Only subsidizing the wealth of some other syndicate.
Ahem…
Well, at least Debs was probably clean in that regard . . .
Never said Parker was a saint. I just know for a fact TR was willing to make decisions that directly benefited Morgan. He was also a nut. A very dangerous nut. Odds are Parker was no such nut.
Of course. We could have allowed entrepreneurs to build the canal. We could have built one in Nicaragua. Don’t you see how Roosevelt had a conflict of interest here?
Ah rationalwiki. It isn’t footnoted, but I would guess it’s from *The Untold Story of the Panama Canal *by Earl Harding. Never read it.
Strong words against Theodore Roosevelt, how do you define him as a nut?
Another enthusiastic vote for Theodore Roosevelt. He took office very sure-footedly after President McKinley’s tragic assassination three years ago, and has done excellent work since then: expanding the Navy, trust-busting, signing progressive reform bills by the dozen, encouraging conservation, expanding the national park system, etc. He knows how to speak softly but carry a big stick. He’s smart, young and energetic, with a charming family.
I hope he’ll run in 1908, as well - Heaven forbid he should promise not to!
Anyone who loved war like he did I would define as a nut.
He held off WWI by about 6 years. Won a Nobel Peace Prize for ending the Russo-Japanese War.
You speak from misconception not reality.
I can’t believe I’d be voting for a Republican, but I’d happily vote for Teddy Roosevelt. One of the top 5 presidents, in my opinion.
Edmund Morris also argues quite convincingly in Theodore Rex that T.R. also, through quiet but effective diplomacy, averted a naval blockade by Britain and Germany of Venezuela for unpaid debts in late 1902.
So that charge up San Juan Hill was just youthful experimentation? Firstly TR loved himself, which explains his actions in regards to the Russo-Japanese War. When WWI started he was champing at the bit to get involved.
The First World War would have had a much happier ending if the United States had gotten involved immediately instead of waiting around until 1917. The Allies would have had overwhelming resources to overmatch the Germans and the war would have ended earlier and with far fewer deaths. This would result in a more moderate peace settlement that wouldn’t embitter Germany (thereby causing the rise of Hitler and Nazism) while preventing the Germans from shipping Lenin back to Russia to launch the Bolshevist coup .
On what grounds should the US have joined the war? If anything they’d have a moral ground for joining on the German side, seeing as how the Allies were running an illegal starvation blockade of Germany, starving civilians by the thousands.
You color your analysis with bias against Germany that simply wasn’t present at the time and is unwarranted in hindsight. Never mind the British propoganda machine.
It’s well known Wilson was taking absurd positions on neutral rights in order to get a “Lusitania” event and enter the war on the British side. In order to achieve your admittedly admirable goal of a moderate peace settlement, the correct position would have been a steadfast non-intervention til the end.
I would have joined the war on the basis of the German violation of Belgian neutrality. The thing is, if the US hadn’t intervened at all ten million soldiers would still have died (considering that the war was still going on by 1917) and you run the risk of even more revolutions occurring as the populations of other countries become tired of the war.
As populations become tired of war the outcome would be a moderate peace settlement out of necessity. You errantly presume a more decisive Allies victory would have brokered a fair deal out of what? Benignity? You have a rosy view of the Allies that is unwarranted especially considering the deliberate starvation of German citizens.
As to your claim that the violation of Belgian neutrality being a legitimate grounds for United States entry into the war. It is colored by your having lived your entire life under the rule of World Policeman United States. It has no basis in the reality of prevailing sentiment in the world at that time.
What starvation? I think Germany, unlike Britain, always could grow enough at home to feed its people.
Because if you have far fewer dead in a war, there is going to be less demand for revenge in your home country. And as BrainGlutton pointed out Germany did manage to survive most of the war even with the blockade.
Admittedly, I’m speaking from hindsight here.
I
[quoted]
(Blockade of Germany - Wikipedia) this for you before but here it goes:
Winston Churchill:
“The British blockade treated the whole of Germany as if it were a beleaguered fortress, and avowedly sought to starve the whole population — men, women, and children, old and young, wounded and sound — into submission.”
“We are enforcing the blockade with rigour… It is repugnant to the British nation to use this weapon of starvation, which falls mainly on the women and children, upon the old and the weak and the poor, after all the fighting has stopped, one moment longer than is necessary to secure the just terms for which we have fought.”
By “just terms” I believe he’s speaking of the Treaty of Versailles. Bit of a stretch even for a politician.