Was World War I a Necessary War?

[Scam of God]

No, and its to bad we got into it because save France;s skin became something of an obsession with us for most of the century

Saving France had very little to do with entering either of the World Wars.

well I think you could make the case that it was a factor in entering World War I, though it certainly wasn't the only factor nor the even most important one. The Zimmerman Telegram and Unrestricted Submarine Warfare were pretty clearly the main factors, neither of which had anything to do with France. You're right about World War II though.

The Zimmerman Telegram and unrestricted submarine warfare were only responsible for causing us to formally declare war and send the doughboys overseas.  We were on the Allied side by 1915 as a major supply source.  Had we not been selling the Entente Powers arms and providing them the loans to pay for those arms, the Central Powers would have won in 1916.

But it was Wilson's Anglophilism that led him to support the Allied powers; France was mostly an afterthought to him.

[Antonio the Sixth]

In the first sense of the question, my answer is clearly no. If blind nationalism were not so powerfull in this time, we could have avoided it.
However, if with these question you mean "Should USA have necessarily intervented in WWI ?" my answer is absolutely yes. A german victory would have been catastrophic for democracy and freedom in Europe.

[TeePee4Prez]

Voted no (yes because of my Irish/German bias), but with reservation in that the US's entry meant preservation of democracy at large and the end of some absolute monarchs.  If the post War was handled better, my answer would lean more towards yes, but the European Allied powers got greedy.  Versailles was clear BS and eventually hurt Europe at large in the long run.  Taking down Germany and having them go through what they did benefited no one and hurt the European economy altogether. Giving Italy all the territory it did was a huge mistake in that they got free reign to outright f-ck with South Tirolean Germans and western Slavs such as the Slovenes and Croats which they did.  It quietly created a monster not only in Italy, but Japan as well.  With all the scientific talent and industrial power Germany had, how could one not know they'd fight back?  The national boundaries drawn were also screwed up beyond belief.  Eastern Europe should have been broken up even moreso.  "Yugoslavia" was also a disaster waiting to happen as well.  Britain at least kinda did the right thing with Ireland. 

That said I'm a fan of jointly controlled "free states" in questionable ethnically mixed areas such as Northern Ireland, the Trieste/Istrian peninsula area, and of course Bosnia.  Of course,  most of Ireland should be Ireland and South Tyrol should have been kept with Austria. 

[Magic 8-Ball]

certainly not for the United States

Agreed.  Didn't Germany and the UK want to give up and go home by late 1916?

[Hash]

A german victory would have been catastrophic for democracy and freedom in Europe.

I'm hardly a fan, but the Kaiserreich was hardly the Third Reich.

And the Allies didn't have a right to use to 'democracy and freedom' argument when you had the Russian Empire, China, Greece and maybe even Romania, Serbia, Montenegro.

[GMantis]

That said I'm a fan of jointly controlled "free states" in questionable ethnically mixed areas such as Northern Ireland, the Trieste/Istrian peninsula area, and of course Bosnia.  Of course,  most of Ireland should be Ireland and South Tyrol should have been kept with Austria. 

South Tyrol was mostly Italian and Italy lost 600 thousand fighting for the allies. They couldn't send them away empty handed after that. Italians actually thought they were given too little territory. Of course this is incorrect, but not giving them at least the Italian part of South Tyrol would be an even greater injustice.
And Croats and Slovenes are South Slavic, not West Slavic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_languages

[GMantis]

Really, the problem with Versailles was that it was neither too harsh, so that Germany wouldn't be able to start another war, nor was it lenient enough so that revanchism wouldn't arise in Germany. And above all, no one was willing to enforce it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

A german victory would have been catastrophic for democracy and freedom in Europe.

I'm hardly a fan, but the Kaiserreich was hardly the Third Reich.

And the Allies didn't have a right to use to 'democracy and freedom' argument when you had the Russian Empire, China, Greece and maybe even Romania, Serbia, Montenegro.

Yes, but what would the Europe look like if Germany had won ? France, England reduced to a minor place, and an omnipotent german dictature.
At least the Versailles treaty gave a free state to Polish, Czech, Finnish, Southern slaves. Even Russian supremacy in east was finally smaller after WW1. The fall of the three empires was a good thing for freedom.

[Hash]

A german victory would have been catastrophic for democracy and freedom in Europe.

I'm hardly a fan, but the Kaiserreich was hardly the Third Reich.

And the Allies didn't have a right to use to 'democracy and freedom' argument when you had the Russian Empire, China, Greece and maybe even Romania, Serbia, Montenegro.

Yes, but what would the Europe look like if Germany had won ? France, England reduced to a minor place, and an omnipotent german dictature.
At least the Versailles treaty gave a free state to Polish, Czech, Finnish, Southern slaves. Even Russian supremacy in east was finally smaller after WW1. The fall of the three empires was a good thing for freedom.

Obviously a German victory is a bad thing for the Allies, just as an Allied victory was an atrocious thing for Germany. Such is the point of war. I don't remember you complaining about Weimar Germany being reduced to a minor place, with an omnipotent Allied hegemony over Europe.

Austria-Hungary wouldn't have survived, and would obviously have broken up into various states. Germany would have set up various client states into the Baltic and Poland.

Before I'm accused of being a German imperialist and Wilhelmine fan, I would probably have supported the Allies even though this was a useless butchery of a war. But saying that Europe would have been a disaster and a black hole had the Germans won is reminiscent of Allied propaganda.

As for the little "freedom" fluff, I fail to see how the USSR, Yugoslavia, and shortly thereafter fascist Italy and Poland (as well as the Baltic states and Hungary which became dictatorships) were good things for 'freedom'.

[Antonio the Sixth]

A german victory would have been catastrophic for democracy and freedom in Europe.

I'm hardly a fan, but the Kaiserreich was hardly the Third Reich.

And the Allies didn't have a right to use to 'democracy and freedom' argument when you had the Russian Empire, China, Greece and maybe even Romania, Serbia, Montenegro.

Yes, but what would the Europe look like if Germany had won ? France, England reduced to a minor place, and an omnipotent german dictature.
At least the Versailles treaty gave a free state to Polish, Czech, Finnish, Southern slaves. Even Russian supremacy in east was finally smaller after WW1. The fall of the three empires was a good thing for freedom.

Obviously a German victory is a bad thing for the Allies, just as an Allied victory was an atrocious thing for Germany. Such is the point of war. I don't remember you complaining about Weimar Germany being reduced to a minor place, with an omnipotent Allied hegemony over Europe.

Austria-Hungary wouldn't have survived, and would obviously have broken up into various states. Germany would have set up various client states into the Baltic and Poland.

Before I'm accused of being a German imperialist and Wilhelmine fan, I would probably have supported the Allies even though this was a useless butchery of a war. But saying that Europe would have been a disaster and a black hole had the Germans won is reminiscent of Allied propaganda.

As for the little "freedom" fluff, I fail to see how the USSR, Yugoslavia, and shortly thereafter fascist Italy and Poland (as well as the Baltic states and Hungary which became dictatorships) were good things for 'freedom'.

I never said you were "pro-german". Please don't accuse me to be anti-german. I think Versailles treaty was totally unfair with germany and a victory without the determination of french to "make the germans pay" would have been far better. But in any case I prefer an Europa dominated by two democracies rather than a german hyper-empire.

[J. J.]

I regard US entry into the war in 1917 as necessary, and quite unfortunate.  The 1914 war was clearly unecessary.

I think it need not have started, but freedom of the Atlantic was necessary, so I would say that America's 1917 entry was necessary.

Yes, the 1914 war could have been avoided, and no, it was not based on the whims of any royal.  At best, the only point where honor question seriously can up was with the British, and well below the level of George V.  The harshest criticism came from Ramsey McDonald, who was widely condemned for saying it (and became PM a decade later).

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I regard US entry into the war in 1917 as necessary, and quite unfortunate.  The 1914 war was clearly unecessary.

I think it need not have started, but freedom of the Atlantic was necessary, so I would say that America's 1917 entry was necessary.

How was freedom of the Atlantic necessary while freedom of the North Sea was not necessary?  If you want to justify America's entry into the war on the basis of violations of international law that impinged the rights of neutrals, Britain's mining of the North Sea predated Germany's use of unconventional submarine warfare.

[TeePee4Prez]

That said I'm a fan of jointly controlled "free states" in questionable ethnically mixed areas such as Northern Ireland, the Trieste/Istrian peninsula area, and of course Bosnia.  Of course,  most of Ireland should be Ireland and South Tyrol should have been kept with Austria. 

South Tyrol was mostly Italian and Italy lost 600 thousand fighting for the allies. They couldn't send them away empty handed after that. Italians actually thought they were given too little territory. Of course this is incorrect, but not giving them at least the Italian part of South Tyrol would be an even greater injustice.
And Croats and Slovenes are South Slavic, not West Slavic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_languages

I would have given Italy the Italian portion of South Tyrol.  I guess I'm more nationalistic.  What the Italians did post WWI to it's minorities was terrible. 

[pogo stick]

It was a useless war, of course it escalated to a point where American intervention was necessary. But it could've and should've been stopped. I mean millions of people died for no reason, but paranoia.

Btw ,I did support America getting into WW1 though , because England and France would've gotten clobbered without us. Same goes for my comrade Lenin in Russia

I support Militarism and Nationalism (Especially Zionism and American Patriotism)  but seriously europe was run be friggin retards back then.

[SPC]

A german victory would have been catastrophic for democracy and freedom in Europe.

Yeah, if the Germans had won, authoritarian dictators like Lenin, Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler might have come to power.

[Mechaman]

Hell no. It was a case of old world royalty throwing another bitchfest at each other, except much worse. And we should've stayed the hell out of it.

What caused Hitler's rise to power? Well I took Holocaust Studies my senior year in high school and the teacher seemed to give most credit (different from blame) to the Treaty of Versailles.

Personally I think it was the Wilson foreign policy. Now the average history textbook will tell you the US was neutral and stayed out of the war until the Germans decided to be douchebags and start attacking our ships.
While they do tell a little bit about how the US was acting during 1914-1917, they de-emphasize it a lot so it sounds like we really had no choice but to go to war.
The truth is the US was favoring Great Britain quite a bit during the war with Germany. The truth is the US, the supposed neutral power, was supplying Britain alot more than Germany. The truth is Britain had enacted a blockade on Germany that left many of it's citizens starving to death and Germany stepped up submarine warfare only as a desperate measure of survival. The German government posted warnings in US newspapers warning that sea travel aboard Allied vessels during war time put them at risk. The US government made very unfair demands on Germany in regards to submarine warfare (subs can only attack in self defense, etc.) while saying nothing about how Great Britain's blockade was starving hundreds of thousands of German citizens to death. The US was not neutral in this war, the US was playing favorites with Great Britain. Wilson's pro-British administration went out of it's way to agitate Germany and make war with them inevitable. We had no reason for being in that war.
If we were truly a neutral power we would've minded our own damn business. If we were a truly neutral power we would've showed no favortism in a time of war. We had nothing to gain or lose from this war, nothing.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the Allies would've still won without our help and the punishment may've been even more severe than IRL, but somehow I doubt it. Now Germany might've done the same thing to the Great Britain or France, and some Hitler like character would arise and go ape on Europe. Those are all possibilities. But I think we had a big part in making Hitler's rise to power more possible than it probably would've been otherwise. Sometimes, the truth just really sucks.......

Oh and Britain mined the North Sea, funny how we didn't mind going through mine infested waters over the possibility of getting torpedoed for being douchebags on neutrality.

[minionofmidas]

Please don't call the Trentino "South Tirol".

[GMantis]

Please don't call the Trentino "South Tirol".

Technically, it's a correct as the entire region was part of Tyrol before WWI.

[minionofmidas]

Please don't call the Trentino "South Tirol".

Technically, it's a correct as the entire region was part of Tyrol before WWI.

Yes... for a hundred years... but South Tirol is a pretty welldefined term and is the part of Tirol proper south of the Brenner. Ie not the princebishopric of Trento.

For instance the treaty of 1915 (between Italy and the Entente) refers to "the Trentino and Cisalpine Tyrol".

[SPC]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't Germany and Austria the two European nations most friendly towards Jews prior to WWI?

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

Please don't call the Trentino "South Tirol".

Technically, it's a correct as the entire region was part of Tyrol before WWI.

Yes... for a hundred years... but South Tirol is a pretty welldefined term and is the part of Tirol proper south of the Brenner. Ie not the princebishopric of Trento.

For instance the treaty of 1915 (between Italy and the Entente) refers to "the Trentino and Cisalpine Tyrol".

Do you call it Bozen or Bolzano? Most of my relatives always called in Bozen when I talked to them.

[minionofmidas]

Please don't call the Trentino "South Tirol".

Technically, it's a correct as the entire region was part of Tyrol before WWI.

Yes... for a hundred years... but South Tirol is a pretty welldefined term and is the part of Tirol proper south of the Brenner. Ie not the princebishopric of Trento.

For instance the treaty of 1915 (between Italy and the Entente) refers to "the Trentino and Cisalpine Tyrol".

Do you call it Bozen or Bolzano? Most of my relatives always called in Bozen when I talked to them.

I guess I'd use Bolzano when speaking English. Certainly not when speaking German though, that'd be pretty silly. I tend to use the Polish or Czech names when speaking of a place in formerly German speaking territory (when speaking about the place as it is now, that is) but that's something else. South Tirol is a German speaking region after all, and one where German is used in local administration.

[Storebought]

The only way the US -- read President Wilson -- would have remained neutral until the war exhausted itself (as it would have, because of the Spanish flu epidemic) was if the Russian empire remained a combatant throughout. This in spite of the occupation of Belgium, the poison gas, the submarine attacks, minefields in the Atlantic, ethnic pogroms, trench warfare, etc. The Zimmermann telegram was just a pretext.

[SPC]

The only way the US -- read President Wilson -- would have remained neutral until the war exhausted itself (as it would have, because of the Spanish flu epidemic) was if the Russian empire remained a combatant throughout. This in spite of the occupation of Belgium, the poison gas, the submarine attacks, minefields in the Atlantic, ethnic pogroms, trench warfare, etc. The Zimmermann telegram was just a pretext.

The United States entered the war before the Russians surrendered, though. Do you mean that he would have entered the war of the Russian Provisional Government hadn't come to power in February 1917?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Actually, the abdication of the Czar eased the way for Wilson to have the United States enter the combat instead of merely being the Allied arsenal as they had been since 1915.  It allowed the Allied propagandists to paint the war as democracies vs. monarchies rather than as it really was.