And it meant that there was a precedence for taking up arms for equality and freedom...for a war that would, "make the world safe for democracy," as President Woodrow Wilson put it in 1917 when he requested a declaration of war on the German Empire.
What was the German Empire doing to threaten equality, freedom, and democracy that France and England and the US weren't also doing? The argument that the US entered because it declared itself to be in favor of those ideals is quite a stretch.
Wilson in his speech asking for American involvement in the war cited the injustice of submarine warfare more than anything, so I agree this point at least seems to fall flat.
German submarine warfare upset the US because they sank some US shipping at considerable loss of life, rather than because of any inherent moral flaw. Had they steered clear of civilian shipping (trickier than it sounds because some military ships disguised themselves as merchant marine vessels) or at least avoided sinking anything that was likely to belong to the US, things might have turned out very differently.
Moral arguments in political speeches should not be taken at face value, since their inclusion is for emotional arousal rather than reasoned analysis.
Germany invaded the neutral country of Belgium and killed about 60,000 civilians in Belgium, looted and burned cultural artifacts, and conscripted laborers. That in combination with unrestricted submarine warfare really did mean German conduct in the war was far crueler then the Allies.
You don't think the Entente killed civlians, looted, or conscripted laborers from occupied territories? (Even if we ignore the broader context of how they treated their colonies!)
Also, while Germany was carrying out unrestricted submarine warfare, the Royal Navy was busy - literally starving - Germany, with its unrestricted naval blockade. Their justification was that soldiers eat bread - therefore, bread has a military purpose, and can be blockaded.
"That in combination with unrestricted submarine warfare really did mean German conduct in the war was far crueler then the Allies."
Both Britain and Germany tried to prevent the US from shipping arms and supplies to the other country, via whatever tools they had available. The US either chose to not even try to ship supplies to Germany, or if they did, since British naval power was in the form of ships,so they could turn away US merchant-ships without blowing them up. But with US shipping supplies to Britain, the only tool Germany had available was the submarine warfare, which is a much blunter tool.
From the perspective of an American citizen, I think that the 'unrestricted submarine warfare' pretext was bogus. The US should not have shipped supplies to either side, and then there would have been no submarine warfare against US ships.
Follow the money. The financial aspect of the war was interesting in itself, if you can bear finance as an intellectual subject at all. [1] I haven't studied this very deeply but of course the Morgans are involved. Modern wars (starting from around the 18th century) all involve a financial angle and though I feel that certain bankers were criticized for racist reasons, the assistance of bankers in providing and retiring war debt is important. I think it would be likely that my studies would end up supporting the idea that the American side was hoping to fund or supply that which could be conveniently funded or supplied without actually fighting.
German conduct in the war was far crueler then the Allies
Even if we grant that the German Empire was more cruel in waging war, which I am by no means prepared to do, the war did not take place in a vacuum. If the purpose of America entering the war was to make the world safe for equality, freedom, and democracy, then the conduct of the belligerents outside of the war is totally fair game. To that point, I'm sure I don't have to remind you how Great Britain had been treating its colonies for hundreds of years.
Both of the things you mentioned, were things that Germany was forced into doing, as a matter of survival.
For example, Germany had no intentions of conquering Belgium. They simply wanted to travel through Belgium in order to reach France, and put an end to the war early on. This was something they were necessarily required to do, because they were sandwiched between both France and Russia, and hence, couldn't afford to fight a prolonged war. Germany offered Belgium neutrality and immunity as long as they were allowed to pass unimpeded through their highways, but Belgium instead refused and actively tried to kill the German soldiers passing through. Hence why Germany then had to wage war against Belgium.
For more nuance on this topic, check out Dan Carlin's very detailed podcast on WW1.
Are you serious? Invading a neutral country, burning the the entire village of Louvain, executing 6,000 civilians in reprisal strikes were all things Germany was forced into doing? Belgium actively tried to German soldiers because they were being invaded! That's a reasonable response to being invaded! I have no idea how you can write something like this.
There is definately a legitamate argument that WW1/2 were essentially the West using the lessons they learned from colonialism on each other. This is pretty explicit in WW2 with Hitler's plan to ethnically cleanse and colonize Eastern Europe. At the same time, the horrible atrocities Belgium committed in the Congo don't make the murder of civilians any more inexcusable.
> Both of the things you mentioned, were things that Germany was forced into doing, as a matter of survival.
Germany wasn't forced into anything. They still had the option of not starting the war at all.
> ... but Belgium instead refused and actively tried to kill the German soldiers passing through. Hence why Germany then had to wage war against Belgium.
"Passing through"? They were invading. (Yeah, they were intending on just passing through, but they were still invading to do so.) Belgium was actively trying to kill German troops? Yeah, that's the way it goes when you march your army into another country without their permission. This is why Germany then had to wage war against Belgium? Putting troops across the border was already an act of war against Belgium.
Given that Germany insisted on starting the war by invading France, these were things that Germany was "forced" to do in order to have the best chance to win. But not invading France was actually an option.
"France entered World War I because Russia and Germany were going to war, and France honored its treaty obligations to Russia.[58]"
Not that Germany wanted to wage war against Russia either. Germany declared war against Russia because they declared war against Austria which had declared war against the Serbs who had assassinated their archduke.
"The event that was widely acknowledged to have sparked the outbreak of World War I occurred on June 28, 1914, when Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was shot to death with his wife by the Bosnian Serb nationalist Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo. Over the weeks that followed, Austria-Hungary blamed the Serbian government for the attack, hoping to use the incident as justification for settling the problem of Slavic nationalism in the tumultuous Balkans region once and for all. However, as Russia supported Serbia, an Austria-Hungary declaration of war was delayed until its leaders received assurances from German leader Kaiser Wilhelm II that Germany would support their cause in the event of a Russian intervention. ... Russia declared its intention to back Serbia in the case of such a conflict, Austria-Hungary went ahead with its war declaration against Serbia on July 28, one month after the assassinations."
"Germany warned Russia, still only partially mobilized, that to continue to full mobilization against Austria-Hungary would mean war with Germany. While insisting that Russia immediately halt mobilization, Germany began its own mobilization; when the Russians refused the German demands, Germany declared war on the czarist empire on August 1."
I don't mean to imply that Germany or any country is blame-free, but WW1 doesn't feature any clear cut good-vs-evil simplification the way WW2 does.
If I'm going to blame anybody, I'll blame Austro-Hungary for deliberately designing their ultimatum to be unacceptable to Serbia. Why did they do that? Because they wanted war with Serbia.
So Germany had to honor their agreement with Austro-Hungary, and therefore had to violate Belgium's borders? If they had displayed as much honor and integrity toward Belgium as they did toward Austro-Hungary, that would have been a good thing. It's not "behaving honorably" when you only do it toward some.
So Germany had the choice: Fulfill treaty obligations toward Austro-Hungary, or observe Belgian neutrality, or do both and be at greater risk of losing the war. Arguably, they chose what worked out to be the worst (at least, the most destructive) of the three options.
In hindsight, yes, every German from that era would have made different choices. However, at that time, it was hard to anticipate the extent to which other countries would involve themselves. The Germans of that time probably anticipated that at least one/some of the following would have occurred:
a) Serbia would give in to Austria's demands
b) Russia would not fully mobilize and commit itself so fully to war with Austria
c) In the event of war with Russia/France, Belgium would grant Germany right of passage, and remain neutral in the war
d) The UK would remain neutral in the war
e) USA would remain neutral in the war
Each of the above was a coin-toss in terms of likelihood, and if any of the above came up in Germany's favor, a long drawn out war would have been averted. Unfortunately for Germany, every one of those diplomatic outcomes went against them. Could Germany have made better decisions, with the benefit of hindsight? Of course. But I think it's unfair to portray them as evil villains, the way the Nazis rightfully are.
Austria didn't declare war against Serbs (the ethnic group), but it declared war and invaded Serbia (the country in which only a part of the ethnic group lived). Moreover, Gavrilo Princip wasn't even a citizen of Serbia but the citizen of Austria-Hungary, and the assassination wasn't sponsored by Serbia either.
An interesting data is that the invading Austrian army consisted in large part of ethnic Serbs from Bosnia that were serving in Austrian army.
Yes, Gavrilo Princip was a Serbian by ethnicity, like almost half of the population of Bosnia at the time, a then recently annexed province that was previously occupied by Ottoman Empire (Turkey). In fact, there probably was few ethnic Austrians in Bosnia, since Austria-Hungary was an Empire that simply treated Bosnia and many other similar regions as colonies. So, Gavrilo Princip was a member of an underground indigenous movement who was fighting the colonial power. It is debatable whether it is terrorism or not (one side's villains are the other side's heroes), but it is a historical fact that Serbia (the country) didn't instruct him, nor helped him, nor the assassination was in Serbia's interest. Simply put, the Austria was eyeing to invade Serbia for a long time before that, and used the assassination as a pretext for invasion that was going to happen sooner or later no matter what. Serbia accepted many outrageous Austrian demands, but Austria still invaded...
The recent PBS series "The Great War" goes into considerable detail about the forces that influenced America into siding with England and France. Well worth watching.
If the US really was working from a 'rights of man' angle that the article suggests, it would have invaded Belgium a couple of decades earlier for what it was doing in the Congo.
The whole 'world cop' angle is such a fabricated myth; the US never goes to war on principle, only for its own benefit, like any other country.
What was the German Empire doing to threaten equality, freedom, and democracy that France and England and the US weren't also doing? The argument that the US entered because it declared itself to be in favor of those ideals is quite a stretch.