Was America's entrance into WWI justified?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I vote no. This wasn't WWII. The "good guys" and "bad guys" weren't so clear.

It's easy to demonize the Germans by the sinking of the Lusitania, but the facts are the British were just as much to blame, and it's pretty naive to think they wouldn't have attacked a similar German ship. Plus the Germans did post many warnings in the paper, so it's also hard to argue the Americans on board weren't entirely blameless, what they did was the equivalent of walking into an area full of hazardous materials with warning signs everywhere. It wasn't worth going to war over. And there was no American interests involved.

[The Duke]

Was it justified?  Yes.  Germany-Austria were trying to seize African colonies and Balkan territory, respectively.  Stopping this was a legitmate goal.

Was it wise?  I wouldn't have gone into the land war.  Support the French and English with supplies and join the fighting in the Atlantic.

[PBrunsel]

Yes, Germans attacked U.S. ships that in no way provoked them. Let's not forget about the Zimmerman Telegraph and the sinking of the Lusitania.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I find myself in an unusual situation in that I agree with BRTD and disagree with both JohnFord and PBrunsel.

First, evidence indicates that the Lusitania was carryin contraband war goods to the United Kingtom.

Second, the Zimmerman Telegram was one of many stupid things done by governments over the years.  There is no solid evidence to indicate that it was the proposal contained in that document was the policy of the German government.

Third, the First World War was provoked by the act of the agent of the Serbian secret police (i.e. the murder of the heir apparent to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Franz Ferdinand and his wife).  When Austria-Hungary decided to take firm action against terrorism directed by the government of a neighbering state, France and Russia decided to use the opportunity to go to war.

Had the United States refrained from entering the conflict, it would probably have terminated on a more satisfactory basis for world history (likely no Hitler or Mussolini).

[The Duke]

Carl,

I consider the assination of the Archduke to be inoffensive, since his government was trying to conquer the whole of the Balkans.

[The Dowager Mod]

Nope.

[PBrunsel]

The Zimmerman Telegraph was somewhat of a joke. Mexico, at Civil War, could not have invaded the USA and won in a war against us. Sinking of American ships by German U-Boats was the main reason we entered.

Mostly propaganda got us into World War I, but I think entry was fine because it ended a bloody stale-mate in Europe that had already wiped out a generation of Europe's young men.

[12th Doctor]

An interesting question.  I would say that there was a U.S. interest in the war, namely maintaining the balance of power in the world as a whole.  That was important.  If Germany gained to much power.

True, that Germany was sinking ships, but the cargo of those ships was a violation of American neutrality.

True, that there was the Zimmerman Telegraph, but evidence has also been shown that that telegraph was cooked up by the State Dept.  

In the end, WWI seems to be, probably the least justified American involvement in a War.  The reasons were totally dominated by realist interest, but I would have to say that there was some interest, so it was justified.

[PBrunsel]

True, that there was the Zimmerman Telegraph, but evidence has also been shown that that telegraph was cooked up by the State Dept.  

I've heard that theory before. I thought it was cooked up by the British Parliament.

[Brambila]

I think it was a mistake, Wilson was definately wrong in going in. The war was about to end, since the British and Germans were fighting so much and were about to make a truce- that would have been fine. However, Wilson joining in embarassed the Germans and Austrians, and ultimately caused World War II. The Austrians and Germans wern't bad. The Austrians invasion of Serajevo was simply in response of the assassination of their Archduke. John Ford mentioned that Austria was trying to obtain Balkan lands- yes, but as was Russia trying to obtain areas from Prussia and Austria, until the Bolchevik revolution in 1917. The invasion of Balkan lands did happen, but ultimately in response not to the Archduke's assassination, but to Servia's threat to invade Austria-occupied Bosnia (since 1878- never occupied by Servia) in the early 1900s.

Ultimately, the Austrians and Germans were quite innocent.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Carl,

I consider the assination of the Archduke to be inoffensive, since his government was trying to conquer the whole of the Balkans.

John, I think you have your history a little confused.

The Austro-Hungarian empire was a declining nation state.  They had enough problems with the many ethnic groups within the empire and had no desire to add to their problems.

It was the Serbians that harbored a 'greater Serbia' policy, and were seeking to gain territority by state sponsored terrorism.

[The Duke]

Carl,

I consider the assination of the Archduke to be inoffensive, since his government was trying to conquer the whole of the Balkans.

John, I think you have your history a little confused.

The Austro-Hungarian empire was a declining nation state.  They had enough problems with the many ethnic groups within the empire and had no desire to add to their problems.

It was the Serbians that harbored a 'greater Serbia' policy, and were seeking to gain territority by state sponsored terrorism.

Capability to conquer the Balkans is different than desire to conquer the Balkans.  Austria had desire, if not the capability.

Yes, some Serbs were radical nationalists, but not necessarily most.

[CARLHAYDEN]

To repeat,

The Austro-Hungarian empire was satisfied to hold on to what they had (they had enought problems with the then existing empire).

Franz Ferdinand was attempting to bring the slavs in the empire to a more equal footing with the Austrians and Hungarians.

This was both the reason he was in Sarajevo, and why he was killed by agents of the Serbian secret police (they did not want the slavs living in the empire to be fully integrated into the empire).

[Brambila]

Yes, and as I've said, Servia had threatened to invade Austria in the past- it was first of all very logical to assume the Servian government was behind it, and secondly a good time to shut them up.

[Beet]

The Austro-Hungarian empire was occupying land lived on by the Serbian people, and which had historically belonged to Serbia before it was seized by the Ottoman empire. It was also occupying Bosnia, which it annexed in 1908, Croatia, Slovenia, Czechia, Slovakia, and part of Romania. This is like Indonesia occupying East Timor or Turkey occupying the Kurds. It is unjustified if you believe in self-determination. If you do not believe in self-determination, and instead believe in imperialism, that is another story.

The Russian aim was not to annex Serbia, but to protect it from Austria-Hungary, just as the American aim in the Gulf War was not to annex Kuwait, but to protect it from Iraq. Although Russia was itself an imperialist power, its immediate motivations with regard to Serbia were not. Its long-term motivations may have been to create a pan-Slavic federation, but even this would have made more sense than the amalgamation known as the Austro-Hungarian empire.

The German resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare in the spring of 1917 was the direct result of a promise by German naval commanders that they could bring Britain to her knees within months-- before substantial U.S. intervention. Not only were they planning to crush Britain, they were expecting U.S. intervention. However, the development of the convoy system foiled their plans, and the refusal of the Kerensky government to sign a peace deal delayed the Germans for long enough that the Americans had time to reinforce the Western front. Nevertheless, had American troops not been in eastern France during the 1918 offensive, the Germans would have taken Paris and ended the war. The future of history after this point is unpredictable-- we cannot know if the result would have been less or more destructive.

[Lunar]

Germany would have had harsh demands on France, but probably less harsh than Versailles was on Germany.  France would have to give up Alsace-Lorraine and most of their African colonies, and Britain probably just some African colonies, if even that.  Italy would have to give South Tirol back to Austria, but probably not much more than that.

Germany would control much of Eastern Europe but it would not be tyrannical.  Eventually, I imagine Germany would become a democracy much like England, Sweden or any of the other industrialized monarchies did.  Germany lacked the class tension that caused Russia to erupt into Stalinism.  I imagine Austria would have eventually collapsed into something similar to the modern borders but with Hungary controlling Slovakia and Transylvania and Austria controlling South Tirol, but it is possible they would hold together and go the route of Germany.

I would argue that Hitler would never have been able to take control of Germany if Germany had won WW1.  The Weimar Republic, extreme resentment over Versailles and the consistant chaos were what allowed Hitler to become Chancellor.  I can't see the conservative factions in Germany even considering the guy with a conservative monarchy already in control (I would say that most of Hitler's support came from pro-monarchist factions in the early years).

The US should have just demanded reparation to the families and shipyards for any sunk ships.  The Lusitania was carrying arms anyway, we would have sunk her too if our positions were reversed.

[12th Doctor]

I think it was a mistake, Wilson was definately wrong in going in. The war was about to end, since the British and Germans were fighting so much and were about to make a truce- that would have been fine.

Ummm, acctually, when we entered the war, the Germans were bringing up all of their forces from the Eastern Front (because Russia had just surrendered) to attack France.  If it had not been for the intervention of the US France would have been crushed in the German assult of 1917 because they had simply lost their will to fight.  In which case, the Germans would have brought a humiliating peace against France and Britain.  The US might have been left fighting DeGulle in 1941 instead of Hitler.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Germany would have had harsh demands on France, but probably less harsh than Versailles was on Germany.  France would have to give up Alsace-Lorraine and most of their African colonies, and Britain probably just some African colonies, if even that.  Italy would have to give South Tirol back to Austria, but probably not much more than that.

Germany would control much of Eastern Europe but it would not be tyrannical.  Eventually, I imagine Germany would become a democracy much like England, Sweden or any of the other industrialized monarchies did.  Germany lacked the class tension that caused Russia to erupt into Stalinism.  I imagine Austria would have eventually collapsed into something similar to the modern borders but with Hungary controlling Slovakia and Transylvania and Austria controlling South Tirol, but it is possible they would hold together and go the route of Germany.

I would argue that Hitler would never have been able to take control of Germany if Germany had won WW1.  The Weimar Republic, extreme resentment over Versailles and the consistant chaos were what allowed Hitler to become Chancellor.  I can't see the conservative factions in Germany even considering the guy with a conservative monarchy already in control (I would say that most of Hitler's support came from pro-monarchist factions in the early years).

The US should have just demanded reparation to the families and shipyards for any sunk ships.  The Lusitania was carrying arms anyway, we would have sunk her too if our positions were reversed.

I agree with all but one point your made.

After the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, Alsace-Lorraine WAS part of Germany until after WWI!

[Brambila]

Beet, I disagree. The Austro-Hungarian occupation of Servia was not at all like the current occupation of Kurdistan by the Turks, nor was it like the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. First of all, Indonesians are still occupying areas that are Christian-Portuguese Timorese in West Timor. Secondly, Kurdistan has traditionally been in that region since Mohatmad and has never had a nation. The occupation is more similar to the Hungarians in Romanaian Transylvania or the Poles in western Ukraine. Yes, Romanaia is occupying traditionally Hungarian territory and Hungarians live on the territory, and yes, Ukraine is occupying traditionally Polish territory and territory Poles currently live in, but that does not justify giving the land to Hungary or to Poland. Contrary to popular belief, Austro-Hungary technically did not annex, but aquired the territory after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire in the area. The 1878 Treaty of Berlin gave Austro-Hungary ownership of the modern-day Bosnia region, and after the Ottoman Empire collapsed, Austro-Hungary annexed it justly. The Servians then threatened to invade Servian lands in Austro-Hungary. You can compare it to Armenia invading Turkey because some lands were Armenian. We can even compare it to Mexico invading the border states because not only are they traditionally Mexican, but Mexicans live in the region.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's because the French were in war with Germany, and had France been strong enough would have invaded Germany with the UK. Remember, the French posed a threat to Germany because France and Russia were allied, and if Russia invaded Germany on the eastern front Franace would invade on the western front. Following a mixture between the Schlieffen plan and the Bolchevik revolution (fortunately for the Germans), Germany was able to focus on France and the other Entente powers on the western front. If the war ended like this, not only would less people have been killed, but if Germany surrendered, the Treaty of Versailles would have been easygoing on the Germans, and if the Entente powers surrendered, Germany/Austro-Hungary would be easy on them. The war was obviously a very bad one, where nations were completely torn apart. However, when the US joined in, Germany knew that if they lost the war the US would completely embarass Germany and Austro-Hungary, and they ended up doing so.

 

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Actually the first casus belli that the US could have legitimately acted upon in WW I was not by the Germans, but by the British when they placed mines in the international waters of the North Sea to enforce their illegal blockade of Germany (llegal because under international law a blockade to be legal was supposed to be enforced by ships ouside the ports you blockaded. German railway guns would have blown the British to pieces had they tried that, so they didn't.)  The German U-boats did not go forth until after the British had done their illegal act.  We should have gotten involved in WW I, but we joined the wrong side.  And just think of all the extra stars our flag would have had!

[Beet]

Beet, I disagree. The Austro-Hungarian occupation of Servia was not at all like the current occupation of Kurdistan by the Turks, nor was it like the Indonesian occupation of East Timor. First of all, Indonesians are still occupying areas that are Christian-Portuguese Timorese in West Timor. Secondly, Kurdistan has traditionally been in that region since Mohatmad and has never had a nation. The occupation is more similar to the Hungarians in Romanaian Transylvania or the Poles in western Ukraine. Yes, Romanaia is occupying traditionally Hungarian territory and Hungarians live on the territory, and yes, Ukraine is occupying traditionally Polish territory and territory Poles currently live in, but that does not justify giving the land to Hungary or to Poland. Contrary to popular belief, Austro-Hungary technically did not annex, but aquired the territory after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire in the area. The 1878 Treaty of Berlin gave Austro-Hungary ownership of the modern-day Bosnia region, and after the Ottoman Empire collapsed, Austro-Hungary annexed it justly.

Yes and it was a treaty at which the Poles, Croats, Bosnians, Serbians, Czechs, Ruthenes, Slovenes, Slovaks and Romanians were not represented and never fully accepted. The difference between the situation then and current arrangement in Eastern Europe between Hungarians, Poles, and Ukrainians is that all the current nations fully accept the current borders, and people of all nationalities in each state are given full rights and treated as equal citizens. Similarly the East Timorese are happy with the state that they have. On the other hand, the Austro-Hungarian empire did not offer representation to anyone but Austrians and Hungarians, and the other nationalities never accepted the annexation all or parts of their countries. They were always treated as inferior 'citizens' while the ruling Austrians and Hungarians looked after none but their own. Serbia's struggle for independence was both from the Ottomans and the Austrians. Although they threw off the yoke of the Ottomans, that was only half their country. The only reason the other nationalities of the empire did not secede was lack of political power (although they did revolt in 1848).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, although the Serbia government did not accept the cleavage of its country by Austro-Hungarian imperialism, its "crime" in July 1914 was only to resist a series of unilateral demands by Austria-Hungary (based on a false connection between the Serb government and Mr. Princep), that, if accepted, would have effectively ceded Serbia's sovereignity.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Sorry,

Princeps WAS trained, equiped and paid by the Serbian secret police.

[Brambila]

Servia threatened to invade Bosnia in 1908 and allied itself with Russia. The Great War would have started there had Russia not backed out and Servia thus lost it's courage in doing so. But yes, Servia most definately did threaten to invade Servia-populated Bosnia.

I think it's absolutely silly to compare it to anything today. Of course they were not represented- they were minorities. Irish wern't represented until they became a free state; Poles wern't represneted in Russia until after the war; Walloons weren't represented until after the war. The list goes on. You can't support the allies based on that, as they wern't practicing what you're preaching. The war and the allies winning wasn't what gave representation to these minorities, it was Wilson's 14 points and the Treaty of Versailles that changed Europe.

[MarkDel]

You guys have made some interesting arguments about whether or not the United States should have been involved in World War I, but none of you have touched on the really big picture and why we SHOULD HAVE been involved and why we definitely chose the right side.

It may or may not have made sense to enter the war at an earlier date, but it made PERFECT sense to enter when we did. By entering the war when we did, we were protecting the long term interests of the United States, both in terms of security and economic markets. By 1916/1917, it had become painfully obvious that the War was going to have a profound impact on the future of the world in terms of what kinds of governments and alliances would emerge. The heavy toll of the war on lower and middle class Europeans was tremendous, and what happened in Russia in 1917 could very easily have happened in France, Germany, Italy or any other number of countries (except England) in the years immediate following. Had this happened, a growing Marxist tide could have swept mainland Europe with the resultung power vacuum. This would have endangered American security, and severely limited American markets, thus destroying our ability to become the world's dominant power in the post World War I era.

The United States entered the War mainly to insure German defeat and protect against the long term destabilization of the European mainland. If you don't think fear of Marxism was one of our primary motives for entering the war, then you should consider the American efforts to recognize and prop up the Kerensky government in post-revoltionary Russia. After the first Russian Revolution in the Spring, the Bolsheviks were NOT in power and not anywhere close to power despite the best efforts of Lenin and others. The fact is that there was an Interim Government led by Alexander Kerensky which was not all that different than today's modern American Democratic Party, and the Wilson government tried their best to aid Kerensky and suppress the Bolsheviks.

So our entry into World War I was both selfish and moral, because it brought to an end a conflict that was destroying Europe and creating a possibly dangerous future. Now, things turned out really bad anyways because instead of Marxism, Europeans turned to "National Socialism" instead, which is just as hideous. But the truth is that people like Hitler were able to rise to power because of terrible post-war policies by the Allies, NOT because the Allies won the war. The Treaty of Versailles was a huge mistake, but that doesn't mean our entry into the war was anything but fully justified and extremely sensible.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Had we not entered the war in 1917, the war would have ended in 1917 and not been available as the excuse that Lenin used to depose Kerensky.  Unfortunately, Wilson thought like you do MarkDel.  He tried to be both Machiavelli and st. Augustine ("The purpose of all war is peace.") and failed at both.  Without a doubt, Wilson was the worst two-term president we;ve had.  Its harder ro judge one tern or part term Presidents simply because they have less time to do harm, so I'm not prepared to say that Wilson was the worst President of all time, but he certainly is a candidate.