How interested are the the Non Americans in the US senate race?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the United States had followed a strict non-interventionist foreign policy, it is likely that the intra-European conflict would have ended in late 1916 or early 1917 as the result of several peace initiatives,

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
April, 1917 US declares war on Germany

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

The US was involved in the war long before the actual declaration of war. It's mentioned earlier in the book than the part I quoted.

5 confusions for that, eh?

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]

The US was involved in the war long before the actual declaration of war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mostly only in naval/logistics sense and in no way that I can discern through the commonly held historical record that might have interfered with any peace negotiations, indeed the yanks were making many peace attempts of their own.

[Bjorn]

[ QUOTE ]
How did U.S. internvetion in WW1 lead to WW2?

I thought WW2 was caused by the devastation brought to the German and Italian economies by the harsh reparations demanded in the Treaty of Versailles (Most of these draconian measures were opposed by Woodrow Wilson and the U.S.) and the political consequences of this economic collapse within Germany and Italy.

The European powers within the Triple Entente -- particularly the French -- were more concerned with punishing the losing side of the war than with building the foundation for a more stable and peaceful Europe and a more stable and peaceful world.

[/ QUOTE ]

First and most obviously Italy was on the wining side of WW1 and certanly didn't pay any reparations. However the entire european economic system was quite severly wrecked by WW1 and its aftermath and Italy beeing a relativly backward country suffered more than many others.

As for the treaty of Versailes beeing too harsh that subject can fill an entire book. Suffice to say that the treaty the germans inflicted on the russians after winning on the eastern front (Treaty of Brest-Litowsk) was much much harsher. Personaly I see the biggest failure of the Versailes treaty in the fact that it was never ratified by the United States. The almost imidiate breakup of the wartime aliance of UK, USA and France ment that the treaty was not enforcable.

As for French strategy during the Versailes negotiations it can be sumarised as follows. If possible emasculate Germany to the point where she can not within the forseeable future rearm and attack us. If this proves impossible (and in reality it proved completly unrealistic) maintain the wartime aliance at all cost. They clearly failed on both objectives.

It should also be remembered that some provisions (esp. "War guilt" and reparations) was more or less demanded by public opinion and almost had to be put into the treaty even if they were in fact stupid.

/Bjorn

PS: And yes, I do care about the elections.