LOL, sure. Just like they left the Lusitania alone and socialist Wilson left it unavenged for three years.
The Kaiser’s regime was state socialism, as instituted by Bismarck. You’re very defensive of that regime . . . and on a thread about someone who has shown an affinity for its descendant regimes . . .
Was the Kaiser’s Germany any less State Socialist than France or Britain.
And did the Kaiser’s Germany commit the atrocities in Africa that the Belgians did?
There were no saints in Europe, and we were wrong to get into the fight.
We never should have allowed our ships to go to England while they had their crippling Naval Blockade on Germany. A “True” Neutral would have told Britain, that we would not risk our shipping unless they stopped their naval blockade of Germany. But we were never really “neutral” were we?
World War I was, by any measure, a total disaster. It achieved nothing except to kill a generation of European men, give birth to Marxism, plant the seeds of the Great Depression and then Nazism, and create existentialist, post-modern culture which is causing the suicide of the West we are now witnessing up close ourselves.
European powers had been regularly warring for centuries to achieve their balance of power. UK vs. France, France vs. Germany, UK vs. Russia, Austro-Hungary vs. Russia. There was no end to their folly, and all the USA did was become a player in that game.
Some argue that without the USA, who was hardly neutral before (and was in full-blown Progressive mindset under Wilson) the two sides would have made a truce in 1917. Maybe yes, maybe no. The end result was simply a transfer global military and financial power to the USA, so sure Americans think it was worthwhile - but at a great cost.