# USA declare was on Germany 100 years ago!



## The Basket (Apr 8, 2017)

So what do you think of this?
Why? Unrestricted sub warfare? Zimmerman telegram? Lusitania? 
This this new development sink the Germans? 
My view is that the Americans were totally unprepared for war even in 1917 and so short term it means not much. Long term is different howevr.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 13, 2017)

I think no single one of the causes you mentioned was by itself responsible, but a combination of them all led to an increasing public perception of a "kinder, gentler," more sympathetic (to American values) civilization under attack by a more brutal, less civilised barbaric horde.
Young, headstrong, earnest, newly powerful America, an adolescent on the world stage, needed to flex her muscles, set the world to rights, and vanquish the villains. "Let's see, we managed to whip Mexico, then them Injuns, then Spain, with one hand tied behind us, so these Krauts, or Huns, or Boches, or whatchamacall'ems shouldn't be any trouble at all!" The unreadiness for modern warfare is never really apparent until the war is underway.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## mikewint (Apr 13, 2017)

Check out the thread: 
*A Victorious Luftstreitkräfte-Imperial German Aviation Development After WW1*


----------



## The Basket (Apr 17, 2017)

The first German unrestricted submarine warfare campaign almost brought USA into war but the resumption 100 years ago was certainly a calculated gamble to get results before USA entry into the shooting war.

The USA was unprepared and was actually militarily poor and so, as proved, would need at least a year to get its act together. So the collapse of Russia and freeing up the Eastern front and knowing the weakness of USA gave the Germans a year before American troops will be available.


----------



## Sir Percy Ware-Armitage (Apr 20, 2017)

I'm reading a book which sheds light on American preparedness for war in the early XX century. Written by an American sharpshooter (Herbert W. McBride) from the US National Guard who volunteered to serve with the Canadian forces in 1914. Very interesting.

Amazon product
_View: https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B0081O17WW/ref=oh_aui_d_detailpage_o00_?ie=UTF8&psc=1_


----------



## pbehn (Apr 20, 2017)

The "rules" of submarine warfare were strange to say the least.

Charles Fryatt - Wikipedia


----------



## The Basket (Apr 20, 2017)

Fryatt story is fascinating.up my alley as far as naval history is concerned.
Cant believe the Germans shot him! Although more shockingly Churchill was said to have said that captured u boat crew can be killed. I will have to research that!


----------



## pbehn (Apr 20, 2017)

The Basket said:


> Fryatt story is fascinating.up my alley as far as naval history is concerned.
> Cant believe the Germans shot him! Although more shockingly Churchill was said to have said that captured u boat crew can be killed. I will have to research that!


As I read it (it was covered in a newspaper years ago) Fryatt was shot because his behaviour undermined the ethos behind restricted submarine warfare, both sides have to play the game or it will end in unrestricted warfare.


----------



## mikewint (Apr 20, 2017)

Following the sinking of an unarmed French boat, the Sussex, in the English Channel in March 1916, Wilson threatened to sever diplomatic relations with Germany unless the German Government refrained from attacking all passenger ships and allowed the crews of enemy merchant vessels to abandon their ships prior to any attack. On May 4, 1916, the German Government accepted these terms and conditions in what came to be known as the “Sussex pledge.”
By January 1917, however, the situation in Germany had changed. During a wartime conference that month, representatives from the German Navy convinced the military leadership and Kaiser Wilhelm II that a resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare could help defeat Great Britain within five months. German policymakers argued that they could violate the “Sussex pledge” since the United States could no longer be considered a neutral party after supplying munitions and financial assistance to the Allies. Germany also believed that the United States had jeopardized its neutrality by acquiescing to the Allied blockade of Germany.
German Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg protested this decision, believing that resuming submarine warfare would draw the United States into the war on behalf of the Allies. This, he argued, would lead to the defeat of Germany. Despite these warnings, the German Government decided to resume unrestricted submarine attacks on all Allied and neutral shipping within prescribed war zones, reckoning that German submarines would end the war long before the first U.S. troopships landed in Europe. Accordingly, on January 31, 1917, German Ambassador to the United States Count Johann von Bernstorff presented U.S. Secretary of State Robert Lansing a note declaring Germany’s intention to restart unrestricted submarine warfare the following day.
President Wilson responded by going before Congress on February 3 to announce that he had severed diplomatic relations with Germany. However, he refrained from asking for a declaration of war because he doubted that the U.S. public would support him unless he provided ample proof that Germany intended to attack U.S. ships without warning. Wilson left open the possibility of negotiating with Germany if its submarines refrained from attacking U.S. shipping. Nevertheless, throughout February and March 1917, German submarines targeted and sank several U.S. ships, resulting in the deaths of numerous U.S. seamen and citizens.
On February 26, Wilson asked Congress for the authority to arm U.S. merchant ships with U.S. naval personnel and equipment. While the measure would probably have passed in a vote, several anti-war Senators led a successful filibuster that consumed the remainder of the congressional session. As a result of this setback, President Wilson decided to arm U.S. merchant ships by executive order, citing an old anti-piracy law that gave him the authority to do so.
While Wilson weighed his options regarding the submarine issue, he also had to address the question of Germany’s attempts to cement a secret alliance with Mexico. On January 19, 1917, British naval intelligence intercepted and decrypted a telegram sent by German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmermann to the German Ambassador in Mexico City. The “Zimmermann Telegram” promised the Mexican Government that Germany would help Mexico recover the territory it had ceded to the United States following the Mexican-American War. In return for this assistance, Germany asked for Mexican support in the war.
Initially, the British had not shared the news of the Zimmermann Telegram with U.S. officials because they did not want the Germans to discover that British code breakers had cracked the German code. However, following Germany’s resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in February, the British decided to use the note to help sway U.S. official and public opinion in favor of joining the war. The British finally forwarded the intercepted telegram to President Wilson on February 24. The U.S. press carried the story the following week.
Despite the shocking news of the Zimmermann Telegram, Wilson still hesitated asking for a declaration of war. He waited until March 20 before convening a Cabinet meeting to broach the matter—almost a month after he had first seen the telegram. The precise reasons for Wilson’s decision to choose war in 1917 remain the subject of debate among historians, especially in light of his efforts to avoid war in 1915 after the sinking of the British passenger liners Lusitania and Arabic, which had led to the deaths of 131 U.S. citizens.
However, by 1917, the continued submarine attacks on U.S. merchant and passenger ships, and the “Zimmermann Telegram’s” implied threat of a German attack on the United States, swayed U.S. public opinion in support of a declaration of war. Furthermore, international law stipulated that the placing of U.S. naval personnel on civilian ships to protect them from German submarines already constituted an act of war against Germany. Finally, the Germans, by their actions, had demonstrated that they had no interest in seeking a peaceful end to the conflict. These reasons all contributed to President Wilson’s decision to ask Congress for a declaration of war against Germany. They also encouraged Congress to grant Wilson’s request and formally declare war on Germany.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Apr 20, 2017)

On April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson went before a joint session of Congress to request a declaration of war against Germany. Wilson cited Germany’s violation of its pledge to suspend unrestricted submarine warfare in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean, as well as its attempts to entice Mexico into an alliance against the United States, as his reasons for declaring war. On April 4, 1917, the U.S. Senate voted in support of the measure to declare war on Germany. The House concurred two days later. The United States later declared war on German ally Austria-Hungary on December 7, 1917

These are the basic facts, but how did US-German relations degrade to the point that Germany felt compelled to hatch Machiavellian and dangerous schemes with US neighbours and declare unrestricted submarine warfare against US (and all) shipping within the declared area. this latter point is an interesting point of comparison. During the early part of WWII Nazi Germany rapidly introduced a program of unrestricted warfare on the high seas with both surface units and submarines and importantly such warfare was not limited to a declared area, it was a worldwide blockade on everybody (including allies to Nazi Germany), yet hardly raised a wimper from anybody. What had changed between 1917 and 1940? I think it goes to national attitudes and standards for moral behaviour in war.

The resumption of unrestricted U-Boat attacks was a calculated risk by the Germans, they relied on the assumption the Americans would not risk war over the issue, or if they did, the U-Boats would force the allies to the peace table before the US forces would have any real effect. they were very nearly right. German prospects for success were improved with the sudden collapse of imperial Russia and the renewed offensive on the western front. but counters to the new german tactics were eventually found and the shortages of munitions, and manpower for the german army began to take hold from July 1918 on. By November the german army was broken and in full retreat, with the prospect of a very real occupation of the whole of Germany sometime in 1919. the more perceptive Allied leaders like Pershing knew this to be a necessary pre-requisite and the pursuit of an unconditional surrender not just a luxury. but an absolute necessity to avoid Germans coming to the false belief that as a nation they were in a position of equality with the victorious allies, and that somehow they had been robbed of victory by some sort of unspecified treachery.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Apr 21, 2017)

Fryatt shooting is a very sticky wicket. Legally or morally difficult. 
I find the American entry into the war baffling as many of the criteria was already in place. So why not enter earlier? The strong anti-war sentiment was strong and wasn't Wilson voted in on an anti war ticket?


----------



## Zippythehog (Apr 21, 2017)

Parsifal, I think you're right about unrestricted submarine warfare and the expectations of 1940.
I recall a story from Stokesbury's book, "A Short History of Air Power." He relates that Fokker beat the English to the patent office over a machine gun synchronizer. The British, at first, scrapped their idea as it wasn't proper to pay royalties to an enemy and copywrite infringement just wasn't done!

These were two different worlds 1916 and 1940.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikewint (Apr 21, 2017)

The Basket said:


> I find the American entry into the war baffling as many of the criteria was already in place. So why not enter earlier? The strong anti-war sentiment was strong and wasn't Wilson voted in on an anti war ticket?



In 1916 Wilson was running for his second term as President. During those first four years Wilson had emerged as a powerful champion of the progressive agenda on the domestic scene and* a strong spokesperson for American neutrality* in the devastating war in Western Europe. But the President recognized, as many Democrats in the West and South did not, that the United States could be drawn into the war at any moment by the act of some obscure German submarine commander. Hence, *while he advocated continued neutrality, he also called for military preparedness*, and the apparent tension between those two policies troubled many Democrats, particularly Irish Americans and German Americans. At the Democratic convention in St. Louis, Wilson won on the first ballot, as did his running mate, Vice President Marshall. The platform called for military preparedness, a world association of nations to maintain peace after the war in Europe had ended, Pan-American unity, a ban on child labor, women's suffrage, and prison reform. During the convention, the delegates cheered a new campaign slogan, *"He Kept Us Out of War," *which world conditions made a hope more than a promise.
The Republicans nominated Charles Evans Hughes of New York, a moderate Republican whom Taft had appointed to the Supreme Court in 1910. Roosevelt derided Hughes as "a bearded iceberg," but Hughes won the nomination on the third ballot with 949 votes. Former Vice President Charles W. Fairbanks of Indiana was picked for the second spot on the ticket.
It seemed certain that the Republican Party would win the election as they stood united behind a single candidate, and the Democrats had won only three presidential elections since 1860. Voters seemed apathetic and weary of progressive reforms, the key accomplishments of the Democratic administration over the last four years. Hughes's foreign policy, moreover, which emphasized a straightforward preparedness program, seemed less muddled than Wilson's call for neutrality and preparedness in the same breath. Critics charged Wilson with wanting the nation both in the war and aloof from it, a utopian stance that seemed unrealistic to many.
It was a very close election and it wasn’t until the second day, when returns from California and Ohio came in that it became clear that Wilson had squeaked to a narrow victory in both the popular vote and the electoral college. Hughes lost the traditionally Democratic South, the progressive West, and a few key midwestern states with large German American populations that opposed American entry into the war against Germany. Wilson captured the support of labor unions, western women in those few states where they enjoyed suffrage, most ethnic groups who hated the British and resented Roosevelt, and almost all progressives and many socialists. He captured thirty states to Hughes's eighteen. Wilson won 49.4 percent (9,127,695) of the popular vote; Hughes captured 46.2 percent (8,533,507). The electoral college ballot gave Wilson a narrow twenty-three vote margin—277 to 254.


----------



## mikewint (Apr 21, 2017)

parsifal said:


> The resumption of unrestricted U-Boat attacks was a calculated risk by the Germans, they relied on the assumption the Americans would not risk war over the issue, or if they did, the U-Boats would force the allies to the peace table before the US forces would have any real effect. they were very nearly right



When Wilson was elected to his second term in 1916 he had truly intended to keep the United States out of World War I. After all he was following George Washington's 124-year precedent of American neutrality in European wars. But Germany’s decision to resume unrestricted submarine warfare and the Zimmermann Telegram pushed him over the edge. As a result, just 70 days later, on April 2, 1917, he asked Congress to declare war on Germany.
On January 31 after the German ambassador in Washington informed the U.S. State Department that his nation would begin unrestricted submarine warfare at midnight. Wilson’s adviser Edward House wrote in his diary the next day. “The President was sad and depressed, he said he felt as if the world had suddenly reversed itself; that after going from east to west, it had begun to go from west to east and that he could not get his balance.”
Wilson cut off diplomatic relations with Germany, but still refused to believe war was inevitable. “We do not desire any hostile conflict with the Imperial German Government,” he told Congress on February 3. “We are the sincere friends of the German people and earnestly desire to remain at peace with the Government which speaks for them. We shall not believe that they are hostile to us unless and until we are obliged to believe it.”

Wilson’s critics raged at his inaction. “I don’t believe Wilson will go to war unless Germany literally kicks him into it,” former President Theodore Roosevelt, wrote to U.S. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge.
That kick came on February 23 when the British government delivered a copy of the Zimmermann Telegram to Walter Hines Pace, the American ambassador in London. When Zimmermann’s message arrived from London at the State Department in D.C. on Saturday night, February 24, Acting Secretary of State Frank L. Polk took it directly to the White House. Wilson, Polk recalled later, showed “much indignation.”
The telegram inflamed American public opinion and turned the nation toward war. Yet even then, the deliberative Wilson was not quite ready
When Wilson met with his cabinet on March 20, he was still undecided. But two events the previous week had finally pushed him to the point of no return. German U-boats had sunk three more American ships, killing 15 people. And the ongoing turmoil in Russia had forced Nicholas II to abdicate the throne, ending 300 years of Romanov rule. The czar’s abdication had ceded power to a short-lived provisional government created by the Russian legislature. That meant that all of the Allied nations in World War I were now democracies fighting a German-led coalition of autocratic monarchies.

The cabinet unanimously recommended war. Wilson left without announcing his plans. “President was solemn, very sad!” wrote Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels in his diary.
Wilson likely made his decision that night. On March 21, he set a date with Congress for a special session on April 2 on “grave matters of national policy.”


----------



## pbehn (Apr 21, 2017)

The Basket said:


> Fryatt shooting is a very sticky wicket. Legally or morally difficult.


The agreements made were ok for the suits in conference chambers, telling a captain to voluntarily halt his ship and abandon it was a bit of an imposition. There was no guarantee at the time that passengers would survive getting into boats or the the ship wouldnt be sunk straight away.


----------



## The Basket (Apr 21, 2017)

A merchant ship isn't a merchant ship if it is trying to ram U-boats. I agree that loss of one's vessel is never good. But war is war and if a sub deliberately attacks the Lusitania and it's found the Lusitania was carrying war material then the sinking can be justified. 
Oddly during ww2 british merchant vessels were advised to wireless any attack. This makes it impossible for a merchant ship to surrender so giving justification for a surface raider to shell without warning.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 21, 2017)

The Basket said:


> A merchant ship isn't a merchant ship if it is trying to ram U-boats. I agree that loss of one's vessel is never good. But war is war and if a sub deliberately attacks the Lusitania and it's found the Lusitania was carrying war material then the sinking can be justified..



But that is the dilemma of all these agreements, if the Lusitania wasnt carrying war material it is still sunk.


----------



## The Basket (Apr 21, 2017)

The British used Q ships and advised merchant crews to ram surfaced U-Boats so the Germans could argue with some justification that the Prize rules would be suicidal and that merchant ships are acting as belligerent so can be treated as such. Takes two to tango.
Was America neutral before the declaration of war? Hmm that is a loaded question! I'm sure from German point of view that USA supported the Triple Entente with guns and loans. And so it was a very wonky neutrality. Although it is clear that the Germans clearly knew the USA would enter the war against them very soon. Although the true capabilities of the USA army was certainly not at it's zenith in 1917


----------



## pbehn (Apr 21, 2017)

The Basket said:


> The British used Q ships and advised merchant crews to ram surfaced U-Boats so the Germans could argue with some justification that the Prize rules would be suicidal and that merchant ships are acting as belligerent so can be treated as such. Takes two to tango.1917


The rules as they were made sense to those who made them, it is like playing an international rugby game with no referee.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 21, 2017)

The trouble is that without either searching a ship or examining the ships cargo manifest a submarine (or surface raider) has no idea if a particular ship is carrying war material or not. In fact a submarine or SR (surface raider) has very little idea of particular ships destination (coastal waters give an indication but open ocean does not) and at times, only a good guess as to the ships identity. WW I periscopes weren't all that good to begin with let alone using an observation position lower than a man _sitting _in rowboat. One story claims Otto Widdegen didn't even know what class (type) of cruiser he initially torpedoed. He thought it was a light cruiser which is why he fired one torpedo. Once he identified them as armoured cruisers he fired two torpedoes at each of the others (the U-9 only had 4 tubes and a total of 6 torpedoes) 
Once a sub or SR fires on an unidentified ship it is bordering on piracy (and which side of the border is it on?). Are merchant ships allowed to resist pirates?

Germans were pissed because the Royal Navy could blockade Germany and they couldn't blockade Britain and France but when you pick a fight with the most powerful navy in the world you can't expect much else of a result. Especially considering geography.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 21, 2017)

Shortround6 said:


> WW I periscopes weren't all that good to begin with let alone using an observation position lower than a man _sitting _in rowboat. .


This, in the North Sea and others with high wave heights up to 30ft. Many major sea battles contain some episode of miss identification of well known surface vessels even by airborne observers. Once one ship has been sunk under controversial circumstances, in a war you dont hear the other side, who would blame a captain for ramming a submarine and /or running?


----------



## The Basket (Apr 22, 2017)

If unrestricted sub warfare is so bad it didn't stop USA in Ww2 in the Pacific.
Doenitz at Nuremberg was going to be in deep poop for Kriegsmarine unrestricted sub warfare until Nimitz advised he did exactly same thing.
Maybe it was just very bad PR on the German side. They freely and deliberately admitted it when best to do is just do it and deny everything!

I am still unconvinced that unristricted sub warfare was the reason USA joined the war. Because the anti war movement was so strong and even pro German Anti British sentiment was also powerful.

I will do more reading.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 22, 2017)

Why this fixation on THE reason the US joined the war? These things seldom happen for a single overriding reason. IMHO it was a pile of reasons such as Zimmerman, submarines, unwarranted executions, Anglo-French propaganda, etc, that led to a perception of Germany as brutal, treacherous, and dishonorable; all qualities that offended American values (expounded if not always practiced) of honor, honesty, and fair play. Sophistication and cynicism regarding foreign affairs had not (and many would say say never has) matured in America. Obviously, it was our duty to pitch in, slay the Jaborwock, and put the world to rights. "Speak softly and carry a big stick!"
Cheers
Wes


----------



## parsifal (Apr 22, 2017)

stop and search policies were practised from well before WWI. They were applied during the blockades of the ACW. Also as far back as the Napoleonic war.

During WWI German submarines adhered to the rules of war for the most part. they would stop a vessel , search it, if it was carrying contraband, they would order the crew to abandon ship and lay explosive charges to sink the ship. The stories of armed merchantmen fighting back, Q ships roaming the high seas to terrorise Uboats with surprise attacks did happen, but were rare. Its substantially true to say these stories are overblown bits of baloney most of the time.

The Allies used over 1000 escort vessels, 100000 mines and more than 5000 a/c to combat the German Uboat forces. Of the 340 Uboats that put to sea, 178 of them were lost, but only a handful were lost to merchant ships fighting back. just as its a beat up to say Germany was forced into unrestricted attacks by merchantmen being armed it is also baloney to think that the Uboats of WWI were technically more inferior to WWII boats. Its a false assumption. Compared to the surface escorts ranged against them, WWI uboats were technically superior to their WWII cousins. WWI subs operated as far afield as the US west coast and the Med. The 340 submarines of the imperial navy managed to sink 15 million tons of shipping in effectively 3 years, whilst the uboats of the KM numbering well over 800, and operating for nearly 6 years managed to sink around 14 million tons of shipping. WWI subs were never technologically beaten in the same way as DKM boats were beaten. They certainly did not lack effective optics. They were just overwhelmed....

What really forced the Germans to use sink on sight policies was the increasing use of convoy, and more to the point effective escorts for those convoys. A uboat could not really surface, stop board search and then scuttle a ship that was part of a convoy. Convoys forced the Uboats to fight illegally , 

once the germans were prepared to sink any ship on sight without warning it was only a matter of time before they would rile the Americans into joining the fight

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Apr 22, 2017)

America also declared war on Austria Hungary. When Austria Hungary was actually not doing anything to upset the Americans apart from been allied to Germany.

Not sure about the convoy theory. The Admiralty has not organised full convoys yet and the Germans had already started unrestricted sub warfare. The idea was simple. Sink as many ships as fast as you can and starve Britain. The full convoy system was in answer to the German policy. Since the Germans considered the Royal Navy 'Hunger Blockade' as a war against children then I suppose morality was already out the window


----------



## mikewint (Apr 22, 2017)

War contraband is a term that can be defined any way the blockaders wanted. It didn't take the British long to define food as a contraband war material. So when war broke out in August 1914, the British government moved immediately to strangle the supply of raw materials and then foodstuffs to Germany and its allies. This marked the beginning of the 'hunger blockade', a war of attrition that lasted beyond the Armistice and didn’t end until Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919.
Armed with contraband lists, British naval ships spent the war patrolling the North Sea, intercepting and detaining thousands of merchant ships thought to be harboring cargo bound for enemy shores. This aggressive display of maritime power aroused considerable anger in neutral countries, many of whom enjoyed strong trading links with Germany.
Tension was heightened after the North Sea was declared a British 'military area' on 3 November 1914. Despite complaints about breaches of international law, however, most neutral merchant ships agreed to put into British ports for inspection and were subsequently escorted - minus any 'illegal' cargo bound for Germany - through the British-laid minefields to their final destinations.
The blockade strategy worked effectively. As a memorandum to the War Cabinet on 1 January 1917 stated, very few supplies were reaching Germany or its allies - either through the North Sea or through other areas such as Austria's Adriatic ports, subject to a French blockade since the first month of the war.
Germany attempted to counter the crippling effects of the blockade with a new weapon that seemed capable of subverting British naval superiority: the submarine. For much of the war, German submarines were deployed only intermittently against neutral and Allied shipping. Their devastating impact was offset by the international anger that such attacks aroused.
In spite of the international uproar, starting from 1 February 1917, the German naval command adopted a policy of ‘unrestricted submarine warfare'. Despite initial successes, this high-risk strategy did not work. It finally provoked the USA into entering the war against the Central Powers and its worst effects were successfully countered by the introduction of a convoy system.
Due to the 'hunger blockade', by 1915, German imports had fallen by 55% from pre-war levels. Aside from causing shortages in important raw materials such as coal and various non-ferrous metals, the blockade cut off fertilizer supplies that were vital to German agriculture.
Staple foodstuffs such as grain, potatoes, meat and dairy products became so scarce by the winter of 1916 that many people subsisted on a diet of ersatz products that ranged from so-called 'war bread' (Kriegsbrot) to powdered milk. The shortages caused looting and food riots, not only in Germany, but also in the Habsburg cities of Vienna and Budapest, where wartime privations were felt equally acutely.
The German government made strenuous attempts to alleviate the worst effects of the blockade. The Hindenburg program, introduced in December 1916, was designed to raise productivity by ordering the compulsory employment of all men between the ages of 17 and 60. A complicated system of rationing, first introduced in January 1915, aimed to ensure that at least minimum nutritional needs were met. In larger cities, 'war kitchens' provided cheap meals en masse to impoverished local citizens.
Such schemes, however, enjoyed only limited success. The average daily diet of 1,000 calories was insufficient even for small children. Disorders related to malnutrition - scurvy, tuberculosis and dysentery - were common by 1917.
Official statistics attributed nearly 763,000 wartime deaths in Germany to starvation caused by the Allied blockade. This figure excluded the further 150,000 German victims of the 1918 influenza pandemic, which inevitably caused disproportionate suffering among those already weakened by malnutrition and related diseases.
Although the blockade made an important contribution to the Allied victory, many of its devastating side effects cast a long shadow over post-war German society and like the Versailles Treaty contributed to the rise of Nazism.


----------



## The Basket (Apr 22, 2017)

I would say the Turnip Winter was just as vital in the use of unrestricted submarine warfare as any other. The population was starving although lack of agriculture workers was also to blame.
In my humble opinion ww1 has far more shades of grey than ww2 and that makes it far more interesting and controversial. And far more challenging to know the good guys.


----------



## mikewint (Apr 22, 2017)

After its defeat in WWI, according to the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was not allowed to have any submarines. In 1935, Germany ignored it and began to rebuild a new submarine force, under the command of a former World War I U-boat captain, Karl Doenitz. Doenitz advanced submarine warfare to new heights, trained highly skilled crews and captains, and developed devastating new tactics, mainly the Wolfpack tactic which allowed a group of submarines to efficiently coordinate and concentrate their effort instead of fighting alone.
In the Wolfpack tactic, the submarines first spread across a long stretch of ocean to enhance their probability of detecting passing enemy ships, and when one of the submarines detected a convoy of enemy ships, instead of immediately attacking it alone, it reported its position and course and followed it, and the other submarines first slowly regrouped to a position ahead of the enemy convoy, and only then attacked it together, preferably at night, overwhelming or even outnumbering the convoy's anti-submarine escort warships and sinking many more ships.
The devastating implementation of such tactics by the German U-boats, and systematic ongoing analysis of results and adaptation to changes, made Doenitz and his submarines the most formidable enemy Britain faced, more worrying even than the Luftwaffe. Winston Churchill said that the only threat that really worried him during World War 2 was "The U-boat peril".
The only thing that saved Britain from being suffocated early in the war by the German U-boats, were Doenitz's superiors.
1. The German High Command, and mainly Hitler, were focused before and during the war on continental ground warfare. Hitler was also firmly confident before the war that Germany will not have to fight Britain in the near future. He said so himself in a letter to the U-boat captains just 5 weeks before the war.
2. The German Navy itself, like the British Navy, was dominated by Admirals who served in the big guns surface ships, and despite the successful experience of German submarines in World War 1, and the development of the aircraft as a powerful weapon against surface ships, they kept the submarines force as a secondary arm of the Navy, in terms of budget allocation.
As a result, Hitler and Roeder (head of the German Navy) confidently rejected Doenitz' pre-war warnings that Germany has too few submarines to achieve their task of cutting Britain's maritime life line, and instead of having 300 submarines at the beginning of the war ( Doenitz calculated that considering the submarines sailing to and back from the area of operations, submarines used for training new crews, and submarines being resupplied and repaired in German harbors, he needed 300 submarines in order to have 100 submarines active in the area of operations near Britain.) as he wanted, he had just 55, and only 12 could be active in Atlantic operations.
Even after the war started, it took a long time before the U-boats were allowed to fully exploit their devastating potential and before their rate of production was significantly raised to compensate for losses and increase their numbers. In 1943 Doenitz was also promoted to head of the German Navy and submarine production was dramatically increased, but it was too late. The German U-boats then faced much stronger anti submarine forces, which were equipped with new technologies, new tactics, a new commander, Admiral Max Horton, a former submarine captain and commander of the British submarine force, who knew best how to fight against submarines, and by then merchant ships were produced in America faster than the U-boats could sink them. In May 1943 Doenitz lost 41 U-boats in 3 weeks. The hunters became the hunted. The U-boat activity expanded to the South Atlantic, to the US East coast, the Caribbean, and the Mediterranean, but the main battlefield remained the North Atlantic sea routes to Britain, and there they lost the battle.
Until the end of 1942, the Germans sunk an average of 14 ships for each submarine lost. Since 1943, the rate dramatically reduced and submarines losses were very high. During the war they sunk a total of 3000 allied ships, mostly merchants, 14.5 million tons of shipping, and lost almost 800 submarines, which is about 80% of those which participated in operations, and 2/3 of the total of 1170 U-boats produced


----------



## Graeme (Apr 22, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> These things seldom happen for a single overriding reason



Absolutely. 
Here's another - according to A.J.P. Taylor the demise of Bernstorff was also a contributor to souring German/USA relations.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 22, 2017)

Two points that are totally unconnected. 

WW I. 
Top ten nations that suffered from U-boat attacks.

*Country* *Attacks*



British 3,739



French 802



Norwegian 796



Italian 689



Greek 272



Danish 256



Russian 192



Swedish 181



Dutch 179



American 174
total 7,280

from Ships hit by U-boats - German and Austrian U-boats of World War One - Kaiserliche Marine - uboat.net

Please note that Norway was "technically" neutral, although it favored the British even more than the US (at least until 1917) and the Dutch were neutral for the entire war. Greece did not officially declare war on the central powers until 30 June 1917.
Granted merchant ships of any nation could embark cargoes of war materials for combatant nations. 

As for the Japanese and Americans in WW II. The Japanese had 9 submarines operating of the US west coast in Dec of 1941 that made 8 separate attacks on US merchant ships, sinking 2 and damaging 2 more. four made their escape despite being fired on by deck guns or missed by torpedoes. In NO case were warnings given or any attempt to board examine the ships made. (some ships did radio reports leading to aircraft arriving shortly). There was one reported instance of machine gunning the lifeboats although no causalities resulted. 
The Japanese started "unrestricted" submarine warfare against the US, they just weren't very good at it and failed to keep it up (it lasted from Dec 18 to 24). US counter attacks failed to damage any of the Japanese submarines. 

The Japanese cannot have it both ways. You can't start unrestricted submarine warfare (no matter how incompetently) and then complain when your enemy uses it against you.


----------



## Zippythehog (Apr 22, 2017)

This is all very high level discussion. 

I have a small request for sources when specific statistics are cited. 

It's not really airplanes, but the discussion is historical. I recon that without WW1 submarines, we wouldn't have WW2 aircraft. 

BTW-it's a pleasant occurrence to have such a potentially emotional subject discussed with such civility on an Internet forum. Good show all.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 23, 2017)

Both sides exercised total blockades within a declared area. This meant that after the mandatory diplomatic announcements any ship could be stopped, searched and if found to be "carrying contraband" , could be seized . 'Carrying contraband" is a euphemism for carrying cargo for the enemy. For a time the neutrals attempted to essentially act as smugglers and sneak goods into Germany by moving the goods through their own ports. The Allies countered this by imposing strict quota limits on the imports of the neutrals....just enough to cover their own needs, not enough to onsell to the Central powers. This required all traffic in the north sea to be apprehended, searched and sometimes seized outright.

Small wonder that the neutrals rapidly diminished their trade with Germany aknd switched to carrying goods almost solely for the allies.

There is not the slightest problem or immoral overtone about the imposition of this blockade on the germans. It was entirely legal,. nobody except the germans were all that concerned about it . If a ship was german flagged, it was seized, if it was armed it was sunk.

The Germans responded to this in a new and at the time in a way considered immoral.. they too embarked on a counter blockade at first within a declared area, later it was changed to a sink on sight policy, that is, no declared area. The only limits were those imosed by the technology. Both sides practised this with surface units, but it took a little lobger to loosen the uboat restrictions. The Germans adopted a stop and search policy, but they changed the seize and detain procedures used by the allies to scuttle or sink procedures. later, as convoys came into being they changed it even further, No more stop and search, it was now sink on sight. An altogether different approach to blockade to the one being used by the Allies. It was rightly seen as a breach of the rules of war, and outraged and awoke a sleeping giant.


----------



## The Basket (Apr 23, 2017)

underhanded, unfair, and damned un-English.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 23, 2017)

ah yes that was part of the propaganda effort. of course the british were going to milk this for all they could.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 23, 2017)

In 1914 the British Navy was the 900lb Gorilla in the swimming pool. 
This was the Swimming pool.





Note the differences in length of coast line and routes of approach. There is no way the Germans could "blockade" Britain with any hope of success using the pre-war rules. And violating those rules would leave the Germans as an outlaw state in the eyes of the world. 
Given the size of the RN and the restricted approaches to Germany the British could mount an effective blockade using the old rules.

Don't pick a fight with a 900lb gorilla in his own pool/swimming hole.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Apr 23, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> I think no single one of the causes you mentioned was by itself responsible, but a combination of them all led to an increasing public perception of a "kinder, gentler," more sympathetic (to American values) civilization under attack by a more brutal, less civilised barbaric horde.
> Young, headstrong, earnest, newly powerful America, an adolescent on the world stage, needed to flex her muscles, set the world to rights, and vanquish the villains. "Let's see, we managed to whip Mexico, then them Injuns, then Spain, with one hand tied behind us, so these Krauts, or Huns, or Boches, or whatchamacall'ems shouldn't be any trouble at all!" The unreadiness for modern warfare is never really apparent until the war is underway.
> Cheers,
> Wes



I think that is an incredible misunderstanding of the US entry into the war. There was a strong thread of isolationism in US politics, especially prevalent central US, but there was also a fairly significant dislike of the UK and respect for Germany. Next, those groups beaten by the US weren't members of what the US at the turn of the 20th Century would consider equal to whites, a category limited to Western and Northern Europeans and Germans (no Slavs, people from the Mediterranean littoral, or Jews need apply: this was the driving force behind the US immigration laws in effect from the 1920s to 1960s), so your comment about the Boche would not apply. 

Do remember that the perception of German aggression against France and Belgium was perfectly matched to the fact of German aggression against France and Belgium. While the UK was blockading Germany, possibly in violation of international law, those merchant ships stopped and diverted were not sunk, as was the case of the German Navy's attempted blockading of Britain and France by sinking merchant ships. Stories like "those nasty British made me and my shipmates go into Aberdeen for a forthnight" are not going to incite quite the outrage as "my ship was sunk by a German U-boat, and all my family died." The German U-boat campaign was the proximate cause for the US entry into the war.


----------



## The Basket (Apr 23, 2017)

A submarine couldn't pick up survivors. And it was always vulnerable to ramming or even the smallest of naval guns. So even on a good day, it's ability to follow the Prize rules was very limited. However from a legal point of view...A merchant vessel is no longer a merchant vessel if that ship is armed or has orders to ram or radio its position. It can be then classed as an auxiliary and Prize rules don't apply if it's resisting capture. 
However, the order to sink ships on sight is certainly illegal as this doesn't allow the merchant vessel a chance to surrender peacefully.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 24, 2017)

Swampyankee, I agree with all of your first paragraph (except the first sentence and the last phrase) as of 1914. However, the combined effects of the Zimmerman affair (treachery), the executions of seamen for defending their ships (war crimes), the sumarine warfare (war crimes again), the allied propaganda (depicting Germans as brutal savages), the harsh treatment of neutral nations "in the way" of the German attack on France and Russia, all served to swing the pendulum of American perception away from isolationism and sympathy for Germany. Of course there were still plenty of isolationists and teutonophiles, but their influence waned as the perception changed. I think if "the U-boat menace" had been the only burr under our saddle, we might still have eventually joined the fray, but whether soon enough to affect the outcome I think highly questionable.
Cheers
Wes


----------



## Zippythehog (Apr 24, 2017)

Alternately, if you're going to war with the world's naval superpower, you build a navy to match it before hostilities break out. Kaiser Bill was jealous of his Gram's navy and they almost had one. 
Really, the Brits leveraged their position and it's likely if the roles were reversed, the Germans would do the same. 
No one has the moral high ground.


----------



## pbehn (Apr 24, 2017)

Zippythehog said:


> Alternately, if you're going to war with the world's naval superpower, you build a navy to match it before hostilities break out. Kaiser Bill was jealous of his Gram's navy and they almost had one.


The Kaiser was a monarch who fell down with many others in that era, Wilhelm II had dismissed Bismark in 1890 after he was crowned, a power that his Grandmother Queen Victoria never had.


----------



## mikewint (Apr 24, 2017)

There is a German who, through sheer stubborn block-headedness fell into every trap and alienated just about every European nation: enter Wilhelm II 

In 1888, Kaiser Wilhelm II became Emperor of Germany, an empire that had been guided by the sure hand of its “Iron Chancellor,” Otto von Bismarck, since 1871. It was clear when Wilhelm took the throne that, although quick witted, he was also emotionally unstable and had a violent temper. Impatient to have his own way in everything no matter how trivial, he chafed at any restrictions. In his eagerness to extend Germany’s power and influence throughout Europe and the rest of the world he embarked on a program of rapid territorial conquest and military expansion that worried his European neighbors. When Bismarck tried to steer him toward a more cautious approach to foreign policy, the young emperor made it clear that he intended doing things his way, and that he was not content to be merely a figurehead for an ambitious chancellor. Wilhelm’s obsession with the armed forces meant that he came under the influence of the Prussian military elite whose advice he sought with alarming regularity. Finally, having been frustrated by his chancellor once too often, Wilhelm asked for, and obtained, Bismarck’s dismissal from office.
With Bismarck’s removal, Wilhelm began to take Germany in a new and dangerous direction. The chancellors he appointed were weak and vacillating, reducing the government’s effectiveness, which meant that Germany was now under his personal rule. Wilhelm’s poor grasp of the political world of the late 19th century lead him to make blunder after blunder. For example, in 1908 seeking to allay British fears about Germany’s naval build-up, Wilhelm had his views published in a popular British newspaper, the Daily Telegraph: _“You English are mad, mad, mad as March Hares. What has come over you that you are so completely given over to suspicions quite unworthy of a great nation?”_ With these words Wilhelm tried to win over the hearts and minds of the British in what has to be the most inept attempt at international diplomacy ever seen. But worse was to come as he implied that France and Russia had tried to persuade Germany to enter the Boer War to fight with the Boers against Britain. He thus alienated both the French and Russians. Then he went on to declare that the German naval build up was aimed more at Japan than at Britain alienating the Japanese as well.
Believing that his personal relationships with fellow monarchs were what counted (he was a grandson of Queen Victoria) he allowed a defense treaty with Russia to lapse in 1890, enabling the Russians to forge a treaty with France instead. He maintained his alliance with the Austro-Hungarian Empire, even though it was on a collision course with Russia, an event which might lead to a war which would drag in France and Britain as well, because of the treaties signed between the three nations.
After the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Bosnian Serb on June 28,1914, Wilhelm offered his support to Austro-Hungary if it were to take action against the Serbians. As soon as Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, the Russians began to mobilize troops along both the Austrian and German borders. Seeing this, and recognizing that since France had not declared itself neutral, it would therefore come into the war on the side of Russia. Military officials in Germany persuaded Wilhelm to sign the mobilization order and initiate the Schlieffen Plan, by which Germany would attack France. Although Wilhelm was worried by the approaching conflict, he vacillated between asking for more time for negotiations and fully supporting his military commander’s approach. In the end, he gave the approval for Germany to declare war on Russia on August 1 followed by a declaration of war on Russia’s main ally France on August 3. When Belgium asserted its neutrality, by denying Germany the right to cross its territory, the Germans invaded anyway on August 4. Britain did not have a mutual defense treaty with Belgium. The 1839 Treaty of London guaranteed Belgian independence as a collective agreement among several nations except Germany which did not become a nation until 1871. Legally the treaty called for a collective, not an individual response. Legalities aside Britain had the excuse it needed and had been looking for and the countries leadership took it. Had it not been for the Four Powers Imperial delusions, WWI may never have been fought in the first place. If Britain had not intervened, and Germany had defeated France in a European war, the circumstances that bred Hitler would never have eventuated. A German victory would have refashioned the face of Europe, with the next big war likely to have been a clash between Germany and the rising tide of Communism in the east. World War II would have been avoided. And with nothing to hasten the fall of the old imperial powers, the way would not have been so clear for the United States and the USSR to emerge as the two contending superpowers of the second half of the twentieth century.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 24, 2017)

The Basket said:


> A submarine couldn't pick up survivors. And it was always vulnerable to ramming or even the smallest of naval guns. So even on a good day, it's ability to follow the Prize rules was very limited. However from a legal point of view...


That was the basis of my earlier post, if a submarine searches a passenger vessel and finds contraband what does it do with the passengers? The captain of a passenger vessel must have a fanatical belief in his enemy to trust that he follows the rules to the letter in the North Sea.


----------



## The Basket (Apr 25, 2017)

This is truly bizarre but apt.

Germany, Austria and Italy are standing together in the middle of a pub when Serbia bumps into Austria and spills Austria's pint. Austria demands Serbia buy it a complete new suit because there are splashes on its trouser leg. Germany expresses its support for Austria's point of view. Britain recommends that everyone calm down a bit.

Serbia points out that it can't afford a whole suit, but offers to pay for the cleaning of Austria's trousers. Russia and Serbia look at Austria. Austria asks Serbia who it's looking at. Russia suggests that Austria should leave its little brother alone. Austria inquires as to whose army will assist Russia in compelling it to do so. Germany appeals to Britain that France has been looking at it, and that this is sufficiently out of order that Britain should not intervene. Britain replies that France can look at who it wants to, that Britain is looking at Germany too, and what is Germany going to do about it?

Germany tells Russia to stop looking at Austria, or Germany will render Russia incapable of such action. Britain and France ask Germany whether it's looking at Belgium. Turkey and Germany go off into a corner and whisper.

When they come back, Turkey makes a show of not looking at anyone. Germany rolls up its sleeves, looks at France, and punches Belgium. France and Britain punch Germany. Austria punches Russia. Germany punches Britain and France with one hand and Russia with the other. Russia throws a punch at Germany, but misses and nearly falls over. Japan calls over from the other side of the room that it's on Britain's side, but stays there. Italy surprises everyone by punching Austria.

Austria Australia punches Turkey, and gets punched back. There are no hard feelings because Britain made Austria Australia do it. France gets thrown through a plate glass window, but gets back up and carries on fighting. Russia gets thrown through another one, gets knocked out, suffers brain damage, and wakes up with a complete personality change. Italy throws a punch at Austria and misses, but Austria falls over anyway.

Italy raises both fists in the air and runs round the room chanting. America waits till Germany is about to fall over from sustained punching from Britain and France, then walks over and smashes it with a barstool, then pretends it won the fight all by itself. By now all the chairs are broken and the big mirror over the bar is shattered. Britain, France and America agree that Germany threw the first punch, so the whole thing is Germany's fault. While Germany is still unconscious, they go through its pockets, steal its wallet, and buy drinks for all their friends.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikewint (Apr 25, 2017)

Apropos!
The late nineteenth century was the last major era of imperialist expansion. All the great European powers were involved. Africa was rapidly carved up between the main European powers and harsh conditions were imposed on independent states that could not be conquered outright, such as China. Eventually every available territory was claimed as a colony by one or other of the major European powers.
By the turn of the twentieth century Germany was a rising force in the world eager to acquire an empire comparable to Britain. In 1871 the Germans achieved their dream of unification which had been strongly resisted by France who preferred a weak and divided Germany. By 1884 Germany had put together an overseas empire, but a small one compared to those administered by Britain and France. The scramble for African colonies had been driven by the idea that a nations economic survival depended upon it being able to offload surplus products into overseas possessions. Thus German imperialists argued that Britain’s dominant position in the world gave it an unfair advantage in international markets, thus limiting Germany’s economic growth and threatening its security. Britain meanwhile was determined to continue its expansionist plans because it foresaw a possible decline in its share of the world’s export trade with the rise of competition from Germany, America, and France.
During the Bismarck period, the Iron Chancellor managed to gain what he wanted by subtle means, without overt confrontation. However when the young, inexperienced, and impatient Wilhelm II was made Kaiser the situation started to spiral out of control. Britain put pressure on Germany to limit the size of its naval fleet in the North Sea and hemmed in the Germans on land by their treaties with France and Russia. France was also trying to oust the Germans from their territory, Alsace-Lorraine, acquired by the Germans in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. All these pressures fed German resentment until the moment it exploded.
In 1902 Britain signed a new alliance with Japan to prevent German expansion in that area. The British assured Germany that their alliance with France and Russia were only about ending old disputes and had nothing to do with joining those nations in the event of war. Assurances aside, the fact remained that Britain had allied itself with two nations convinced that Germany was their enemy. The Germans were worried.
In the first Moroccan Crisis of 1905, Wilhelm II supported Moroccan independence, thus removing them as a French protectorate. Britain had to choose between supporting French ambitions or the German move toward an independent Moroccan state. In response Britain entered into military consultations with the French and delivered a blunt “Hands off” message to Germany.
Meanwhile in South Africa, the British (unsanctioned but a good example of the British left hand not knowing what the right was doing) Jameson raid into the Transvaal was repulsed. Ever the diplomat, Wilhelm II sends a telegram to the President of the Transvaal, the infamous Kruger telegram:
*"I express to you my sincere congratulations that, without appealing to the help of friendly Powers, you and your people have succeeded in repelling with your own forces the armed bands which had broken into your country, and in maintaining the independence of your country against foreign aggression."*
Sent from British telegrapher to telegrapher along British telegraph wires through British relay stations, the telegram soon became public and was printed in British newspapers. British public opinion turned quickly against the Germans in what was seen as an attempt to interfere in a British sphere of influence.
By the time of the second Moroccan crises Britain was firmly on the French side and Germany was encircled by hostile forces. In 1912 Britain added fuel to the smoldering fire by signing a naval agreement with France pledging to defend the French coast along the channel and the Atlantic. More fuel was poured on in 1913 with the formation of the British Expeditionary Force, which comprised six divisions created to fight on the continent.
British imperial ambitions simply could not afford for France to be defeated in another war with Germany. For that would make Germany the strongest nation in continental Europe, at a time when that country, was attempting to gain control of the oceans and expand its sphere of influence into the Balkans and Turkey. Britain’s leaders clearly felt that they had to join France in standing against Germany sooner or later; they simply awaited the right pretext.


----------



## The Basket (Apr 27, 2017)

I like the last bit where they steal Germany's wallet. Very apt.
No one imperialed better than the British and our control of the seas did that for us.
If only the Kaiser didn't build a navy.


----------



## XBe02Drvr (Apr 27, 2017)

The Basket said:


> No one imperialed better than the British and our control of the seas did that for us.
> If only the Kaiser didn't build a navy.


And it's now the 21st century, and post-USSR the same could be said for USA, just substitute China for Kaiser. Our sun is setting, theirs is rising. Another sleeping giant awakes.
Cheers,
Wes


----------



## mikewint (Apr 27, 2017)

XBe02Drvr said:


> just substitute China for Kaiser. Our sun is setting, theirs is rising. Another sleeping giant awakes.


People have been predicting China’s emergence as a superpower since the days of Napoleon, who purportedly appreciated China’s potential as a world power and cautioned against waking the sleeping dragon. China’s subordination into the Western international system in the 1839-1842 Opium War and its decline as the “sick man” of East Asia for the rest of the nineteenth and for the first half of the twentieth centuries dulled, but never extinguished, the expectation that, sooner or later, China would again dominate the world.
Several recent events have provoked the latest announcements of China’s looming ascent to superpower stature and have suggested that these long-held expectations are, at long last, coming true. In October 2003, China launched its first human into space, joining the United States and the former Soviet Union as the only countries to have done so. American media have recently taken notice of China’s efforts to expand and diversify its access to sources of oil in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and unsettlingly close to home Canada. The world’s industrial economies, including the United States, have inferred from the giant sucking sound created by lost manufacturing jobs and from the flood of Chinese exports into their markets that China is becoming the world’s manufacturing hub. Meanwhile, analysts ponder the implications for global security of China’s military modernization effort, now two decades long, and its promise to develop a “revolution in military affairs with Chinese characteristics.”
As portentous as the events may seem, there are good reasons to be skeptical that China will achieve superpower stature anytime soon. By all measures of international power, China has a long way to go to rival the power in international affairs of the United States in the manner that the Soviet Union did.

In terms of its economy the size of China’s GDP makes it a member of the world’s industrialized economies but it is still a long way from economic superpower stature. China’s economy expanded 6.8% in the fourth quarter of 2016, the latest official data available. For the full year, China’s GDP grew 6.7%, the slowest in 26 years.
In each of the first three quarters of 2016, China posted a consistent 6.7% increase in GDP, raising doubts about the veracity of the figures. Earlier this week, local authorities in China’s northeastern Liaoning province admitted to inflating its GDP figures from 2011 to 2014, as officials sought to advance their careers. Chinese banks extended a record $1.8 trillion of loans in the past year, as the government used more credit-fueled stimulus to meet its growth target, exacerbating debt levels in the economy.
The International Monetary Fund earlier lifted its forecast for China’s GDP growth in 2017 to 6.5%, citing continued policy stimulus. But capital outflows, debt, and geopolitical uncertainties will be the major risks for China’s growth this year, the IMF noted.
The national statistics agency also released a slew of other economic data on the same day. Among them, China’s fixed-asset investment, a key gauge of construction activity, went up 8.1% in 2016 from the year before, the slowest full-year expansion since 1999.
China lacks a genuine central bank and national banking system, and the accelerating growth of its energy demand places uncertainties on long-term economic growth. Meanwhile, China’s population is graying, and as the bulge of people born during Mao’s heyday ages, they place heavy burdens on the smaller subsequent generations of Chinese born in the 1980s and after. In some measure, China’s current wave of industrialization replicates the industrial cycle pioneered by the United States, then followed by Japan, and then by South Korea and Taiwan as they shifted away from heavy industry toward lighter, more efficient and environmentally less intrusive industries and services in earlier decades. And China faces competition from other rising centers, including India.

Since 1989, defense allocations in China’s public state budget have risen at double-digit rates. China is developing a new generation of strategic and tactical missiles, some of which are deployed on the Chinese coast facing Taiwan. China is building a much more capable navy and has bought advanced aircraft from Russia.
But these military modernization efforts are targeted at the needs of specific conflict scenarios. They do not appear to reflect an effort to acquire the strategic and power projection capacities of a superpower.
For China to change the balance of military power in Asia decisively, a number of things must happen. First, China’s dramatic economic growth must continue indefinitely, a prospect about which there are grounds for skepticism. Second, China’s neighbors must stand still in their own defense modernization efforts, which so far has not been true. Third, Russia must continue to be willing to sell advanced weapons systems and military technology to China; sooner or later, however, one might expect Moscow to reconsider how much farther it can aid the advance of China’s military capacities without jeopardizing Russia’s own security interests. Finally, the United States would need to draw down from its security commitments in the region, a development that also does not appear likely.
By all of these measures, China is not now a superpower, nor is it likely to emerge as one soon. It is establishing itself as a great power, on par with Great Britain, Russia, Japan, and, perhaps, India. China is today a serious player in the regional politics of Asia, but also is just one of several. At a broader level, in global affairs, its stature and power are growing, but in most respects it remains a regional power, under the dominance, however momentary, of the United States.

China’s rise over the past two decades has been spectacular from any perspective and deserves attention and respect, especially in view of the difficult course of China’s attempt to adapt to the modern world since the nineteenth century. So Napoleon, in that regard, may be right, but not yet and not soon.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Apr 27, 2017)

mikewint said:


> In each of the first three quarters of 2016, China posted a consistent 6.7% increase in GDP, raising doubts about the veracity of the figures. Earlier this week, local authorities in China’s northeastern Liaoning province admitted to inflating its GDP figures from 2011 to 2014, as officials sought to advance their careers. .




Great post mike. When I was in China 9 years ago the received wisdom was that China had to grow at 7-8% P.A. just to avoid social meltdown. The disparity between rich and poor there is truly scary and the "leverage" in the economy to me seemed wild. My driver to work (a private taxi) had two apartments and a new car all on loans, howver in China you may own the bricks and mortar you do not own the land.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jul 15, 2017)

At the Bastille Day celebrations
American forces marched in honour of thier ancestors who marched in France 100 years ago.


----------



## stona (Jul 15, 2017)

Funny how times change.

In 1966, after France (or should that be De Gaulle?) withdrew from NATO, the General demanded of US Secretary of State Dean Rusk that all US troops be removed from French soil. Rusk's reply is the stuff of legends.

"Does that include those who are buried here?"

A point very well made.

This is reminiscent of a reply given by Colin Powell to the then Archbishop of Canterbury when asked whether Allied policy in Iraq was not simply "Empire building" on behalf of Bush.

"Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return."

People, not just Europeans, have remarkably short memories, when it suits them


Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 15, 2017)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCEUZ4rFiac&t=10s_


----------

