Was Americas entry into WW I Justified?

[TheBigGuy]

I think is a much less cut & dried question compared to asking whether or not it was justified to enter World War II. World War I was more quesitonable.

[JohnKleeb]

1. I said other I dont know much on it

The U-boat attacks I understand could be why, I dont know really much about the war.

[TheBigGuy]

3. I think we should have avoided trading w. Britian

It was almost deliberate provocation to sail into waters where we where warned we would have been attacked.

[JohnKleeb]

6. thats a good point too but the Luistania

but Ive heard reports that the Luistania had some weapons or the like on it.

[TheBigGuy]

8. the Lusitania did have weapons on board

This was proven, I think, by a diving expedition to the wreck back in the 1960s or 70s.

This was a good example of the dirty tricks the Brits and the US pulled. I think this is as much a war crime on the part of the USA and British govts (using civilian ocean liners to carry war materiel in a war zone) as it was on the part of the Germans.

It was a win-win for the Wilson admin.and the Brits...if the ship got through, then they had a way of supplying Britain, if the ship was sunk then it could be used to rally public opinion in the USA to go to war.

[waggawagga]

9. Nope

The question of weapons on the Lusitania remains unresolved. What the dive settled was the fact that such munitions didn't contribute to the sinking of the ship (there was no damage which would have been consistent with this).

[BiggJawn]

13. Small-Arms ammo, .308 cartridges.

And that was allowed by intenational law at the time. The issue of wheteher there was anything larger on board will proabaly never be resolved. The bill of lading was incorrect, as was the custom at the time ("write up some stuff to just get clear of customs and we'll make up a proper bill when we unload her on the other side")and the Ballard expidition was unable to turn up evidence of damage consistent with a larger quantity of munitions going off.

Bob's theory is that the torpedo raised a cloud of coal dust in the near-empty foward bunker and set it off.

The wreck is in such poor condition that it will probably never be entered by robots or humans. It doesn't lie that deep.

I have read some tinfoil-hat stuff that states that Churchill hung the Lusitainia out to dry and "LIHOP" with the hope that public opinion in the US would turn against Germany and that we would back Britain and come in on their side.

He guessed right. We were neutral to the point that Gernmany's "Merchant" U-Boat, the Deutschland, was able to make 2 trips to the US before it was converted to a war boat.

And Prescott Bush's daddy got as rich as a Sultan off the whole mess. He was selling arms to Germany before and AFTER the US entered the fray. (who's that sound like?)

[TheBigGuy]

2. I voted NO.

There was no reason to take sides or involve ourselves in that war.

[Blue_Chill]

4. I'm not sure about this

but didn't we even have a non official debate about what side to enter the war on?

[David Zephyr]

5. No.

And those that dissented were murdered, placed in prison and deported.

Eleven Million dead.

However, the siren call of nationalism did have the great medicinal cure against the rise of labor and socialism at that time.

Oh, and I almost forgot, great war profiteering took place. Perhaps that "justified it", huh?

[alphafemale]

7. And WWI (The War to End All Wars) -caused WWII -

(The War to Start All Wars)

[DODI]

16. No, US not Joining League of Nations created WWII

If we had joined the LON, we could have and would have pressured France to stop asking Germany for huge sums of cash. Germany simply printed more and more money causing its devaluation and finally the collapse of the German middle class. When you lose your middle class -- all bets are off and anything can happen

[On the Road]

10. To The Extent That Germany Was the Aggressor

and the US prevented hegemony by the Central Powers, it was the right decision to enter the war. I voted Yes for that reason.

Having said that, almost all of Wilson's specific decisions associated with the war were wrong. The limitation of civil rights and the whipping up of false patriotism. The military alliance with the White Russians and the expeditionary force to fight Lenin. Allowing France and Germany to set punitive conditions on Germany and the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. All were wrong and had bad long-term results. WWI was like a fountain of evil that spilled over the Western world, and we're still feeling the consequences.

[wuushew]

15. How was Germany the aggressor?

Assassination of Archduke Ferdinand 28th June, 1914
Austra-Hungary demands that Serbia arrest the leaders of the Black Hand 23rd July, 1914
Serbia appeals to Russia for help 24th July, 1914
Serbia refuses to hand over leaders of the Black Hand group 25th July, 1914
Austria-Hungary declares war on Serbia 28th July, 1914
Germany declares war on Russia 1st August, 1914
Germany declares war on France 3rd August, 1914
Moltke orders the Schlieffen Plan to proceed 4th August, 1914
German troops enter Belgium 4th August, 1914
Great Britain declares war on Germany

[JackDragna]

34. You're missing a few things.

Demanding that the Serbs hand over members of the Black Hand was, at the time, seen as a violation of national sovereignty. The Germans were spoiling for a fight and this was their way of doing it. They were the aggressors.

[mlawson]

43. Austria demanded that.

Did the Kaiser insist on this as well????

[TheBigGuy]

28. oddly enough Germany was more of a democracy than Britain.

The Germans had universal male sufferage, while the UK still had property qualifications for voting.

Now that I find ironic.

[JohnKleeb]

29. very interesting

Plus during the war what they did in Ireland like I forget the name of it, oh yeah the Easter Risings. I think if anyone is to blame for WWI its the Austrian-Hungrians not the Germans. The Germans unfortunely were blamed for most of the war. One could blame the Serbs but I dont, the Serbian government Ive been told accepted all but one of the Austrian-Hungarians empire's demands and the empire in turn invaded. Keep in WWI isnt my skill, now WWII I can talk to you about. Yes I see what you mean, Wilson claimed we got in to preserve democracy btw I think the Kaiser was later disowned by the Nazis right.

[durutti]

11. The Council on Foreign Relations Met with Wilson

And advised him (on behalf of America's rich) to enter the war and get the U.S. its proper share of the spoils.

So the U.S., as someone else noted, engaged in a deliberately provocative policy of sending ships carrying arms into areas where they would be attacked.

Germany and its allies were no threat to the United States.

[Dirk39]

12. Could those of you, who voted "no" could please go into detail...

would be really interesting for me. What was the reason for the USA to join WW1, the official and the not so official reasons. One thing I remember is that the USA were very german-friendly and changed their position from one day to the next during WW1.
Or at least, lead me to some good books about this...
Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[BiggJawn]

14. Churchill, Lusitainia, LIHOP...

The "Lusitaiania" was Churchill's Reichstag and WTC rolled into one.
Germany published notices in the shipping notice pages warning against sailing to the UK, and the Brits kept saying "pefectly safe, old tops, these U-Boats are vastly over-rated..."

There had been ships sunk before, but the PR campaign ("AVENGE THEM!")against Germany afterwards really went over the top.

Like Iraq, there was really no reason to get involved. The Kaiser posed no threat to the US.

[DODI]

18. I wouldn't quite put it that way.

The Lusitania went down in May, 1915. We entered WWI in April 1917 and it was over November 11, 1918. We hardly went rushing into war over that ship. Churchill was not that high up in government back then, he was an assistant secretary or something or other. In a nutshell we entered the war because Europe was a mess -- the fighting just went on and on and on. We had to tip the scales one way or another. Did we do it for money? Yes, it was hurting our trade -- but had we not entered it only would have gotten worse. France fell so quickly in 1940 for a very simple reason -- they had no one left to fight. They had been bled white -- no young men to defend her. Barbara Tuchman(sp) wrote a great book about WWI, "The Guns of August". It is a good read. Also, the Zimmerman Telegram had an impact as to the Kaiser posing a threat. German Secretary of State authorized the German minister in Mexico to tell the Mexican president that if they joined with Germany, German would give them back New Mexico, Texas and Arizona. The people of the U.S. saw this as a great thread (we did not get along with Mexico back then) and we went to war shortly after this information came out.

[BiggJawn]

35. Churchill was First Sea Lord.

Pretty high up in the Admiralty, IMO.

I had forgotten the "Zimmerman Telegram", you're right, we didn't care for Mexico then, still smarting over Pancho Villa...

Britain wanted us in the war, and they wanted us in on their side, not Germany's. it could have gone either way for a time.

[Yupster]

39. Thank you Dodi

was wondering how long I'd have to get down the thread before someone even mentioned the Zimmerman Note.

[TreasonousBastard]

17. Sorry, don't have any books...

or good articles offhand, but my understanding (subject to revision, of course) is that the war was largely a result of German saber-rattling.

The Kaiser decided that he was better at running things than Bismarck, and had him fired. Turns out the Kaiser wasn't so good at it at all, and Bismarck's studied and careful machinations became genuine threats and caused European instablility under the Kaiser.

War was pretty much inevitable, thanks to a lot of mistakes.

The US was under a fair amount of pressure to enter the war, but we couldn't decide why we would want to, or which side we would be on. Remember, the Brits had been our enemy in three wars by then. (Don't forget that they sided with the Confederacy) The pressure came largely from industrialists and arms manufacturers, who saw a killing to be made. A stake in the heart of the Monroe Doctrine didn't seem to bother anyone.

So, we enter the war after the Lusitania, which will always be shrouded in mystery and conspiracy theories, and we put enough pressure on the Germans to make them capitulate in short order. Then comes the Treaty of Versailles, calls for the heads of the Traitors of Versailles, masses of starving Europeans, the Depression, and Hitler taking advantage of all of it.

WW1 was horrendous, and the trench warfare was possibly the worst the world had seen. Even worse than our Civil War. The casualties of that war were unheard of before then-- 25% of the French males between ages 18 and 45 were killed, and the blister gas made vast farm fields unusable. And many gas survivors were permanently deranged and disabled.

Our entry into the war came late, and we saw little action and suffered few casualties. The Germans basically gave up. It has been argued, and seems to be the prevailing view, that the war had just about spent itself, and both sides were looking for a way out. Had we brokered an armistice, instead of taking a side, the German surrender wouldn't have been as total as it was, and it is probable that Germany would have been in better shape, and Hitler would not have had a chance.

It could have been the war to end all wars if the steel companies weren't so greedy.

[CHIMO]

19. By Whom?

.

[Dirk39]

20. Is it true...

that Germany offered peace to GB and to restore everything as it was before the war started and then the USA started to entry into the war?
Dirk

[depakid]

21. The Zimmerman telegram sealed the deal-

While the persistant German attacks on Western Eupopean shipping lanes agitated international relations with Germany, it's important to remember that during the 1916 elections, Wilson ran on a platform of "He Kept Us Out of War," mostly because he knew that even with the sinking of the Lusitania (along with many other vessels carrying American passengers) he simply didn't have the political capital to overtly do much more than watch and wait.... and acquiesce in behind the scenes measures aimed at supplying Britain and France.

Wilson's Secretary of State (one William Jennings Bryan of silver slippers and gold crusifiction fame) saw right through what was happening and quietly- ever so quietly, resigned- and stayed quiet. He saw the build up, the prejudices and everything that many of us saw building up to the Iraq war. Still, Wilson maintained...

In the very early months of 1917, after Wilson was reelected, there was still nagging opposition to entanglement in Europe's imperial and internecine war(s). Both from Progressives like LaFollette on one side and from right wing Isolationists like William Borah on the other. Borah, of course "won" the battle in the end (what a tragedy) effectively killing the League of Nations- and enabling his faction(s) to set in motion the events leading up to the Great Depression & World War II.

But that's another story.

On January 16, 1917, British intelligence intercepted and decoded a telegram from the German government- bound for Mexico. In it, the Germans' puportedly promised to restore the captured Mexican territories of Texas, New Mexico and Arizona in return for Mexico's support of Germany's war effort via an attack on US southern borders and through Mexican diplomatic efforts to persuade the Japanese to enter the war on the Pacific front.

Now, as absurd as that sounds today, it's important to interpret historical documents in context. In 1914, American warships had just intensely shelled and American Marines had just occupied Veracruz, Mexico- for various reasons that could probably be told better by most Mexican schoolkids. We also had our premier General- "Blackjack" Pershing, keystone copping it in 1916- complete with biplanes, chasing Panco Villa all over Durango & Chihuahua because he and his revolutionaries dared to stage a raid into a little border town called (of all things) Columbus.

It seems silly (to some) now, but the Zimmerman Telegram, on top of everything else, was kind of like Wilson's Pearl Harbor or PNAC's LIHOP. At least, that's my opinion. I don't know one way or another. I just try to read a lot and listen.

At any rate, Wikipedia (gotta love open source) has this little bit on the Zimmerman Telegram

[mlawson]

44. I wonder, why would Germany have wanted the US in the war???

You might think that would have been the last thing they would have wanted.

[MrPrax]

46. I guess it would be tinfoil hat...

speculation to suggest some regard the zimmerman telegram as an artful forgery?

Just curious if you heard about this line of thought...
I mean it WAS intercepted by the British and their mastery on such matters is legendary.

[redeye]

22. Nope

WW1 was the result of crass nationalism and governments caring only about themselves. The USA shouldn't've had to have any part in this bloodbath.

[knight_of_the_star]

23. Zimmerman Telegraph+German U-Boats

It was not the Telegraph that pushed us in all the way, but it brought us close. I personally think we were justified simply because Wilson flat out told the German Kaiser that if he conducted any unrestrained submarine warfare against merchant ships of all nations, there would be hell to pay. The Kaiser first honored his pledge to not do so, but then based on what his advisors told him let the u-boats loose and flatly gave Wilson the finger so to speak. We were openly provoked, so that is why I believe we were justified in entering the war. Now if you want to get picky about the aftermath, we can blame that on the GOP...

[Gore1FL]

25. The funny thing is the Zimmerman telgram was fake

and created by the British to get us in the war.

The lusatania was a target, but was transporting weapons and
Germany stated repeatedly that it would sink the ship if it could.

[depakid]

33. Incorrect

despite cries of forgery throughout the pro-German press, Zimmerman himself admitted that he had written, and sent the telegram.

[depakid]

24. *

=

[fabius]

26. I voted yes...

Ok my grandfather fought in the "great war" (full disclosure).

Unfortunately Kaiser-style (German Imperial) militarism was only a little less attractive than Nazism. They were aiming at domination of the Continent, although all the great powers blundered into this one by just rank stupidity. The ungovernable Balkans and the rotten Austro-Hungarian Empire started it off. The totalitarian states (Austria, Russia, and Germany) really got the ball rolling while France and Britain were forced to respond because they know Germany's mobilization plan offered no alternative but to attack immediately in the West. Also they were guarantors of Belgium's neutrality.

All the great empires (Roman, French, British, German, Russian, US) have had periods of rising militarism and aggression that must be firmly checked before they can settle down and become civilized. Germans took from 1866 to 1945 to have the stuffing knocked out of this impulse. Maybe it just took two World Wars to do it, not sure if there was any other way. Of course the punitive Versailles Treaty was a terrible idea.

I think Wilson in WWI saw the US as playing the "balance of power" role that earlier went to Britain in Europe. Clearly a Europe dominated by Imperial Germany and Bolshevik Russia was not a great deal for us.

Germans in 1918 almost knocked the British out of the war with fresh troops from the Eastern Front. It was close.

Good books, Guns of August by Tuchman and August 1914 by Solzhenitsyn. Excellent, both of 'em in fact. I've also got an old 4-volume set of "History of the Great War" written in 1919.

I can never see us leaving Britain in the lurch IMHO.

[Paranoid_Portlander]

27. Hitler might have been killed in the trenches.

If the USA had not entered the war, the war would have taken a different turn, of course. Hitler already had at least one very close brush with death in the trenches, so it would have taken very little for history to take an alternate path. I have often wondered what the world would be like if Germany had won WW1. In that case, if Hitler had survived, I think he would have faded into obscurity.

[teknomanzer]

30. Maybe he would have...

become a graphic designer for a dull German magazine.

[JohnKleeb]

31. or Germany's most famous 20th century artist

[Kellanved]

42. hardly

He was Austrian to start with and lacked talent. There were real artists with lots of promise destroyed by the Nazis.

You should watch the movie "Schtonk" (AFAIR there is a subbed version) -it describes the real story of a man faking Hitler-pictures and the diaries.

[Yupster]

40. I just read a funny short story

where WWI ends in a friendly draw and Hitler becomes an anti-smoking activist. Pretty funny.

It's called "Southern Strategy," and can be found in a book of alternative history short stories called Alternative Generals, volume II I believe.

[RichM]

32. Like most US wars, it was based on lies & self-interest. Wall St had big

loans extended to the British, especially JP Morgan. If the Brits had lost, these loans would have been endangered. The possibility of significant financial "instability" was feared.

The Brits & Americans cooked up lies EXACTLY like the famous 1990 "Iraqi soldiers threw infants out of their hospital incubators" lie. These lies described the "Huns" as savagely bayonetting babies in Belgium, etc. Pure invention -- as long has been the standard for Anglo-American imperialists. The Brits' lying was with the aim of stirring up US opinion, to get them into the war on the British side. Then the Americans joined the lying party, with the Creel Committee on Public Information -- a massive government effort to persuade Americans to support the war effort.

In June 1917, Congress passed the Espionage Act. Despite its name, it had nothing to do with spying. It simply let our government, always so dedicated to freedom, jail anyone who said anything against the war in public. That's how Eugene Debs got thrown in jail in 1919, along with about 900 other people. (The Act is still on the books.)

Historian Richard Hofstadter wrote that Wilson's excuses for the war (centered on shipping issues) were "rationalization of the flimsiest sort." Wilson "was forced to find legal reasons for policies that were based not upon law but upon the balance of power & economic necessitities."

[Deja Q]

36. "The war to end all wars"

Sounded great in 1917.

History has shown humanity hasn't learned a damn thing. Much like the usage of oil.

[lancemurdoch]

37. If you read old Nation articles

If you read articles from the Nation from that period, they were dead set against the war. The perspective of the left of that day was that it was a bad idea - it was a bad idea for the US to get involved, and the European left felt it was a bad idea.

An interesting side note is there was the Easter Rising in Dublin in 1916, with James Connolly and the Citizen Army playing a large role (this led to the Irish Free State eventually), there was of course a revolution in Russia - and then a second October revolution in Russia. There were also worker and soldier uprisings in Germany at the end of WWI, something that Hitler wrote about bitterly in Mein Kampf. And the Hungarian workers had an uprising in 1919, Italy in 1920 and so forth.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. No, on a deep level

it was a family feud among the grandchildren of Queen Victoria (George V, Kaiser Wilhelm, and Tsar Nicholas).

Beginning around 1900, the major nations of Europe got into an arms race. They were literally spoiling for a fight by the time 1914.

World War I was probably the stupidest war of the twentieth century. There were no great principles at stake and there was no mad conqueror of foreign territory to contend with. With the exception of France, it was a bunch of monarchies in a pissing contest.

Because of the egos of the European leaders, millions died in battle, others died of starvation and disease (the great flu epidemic of 1918), and Germany was blamed for starting the war when Austria-Hungary and Russia were at least equally to blame.

The "punishment" meted out to Germany destroyed its economy and paved the way for Hitler.

[ElkHunter]

41. Was listening to rightwing radio one day...

...when I heard that gasbag Michael Medved state that the U.S. was not justified in getting involved in WWI. That about floored me! I certainly wish some flag waver like Medved had been around in 1917 to clue Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer in on the fact that opposition to that war was correct. Geez, during that era people went to jail for mearly stating that the war was wrong. And I agree. If there is a war that fits the definition of an unnecessary "capitalist war", it's WWI. What a waste of some 10 million lives!

[Snow]

45. Someone who knows more history than I, could

part of the US's motivation been the opportunity to invade Russia on the side of the 'white russians' and try to put down the revolution?

[Yupster]

47. Oh Brother

The US entered the First World War in April 1917.

The Bolshevick Revolution was in October 1917 sparking the five year war between the Whie Russian Armies and the red Army.

Unless President Wilson was clairvoyant, he did not bring us into the war to intervene in a war which wouldn't start for another six months.