Countries that had the most and least to gain from WWI

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,471
Sydney
#11
in spite of Wilson advocacy ,the US senate refused to join the League of Nations to avoid being dragged in complications
the rise of Hitler was totally unpredictable until the great depression
it gave him back the popular support he had largely lost by the late 20ies
the US had been very kind to Germany , helping them financially with large loans and the Dawes plan , then the Young plan
this helped Germany pay only a very small fraction of its war debts
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,701
SoCal
#12
There was strong opposition to joining World War II even two years into it, and even when they did join it was mostly because of a) the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, something entirely unrelated to Nazi Germany, and b) Roosevelt's persistence and enormous popularity. There was definitely no guarantee the US would enter WWII, as much as Churchill desperately wanted that to happen. There was enough backlash against joining WWI as it was.
All of this is accurate, but it doesn't really undercut what I said here. Maybe I shouldn't have used the phrase "have to fight" here, but my point was that without US entry into WWI, there would probably not have been a WWII--thus ensuring that Americans won't die in another Great War.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
18,701
SoCal
#13
Well, let me mention Portugal: As a result of WWI the country gains were minimal, from the 36 German and Austrian ships on Portuguese ports in 1916, after UK’s request, Portugal merely maintained half of them (talking here by memory), the other were delivered to the allies. And this was the act that led Germany to declare war to Portugal, even if in Africa the war was already going on.

One of the main Portuguese objectives was the legitimacy of the Republic, implemented in 1910, and badly seen by the main major powers (France excluded), and that was partially accomplished. Furthermore at the end of the war the Germans were finally expelled from a tiny part of Mozambique that they had occupied in the previous century.

The losses and the economic burden were significant for the Portuguese weak economy. The ships that were sunk were superior to the ones take. There were no new colonial acquisitions, but at least the shadow of the Anglo-German agreement was gone (it would also be gone with a neutrality). There was hunger in the country and something between 10000 and 20000 dead and missing in the war.

Basically Portugal was on the loosing side of the war. That surely influenced the countries approach on WWII.
Was Portugal unpopular among the European monarchies before WWI due to it being a republic?
 
Likes: joaocm
May 2019
75
Earth
#14
If you want to consider it a country (technically it was divided into different French protectorates at the time), then I would say Vietnam didn't have much to gain from participation in WW1. Plenty of troops sent to Europe to fight and die for France, but no real benefit to the Vietnamese people themselves, other than to stir up some revolutionary sentiment. I think the only Vietnamese who really profited from their participation in WW1 was a minority of entrepreneurs supplying goods to the French military. Most of the common folk don't seem to have received much for their trouble, and were subjected to some French war taxes and anti-revolutionary crackdowns during the war.
 
Likes: Futurist
Feb 2019
599
Serbia
#15
I think WWI was more trouble than it was worth for Serbia. We lost roughly 30% of our population and for what? To butcher the peace treaty and create Yugoslavia. We got Vojvodina, yes but was it really worth the blood? I think not, still something is better than nothing...

In my opinion Yugoslavia was a mistake from the beginning, pretty much from day 1 there were tensions and disagreements, in the 1920s this came to a realisation after the assassination of Stjepan Radić, the leader of the Croatian party, after this there was a parliamentary crisis and the King, instead of letting the Croats go, created the new ''Yugoslav'' identity and reorganised the country which only paved way for further conflict.

Yugoslavia was an experiment that went on for long after it failed, the Croats made it quite clear that they did not want to be in a union, in many ways it was a forced state built upon a forced identity that couldn't last. We also lost Macedonia, half of Bosnia, Montenegro and Baranje because of this. In my eyes we might've won the war but we certainly lost the peace by pursuing something that was not workable and not letting go of it when it was apparent that it couldn't last. Serbia could've had so much more, but because of the imprudent actions of the Prince Regent and a few politicians we ultimately lost most of our potential gains almost immediately in my opinion.
 
Sep 2016
1,114
Georgia
#18
Not really. Americans are probably even better than British in that regard. I don't know any other country in history, that managed to attain the status of Superpower in such efficient manner.
Only in 130 years after Civil War, USA became the most powerful country on the planet.

Obviously, there were also different factors at play.