Theodore Roosevelt had long been a harsh critic of the neutrality policy of the Wilson administration. On January 29, 1917 he gave a memorable response to the January 22, 1917 speech to the Senate of President Wilson in which Wilson called for Peace Without Victory:
“President Wilson has announced himself in favor of peace without victory, and now he has declared himself against universal service-that is against all efficient preparedness by the United States.
Peace without victory is the natural ideal of the man too proud to fight.
When fear of the German submarine next moves President Wilson to declare for “peace without victory” between the tortured Belgians and their cruel oppressors and task masters;Â when such fear next moves him to utter the shameful untruth that each side is fighting for the same things, and to declare for neutrality between wrong and right;Â let him think of the prophetess Deborah who, when Sisera mightily oppressed the children of Israel with his chariots of iron, and when the people of Meroz stood neutral between the oppressed and their oppressors, sang of them:
“Curse ye Meroz, sang the angel of the Lord, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof, because they came not to the help of the Lord against the wrongdoings of the mighty.””Â
Were not the alleged atrocities the Germans perpetuated on the Belgians in WWI part of a propaganda campaign. Were they ficticious, or at least exaggerated? And what was the object of WW I, anyway? WW II I can understand; Hitler wanted to take over the world. But WW I, I can see what happened, but not why. It seems everyone involved used it as an excuse for some strategic advantage of their own.
“Were they ficticious, or at least exaggerated?”
They were real enough, as the corpses of some six thousand Belgian civilians, men, women and children, slaughtered in reprisals by the German Army at the beginning of the War could attest.
http://ww1centenary.oucs.ox.ac.uk/memoryofwar/the-rape-of-belgium-revisited/
Thanks for the clarification. What about the purpose of the war, or goal? never could figure it out.
Much ink and cyberspace has been spent on WWI.
Granted that the Germans did not assassinate Archduke Franz Ferdinand, I still blame Germany. The German nation was ruled by Lutheran Prussians and wanted an empire. Kulturkampf and their treatment of Poles were both rotten.
The purposes of the War varied among the belligerents:
Great Britain-Free Belgium. Prevent Germany from dominating Europe.
France-Get back Alsace-Lorraine. Prevent Germany from dominating Europe.
Italy-Prevent Germany from dominating Europe. Get Tyrolia from Austria-Hungary.
Serbia-Survival.
Russia-Protect Serbia. Stop Germany and Austria Hungary from dominating Europe.
Austria Hungary-Destroy Serbia. Dominate the Balkans.
Germany-Hold onto territorial conquests. Become dominant power in Europe.
USA-Defeat Germany. Build new international order to make another World War impossible.
To mr. McClary. The best way for Serbia to survive was NOT to provoke Austria-Hungary to go to war. But Serbia was a very aggressive state, with a large and active irredentist faction that wanted just that and who expected Russia too come to their aid. Their war aim was the establishment of a south slave state dominated by Serbia. In other words, they wanted to become in the Balkans what Prussia had become in the German-speaking lands.
“The best way for Serbia to survive was NOT to provoke Austria-Hungary to go to war. But Serbia was a very aggressive state, with a large and active irredentist faction that wanted just that and who expected Russia too come to their aid.”
Correct, and elements in Austria had long pined for the destruction of Serbia and the domination of the Balkans by Austria. The Chief of Staff of the Austrian Army had recommended a pre-emptive war against Serbia some 13 times prior to 1914. The first lesson of history in the Balkans is that no one has clean hands.