Who Was The MVP (Nation) of WW2

By 1914, there were few few US-flagged merchant ships plying the Atlantic trade routes.

Few US ships mean few targets. Few targets means very few sinkings.

The Lusitania was a British auxiliary cruiser, fitted with eight pedestal-mount six-inch guns.

 

This is among many reasons why I pretty much reject any reasoning for the RMS Lusitania being the casus belli of World War I, contrary to what many of us learned in school (of course many of those same books when talking about WWII talk about the attack on Pearl Harbor, but barely mention the Philippines or the attack on UK territory).

The Lustania was a legitimate target. It was an armed vessel, traveling to an enemy port during a time of war. Now tradition at that time was generally still to warn the captain of a civilian ship that it was about to be sunk. But it was in no way the rule, and submarine captains of both sides frequently sunk the ships of the other country without warning.

The Lusitania was armed, and it was traveling in an area that Germany had already made public announcements over a month prior that it would sink any UK vessel found in the area.

Fleet Admiral Admiral Hugo von Pohl's warning of unrestricted Submarine Warfare, 4 Febuary 1915

Most of us never go beyond High School level history, and that is remarkably bad when it comes to the real reasons why wars start. They will talk about things like tbe Boston Tea Party (December 1773), and normally leave the impression that this was immediately followed by the Battle of Lexington and Concord (April 1775), and then was immediately followed by the Declaration of Independence (July 1776).

I know that as a child, I believed the fable about the RMS Lusitania also. And while it has been 30 years, I don't think that my History Teacher ever mentioned the Zimmerman Telegraph more then in passing. Now looking back at this as an adult, I am frankly shocked at this. I have mentioned this little jewel of history many times over the years, and am not surprised that most people have never heard of it (although it was a major incident at the time).

Of course, most people are also unaware of the Trent Affair as well, when the UK almost declared war against the United States during the Civil War. So I am equally not shocked anymore when people try to insist that an almost 2 year old sinking of a British ship i sstill listed as the cause of the US entering the war.

 

" Now tradition at that time was generally still to warn the captain of a civilian ship that it was about to be sunk."

Taxcutter says:
Not true. Warships (and auxiliary cruisers are warships) could be and were torpedoed without warning. Otto Weddigen and the U-9 sank the British cruisers Hogue, Aboukir, and Cressy on the Braod Fourteens just a few months earlier. Not warning - just three torpedoes into what amounted to sitting ducks.

 

and caught receiving artifacts of jews killed in the camps. then turn into cash for Hitlers war machine. other than that...............

 

and they both got their heads loped off for genocide

 

BOOOOM !!!

 

Notice I said civilian, and also tradition. Not required, and not when talking about military ships. You just listed 3 Royal Navy cruisers, warships. Does not apply at all, of course you do not warn warships you are about to attack them.

In fact, early in WWI most subs even tried to comply with prize rules, where they would capture and board the ships.

But by 1916 these were pretty much openly ignored by all participants.

And the ship was not an "Auxillary Cruiser", it was an "Armed Merchantman Cruiser", which still means it is not a warship, it is still a civilian ship with a civilian crew just that it is carrying defensive weapons.

An "Auxillary Cruiser" is an armed merchant ship that is actually staffed and run by the Navy, for the purposes of either hiding among merchant ships and ambushing an attacking ship, or providing escort. You are combining the two things, and they are different.

 

France fared better than most people expected, considering the size of the army they were up against. Spend some time in France and you'll see everywhere the history of not only what they endured but how they never stopped fighting.

 

I am not quite sure if I buy that myself.

The Invasion of France lasted from 10 May to 22 June, 1940. 1 month, 12 days.

The Invasion of Iraq lasted from 19 March 2003 to 1 May 2003. 1 month, 14 days.

Yes, France may have been outclassed by Germany, but nowhere nearly as outclassed as Iraq was by the US and the other coalition members. France's biggest problem was they they put all of their eggs in one outdated and obsolete basket. That is just incompetance.

 

Sorry, but the French military was more powerful than the German military. France just got out thought and out played.

 

France's big problem was that they were not mentally, economically, or emotionally ready to have another go at the Germans. They were so thoroughly demoralized by the casualties of World War One, you average Frenchman just wanted to argue with other Frenchmen.

The Maginot Line gets a bum rap. It performed as designed as far as it went. The Germans were completely intimidated and made no attempt to break through it anywhere along its length. It only failed when the Germans flanked it through the Low Countries. If it had been extended to the English Channel as M. Maginot had envisioned, history might have been different.


"...how they never stopped fighting."

Taxcutter says:
Over-rated.

The French were completely torpid for a year after June 1940. They didn't even show a pulse until the second half of 1941. The French Colonial Armies - the majority of the Free French forces - could not even move fifty kilometers from where they were in June of 1940 until US transportation and logistical aid arrived. The Resistance in metropolitan France was non-existent until the second half of 1942.

 

There was a site around a few years ago that had an extensive list of merchant ships sunk in WW I, but I can't find my old link and don't have the time now to try and find it, but a lot of neutrals were sunk, including Brazilian merchants, and if I recall correctly around 114 U.S. ships were sunk, but my memory may be faulty.

Dutch ports weren't blockaded by the Allies for some reason, since they figured out a loophole wherein they would just import their own food while selling their entire agricultural output to Germany for a significant markup throughout the war. The deal was they couldn't import war materiel destined for Germany, but could sell their own stuff without violating the terms of neutrality, but some people seem to think nobody else should have been allowed the same deal for some reason.

I'll look around and see if I can find that link; it was pretty extensive and gave names of ships, tonnages, and flags they were sailing under. A significant number were indeed neutrals.

 

uboat.net

 

Not the one I had in mind, but a great one nonetheless. I'll give it a look-see when I have more time.

thanks for the reference.

 

Point taken about the sinking of the Lusitiania. But, Mexico was never a credible threat to send over 100,000 American's to their deaths, for nothing more than a pissing match between European royals, that lead to the death of more than 37 million people, and another world war.

 

The USSR did most of the fighting, the UK survived despite everything and the US made a great deal of money and became dominant. The Colonies were, meanwhile, very loyal.

 

I guess you're not talking about Australia because Australia wasn't a colony and told Churchill to go (*)(*)(*)(*) himself.

 

It really does not matter how credible the threat is, you are apparently completely missing the point.

The fact that Germany was courting an attack (with the promise of aid and money) upon the US is in itself an act of war. In legalese it is conspiracy, which is just as much (if nor more so) of a crime then the actual act itself.

And that is added on top of their starting unrestricted warfare upon our ships, sinking over a dozen in the weeks prior to our entry into the war.

So to you their attempt to get our Southern neighbor to invade us and sinking our ships is not cause enough for war?

 

Depends on the credibility of the threat. And, as stated as before Mexico was no threat.
Plus, shipping war material to a nation at war comes with inherent threats, such as getting your ships sank by the other nation at war with your trading partner.

WW1 was a horrible and meaningless war, no matter how you try to spin the justifications.