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?

[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.

[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.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

Horrible. The only country that looked even remotely positive was the UK, so at least we entered the "right" side.

I don't really see how the UK would be positive while the French wouldn't. After all, this is the same UK who's policies helped starve millions of Indians less that 20 years prior.

[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.

[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.
Briey-Longwy had the majority of French Iron ore and you had many politicians, even Bismark, who regretted not also annexing it. It would be a minor nibble population wise: small enough to either garrison or ethnically clense as the Kaiserreich was apt to do.

[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.

[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.