Military Review

"War will end wars." USA in the First World War

26
"War will end wars." USA in the First World War

Thanks to skillful agitation, the US population as a whole was opposed to Germany. By the end of the second year of the war, experts checking the country's public opinion noted that the majority of the population was opposed to Germany, but only a minority favored US participation in the war.


Therefore, in the presidential campaign of 1916, both major parties took peaceful positions. Although the leadership of the Democratic Party talked about the need to participate in the war in the middle of 1915 year. A month after the death of “Lusitania”, pacifist Bryan was replaced as a minister of foreign affairs by a supporter of the war with Germany, Lansing. The government and the American elite were generally inclined toward the US entering the war on the side of the Entente. At the start of 1916, President Wilson and the Democratic leaders agreed in principle to the war. However, they could only express their opinion in narrow party and diplomatic circles, since, in general, the Americans were against the US participation in the war.

Leaders of the Republican Party openly advocated war. Former President Theodore Roosevelt accused Wilson of “opposing the policy of blood and iron to the policy of water and milk”. However, when the election platform was set up at the National Convention in Chicago in the summer of 1916, Republicans preferred a more cautious position in order not to scare off voters. Workers and farmers were against the war. The 1916 year was marked by numerous conflicts in the industry: 3789 strikes and lockouts covered more than 2,2 million workers. Railway workers threatened to stop traffic on major highways in the United States. In September, Congress was forced to adopt the act of Adamson to reduce working hours and increase wages on the railways. At the same time began the movement of farmers who opposed the predatory procurement campaigns. State and private officials complained about the systematic deterioration of the financial situation. Due to rising prices, the real wages of some of the employees by the end of 1916 were lower than ever during 50 years. It is clear that in such conditions it was impossible to agitate for joining the USA in the war, the people would not understand this. Therefore, both Republicans and Democrats in the 1916 elections of the year did not dare to make a call for war.

Democrats have hidden their desire for war calls to give humanity "eternal and sustainable peace." However, they didn’t say that for this, the United States should enter the war and act as a umpire at the peace conference, granting the right to build a post-war world order. Wilson was convinced that his main task was “the problem of world peace.” In June, the Democratic Party pre-election platform was adopted at the National Convention with Len Louis. She reflected the views of Wilson. She declared that “in our interests and the interests of mankind, we must help the establishment of peace and justice in the whole world.” The chairman of the national convention, Senator James of Kentucky, described Woodrow Wilson as a peacemaker, and former Secretary of State Brian assured from the tribune of the convention: "... we have a president who restrained — and who will keep — us from war." With the slogan "he will keep us from the war," the Democrats dispersed to the states. The special election promise of the democratic party said: “You work, you do not fight. You are alive and happy ... If you want war, vote for Hughes (Charles Hughes is a candidate for the Republican party. - Author), if you want peace and further economic prosperity, vote for Wilson. ”

US preparation for war

In fact, it was a big hoax. The top of the United States has long decided to participate in the war. At the same time as the election campaign, where voters were promised peace, the whole country was forced to prepare for war. Special military propaganda organizations were created in the states: National Defense League, American Defense Society, and Marine League fleet"Etc.

Washington forced the formation of a world-class army and fleet. When the war began, the entire US federal army numbered just over 80 thousand, poorly armed and trained. Of these, 27 thousand people carried garrison service in the colonies, 25 thousand people served coastal defense. The National Guard, which represented essentially poorly prepared territorial units of individual states, recited more than 127 thousand people. That is, the US could put a little more than 200 thousand people, poorly technically equipped and poorly trained. Just a few years, everything has changed radically. The United States received advanced military forces.

From the very beginning of the war, General Leonard Wood led the military movement. He organized military training for students at universities. In the state of New York, a special camp was established in which high-ranking officials were trained. At the end of 1915, the congress adopted a large-scale maritime program, which included bringing the naval forces of the United States to a level that did not tire the navy of the advanced naval powers for three years.

The American president said that "you cannot lose a single day in preparation for defense." Under the slogan "Prepare for Defense" military demonstrations were held in major cities. So, 13 May 1916, 125 Thousands of people marched through the streets of New York. 63 columns with 200 orchestras marched down Broadway. The largest column was organized by Wall Street bankers. A separate column went New York clergy. June 14 60-thousandth military demonstration was held in Washington. Ahead of the column was President Wilson. In June, 1916 of the year, the congress decided to increase the size of the regular army, put the territorial units of individual states under the control of the federal government, strengthen the military training of civilians, and create a national defense council.

In November, presidential elections were held. At first it was not clear who was elected - Wilson or Hughes. The Republican candidate did not have enough 12 electors. In the beginning, everyone was sure that Yuz had won. For him, with the exception of two states, the entire industrial Northeast and Midwest voted. All the agrarian states west of the Mississippi and south of Ohio followed Wilson. California was traditionally a Republican state and gave votes to the 13 electors. But the internal struggle in the local republican organization allowed the Democrats to win with a minimum margin of 0,4%. Wilson stayed in the White House for another 4 year. Both victories of Wilson were considered by many to be a random course of circumstances. In reality, he represented the interests of "financial international".

Soon, Washington received an iron reason to enter the war. January 31 1917 Berlin announced that “from February on 1, merchant shipping will be suspended in the blockade zone by any available weapons, without any further warning. ” Germany decided on an unlimited submarine warfare, hoping to force England to negotiate. The United States was "allowed" to send a passenger ship to England once a week, subject to several rules. It is clear that Washington took it as an insult to the great American power. In the United States, they wrote and said: "Our country received an order ... We are once a week licensed to have one ship ... As if the German armies owned our entire territory from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean."

3 February 1917, Wilson informed the Congress about the severance of diplomatic relations with Germany. German Ambassador Bernstorf was given his passport. February 14 from the United States sent the entire diplomatic corps of Germany (German 149). Ten days later, Wilson received an important report from the US ambassador to London, Page. The British intercepted and deciphered a curious German telegram. It was the so-called. “The telegram of Zimmerman, where Germany proposed a military alliance to Mexico. The Germans promised the Mexicans to return the previously lost lands (seized by the Americans) - Texas, New Mexico, Arizona. February 28 American newspapers published this telegram. It disarmed opponents of the war in Congress.

Two weeks later, the German ships sank three American ships. The American President convened an extraordinary congressional session on April 2. Wilson said the United States declares war on Prussian militarism and Kaiser autocracy. As usual, many lofty words were said: “The world must be saved for democracy ... We do not want any gains, no territories. We will not demand any material compensation for the sacrifices that we voluntarily make. We are only one of the detachments of the army of fighters for the freedom of mankind. " Four days later, on April 6 1917, the congress declared war against Germany by a majority (almost 90%). In the US, few dared to object to this decision. But many understood that the interests of the American people were sacrificed to big capital, who entered the imperialist war for the sake of their predatory, predatory interests. Elections were held just a few months ago, and many remembered the Democratic slogan - “He kept us from the war.”

Mobilization of the country

Wilson, as usual, made loud promises. "The war will put an end to the war," the president assured in his message to Congress and the people. " The opposition Republican Party, which had long advocated war, supported the presidential course. Even the leaders of the isolationists supported the president. Brian, still at the beginning of 1917, who fought for the preservation of US neutrality, asked to be enlisted in the army as a volunteer. However, there was a strong opposition in Congress that did not want the active participation of the United States in the war. When the question of US participation in the war was discussed in the Senate and House of Representatives, the government only talked about the official financial and material support of the Allies. The situation was different when they started talking about the mobilization of soldiers for war. 18 May 1917, almost half of the congressmen (for - 199, against - 178) voted against compulsory military service.

Mobilizing human and material resources for a big war in Europe was a very difficult task for the United States. The country with its small armies was not ready for a big war. In the USA, there was no trained reserve, reserve command personnel for the formation of new units, a stock of weapons not only for artillery, but also for new infantry formations. Recruits for military classes in 1917, used wooden rifles and guns. but The energy of the Americans, their organizational skills directed in the right direction, were quickly created and adjusted, using the rich resources and capabilities of the country, a powerful world-class military machine. For the leadership of the colossal military mechanism, America has put forward talented organizers such as Baruch, Creel, Hoover, Newton Becker, etc.

Before World War I history The United States government only once tried to mobilize soldiers on a compulsory basis — this happened in the third year of the Civil War and led to a series of insurrections. Not surprisingly, almost half of the congress opposed universal conscription. And the ruling elite in the South demanded that blacks not be trained in military affairs. Therefore, in 1917, Washington feared mobilization and tried to soften its introduction. War Minister Newton Becker secretly prepared the mobilization apparatus for two months. 18 May 1917, the Congress passed a law on the registration of all men between the ages of 21 and 30. Registration took place at polling stations and was like an election campaign. Of the 9,5 million registered 500 ths., By lot, 20 July 1917 was called up for military service. For recruits staged banquets and balls. As a result, mass unrest was avoided. However, during the entire war, according to the US military ministry report from 18 in May 1921, out of every 100, on average, 11 deserted into the army.

Within three months, 200 thousand workers built 16 military camps. Each town was designed for 40-50 thousand people. In each town there were 1000-1200 one- and two-story long wooden buildings. They accommodated more than 700 ths. Recruits. The military camps had hospitals, shops, shooting galleries, sports grounds, water supply, sewage, electric lighting, etc. In addition, in the south, where climatic conditions made it possible to live in tents all year round, 16 camps were set up in 700 thousand people.

It is worth noting that at first in Washington they hoped that the Allies would do without a large American army and the war would soon end. Therefore, the Americans were not in a hurry with the transfer of large units of the American army to Europe. The main attention in the United States was given to the organization of the military-industrial complex, the mobilization of material resources. The US government has established the 6 military economic agencies: the military-industrial council and special committees on fuel, railways, transport, shipbuilding, food and commerce.

The difficult task was solved by the military-industrial council. He was led by New York millionaire Bernard Baruch. Baruch Council gained control over the entire industry of the United States. He decided which factories should be supplied with fuel, raw materials and labor. The Military-Industrial Committee not only regulated, but also imposed mandatory maximum standardization of production in order to save resources and labor. He controlled the vast US industry with 184, thousands of local military industry councils. At the same time, the production of some goods completely turned off. All funds were directed to the implementation of military orders. In particular, for the US Army, which by the end of the war had grown to 3,5 million, 720 million m of cotton fabrics were purchased and 35 million pairs of shoes were ordered.

Timely execution of military orders was difficult due to lack of fuel. Due to the lack of fuel at the end of 1917, the 37 ships loaded with military materials were stuck in the port of New York. In order to save fuel, in January 1918, an order was issued to stop on 5 days all factories and plants located east of Mississippi, except for those who worked in the defense industry. It was then forbidden to work in civilian factories on Mondays for 9 weeks. Temporarily in the industry, including the military, was established 5-day work week. In the northeastern states in 4 hours of the evening, and in other parts of the country 2 evenings in the week of the city and villages are not covered.

The country's railways, which belonged to private campaigns, were put under the control of the government. Finance Minister MacAdu was appointed general manager of railways. He reduced passenger traffic to a minimum. The cargo was divided into various categories, primarily the transportation of military cargo was provided.

Workers strikes were a big problem. There were more of them in the 1917 year than even in the 1916 strike year. However, in 1918, the strike movement was reduced. At the beginning of 1918, the Military Labor Council was created. The council was headed by representatives of entrepreneurs and the American Federation of Labor. The promise to establish a minimum wage in industry, an increase in wages on railways and military factories made it possible to solve the problem of reducing strikes.

Vigorous activity launched a military food department. His career was linked to the career of Herbert Hoover (the future US president). This outstanding organizer had to solve the task of creating a large food fund for the uninterrupted supply of not only the US armed forces, but also the armies of the allies. 27 April 1917, the American ambassador in London, Paige, informed Wilson that food supplies in England would be enough for a maximum of 2 a month. At the end of 1917 and the beginning of 1918, the British Minister of Food repeatedly informed Hoover that England could lose the war due to lack of bread. Ships from Australia could not bring wheat in time due to the actions of the German submarine fleet. All hope was in the USA. In America, the slogan was put forward: "Food will win the war." Americans were offered to consume more corn and less wheat, save fats and sugar. In January 1918, Hoover issued a directive on the removal of wheat bread from consumption on Mondays and Wednesdays, the cape on Tuesdays, and pork on Thursdays and Saturdays. In February, 10 weeks banned the consumption of chicken meat. In the future, followed by new restrictions. In particular, the bakeries had to bake bread from a mixture containing no more than 80% wheat flour. Wheat acreage increased from 45 million acres in 1917 to 59 million acres in 1919.

The Food Savings Campaign promoted the adoption of a “dry” law. By the start of World War I, alcohol consumption was banned in 14 states. Back in 1913, congress banned the transport of alcohol from wet to dry states. After the United States entered the war, about ¾ of all the states were considered “dry”. True, the 12 states that remained “wet” represented industrialized areas and accounted for more than half of the country's population. To the religious and public anti-alcohol propaganda was added to the military. The main argument about crime and the non-patriotic nature of the conversion of bread to alcohol at a time when the authorities demanded maximum food savings from all citizens was reinforced by the fact that most of the brewing and alcoholic institutions in the United States belonged to the Germans. In addition, industrial concerns interested in the growth of labor productivity (and alcohol led to an increase in accidents of material losses, etc.) supported the anti-alcohol campaign. As a result, the existence of a “dry” law in most states helped Congress to move towards national legislation without much difficulty. In December 1917, both houses of congress adopted the 18-th addendum to the constitution.

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
1917 Campaign

The transition of the Central Powers to a strategic defense
Entente plans for 1917 year: bet on a decisive victory in the war
Russian army to the beginning of the 1917 campaign of the year: the approach of the general collapse
Attack without shot: Mitav operation
How Germany began the unlimited submarine war
German submarine vs UK
How the German submarine fleet tried to crush the "mistress of the seas"
The United States used the myth of "inhuman" submarine warfare to oppose Germany
Caucasian front in 1917 year. Baratov corps offensive in southwestern Persia
Mosul operation. How the British, until recently, tried to use the Russian "cannon fodder"
The war of the USA and England against Europe and Russia for absolute power on the planet
USA and World War I
How did the USA profit from World War I
26 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. 210ox
    210ox April 14 2017 06: 58 New
    +2
    The defenders in the 20th century used military operations conducted on another continent with great benefit for themselves ...
    1. bouncyhunter
      bouncyhunter April 14 2017 11: 31 New
      +5
      Quote: 210ox
      The defenders in the 20th century used military operations conducted on another continent with great benefit for themselves ...

      ... and in the 21st century continue in the same spirit.
      1. yehat
        yehat April 14 2017 12: 13 New
        0
        no, the situation is different now. If earlier the states were just lucky that they remained on the sidelines and therefore grew, now they themselves are wreaking havoc so that no one accumulates the potential to move them away from trade control.
  2. parusnik
    parusnik April 14 2017 07: 19 New
    0
    Well, what .. in Central America they warmed up, it was necessary to try a strong athlete in Europe ..
  3. Olgovich
    Olgovich April 14 2017 07: 43 New
    +1
    When the war began, the entire US federal army numbered a little more than 80 thousand people, poorly armed and trained

    And at the same time, the author assures us of several articles that it was the United States that unleashed the WWII. With such at "army and navy"unleash wars?
    The author also claimed that the United States had been waiting specifically for the enemies to bleed each other and therefore did not intervene. However, it turns out that it was easy for them to fight for several years. NOTHINGArmy and Navy still had create over the years..
    Do different authors write? request
    When the army and navy were created, then the United States entered. AND objectively accelerated the end of the world carnage and curbing the aggressor. At the same time, of course, they pursued their interests, like EVERYTHING. What is terrible in this if the war with their help REALLY ends?
    Would the author really want US non-interference and a continuation of the war and an increase in casualties? Maybe they didn’t have to get into WWII either?request
    “War will end wars.”

    Yes, there should not have been more than World War II. So it was proclaimed in the Charter of the League of Nations. And she would not have been, but there was no Russia-winner. And without Russia, the world does not exist. When she participates, the winner, the creator of the United Nations, World War II, no.
    1. venaya
      venaya April 14 2017 10: 51 New
      +1
      Quote: Olgovich
      the author has already assured us of several articles that it was the United States that unleashed the WWII. With such an "army and navy", are they starting wars?

      From the point of view of logic, at least one army is needed to unleash a war, but it does not have to be your own army. Like Napoleon’s there: "To start a war, three conditions must be met - firstly, money, secondly also money, and thirdly, again money". If all these three conditions are met, you can start a war, which the United States did by paying part of the costs, for example, the Krup weapons company. Besides, one should not forget that the USA actually started its war in the Republic of Ingushetia in 1911, introducing restrictions on trade in military technology, etc., it’s always easy to find an excuse. A war can be economic, too. Similar examples of unleashing wars on foreign territories and a lot of foreign armies can also be cited.
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich April 14 2017 11: 05 New
        +1
        Quote: venaya
        From the point of view of logic, at least one army is needed to unleash a war, but it does not have to be your own army.


        For unleashing, it’s your own. And the aggressors — Germany and AVENGRY — and absolutely their interests and goals — had their armies (and were absolutely ready). And much earlier than 1914: in 1909 the year was the ultimatum of Serbia from Hungary and the mobilization of its troops on the border with Serbia and Germany’s statements to support her, in a word, everything was the same as before the WWII in 1914. The WWI then moved back, but the German war machine was ready for action
        Quote: venaya
        "For start three conditions must be met - firstly, money, secondly also money, and thirdly, money again "

        You distort the quote and its very meaning, it was said: " For DIRECTIONS war I need three things: firstly, money, secondly, money, and thirdly, money.
        1. V.ic
          V.ic April 14 2017 14: 09 New
          +2
          Quote: Olgovich
          You distort the quote and its very meaning, it was said

          Do not bother to demonstrate your erudition: “According to the Italian author Ludovico Gvicchardini in his work“ Leisure time ”(1565), this is how Marshal Gian-Jacopo Trivulzio (1448-1518) answered the question of Louis XII, what preparations are needed to conquer the Duchy of Milan.”
          http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/dic_wingwords/747/
          1. Olgovich
            Olgovich April 15 2017 06: 30 New
            0
            Quote: V.ic
            Do not bother to demonstrate your erudition:

            Do not bother to demonstrate, once again, your inability to READ written: it was a quote from Napoleon, and he said exactly as I pointed out.
    2. yehat
      yehat April 14 2017 12: 11 New
      0
      America was about to wage war on the markets, not on the battlefield.
      I assure you, this war was preparing and conducted no weaker than the Kaiserreich - the land.
    3. V.ic
      V.ic April 14 2017 14: 04 New
      +1
      Quote: Olgovich
      And without Russia, the world does not exist.

      Bring this truth to your supervisors in Langley!
      1. Olgovich
        Olgovich April 15 2017 06: 33 New
        0
        Quote: V.ic
        Bring this truth to your curators to Langley!

        belay
        Align your similar comments with their curators from Kashchenko.
    4. raif
      raif 29 November 2017 22: 27 New
      0
      in World War II, the same states through Spain sold oil to Germany at least until March 1945. the army wasn’t in business at all. What - you hope that the State Department will pay you for their acquittal? naive young man! go to Russia - we pay well at construction sites laughing
  4. Curious
    Curious April 14 2017 10: 13 New
    +2
    Even having decided, practically the outcome of the First World War, the United States did not become any authority for European politicians. European states still called themselves great.
    The outcome of the war for the great powers was, in short, completely ambiguous.
    Germany fought against the combined forces of Great Britain, France, the USA, Italy and Russia and survived. Vaterland remained untouched, not a single region of Germany was affected by the war; Germany, even after the defeat, remained the strongest European power. Its population, which amounted to 70 million inhabitants after the war, has grown steadily; the population of France froze at the figure of 40 million. A decade after the conclusion of peace, the number of Germans who reached the draft age was double the number of Frenchmen of the same age.
    But the opponents of Germany, sort of like winners, were weakened: by the civil war (Russia); disintegration into separate parts (Austria-Hungary); exhaustion (UK and France)
    At the signing of the Versailles Peace Treaty, US President Wilson arrived with his own program of "eternal peace." These are Wilson's famous Fourteen Points. But they simply did not want to listen to him. Georges Clemenceau said: “Mr. Wilson bores me with his fourteen points; even the Lord had only ten of them. "
    And this is not surprising. None of the states that started the First World War, achieved their goals. On the contrary, the situation only worsened. Therefore, the question of the next war was just a matter of time. And the magnitude of this time was determined not by ephemeral structures such as the League of Nations, but by how quickly the participants, speaking in sports language, would "recover" for the next round.
    It is no coincidence that the treaty, signed by the great powers in 1919 and marking the end of the First World War, remains one of the most controversial historical documents of the XNUMXth century. Even the new borders that this treaty outlined did not take into account many factors, which later helped Hitler very much.
    As for the United States, after the end of World War I, they completely went into their own problems, giving Europe the opportunity to prepare for a new war.
    1. Olgovich
      Olgovich April 14 2017 10: 32 New
      0
      Quote: Curious
      None of the stateswho started World War I, didn't reach set goals. On the contrary, the situation only worsened. Therefore, the question of the next war was just a matter of time.


      No way. And what did France not achieve? What about England? All they wanted was reached.

      And the inevitability of WWII was not predetermined, because the armament of Germany could be controlled and prevented, as provided by Versailles and recognized by Germany itself. But the United States withdrew, England was on her mind, France was not able to (although she was mortally afraid of Germany). The victorious Russia was not enough: it would not allow Germany to arm itself.
      But the betrayal of the Bolsheviks (Brest peace) excluded Russia from the victors (in contrast to the fully occupied Serbia and almost completely Romania) and made the country an outcast, moreover, they supported another rogue aggressor Germany during and after the PMwar.

      After WWII, Russia (USSR), the winner and TMV-no, is already 72 years old ......
      1. Curious
        Curious April 14 2017 11: 26 New
        +3
        Olgovich! Start thinking broader. The narrowness and one-sided nature of your views do not allow you to objectively evaluate any historical process. Diversify your horizons somehow.
        Refer to the Halford Mackinder concept, finally.
        1. Olgovich
          Olgovich April 14 2017 12: 46 New
          0
          Quote: Curious
          Olgovich! Start thinking broader.

          Curiosity! Where already wider? request But okay
          Quote: Curious
          The narrowness and one-sided nature of your views do not allow you objectively evaluate no historical process

          Any person’s view and assessment of any event (not only historical) is a priori subjective , because there are no identical people and, accordingly, each of them sees and evaluates the world in its own way (in different ways). In the context of this, your claims to the objectivity of your assessment of a particular process, say, unfortunately, not only about the narrowness of your views, but also about a very limited outlook (if it is permissible to speak of it at all).
          Perhaps you need to start with the theory of a flat earth on three whales, which is Hartland ...
          By the way, your, um, outlook has not allowed you to answer a simple question
          And what goals did France and England not achieve in WWI?
          1. Curious
            Curious April 14 2017 13: 37 New
            +3
            Yes, when such a response is observed, then the charge hit the target. Opponent went on to offensive comments, a twilight state of mind, complicated by a lack of sense of humor prevailed.
            I answer for the most gifted and thinking on the globe.
            Let's start with the state of the parties "before."
            United Kingdom
            • I could not forgive Germany for the support of the Boers in the Boer War of 1899-1902.
            • She didn’t intend to distantly observe the penetration of Germany into areas that she considered “her”: East and South-West Africa.
            • Waged an undeclared economic and trade war against Germany.
            • Conducted active naval preparations in case of aggressive actions by Germany.
            • Due to the potential German threat, she abandoned the country's policy of “brilliant isolation” and switched to the policy of forming an anti-German bloc. states.
            France
            • She sought revenge for the defeat inflicted on her by Germany in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870.
            • Intended to return Alsace and Lorraine separated from France in 1871.
            • Lost in its traditional markets in competition with German goods.
            • Fearing of new German aggression.
            • At all costs sought to preserve its colonies, in particular North Africa.
            Russian empire
            I want to tell my friend Olgovich that I still can’t understand what kind of thing she got into this war. Therefore, all of the following is far-fetched.
            • Claimed for the free passage of its fleet in the Mediterranean Sea, insisted on weakening or reviewing in its favor the control regime over the Bosphorus and Dardanelles.
            • She regarded the construction of the Berlin-Baghdad railway (1898) as an act unfriendly from Germany. She also referred to the fact that this encroached on her rights in Asia under the Anglo-Russian agreement of 1907 on the distribution of spheres of influence in this region. However, by the beginning of World War I, these differences with Germany were settled by the Potsdam Agreement of 1911.
            • Countered Austrian penetration into the Balkans.
            • Insisted on the exclusive right of the protectorate over all Slavic peoples; supported the anti-Austrian and anti-Turkish sentiments among the Serbs and Bulgarians in the Balkans.
            The German Empire
            • Strived for political and economic domination on the European continent.
            • Having joined the struggle for the colonies only after 1871, it claimed equal rights in the colonial possessions of England, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Portugal. It was particularly active in getting markets.
            • Qualified the Entente as an agreement whose purpose was to undermine the power of Germany.
            • Wished to acquire new territories.
            Austria-Hungary
            • Being a multinational empire, due to interethnic contradictions, Austria-Hungary was a constant hotbed of instability in Europe.
            • Tried to keep Bosnia and Herzegovina captured by her in 1908.
            • Counteracted Russia, which took on the role of defender of all Slavs in the Balkans, and Serbia, which claimed to be the unifying center of the southern Slavs.
            The USA is not considered. They are at this stage not about the World Cup.
            And now a simple question for a person who is sure that the earth is Moldova.
            Who achieved what in the end?
            1. Olgovich
              Olgovich April 14 2017 13: 54 New
              0
              Quote: Curious
              Yes, when such a response is observed, then the charge hit the target. Opponent went on to offensive comments, a twilight state of mind complicated by a lack of sense of humor prevailed

              The twilight response of a twilight person, weighed down by a number of complexes. Sad, I must say, complexes, for its owner.
              Quote: Curious
              I answer for the most gifted and thinking on the globe.

              You, alas, AGAIN did not answer the question. I’ll ask him FOR THIRD TIME: Which of the goals listed by you has France not achieved? England?
              Or you yourself do not read, writing off other people's arguments, or do not understand their meaning, which is even sadder ....
              Quote: Curious
              And now a simple question for a person who is sure that the earth is Moldova.

              I’m becoming more and more convinced that you still need to start with the theory of the Earth on three pillars.
              1. Curious
                Curious April 14 2017 14: 07 New
                +2
                Speaking of three whales. And what does that change? On three pillars of the Earth or on one axis, the issue under discussion is all the same. But, using the terminology of the First World War, our discussion has reached a “positional dead end”. You, plunging deeper into the quagmire of delusions, stubbornly repel a helping hand, which I tried to reach you exclusively out of philanthropy. Well, this is your choice.
                1. Conductor
                  Conductor April 14 2017 14: 29 New
                  +1
                  And in your work do you pursue the goal of personal enrichment or, all the same, and the prosperity of the company where you work?
                2. Olgovich
                  Olgovich April 14 2017 14: 32 New
                  0
                  Quote: Curious
                  Speaking of three whales. And what does that change? On three whales Earth or on one axis,

                  Changes nothing. I think you need to start with simple things, gradually evolving.
                  Quote: Curious
                  our discussion has reached a "positional dead end"

                  Dead end in three pines? You just CANNOT confirm your statement:
                  None of the states that started the First World War, achieved their goals. On the contrary, the situation only worsened
                  , "running away" to anywhere, just not to answer, not to admit your mistake.
                  Quote: Curious
                  You deeper and deeper to the quagmire delusions, stubbornly push away arm the help that I tried to reach you solely out of philanthropy.

                  Reach out to their hair and accomplish the feat of Munchausen, stretching yourself out of the quagmire of idle talk and graphomania.
            2. venaya
              venaya April 14 2017 15: 22 New
              0
              Quote: Curious
              Someone has achieved the result

              I think your question is most relevant in connection with the topic of this series of these articles. The main answer, in my opinion and the main answer, can only be that according to the results of the whole war + the originally programmed revolutions in all empires existing on the continent at that time Fed US monopoly received the largest% of gold reserves in their storages and thus practically began to release a new world currency as own $. Carefully consider all the other, intermediate aspects does not make much sense, as secondary and not playing a big role in the main idea of ​​the instigators all this terrible slaughter called WWI.
      2. V.ic
        V.ic April 14 2017 20: 30 New
        +1
        Quote: Olgovich
        and TMV-no- for 72 years ..

        ... and is it USA merit?
  5. Cartalon
    Cartalon April 14 2017 16: 55 New
    +1
    Germany quite intentionally and consciously took the risk of the US entering the war, so the article would not be about anything, there would be no limited submarine war, there would be no USA
  6. raif
    raif 29 November 2017 22: 24 New
    0
    it is necessary - from 100 called 11 deserted! and here someone with foam at the mouth when discussing an article about a US soldier who violated something there and was sentenced to death in Votuyu World, argued that the Yankees had no deseters, all went to serve and both world wars fought heroically and then too. here to poke the ebal of this "US protector" into the article! but I think that this "hero" would begin to whine that this is all the insinuations of Putin and the KGB