Opinion of US Entry into WWI

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Sans a U.S. entry, Europe would have fought itself into oblivion.  U.S. entry into the war is probably a huge net positive in that regard.  

Not true. A non-US intervention scenario is ceteris paribus a German win within a year and a British withdrawal from France. The British Empire is intact, Germany takes over the French and Belgian colonies.

I assume Germany would take control of all of Belgium.  What of France?  Is Germany constantly then dealing with uprisings in the various parts of its continental empire?

[SPC]

Sans a U.S. entry, Europe would have fought itself into oblivion.  U.S. entry into the war is probably a huge net positive in that regard.  

Not true. A non-US intervention scenario is ceteris paribus a German win within a year and a British withdrawal from France. The British Empire is intact, Germany takes over the French and Belgian colonies.

I assume Germany would take control of all of Belgium.  What of France?  Is Germany constantly then dealing with uprisings in the various parts of its continental empire?

The Germans didn't incorporate France in 1871 (save Alsace-Lorraine); do you think they would have acted differently without Bismarck?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Sans a U.S. entry, Europe would have fought itself into oblivion.  U.S. entry into the war is probably a huge net positive in that regard.  

Not true. A non-US intervention scenario is ceteris paribus a German win within a year and a British withdrawal from France. The British Empire is intact, Germany takes over the French and Belgian colonies.

I assume Germany would take control of all of Belgium.  What of France?  Is Germany constantly then dealing with uprisings in the various parts of its continental empire?

The Germans didn't incorporate France in 1871 (save Alsace-Lorraine); do you think they would have acted differently without Bismarck?

They would have acted somewhat differently I'm sure, but not to try to incorporate all of France.  But with Germany already holding Alsace-Lorraine at the start, what would have been the terms they demand from a French surrender?

[SPC]

Sans a U.S. entry, Europe would have fought itself into oblivion.  U.S. entry into the war is probably a huge net positive in that regard.  

Not true. A non-US intervention scenario is ceteris paribus a German win within a year and a British withdrawal from France. The British Empire is intact, Germany takes over the French and Belgian colonies.

I assume Germany would take control of all of Belgium.  What of France?  Is Germany constantly then dealing with uprisings in the various parts of its continental empire?

The Germans didn't incorporate France in 1871 (save Alsace-Lorraine); do you think they would have acted differently without Bismarck?

They would have acted somewhat differently I'm sure, but not to try to incorporate all of France.  But with Germany already holding Alsace-Lorraine at the start, what would have been the terms they demand from a French surrender?

Perhaps an astronomical sum in reparations payments?

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

Sans a U.S. entry, Europe would have fought itself into oblivion.  U.S. entry into the war is probably a huge net positive in that regard.  

Not true. A non-US intervention scenario is ceteris paribus a German win within a year and a British withdrawal from France. The British Empire is intact, Germany takes over the French and Belgian colonies.

I assume Germany would take control of all of Belgium.  What of France?  Is Germany constantly then dealing with uprisings in the various parts of its continental empire?

The Germans didn't incorporate France in 1871 (save Alsace-Lorraine); do you think they would have acted differently without Bismarck?

They would have acted somewhat differently I'm sure, but not to try to incorporate all of France.  But with Germany already holding Alsace-Lorraine at the start, what would have been the terms they demand from a French surrender?

Perhaps an astronomical sum in reparations payments?

In addition to that, most of France's iron came from the Briey-Longwy region and Germany had stated ambition in annexing that area. There was some talk of a German occupation of the channel ports, but I think the Germans would probably trade that away for the Brits giving back some of Germany's colonial empire.

[politicus]

Sans a U.S. entry, Europe would have fought itself into oblivion.  U.S. entry into the war is probably a huge net positive in that regard.  

Not true. A non-US intervention scenario is ceteris paribus a German win within a year and a British withdrawal from France. The British Empire is intact, Germany takes over the French and Belgian colonies.

I assume Germany would take control of all of Belgium.  What of France?  Is Germany constantly then dealing with uprisings in the various parts of its continental empire?

The Germans didn't incorporate France in 1871 (save Alsace-Lorraine); do you think they would have acted differently without Bismarck?

They would have acted somewhat differently I'm sure, but not to try to incorporate all of France.  But with Germany already holding Alsace-Lorraine at the start, what would have been the terms they demand from a French surrender?

Perhaps an astronomical sum in reparations payments?

In addition to that, most of France's iron came from the Briey-Longwy region and Germany had stated ambition in annexing that area. There was some talk of a German occupation of the channel ports, but I think the Germans would probably trade that away for the Brits giving back some of Germany's colonial empire.

Germany automatically gets back its colonies. The British have prisoners of war (many from prominent families) in German camps. Giving Germany back its colonies is the minimum, the question is if Britain would pay an additional prize in the form of territory or a cap on the size of its navy.

[politicus]

Sans a U.S. entry, Europe would have fought itself into oblivion.  U.S. entry into the war is probably a huge net positive in that regard. 

Not true. A non-US intervention scenario is a German win within a year and a British withdrawal from France. The British Empire is intact, Germany takes over the French colonies.

Outside of MittelAfrika and possibly Morrocco, I'm not sure Germany had that much interest in French colonies. I could definitely see them amputating Briey-Longwy and gutting French industry, though.

The German military and industrial elite clearly wanted to be a world power with a colonial empire.
Do you have any basis for your claim?

Combining the French, Belgian and German colonies - as well as possibly Kenya and Uganda if Britain had been forced to pay a price for getting its prisoners of war home - would have made perfect sense.
 
They were reluctant to include large non-German speaking areas in France and Belgium. It was on the table in internal discussions, but I doubt they would have gone for it.

Well, I have never seen any German interest in French colonies outside of Africa. Also, outside of Indochina which Japan could very well veto, I'm not sure France had any important colonies from the German perspective at the time.
Hence the German interest in Mittelafrika, although I'm not sure the Germans could get the British to part with their valubles.

Japan cant veto anything if they are on the losing side.

If the German elite should challenge Britain for the top spot they would have needed to go for it all. including strategially important islands in the pacific (New Caldenia and New Hebrides) and in the Indian Ocean.

I think you underestimate how big a blow a loss in WW1 is to British power, You get a boost for the nationalist movement in India and Indian indepence in the 1920s. Britain is in no position to prevent Germany from rising.

[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.

This is very interesting, I do not know much about it. Where would be a good place to read about Imperial German parliamentary politics and structures in further depth?

Do you read German or does it have to be in English?

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

Sans a U.S. entry, Europe would have fought itself into oblivion.  U.S. entry into the war is probably a huge net positive in that regard. 

Not true. A non-US intervention scenario is a German win within a year and a British withdrawal from France. The British Empire is intact, Germany takes over the French colonies.

Outside of MittelAfrika and possibly Morrocco, I'm not sure Germany had that much interest in French colonies. I could definitely see them amputating Briey-Longwy and gutting French industry, though.

The German military and industrial elite clearly wanted to be a world power with a colonial empire.
Do you have any basis for your claim?

Combining the French, Belgian and German colonies - as well as possibly Kenya and Uganda if Britain had been forced to pay a price for getting its prisoners of war home - would have made perfect sense.
 
They were reluctant to include large non-German speaking areas in France and Belgium. It was on the table in internal discussions, but I doubt they would have gone for it.

Well, I have never seen any German interest in French colonies outside of Africa. Also, outside of Indochina which Japan could very well veto, I'm not sure France had any important colonies from the German perspective at the time.
Hence the German interest in Mittelafrika, although I'm not sure the Germans could get the British to part with their valubles.

Japan cant veto anything if they are on the losing side.

If the German elite should challenge Britain for the top spot they would have needed to go for it all. including strategially important islands in the pacific (New Caldenia and New Hebrides) and in the Indian Ocean.

I think you underestimate how big a blow a loss in WW1 is to British power, You get a boost for the nationalist movement in India and Indian indepence in the 1920s. Britain is in no position to prevent Germany from rising.

But that's the thing: Britain and Japan have technically not lost to Germany. Unlike France or Russia, Germany can't knock them out of the war or dictate terms like the allies did to Germany. While I will admit that Britain is certainly going ot go downhill, they had pretty much mortgaged their economy on war loans and a lot of collateral is going to be taken since they don't have reparatons to pay their debt, Germany can't immediately dictate terms to Britain.
I would see Germany taking critical areas on the French and Belgian borders, financially crippling  France with reparations, potentially getting the Belgian Congo for giving up their occupation of Belgium, and then trading concessions on the continent like a nicer peace with France and no occupation of channel ports for colonial concessions.
I think that they will probably give up their minor pacific colonies to Japan without a fuss considering the Kriegsmarine can't force Japan to give up their conquests and Britain certainly isn't going to try. The only issue would be Tsingtau, which the Germans were quite attached to, but then they may cede that to China to stir up the far east.

[Maistre]

A good entry, turned America into a superpower.

Question: Would you hop into the trenches and fight the fight?

Can only soldiers and veterans have opinions on foreign policy?

Since they are the ones in the trenches dying for the cause, I'd leans towards saying yes, actually. Anyone who supports a war but doesn't want to fight it is a coward of the worst kind.

So I assume you defer to John McCain and Lindsey Graham on foreign affairs? Both men have served in the military and McCain even served in combat.

[Antonio the Sixth]

A good entry, turned America into a superpower.

Question: Would you hop into the trenches and fight the fight?

Can only soldiers and veterans have opinions on foreign policy?

Since they are the ones in the trenches dying for the cause, I'd leans towards saying yes, actually. Anyone who supports a war but doesn't want to fight it is a coward of the worst kind.

Since I oppose the draft, the armies I'd "send to war" would have voluntarily chosen this path*. So it's not like anyone is being forced. But if you enlist, of course you should be ready to go die in trenches. Isn't that what armies are for?

*Obviously, in my ideal society, all citizens would also be provided with basic living standards and economic security, so that enlisting wouldn't be the only way out of poverty for many people.

[nolesfan2011]

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.

The best policy would have been absolute neutrality, if we did intervene at all, at least in hindsight backing the central powers would have been better (no nazis, no holocaust, no hitler, no ww2, or at least not a same scale ww2, perhaps less Japanese militarist aggression and expansion, and the colonial issue was just as bad for the British and French as for the Germans).

I'll also add on the colonial policy question, the French and British suppressed natives and used them as cannon fodder also in WW1, while the German army in Colonial Africa led by Lettow Von Vorbeck was primarily full of native African troops who were well treated and liked their commander.  

Also a CP victory probably prevents Russia from going red, which means no Soviet Union, and no Soviet gulags and atrocities, and no Stalin, and no cold war..

on the Ottoman question, Skyes-Picot messed up the middle east worse than they did, and all the dictators and wars (to this day) have to be as bad as the Ottomans were (Saddam, Shah, Ayatollah, Palestine wars etc.)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How would there have been less Japanese militarism? If the US had backed the central powers, it would have been war between the US and Japan. Any lost territory would feed revanschist attitudes in the country against the US.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

AH buff(oons) need to be banned from talking about actual history. Banned, I say.

[The Mikado]

There was no credible chance of USA siding with the Central Powers, and the German attitude towards unrestricted submarine warfare and its inherent strangling of what was a very export-minded commercial economy meant that the USA and Germany weren't going to be on friendly terms.  Neutrality was a very difficult tightrope indeed.  The most obvious step towards the US remaining neutral would be for Arthur Zimmermann to not send a boneheaded message to Mexico City, but given how high tensions were running over the unrestricted submarine warfare and its implications on the US economy I doubt even that would have been sufficient.