re: History nerds: should the United States have entered the First World War?

Germany was more in the wrong than the rest of the European powers. From a coldly self-interest point of view, the US would have been better off to not lean toward the Allies (aid, shipping, credit), and then by mid-1917 the Allies would have had to sue for peace. The war would have ended inside French territory, but not at Paris. Britain would have not lost colonies or most importantly, not been threatened with invasion. Germany would likely have insisted on a lot of money from the Allies but withdrawn to pre-war borders and simply take Alsace again, and kept its colonies.

Given our choices by 1917 however, once the Zimmerman telegram happened we had no choice. You can't tolerate a foreign power you are basically lined up against, trying to recruit other countries to go to war with you. Public opinion had had it.

To respond to some other comments: the Lusitania was carrying military arms to England. The ship's own manifest showed it. People were mad about the loss of American life, but emotions aside, even at the time it was a legal target and most people admitted that.

The US absolutely changed the outcome, even if we seemed slow to get over there because we didn't have much infrastructure. Our money made the difference before our troops got there.

The British were terrified of losing because by early 1917 they were about to. They were losing nearly a million tons of shipping a month to U-boats, a fact they kept secret from their public. At one point they had only 6 weeks of grain reserves. The chancellor of the exchequer warned the Cabinet that they were about 60 days from defaulting on government debt. They would have had to seek terms from Germany by the middle or fall of 1917. In 1917, the French troops mutinied, refusing to go over the top for more assaults with their loss of life. They struck a deal where they would only act defensively. German intelligence heard this but could not believe it . . . had Germany attacked hard on French lines before the Americans got there in strength they probably could have broken through. Even so, they got within 75 miles of Paris by spring 1917 and were shelling the outskirts. Had America not entered, the war would have ended, on terms the Germans would have dictated.

quote:

---

True, but the Treaty of Versailles and its pummeling of Germany was the tipping point. The war decimated Germany’s economy and the treaty’s harsh sanctions were arguably equally devastating. Enter Hitler.

---

to me this is the best argument for why, from cold self-interest, the US would have been better off not siding with the Allies from 1915-1917, forcing them to settle their own war.

If you read up about Versailles, you feel like the US really got used. We came in and decided the outcome. But at the peace conference, Clemenceau showed no gratitude for that. Instead he undermined Wilson at every turn, and used every opportunity to make the peace terms as punitive toward Germany as he could. He acted like France had personally won it all, instead of cowering at the crucial moment. Wilson was desparate for everyone to sign off on his utopian "League of Nations" idea, and the Allies in general exploited that. Sometimes, Wilson would get Clemenceau to agree to several terms, and then a few days later Clemenceau would act like the discussion never happened, forcing Wilson to start all over again.

Wilson was naive and got played at that conference. The result of Versailles did indeed set the stage for WW2.

WW2 was still Germany's fault. And they were much more at fault than they were for WW1. But you can thank Versailles for setting the stage.

quote:

---

Wilson was naive and got played at that conference.

---

Wilson top 3 worst President. frick him and the Fed.

Hindsight is 20/20 for everything. Understanding how nations and therir leaders thought and acted 115 years ago help you put this in perpective. Alliances were very important in those days and even more so in the 1800s. Of course the US did not gain much from WW1, but it did sharpen our steel in preparation for WW2.

Bismarck had been dead for years by the outbreak of WWI.

We paint Wilhelm as something of a tyrant mainly because we won the war. But, prior to the shooting it was Wilhelm trying to leverage family connections to avoid war....even after Franz Ferdinand. He was after all Queen Victoria's grandson and a 3rd cousin to the Tsar. He could be a prickly personality. He did not want to be involved in a fight with the British. Despite everything he had dealt with personally, George was still his first cousin and he did have great affection for his English cousins.

But the great drivers in Germany and Russia were the military elite by and large and in Germany, the Prussian aristocracy largely drove events that Wilhelm had to follow. He also was not very astute at reading the room or the neighborhood. He thought he would never have to honor the blank check to the Austrians, but then the Austrians attack the Serbs which triggered the Russians to mobilize. I'm always torn about making Wilhelm out to be some great villain. He could be an arse given to a lot of aggrandizement but he really did not want war. His General Staff and key politicians .....not so much.

quote:

---

Yes, Lusitania ring a bell?

---

I'll take this moment to plug the author Eric Larson. Has a ton of great books, but in this case he has one on the Lusitania called "Dead Wake."

The attack on Gallipoli was a foolish enterprise not well thought out by the Admiralty.

Really, after the summer of 1916 the question of who was going to win was a fore gone conclusion because of the Jutland. On paper it was something of a draw. But the reality was that the British could still keep a stranglehold on German shipping and the US was not in a position to challenge that fact. As a result the Germans were slowly starved and cut off thus the rise of Lenin, indirectly. The Germans had to find a way to limit the war to just one front. The German general staff concluded that Russia was the weak link. So they convinced Lenin to involve himself and his Communists moving him through Scandinavia and then Finland with German money.

On a similar note:
Should the US have dropped everything and allied itself with Russia in 1915 or 1916, joined forces with Tsar Nicholas II, and work to completely squash the Bolshevik(Communist) revolution?

Let them clean house of Lenin and his people, then they could go back to the business of fighting WWI and let the Russians help end it, rather than us.

quote:

---

We paint Wilhelm as something of a tyrant mainly because we won the war. But, prior to the shooting it was Wilhelm trying to leverage family connections to avoid war....even after Franz Ferdinand. He was after all Queen Victoria's grandson and a 3rd cousin to the Tsar. He could be a prickly personality. He did not want to be involved in a fight with the British. Despite everything he had dealt with personally, George was still his first cousin and he did have great affection for his English cousins.

But the great drivers in Germany and Russia were the military elite by and large and in Germany, the Prussian aristocracy largely drove events that Wilhelm had to follow. He also was not very astute at reading the room or the neighborhood. He thought he would never have to honor the blank check to the Austrians, but then the Austrians attack the Serbs which triggered the Russians to mobilize. I'm always torn about making Wilhelm out to be some great villain. He could be an arse given to a lot of aggrandizement but he really did not want war. His General Staff and key politicians .....not so much.

---

this is a really good post

you can always tell who is actually well read on this topic by their ability to understand and explain the many complex nuances surrounding the Kaiser

quote:

---

Given our choices by 1917 however, once the Zimmerman telegram happened we had no choice. You can't tolerate a foreign power you are basically lined up against, trying to recruit other countries to go to war with you. Public opinion had had it.

---

Let's circle back to the Zimmermann Telegram and review the facts - this message from Imperial Germany to Mexico was a diplomatic message that floated this proposal: IF THE USA Declares War on Imperial Germany, then Imperial German proposes some kind of alliance with Mexico against the USA.

It's important to firmly grasp the fact that this is an "If/Then" logical progression. IF the USA takes action by FIRST Declaring War on Imperial German THEN German proposes alliance with Mexico. Nothing happens to USA and Imperial German diplomatic relations UNLESS the USA Declares War on Germany.

Now, I know that the Wartime Propaganda whipped the American public into a tribal frenzy clamoring for war because of this Telegram, and I know that the American public at the time was made to believe that the Telegram was a threat by Germany to invade the USA with Mexico's help. I know that was the Wartime Propaganda Message and this message worked very well, it was very effective.

But this is the year 2026! Do we really need to continue to accept the 1917 Allied Wartime Propaganda message at face value? Can't we look at the message in the Telegram with a bit more objectivity and a bit less 1917 War Fever?

The message is rather tame. The Telegram is a mere proposal for an Alliance with Mexico in case the USA Declares War on Germany.

Hardly a Cause for War, IMHO.

I tell my Neighbor X - "If Neighbor Y attacks me first, I propose that you and I gang up on Neighbor Y to fight him."

Then Neighbor Y gets wind of this and uses this as the a main reason for attacking me? Because I'm using diplomacy to forge defensive alliances in light of the circumstances?

The Zimmerman Telegram as a Just Cause for Declaration of War against Imperial Germany is really not a very strong justification, IMHO, and certainly not as strong as mainstream World War One history would have us believe.

Just my humble opinion.

I don't agree that the USA had "no choice" but to Declare War on Imperial Germany, once the world discovered the diplomatic messaging from Germany to Mexico. That conclusion IMHO simply amplifies the 1917 Allied Wartime Propaganda Messaging and I think History must move past that, if we are to comprehensively understand History.