[T]he WWI treaties .... carved up German territory to the benefit of the Poles, the Czecks, the Russians, Hungary and others;
I think Mr. Powell (if that's the one cited) is way off base here. First, the Russians and Hungarians lost HUGE amounts of territory after the war: the Soviet Union ended up ceding much of what had been the Russian Empire -- in particular Finland and the Baltic states (which became independent); and a good chunk of Belorussia and Ukraine (which became part of Poland after Poland the USSR stopped fighting each other in 1920). The Hungarians likewise were forced to give up territory whose inhabitants were predominantly Hungarian-speaking, such as Transylvania (to Romania) and Voevodina (to Yugoslavia).
Also, during tentative negotiations between Germany and the Wilson administration in 1918, Germany had agreed that a Polish state would (re-)emerge afte conclusion of the war, and would include a corridor to the sea. However, most of what became Poland in 1919 was taken from Austria or Russia.
[Giving the Sudetenland, which had been part of Austria-Hungary and was almost completely German-speaking, to Czechoslovakia WAS a major bonehead move, for which Wilson among others, deserves scorn].
[I]t seems, from Mr. Powell's point of view, that without U.S. intervention in the 11th hour of the war, it simply would have stopped with a stalemate, with no one having gained or lost much territory ....
Mr. Powell is naturally entitled to his opinion. I think he's wrong. Assuming America stayed out of the war, the unlimited submarine warfare waged by Germany would have weakened Britain to the point that it couldn't continue the war. France, for its part, was even experiencing mutinies on the front lines. In the east, the Bolsheviks had sued for peace, which freed up a great deal of troops and resources for Germany to use on the Western front.
IMO, the Germans would have won in the West absent American intervention.
With regard to losses/gains of territory had the US not entered the war, it is worth noting that as early as 1915, Germany was planning to annex Belgium (or at the least, turn it into a satrapy of Germany). More to the point, did Mr. Powell consider the terms imposed by Germany on the Soviet Union via the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk? Namely, the Baltic states, Belorussia and Ukraine were taken by the victorious Germans, some of it outright and others to be turned into "protectorates."
All that proves, I suppose, is that land-grabs by the victorious countries were inevitable after years of bloody warfare. However, it is wrong for Mr. Powell to say that absent US intervention, the war would have ended in stalemate and, territorially at least, a return to the status quo ante August, 1914.
Maybe I should get Powell's book, if only to see whether he even mentions the Zimmermann telegram, in which the German government (in Jan. 1917) offered Mexico, in return for its fighting against the US if the US declared war on Germany, the return of the "lost territories" of Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico upon successful conclusion of the war.
es
Mr. Powell does not advance any opinion that the German's behaved like saints. He does set the record straight that leading up to, during and post-WWI neither were France and England. And the motives and designs of France and England were not without their own imperial ambitions; they were no more seeking to "make the world safe for democracy" than was any other European power.
Before the U.S. entered the war, Germany had already lost the battle for the seas with England and it was having touble getting needed imports, if it was going to continue the war. Although Britain held the seas, it was in no position to mount a continental land war on its own. Germany and France were in a de-facto stalemate; neither one could advance and both just kept sending the recruits in as more cannon fodder - no one was "winning".
Without U.S. intervention, the stalemate on the ground had a chance of becoming an armistice in place and then leading to a peace treaty. Whatever 'arrangements' that would have come out of such a treaty, there would have been no great winners or losers, and the treaty itself would not have been the result of some great military victory.
Germany would not have been already prostrated leading into the depression. Many of the national psychological and economic factors that Hitler relied on would either not have existed or would not have been as severe. Instead of twenty years of national humiliation, the Weimar Republic would have been in a better position in the 30s and 40s to negotiate the end of Europe's continental imperialisms with a France and England it had chosen to make peace with.
Before judging where you think Mr. Powell is wrong, read his book; his research, his display of historical context and his historical perspective are all greater than yours or mine.