Opinion of US Entry into WWI

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Well, it helped my country regain the independence, so my opinion is positive, even if biased

American boys dying overseas to protect the corrupt and brutal British and French empires, not very approving of it.

The United States benefited a lot from the victory in Europe, both economically (displacing the British Empire as a leading industrialized economic power) and in terms of geopolitical influence, so it was hardly "just to protect British and French interests".  

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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.

As far as the colonialism is concerned (and, as Al rightly pointed out, was not a reason the WWI broke out), there indeed were no "good guys", including the United States at the time (Phillipines for example).

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

While in many ways the two sides were equally "horrible", the Entente victory (to which the US entry significantly contributed) brought freedom to many, just to mention Czechoslovaks, Yugoslavians and Poles.

Also, as far as the colonialism is concerned, the WWI was one of the first step toward end of the colonial empires. Yes, it was a very long process and it took another WWII to produce more visible results, but it shook the fundamentals of the imperial world order (for example, Britain's loss of the foremost position in economic affairs). So yeah, things weren't so black and white.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

While in many ways the two sides were equally "horrible", the Entente victory (to which the US entry significantly contributed) brought freedom to many, just to mention Czechoslovaks, Yugoslavians and Poles.

Also, as far as the colonialism is concerned, the WWI was one of the first step toward end of the colonial empires. Yes, it was a very long process and it took another WWII to produce more visible results, but it shook the fundamentals of the imperial world order (for example, Britain's loss of the foremost position in economic affairs). So yeah, things weren't so black and white.

Yeah, about the only oppressed European group who might've been better off in the event of a Central Powers victory would be the Irish.  And even that as doubtful, as Irish Independence was probably on the Kaiser's list of priorities somewhere between taking the spike off the German helmet and shaving off his sweet 'stache.  Which is to say, it was a pretty low freaking priority.  The Central Powers weren't really fans of empowering the lowly nations of Europe, though in the case of Ireland there could be a pretty strong advantage to having an inherently anti-British state on the side of the Germans if another struggle comes up.  In that case I could see an Armistice Treaty where the British are forced to give up Ireland and the political functions of the First Dail and the Senadad are allowed to continue without British interference.  And of course there is the possibility that the British refuse the Treaty and the Central Powers intervene in a possible conflict in Ireland that could result in a permanent German occupation to prevent "future intrusions" that ultimately ends up with an Irish state that becomes a puppet state to the German Empire.  And that's if the Germans aren't too busy with the Soviet power they helped install to their east.

Well, I can definitively see some sort of protectorate, since Germans were attempting to create some new puppet states, such as the "Kingdom of Poland" (a rump created from the Russian partiation), or the "Kingdom of Lithuania", who were to be independent in name only (and, in Polish case, nothing would change in the Prussian and Austrian partiation, naturally).

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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.