Black Jack Pershing (1 Viewer)

[jazzeum]

Further, I think Howard's point is well taken - those of us who have never heard a shot fired in anger should be respectfull of the opinions of those who actually have led troops in combat. Dave, Howard and Chris are veterans, and frankly, having been in the position to both give and receive orders, in some cases in combat (at least in Howards case, I can't speak to Chris and Dave's experiences), their opinion on Pershing's actions is substantially more educated than mine.

I can't speak for other countries but in this country, I find that thinking troublesome as civilian control of the military is a cornerstone of our system of government. You should listen to the opinions of your military experts but are they dispositive, no. The Cuban missile crisis is a good example of that. The political world affects what happens in the military sphere. Nothing happens in a vaccum.

 

[Currahee Chris]

The political world affects what happens in the military sphere.

That's usually when things get REALLY interesting!! {sm4}{sm3}

 

[lancer]

Hi Chris. You have really hit on a multi-faceted subject in the Russia of WW1, Revolution, and Civil War. The Civil War is a subject that is very difficult to master. Allied aid to Russia was massive in terms of material and included aircraft, tanks, clothing, food, and weapons of all sorts. In addition, the Allies sent military missions. The Whites fought all over Russia and there were no fewer than 9 identifiable fronts at one time or another, from 1918 thru 1926. As early as August 1918, the Allies had a troop presence in Archangel and Murmansk with men from Britain, the US, France, Italy, Serbia, and Czechs and Poles, as well. The British also had troops in Baku, in Azerbaijian, in November 1918. Allied troops also started arriving in the Russian far east in August 1918, which included British, US, French, Japanese, Czechs, and Italians. Most Allied troops were gone by March 1920, except the Japanese. It was a widespread but ultimately an ineffective intervention. -- Al

 

[Currahee Chris]

hey Al-

those are all really interesting points- I was unaware that there were that many fronts or the conflict raged that long.

You and Rob are my resident WW1 experts btw {sm4}

Ok, so Russia appears off the table- still do you thjink the allies could have driven to Berlin in 1919? I do believe it would have been possible, especially if Pershing got his 100 divisions. Still, one would have to wonder why we would want to go all the way to Berlin- if we had, do you think the Germans would have gotten the point and not launched into WW2 in Europe?

 

[theBaron]

hey Al-

those are all really interesting points- I was unaware that there were that many fronts or the conflict raged that long.

You and Rob are my resident WW1 experts btw {sm4}

Ok, so Russia appears off the table- still do you thjink the allies could have driven to Berlin in 1919? I do believe it would have been possible, especially if Pershing got his 100 divisions. Still, one would have to wonder why we would want to go all the way to Berlin- if we had, do you think the Germans would have gotten the point and not launched into WW2 in Europe?

Could the Allies have driven to Berlin in 1918? Yes. The army melted away in the wake of the November revolutions in 1918, and the General Staff recognized that they could not have resisted, had the Allies pushed into Germany.

In 1919, once the Versailles Treaty was published, there was general indignation throughout Germany, and there were calls among both the monarchists and among supporters of the Republic, to resist the treaty. But it was still recognized that Germany was in no position militarily to resist. In fact, when the French occupied the Rheinland to enforce terms of the treaty, it was with general strikes and with a campaign of sabotage, supported by the War Ministry and the General Staff, that the Germans resisted. But even then, if the Allies had decided that an invasion would have been necessary, the German army was in no position to stop them.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Currahee Chris]

was there ever a serious consideration for America to give military assistance to Germany during the war? There was a general belief that nazism was bad yet there was still a sizeable segment of American citizens who believed we should have sided with them- with WW1 Germany not being ideologically aligned with the nazis, would it ever have been possible for us to side with Germany against France and England?

 

[jazzeum]

Chris,

I'm not sure if you're asking about WW I or II?

If the former, my belief is that we wanted to stay neutral but that Germany's actions forced to act otherwise.

 

[Terp152]

was there ever a serious consideration for America to give military assistance to Germany during the war? There was a general belief that nazism was bad yet there was still a sizeable segment of American citizens who believed we should have sided with them- with WW1 Germany not being ideologically aligned with the nazis, would it ever have been possible for us to side with Germany against France and England?

Have never seen any polls or statistics but remember there was an extremely large German immigrant population in this country that would have been sympathetic to the motherland. My grandmother was a schoolgirl in Baltimore during WWI and she said the German language was taught in many schools then, stopped when the war was entered into by the US. There were German language radio stations in the St Louis area until the '80s. The German view of the war would not have been that adverse to many in the US, at least at the start. Chris

 

[Louis Badolato]

I can't speak for other countries but in this country, I find that thinking troublesome as civilian control of the military is a cornerstone of our system of government. You should listen to the opinions of your military experts but are they dispositive, no. The Cuban missile crisis is a good example of that. The political world affects what happens in the military sphere. Nothing happens in a vaccum.

Brad,

I did not mean to say that military leaders' opinions should be dispositive of the issue, I merely suggest that when experienced military men render an opinion on a military subject such as the appropriateness of a particular order to attack, men who actually gave and received orders are in a better position to render an educated opinion on the subject than civilians.

 

[lancer]

was there ever a serious consideration for America to give military assistance to Germany during the war? There was a general belief that nazism was bad yet there was still a sizeable segment of American citizens who believed we should have sided with them- with WW1 Germany not being ideologically aligned with the nazis, would it ever have been possible for us to side with Germany against France and England?

Chris, even had the US been inclined to support/side with Germany (and it wasn't), the logistics of any such support would have proved impossible to implement because of one basic problem- Germany was isolated from outside help by the Royal Navy. The blockade was instrumental in Germany's defeat and there was no breaking it. The US was very isolationist, even though Germany did have widespread sympathetic support within certain US communities. Germany was content and pleased with US neutrality, but arrogance, stupidity, and desperation eventually caused Germany to throw away the gift of neutrality. The unrestricted U-boat campaign and the Zimmerman debacle pushed the US into full support and finally war against the Central Powers. There were many other factors in US entry (the very effective British propaganda campaign, for example) and US business did scream about the British blockade cutting off trade with Germany, but there was no real danger that the US would have sided with Germany. The danger for the Allies would have been the US staying neutral but, as said, German strategic blunders took care of that. -- Al

 

[jazzeum]

Brad,

I did not mean to say that military leaders' opinions should be dispositive of the issue, I merely suggest that when experienced military men render an opinion on a military subject such as the appropriateness of a particular order to attack, men who actually gave and received orders are in a better position to render an educated opinion on the subject than civilians.

Assuming they are knowledgeable of the issue, I wouldn't disagree with you.

 

[Currahee Chris]

excellent points one and all- Hey Brad, yes, I was speaking in terms of WW1, sorry about that. Al brings a lot of good points up that I had forgotten- seems like German leadership always seemed to bungle or underestimate the US reaction.

@Chris (Terp152)- sounds like you and I have spent some time in similar neighborhoods- very very strong German ties in the area I live.