"Rich Rostrom" <rrostrom.21stcentury@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:rrostrom.21stcentury-1EC5CC.01291928082008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Invid Fan <invid@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >
> >How would fighting a defensive war merit impeachment?
>
> When the U.S. declared war on Germany, it
> was with the expectation that the U.S.
> would fight to defeat Germany. That means
> attacking. At the very least, it means
> contributing to the land battle in France,
> not sitting back while German troops
> march in to Paris (say).
>
> I don't know whether there was any explicit
> discussion of this in the debate before the
> declaration vote. It would be possible for
> the U.S. to declare war, without intending
> to participate in the European land battle.
> Japan did as much. But I am pretty sure
> this was brought up in the debate and ruled
> out.
I'm not clear how much of a "debate" there ever was on that particular
point.
The Administration seems to have assumed from day one that the US would
participate in the European land war. This is not too surprising, given
that
Wilson's desire for a major role in the peacemaking (which he probably
wouldn't get if he abstained, Japanese-style, from the battles in Europe)
was a significant factor in reconciling him to going to war at all. This
consideration, I suspect, would have counted for far less with Marshall,
who
afaik never had any ambitions to be a world statesman.
More debatable is whether Marshall would in fact have adopted this
position.
While he seems at first to have been strictly neutralist, virtually to the
point of pacifism (see the quote in my earlier message), by March 20,1917
he
was saying that given Germany's actions (presumably the Zimmermann Note
and
USW) she was now effectively waging war on the US "whether there is a
declaration of war or not", and after the DoW his attitude seems to have
hardened fast. In a special Senate election in 1917, he acccused the
Republican candidate, Irvine Lenroot, of seeking the votes of "pro-German
traitors" and described Wisconsin as being "under supicion" as having a
large number of German sympathisers. (Lenroot won anyway). In 1918, iirc,
he
even went as far as to _apologise_ for his earlier views, and for thinking
that there could be "neutrality between right and wrong". I can't say with
any certainty how far this change of mood had gone by April 1917, but
maybe
to the point that he would have accepted the idea of an expeditionary
force
to Europe.
OTOH, if he _did_ dislike the idea, he might have been able to thwart it
in
other ways. He could certainly have blocked the Draft, which was far more
controversial than the DoW. If, at the same time, he left American
volunteers (who might be too impatient to wait until an enlarged US Army
got itself organised) free to enlist in other Allied armies, then it might
be forever and a day before the AEF was up to strength and ready to go.
--
Mike Stone - Peterborough, England
Q) In the Roman Civil Wars, why did all the bachelors fight for Sulla?
A) Because they weren't the Marian kind.
|
