to Britain. And talking about Britain and France, both nation rose to world dominating colonial empires at a time where there was no German nation but many more or less independent kingdoms. After the French Napoleonic opression of German kingdoms was overcome and Germans began to realize that they had to unite in order to avoid further agression by the French a German nation state arose. The Brits and the French didnt like that though since the German nation suddenly overtook them in GDP and population in the late 19th century and began to challenge both countries in their role as sole world dominators. Britain and France goal was therefore to reach "balance of power" within Europe - a nice sounding term with not so nice consequences for those affected though. "Balance of power" ment basically that Germany had to be trimmed down both in power, size and population. And trimmed down it was in the 20th century over the course of 2 wars. First in WW1 it was stripped of its corn chambers in the East with a following starvation embargo to stop further growth of its population growth and in WW2 Eastern Europe was completely cleaned of Germans which had traditionally been living there for centuries. Unfortunately the French and the Brits underestimated both the US and the Soviets in WW2 and as a result they too found themselves suddenly at the buttom of the global food chain instead of at the top as they had hoped. Well, history can be ironic.

Btw there's a nice US comic book from the cold war to explain to you what happened in WW2 and how bad the situation was for the Soviets if the US hadn't supported them. Start here: http://www.authentichistory.com/images/1960s/treasure_chest/v17_12_13.html

reply

[–] smiba 19 years ago

Btw there's a nice US comic book from the cold war to explain to you what happened in WW2 and how bad the situation was for the Soviets if the US hadn't supported them. Start here: http://www.authentichistory.com/images/1960s/treasure_chest/v17_12_13.html

I think the comic tries to tell that Stalin = Communism. Its the leader, not the government-type that makes bad things in my opinion.
By the way, first U.S historical book that mentions finland as giving depression to Stalin and making piece of cake image of russia to germans.
---------------------------------------
Heroes? Only heroes are still lying there.

reply

[–] hell__yeah_ 18 years ago

"Btw there's a nice US comic book from the cold war to explain to you what happened in WW2 and how bad the situation was for the Soviets if the US hadn't supported them. Start here: http://www.authentichistory.com/images/1960s/treasure_chest/v17_12_13.html";

That Comci book is the worst piece of crap I ever seen! It's incredible how much crap some peopel think its true. "the Godless Communism". I can't belive that you can squese in so much crap and propaganda and total b******t in one comic book.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] v-nordin 18 years ago

Btw there's a nice US comic book from the cold war to explain to you what happened in WW2 and how bad the situation was for the Soviets if the US hadn't supported them. Start here: http://www.authentichistory.com/images/1960s/treasure_chest/v17_12_13.html

A bit to much of american propaganda in this comic for it to be seen as true. It has a point but it's a bit exaggerated. It's funny to see how americans think though. ^^ haha

reply

[–] Benjeru 18 years ago

That's not true either. Stalin and the USSR begged the other allied forces to open a new front because they were getting slaughtered and defeated almost in all respects.

The Germans would have eventually taken over Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow. This would have resulted in a forced peace, a bitter one at that. They would also need to cede a lot of their territories.

The USSR was lucky the other allied forces opened a new front, since the Germans had to divert their forces from the Eastern front (which was already overburdened with too few soldiers), to the Western front and thus the Eastern front collapsed.

The USSR at a huge advantage. They had lots more soldiers. The US was at the advantage. They had a lot of allies supporting them. The German's assembly lines were crumbling, their production was ever-declining at 1944.

reply

[–] qwesaf 19 years ago

"In an attempt to choke England they start unrestricted submarine warfare i.e, sinking our supply boats that headed to England."

Why exactly were your supply boats heading to England and not to Germany? And why did you have a food embargo against Germany? To sum it up: the US administration was Germany's enemy from day one, the submarine war against US supply ships was a logical step as the US was Germany's main enemy since it stood behind Britain and supplied it. It is a myth the the US was neutral in its stance and that Germany could have won over the US.

reply

[–] Col_Hessler 19 years ago

Twice the U.S. said they were neutral, but were neutral in name only. Woodrow Wilson had his mind twisted by internationalists into supporting Britain, and FDR wanted to pull the country out of the Depression, and couldn't do it without war, and Hitler wouldn't oblige him, so he maneuvered Japan into attacking.

It is NOT heresy, I WILL NOT RECANT!

reply

[–] LineOfBlackCars 19 years ago

Regarding the reason for allied victory in WW2, my dad always told me that the reason for victory was American steel and Russian blood. It's kinda sad how a lot of Americans claim that we saved the world in that war, when we really couldn't have done it without the Russians.

Mmmmmm. That is a tasty burger!

reply

[–] wwhitman 19 years ago

Pathetic huh what passes for knowledge of history these days. Some get WWI mixed up with WWII, and others naively believe the Zimmerman telegram or unrestricted U-Boat warfare was the actual reason the U. S. entered WWI on the side of the Allies. Wilson and his controllers wanted to enter WWI on the side of the British from the start of his administration, but the U.S. public would not stand for it. U.S. financiers wanted Britain to win because they had too much invested in providing munitions for the Allies and didn't want the Allies to renege on their debts.

And then there was the Balfour Declaration which promised to provide a homeland for Zionist Jews, if all the Jew bankers would get the United States into WWI on the side of Britain. And this wasn't very difficult considering Wilson was owned by Lord Rothschild, Brandeis, Untermeyer and the notorious Colonel House.

Germans and Europeans were starving from the British blockade, and the Germans were supposed to allow American ships to bring more weapons to Britain? Including the weapons laden Lusitania which Churchill as first Lord of the Admiralty in WWI put in harms way to get the U.S. involved.

And, you are right; the Eastern front between the Axis and Russia was the real war. Russia sustained the most loses and Hitler put very few men and resources in a holding action against the Americans in Italy, France and the west.

The real war was against Stalin to prevent Communist enslavement of Europe.

Few Americans know that more than three million Europeans from all over the continent swore allegiance to Hitler and joined foreign and European units fighting with the Wehrmacht against Stalin. Roosevelt's stupidity and delusions about mass murderer Stalin made it possible for Stalin to enslave most of Germany and Eastern Europe for 50 years.

reply

[–] ll254 19 years ago

wwhitman posts neo nazi filth all over the boards please ignore this fascist.

Best movie website in the world
http://www.capalert.com/capreports/index.htm

reply

[–] Herophant 19 years ago

He is right about the russian threath to the germans though. Beliving the US "won" the war is just narow minded. That would be like me - as a norwegian - claiming that we won the war becouse of the fact that our ships was vital to keep britain alive during the begining of the war. The americans did their part sure. But Russia probably caried the heavyest burden. The war was fought on their soil. Russia wasnt as close to defeat as you may belive, a quick look at the map shows it. The russans stoped the germans before Mosvka and at Stalingrad, there was a lot of russia left... In fact the russkies were holding their own before the allies launched their secound front. The english shouldt be forgotn either, only in american movies are all the soldiers dying on the beaches of france Heroic Americans....

reply

[–] robipres 18 years ago

Pathetic huh what passes for knowledge of history these days.
The Balfour declaration was given on November 2, 1917, months af ter the US enetered the war on Britain's side.
The stories about "Jewish Bankers" manipulating US President Wilson is pure anti-semitic garbage. I wonder who feeds W.Whitman his "information". And Whitman's claim to knowledge of history, how come he is so gullible to believe the propaganda fed to him?
Anyway, the film "The Lost Battalion" (shown in Israel a few weeks ago) is about an episode of World war I, not II. So the direction this discussion is just a waste of time.
R.P.

reply

[–] ArchStanton1862 17 years ago

*The stories about "Jewish Bankers" manipulating US President Wilson is pure anti-semitic garbage.*

Actually that part's legit. If you read the post he said the Balfour Declaration promised to return Palestine to the Jews if all the Jew bankers would get the United States into WWI on the side of Britain. It wasn't a straight deal like that, but it was hoped that such a declaration would stir the Jewish population in support of the allies as they were seen as being somewhat loyal to Germany. It didn't work obviously since it took some time after that for the U.S. to join up and when the war ended nobody bothered to recall past promises to a people who they no longer thought important. The man might be an idiot but you picked the one point in hisargument where he's completely right.

reply

[–] itsruf-1 19 years ago

Great quote: US steel and Russian blood. Add US money to the mix. A very intelligent and concise statement-- and very true. 9 out of 10 German soldiers were killed by Russians, not Americans or Brits.

reply

[–] djh2140-173-321740 11 years ago

One minor problem with your theory is that Germany declared war on the United States in 1941, not the other way around.

reply

[–] giwojgiwoj 18 years ago

There is probably truth behind the notion that there was no actual message sent from Germany to Mexico and intercepted by the British. More likely, the British made up that message to get the Americans to join the war. The British were going to lose that war and they needed some help.

reply

[–] nateeldredge2005 18 years ago

The sinking of the Lusitania only tipped the scales toward the United States entering the war with the Triple Entente. It was only safe to make that political decision when Wilson had the support of the American public, with their outrage directed at the Germans for the sinking. The main reason the United States went to war with Germany was not because of the sinking of the Lusitania, but Germany's repeated practice of unrestricted submarine warfare. America could have cared less about what was going on over in Europe; the war was actually benefitting the American economy because we were providing war supplies to both warring factions. It was only when Germany began sinking American convoys that the United States became indignant toward Germany's unconventional practice of warfare.

P.S. Isn't it odd how after five years of fighting Germany is forced to pay for the entire war's losses when Austria-Hungary and Serbia began the whole conflict?

reply

[–] knaveswikert 18 years ago

You also have to add into that the very active and successful British propaganda campaign to turn American Favor from Germany. Up until the start of the war most Americans sympathised with the new German state, Kaiser Wilhelm mustacios were very very popular in the United States at the time.

Germany activly attampted to avoid sinking American ships, the Lusitania was one of the few the Germans did sink, and it was indeed carrying munitions to England, but it was the wonderfully effective British Propaganda campaign which turned everything around.

note to your PS, yes and that is what allowed for the rise of the Nazis later, keep a people down long enough and they will start looking anywhere for confidence and success.

reply

[–] acwalsh875 18 years ago

Kind of funny how the "War to End All Wars" gets one started a mere 21 years later.

reply

[–] Benjeru 18 years ago

Wrong. The US did not provide the Germans with any supplies, they actually had a shipping embargo on the Germans.

Had they only sent supplies to Germany, the Germans would have would the war, and that would have prevented a second world war. A much better outcome if you ask me.

Also, the French are also at fault when considering the start of WWII, they pushed to get a compensation, not only for everybody involved. So they could ruin them. The French were always jealous of Germany.

reply

[–] acwalsh875 18 years ago

Are you sure about that. The U.S. traded with both sides early on in WWI. The only reason we stopped trading with Germany was because of the British blockade on Germany and we did not want to lose any more ships. We obviously traded a lot more with Great Britain and the Allies, but we also did trade with the Central Powers in the early stages of this war. Remember at this time in our nations history we had a huge number of immigrants from Germany, so there were ties back to their homeland. Also, Germany took the lead in Europe as far as an industrial power in the 1870's.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Benjeru 18 years ago

Germany Versus USA in World War 2 would have ended with US losing big time.

The fact is, that Germany was facing too many opponents in both Wars.

reply

[–] nateeldredge2005 18 years ago

You're kidding me, right? The United States was (and still is) a far greater industrial power than Germany was. Not once was the American war industry and effort hampered by military attacks on key industrial complexes; America was simply too far away to attack. The United States had the advantage of relative isolationism; that is, they were too far away to attack (much less by surprise) without committing huge amounts of materials, men, and money toward carrying out such an attack.

Also, Hitler was not, contrary to popular belief, a great military leader. He doomed his own country to defeat by backstabbing the Russians after signing a non-aggression pact with Stalin. Any military leader with an iota of knowledge of tactical advantage on the battlefield knows that setting oneself up to fight on two fronts at once is setting oneself up for failure. Obviously Hitler failed to learn anything from World War I, because the Germans did the exact same thing then as well. A military is only as good as its leader(s), and during both world wars Germany's high command exuded ineptitude. That, combined with America's strong industrial capabilities and Russian ferocity, lost the wars for Germany.

reply

[–] acwalsh875 18 years ago

I agree with everything you are saying, but if you are saying are you kidding me about my comment about Germany being an industrial power in Europe, I still stand by that. Last time I checked the United States was not part of Europe and I never said that Germany was a stronger industrial power than the U.S.

reply

[–] nateeldredge2005 18 years ago

I was replying to the comment that Germany could take on the United States and win hands down. My reply wasn't directed at your statement; it was directed at benjeru, who said the only reason Germany lost was because they were fighting too many countries. Lol, you also posted your reply to benjeru 5 days after I posted my thread to benjeru.

reply

[–] cameronanvil 18 years ago

"Also, Hitler was not, contrary to popular belief, a great military leader. He doomed his own country to defeat by backstabbing the Russians after signing a non-aggression pact with Stalin. Any military leader with an iota of knowledge of tactical advantage on the battlefield knows that setting oneself up to fight on two fronts at once is setting oneself up for failure. Obviously Hitler failed to learn anything from World War I, because the Germans did the exact same thing then as well. A military is only as good as its leader(s), and during both world wars Germany's high command exuded ineptitude. That, combined with America's strong industrial capabilities and Russian ferocity, lost the wars for Germany."

yup so true i think his biggest blunder was dividing the sixth army into 3 sections to attack stalingrad and invading russia was a misake full stop

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jackfletch 18 years ago

I agree with you in the sense that Hitler should not have divided his armys in WWII, and that was the main reason to his downfall, but I disagree that it was the cause of the Germans defeat in WWI.

The war between Russia and Germany was coming to an end in late 1917 after the revoltion and the take over by the Bolshaviks. In March of 1918 the Germans pushed out of the trenches in a massive offensive against the Allies on the western front, causing the Allies to fall back. By this time the war with Russia was over and done with really. The German offensive was working, shells even fell on Paris. But it was when the main force advanced faster than the supplies could reach them, and when the Allies stop the retreat at the Marne river in mid July in the same year. With no supplies reaching them, the German army was weak enough to push back in a counter offencive.

This in my opinion was the main cause of the German defeat in WWI, not the fact that they were fighting on two fronts...

P.S. Although I sound like I'm trying to act like I know alot, I dont, so if I'm wrong I'd be happy for someone to correct me! :)

reply

[–] elcarnageo 18 years ago

You're pretty much right there, but I'd go so far as to say that in light of the events on the Russian front in WWI, it wasn't necessarily such a huge mistake by Hitler to fight on two fronts. In hindsight it's obvious that it contributed significantly to his defeat, but with a faster, more powerful, more mobile army and supply lines than was possible in WWI, it was very possible that he could have quickly crushed what was a poorly trained, equipped and commanded Russian army. The country has something of a history of disasterously fought campaigns going back to Napoleon's invasion.

The Russians came perilously close to defeat in the earlier stages of the conflict, whatever the geographical situation may appear to have been. If Moscow and Stalingrad had fallen it would have been over and Hitler could have allocated resources to an invasion of Britain which, once achieved (assuming he didn't simply force Britain to surrender) would have made it all but impossible for the US to launch operations in Europe.

In terms of US involvement, they had the luxury of relatively late engagement in both conflicts. They didn't even have an army to speak of at the beginning of WWI and had to beg and scrounge artillery and transport from the French and British when they finally did get involved. However, the sheer force of numbers and fresh tactical approach they brought was the decisive factor that finished off a fading German army. By WWII Hitler must certainly have been aware of the dangers of history repeating itself, but the US, while they played their part on the Western front, wasn't as crucial to his defeat as the resistance of the Russians.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bohdave 18 years ago

"One of Germanys biggest mistakes they made was getting the Americans Pissed. 1917 the war in starting to cool off. Russia is droping out, and the other allies are just sick of fighting. In an attempt to choke England they start unrestricted submarine warfare i.e, sinking our supply boats that headed to England. Then there was the Zimmerman telegram. Suposedly Germany was sending a telegram to Mexico telling them to attack the U.S, and it was intercepted by the Brits. Went in and taught em a lesson they wouldn't sink in till 1945."

Hahaha! Oh my GOD! The glorious ignorance!!!
---
I may be a tiny chimney-sweep but I've got an enormous brush.

reply

[–] mtt_king 17 years ago

The loast Battalion is a great film, I hope you have all seen it. My great grandfather is a veterna of world war one. He and his brother were both sent to France in 1917 and fought in appaling conditions. But my Great grandfather always says ' You will never ever truly know what it was like' Then this came out on DVD, and I rented it for his visit. We all sat down and watched it on the 11th November. As the fianl credits rolled up this weak 106 year old man, a veterna of possibly the most horrific conflict in human history jsut sat silently. He wouldn't talk atall until suddenly he just came out and said. "They've done it...thats what it was like, that is how i fought" then he didn't speak again for a while. Then again, suddenly he spoek again he kept saying "do you remember that part..." adn would quote a bit from the film "I remember something like that happened to a friend of mine." I bought him the DVD for christmas and He watched it nearly everyday. He got alot of good memories from that film, but unfortunatly it brought back some of teh less happy ones.

reply