Opinion of US Entry into WWI

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

I've recently been pondering the morality of the US entry into WWI. While it is true that the US was a pro-allied neutral before and that Britain also violated our neutrality with the North Sea blockade, I still have to say that our entry was necessary.
The democracies of Europe, Britain, France, Belgium, and the Russian Provisional Government until October, needed our help to stop the Germans from overruning Europe and creating a new empire. Without US the allies may have lost and that could have meant the complete genocide of the Armenians, the further depopulation of Belgium, further slaughter of poles, the enslavement of the Ukrainians and other inhabitants of the Ober-Ost, and many more potential atrocities. About the only good thing was that the Germans would have supported the whites in creating a warlord government in Russia that could only hurt itself.
What do you say, forum?

[The Dowager Mod]

American boys dying overseas to protect the corrupt and brutal British and French empires, not very approving of it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's interesting how the first woman elected to Congress, Jeannette Rankin, managed to vote against both World Wars despite only serving two terms. She was the only vote against WWII, just like Barbara Lee would be the only vote against Afghanistan 60 years later.

[dead0man]

We should not have gotten involved in that one.  There were no good guys.

[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.

[Randy Bobandy]

Meh. I'd say we should've gotten involved.

[Gass3268]

No reason to join the war effort for either side, even though I probably would have supported the Centeral Powers at the time.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Utterly pointless.

[Maistre]

I find it weird that some people think that the authors of the Polish Border Strip scheme to be on par morally with the Entente.

The Entente were not good guys, no, but they were far superior then the Central Powers. Europe under the boot of the Kaiserreich (especially if the OHL is still as insane as was) would not be a pleasant place to live in. Ideally, we should have come in to save the day late enough for the Tsar to still fall, but early enough to save the provisional government. Preventing German domination of Europe was a worthwhile goal overall.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

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).

[Хahar 🤔]

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

[Maistre]

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?

[SWE]

Pointless 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.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Well, it helped my country regain the independence, so my opinion is positive, even if biased

American boys dying overseas to protect the corrupt and brutal British and French empires, not very approving of it.

The United States benefited a lot from the victory in Europe, both economically (displacing the British Empire as a leading industrialized economic power) and in terms of geopolitical influence, so it was hardly "just to protect British and French interests".  

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Awful. Our eventual intervention in WWII would have been just as awful, had Japan not attacked us.

[politicus]

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?

Of course there ís the genocidal war against the Hereros in present Namibia, but if you evaluate the broad picture I think: Worse than Britain and about equal to France in oppression, is about right.

[politicus]

I've recently been pondering the morality of the US entry into WWI. While it is true that the US was a pro-allied neutral before and that Britain also violated our neutrality with the North Sea blockade, I still have to say that our entry was necessary.
The democracies of Europe, Britain, France, Belgium, and the Russian Provisional Government until October, needed our help to stop the Germans from overruning Europe and creating a new empire. Without US the allies may have lost and that could have meant the complete genocide of the Armenians, the further depopulation of Belgium, further slaughter of poles, the enslavement of the Ukrainians and other inhabitants of the Ober-Ost, and many more potential atrocities. About the only good thing was that the Germans would have supported the whites in creating a warlord government in Russia that could only hurt itself.
What do you say, forum?

Imperial Germany had a parliament and a free press and would likely have developed into a full fledged democracy in time. Also a German victory  would have prevented the rise of Nazism and the Holocaust. Germany was the biggest country in Europe and some kind of German domination was the "natural" situation. Trying to keep Germany down was the main cause of the war on a more structural level.
All the atrociies you mentioned were the result of the war situation and its not likely they would have continued after the war.

There is a strong pro-British bias in American history about Europe IMO and your evaluation reflects that.

[Clarence Boddicker]

HA. America would have better been utilized as a mediator in peace negotiations.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

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?

Of course there ís the genocidal war against the Hereros in present Namibia, but if you evaluate the broad picture I think: Worse than Britain and about equal to France in oppression, is about right.

I'm not sure that I would rate France as definitively beneath Britain on the oppression scale. After all, while the French did use Congo-Free-Statesque policies in their equatorian colonies, Britain only had full universal sufferage for a few years and also had bouts of extreme violence such as with the Indian rebellion and Tanzania.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

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

Do Armenians classify as white?

[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.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Awful. Our eventual intervention in WWII would have been just as awful, had Japan not attacked us.

Several million more killed in death camps and Stalin controlling all of continental Europe > losing 100K American men?

[politicus]

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?

Of course there is the genocidal war against the Hereros in present Namibia, but if you evaluate the broad picture I think: Worse than Britain and about equal to France in oppression, is about right.

I'm not sure that I would rate France as definitively beneath Britain on the oppression scale. After all, while the French did use Congo-Free-Statesque policies in their equatorian colonies, Britain only had full universal sufferage for a few years and also had bouts of extreme violence such as with the Indian rebellion and Tanzania.

1. The Indian Rebellion is prior to high imperialism (1870-1914), which is the relevant era in this context.
2. Tanzania was created in 1961 and Tanganyika was German prior to WW1, so what are you talking about?

Anyway, if you evaluate the big picture Britain clearly had a less oppressive colonial policy than France relying more on the market mechanism and with a greater respect for the rule of law. This is of course a relative evaluation and not to say that British imperialism wasn't highly oppressive and used quite heavy handed measures from time to time, but generally the British managed to rule and extort in a more subtle and rational (as in cost efficient) way requiring less use of force.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

Grade A Whataboutery from Ernest!