Opinion of US Entry into WWI

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[politicus]

The Armenian genocide was a fait accompli in 1918, so its not a factor. The idea that the Turks would somehow have hunted down every surviving Armenian anywhere in the region to "finish the job" is not realistic.

The Ottoman Empire had already fallen apart by this time. Some areas had liberated themselves and some had gained independence through British help. It would not have been possible to put it back together and its unlikely that anyone would have tried this - not even the Turks themselves.
Germany would have been interested in acquiring protectorates and oil concessions in the Middle East, not helping a former ally regain its 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.

[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.

[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?