Opinion of US Entry into WWI

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Imperial Germany had a parliament and a free press and would likely have developed into a full fledged democracy in time.

It did indeed have a parliament, but that parliament (as you well know) was almost entirely toothless. The votes cast by the people (on an ironically broad franchise) had no influence over government policy. The military, the state bureaucracy, and the country's social and economic elites were opposed to democracy on principle. The excessively elevated status of the military in particular was a massive barrier to democratisation (as leading Social Democrats knew only too well). The development of anything that can be meaningfully described as a democracy could only have happened after a revolution.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I've recently been pondering the morality of the US entry into WWI.

I suppose because the anniversary of the war is coming up? But it's the wrong question to ask. The trouble with asking 'was this the right decision' is that you end up getting stuck in counter-factual fantasy, rather than addressing the actually interesting questions.

One of which, for example, would be why did the United States enter the war at all? Never assume that this kind of thing is obvious. Another would be - and you can argue that it might actually be a more important question - why did the United States adopt a position of sham 'neutrality' (in reality very much favouring and supporting the economically very overstretched Allied Powers) rather than actual neutrality?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I've recently been pondering the morality of the US entry into WWI.

I suppose because the anniversary of the war is coming up? But it's the wrong question to ask. The trouble with asking 'was this the right decision' is that you end up getting stuck in counter-factual fantasy, rather than addressing the actually interesting questions.

One of which, for example, would be why did the United States enter the war at all? Never assume that this kind of thing is obvious. Another would be - and you can argue that it might actually be a more important question - why did the United States adopt a position of sham 'neutrality' (in reality very much favouring and supporting the economically very overstretched Allied Powers) rather than actual neutrality?

A combination of it being financially lucrative to have done as we did plus the fact that Wilson was an Anglophile who favored the continued dominance of English-speaking peoples, but did hope to make us Americans the dominant member thereof.  Wilson wasn't quite as much of a idealist wearing rose-tinted glasses as he is often thought of.  We entered the war primarily because it began to look that if we maintained our then current policy of sham neutrality, the Allies would lose and by extension, those who backed them financially would lose.

[politicus]

Imperial Germany had a parliament and a free press and would likely have developed into a full fledged democracy in time.

It did indeed have a parliament, but that parliament (as you well know) was almost entirely toothless. The votes cast by the people (on an ironically broad franchise) had no influence over government policy. The military, the state bureaucracy, and the country's social and economic elites were opposed to democracy on principle. The excessively elevated status of the military in particular was a massive barrier to democratisation (as leading Social Democrats knew only too well). The development of anything that can be meaningfully described as a democracy could only have happened after a revolution.

Well, I think its a matter of time.

There were great tension between modernising and reactionary tendencies in Wilhelminian Germany and in the long run the modernising forces in German society would have prevailed.
 
Even if the Reichstag never achieved full control of the executive, it became increasingly powerful after Bismarck and no chancellor could survive for long if he was unable to work with it.

Furthermore there was a basis for change. Besides the strong labour movement you got a united liberal (pro-democratic) party being formed which was quite successful immediately before 1914 and could have allied with Social Democrats in the future.
Germany being a federal country with devolved powers made for progressive domination on the local level in a large number of cities. Which also forms a basis for opposition.
While the junkers certainly were far stronger than the aristocracy in Western Europe the German bourgeoisie and upper middle class were self-confident and part of it superior in wealth and influence to the old aristocracy around the Court.

Culturally it's a rather progressive society with experiments in art and music and a strong element of social criticism in its literature, and while this doesn't directly translates into political attitudes I think it would eventually have undermined the cultural ethos in the academic middle class necessary to sustain the old order (I know Prussian civil servants were pretty good at being culturally progressive and politically conservative –but slow erosion is still erosion).

All in all without the defeat in WW1, I could see the German bourgeoisie and middle class becoming more liberal and pro-democratic as time goes by and eventually taking over the reins of government. While this would have meant a conflict with the old elite I don't think you need a revolution to accomplish this. At some point the military-feudal elite would have caved in and compromised in order to avoid internal conflict and be able to succeed on the international stage.

All this Sonderweg stuff is seen in the rear mirror. What made the Weimar republic an inevitable failure was being associated with defeat and humiliation, not being a liberal democracy per se.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There were great tension between modernising and reactionarian tendencies in Wilhelminian Germany and in the long run the modernising forces in German society would have prevailed.

I think that's a bit of an oversimplification (the short-term stability, prestige and military prowess of the regime was greatly bolstered by industrialisation), but let's run with it anyway. Why would the 'modernising' forces have inevitably prevailed? We know now that the entire Modernisation Thesis is basically just teleological wishful thinking, don't we? And why would they have necessarily prevailed peacefully? Or prevailed over the longer term? It's one thing to sweep away Kaisers and Generals, perhaps quite another to eradicate völkisch tendencies and related nasties.

Mind you, I happen to think that the First World War was a) unavoidable and b) changed 'everything', so this is at a very abstract level of idle speculation.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's true that it was hardly irrelevant, but it was not even close to being a democratic legislature. We then need to consider all of the other legislatures in Germany, many of which had significantly more direct political power...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, it was a society with a lot of tensions. No doubt about it. And one in which there was a massive groundswell for change: no doubt about that either. But that wouldn't have made gradual democratisation of the sort seen in Britain or Denmark inevitable or even all that likely.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But the state parliaments and many city councils were systematically rigged in favour of the regime. And, yes, the new industrial elite was powerful but it was also frequently politically reactionary.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't buy into the Sonderweg thesis (which is reliant to an embarrassing extent on a complete misinterpretation of 19th century British history, as well as the always dubious idea that there is a 'normal' path for anything), but all history is seen through the rear mirror. Including (and especially) counter-factual history.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Anyway, there are some odd misconceptions lurking around this thread that probably could do with some dealing with. I'll make a vague attempt to deal with one now and another one later...

The first is the old hard left myth that the First World War was an 'imperialist war'; that it was principally the result of the various belligerents acting out of a desire to protect (and/or expand) their colonial possessions. As comforting as this idea obviously is, it is completely untenable. The imperial interests of Britain (for example) clashed with those of France and Russia (it's allies by 1914) far more than with those of Germany. The war was also not triggered by conflicting imperial claims: the international system of diplomacy that so spectacularly failed in 1914 had actually done a decent job of resolving potential flashpoints created that way. But it could not cope with a crisis on the home continent itself: this is not insignificant. And it is undeniably true that none of the belligerent nations joined in the bloodbath to protect their overseas Empires, however important they were in other respects. They would all have been much better protected by neutrality.

Of course it is obviously true that tensions caused by imperialism played a part in what happened (viz. the Kaiser's wish for Germany to find it's 'place in the sun'), but a comparatively minor one. The mentality that led to High Imperialism on the other hand...

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Yes, there was a constitutional and quite liberal country among the Central Powers, but it  Germany. The correct answer is Austro-Hungary.

You cannot possibly state that Germany, still largely ruled by the junkers and new industrial elite, were anywhere close to France or the United Kingdom, as far as political freedom and role of the parties and the electorate in governing was considered.

I can understand the "there were no good guys" position (even if I do not completely agree with this assessment, considering that a number of nations did achieve freedom in result of the Central Powers defeat), but the whole revisionist look ("Imperial Germany was sooo great") is getting annoying.

As far as the colonialism is concerned (and, as Al rightly pointed out, was not a reason the WWI broke out), there indeed were no "good guys", including the United States at the time (Phillipines for example).

[they don't love you like i love you]

Hands down the worst colonial empire, at least in Africa, was Belgium. And even though it wasn't in Africa you also had Tsarist Russia, so I really fail to see how the Central Powers were significantly worse.

So essentially two terrible sides fighting a very pointless war. Why get involved?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

While in many ways the two sides were equally "horrible", the Entente victory (to which the US entry significantly contributed) brought freedom to many, just to mention Czechoslovaks, Yugoslavians and Poles.

Also, as far as the colonialism is concerned, the WWI was one of the first step toward end of the colonial empires. Yes, it was a very long process and it took another WWII to produce more visible results, but it shook the fundamentals of the imperial world order (for example, Britain's loss of the foremost position in economic affairs). So yeah, things weren't so black and white.

[Mechaman]

While in many ways the two sides were equally "horrible", the Entente victory (to which the US entry significantly contributed) brought freedom to many, just to mention Czechoslovaks, Yugoslavians and Poles.

Also, as far as the colonialism is concerned, the WWI was one of the first step toward end of the colonial empires. Yes, it was a very long process and it took another WWII to produce more visible results, but it shook the fundamentals of the imperial world order (for example, Britain's loss of the foremost position in economic affairs). So yeah, things weren't so black and white.

Yeah, about the only oppressed European group who might've been better off in the event of a Central Powers victory would be the Irish.  And even that as doubtful, as Irish Independence was probably on the Kaiser's list of priorities somewhere between taking the spike off the German helmet and shaving off his sweet 'stache.  Which is to say, it was a pretty low freaking priority.  The Central Powers weren't really fans of empowering the lowly nations of Europe, though in the case of Ireland there could be a pretty strong advantage to having an inherently anti-British state on the side of the Germans if another struggle comes up.  In that case I could see an Armistice Treaty where the British are forced to give up Ireland and the political functions of the First Dail and the Senadad are allowed to continue without British interference.  And of course there is the possibility that the British refuse the Treaty and the Central Powers intervene in a possible conflict in Ireland that could result in a permanent German occupation to prevent "future intrusions" that ultimately ends up with an Irish state that becomes a puppet state to the German Empire.  And that's if the Germans aren't too busy with the Soviet power they helped install to their east.

I of course would still be against the war had I lived back then, but the Central Powers certainly weren't morally superior on the whole topic of minority rights.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

While in many ways the two sides were equally "horrible", the Entente victory (to which the US entry significantly contributed) brought freedom to many, just to mention Czechoslovaks, Yugoslavians and Poles.

Also, as far as the colonialism is concerned, the WWI was one of the first step toward end of the colonial empires. Yes, it was a very long process and it took another WWII to produce more visible results, but it shook the fundamentals of the imperial world order (for example, Britain's loss of the foremost position in economic affairs). So yeah, things weren't so black and white.

Yeah, about the only oppressed European group who might've been better off in the event of a Central Powers victory would be the Irish.  And even that as doubtful, as Irish Independence was probably on the Kaiser's list of priorities somewhere between taking the spike off the German helmet and shaving off his sweet 'stache.  Which is to say, it was a pretty low freaking priority.  The Central Powers weren't really fans of empowering the lowly nations of Europe, though in the case of Ireland there could be a pretty strong advantage to having an inherently anti-British state on the side of the Germans if another struggle comes up.  In that case I could see an Armistice Treaty where the British are forced to give up Ireland and the political functions of the First Dail and the Senadad are allowed to continue without British interference.  And of course there is the possibility that the British refuse the Treaty and the Central Powers intervene in a possible conflict in Ireland that could result in a permanent German occupation to prevent "future intrusions" that ultimately ends up with an Irish state that becomes a puppet state to the German Empire.  And that's if the Germans aren't too busy with the Soviet power they helped install to their east.

Well, I can definitively see some sort of protectorate, since Germans were attempting to create some new puppet states, such as the "Kingdom of Poland" (a rump created from the Russian partiation), or the "Kingdom of Lithuania", who were to be independent in name only (and, in Polish case, nothing would change in the Prussian and Austrian partiation, naturally).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Note that popular opinion in Ireland towards its colonial masters only turned truly septic after the bungled response to the Easter Rising and the whole conscription fiasco.

[The Mikado]

And it is undeniably true that none of the belligerent nations joined in the bloodbath to protect their overseas Empires, however important they were in other respects. They would all have been much better protected by neutrality.

I'd make Japan an exception...not in a desire to defend their empire, but they joined the war in a blatant push to claim all of Germany's Asian colonies while the Germans were distracted and couldn't fight back.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

And it is undeniably true that none of the belligerent nations joined in the bloodbath to protect their overseas Empires, however important they were in other respects. They would all have been much better protected by neutrality.

I'd make Japan an exception...not in a desire to defend their empire, but they joined the war in a blatant push to claim all of Germany's Asian colonies while the Germans were distracted and couldn't fight back.

The German Colonial Empire fell pretty early during the War, hasn't it?

[politicus]

And it is undeniably true that none of the belligerent nations joined in the bloodbath to protect their overseas Empires, however important they were in other respects. They would all have been much better protected by neutrality.

I'd make Japan an exception...not in a desire to defend their empire, but they joined the war in a blatant push to claim all of Germany's Asian colonies while the Germans were distracted and couldn't fight back.

The German Colonial Empire fell pretty early during the War, hasn't it?

Yes, all colonies in West Africa, islands in the pacific + Kiatschou in China in 1914 and German South West Africa in mid 1915.  Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck held out for years in Eastern Africa and only surrendered in Northern Rhodesia November 14. 1918 after crossing through Mozambique, but that was a guerilla war from mid 1916 onwards when he withdrew to the jungles and savanna in the south of Tanganyika.

[politicus]

Yes, there was a constitutional and quite liberal country among the Central Powers, but it  Germany. The correct answer is Austro-Hungary.

You cannot possibly state that Germany, still largely ruled by the junkers and new industrial elite, were anywhere close to France or the United Kingdom, as far as political freedom and role of the parties and the electorate in governing was considered.

I can understand the "there were no good guys" position (even if I do not completely agree with this assessment, considering that a number of nations did achieve freedom in result of the Central Powers defeat), but the whole revisionist look ("Imperial Germany was sooo great") is getting annoying.

1. Never claimed Germany was liberal, but that it had a liberal opposition (along with a strong labour movement) and the potential to develop in that direction in the long run. While Ludendorffs de facto military dictatorship certainly wouldn't have helped this development, I think its wrong to assume that Germany would have stayed an autocracy indefinitely after the war.

2. "Imperial Germany was sooo great" = strawman.

Comment: As a Dane I obviously think it was great that Germany lost, so we could get Northern Sleswick back and it freed the nations in eastern Europe (all though they mainly ended up as fascist dictatorships in the following two decades).

But seen in the big picture the price was Holocaust and WW2 + the Soviet Union (which a German Empire likely could have removed later on). So on balance I think it might have been worth it if the German intelligence had found out half the French army were in mutiny in late April/early May 1917 and they only had to sweep aside two loyal divisions to get to Paris.

Obviously a negotiated peace would have been the superior option. But  both sides were too convinced they could win for this to happen.

[politicus]

There were great tension between modernising and reactionarian tendencies in Wilhelminian Germany and in the long run the modernising forces in German society would have prevailed.

I think that's a bit of an oversimplification (the short-term stability, prestige and military prowess of the regime was greatly bolstered by industrialisation), but let's run with it anyway. Why would the 'modernising' forces have inevitably prevailed? We know now that the entire Modernisation Thesis is basically just teleological wishful thinking, don't we? And why would they have necessarily prevailed peacefully? Or prevailed over the longer term? It's one thing to sweep away Kaisers and Generals, perhaps quite another to eradicate völkisch tendencies and related nasties.

Mind you, I happen to think that the First World War was a) unavoidable and b) changed 'everything', so this is at a very abstract level of idle speculation.
 

I have a more positive view of the modernization thesis. All though it is obviously flawed it has a core of truth in my view.

I agree WW1 was unavoidable, the outcome and consequences wasn't.

This is a preliminary answer. I might get back to it, if I have the time. Though perhaps this is derailing the original question about US entry.

I don't buy into the Sonderweg thesis (which is reliant to an embarrassing extent on a complete misinterpretation of 19th century British history, as well as the always dubious idea that there is a 'normal' path for anything), but all history is seen through the rear mirror. Including (and especially) counter-factual history.

Very true.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Comment: As a Dane I obviously think it was great that Germany lost, so we could get Northern Sleswick back and it freed the nations in eastern Europe (all though they mainly ended up as fascist dictatorships in the following two decades).

Well, it's easy for you to say "but", considering that your people were independent. Color me biased, but I still think Czech, Slovaks, Hungarian, Poles and others has the same rights.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The WWI itself did not cause the Holocaust and the WWII. The blunders of Versailes, lack of strong international institutions and, most importantly, the economic crisis (which wasn't even that related to the war) were responsible, and Hitler's rise to power was preventable as late as 1932.

Beside, you cannot be positive another Great War wouldn't happen had the Tipple Alliance won and Entente lost. We might very well seen a humiliated France going fascist. There were quite a lot far-rightist there.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Beside, you cannot be positive another Great War wouldn't happen had the Tipple Alliance won and Entente lost. We might very well seen a humiliated France going fascist. There were quite a lot far-rightist there.

Indeed.  I've considered from time to time writing as an alt-history William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Empire.  But it never got very far because France would not have had much territory to make irredentist claims on, and that which it did would have been directly held by Germany and in any purely Franco-German conflict, Germany is going to easily win.

German irredentism was the only likely trigger for a pan-European war that becomes WW II.  Hungarian, Bulgarian, and/or Serbian irredentism might easily have triggered another pan-Balkan war, but I fail to see how the results of a victory by either side in WW I provides conditions under which a Balkan conflict would have triggered WW II.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

Comment: As a Dane I obviously think it was great that Germany lost, so we could get Northern Sleswick back and it freed the nations in eastern Europe (all though they mainly ended up as fascist dictatorships in the following two decades).

Well, it's easy for you to say "but", considering that your people were independent. Color me biased, but I still think Czech, Slovaks, Hungarian, Poles and others has the same rights.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The WWI itself did not cause the Holocaust and the WWII. The blunders of Versailes, lack of strong international institutions and, most importantly, the economic crisis (which wasn't even that related to the war) were responsible, and Hitler's rise to power was preventable as late as 1932.

Beside, you cannot be positive another Great War wouldn't happen had the Tipple Alliance won and Entente lost. We might very well seen a humiliated France going fascist. There were quite a lot far-rightist there.

While this statement is generally true, I would have to disagree with the Hungarians being lumped in with the other peoples. The Kingdom of Hungary was an organization that allowed Hungarians to be top dogs in their lands, as opposed to the oppressive systems against the other nationalities.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Comment: As a Dane I obviously think it was great that Germany lost, so we could get Northern Sleswick back and it freed the nations in eastern Europe (all though they mainly ended up as fascist dictatorships in the following two decades).

Well, it's easy for you to say "but", considering that your people were independent. Color me biased, but I still think Czech, Slovaks, Hungarian, Poles and others has the same rights.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The WWI itself did not cause the Holocaust and the WWII. The blunders of Versailes, lack of strong international institutions and, most importantly, the economic crisis (which wasn't even that related to the war) were responsible, and Hitler's rise to power was preventable as late as 1932.

Beside, you cannot be positive another Great War wouldn't happen had the Tipple Alliance won and Entente lost. We might very well seen a humiliated France going fascist. There were quite a lot far-rightist there.

While this statement is generally true, I would have to disagree with the Hungarians being lumped in with the other peoples. The Kingdom of Hungary was an organization that allowed Hungarians to be top dogs in their lands, as opposed to the oppressive systems against the other nationalities.

Indeed, it was the Hungarians more than the Austrians that were the stumbling block to further reform of Austria-Hungary.  To a large degree, that was because the Austrians assumed they'd be the top dogs in the Hapsburg lands no matter what system was in place while the Hungarians feared being made coequal with additional peoples in the empire would lessen their status.

Sort of like the EU today.  Germany has no real fear of a stronger EU since it feels it will dominate it no matter what. Contrariwise, Britain fears a stronger EU will weaken it.

[RosettaStoned]

 Totally pointless.

[Mechaman]

Note that popular opinion in Ireland towards its colonial masters only turned truly septic after the bungled response to the Easter Rising and the whole conscription fiasco.

I was assuming events happened as they did IRL, up to the point of American "entry" into the war in 1917.  Of course, if Central Powers momentum gets stronger much earlier and the war ends before 1916, the point is moot.  If it last longer than that though I imagine there would at least be a Conscription crisis due to desperation for more men, or there would be a joint German/IRA plot like there was in real life (and of course, the success or failure of the armament shipments could prove irrelevant given the environment).  In any case, I consider the likelihood of an actual free Irish state in the event of Central Powers victory to be even less likely than under an Entente victory, for obvious reasons.

[MurrayBannerman]

I don't like it. The Kaiser and his boys winning would have ended the possibility of Hitler, conquered France and Russia, and maintained Ottoman peace in the Middle East along with stabilizing it with war profits.

Basically, if they won, the world could have been really nice.

[SPC]

I don't like it. The Kaiser and his boys winning would have ended the possibility of Hitler, conquered France and Russia, and maintained Ottoman peace in the Middle East along with stabilizing it with war profits.

Basically, if they won, the world could have been really nice.

I'm not sure how "peaceful" that would have been for the Armenians, or why a German conquest of France would be a desirable option.