Opinion of US Entry into WWI

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

We should have entered the war in 1914, but against Britain for mining international waters in the North Sea.  A more practical approach might be to wait until 1915 when we could be better prepared to occupy Canada, but on the other hand, that also gives the Japanese time to mobilize in defense of their British coimperialists as well.  Besides, an early US entry might well encourage Italy to honor its Triple Alliance obligations and declare war on France.

It's doubtful we'd end up sending troops to Europe in such a scenario.  Quelling Franco-British bases in the Americas and defending the Philippines against the Japanese Yellow Peril would be the main theaters of operation for the United States at first.  Hopefully, denying the Anglo-French Entente the resources they need to harass Germany would give the Germans and the Dual Monarchy the breathing space to deal with the pan-Slavic conspiracy in the East behind the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

Hopefully, by 1916, the British and French would be prepared to see reason, and if not, a US invasion to liberate Ireland from English misrule combined with German and Italian advances further into France would compel them to abandon their warmongering ways or at least their embrace of the Servian irredentism that led to the Great War.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Certainly Imperial Germany was awful, but the rule of all Europeans in Africa was worse than anything in Europe, and Tsarist Russia was clearly worse than Germany/Austria/Bulgaria (arguably not Turkey for obvious reasons).

I'm not the biggest expert on colonial Africa, but wasn't Germany considered one of the more brutal colonial empires?

Depended upon the colony.  German East Africa was in many ways a model of the best of colonialism, but German Southwest Africa was a model of the worst colonialism had to offer, tho to be fair I think SWA suffered from thinking the example in South Africa was how to go about the task of colonization.  Of course neither SWA or SA compares with the absolute degeneracy that was the Congo Free State.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yeah, the only way that the Central Powers were worse is if you only care about white people.

Do Armenians classify as white?

Do the Circassians classify as white?  As is often the case, we decry our enemies for doing what our side already did earlier.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Clearly Central Africa was Germany's primary colonial target during WWI and with continued British dominance at sea, I can't see Germany wanting colonies in the Mediterranean.