Was America's entrance into WWI justified?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Cursed be all reductionists.

[Free Palestine]

Wait a sec.  You talk about how the Central Powers were abhorrent regimes, then you call on us to get into the war to save Tsarist Russia?

Not Tsarist Russia; save Russia from Bolshevism.  We could have helped stabilize and maintain a more democratic regime; given Kerensky time to create a new, more liberal Russia.

Or we could, you know, not dick around with the sovereignty of other countries.  The Russian Revolution was an internal matter, and we had absolutely no pauldamn right to interfere either way.  Saving Russia from Bolshevism is not a valid reason to expend huge amounts of our money, as well as thousands of American lives.  America is not the sovereign of the world.

[Bo]

No.  Had we remained completely neutral (no aid to the Entente) there would be no Lusitania, no Zimmerman Telegram, and more importantly, no Hitler or World War II (as we know it).  The outcome of World War I led directly to World War II.  It's interesting, it's like a historical domino-effect.  World War I led to World War II, which led to the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, and eventually Iraq and Afghanistan.  And what caused this all was our intervention.

Even if American civilians would have been trading with Britain and France (and with the Central Powers at the same time), I think Germany would have still pursued unrestricted submarine warfare against American ships.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No.  Had we remained completely neutral (no aid to the Entente) there would be no Lusitania, no Zimmerman Telegram, and more importantly, no Hitler or World War II (as we know it).  The outcome of World War I led directly to World War II.  It's interesting, it's like a historical domino-effect.  World War I led to World War II, which led to the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, and eventually Iraq and Afghanistan.  And what caused this all was our intervention.

Even if American civilians would have been trading with Britain and France (and with the Central Powers at the same time), I think Germany would have still pursued unrestricted submarine warfare against American ships.

The British mined international waters in 1914, which as far as interference with America's rights a neutral nations goes was the first casus belli that the US had in the Great War, but we chose not to go to war with the United Kingdom over the matter.  We weren't a signatory to the Treaty of London that guaranteed Belgian neutrality.

It was quite hypocritical for us to be upset about German actions that could cost American lives and trade, when we did nothing about the earlier British actions.

[Bo]

No.  Had we remained completely neutral (no aid to the Entente) there would be no Lusitania, no Zimmerman Telegram, and more importantly, no Hitler or World War II (as we know it).  The outcome of World War I led directly to World War II.  It's interesting, it's like a historical domino-effect.  World War I led to World War II, which led to the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, and eventually Iraq and Afghanistan.  And what caused this all was our intervention.

Even if American civilians would have been trading with Britain and France (and with the Central Powers at the same time), I think Germany would have still pursued unrestricted submarine warfare against American ships.

The British mined international waters in 1914, which as far as interference with America's rights a neutral nations goes was the first casus belli that the US had in the Great War, but we chose not to go to war with the United Kingdom over the matter.  We weren't a signatory to the Treaty of London that guaranteed Belgian neutrality.

It was quite hypocritical for us to be upset about German actions that could cost American lives and trade, when we did nothing about the earlier British actions.

At least the British actions didn't cost American lives like the German actions did. Also, wasn't the U.S. mining in international waters as well during this time? If that's the case, then it is understandable by the U.S. didn't criticize Britain for doing the same thing.

[President Mitt]

No, obviously.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

At least the British actions didn't cost American lives like the German actions did. Also, wasn't the U.S. mining in international waters as well during this time? If that's the case, then it is understandable by the U.S. didn't criticize Britain for doing the same thing.

No, we weren't placing explosive devices that would sink ships in international waters (or any other waters for that matter since we weren't at war) in 1914.  Under the laws of war as they were understood antebellum, mines could only be placed in territorial waters.  The British were unwilling to do so because their minelayers would have been sunk by German shore batteries had they tried it.

To be fair, both sides were reacting to advances in technology that made following the rules very, very, stupid.  Long range artillery meant that going into territorial waters adjacent to defended coastlines was suicide unless one was mounting an invasion.  Meanwhile the development of radio made commerce raiding impossible, as an alarm was sure to be raised and the commerce raider sunk.  Submarines had to strike without warning or be sunk.  (Absent radio, there would have been no need for unrestricted submarine warfare.)

Also to be fair, one practice that the British adopted from what we Yanks had done in the Civil War was to stretch the doctrine of continuous transit beyond what had been originally envisaged.  This gave the British cover for their secondary blockades of the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries as extensions of their German blockade.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Wait a sec.  You talk about how the Central Powers were abhorrent regimes, then you call on us to get into the war to save Tsarist Russia?

Not Tsarist Russia; save Russia from Bolshevism.  We could have helped stabilize and maintain a more democratic regime; given Kerensky time to create a new, more liberal Russia.

Whatever came under Kerensky would not be liberal or democratic.

It would certainly have been more liberal than the Bolsheviks turned out to be.

[WillK]

The British mined international waters in 1914, which as far as interference with America's rights a neutral nations goes was the first casus belli that the US had in the Great War, but we chose not to go to war with the United Kingdom over the matter.  We weren't a signatory to the Treaty of London that guaranteed Belgian neutrality.

It was quite hypocritical for us to be upset about German actions that could cost American lives and trade, when we did nothing about the earlier British actions.

At least the British actions didn't cost American lives like the German actions did.

That was because the US bowed to British demands (stay out of the North Sea) but not to German ones. 

[??????????]

In my opinion, no. The US was clearly running ships into a known danger area. On top of that they were illegally running ammunition and weapons to England. While the loss of civilian lives was tragic the sinking of the Lusitania was justified based on the almost proven fact that they were carrying munitions. Secondly, I'd like to note that in my belief Austria was more then justified in declaring war after a member of their leadership and his wife were brutally murdered. And I say that with complete bias towards the victim, for obvious reasons.

[WillK]

The Central Powers were for the most part morally abhorrent regimes; at least Britain and France were liberal democracies, something none of the Central Powers can claim.

Germany was a democracy at the time.  Had more liberal voting laws than Britain.

[WillK]

In my opinion, no. The US was clearly running ships into a known danger area. On top of that they were illegally running ammunition and weapons to England. While the loss of civilian lives was tragic the sinking of the Lusitania was justified based on the almost proven fact that they were carrying munitions. ...

The Lusitiania was also a british ship; the american passengers were assuming the risk by traveling on a british ship in a war zone at a time britain was at war.

[??????????]

In my opinion, no. The US was clearly running ships into a known danger area. On top of that they were illegally running ammunition and weapons to England. While the loss of civilian lives was tragic the sinking of the Lusitania was justified based on the almost proven fact that they were carrying munitions. ...

The Lusitiania was also a british ship; the american passengers were assuming the risk by traveling on a british ship in a war zone at a time britain was at war.

Didn't they sink American flagged ships as well before the Lusitania? I'm not a WW1 expert,

[Free Palestine]

The Central Powers were for the most part morally abhorrent regimes; at least Britain and France were liberal democracies, something none of the Central Powers can claim.

Germany was a democracy at the time.  Had more liberal voting laws than Britain.

This.  The Ottoman Empire had a parliament, as well.

[WillK]

In my opinion, no. The US was clearly running ships into a known danger area. On top of that they were illegally running ammunition and weapons to England. While the loss of civilian lives was tragic the sinking of the Lusitania was justified based on the almost proven fact that they were carrying munitions. ...

The Lusitiania was also a british ship; the american passengers were assuming the risk by traveling on a british ship in a war zone at a time britain was at war.

Didn't they sink American flagged ships as well before the Lusitania? I'm not a WW1 expert,

Yes they did -- several, though with very small loss of life. 

The Lusitania gets a lot of attention for the number of killed and because it was allegedly a peaceful passenger ship. 

[Хahar 🤔]

The Central Powers were for the most part morally abhorrent regimes; at least Britain and France were liberal democracies, something none of the Central Powers can claim.

Germany was a democracy at the time.  Had more liberal voting laws than Britain.

Imperial Germany a democracy? That's one of the most ridiculous ideas that I've ever heard seriously advanced on this forum.

The franchise was more liberal for the Reichstag than for the British Parliament, it's true, but the franchise was decidedly illiberal for the Prussian Landtag. At any rate, the government was not responsible to the legislature, or to anyone but the Emperor.

The Ottoman Empire had a parliament, as well.

Every state in Europe of appreciable size had a parliament by the time of the First World War.

[The Mikado]

The Central Powers were for the most part morally abhorrent regimes; at least Britain and France were liberal democracies, something none of the Central Powers can claim.

Germany was a democracy at the time.  Had more liberal voting laws than Britain.

This.  The Ottoman Empire had a parliament, as well.

In many ways, the Young Turks' regime was actually worse than the old-fashioned absolute monarchy that preceded it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Germany was a democracy at the time.  Had more liberal voting laws than Britain.

lol

The Reichstag had essentially no power whatsoever; it was basically a cross between a talking shop and a fig leaf. Power lay elsewhere; especially in the military. The people could not change the government*. I mean, this is basic stuff. You might as well call Imperial Russia a democracy because the Duma was elected.

*Which they could, and did, in Britain. Not that it was exactly democratic by our standards, but most households had a vote (indeed, the class composition of the electorate changed surprisingly little in 1918).

[WillK]

Germany was a democracy at the time.  Had more liberal voting laws than Britain.

lol

The Reichstag had essentially no power whatsoever; it was basically a cross between a talking shop and a fig leaf. Power lay elsewhere; especially in the military. The people could not change the government*. I mean, this is basic stuff. You might as well call Imperial Russia a democracy because the Duma was elected.

*Which they could, and did, in Britain. Not that it was exactly democratic by our standards, but most households had a vote (indeed, the class composition of the electorate changed surprisingly little in 1918).

LOL right back art you.

The Reichstag had power over legislation and could effect change in the government.  For example, when Von Bulow failed to get the Reichstag to pass a tax bill in 1909 he was forced out.

As for Britain, prior to the reform act of 1918 a large portion of the households had no vote, not to mention that the House of Lords wasn't elected at all.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

LOL right back art you.

This is funny because I do actually know a few things about this subject

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Reichstag was pretty much the definition of a toothless parliament. Read any reputable work on the Kaiserreich. Bulow's fall, for example, had little to do with losing a vote in the Reichstag, and everything to do with losing the confidence of the Kaiser and his inner circle; another excuse would have been found if the vote had passed, because that's the way things work in sham democracies.

Maybe you'll be arguing that Poland under the Sanacja regime was a democracy next!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very true. But more households had the vote before the Fourth Reform Act than is often realised (this wasn't intentional, of course. There are some seriously amusing reports of horrified middle class political activists finding out that a very high percentage of residuum housholds in the East End had the vote...). The class composition of the electorate before 1918 wasn't as different to after 1918 as was once (naturally) assumed. By the standards of today, Britain was certainly not a democracy in 1914. It was, however, more democratic than was the norm for the time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was, however, rendered toothless a few years before 1914.

[WillK]

Bulow's fall, for example, had little to do with losing a vote in the Reichstag, and everything to do with losing the confidence of the Kaiser and his inner circle;

Bulow lost the confidence of the Kaiser becuase he could not get legislation passed in the Reichstag.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have no intention of doing so.  My intention was to counter the statement that:
"The Central Powers were for the most part morally abhorrent regimes; at least Britain and France were liberal democracies, something none of the Central Powers can claim."
You have claimed that Britain wasn't really democracy; I claim that if Britain is to be considered one in 1914 that Germany was one at the time also.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It was, however, rendered toothless a few years before 1914.
[/quote][/quote]
It still had teeth left.

If it had been truly rendered toothless, there would be no need for subsequent reform legislation nor would it still be an issue today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/news/vote2001/hi/english/main_issues/sections/facts/newsid_1214000/1214416.stm

[Free Palestine]

I somehow doubt that being a democracy really makes you "the good guys."

[Franzl]

I somehow doubt that being a democracy really makes you "the good guys."

That's a matter of opinion, isn't it?

[President Mitt]

The Central Powers were for the most part morally abhorrent regimes; at least Britain and France were liberal democracies, something none of the Central Powers can claim.

Germany was a democracy at the time.  Had more liberal voting laws than Britain.

This.  The Ottoman Empire had a parliament, as well.

Having a legislature =/= automatically being a Democracy.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

This.  The Ottoman Empire had a parliament, as well.

That means nothing.  They were a repressive, bigoted regime.