NATO: More Harm than Good?

[HMS Vanguard]

eerrrrrrrrrrr

They had run out of cash or assets to pawn off by late 1916 and were likewise, according to several observers, down to about six weeks of strategic materials (Including food, IIRC) by April of 1917. You can't fight a war with no bullets or bread, as you know.

You're conflating the budget with the u-boat blockade.

Britain never ran out of money and had defeated the u-boats with convoy before the US entered the war.

Very few American troops even landed in Europe in 1917 and the British were on the offensive right to the end of the campaign season of that year.

The earliest the Entente could have lost the war was the German Spring Offensive in 1918, but the number of American troops at that time were also low, they were considered the lowest quality manpower, were being equipped mostly from French and British stocks, and mostly stationed outside the battle area. So it seems unlikely it would have made a difference.

There is a much stronger case that American troops were needed to decisively end the war in 1918 with the Hundred Day Offensive, but the worst outcome for the Entente at that point was a white peace, with or without America.

[Oil exporting People]

You're conflating the budget with the u-boat blockade.

I was mainly talking about the issue of money, but added on the effects of what U-boats were doing (Hence my use of "likewise").

Britain never ran out of money

Actually they had, the US ended up supplying them with around $9.5 Billion in unsecured loans over 1917-1918. The French had exhausted their goal and cash assets by late 1916, and the Brits had likewise done so by the start of Spring in 1917.

and had defeated the u-boats with convoy before the US entered the war.

As for the U-Boats, that's also a negative. By 1918, American shipbuilders accounted for 60% of all merchant production of the Entente (Around double of the British, btw) and their diplomatic weight brought in several other sources of merchant shipping (Brazil joined after the US did, and seized around 40 German merchants stuck in its ports, later the US managed to force the Dutch to give up around 130 of their own ships too, just for a few examples). By June of 1917, the US had nearly 40 destroyers in service and Lord Jellicoe after the war said the convoy system would've been impossible without them, as by that time over 90% of unescorted shipping was being sunk. Admiral Sims stated that the Brits themselves expected to be forced out by November, as losses had reached a million tons a month. Further, 80% of British oil imports were being sunk, so that by April the Royal Navy only had about eight weeks of supply left (After that, German naval advantage). Likewise by April, the British had also been reduced to a six wheat supply of wheat.

So no, US intervention was decisive in the U-Boat war. (Credit to Mike Stone of Soc.History.What-If for finding these stats).

Very few American troops even landed in Europe in 1917 and the British were on the offensive right to the end of the campaign season of that year.

Which is irrelevant, because at that phase of the war the imminent issue was a collapse of logistics. You can throw as many as bodies as you want at the enemy, but without weapons they aren't going to do much good and without food you quickly run out of bodies. The decisive American contribution in 1917 was insuring the Entente would survive, both materially and psychologically until they could make their grand entrance in 1918.

The earliest the Entente could have lost the war was the German Spring Offensive in 1918,

That's a solid negative, the Germans had a chance to win the war from August of 1914 onwards. In particular, I would direct your attention to the rather poor performance of the French 5th Army under Lanzerac, which was encircled almost twice from August 20th onwards to the end of the month. Most seriously was the period between the 20th and 24th when around three German armies came within a hair of destroying Lanzerac's force. Had this occurred, a giant hole would've been ripped in the French lines, resulting in the fall of Paris and the collapse of the remainder of the Anglo-French forces.

but the number of American troops at that time were also low, they were considered the lowest quality manpower, were being equipped mostly from French and British stocks, and mostly stationed outside the battle area. So it seems unlikely it would have made a difference.

In 1917, was American troops decisive? No. Were they by the time of the Spring Offensive? Without a doubt. Four American Divisions were used by the Brits to secure their left flank by the time the Germans hit Amiens, allowing the Brits to focus their own manpower in containing that thrust. By June, Americans had arrived in strength enough to help end the last serious threat to Paris as well as solidified French resolve to continue on (There was talk of abandoning the city up until June, simply in the face of the German onslaught).

There is a much stronger case that American troops were needed to decisively end the war in 1918 with the Hundred Day Offensive, but the worst outcome for the Entente at that point was a white peace, with or without America.

Without a doubt American manpower the key to the Hundred Days. The Fresh US Divisions took over something like a third of the French line, allowing them (France) to have enough manpower to participate in the advance, for example.

[New Grestin]

NATO is, at least right now, a matter of deterrence rather than utility. Like nuclear weapons, the threat of a vast military alliance encompassing many industrial nations is more than enough for any sensible nation to rethink it's imperialistic ideas.

That could result in another-or further continuation of the last-Cold War.

The Cold War never ended, it just evolved. Ivan and Uncle Sam are still doing the same song and dance routine they've been doing since the Reich fell, just with computers.

[HMS Vanguard]

You're conflating the budget with the u-boat blockade.

I was mainly talking about the issue of money, but added on the effects of what U-boats were doing (Hence my use of "likewise").

You seem to be trying to ascribe the effects of the u-boat blockade (which was defeated before the US contributed anything much to the war) to a supposed lack of money.

Britain never ran out of money

Actually they had, the US ended up supplying them with around $9.5 Billion in unsecured loans over 1917-1918. The French had exhausted their goal and cash assets by late 1916, and the Brits had likewise done so by the start of Spring in 1917.

Countries do not "run out of money", as they are constantly producing more money. If Britain had received no cash at all from abroad it would not have run out of money, it would only have been able to spend less than otherwise. Loans, though, are not gifts; they are time transfers of money. A US loan to the UK (as opposed to a US gift to the UK) is the UK shifting UK money from, say, 1920 to 1917, not the UK receiving free money from the US.

and had defeated the u-boats with convoy before the US entered the war.

As for the U-Boats, that's also a negative. By 1918, American shipbuilders accounted for 60% of all merchant production of the Entente (Around double of the British, btw) and their diplomatic weight brought in several other sources of merchant shipping (Brazil joined after the US did, and seized around 40 German merchants stuck in its ports, later the US managed to force the Dutch to give up around 130 of their own ships too, just for a few examples). By June of 1917, the US had nearly 40 destroyers in service and Lord Jellicoe after the war said the convoy system would've been impossible without them, as by that time over 90% of unescorted shipping was being sunk. Admiral Sims stated that the Brits themselves expected to be forced out by November, as losses had reached a million tons a month. Further, 80% of British oil imports were being sunk, so that by April the Royal Navy only had about eight weeks of supply left (After that, German naval advantage). Likewise by April, the British had also been reduced to a six wheat supply of wheat.

So no, US intervention was decisive in the U-Boat war. (Credit to Mike Stone of Soc.History.What-If for finding these stats).

All of which is irrelevant - convoy had defeated the u-boats by May 1917. Jellicoe thought that the convoy system wouldn't work at all because it would have required hundreds more destroyers and cruisers than Britain had. He was wrong; even very lightly escorted convoys took far fewer losses than groups of ships making separate passages. The u-boat threat was a paper tiger throughout the whole war; the only reason convoy wasn't adopted earlier is that convoys transport goods less efficiently, imposing virtual attrition on merchantmen. As soon as the situation became serious in 1917, convoy was introduced and the u-boats had no respose. The u-boats were never close to knocking Britain out of the war.

Very few American troops even landed in Europe in 1917 and the British were on the offensive right to the end of the campaign season of that year.

Which is irrelevant, because at that phase of the war the imminent issue was a collapse of logistics. You can throw as many as bodies as you want at the enemy, but without weapons they aren't going to do much good and without food you quickly run out of bodies. The decisive American contribution in 1917 was insuring the Entente would survive, both materially and psychologically until they could make their grand entrance in 1918.

It's the other way around; the US had little war industry and its troops were being equipped by the Entente. Without foreign money the Entente would not have been able to outsource as much production of civilian goods to the New World (Latin America was about as important as the US in that respect), but they would have faced no immediate shortages of weapons or ammunition. Which shouldn't surprise anyone as Germany had been under total blockade since 1914 and somehow managed not to run out of bullets!

The earliest the Entente could have lost the war was the German Spring Offensive in 1918,

That's a solid negative, the Germans had a chance to win the war from August of 1914 onwards. In particular, I would direct your attention to the rather poor performance of the French 5th Army under Lanzerac, which was encircled almost twice from August 20th onwards to the end of the month. Most seriously was the period between the 20th and 24th when around three German armies came within a hair of destroying Lanzerac's force. Had this occurred, a giant hole would've been ripped in the French lines, resulting in the fall of Paris and the collapse of the remainder of the Anglo-French forces.

I agree that the Germans had a chance to win in the Autumn of 1914 but that is tangential to this discussion.

but the number of American troops at that time were also low, they were considered the lowest quality manpower, were being equipped mostly from French and British stocks, and mostly stationed outside the battle area. So it seems unlikely it would have made a difference.

In 1917, was American troops decisive? No. Were they by the time of the Spring Offensive? Without a doubt. Four American Divisions were used by the Brits to secure their left flank by the time the Germans hit Amiens, allowing the Brits to focus their own manpower in containing that thrust. By June, Americans had arrived in strength enough to help end the last serious threat to Paris as well as solidified French resolve to continue on (There was talk of abandoning the city up until June, simply in the face of the German onslaught).

The American troops were a minor contribution to the Spring Offensive. They may well have been a decisive one, and we will never know for sure, but it seems unlikely, given their small numbers, poor training, and lack of experience, and the fact that there was essentially zero American involvement in the key initial actions like Operation Michael.

[Imperializt Russia]

eerrrrrrrrrrr

They had run out of cash or assets to pawn off by late 1916 and were likewise, according to several observers, down to about six weeks of strategic materials (Including food, IIRC) by April of 1917. You can't fight a war with no bullets or bread, as you know.

In April, Britain's supplies of wheat did supposedly shrink to six week's worth. Note that even more shipping was sunk in the following months, and Britain failed to collapse. Germany was also running out of strategic resources, due to the Royal Navy's own blockade.

American loans to Britain and France had been ongoing well before late 1916, and immediate solvency isn't quite relevant in total war; paying for it becomes a little secondary, as the loans and reparations from WWI and later WWII aptly demonstrate.

[IceBuddha]

NATO is a pillar of international stability, European cooperation and American foreign policy. The original mission of NATO (preserving the balance of power in Eurasia, at that time from an ambitious, powerful, expansionist Soviet Union) became less important after 1991, but that doesn't make NATO obsolete. We take many of the benefits of NATO for granted, as if a peaceful, American-friendly Western Europe is normal or natural.

There are certainly areas where NATO can be improved, but you shouldn't throw the current world order out with the bath water.

[Seraven]

NATO is a pillar of international stability, European cooperation and American foreign policy. The original mission of NATO (preserving the balance of power in Eurasia, at that time from an ambitious, powerful, expansionist Soviet Union) became less important after 1991, but the basic mission is still important. We take many of the benefits of NATO for granted, as if a peaceful, American-friendly Western Europe is normal or natural.

There are certainly areas where NATO can be improved, but you shouldn't throw the current world order out with the bath water.

Tell that to the newest President of USA.

[IceBuddha]

NATO is a pillar of international stability, European cooperation and American foreign policy. The original mission of NATO (preserving the balance of power in Eurasia, at that time from an ambitious, powerful, expansionist Soviet Union) became less important after 1991, but the basic mission is still important. We take many of the benefits of NATO for granted, as if a peaceful, American-friendly Western Europe is normal or natural.

There are certainly areas where NATO can be improved, but you shouldn't throw the current world order out with the bath water.

Tell that to the newest President of USA.

I'm sure he has lots of people telling him that every day. Congress needs to step up and formally pass Russian sanctions into law in order to constrain Trump's freedom of action on that issue. He's already trying to set up a situation where he could justify removing them.

The big problem is that his National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, thinks he can pull off some kind of "grand bargain" with Russia, and wants to refocus NATO (along with Russia) on countering Islamic extremism. Trump has completely bought into this theory, since it meshes nicely with his world view.

Trump has long maintained a very "transactional" view of great power relations. He believes that if the US spends money on building and maintaining alliances (not only with NATO, but other nations like Japan or South Korea), it should produce some kind of measurable, immediate economic benefit which cancels out the costs. This is foreign policy as a series of deals instead of a deliberate strategy.

People like to point to Trump's career as a businessman to explain his views, but this is not "business-like" thinking. Businesses need long term strategic planning and have to accept certain costs in order to yield long term benefits (which may be intangible). You would think that a businessman would understand this concept.

He also has an irrational hatred for all forms of multilateralism, viewing multilateral agreements as "globalism" or unnecessary foreign entanglements.

[Novus America]

I was mainly talking about the issue of money, but added on the effects of what U-boats were doing (Hence my use of "likewise").

You seem to be trying to ascribe the effects of the u-boat blockade (which was defeated before the US contributed anything much to the war) to a supposed lack of money.

Actually they had, the US ended up supplying them with around $9.5 Billion in unsecured loans over 1917-1918. The French had exhausted their goal and cash assets by late 1916, and the Brits had likewise done so by the start of Spring in 1917.

Countries do not "run out of money", as they are constantly producing more money. If Britain had received no cash at all from abroad it would not have run out of money, it would only have been able to spend less than otherwise. Loans, though, are not gifts; they are time transfers of money. A US loan to the UK (as opposed to a US gift to the UK) is the UK shifting UK money from, say, 1920 to 1917, not the UK receiving free money from the US.

As for the U-Boats, that's also a negative. By 1918, American shipbuilders accounted for 60% of all merchant production of the Entente (Around double of the British, btw) and their diplomatic weight brought in several other sources of merchant shipping (Brazil joined after the US did, and seized around 40 German merchants stuck in its ports, later the US managed to force the Dutch to give up around 130 of their own ships too, just for a few examples). By June of 1917, the US had nearly 40 destroyers in service and Lord Jellicoe after the war said the convoy system would've been impossible without them, as by that time over 90% of unescorted shipping was being sunk. Admiral Sims stated that the Brits themselves expected to be forced out by November, as losses had reached a million tons a month. Further, 80% of British oil imports were being sunk, so that by April the Royal Navy only had about eight weeks of supply left (After that, German naval advantage). Likewise by April, the British had also been reduced to a six wheat supply of wheat.

So no, US intervention was decisive in the U-Boat war. (Credit to Mike Stone of Soc.History.What-If for finding these stats).

All of which is irrelevant - convoy had defeated the u-boats by May 1917. Jellicoe thought that the convoy system wouldn't work at all because it would have required hundreds more destroyers and cruisers than Britain had. He was wrong; even very lightly escorted convoys took far fewer losses than groups of ships making separate passages. The u-boat threat was a paper tiger throughout the whole war; the only reason convoy wasn't adopted earlier is that convoys transport goods less efficiently, imposing virtual attrition on merchantmen. As soon as the situation became serious in 1917, convoy was introduced and the u-boats had no respose. The u-boats were never close to knocking Britain out of the war.

Which is irrelevant, because at that phase of the war the imminent issue was a collapse of logistics. You can throw as many as bodies as you want at the enemy, but without weapons they aren't going to do much good and without food you quickly run out of bodies. The decisive American contribution in 1917 was insuring the Entente would survive, both materially and psychologically until they could make their grand entrance in 1918.

It's the other way around; the US had little war industry and its troops were being equipped by the Entente. Without foreign money the Entente would not have been able to outsource as much production of civilian goods to the New World (Latin America was about as important as the US in that respect), but they would have faced no immediate shortages of weapons or ammunition. Which shouldn't surprise anyone as Germany had been under total blockade since 1914 and somehow managed not to run out of bullets!

That's a solid negative, the Germans had a chance to win the war from August of 1914 onwards. In particular, I would direct your attention to the rather poor performance of the French 5th Army under Lanzerac, which was encircled almost twice from August 20th onwards to the end of the month. Most seriously was the period between the 20th and 24th when around three German armies came within a hair of destroying Lanzerac's force. Had this occurred, a giant hole would've been ripped in the French lines, resulting in the fall of Paris and the collapse of the remainder of the Anglo-French forces.

I agree that the Germans had a chance to win in the Autumn of 1914 but that is tangential to this discussion.

In 1917, was American troops decisive? No. Were they by the time of the Spring Offensive? Without a doubt. Four American Divisions were used by the Brits to secure their left flank by the time the Germans hit Amiens, allowing the Brits to focus their own manpower in containing that thrust. By June, Americans had arrived in strength enough to help end the last serious threat to Paris as well as solidified French resolve to continue on (There was talk of abandoning the city up until June, simply in the face of the German onslaught).

The American troops were a minor contribution to the Spring Offensive. They may well have been a decisive one, and we will never know for sure, but it seems unlikely, given their small numbers, poor training, and lack of experience, and the fact that there was essentially zero American involvement in the key initial actions like Operation Michael.

While the US industry was not optimized for war by 1917 it was however huge, and provided huge amounts of things from steel, to ships, to food.

US production of gunpowder was higher than the other allies combined.
"The United States production of smokeless powder was equal to the combined production of the European Allies during the last 19 months of the war; and by the end of the war United States factories were producing smokeless powder at a rate 45 percent higher than the European Allies' combined production. Production rate of explosives by the United States was similarly 40 percent higher than Britain and nearly twice that of France.[15] Shipments of American raw materials and food allowed Britain to feed itself and its army while maintaining her productivity."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... orld_War_I

And US troops were not of low quality. They often actually had better training, one reason for the delay is Pershing would not send them into battle without training, while the others were throwing new recruits into battle with much less. US troops also had a well developed NCO and officer Corps with veterans from the Spanish American and other wars. Many with decades of service.
Also US troops had not suffered from years of malnutrition, disease, gas and psychological trauma of years of war, the French army in particular was in bad shape.

US troops were fresh and well fed, which makes a big difference when others are worn out and in some cases even mutinying or refusing to fight.

The Germans said the US Marines were some of the best troops on the field.

US troops did make several critical contributions in the spring offensive.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Belleau_Wood

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_ ... _the_Marne
Several US units won the Croix de Guerre in the Spring Offensive. Which clearly show the French though them of high quality and very vital.

[Novus America]

Makes one wonder what the long-term consequences of the development of a workable missile defense system would be.

Missiles that could evade that system, or orbital laser weaponry. Man always finds a way to kill man.

But if you mean a system that would prevent any nuclear attack, period, then we'd probably just see a lot more warfare, possibly including chemical and biological weapons. Far more people would die due to warfare every year, and we could have an average of two to three world wars per century. In this scenario, it wouldn't be suicide to attack America, so China might end up controlling the West Coast. The possibilities are endless, but they mostly involve a bunch of people ending up dead. Nukes are scary, but so far they've been pretty helpful.

A system that would prevent all attacks is impossible. As the system improves so will attempts to counter it, and the system improved to counter those counters.
Also would not work against short ranged tactical nuclear weapons either.

And you are assuming China has the same system. Just because the US can stop Chinese missiles (which are much smaller in number) does not mean China can stop US ones.

What if only the US has it? Still a 100% effective system is impossible. Missile defense is designed to increase deterence by making a limited strike impossible and a first strike less effective. It would not stop ever

Even so China could not attack the US West Coast even if nukes did not exist at all, they do not have the logistics to do so.

[Sanctissima]

The American troops were a minor contribution to the Spring Offensive. They may well have been a decisive one, and we will never know for sure, but it seems unlikely, given their small numbers, poor training, and lack of experience, and the fact that there was essentially zero American involvement in the key initial actions like Operation Michael.

To be frank, American involvement in WWI pretty much put the nail in the coffin for the German Empire. I think it's worth noting that by the time the Spring Offensive occurred, Russia had surrendered, so Germany was no longer fighting a war on two Fronts. While the US only really became involved militarily towards the tail-end of the war, its troops (which were actually quite well-trained by the standards of the time) did partake in several key battles, and performed valiantly during combat.

I think it's also worth noting that the entire point of the Spring Offensive was, from the German perspective, to defeat the Allies on the Western Front before the US could fully deploy its forces. So I think it goes without saying that the German High Command considered the Americans to be enough of a major threat that they were willing to risk one final all-out offensive on the grounds that, if the Americans arrived on the Western Front in sufficient numbers before the other Allied armies had been dealt with, the war would be lost.

[Oil exporting People]

You seem to be trying to ascribe the effects of the u-boat blockade (which was defeated before the US contributed anything much to the war) to a supposed lack of money.

No, I specifically noted they were both very different but compounded issues hitting at the exact same time.

Countries do not "run out of money", as they are constantly producing more money.

If they decide to print like Weimar, then yes. Doing such in this circumstance would further reduce the Pound to irrelevancy.

If Britain had received no cash at all from abroad it would not have run out of money, it would only have been able to spend less than otherwise. Loans, though, are not gifts; they are time transfers of money. A US loan to the UK (as opposed to a US gift to the UK) is the UK shifting UK money from, say, 1920 to 1917, not the UK receiving free money from the US.

And yet the Brits had out-borrowed their ability to pay. They owed $400 Million to JP Morgan, and had no means to pay it off in April of 1917.

All of which is irrelevant - convoy had defeated the u-boats by May 1917.

By May, I agree. Why? American entry. You basically just admitted you were wrong here.

Jellicoe thought that the convoy system wouldn't work at all because it would have required hundreds more destroyers and cruisers than Britain had. He was wrong; even very lightly escorted convoys took far fewer losses than groups of ships making separate passages. The u-boat threat was a paper tiger throughout the whole war; the only reason convoy wasn't adopted earlier is that convoys transport goods less efficiently, imposing virtual attrition on merchantmen. As soon as the situation became serious in 1917, convoy was introduced and the u-boats had no respose.

This ignores the fact that the Admiralty itself stated it needed around 75 Destroyers to do convoys, but only had around 40. What changed? The US added around 40 additional Destroyers by July, and every month after that the Germans failed to meet their tonnage goals.

The u-boats were never close to knocking Britain out of the war.

The Brits were down to eight weeks of oil for their navy and six weeks of grain. From late 1916 until June of 1917, the Germans were sinking above their target goals of tonnage, this is not in doubt. To claim this nearly didn't bring the British down is an outright lie.

It's the other way around; the US had little war industry and its troops were being equipped by the Entente. Without foreign money the Entente would not have been able to outsource as much production of civilian goods to the New World (Latin America was about as important as the US in that respect), but they would have faced no immediate shortages of weapons or ammunition.

Actually they would have. The vast majority of the Entente's smokeless powder came from the US, as well as the majority of French steel and oil (Which was used to make those weapons). Furthermore, on the issue of Americans in time for the Spring Offensive, your average American division was equal in size to a French Corps while four corps was equal to an entire French Army. This proved decisive, as allowing those American troops to occupy areas of the French line essentially freed up massive amounts of French manpower for use in the Third Battle of Aisne and Second Battle of the Marne. This saved Paris, and thus the war was won for the Entente.

Which shouldn't surprise anyone as Germany had been under total blockade since 1914 and somehow managed not to run out of bullets!

Germany had a larger industry then the Brits is why, outproducing them in shells until 1917 (American entry) as well as producing vastly more steel than them.

The American troops were a minor contribution to the Spring Offensive. They may well have been a decisive one, and we will never know for sure, but it seems unlikely, given their small numbers, poor training, and lack of experience, and the fact that there was essentially zero American involvement in the key initial actions like Operation Michael.

Without US entry, there wouldn't have even been a need for Michael as both sides would've long since collapsed. American manpower did, however, become decisive by the later German offensives, as I previously noted.

Finally, with regards to all of this, the following from Kathleen Burk's Britain, America and the Sinews of War, Ch 5.

"the [British] Foreign Office called together an interdepartmental committee on 30 September [1916] to consider how far Britain was dependent on the United States; the statements of the various departments were printed for the Cabinet on 6 November, and the conclusions were alarming. The Ministry of Munitions procured a large percentage of its guns, shells, metals explosives and machine tools from the United States; The Army Department considered that there was no substitute for American supplies of oils and petroleum, nor for that of preserved meat; The Board of trade stated that for cotton, for foodstuffs, for military necessities and for raw materials for industry, the United States was "an absolutely irreplaceable source of supply"; the Board of Agriculture emphasize the dependence of Britain on the United States for grains; and finally the Treasury stated baldly 'Of the £5,000,000 which the Treasury have to find daily for the prosecution of the war, about £2,000,000 has to be found in North America', and added that there was no prospect of any diminution without a radical change in the policies of the Allied War Departments. The Treasury expressed, in its conclusion, the only action possible fort he government; 'The policy of this country toward the USA should be so directed as to not only avoid any form of reprisal or irritation, but also to conciliate and to please' "

Time to take the L, bud.

In April, Britain's supplies of wheat did supposedly shrink to six week's worth. Note that even more shipping was sunk in the following months, and Britain failed to collapse.

Because the US entered their conflict with the merchant shipping, and brought in several neutrals to make up for losses (Leaning on Brazil and the Netherlands alone produced nearly 200 extra merchant vessels just from those two sources alone). By 1918, 60% of all merchant shipping from the Entente was American in manufacture.

Germany was also running out of strategic resources, due to the Royal Navy's own blockade.

Not nearly as bad as the British were. There is considerable debate whether Germany could've survived the winter of 1918/1919, but there is no doubt Britain could not survive 1917/1918 without US entry. It also requires notice the Royal Navy was down to eight weeks of oil, which without it, their blockade would've collapsed.

American loans to Britain and France had been ongoing well before late 1916, and immediate solvency isn't quite relevant in total war;

Yes they had been loaning to the Anglo-French before hand, but by late 1916 the French had run out of collateral and the Brits were about to in April. With regards to the Brits, they have an overdraft of $400 Million and it required US war bond sales to pay that off for them. Without collateral, they weren't going to get in more in credit and thus their economies would collapse.

paying for it becomes a little secondary, as the loans and reparations from WWI and later WWII aptly demonstrate.

No and this quite frankly shows to me you don't have a clue what you are talking about on this subject. The Brits went as far as to discuss selling off colonies to the US and leaned considerably on Germany with regards to reparations to help stave off a lot of their economic woes as a result of the loans after the First World War. After the Second, Britain's debt basically caused the collapse of the Empire.

[New Axiom]

**DISCLAIMER: you posting here means your post will probably be thoroughly dissected, examined and scrutinized and commended in every possible aspect by the NationStates General community.

Wow - you knew exactly what you're getting into, and you still went for it. Gotta say, I respect that.

thanks!

[New Axiom]

NATO is a pillar of international stability, European cooperation and American foreign policy. The original mission of NATO (preserving the balance of power in Eurasia, at that time from an ambitious, powerful, expansionist Soviet Union) became less important after 1991, but that doesn't make NATO obsolete. We take many of the benefits of NATO for granted, as if a peaceful, American-friendly Western Europe is normal or natural.

There are certainly areas where NATO can be improved, but you shouldn't throw the current world order out with the bath water.

European cooperation? Like in what way? They not very cooperative of the current immigration issue or the U.K. and stuff. Just cause we all use the 5.56-7.62 NATO round doesn't mean they cooperate. Plus, why wouldn't a pro-Wetsern Western Europe be anything but normal? If they didn't want to be freinds with Unlce Sam they could always leave NATO. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm not sure it says that you can't leav eNATO once you join it.

But in the post I was saying that NATO being around could cause greater global instability just with its simple existence.

[The Conez Imperium]

NATO is a pillar of international stability, European cooperation and American foreign policy. The original mission of NATO (preserving the balance of power in Eurasia, at that time from an ambitious, powerful, expansionist Soviet Union) became less important after 1991, but that doesn't make NATO obsolete. We take many of the benefits of NATO for granted, as if a peaceful, American-friendly Western Europe is normal or natural.

There are certainly areas where NATO can be improved, but you shouldn't throw the current world order out with the bath water.

European cooperation? Like in what way? They not very cooperative of the current immigration issue or the U.K. and stuff. Just cause we all use the 5.56-7.62 NATO round doesn't mean they cooperate. Plus, why wouldn't a pro-Wetsern Western Europe be anything but normal? If they didn't want to be freinds with Unlce Sam they could always leave NATO. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm not sure it says that you can't leav eNATO once you join it.

But in the post I was saying that NATO being around could cause greater global instability just with its simple existence.

I believe France left NATO and rejoined after a while.

Also I don't understand why people criticise NATO for the immigration crisis. How exactly does a military organisation manage a immigration wave where each country has different goals?

Nato secretary general Jens Stoltenberg claimed: "This is not about stopping or pushing back refugee boats." The UK defence minister Michael Fallon immediately contradicted him: “They will not be taken back to Greece. The aim of the group is to have them taken back to Turkey. That is the crucial difference."

The public presentation of Nato’s anticipated role has mostly been about surveillance aimed at stopping human-smuggling networks. Germany’s defence minister, Ursula von der Leyen, said that migrants would only be picked up as an emergency measure but added that there is a "firm agreement" with Ankara that refugees rescued by Nato ships would "be brought back to Turkey." The Greek defence chief, Panos Kammenos, said the agreement "will finally solve the issue of migration."

So far, joint operations in the Aegean have been coordinated by Frontex, the EU’s external borders control agency, which is limited to Greek territorial waters and must disembark all migrants in Greece. Nato warships are not limited to Greek waters and would be able to return boat people to Turkey, itself a member of Nato, if Turkey allows it.

Introducing Nato into the Euro-Med migration/refugee crisis raises the questions: 1) will interdicted migrants and asylum seekers be accepted back by Turkey, and, if so, 2) is this acceptable as a matter of human rights.

On the first question, notwithstanding the German defence minister’s remark about a “firm agreement” with Ankara to take back migrants, Turkey has been publicly silent. In fact, it hasn’t said anything about the Nato operation, although it is reported to have joined Germany and Greece in asking for it.

[Pope Joan]

If we just decided that our supposed hatred of Russia was contrived and manipulated by our leaders, then we could do with out the anachronism that is NATO.

Let the EuroWest do what they do best, which is making beer (and wine) and chocolates. Take a Euro vacation from policymaking.

What would we ever do without NATO? Let's find out!

[IceBuddha]

NATO is a pillar of international stability, European cooperation and American foreign policy. The original mission of NATO (preserving the balance of power in Eurasia, at that time from an ambitious, powerful, expansionist Soviet Union) became less important after 1991, but that doesn't make NATO obsolete. We take many of the benefits of NATO for granted, as if a peaceful, American-friendly Western Europe is normal or natural.

There are certainly areas where NATO can be improved, but you shouldn't throw the current world order out with the bath water.

European cooperation? Like in what way? They not very cooperative of the current immigration issue or the U.K. and stuff. Just cause we all use the 5.56-7.62 NATO round doesn't mean they cooperate. Plus, why wouldn't a pro-Wetsern Western Europe be anything but normal? If they didn't want to be freinds with Unlce Sam they could always leave NATO. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm not sure it says that you can't leav eNATO once you join it.

But in the post I was saying that NATO being around could cause greater global instability just with its simple existence.

NATO is the primary mechanism for military cooperation between European countries. The EU does some stuff in this area too, but it pales in comparison. It helps to keep peace between its members. I'm sure if Greece and Turkey weren't in NATO, the Aegean dispute probably would have boiled over into a war. Other areas of cooperation, on things like economic policy or immigration are beyond the purview of NATO.

A pro-US Europe that is at peace is a recent development. Look at European history pre-1945 if you want to see the "natural state" of Europe. In theory you can just "leave NATO", but to date no country has done that. The closest was France, when de Gaulle revoked leases for NATO bases on French soil and withdrew the French military from the NATO joint command. Despite that, France remained in NATO as a treaty-bound member.

[The Romulan Republic]

I can't say weather NATO has done more harm than good. I suppose it could, theoretically serve in its original purpose of deterring Russian expansionism, which is all the more relevant now, but with its most powerful member allegedly colluding with Putin, it seems of somewhat dubious relevance.

[Uxupox]

European cooperation? Like in what way? They not very cooperative of the current immigration issue or the U.K. and stuff. Just cause we all use the 5.56-7.62 NATO round doesn't mean they cooperate. Plus, why wouldn't a pro-Wetsern Western Europe be anything but normal? If they didn't want to be freinds with Unlce Sam they could always leave NATO. Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm not sure it says that you can't leav eNATO once you join it.

But in the post I was saying that NATO being around could cause greater global instability just with its simple existence.

I believe France left NATO and rejoined after a while.

Also I don't understand why people criticise NATO for the immigration crisis. How exactly does a military organisation manage a immigration wave where each country has different goals?

Nato secretary general Jens Stoltenberg claimed: "This is not about stopping or pushing back refugee boats." The UK defence minister Michael Fallon immediately contradicted him: “They will not be taken back to Greece. The aim of the group is to have them taken back to Turkey. That is the crucial difference."

The public presentation of Nato’s anticipated role has mostly been about surveillance aimed at stopping human-smuggling networks. Germany’s defence minister, Ursula von der Leyen, said that migrants would only be picked up as an emergency measure but added that there is a "firm agreement" with Ankara that refugees rescued by Nato ships would "be brought back to Turkey." The Greek defence chief, Panos Kammenos, said the agreement "will finally solve the issue of migration."

So far, joint operations in the Aegean have been coordinated by Frontex, the EU’s external borders control agency, which is limited to Greek territorial waters and must disembark all migrants in Greece. Nato warships are not limited to Greek waters and would be able to return boat people to Turkey, itself a member of Nato, if Turkey allows it.

Introducing Nato into the Euro-Med migration/refugee crisis raises the questions: 1) will interdicted migrants and asylum seekers be accepted back by Turkey, and, if so, 2) is this acceptable as a matter of human rights.

On the first question, notwithstanding the German defence minister’s remark about a “firm agreement” with Ankara to take back migrants, Turkey has been publicly silent. In fact, it hasn’t said anything about the Nato operation, although it is reported to have joined Germany and Greece in asking for it.

France never left NATO but they were removed from it's military command and only included recently once again.

[Seraven]

Tell that to the newest President of USA.

He also has an irrational hatred for all forms of multilateralism, viewing multilateral agreements as "globalism" or unnecessary foreign entanglements.

He's businessman.

I believe France left NATO and rejoined after a while.

Also I don't understand why people criticise NATO for the immigration crisis. How exactly does a military organisation manage a immigration wave where each country has different goals?

France never left NATO but they were removed from it's military command and only included recently once again.

Yeah, they kind of not agreed with USA leading everything in NATO so they bailed out, during the Cold War, and befriending Soviet better than most nations in the West Bloc.

[Uxupox]

He also has an irrational hatred for all forms of multilateralism, viewing multilateral agreements as "globalism" or unnecessary foreign entanglements.

He's businessman.

France never left NATO but they were removed from it's military command and only included recently once again.

Yeah, they kind of not agreed with USA leading everything in NATO so they bailed out, during the Cold War, and befriending Soviet better than most nations in the West Bloc.

Maybe they should be meeting the recommendations standards set on by NATO in regards to the GDP if they want to be included in it's command structure.

[Hexgard]

NATO is a pillar of international stability, European cooperation and American foreign policy. The original mission of NATO (preserving the balance of power in Eurasia, at that time from an ambitious, powerful, expansionist Soviet Union) became less important after 1991, but the basic mission is still important. We take many of the benefits of NATO for granted, as if a peaceful, American-friendly Western Europe is normal or natural.

There are certainly areas where NATO can be improved, but you shouldn't throw the current world order out with the bath water.

Tell that to the newest President of USA.

We have to look into something he said fairly early in his campaign and a certain idea going around Europe for a while now.
President Trump did utter that he wants Germany to pick up the US role in Europe as peacekeepers. While someone might say that German remilitarisation and getting back to the good old days of a stoic army are things far beyond probability, one should not forget that, if I remember it right, Germany used the Yugoslav war to make changes to their own laws, enabeling full scale military deployment as peacekeepers all around.
Now we have to focus on the second thing: the growing talks about a joined European Army. With that in mind, we can see that, while the NATO might not be split per se, American presence on the continent will drop as European nations will begin to fill the gaps.
No one is saying that the USA will vanish overnight from Europe, but some of the troops will be pulled back or shifted elsewhere.

But we must also face the truth, no matter who the president is, they will not be able to change much of the foreign military policy. Many believed that Obama was something of a champion of world peace, yet the numbers of wars sponsored by the USA at the time did not drop.
So, yes, Trump will do some things he has planned, like a more cooperative approach against the unhuman terrorists and have friendlier relations with Russia, while also pulling out a bit from Europe, but leaving NATO, making allies with Russia and so on is just something which won't happen in that format.