maybe the US involvement had something to do with the unrestricted submarine warfare the german navy pursued
No, it had not, at least not directly.
The Germans were conducting submarine warfare nach "Prisenordnung" at the start of the war.
So you know how that works (in case you dont):
A sumbarine would spot a cargo vessel, surface, stop it (if necessary with a warning shot). The submarine was basically acting like a loaded gun pointed at the cargo ship. Then a boat would set over to the cargo ship with a so called Priesenkommando (enterprise). They would enter the ship and the captain of the cargo ship would hand over the ships papers. If they were confirmed to transport war goods for the Entente, the Prisenkommando would tell the cargo- ship- crew to leave the vessel with their life boats. They were allowed to bring food and water and other supplies with them. Then the Prisenkommando would sink the ship with explosives (no need to waste expensive torpedos).
Sometimes they would even drag the life boats closer to a friendly shore, in order to give the crews a higher chance of survival. It was a very polite way to do this.
What then happened was that the Brits built so called "U-Boot Fallen", U- boat trapps. Those were trade vessels that were repurposed as war ships. They had hidden guns, cannons, depth charges, etc. In the pirate tradition of the Brits, these ships were sailing under trade flag. Once an unsuspecting germna submarine surfaced and let the commando set over, they would raise the war flag and remove the covers from the guns and cannons, etc. The submarine captains were in a really bad situation then, with many of their crew members defenseless in a small dingy, or even already arrested on board of the submarine trap. They would have to leave their friends behind in order to escape or watch them get killed in the battle. I have read a really good book by a german WW1 submarine captain that tells about the submarine war from his perspective from 1914 until 1917. It is worth reading. He experienced this himself and was among the first to make it back alive to report it to the admirality.
Anyway, these trapps were what caused the German admirality to proclaim the unrestricted submarine warfare.
So again, it was the fault of the British, not the Germans! Had the Brits not employed such unfair tactics, there would not have been an unrestricted submarine warfare. You understand that, yes?
Skipjack, whenever someone repeatedly points out that the U.S. is the only country to have used atomic bombs, it comes across that the person is implying something about U.S. policy.
My implication was that the US has demonstrated its will to use nuclear bombs to defend its soil in the past. Someone said that the US was not having enough deterrants. I think that this is silly, given the history.
This is all that I wanted to express. I was not trying to imply that the US was doing something wrong
The Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente had both created war plans which forced them into war in a domino effect.
Yeah and the Austrians shot their own thrown heir, or something?
Even after that and countless negociations with Serbia who were "harboring terrorists" (sounds familiar?), Austria did not emmediately declare war on Serbia. It took officials in Austria a very long time to make that decision. It was not done lightheartedly.
The assassination of the Austrian heir in Serbia had been planned by the Russians who wanted to force Austria into that war. They knew what would happen. The Russians had a alliance contract with the French. So the French were happily joining into the war against the Germans. The British could not stand the Germans anyway.
By the beginning of the war, the Austrian and German war mashine was comparably badly equipped too, while the British, French and Russians were fully prepared (the Brits already had tanks).
The Brits had already negociated with several factions long before the beginning of the war how they would split up the cake, even with the treaterous Italians.
Plus- and that is always a way to make sure that a war takes extremely long and that the looser will suffer greatly- the Brits insisted on "unconditional surrender". They did the same in WW2 and that cost millions of lives. WW2 would have ended 2 years earlier if it was not for this (and shit like the Morgentau plan).
At best, it was morality-neutral. The Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente had both created war plans which forced them into war in a domino effect. This was the fault of both sides and a failure of diplomacy.
The US was not part of the tripple Entente. It had no business getting into the war and supporting the Brits! It was unfair and unjustified!
Well all I can say is that with the unfair WW1 (and whoevery says else is either a lier or a victim of the history falsification of the allies every since WW1) and the even more unfair "peace treaties" of Versailles and St Germain, they laid the groundwork for WW2. They had it coming for them, really.
As for territorial concessions: if you look at ethnographic maps from the 19th and early 20th centuries, the majority of the population in the Polish corridor were ethnic Poles. The bits of Upper Silesia that joined Poland had a referendum and voted to split with Germany - other bits voted to stay with Germany.
Yeah that is the sort of history falsification that I was talking about.
Lets also not forget about the huge amounts of land that Austria lost.
Lower Styria, e.g. It was completely German, even until the end of WW2!
My grandmother lived in Marburg. So I do know!
Germany used poison gas first.
It was the french who used it first, Xylylbromid, then Phosgen.