Did America enter WW1 solely for financial reasons?

DidierMc

Why did the US enter WW1 in 1917? Why were they prepared to sustain 165,000 causalties fighting in a european imperialist war? The truth is it was all about money.

The US banks had lent billions to Britain and France to finance their war. In return the British and French bought American armaments and materials with it. By 1917 the British and French owed so much money that if they could not pay back the American banks then the American banking system would have went under.

In order to guarantee Allied victory so that the loans would be paid back in full, the US sent massive amounts of troops to the western front to fight and die. Just shows how far a capitalist state will go to defend the interests of the ruling class.

Fratton Fred

Viva La Revolution comrade.

SlabMurphy

DidierMc wrote: »

Why did the US enter WW1 in 1917? Why were they prepared to sustain 165,000 causalties fighting in a european imperialist war? The truth is it was all about money.

The US banks had lent billions to Britain and France to finance their war. In return the British and French bought American armaments and materials with it. By 1917 the British and French owed so much money that if they could not pay back the American banks then the American banking system would have went under.

In order to guarantee Allied victory so that the loans would be paid back in full, the US sent massive amounts of troops to the western front to fight and die. Just shows how far a capitalist state will go to defend the interests of the ruling class.

You have raised some good points there about the usual greedy money factors for entering the war, the f**king bankers always have a hidden hand in almost every war :mad: And they usually come of it best making huge profits regardless of who wins :mad:

But I don't think the money factors could solely be the reason why America entered WW1 on the Allied side. Look at some of the factors leading up to their invovlement. The sinking of the Lusitinia in 1915, and the Zimmermann Telegram in 1917 which was to offer Mexico material aid in the reclamation of territory lost during the Mexican-American wars( the German Chancellor privately spoke out very strongly at this insane proposal as it was certain to bring America into WW1 ).

Their were also acts of sabotage on American harbours in New York of which in fairness no one was ever found but it's highly like German agents were respondcible as munitions etc that were been sold to Britain and France were damaged ( which surprise, surprise were blamed on " Irish and Indian nationalists movements " by you know who's dirty tricks dept )

hinault

DidierMc wrote: »

Why did the US enter WW1 in 1917? Why were they prepared to sustain 165,000 causalties fighting in a european imperialist war? The truth is it was all about money.

The US banks had lent billions to Britain and France to finance their war. In return the British and French bought American armaments and materials with it. By 1917 the British and French owed so much money that if they could not pay back the American banks then the American banking system would have went under.

In order to guarantee Allied victory so that the loans would be paid back in full, the US sent massive amounts of troops to the western front to fight and die. Just shows how far a capitalist state will go to defend the interests of the ruling class.

Not just WWI.

America profitted from supporting both sides in WWII between 1939 and when they werre dragged in to WWII by Japan.

airvan

America profitted from supporting both sides in WWII between 1939

You're saying they supported Germany as well as Britain. Do you have any reference to this or is it that another unsupported anti imperialist statement like the original post.:rolleyes:

hinault

airvan wrote: »

You're saying they supported Germany as well as Britain. Do you have any reference to this or is it that another unsupported anti imperialist statement like the original post.:rolleyes:

American commercial involvement in trade with Nazi Germany is well documented between 1939 and 1941.
Indeed there is evidence to suggest that some commerical trade was engaged in even after 1941.

Companies such as DuPont, GM, Ford and Standard Oil were known to have traded with the Nazi regime.
Prescott Bush, George Bush's grandfather and US senator, was a banker who provided loans to Nazi Germany.

Snickers Man

airvan wrote: »

You're saying they supported Germany as well as Britain. Do you have any reference to this or is it that another unsupported anti imperialist statement like the original post.:rolleyes:

In the First World War, they happily supplied both sides. In fact in the current documentary about WWI on TV (history channel, I think) it was pointed out that there were millions of Americans at the time who were either German born or had German parents. And then there were a few million Irish Americans who didn't exactly harbour warm feelings towards Great Britain.

In fact, on the outbreak of the First World War, many American citizens volunteered to fight in the German and/or Austro-Hungarian armies.

There was also the issue of supplying material to blockaded Germany. The programme spoke at length about the heroic voyage of hte Deutschland submarine. Read about it here

As for the second world war. I direct you to the best selling book "IBM and the Holocaust" by Edwin Black.

SlabMurphy

hinault wrote: »

American commercial involvement in trade with Nazi Germany is well documented between 1939 and 1941.
Indeed there is evidence to suggest that some commerical trade was engaged in even after 1941.

Companies such as DuPont, GM, Ford and Standard Oil were known to have traded with the Nazi regime.
Prescott Bush, George Bush's grandfather and US senator, was a banker who provided loans to Nazi Germany.

Interesting. If anyone has any links or could recommend a good book about the above I'd be interested. And of course the Bush's would have to be invovled.

hinault

SlabMurphy wrote: »

Interesting. If anyone has any links or could recommend a good book about the above I'd be interested. And of course the Bush's would have to be invovled.

Here is a detailed explanation of Prescott Bush's dealings with the Nazi regime though Brown Brothers Harriman.
Prescott Bush was also involved in Union Bank Corporation which provided finance to Nazi German industrialists like Fritz Thyssen.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

airvan

Ah I see, those evil capitalist Americans were trading with a country that they weren't at war with.:rolleyes: Mention of WW2 is off topic and irrelevant but the same thing applies. They weren't at war with Germany so there was nothing to stop them trading. But as it happens they were overtly helping the allies long before Hitler declared war on them.

As for WW1 well the to reduce the reasons for America's entry to a simple capitalist plot is absurd. More likely it was a fortuitious side effect. You can't ignore Germany's provocation, unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmerman issue. You also cannot ignore public sentiment which was always going to be on the side of the 'imperialists'. Neither can you ignore the fact the it wasn't in America's interests to have a rampant and aggressive Germany dominating Europe.

Of course as soon as you see the words 'imperialist war' 'capitalism' and 'ruling classes' in a post you can accurately gauge the OP's political slant. People always have to slant history to fit with their political view.

hinault

airvan wrote: »

Ah I see, those evil capitalist Americans were trading with a country that they weren't at war with.:rolleyes: Mention of WW2 is off topic and irrelevant but the same thing applies. They weren't at war with Germany so there was nothing to stop them trading. But as it happens they were overtly helping the allies long before Hitler declared war on them.

As for WW1 well the to reduce the reasons for America's entry to a simple capitalist plot is absurd. More likely it was a fortuitious side effect. You can't ignore Germany's provocation, unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmerman issue. You also cannot ignore public sentiment which was always going to be on the side of the 'imperialists'. Neither can you ignore the fact the it wasn't in America's interests to have a rampant and aggressive Germany dominating Europe.

Of course as soon as you see the words 'imperialist war' 'capitalism' and 'ruling classes' in a post you can accurately gauge the OP's political slant. People always have to slant history to fit with their political view.

While WWII is not the topic of this thread, it was Americas stated policy that it opposed Hitler even before the Pearl Harbour attacks.

Yet, America turned a blind eye to the fact that many of it's company's were only too happy to trade commerically with Nazi Germany

spurious

What wars are not about money when you come down to it?

DidierMc

airvan wrote: »

Ah I see, those evil capitalist Americans were trading with a country that they weren't at war with.:rolleyes: Mention of WW2 is off topic and irrelevant but the same thing applies. They weren't at war with Germany so there was nothing to stop them trading. But as it happens they were overtly helping the allies long before Hitler declared war on them.

As for WW1 well the to reduce the reasons for America's entry to a simple capitalist plot is absurd. More likely it was a fortuitious side effect. You can't ignore Germany's provocation, unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmerman issue. You also cannot ignore public sentiment which was always going to be on the side of the 'imperialists'. Neither can you ignore the fact the it wasn't in America's interests to have a rampant and aggressive Germany dominating Europe.

Of course as soon as you see the words 'imperialist war' 'capitalism' and 'ruling classes' in a post you can accurately gauge the OP's political slant. People always have to slant history to fit with their political view.

You're the one slanting history for your own agenda. So because a ship was sunk in 1915 thE US declared was 2 years later? As for Mexico being a threat to the US, that's just too funny to respond to.

America went to war to rescue its banking system. Simple as that.

Morlar

DidierMc wrote: »

America went to war to rescue its banking system. Simple as that.

Do you have anything to back up this theory ?

Even though the luisitania was a semi military ship, and even though the Germans took out adverts to warn passengers against travelling on it there is no doubting this sinking was a very significant factor in swinging american public opinion against Germany.

DidierMc

Morlar wrote: »

Do you have anything to back up this theory ?

Even though the luisitania was a semi military ship, and even though the Germans took out adverts to warn passengers against travelling on it there is no doubting this sinking was a very significant factor in swinging american public opinion against Germany.

So the US sacrificed 165,000 men and spent millions of dollars because a ship was sunk? It's you who should be backing up this theory!

It's pretty common knowledge that the US banks gave massive loans to Britain and France to fight the war. These loans were so massive by 1917 that if France or Britain defaulted ie lost the war, American banks would go under. To ensure Britain and France could pay back the loans, the US sent a few million troops over to ensure victory.

arnhem44

I would have to agree to both sides here,the banking system in America was well stretched and many believed it would collapse however it was never given as one of the official causes for the Americans to enter the war but politically probably was,Britain and France had run up massive debts compared to what Germany had borrowed so it definitely played a huge part in bringing America into the war.One of the other reason's was the unrestricted submarine warfare,not just the sinking of the Lusitania but as a whole.Let's not forget Germany was still trading with America before the Americans came into it and it was Britain who were blockading supplies from getting there,Germany was been starved so the use of submarines became ever more important to them.America even tried to broker peace deals with both Britain and Germany but to no avail.Also politics in America at the time was on the agenda so there's lots to consider.

Fratton Fred

If Germany took France, invading Britain would be fairly simple as Germany would have a far superior navy and army.

Imagine an ambitious Kaiser controlling the German, French and British militaries and colonies, it would have been a huge empire that the US would not have been able to match.

DidierMc

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If Germany took France, invading Britain would be fairly simple as Germany would have a far superior navy and army.

Imagine an ambitious Kaiser controlling the German, French and British militaries and colonies, it would have been a huge empire that the US would not have been able to match.

WTF?

mcmickey

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If Germany took France, invading Britain would be fairly simple as Germany would have a far superior navy and army.

Imagine an ambitious Kaiser controlling the German, French and British militaries and colonies, it would have been a huge empire that the US would not have been able to match.

I thought the German forces in both WW1 and WW2 were pratically about land based expansion and their navy relatively small in comparsion ? Couldn't see their navy been bigger than Britain.

cyrusdvirus

mcmickey wrote: »

I thought the German forces in both WW1 and WW2 were pratically about land based expansion and their navy relatively small in comparsion ? Couldn't see their navy been bigger than Britain.

it was a stated aim of Kaiser Wilhelm to have as big a navy as the Royal Navy.
One of the aims of the Imperial Navy was to whittle down the Royal Navy by knocking out squadrons, such as the 1st Battlecruiser Squadron, which was (IIRC) based at the Firth of Forth with the rest of the Grand Fleet up at Scapa Flow.

There were also other oceans and seas for the Royal Navy to contend with, which would have further reduced the strength of the Grand Fleet.

Empire o de Sun

In the arms race to build the best navy britain produced the Dreadnought. By doing this britain was proving it was technologically advanced. However, this was kinda like shooting themselves in the foot. By doing this Britain rendered all it's existing Battleships obsolete. This provided an opportunity to Britains rivals. if they had the technological and industrial capacity to produce more Dreadnoughts, then they would have naval advantage. Germany took advantage of this. And was on course to produce the same or more than Britain (I can't remember). Following this there was a campaign in Britain (newspaper lead) to produce more Dreadnoughts than Germany.

Snickers Man

Public feeling was being well and truly stoked by the Wilson administration who were Progressive, in the terminology of the time, and had certain views about the role of the state in the lives of man and the duties of civilised, modern, technological mankind towards their more primitive brethern overseas.

It was a variation of the White Man's Burden, made famous by Kipling, and favoured expansion by American businesses and strategic interests overseas.

It was at odds with the traditional American viewpoint of isolationism, the so-called Monroe doctrine which had been established a century before, but it was no less strongly held by its proponents. And of course, there were many dissenters.

Some people, Americans I hasten to add, have gone so far as to label Wilson a prototype fascist with his propaganda ministry, his supression of dissent, his whipping up of American national sentiment and his demands of loyalty to the flag and the cause above all else.

For those who think the renaming of French Fries to Freedom Fries during the invasion of Iraq was a one-off loopy example of Itnernet-Age brand transformation, it might interest you to know that sauerkraut at the time was renamed Liberty Cabbage in the US, in keeping with the patriotic fervour.

In summary, protecting its bankers was one reason the US went to war but it was not the only one. There was a genuine sentiment, not all of it to do with the defence of small nations, driving its political leaders at the time to engage in the European conflict.

Fratton Fred

Empire o de Sun wrote: »

In the arms race to build the best navy britain produced the Dreadnought. By doing this britain was proving it was technologically advanced. However, this was kinda like shooting themselves in the foot. By doing this Britain rendered all it's existing Battleships obsolete. This provided an opportunity to Britains rivals. if they had the technological and industrial capacity to produce more Dreadnoughts, then they would have naval advantage. Germany took advantage of this. And was on course to produce the same or more than Britain (I can't remember). Following this there was a campaign in Britain (newspaper lead) to produce more Dreadnoughts than Germany.

That's right, which is why after WWI, Britain's main demand was that the German fleet be interned, which led to the scuttling of the German Fleet.

Britain couldn't give a monkey's about Belgium, or other small nations and, to an extent, even France. Germany could do what they liked as long as it didn't affect them, but Germany having a fleet that was as big as the RN which if they took France would be bigger, was a real threat. Brittania no longer ruling the waves meant no more British Empire.

mathepac

In March 1917 Tsar Nicholas abdicated and handed control of the Russian Empire over to the provisional government and the violent, rioting Soviets. The Bolsheviks were in the background agitating for a complete withdrawal from the war and an end to the wholesale slaughter of Russian troops on their Western front.

There was total confusion in the Russian (no longer Imperialist) forces on the German Eastern front and at home, leading to a lessening in the effectiveness of the army, which the Bolsheviks capitalised on in November that year.

After German submarines sank several U.S. merchant ships and the Zimmerman telegram, Wilson, no doubt prompted by the bankers and industrialists who feared that Russia’s growing ineffectiveness and possible withdrawal could lead to a German victory, called for war on Germany, which was declared on 6 April 1917 by Congress.

So in my view, as is normal in these situations it was a conjunction of circumstances and interpretation that lead to American armed forces entering WWI, but there is no doubting the influence of the money-men.

Empire o de Sun

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Britain couldn't give a monkey's about Belgium, or other small nations and, to an extent, even France.

Allot of people forget this. Britain used the low countries to keep buffer states between france and germany. It is confusing when nations claimed to fight for liberty and freedom also had empires of their own, and expanded them after the war.

For the United States WWI provided an opportunity. Normally when there is an emerging power, the existing top dogs don't willingly let them become as or more powerful. Normally there is some stand off over something or some war, be it small or large. By being britains and frances ally the US was able to become very powerful without a confrontation with the two largest empires. A war with Britain or France would have been very costly.

At the end of WWI, in the 1920's Britain thought it's next war could be one with the US. This was one scenario that they planned for. Had WWI not happened, US dominance would have been delayed for many years. But in my opinion, the British would have tried to check US expansion with some proxy or direct small war.

Normally there is some event that cements a countries position in the world order. Like the Suez war in the 50's signaled the end of Britain as a global power in acting independently without American help/permission.