The anonymous author assumes that the British and French would have won the war without the US, not a good assumption. Germany defeated Russia decisively, put their ally Lenin in power, and could transfer their army to France. Unrestricted submarine warfare could have easily starved Britain out of the war.
The US had to choose between entering the war or allowing a probable German victory. Did the US make the correct choice? We will never know, because we will never know what would have happened otherwise.
I agree, not a good assumption at all. After Verdun, the French army was teetering on the edge of mutiny. The British were not in much better shape after the bloodletting of the Somme. And Passchendaele literally dragged the Canadians down into the mud and blood.
Our entry was a bit late but from a psychological viewpoint it must have been a blow to German hopes on the Western Front. True, they were also approaching exhaustion, but they had kicked the Russians' butts and perhaps could have transferred armies to the west. All of that is not to diminish the sacrifice of the French and British, who had endured three years of horrible war. With American troops committed, the Germans may have sensed their advantage in knocking Russia out of the war was considerably blunted.
So, who knows? Armchair historians a century after the fact have a lot of leeway in pushing their viewpoints.
A German victory in WW I would have been incomparably better than the actual outcome.
WW II, not so much.
So our choices were, all the hundred million plus who died as a result of the history we have now, with a European Union effectively dominated by Germany.
Or Germany winning World War I, none of the subsequent hundred plus million dead, and a Europe effectively dominated by Germany.
It could have hardly turned out worse than it did had the Germans won WWI.
If the US was so hung up about the Zimmerman Note, we should have simply occupied Mexico....Problem solved, and with a lot less bloodshed.