FDR and World War II

[Fr8monkey]

Went from WWII to WWI... Figures. No one on this site can stay on track.

 

[ParkCungHee]

To be fair, reading the OP, is that a track you would like to be on?

 

[LightSpectra]

Austro-Hungary are also scum for demanding absolutely ridiculous things from the Serbs in an effort to force a war.

Yeah, that's typically what happens when your government sponsors terrorism against another country. I think the A-H demands were perfectly reasonable.

They forced the issue when it wasn't a certain thing. They also started the war in a way that was only to make them look like reprehensible monsters. Consequently, they lost almost all of there diplomatic room for manoeuvre.

No denial from me on this point. I never said the Schlieffen Plan was a good idea or a morally laudable one.

What were they going to gain from a war?

Very little, but they had plenty to lose, since French entry seemed inevitable at that point.

The German plan was to sacrifice its whole fleet to try to make a blockade infeasible. It was ridiculously optimistic in the first instance and completely ignored the psychological impact of actually ordering you nice shiny fleet to commit suicide. The Kaiser wouldn't and couldn't let it happen. Consequently, blockade became inevitable and the German navy lost whatever tawdry strategic worth it had: Glorified floating tin cans.

What is this in response to? I only said that an Anglo-German war would've been significantly less bloody than a land war with just France; and obviously, both are less bloody than what actually occurred.

Belgium is obvious but Austria-Hungary? Seriously? I would say of the major powers involved Russia had the best reason.

The war is entirely Russia's fault, because they chose to pursue their folly policy of Pan-Slavism by aiding a terrorist government. This is what activated the web of alliances that resulted in the World War.

 

[civver_764]

The war is entirely Russia's fault, because they chose to pursue their folly policy of Pan-Slavism by aiding a terrorist government. This is what activated the web of alliances that resulted in the World War.

A terrorist government? I think it's a well accepted fact that Princip and his group were independent from the Serbian government. Austria knew this too, and still forced Serbia into war to gain some more land.

The Russians were defending someone, an otherwise practically defenseless nation I might add, against the clear aggressor. That's more than can be said about any of the other powers.

I'm not arguing that Russia wasn't the main cause of the war, anyways. Although it was bound to happen, at the very least France vs. Germany round 2 would have occurred soon.

 

[LightSpectra]

A terrorist government? I think it's a well accepted fact that Princip and his group were independent from the Serbian government. Austria knew this too, and still forced Serbia into war to gain some more land.

The Black Hand was subsidized by the Serbian government. Austria's declaration of war wasn't in order to annex Serbia; if expansionism was the intent of the A-H government, they had ample opportunities to do so prior to the July Crisis. I think it was pretty clear that the Habsburg Monarchy could barely keep hold of what it had.

The Russians were defending someone, an otherwise practically defenseless nation I might add, against the clear aggressor.

Maybe they shouldn't have provoked a much more powerful country if they were "practically defenseless." As for the point that Russia was simply defending a weak nation, Dachs has explained this:

The people who were pursuing confrontational diplomacy in 1914 were not the Central Powers, but rather the Entente. The Great Power system worked to preserve peace in large part because Great Powers didn't go to war with other Great Powers over small powers. In 1853, the British and French backed the Ottoman Empire against Russia and caused the most drastic series of wars and shifts in Continental political power since Napoleon. In 1859, the French backed Piedmont against Austria and continued the trend. In 1887, Austria-Hungary and Germany did not back Bulgaria against Russia and kept the peace. In 1909, Russia did not back Serbia against Germany and kept the peace. Russia's, and more specifically the Tsar's and Sazonov's, decision to treat Serbia's continuing prestige as a middle-rank power as a key Russian interest did more than any German or Habsburg initiative ever did to spark the July Crisis.

I'm not arguing that Russia wasn't the main cause of the war, anyways. Although it was bound to happen, at the very least France vs. Germany round 2 would have occurred soon.

It might not have, which is why it's unfair to blame either nation for the beginning of WWI. It's either Serbia's, Austria-Hungary's or Russia's fault; every other nation's involvement was based on alliances with the former three.

 

[civverguy]

Generally, if you're the aggressor, you're not seen as the one on the moral high ground. Everyone sympathizes for the defenders. Where would the US attack Germany if they entered the war?

 

[Masada]

Yeah, that's typically what happens when your government sponsors terrorism against another country. I think the A-H demands were perfectly reasonable.

That's rubbish. They wanted a war and gave an ultimatum calculated to cause one. And when that didn't work. They declared war anyway despite the obvious repercussions.

No denial from me on this point. I never said the Schlieffen Plan was a good idea or a morally laudable one.

You said it was morally permissible to save lives yet it almost guaranteed British intervention and a longer war.

What is this in response to? I only said that an Anglo-German war would've been significantly less bloody than a land war with just France; and obviously, both are less bloody than what actually occurred.

How was an Anglo-German war going to work?

The war is entirely Russia's fault, because they chose to pursue their folly policy of Pan-Slavism by aiding a terrorist government. This is what activated the web of alliances that resulted in the World War.

No more than anyone else. It certainly wouldn't have happened if Russia wasn't willing to back up Serbia but likewise it wouldn't have happened in Austro-Hungary hadn't decided to punish Serbia whatever the case.

It might not have, which is why it's unfair to blame either nation for the beginning of WWI. It's either Serbia's, Austria-Hungary's or Russia's fault; every other nation's involvement was based on alliances with the former three.

Contrast the bolded with this. Besides, it wasn't like Germany's blank cheque or France's the same had anything to do with galvanising Austro-Hungarian and Russian belligerency respectively did it? Everyone had a hand in causing it: and just about everyone involved overplayed there hand or made horrible miscalculations which bought it around.

 

[LightSpectra]

That's rubbish. They wanted a war and gave an ultimatum calculated to cause one. And when that didn't work. They declared war anyway despite the obvious repercussions.

How did it "not work"? The fact that the Serbian government was subsidizing terrorist organizations seems like a reasonable justification for war to me. Serbia had already been de facto at war with Austria-Hungary if she was supporting organizations with the specific intention of disrupting Austria-Hungary. A-H presented a final ultimatum to prevent an open war; Serbia refused; and thus the Austro-Serbian war was transformed from one of subterfuge to a conventional war.

You said it was morally permissible to save lives yet it almost guaranteed British intervention and a longer war.

I never said it was morally permissible. I said I have trouble unilaterally condemning the invasion of Belgium because of its good intentions, but the previous sentence of this was "I reject the utilitarian reasoning."

How was an Anglo-German war going to work?

The Germans planned that the BEF would be mostly wiped out during the Schlieffen Plan, and if Britain chose to continue the war, it would've been primarily a naval one. From the reasoning of Alfred von Schlieffen and Helmuth Johann Ludwig von Moltke, this is preferable to a prolonged war with only France.

No more than anyone else. It certainly wouldn't have happened if Russia wasn't willing to back up Serbia but likewise it wouldn't have happened in Austro-Hungary hadn't decided to punish Serbia whatever the case.

Why shouldn't A-H have invaded Serbia? If the Austrians had let it remain an espionage war, then they've given up their greatest advantage, which is their superior military status.

Contrast the bolded with this.

Sorry?

Besides, it wasn't like Germany's blank cheque or France's the same had anything to do with galvanising Austro-Hungarian and Russian belligerency respectively did it?

Secondary factors, if anything. The intent of Austria-Hungary was to pacify the belligerent Serbs, and the intent of Russia was to defend its regional ally. These intents are not altered by the attitude of their allies, only their practicality.

 

[Masada]

How did it "not work"? The fact that the Serbian government was subsidizing terrorist organizations seems like a reasonable justification for war to me. Serbia had already been de facto at war with Austria-Hungary if she was supporting organizations with the specific intention of disrupting Austria-Hungary.

That's not how international relations work.

A-H presented a final ultimatum to prevent an open war; Serbia refused; and thus the Austro-Serbian war was transformed from one of subterfuge to a conventional war.

That's also a misrepresentation of what actually happened. The Austrians gave a ultimatum calculated deliberately to cause a war. The Serbians gave in fully to the ultimatum with only one term rejected and a handful of written reservations. Austro-Hungary then knocked it back and declared war anyway with German complicity in the whole affair.

I never said it was morally permissible. I said I have trouble unilaterally condemning the invasion of Belgium because of its good intentions, but the previous sentence of this was "I reject the utilitarian reasoning."

You therefore admit that it was morally permissible at least in part.

The Germans planned that the BEF would be mostly wiped out during the Schlieffen Plan, and if Britain chose to continue the war, it would've been primarily a naval one. From the reasoning of Alfred von Schlieffen and Helmuth Johann Ludwig von Moltke, this is preferable to a prolonged war with only France.

I'll leave this up to Dachs to respond to because I'm not intimately familiar with the Schlieffen Plan suffice to say that concerns were raised about it at the time. That Germany put its whole faith in a military plan for a quick victory was a dubious move to begin with.

Why shouldn't A-H have invaded Serbia? If the Austrians had let it remain an espionage war, then they've given up their greatest advantage, which is their superior military status.

Austro-Hungary wanted a regional war. It got a world war instead and it knew that was a possibility if it followed its chosen course. It went ahead anyway and disregarded the reasonable Serbian response to its already ridiculously high-handed ultimatium.

Secondary factors, if anything. The intent of Austria-Hungary was to pacify the belligerent Serbs, and the intent of Russia was to defend its regional ally. These intents are not altered by the attitude of their allies, only their practicality.

Russia wouldn't have stepped in had France not supported it: it couldn't have won a war alone against Germany and Austro-Hungary. Likewise, Austro-Hungary wouldn't have stepped in so forcefully if Germany hadn't supported it: it couldn't have won a war against Russia on its own. If neither power had offered such open ended support nothing would have happened: Serbia would have accepted the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum with some caveats, like it did, and Austro-Hungary would have got what it wanted a reduction in Serb capacities to cause trouble.

 

[Heraclius49]

The von Schlieffen plan was a German attempt to prevent a two front war. Schlieffen believed that Germany's best chance at this was a concentrated assault on France to knock it out early. They did not have to worry about Russia because they has A-H defending and the fact that Russia's mobilization was slow and they could not properly project their forces.

On a side note Moltke messed up the Schlieffen plan a bit.

To address the actual topic:
1. Congress has to approve any major troop movements, the esception being the USMC. So FDR could not pull that off.
2. The US public opinion was staunchly isolationist at that point. No way anyone would approve a declaration of war.
3. FDR would be impeached the same day if it was even attempted. (exaggeration, obviously)

 

[ParkCungHee]

3. FDR would be impeached the same day if it was even attempted. (exaggeration, obviously)

Not really, if he seriously attempted to declare war without the consent of congress, he likely would have been impeached.

 

[Heraclius49]

I meant the "in the same day" part.

 

[Lord Baal]

It's actually a bit closer to Fight Club.

I always thought I looked a lot like that Brad Pitt guy...

We should have sided with the Germans against Russia and France in 1914.

We? Britain or the US? Or both?

That would of proven very interesting

I'm just wondering How come? Whats wrong with France/Britain/Germany.. etc..

It would have been very interesting indeed. No matter what Godwyn's answer is.

Britain essentially entered WWI to avert a civil war over Irish Home Rule. Dachs wrote an article on this very recently, and Niall Ferguson has written at least two books on the subject, one of which - 1914: Why the World Went to War - I have.

France entered (or would have entered, had Germany not beaten them to the punch) the war due to revanchist claims against Germany. I've even seen alleged plans between Russia and France to carve Germany into spheres of influence in the event of a war. Once the war began, Germany had to strike at France to defend itself.

Germany didn't need to egg on Austria-Hungary the way it did. Of course, that being said, I fully understand why Germany did so. Again, the book I mentioned earlier is a good source of information on this. Germany knew that both France and Russia were fast outstripping it both industrially and economically. I believe a defence paper was written in around 1912 which explicitly stated that while a war with Russia and France would be "disastrous" in 1913-14, a war with the two in 1918-20 would be "catastrophic," as both nations would have modernised their militaries completely by that point, leaving Germany far behind. Of course, if Germany hadn't pursued such completely ******** diplomacy after Bismarck fell from grace, they wouldn't have been in such a precarious position in the first place...

The Germans weren't lily-white in this. They miscalculated on a monumental scale and by there actions guaranteed a general European war with everyone involved.

To be fair, there was a chance that Britain might not get involved until it was too late to do anything. The Germans were counting on that, but, as you said, miscalculated.

And in doing so it set the tenor of the war. German violation of Belgian neutrality bought the British into the war something the Germans had already considered a likely thing.

Well this is inaccurate. Britain entered the war primarily due to domestic concerns, though they were legitimately worried about Germany's naval and colonial expansion. If Belgium's neutrality had not been violated, they would have been without a very welcome pretext for entering the war, but they'd have found one regardless.

Which leads into this contorted piece of apologist logic. The Germans invaded Belgium knowing all that while that it would draw the British into the war with the likelihood of prolonging the war significantly.

Considering the fact that Britain never actually stated that they'd defend Belgian neutrality in the led-up to the war, even when Germany carefully sounded them out on the matter, this isn't precisely accurate either.

didn't Serbia meat their ultimatum?

They met most of the terms, hedged on several, only outright refusing one. It was a pretty fair compromise which they offered. To be honest, it was probably a lot more than they needed to offer in compromise.

Austro-Hungary are also scum for demanding absolutely ridiculous things from the Serbs in an effort to force a war. Which they did anyway.

Austro-Hungarian generals were scum for pushing for war. Not the country itself.

What were they going to gain from a war?

Breathing room. France and Russia were very quickly pulling ahead of Germany. The Reich needed to remove the clear and immediate threat of the Franco-Russian alliance. I don't believe they even had any long-term plans at the time - though the September Plan, drawn up after the war broke out, has often been cited as such, incorrectly. They were simply trying to preserve their empire from what they saw as a huge threat.

They couldn't cripple France unless they were willing to completely occupy it (hardly a feasible thing) and they couldn't hope to hold onto Belgium or the Channel Ports without incurring British wrath.

That's from the September Plan. It isn't an accurate representation of German thinking at the time. They came up with that later, when it became obvious that they were stuck fighting a prolonged war with Britain, and would have no choice but to cripple France long-term if they were to win.

Even if they only demanded colonies that wouldn't have crippled France and it would still have pissed the British off not to mention it would have spread out the German military that little bit more. Furthermore, stripping peripheral territories from Russia was just going to piss the Russians off in perpetuity for little tangible gain and create its own problems: Polish Question. So what do we have? All three major powers arranged against Germany and Austro-Hungary while they both struggle to digest whatever gains minimal they've made. Even a quick German victory offered them nothing but problems in the long term with yet another Franco-Prussian war to be avenged with Britain and Russia firmly on side this time around regardless of what happens.

I doubt Britain would have stayed involved had France fallen quickly. What could they possibly do? They couldn't invade France if it capitulated, and there were no other friendly powers in the area. Supplying Russia would also have been virtually impossible. Had France fallen quickly, it is very likely that the Central Powers would have won the war. Even Russia couldn't hold out against them both,and would be forced to make peace. Austria-Hungary would gain ground in the Balkans wile Germany would temporarily cripple its two most pressing threats, buying it enough time to seek a rapprochement with Britain; that's what Germany really needed to survive as a great power.

The German plan was to sacrifice its whole fleet to try to make a blockade infeasible. It was ridiculously optimistic in the first instance and completely ignored the psychological impact of actually ordering you nice shiny fleet to commit suicide. The Kaiser wouldn't and couldn't let it happen. Consequently, blockade became inevitable and the German navy lost whatever tawdry strategic worth it had: Glorified floating tin cans.

Oh, don't get me started on the stupidity of Germany's naval construction programme in the late 19th-early 20th centuries.

FWIW, This discussion on WWI is way more interesting than a "what if?" scenario on WWII.

Agreed.

About the Entente, Germain U-Boats were attacking US ships. If they weren't, the US would've stayed out. In that case IIRC it wasn't any of the US Business.

Bull. The US was very pro-Entente - specifically pro-Britain - from the very beginning of the war. You'll notice that Woodrow Wilson vehemently protested German attacks on US shipping, but said very little about similar British and French attacks. Both sides mistreated the US in the first two years of the war, and with good reason; they needed to keep supplies from America reaching their enemies a hell of a lot more than they needed a friendly US. The US entered the war in 1917 due to the pretext of the Zimmerman Telegram; a telegram the authenticity of which is still argued to this day. It had nothing to do with attacks on merchant shipping, though the amount of money this cost the US doubtless annoyed American businesses.

Yeah, that's typically what happens when your government sponsors terrorism against another country. I think the A-H demands were perfectly reasonable.

Serbia did not sponsor the Black Hand. Certain members of the Serbian military and government did, including the head of Serbian Covert Intelligence. But the government itself not only had nothing to do with the BH, it actually denounced its actions. Austria-Hungary's demands went too far.

The war is entirely Russia's fault, because they chose to pursue their folly policy of Pan-Slavism by aiding a terrorist government. This is what activated the web of alliances that resulted in the World War.

Serbia was not a terrorist government, though it was certainly a bellicose one. And Russia aided Serbia more to keep Austria-Hungary from seizing the initiative in the Balkans than out of any purported "Pan-Slavic" policy.

A terrorist government? I think it's a well accepted fact that Princip and his group were independent from the Serbian government. Austria knew this too, and still forced Serbia into war to gain some more land.

It was more to curtail Russian influence in the region than to gain any influence themselves. It's an ironic truism of WWI that every major party believed they were acting defensively, and to a large extent, actually were.

I'm not arguing that Russia wasn't the main cause of the war, anyways. Although it was bound to happen, at the very least France vs. Germany round 2 would have occurred soon.

A Franco-Russian attack on Germany was the most likely war between great powers that could have occurred had WWI not happened, but the myth of the war's inevitability is just that; myth. The war could have been avoided had any of the sides legitimately wanted to avoid it; none of them did, as they all saw the war playing out to their benefit.

Maybe they shouldn't have provoked a much more powerful country if they were "practically defenseless." As for the point that Russia was simply defending a weak nation, Dachs has explained this:

Firstly, "they" didn't provoke Austria-hungary; a terrorist group operating without their consent did so. Secondly, the terrorist group was actually pretty smart to do this; the BH realised that a general European war would likely cause the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and leave Russia too weak to enforce its will on Serbia, enabling the creation of a "Greater Serbia," or "Kingdom of the Southern Slavs." This is exactly what happened. Provoking Austria-Hungary to war was the smartest thing a Pan-Slavist in Serbia could have done at the time.

It might not have, which is why it's unfair to blame either nation for the beginning of WWI. It's either Serbia's, Austria-Hungary's or Russia's fault; every other nation's involvement was based on alliances with the former three.

It's pretty much everyone's fault. Austria-Hungary is the only nation that really could have stopped it, but they knew full-well that they needed to forestall both Russian and Serbian ambitions in the Balkans, and soon, if they were to keep their empire.

Generally, if you're the aggressor, you're not seen as the one on the moral high ground. Everyone sympathizes for the defenders. Where would the US attack Germany if they entered the war?

Back to WWII I see. In early 1940, probably France as I suggested. At any other time, it would likely be played out as it was in OTL.

Russia wouldn't have stepped in had France not supported it: it couldn't have won a war alone against Germany and Austro-Hungary. Likewise, Austro-Hungary wouldn't have stepped in so forcefully if Germany hadn't supported it: it couldn't have won a war against Russia on its own. If neither power had offered such open ended support nothing would have happened: Serbia would have accepted the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum with some caveats, like it did, and Austro-Hungary would have got what it wanted a reduction in Serb capacities to cause trouble.

The problem with that, though, is that it serves no-one's interests, other than Austria-Hungary's. That's why none of the other parties were happy with it, and began to act more and more precipitously and bellicosely as the Crisis deepened.

 

[sophie]

Considering the fact that Britain never actually stated that they'd defend Belgian neutrality in the led-up to the war, even when Germany carefully sounded them out on the matter, this isn't precisely accurate either.

Didn't they? I was under the impression that they did state that they'd defend Belgium's neutrality.

Or at least, that's what I remember reading in Tuchman...though I know there are problems with that text.

Strachan doesn't seem to state anywhere that Britain explicitly stated that they were intent on defending Belgian neutrality...so...idk.

 

[Masada]

To be fair, there was a chance that Britain might not get involved until it was too late to do anything. The Germans were counting on that, but, as you said, miscalculated.

Never trust on the benevolence of strangers. More on that below.

Well this is inaccurate. Britain entered the war primarily due to domestic concerns, though they were legitimately worried about Germany's naval and colonial expansion. If Belgium's neutrality had not been violated, they would have been without a very welcome pretext for entering the war, but they'd have found one regardless.

I don't doubt that but as we all seem to want to refer to Dachs' as our authority I think its fairly clear that the decision to go to war wasn't inevitable in Britain. The permeations inside the British cabinet, its eventual split in favour of war and the decisive shift in British public opinion in favour of war are all attributable to the violation of Belgian neutrality. Without the violation of Belgian neutrality Britain had to look for a pretext one they might not have been able to magic up. I literally cannot conceive of another German action that would have raised British ire quite so thoroughly. Submarine war wouldn't have been needed. French blockade would have been infeasible. And violation of further neutral powers was simply unlikely. Other than punitive German win conditions there's nothing else that I can see that would have bought Britain into the war quite so decisively with the whole house in order.

Considering the fact that Britain never actually stated that they'd defend Belgian neutrality in the led-up to the war, even when Germany carefully sounded them out on the matter, this isn't precisely accurate either.

Sure but the lack of a response either way doesn't constitute an acceptance. Germany effectively threw its hands up diplomatically in the air and trusted on a good result. In doing so, it lost all diplomatic room of manoeuvre. It didn't have an alternative plan to the one it enacted which required that everything starting from Belgian compliance with German demands through to a massive encirclement of the French armies all went right. Not to mention the complete systematic uncertainties involved in having the Italians defecting and the British entering the war.

They met most of the terms, hedged on several, only outright refusing one. It was a pretty fair compromise which they offered. To be honest, it was probably a lot more than they needed to offer in compromise.

Austro-Hungary wanted a war. Major point made.

Austro-Hungarian generals were scum for pushing for war. Not the country itself.

Austro-Hungarians, Germans or British in a diplomatic context usually refers to the state; which is a convention I was following.

Breathing room. France and Russia were very quickly pulling ahead of Germany. The Reich needed to remove the clear and immediate threat of the Franco-Russian alliance. I don't believe they even had any long-term plans at the time - though the September Plan, drawn up after the war broke out, has often been cited as such, incorrectly. They were simply trying to preserve their empire from what they saw as a huge threat.

Does that even make sense? What were the results of a quick German victory with no Britain going to look like: a few million dead French and Russians and slightly less dead Austrians and Germans. Some transfers perhaps from Russia's Baltic territories; some colonial transfers from France; large indemnities and that's it. It achieves nothing in the long run. Germany will continue to build up its navy. Britain will freak at this and the seeming dominance by Germany of the continent and will give up any pretence to neutrality.

Oh, don't get me started on the stupidity of Germany's naval construction programme in the late 19th-early 20th centuries.

Which were only going to get worse in the advent of a successful short war. I'm willing to bet the indemnities would have gone to building more ships to secure whatever colonies they wrangled from France.

That's from the September Plan. It isn't an accurate representation of German thinking at the time. They came up with that later, when it became obvious that they were stuck fighting a prolonged war with Britain, and would have no choice but to cripple France long-term if they were to win.

I wasn't suggesting that they wanted to. But that they couldn't actually achieve all that much unless they went that far in the first place.

I doubt Britain would have stayed involved had France fallen quickly. What could they possibly do? They couldn't invade France if it capitulated, and there were no other friendly powers in the area. Supplying Russia would also have been virtually impossible. Had France fallen quickly, it is very likely that the Central Powers would have won the war. Even Russia couldn't hold out against them both,and would be forced to make peace. Austria-Hungary would gain ground in the Balkans wile Germany would temporarily cripple its two most pressing threats, buying it enough time to seek a rapprochement with Britain; that's what Germany really needed to survive as a great power.

How were they going to seek a rapprochement with Britain if they had crippled the other two major European powers and taken control of the continent? The only way to even hope to get Britain on a favourable footing would have been to win and then offer gracious terms. And even then I doubt the the British would have accepted German control on the continent. In the short term they would have left the war but in the long term Britain would have leaned against the Central Powers as a matter of survival.

The problem with that, though, is that it serves no-one's interests, other than Austria-Hungary's. That's why none of the other parties were happy with it, and began to act more and more precipitously and bellicosely as the Crisis deepened.

The Russians were supportive of Serbia giving in on the assumption that the terms of the Austro-Hungarian ultimatum could be watered down and made acceptable to all parties thereby avoiding a war. None of this mattered because Austro-Hungary was already looking for a way to force a war despite the fact that Serbia had already accepted terms that laid it low and firmly under the Austro-Hungarian boot.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Creator of thread here. Stay on topic. Feel free to start a WWI thread if you want to.

 

[Heraclius49]

Creator of thread here. Stay on topic. Feel free to start a WWI thread if you want to.

Well if you really want me too:

Yes but you can do what Bush did and send your troops wherever you feel like it. At times, I think it is justified, though if they want to take the time I could understand congress impeaching.

However, we never formally declared war in Iraq. Hell, WWII was the last time we've formally declared war. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. were all "police actions". From the wording of the poll question, it explicitly mentions 'declaring war', not merely 'stick troops in another country'.

Congress still has to approve the deployment of troops to other nations. The Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which is what kicked off the conventional war in Vietnam by ordering the deployment of troops there, was approved by congress and gave Johnson the power to send conventional troops without a formal declaration of war.

Even "police actions" need to be approved by Congress if they require conventional troops.

And there is always the impeachment issue.

 

[ZeletDude]

Creator of thread here. Stay on topic. Feel free to start a WWI thread if you want to.

Personally I think this WW1 Discussion is much more interesting

 

[Harvin87]

Me too.. there was a high level of complicity on both sides.

 

[Lord Baal]

Creator of thread here. Stay on topic. Feel free to start a WWI thread if you want to.

I answered your question pages ago. This WWI discussion is far more interesting and without it your thread has essentially outlived its usefulness completely.