World War I Reconsidered

World War I Reconsidered: Given Europe's entangling alliances, which developed prior to World War I (Triple Entente vs. Triple Alliance), the isolationist position from a U.S. foreign policy viewpoint was probably more peace-worthy (in the long run) than the interventionist one. If the United States had remained neutral, the prospects of a stalemate would have significantly increased. Under those circumstances, Germany could have potentially negotiated a peace treaty with the Triple Entente to take control of the fledgling Austro-Hungarian Empire, and thus, stabilize Central Europe in the process. In fact, prior to the war, Germany was seeking new colonial/foreign markets for its modernizing economy. And if Germany had the opportunity to secure viable economic markets, albeit through a negotiated stalemate (and a collapsing Austro-Hungary), World War II might never have occurred two decades later. Also, a deep examination of U.S. justifications for entering the war, especially the argument that German U-boats were severely disrupting international commerce, will ultimately push one to become skeptical of President Wilson's war aims, i.e., to make the world safe for democracy by fighting a war?