Was American intervention in WW1 Justified?

[Faeelin]

I'm doing a paper justifying American intervention in WW1, and my main points will be attacks upon american shipping, the german incitement of mexico against the USA (which was a lot more than the zimmerman telegram), and the threat a german hegemony in europe would pose to a threat to America and American interests.

The person the report is for feels that the last item is not a worthy justification, because the Germans would be "an ocean away". As such, the arguement goes, one nation's dominance in Europe would have no effect on American security issues and economic interests abroad.

So which one of us is right? I freely admit it's not the most important point, but I think to say that it wasn't advantageous for the USA to stop that from happening is absurd.

 

[unmerged(6964)]

You are absolutely, 100% right.

 

[w_mullender]

I dont see the in what way Germany could be a threat to the US. It might give some problems in South America, but military an attack on US would be impossible.

 

[Johnny Canuck]

German hegemony in Europe would have posed a direct threat to American interests in the Western Hemisphere. America's primary concern at this time was the Caribbean. Germany had been attempting to make some inroads in the region before the war, and it is certainly no stretch of the imagination to presume that a victorious Germany would have demanded some of the British & French colonies in the areas as naval bases. Such bases would have been a direct threat to American military and economic hegemony in the region. While a military attack on the US by Germany may not have been all that likely, the simple presence of a large portion of the German navy, at a time when the Germans would have appeared to have been the rising world power, would likely have persuaded many of those small Latin American states that their interests & trade would best be served by allying with the Germans, not the Americans. That, from an American standpoint, would have been disasterous.

 

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by w_mullender
I dont see the in what way Germany could be a threat to the US. It might give some problems in South America, but military an attack on US would be impossible.

Doesn't need to attack america. Look at the proxy wars during the cold war. Imagine the Kaiser dominating the mideast via the protectorate over the Ottoman Empire, and the Berlin-Baghdad rail.

 

[unmerged(6964)]

Exactly. Look, the bottom line is that in the 20th century the USA has played the role Britain undertook in the 17th-19th (well, and 20th too a bit) centuries. Very sensible. Feel free to use that analogy.


Plus there was that fact that America was owed an awful lot of money which they probably wouldn't get back if France and Britain lost.

 

[unmerged(234)]

Originally posted by Top Cat
Exactly. Look, the bottom line is that in the 20th century the USA has played the role Britain undertook in the 17th-19th (well, and 20th too a bit) centuries. Very sensible. Feel free to use that analogy.

Hmm, the roll Britain undertok in the 17th century where much more likey the US in the 19th century. A up and comming nation with the possibility to challenge the top nations, but mostly with a slight disadvantage. Quiet different from the role Britain took during the 18th century and kept to the US took over in early 20th century.

 

[unmerged(234)]

Originally posted by Faeelin
I'm doing a paper justifying American intervention in WW1, and my main points will be attacks upon american shipping, the german incitement of mexico against the USA (which was a lot more than the zimmerman telegram), and the threat a german hegemony in europe would pose to a threat to America and American interests.

The person the report is for feels that the last item is not a worthy justification, because the Germans would be "an ocean away". As such, the arguement goes, one nation's dominance in Europe would have no effect on American security issues and economic interests abroad.

So which one of us is right? I freely admit it's not the most important point, but I think to say that it wasn't advantageous for the USA to stop that from happening is absurd.

You are right. Althoug the assumption that Germany may have won more than a marginal victory may be flawed, a clear german victory and the following german domination of Europe (and the european colonies) would have been very bad for the US, but possible not a direct threat.
.

 

[w_mullender]

Originally posted by Top Cat
Exactly. Look, the bottom line is that in the 20th century the USA has played the role Britain undertook in the 17th-19th (well, and 20th too a bit) centuries. Very sensible. Feel free to use that analogy.


Plus there was that fact that America was owed an awful lot of money which they probably wouldn't get back if France and Britain lost.

Agree with your last point, but not the first. You make the assumption that it was in US interest to play the role they have played last century. However most americans were isolationist at that time, which was later shown by the return to this policy. So the answer to the original question depends entirely on how you view american interest. And Germany wouldnt have been as big as some might think: Austria, Russia and Britain would still be very much alive.

 

[Faeelin]

Re: Re: Was American intervention in WW1 Justified?

Originally posted by Janbalk
Although the assumption that Germany may have won more than a marginal victory may be flawed, a clear german victory and the following german domination of Europe (and the european colonies) would have been very bad for the US, but possible not a direct threat.
.

But they already had, in 1917, poland, the ukraine, romania, the baltic provinces, had crushed Italy, and had overrun most of Belgium.

Barring American intervention, the germans get at least in the west status quo plus ante; that is, control of belgium, annexations in France, and reparations.

If we classify no intervention as including no munition sales, then the germans march into paris in 1917.

 

[unmerged(469)]

Read in a biography of Teddy Roosevelt that the confrontation with Germany over Venezuela was actually a pretty big deal, so there is some ammunition for the argument that a victorious Germany would have presented an increased threat in the Western Hemisphere. There were similar face-offs with Germany in the Pacific, over the Phillipines and Samoa, IIRC.

As a side note, I think it's indicative of what a fabulous country this is that we can call one our greatest presidents "Teddy."

 

[stnylan]

Look at all the worry caused in Washington when it looked like Germany might conquer all of Europe in 1940. Same situation, more or less, and occurred within a generation. You can use that as an argument.

 

[unmerged(2934)]

Balance of power?

British attitude towards continental Europe in earlier (18/19th) centuries had the maintenance of a balance of power as one of it planks. It was felt that an overly dominant on the continent would be bad for Britain and its overseas interests.
Can't recall exact theory, but it sounds similar to your third argument. A refined search for "balance of power" may give you some ammo.

 

[w_mullender]

Originally posted by stnylan
Look at all the worry caused in Washington when it looked like Germany might conquer all of Europe in 1940. Same situation, more or less, and occurred within a generation. You can use that as an argument.

The main difference with 1940 is that first of all the Germans first had to conquer and occupy France. Especially the latter is highly unlikely. The most likely outcome of a german victory would be a reversed Versailles, where France/Belgium would have to cede land and pay money. Another difference is is that Italy was still neutral. So imo the entrance can be justified by the hostile acts of Germany (although the US did a lot to provoke them as well), but that the balance of power argument doesnt hold.

 

[stnylan]

Originally posted by w_mullender
The main difference with 1940 is that first of all the Germans first had to conquer and occupy France. Especially the latter is highly unlikely. The most likely outcome of a german victory would be a reversed Versailles, where France/Belgium would have to cede land and pay money. Another difference is is that Italy was still neutral. So imo the entrance can be justified by the hostile acts of Germany (although the US did a lot to provoke them as well), but that the balance of power argument doesnt hold.

Perhaps, but France collapsing had happened in 1870-1.

You're right German victory would have meant Versailles in reverse - but England would not have consented to any concessions from Belgium. It is doubtful whether Britain would accept too many concessions from France. So it would have been a messy situation.

The US though would have to consider the problem of an over-powerful Germany however.

 

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by stnylan
Perhaps, but France collapsing had happened in 1870-1.

You're right German victory would have meant Versailles in reverse - but England would not have consented to any concessions from Belgium. It is doubtful whether Britain would accept too many concessions from France. So it would have been a messy situation.

The US though would have to consider the problem of an over-powerful Germany however.

Disagree. It wouldn't be a Versailles, it would be a Bret-Litvosk. Mitelleuropa would effectively turn Europe into German colonies. The Germans planned to annex the region responsible for 9/10 of French steel production, and by 1917, even the moderate parties wasn't to occupy the French ports as far as boulogne (sp?).

What could Britain have done? Blockaded the whole continent? German hegemony, and hence superpower status, would be ineveitable.

 

[w_mullender]

Exactly, Germany would get powerfull on the continent, but imo no where near to hegemony. The Germany of 1917 was very different (in all fields) with that of 1940.

 

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by w_mullender
Exactly, Germany would get powerfull on the continent, but imo no where near to hegemony. The Germany of 1917 was very different (in all fields) with that of 1940.

German war aims:

"A war indemnity to be paid in installments, it must be high enough to prevent France fomrom spending any considerable sums on armaments in the next 15 years. A commercial treaty which makes France economically dependent upon Germany... this treaty must secure for us financial and industrial freedom of movement in France" .

"We must create a central european economic association through common customs treaties to include France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Austria-Hungary, Poland, and perhaps Italy, Sweden, and Norway. In practice... it must stabilise Germany's economic dominance over Mitteleuropa".

"Holland- An offensive and defensive alliance, and in any cas a close customs association".

Quoted from Niall Ferguson's Virtual History.

So I'd say their aims were very, very similar. The Kaiser was a heck of a lot beter than Hitler, but the goals were the same.

 

[unmerged(2868)]

If the Kaisar had not started the Submarine War again in 1917 Germany would have won the war.

 

[unmerged(4253)]

I think that the US should not have entered WW1. Infact, I go so far as to say the US had justification to declair war on the Allied Powers. The Allies didn't allow American shipping to sell food to central Europe... a blockade was in effect against the US's soverign right to trade with other nations. ( not to mention the result of that blockade starved millions of Central Europeans )Britain and France where too powerful and their imperialism would have died earlier had they lost the war. The Germans were also supplying anti-comunist forces just as the Allies were. The Germans and the Austrians, Ottomans, and the US could have prevented the extremities of the Russian Revolution more effectively then the Allies did. Oh, and don't forget that the Nazis wouldn't spring-up in Germany if the second Reich was still powerful. Sure, France and Italy might turn Fascist, but France would be even weaker than Germany was because it has less industry and population, therefore WWII would be over sooner.

If, however, the US had merely remained neutral, Germany would probably not have won. A stalemate-peace would have allowed for a stable Germany that could resist Nazism, and probably prevented WWII.