Was America's entrance into WWI justified?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

Think it probably had more to do with the Daily Telegraph interview, but that's neither here nor there. The key point is that he resigned because he lost the confidence of the Kaiser, not because the Reichstag removed him. It couldn't. Which, as far as I'm concerned, says it all.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fundamental difference between Britain and Germany in 1914 was that the government in the former was accountable to the electorate, while the government in the latter was not. The former was a country that was quite clearly democratising (if at a rather slow pace) even if it was not yet what I would came a democracy, while the latter was an authoritarian regime that derived its power from the military and which also happened to have something of a parliamentary facade (and not a very good one). Of course, elections in Germany (at least at a national level; regional and municipal elections were something else entirely) were more democratic than elections in Britain, but that's only part of the picture, and perhaps not the most important one.

As an aside, while calling Britain, France and Italy c. 1914 'democracies' is a questionable (especially the last one!), they were all liberal states at a fundamental level and in a way that very few countries outside North America are these days.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You miss the point of later reform efforts. Since the struggle over the People's Budget, the House of Lords has no real power; it can block and it can amend, but it cannot vote anything down. Even it's blocking and amending can be defeated by the Commons. Later reform efforts have focused not on what it does, but on how it's members are elected (or, rather, not). In the long, slow process of democratisation in Britain, the castration of the Lords was one of the most important events. And it perhaps shows a fundamental difference between Britain and Germany in the period in question; in the latter the landowning classes still called the shots. In the former, they'd very recently lost almost all of their power as a direct result of the repeated electoral defeat of their backers in the Commons.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

But is there any reason to believe that had Wilhelm not lost his throne as a result of the Great War that a process similar to what happened in Denmark would not have taken place in Germany?  Still, this whole was Germany a democracy question is a sideshow.  America's entry into WWI had nothing to do with which countries were democratic.

[Free Palestine]

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

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

As were most other participants in the Great War.

[Хahar 🤔]

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

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

As were most other participants in the Great War.

You've moved the goalposts in each post you've made in this thread, it seems.

[Hash]

France were liberal democracies

Some would argue that a state which actively persecuted and encouraged total destruction of languages and cultures in its own metropolitan territory is not a liberal democracy.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

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

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

As were most other participants in the Great War.

You've moved the goalposts in each post you've made in this thread, it seems.

It's because he can't defend the initial post, and so is trying to change the game.

[President Mitt]

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

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

As were most other participants in the Great War.

I'm befuddled to what you are trying to argue here.

[-]

Uh, Germany sent a telegraph to Mexico offering to fund a war against us.

If that isn't a reason, I don't what one is.

[The Dowager Mod]

No.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

No it was not.

[rob in cal]

Someone prominent in the US, can't recall who, suggested that instead of declaring war outright on Germany, Wilson should make the following declaration.  The US would insist on a cease-fire and peace talks.  If the Allies refused to attend the US would announce that it would stay neutral for the foreseeable future, if Germany refused to attend the US would declare war on it.  Had such a conference taken place, in say late 1916, which I believe was the timeframe in question, there is no guarentee that it would have ended in a treaty, but I believe it would have generated incredible momentum on its own and led to a negotiated end to the war.