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

[Razgovory]

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.

[jimmy olsen]

I concur. Should have stayed out.

[The Brain]

Fighting for Serbia is its own reward.

[Eddie Teach]

Yes. Enjoy your liberty cabbage.

[Ideologue]

Only worthwhile if we'd had airpower and the bomb.

[Josquius]

It lost them little and they got to play a full part in remaking the world- that they lost interest in this soon afterwards is where a problem lies

[jimmy olsen]

100,000 Americans would have lived rather than dying while serving in the military and the Spanish Flu epidemic may have been completely avoided saving the lives of tens of millions the world over.

The Kaiserreich winning did not represent an existential threat to America the way that Nazi Germany winning would have.

[Agelastus]

The Kaiserreich winning did not represent an existential threat to America the way that Nazi Germany winning would have.

Short term certainly not; long term? I'm not so sure - the German plans for redrawing Europe's borders weren't far short of Hitler's in scope and with the addition of their Colonial ambitions...

Say the Germans had grabbed the French Colonies in the Americas as part of the peace treaty and started expanding their influence in Latin America - could they have become an existential threat then?

[Josquius]

100,000 Americans would have lived rather than dying while serving in the military and the Spanish Flu epidemic may have been completely avoided saving the lives of tens of millions the world over.

The Kaiserreich winning did not represent an existential threat to America the way that Nazi Germany winning would have.

100,000 dead Americans vs. what, a million+ more? dead people from other countries.

I've never really read about the Spanish Flu. What do you mean there? From what I know it seems unlikely that America being in the war was the difference that caused it.

The Germans weren't going to win the war by the time the Americans joined.
And as Agelastus says, long term a victorious Germany would be very dangerous to the US.
It would utterly dominate central and eastern Europe, that gives it enough clout to dominate the world. And they do have proven colonial ambitions.
Even if a German Empire dominated world wouldn't be the hell a Nazi dominated world would be, it still goes against American interests.

[The Brain]

Yeah cause winning WW1 made the world safe from German aggression.

[jimmy olsen]

100,000 Americans would have lived rather than dying while serving in the military and the Spanish Flu epidemic may have been completely avoided saving the lives of tens of millions the world over.

The Kaiserreich winning did not represent an existential threat to America the way that Nazi Germany winning would have.

100,000 dead Americans vs. what, a million+ more? dead people from other countries.

I've never really read about the Spanish Flu. What do you mean there? From what I know it seems unlikely that America being in the war was the difference that caused it.

The Germans weren't going to win the war by the time the Americans joined.
And as Agelastus says, long term a victorious Germany would be very dangerous to the US.

It would utterly dominate central and eastern Europe, that gives it enough clout to dominate the world. And they do have proven colonial ambitions.
Even if a German Empire dominated world wouldn't be the hell a Nazi dominated world would be, it still goes against American interests.

The Spanish flu, contrary to the name originated in Kansas and was spread by American soldiers to Europe.

The Federal Reserve would not have continued to issue loans to Britain if America had not joined the war effort, in fact it had ceased to so months prior. Without these loans Britain would have been unable to simultaneously finance it's own war effort while heavily subsidizing France.

[grumbler]

100,000 dead Americans vs. what, a million+ more? dead people from other countries.

I have no idea what the point here is.  Is this an argument for, or against, US involvement?  It seems to me that the US wouldn't have lost 100,000 people if it hadn't entered the war (which was the question), while millions would have already died by the time the decision was made.

I've never really read about the Spanish Flu. What do you mean there? From what I know it seems unlikely that America being in the war was the difference that caused it.

You are probably correct.  The popular myth that the flu started in kansas is just a myth (though there was an early outbreak there).  However, the movement of troops and material to and from Europe probably explained why the influenza spread so quickly.

The Germans weren't going to win the war by the time the Americans joined.
And as Agelastus says, long term a victorious Germany would be very dangerous to the US.
It would utterly dominate central and eastern Europe, that gives it enough clout to dominate the world. And they do have proven colonial ambitions.
Even if a German Empire dominated world wouldn't be the hell a Nazi dominated world would be, it still goes against American interests.

So, the Germans couldn't win, but it would be bad when they did? 

Interesting theory.

[Ed Anger]

We entered on the wrong side.

[Josquius]

100,000 dead Americans vs. what, a million+ more? dead people from other countries.

I have no idea what the point here is.  Is this an argument for, or against, US involvement?  It seems to me that the US wouldn't have lost 100,000 people if it hadn't entered the war (which was the question), while millions would have already died by the time the decision was made.

I mean that without America in the war the Germans would probably have been more inclined to drag out the war a bit longer, killing a lot more people than the 100,000 Americans that died (and the Germans they killed).
From a purely selfish American perspective that's no argument in favour of the US being involved, but from a global perspective I'd like to think their sacrifice was for the greater good.

So, the Germans couldn't win, but it would be bad when they did? 

Interesting theory.

They weren't going to win but in a theoretical situation where they do, it wouldn't be great for American interests.

[Queequeg]

Yes.  Should have entered earlier so that the Provisional Government in Russia had a chance.  The Ottomans and the Austrians were scum, and Germany was already well on it's way to going full retard.