Was the US entry into WWI a mistake?

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Was the US entry into WWI a mistake?

#61

Post by Sid Guttridge » 12 Oct 2014, 17:13

Hi Paulri,

I was surprised when I saw the middle-aged author's picture at the end of the article. I thought from its simplistic text that it had been written by a first year university student, or some such!

I would suggest that it was not the USA's entry into WWI that was the mistake, but its manner of leaving it.

For a very cheap price (by the standards of European belligerents) the USA had asserted itself as the major player in the world more by the threat of its troops' arrival than their performance. So far, so good.

However, the USA's openness to a compromise peace helped lead to a premature armistice that left the likes of Adolf Hitler wriggle room to contend that Germany had never been defeated, and it then failed to join the international institution it had done so much to set up to seal the peace and resolve residual international disputes peacefully - the League of Nations.

So, to repeat, I would suggest that it was not the USA's entry into WWI that was the mistake, but its manner of leaving it.

Cheers,

Sid.

favedave
Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 10 Aug 2011, 17:55

Re: Was the US entry into WWI a mistake?

#62

Post by favedave » 14 Oct 2014, 00:53

I agree that Wilson's post war actions were poor. He also set in motion the conversion of Ho Chi Minh from western admirer to Soviet proxy during the Paris Peace talks in 1919. Ho came to Wilson begging for his assistance in convincing the French to let Indochina go its own way. Wilson refused to even consider it. I fear Wilson's racism was the cause of his own abandonment of the ideals of national self determination expressed in his Fourteen Points.

The most fascinating part of studying WWI is its precipitation of every international situation we are still ineffectively dealing with today.


pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: Was the US entry into WWI a mistake?

#63

Post by pugsville » 14 Oct 2014, 08:50

Wilson acted in pretty high handed manner and made no attempt to build a cross party agreement in US politics. He could have more inclusive and reached out.

User avatar
jluetjen
Member
Posts: 376
Joined: 10 May 2007, 22:23
Location: Westford, MA USA

Re: Was the US entry into WWI a mistake?

#64

Post by jluetjen » 01 Nov 2014, 01:19

Just to circle back for a moment to Rob Stuart's 2nd post on this thread...
"But the US could not sit on its hands in the face of the German U-boat offensive which would either sink a lot of US ships or force the US to assist in the German blockade by forbidding its ships from sailing to Europe."

I've found it helpful sometimes to change the parties in statements like this and see if it still makes sense. Since for most of the war the US was neutral -- is this statement accurate, and is it cause for the US to enter the war?

"But the US could not sit on its hands in the face of the British surface ship offensive which would either sink a lot of US ships or force the US to assist in the British blockade by forbidding its ships from sailing to Europe."

The fact of the matter is that the US did sit on it's hands as the British blockaded Germany, in spite of Germans making up the largest immigrant group in the US at that time. The only exceptions to this blockade were the voyages of the cargo sub Deutschland. I suspect that it wasn't so much of a plot on the part of the Americans as the fact that they could continue to trade with the UK and France without having to deal with being waved off by German surface ships.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: Was the US entry into WWI a mistake?

#65

Post by Terry Duncan » 01 Nov 2014, 03:19

jluetjen wrote:The fact of the matter is that the US did sit on it's hands as the British blockaded Germany, in spite of Germans making up the largest immigrant group in the US at that time.
The major difference is that the British blockade was within the rules of war, although only just, and was not killing US citizens and sinking US ships. Maybe if some US merchants had refused to be boarded and inspected in port and tried running the blockade to get to Germany, then the British may have used force in such a way, but the fact is that this did not happen. The U-boats were sinking ships contrary to the rules, however understandable that might be, and were killing US citizens.

With regards to the German sections of society being the largest immigrant group, that figure is only after those of British extraction of course that make up the bulk of the population - themselves being immigrants, as by WWI the original inhabitants of the continent constituted a small percentage of the population. There were large sections of the US population with roots in Germany, but there were more with roots in Britain if you go back to the colonization of the US, and many families had both British and German roots by marriages, but the US had far more in common with Britain politically than it did with Wilhelmine Germany, and that was critical.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15584
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: Was the US entry into WWI a mistake?

#66

Post by ljadw » 01 Nov 2014, 13:25

favedave wrote:I agree that Wilson's post war actions were poor. He also set in motion the conversion of Ho Chi Minh from western admirer to Soviet proxy during the Paris Peace talks in 1919. Ho came to Wilson begging for his assistance in convincing the French to let Indochina go its own way. Wilson refused to even consider it. I fear Wilson's racism was the cause of his own abandonment of the ideals of national self determination expressed in his Fourteen Points.

The most fascinating part of studying WWI is its precipitation of every international situation we are still ineffectively dealing with today.

From " "Succeeding John Bull" P 72:"On the British side, the years 18-21 were seem as those in which traditional British diplomatic methods and goals were abandoned under American pressure( including the alliance with Japan) only for Britain to be left trying to work an American inspired system from which America had pusillanimously withdrawn . "

OTOH,the withdrawal of the US was inevitable,because the US were a non-European power,and it would be naive to assume that they wuld continue to intervene in European affairs .

Other point is that this withdrawal was not that nefast as has been claimed: the US were separated from Europe by a lot of water= by a lot of time,and,even if they were willing to intervene (which they weren't),it would years before an American army could fight on the continent .

The conclusion is that,as before 1914,Britain and France were on their own after WWI,with the difference that they were weaken and had no more the military,economic,political and moral strength from 1914 .

glenn239
Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 29 Apr 2005, 02:20
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Was the US entry into WWI a mistake?

#67

Post by glenn239 » 01 Nov 2014, 15:19

So, to repeat, I would suggest that it was not the USA's entry into WWI that was the mistake, but its manner of leaving it.
This implies that there was no gulf in principles between Imperial France and Britain and the democratic USA. But there was, and these differences could only be papered over as long as the mutual task of defeating Germany continued.

There was no way for the US to enter the war without the inevitable rift leaving it.

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: Was the US entry into WWI a mistake?

#68

Post by Rob Stuart » 01 Nov 2014, 15:36

... the withdrawal of the US was inevitable, because the US were a non-European power, and it would be naive to assume that they wuld continue to intervene in European affairs.
The League was a world body, not a European one, and it had lots of non-European members, including Canada, Argentina, Australia, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Persia/Iran, Peru, Siam, South Africa, Uruguay, Venezuela, Ethiopia, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Iraq, Afghanistan and Ecuador. Did these countries join the League because they wanted to intervene in European affairs? No, of course they didn't. It was the US which was naïve, thinking that it could remain isolated from the rest of the world by not joining the League.

Rob Stuart
Member
Posts: 1200
Joined: 18 Apr 2009, 01:41
Location: Ottawa

Re: Was the US entry into WWI a mistake?

#69

Post by Rob Stuart » 01 Nov 2014, 16:07

glenn239 wrote:
So, to repeat, I would suggest that it was not the USA's entry into WWI that was the mistake, but its manner of leaving it.
This implies that there was no gulf in principles between Imperial France and Britain and the democratic USA. But there was, and these differences could only be papered over as long as the mutual task of defeating Germany continued.

There was no way for the US to enter the war without the inevitable rift leaving it.
"Imperial France and Britain and the democratic USA"? All three countries were democracies and all three had colonies. Or are you forgetting about the Philippines? No one speaks of "The American Empire", but there was one.

It's true that the US would certainly not remain an ally (or "Associated Power", to use Wilson's term) after the war, but it was not inevitable that there would be a "rift" significant enough to preclude US membership in the League. US participation in the League would in fact have helped the US to avoid becoming involved in war, since the League's first aim was to stop aggressors from starting wars. Yes, the League was ineffective in this regard, but that might not have been so much the case if the US had joined it. The US decision not to join the League can only be characterized as short sighted.

User avatar
jluetjen
Member
Posts: 376
Joined: 10 May 2007, 22:23
Location: Westford, MA USA

Re: Was the US entry into WWI a mistake?

#70

Post by jluetjen » 01 Nov 2014, 17:40

With regards to the German sections of society being the largest immigrant group, that figure is only after those of British extraction of course that make up the bulk of the population - themselves being immigrants, as by WWI the original inhabitants of the continent constituted a small percentage of the population. There were large sections of the US population with roots in Germany, but there were more with roots in Britain if you go back to the colonization of the US, and many families had both British and German roots by marriages, but the US had far more in common with Britain politically than it did with Wilhelmine Germany, and that was critical.
The source of that little factoid was a National Geographic article from ~1910. I think that you're conflating immigrant group with ethnic group. Yes, The English, Irish and others (including some Germans) had been in the US since before the Revolution. But by 1914 they were pretty much fully assimilated. But as of ~1910, the largest immigrant group (as in people who have moved to the US within that lifetime) was German. These people naturally still associated closely with "the Fatherland", spoke German to each other, opened ethnic restaurants (and beer gardens), and stayed in touch with their family members back in Germany (much like immigrants groups do today). Never the less, they did consider themselves Americans.

Wilson, the British and to a lesser degree the French managed popular perception such that America was soon providing considerable support to the British and French, and none to the Germans or Austrians in spite of this immigrant demographic. Getting the US "on-side" was I believe the biggest success of the British in WWI. Everything else fell-out from that. If the British diplomats had been as inept at the German Diplomatic corp, and the Germans had been as effective as the British, I think that WWI (and the resulting history) would have been considerably different.

LineDoggie
Member
Posts: 1275
Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06

Re: Was the US entry into WWI a mistake?

#71

Post by LineDoggie » 01 Nov 2014, 23:49

favedave wrote:I agree that Wilson's post war actions were poor. He also set in motion the conversion of Ho Chi Minh from western admirer to Soviet proxy during the Paris Peace talks in 1919. Ho came to Wilson begging for his assistance in convincing the French to let Indochina go its own way. Wilson refused to even consider it. I fear Wilson's racism was the cause of his own abandonment of the ideals of national self determination expressed in his Fourteen Points.

The most fascinating part of studying WWI is its precipitation of every international situation we are still ineffectively dealing with today.
Woodrow Wilson for those who don't know was a raving racist.
Besides his admiration for the KKK
He personally re segregated the US civil Service which had been desegregated in 1865
He told Black leaders segregation was a beneficial thing and if they didn't like it to vote for someone else.
As college president he discouraged any Black from entering his college

That he would have little concern for Minorities of France isnt surprising
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach

Graeme Sydney
Member
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
Location: Australia

Re: Was the US entry into WWI a mistake?

#72

Post by Graeme Sydney » 06 Nov 2014, 02:53

favedave wrote: The most fascinating part of studying WWI is its precipitation of every international situation we are still ineffectively dealing with today.
:)

That wouldn't because waging war is an emotional response and waging peace requires rational behaviour. :roll:

favedave
Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 10 Aug 2011, 17:55

Re: Was the US entry into WWI a mistake?

#73

Post by favedave » 09 Nov 2014, 07:54

waging war is an emotional response and waging peace requires rational behaviour
Graeme, I believe that's the point Barbara Tuchman was making in March Of Folly.

User avatar
jluetjen
Member
Posts: 376
Joined: 10 May 2007, 22:23
Location: Westford, MA USA

Re: Was the US entry into WWI a mistake?

#74

Post by jluetjen » 12 Nov 2014, 01:42

favedave wrote: ... because waging war is an emotional response and waging peace requires rational behaviour. :roll:
While that may make a good bumper sticker, I'm not sure that it really captures the reality of the world. To chose some examples...

- Was it irrational or merely an emotional reaction for the Poland to go to war against the Germans and Russians in September 1939?
- Was it irrational or merely an emotional reaction for the US to go to war against the Japanese in WWII?
- Was it irrational or merely an emotional reaction for the United States to go to war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in 2001?

Given the standards of the time, I'm not sure that I could fault Austria for invading Serbia after the Crown Prince was killed.

Personally I tend more towards accepting the Clausewitz observation that "war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means. What remains peculiar to war is simply the peculiar nature of its means. "

I might accept that war is irrational because politics is irrational.

Graeme Sydney
Member
Posts: 877
Joined: 17 Jul 2005, 16:19
Location: Australia

Re: Was the US entry into WWI a mistake?

#75

Post by Graeme Sydney » 12 Nov 2014, 08:19

Firstly, irrational and emotional are not opposites but rather rational and emotional are different mental processes; ie an emotional response or a rational response. Irrational is faulty rational thought.
jluetjen wrote:- Was it irrational or merely an emotional reaction for the Poland to go to war against the Germans and Russians in September 1939?
The Polish response was neither. Poland didn't initiate the war and had very little else it could have done. I would argue Germany's initiation of the war was more emotional than rational - Germany was never going to achieve its War Aims by military actions alone.
jluetjen wrote: - Was it irrational or merely an emotional reaction for the US to go to war against the Japanese in WWII?
Again America's response was neither. America didn't initiate the war and had very little else it could have done.
jluetjen wrote: - Was it irrational or merely an emotional reaction for the United States to go to war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in 2001?
The War Against Terror was not a conventional war with a conventional DofW with a Conventional nation state. The response with conventional forces was not the most a rational or wise response. Indeed the actual response was most mainly the Wounded Bull emotion.
jluetjen wrote:I might accept that war is irrational because politics is irrational
Politics is the Art of the Possible - so it is a bit of both.

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”