Did the US make the correct decision to enter the First World War?

[Sheilbh]

True, but also true of Britain, France, and Russia if (and when) they won.

Absolutely.

But I'd say for the US - not interested or engaged in the European continent - a British victory represented more of a status quo. A German victory would possibly be more of a gamble, maybe a little more chaotic (because change) and I don't think it'd be implausible to see the US having to become a little more engaged in the world.

[grumbler]

But I'd say for the US - not interested or engaged in the European continent - a British victory represented more of a status quo. A German victory would possibly be more of a gamble, maybe a little more chaotic (because change) and I don't think it'd be implausible to see the US having to become a little more engaged in the world.

Nothing here I disagree with.

[jimmy olsen]

The Germans told Wilson when he issued his peace challenge in December 1916:

...restitution of the part of upper Alsace occupied by the French..gaining of a frontier that would protect Germany and Poland economically and strategically against Russia..restitution of German colonies...restitution of those parts of France occupied by Germany under reservation of strategical and economic changes of the frontier and financial compensations...restoration of Belgium under special guaranty for the safety of Germany which would have to be decided on by negotiations with Belgium..economic compensation for territories exchanged and for German business concerns and private persons who suffered by the war..abandonment of all economic agreements and measure which would form an obstacle to normal commerece and intercourse after the conclusion of peace..the freedom of the seas...

according to Peace Moves and U-Boat Warfare, K.E.Birnbaum, Stockholm,1958

Fischer made wilder claims, but they weren't based on anything the German government had said, just on a monograph written by a junior clerk who had been asked to find out what the German industrialists wanted out of the war.  that monograph was never policy.

Which sounds reasonable until you realise just exactly what the second, almost innocuous, line quoted above translated to in the peace of Brest-Litovsk.

I fail to see why you think a victorious Wilhelmine Germany would have been less severe in the west (or for that matter more honest concerning its western ambitions than its eastern ambitions when communicating with Wilson.) Particularly when you consider how vague, open ended and severe some of the terms quoted up there actually are - and when you consider that none of them contradict the Septemberprogramm (and some sound eerily like it - a "special guarantee" with Belgium, "reservation of strategical and economic changes of the frontier" etc.)

The German government was quite willing to settle for much less than Brest-Litvosk. It was only when Russia rejected their relatively reasonable demands that they continued to march and forced the Bolsheviks to capitulate and sign a more punitive peace.

[Razgovory]

True, but also true of Britain, France, and Russia if (and when) they won.

Absolutely.

But I'd say for the US - not interested or engaged in the European continent - a British victory represented more of a status quo. A German victory would possibly be more of a gamble, maybe a little more chaotic (because change) and I don't think it'd be implausible to see the US having to become a little more engaged in the world.

A little more chaotic is hardly worth a 100,000 Americans lives.

[HVC]

True, but also true of Britain, France, and Russia if (and when) they won.

Absolutely.

But I'd say for the US - not interested or engaged in the European continent - a British victory represented more of a status quo. A German victory would possibly be more of a gamble, maybe a little more chaotic (because change) and I don't think it'd be implausible to see the US having to become a little more engaged in the world.

A little more chaotic is hardly worth a 100,000 Americans lives.

you'd make a horrible joker.

[Sheilbh]

I'm not arguing that though. I don't know if it was right or wrong for the US to enter from a US perspective. Personally I think it probably would've been better had the US not entered as I said in the other thread.

I'm just saying your view that it made no difference who won and that Germany wouldn't be a danger (but Japan would) is wrong. There was a difference to the US and Germany could be a danger.

[Razgovory]

Okay, then it wouldn't be more of a meaningful danger if Germany won.  Happy?

[CountDeMoney]

Personally I think it probably would've been better had the US not entered as I said in the other thread.

That's just crazy talk.

[Eddie Teach]

A little more chaotic is hardly worth a 100,000 Americans lives.

you'd make a horrible joker.

[dps]

So is there some kind of narrative that the British saved the Atlantic from the Hun in the UK?

I think that Germany winning WWI means something different to Sheilbh than it does to the rest of us.  Germany wins if they knock France and Russia out of the war.  Well, they did knock Russia out of the war;  had they knocked out the French as well, with no US entry, well, yeah, I think the British and Germans would have eventually come to some sort of peace agreement.  But as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, the Germans had no real way to touch Britian, so any agreement would probably just mostly ratify whatever the status quo in Europe was at that point.  Outside of Europe, though, with the Royal Navy intact, the British would have essentially had a veto over the transfer of any French colonies to Germany.   And since any colonial territory transferred to Germany would be more of a threat to the British than to the US, the British would have absolutely no reason to allow it.

[crazy canuck]

Been thinking of WWI lately, and wonder if the US should have stayed neutral or entered the war.  Wondered what the rest you folk think.  I think entering the war was a mistake, as I could see no real benefit for the US to enter the war.

I agree.  If the US had not entered the war then Wilson would not have been given any influence at the peace conference and the world would likely have been a much safer place as a result.  Also, there may have been a real peace treaty and not just a pause waiting for the next inevitable outbreak of hostility to finally decide the issue.

[grumbler]

I agree.  If the US had not entered the war then Wilson would not have been given any influence at the peace conference and the world would likely have been a much safer place as a result.

Agreed.  All that League of nation/United Nations stuff would have been left in the dream locker.

Also, there may have been a real peace treaty and not just a pause waiting for the next inevitable outbreak of hostility to finally decide the issue.

Probably not.  Wilson restrained Lloyd George and Clemenceau from fucking up the peace to a point, but I think, in his absence, LG and C create a worse treaty that still causes the second war, but isn't so horrific that even their own people vomit on it.  Wilson was the only man at Versailles who wanted a peace treaty, rather than a diktat (given that LG and C made sure the Germans weren't available to negotiate with).

The only way to achieve peace would have been to have the victors fuck up like they did in Vienna in 1815, and thus be forced to bring the losers into the negotiations.  Lloyd George and Clemenceau (especially DLG) were fuckups, but they weren't big enough fuckups to be successful in their jobs.

[crazy canuck]

Probably not.  Wilson restrained Lloyd George and Clemenceau from fucking up the peace to a point, but I think, in his absence, LG and C create a worse treaty that still causes the second war, but isn't so horrific that even their own people vomit on it.  Wilson was the only man at Versailles who wanted a peace treaty, rather than a diktat (given that LG and C made sure the Germans weren't available to negotiate with).

The only way to achieve peace would have been to have the victors fuck up like they did in Vienna in 1815, and thus be forced to bring the losers into the negotiations.  Lloyd George and Clemenceau (especially DLG) were fuckups, but they weren't big enough fuckups to be successful in their jobs.

I hadnt quite thought of it that way. But you are probably right.

[Tonitrus]

Well, there is also, in the case of a German victory, the probability of Stalin and the Soviet Union trying to avenge Brest-Litovsk 20 or so years down the line.

[derspiess]

Well, there is also, in the case of a German victory, the probability of Stalin and the Soviet Union trying to avenge Brest-Litovsk 20 or so years down the line.

But then that depends on what capabilities for revenge the Soviet Union would have with Brest-Litovsk borders.