Posted on 07/16/2020 12:34:14 PM PDT by Red Badger
Neither was the word P****!
For all of his flaws including a racism that was pretty extreme even for his time, Wilson was an intelligent man who tried (and failed) to keep something like WWI from happening again.
He didn’t want to get involved in WWI and did manage to keep the U.S. out of the war for nearly 3 years. He pretty much refused to let U.S. forces be used in the meat grinder of trench warfare and when the war was over really tried to achieve a peace without winners or losers. Of the winning side, the U.S. did not gain territories or colonies.
Ironically, even though Wilson’s claims for rights of people to get to get to decide which nation to be a part of did not include people in colonies, his rhetoric inspired many nationalist movements in the colonies.
I know the road to hell is paved with good intentions and Wilson got to experience the road when the U.S. Senate refused to join his brainchild, the League of Nations, which without us in it was crippled at birth. And of course while campaigning for the League suffered a stroke that left him shattered and left the nation with the first de facto woman President.
Wilson wasn’t just any Democrat. He was a progressive icon of the Democrat party for generations. I believe Hillary Criminal was a big fan, too.
True, Edith Wilson was in fact POTUS, in everything except name................
This is why he’s a major progressive hero.
The key words are tried and failed.
For all Wilson's "good intentions" the end result was that he was a bunging fool, typical of the bungling fools who flocked to the Democrat Party then and who do today.
Islamofascist op-ed from al-Jazeera stooge Eva Nanopoulos.
Well... the Japanese wanted a clause declaring the Japanese to be the equal of white Europeans. Not exactly what the article implies.
The longevity of some political myths is sometime amazing to see. Go read the memoir of Wilson's Secretary of State, Robert Lansing. It clearly describes how the Wilson administration actively supported the British from the start and secretly planned to bring the US into the war after the 1916 election. The America First movement was born as a result of the publication of that book. This is old and settled history. The myth that Wilson wanted to keep us out of the war is just plain nonsense.
The first true “progressive” U.S. president.
I have no doubt that Wilson’s sympathies lie much more towards the Allies than the Central Powers, not the least being common language, shared political legal traditions, etc. as well, of course German unrestricted warfare and the Zimmerman telegram.
But the fact that we did stay out until 1917 is not a myth, it is fact. I realize that Wilson is not well-loved by many today and I can’t say that I’m a fan. All that said, from what I’ve read, his opponent in the election of 1916, Charles Evans Hughes, also wanted us to declare war on Germany after events in 1917, so history might well have turned out the same.
That is not in dispute, but what is also a fact is that Wilson always planned to bring us into the war after the 1916 election, and that he did exactly that. The narrative that he tried to keep us out of the war is simply false. He was just biding his time. William Jennings Bryan resigned in protest over this very issue.
The British had effectively cut off Germany through mining the North Sea, the Germans had no choice but to use U-Boats to try to level the playing field.
A true neutral would have told Britain to stop the naval blockade of Germany if the US were to risk their shipping in sending supplies to Britain.
The problem Germany had with its submarine warfare, was that it broke the conventional “rules of war” as they existed at the time. It was perfectly legal for Britain to blockade Germany, as long as it was effective. British warships were within their rights to stop neutral vessels, and either capture or sink them if they carried war material/contraband. They were required to safely evacuate the crew and land them in England or a neutral port.
But submarines couldn’t do this and survive. So when Germany started unrestricted submarine warfare, they were breaking the rules of the time. I understand why they did it, and it almost won them the war.
Our neutrality allowed either side to buy war supplies, but only the Brits and French could really do so—the Brits wouldn’t allow a German-flagged ship anywhere near our coast and neutral flagged ships would be stopped by the Brits. The Germans did have a freight submarine, the Deutschland, which successfully broke the British blockade. The American press treated the captain as something of a hero.
My point that we weren’t a true “neutral”. British actions towards German ships ultimately put ours in peril. It was going to be difficult in that situation to completely stay neutral, without offending the Brits, and the Brits had too many supporters in the government.
Personally, I think Britain had no business in the war in the first place, she had her Empire, if Britain ever needed a “Brexit”, it was in 1914.
Personally, I think Britain had no business in the war in the first place, she had her Empire, if Britain ever needed a “Brexit”, it was in 1914.
You may or may not know, that British silver coins were sterling (.925 silver) before the war. After the war, the percentage dropped to 50%. World War II took all of the silver out of their coinage.
Hitler was ultimately successful in two of his goals. Jews, for the most part, vanished from Europe, and the British Empire vanished as well.
After what Leopold did in The Congo, F Belgium!
Can’t argue with that. How did the Belgians treat the Congo after they ended Leopold’s control? It had to have been better.
Point being, Germany was no better nor worse than the other Allied Powers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.