What if the US had stayed out of The Great War?

[Malacandra]

@Lust4Life

At the time we thought that we were going to be invaded but the mind set of the time was that we would fight to the death down to our own women and children level.

That reminds me of one of the comic moments in the Dad’s Army movie - where Captain Mainwaring has just given an inspirational speech about resisting the Hun to the last, ending with “We’ll fight to the last bullet - and we’ll save the last bullet for ourselves”. He then asks Sergeant Wilson how much ammunition they do have - and Wilson urbanely replies “One bullet each, sir.” :smack:

[MichaelQReilly]

@Siam Sam

Or if the US had intervened on the side of Germany. Sorry if this was covered in an earlier post – don’t see it – and I’m relying on memory here, but wasn’t there a chance of that at the time? A large number of first- and second-generation German immigrants, plus many recent Irish immigrants who hated the British, made that a possibility, didn’t it? At least in the minds of many at the time.

What you say is true, but the opinion (and pocketbooks) of the people who counted in terms of influencing national policy was tilted far in favor of England.

[Fuji]

@smiling bandit

I am not at all certain that France would do so, in fact, and neither were the French, traty or not. They hadn’t made up their minds at all. Even if they did attack Germany, England had already given Germany word that as long as they didn’t invade France, England would not get involved.

Actually, IIRC Britain was obligated by treaty to protect Belgian neutrality, and it is when German troops crossed the Belgian, not French, border that Britain got involved.

<see “The von Schliefen Plan” and elucidator’s post.>

[Fuji]

@kingpengvin

The Punitive nature of the treaty was to punish the agressor nation and to have it pay for the destruction to the French countryside it cost. It also tried to disarm a beligerent and agressive nation to prevent another conflict.

This belief that Germany was not to blame for WWI was the nonsense fed to the German people to dispute the legitimacy of the Treaty. When the Fischer Thesis was published in the 1960s there was such a violent reaction against the notion that Germany had blame for the First World War in Germany.

Their actions from Unification to 1914 were not that of a peacful nation. At least under Bismarck there was an attempt to keep balance and keep out of the colonial game to keep tensions down in Europe. Once Willie took the reigns that was thrown out the door and Germany belligerently tried to force their way onton the stage.

… It was the lack of enforcement of the Treaty due to the belief that somehow it was unfair that lead to the 2nd World war.

<bolding mine>

Hmmm… I may be misinterpreting your remarks here, but you seem to asserting that Article 231 (the assignation of sole responsibility for the war to Germany) was correct. I cannot abide such an interpretation to pass unchallenged, if that is indeed the case.

From my understanding of events between June 28 and August 1 1914, Russia did as much, if not more, to initiate the Great War than Germany did. It was Russia’s unequivocal support of Serbia, giving them the backbone to resist Austria-Hungary’s ultimatum, that widened a local conflict into a continental one.

This only examines the immediate backdrop to the war. Taking a longer-term view, all the major belligerent powers* on both sides actively used military force to acquire huge swathes of land at gunpoint around the world in the decades before 1914. It could certainly be said that the geopolitical actions of the United Kingdom between 1871 and 1914 were also “not that of a peaceful nation”. It should be kept in mind that the stage onto which “Germany belligerently tried to force their way” in 1914 was one that had been procured by British guns spilling native blood in countless wars and invasions over the previous century or so.

There were no good guys in this fight.
*The exception is the Ottoman Empire, which had been stuck in reverse gear for a couple centuries up to 1914.

[kingpengvin]

You misunderstand I never stated there were good guys and bad guys in this fight, however, to believe there is equal blame for the causes of the First world war is not true.

Yes the British practiced Gunboat diplomacy and exploited many people in its Empire.
But that has nothing to do with Germany’s blame for the agression.

Prior to August there were several occasions where war nearly broke out in the first Decade of the 20th century (Why it finally did because of an Archdukes assasination would be an interesting Discussion) In almost all these cases this was brought on by German actions.

For example the Two Morrocan Crissis which were trumped up by Germany to Split the Etant Cordial. The Second crisis in 1911 Was mitigated by Germany sending the Panther to practice its own version of gunboat diplomacy.

Germany also actively sought to create a Navy large enough to contest the North Sea Fleet. They openly entered a Naval race with Britain. And while this action was within its right, it was an act designed to provoke and threaten.

Their plan was to build one third of the amount of England’s Navy with the ultimate idea that a battle between the two would cripple Englands navy enough that it could not protect its over seas holdings. (See Admiral Tirpitz “risk Theory”)

Germany’s own Schlieffen Plan was designed to take on two powers at once and to march through neutral countries.

By 1914 (prior to August) Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg even had plans drawn up for the annexation of all of Belgium and part of France into Germany.
It was Germany that backed Austria’s move against Serbia, even when Cousin Willie had been warned by cousin Niki (The Kaiser and the Czar) any such act would be considered an act of war by Russia.

The incident in August was used as an excuse by Germany to increase its power. (more later)

[dropzone]

@xtisme

…and letting the Euro’s do what they do best, slaughter each other in job lots…

Yeah, and that has me wondering why they stopped. Used to be you could depend on there always being something going on over there, with the Brits fighting the Germans or the French fighting the Brits or the Italians fighting the Italians, but now? The best they can manage is the Serbs fighting the Croats? Pathetic.

The whole continent has turned into Belgium.

Wusses.

[Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor]

@dropzone

Yeah, and that has me wondering why they stopped. Used to be you could depend on there always being something going on over there, with the Brits fighting the Germans or the French fighting the Brits or the Italians fighting the Italians, but now? The best they can manage is the Serbs fighting the Croats? Pathetic.

The whole continent has turned into Belgium.

Wusses.

Oh, cheer up.

With all the Muslims entering France, it will soon turn into Iraq, & George will invade.

Exciting enough for you? :smack: