You're looking at the issue from the wrong perspective.
You cannot examine US policies from an Entente or Central Powers point of view. Instead, you must examine US policies from a US point of view alone.
The US policies in question were pro-US. Period.
It is true that US policies were more often "in synch" with the desires of the Entente than the desires of the Central Powers, but that's because the economic boom the US was very much enjoying was a direct result of Entente purchases. If purchases by the Central Powers had been fueling the US economy instead, US policies would have been more "in synch" with Central Powers' desires.
This "bias" you continually mention was nothing more than customer service. Your assumptions regarding the issue are also exactly backwards. US policies didn't initiate or form US economic support to the Entente. Instead, Entente economic penetration of the US helped shape US policies.
The "US" as a nation was acting as you say: in their own interests. The administration of Wilson was a different story. When I said the "US" was biased, I was referring the presidential administration, a part of the "US" rather than the whole thing. It seems you misunderstood my reference.
Wilson was only pro-Wilson and his most vocal critics up to the events of March 1917 were those who felt he wasn't doing enough to help the Entente.
Wilson "knew" deep down in his soul that he was the smartest, best educated, wisest, and most noble man in the room when in fact he was a stiff-necked racist prig with barely concealed autocratic tendencies. Until the Zimmerman Telegram turned him into a "holy warrior" hellbent on making the world safe for democracy, Wilson saw the war as a way to make Wilson the most important player on the world's stage and nothing more. He was going to be the one to bring the warring powers to their senses, he was going to be the one to impose a peace which was honorable for all sides, and he was going to be the savior of civilization.
No Wilson was softly pro-Entente. He did not want to involve the US in the war, though he was interested in 'softly' aiding the Entente by looking the other way. He realized the nation was deeply divided on the war and didn't want to cause a major public split by being overtly pro-Entente in national policy, however privately he expressed interest in seeing the Entente win, as they "had justice on their side". I would characterize the man as you have above, however, he wasn't solely out for himself. He wanted what was in the best interest of the US as far as his ideals were concerned, which he felt an Entente victory was part of. Its just that an overt display of pro-Entente policy was politically impossible and he wanted to remain president, as well as not get involved in Imperial European matters, which he despised.
Sure he had his critics that he wasn't going enough to aid the Entente, but he also was criticized for helping them too. He tried to strike a middle road that left the US militarily out of the war, but still support the "right side".
Wilson wasn't pro-Entente, pro-Central Powers, or even particularly pro-US. Wilson was pro-Wilson and nothing more.
Again, I don't entirely agree. I was pro-Wilsonian ideals, one of which was to see the 'just' side win without hurting his political career or the US by engaging in a war most people did not want a part of.
The US ambassador explained the huge differences between the British blockade and the German blockade to the Kaiser and I've explained the huge differences between the British blockade and the German blockade to you. It seems a recap is on order.
The worst effect on neutrals of the British blockade was an inconvenience and the worst effect of the German blockade on neutrals was death. Neutrals could and did negotiate with Britain about which cargoes could be seized and over compensation for seizures. Neutrals could not negotiate with German torpedoes over which cargoes were lost, which ships were sunk, and which men were killed.
In theory the two blockades were roughly comparable, in practice they were as different as trespass is different from murder.
There were massive differences between the British and German blockade, but I wasn't discussing that issue. My maritime law the British were not allowed to block neutral shipping from entering German ports, so long as they did not have contraband. Food was not contraband pre-war, but the British did redefine it as such, as with all trade goods, and prevented any ships from docking with German ports that they could. Granted the blockade was much more than just keeping ships away, it was monopolizing trade and cutting deals with suppliers, but nevertheless it still did involve preventing any trade with Germany.
That was the entire point of WJB conflict with the Wilson administration, as US companies were no longer allowed to directly trade with Germany, AH, Bulgaria, or the Ottoman Empire, which was in direct violation of neutral rights in maritime law, not the London Declaration. Wilson and his cabinet chose to overlook this, despite being guaranteed Entente trade and regardless of their policy toward the blockade. In that regard Wilson was pro-Entente because he did not make an issue of the violation of neutral, specifically US, trade rights in time of war, something that was already agreed on before the non-implemented London agreement.
What you are arguing above has nothing to do with the argument at hand, that the British did violate international law with their version of the blockade. If you'd like to start another discussion about the differences between the German and British blockade we can, but it'd be pretty boring because I'd agree with you.
His 14 Points were a bunch of utter nonsense only meant to make Wilson look like the savior of the world. Wilson didn't even fight for them at Versailles, definitely included a "color line" in their scope, and if various bunches of nationalists and revolutionaries worldwide either appropriated them for their own use or were naive enough to mistake an exercise in vanity for an actual policy that's their problem.
When you compared Britain and France to Czarist Russia you lost all credibility and, when you imposed 2011 beliefs regarding human rights to 1914-1919, you dug that hole even deeper.
It's time to stop crafting increasingly desperate excuses and face the facts. Remember when you were kind enough to explain to me why the internal politics if the A-H Empire meant Franz Joseph simply couldn't "scream and leap"? I'm returning that kindness now.
I think you are starting to purposely misconstrue my arguments. I did not equate the British and French with the Russians; rather I grouped them together to make my argument because they were the Entente, just as I grouped the Germans, AH, Bulgarians and Ottomans despite these nations having different records of treating their minorities and allowing self governance.
You seem to have a fetish for trying to discredit my arguments by tossing around phrases like "lost all credibility" when purposely interpreting my arguments in the way that helps you win. I'm calling Straw Man.
I'm not 'imposing my 2011' views of human rights on the situation and I challenge you to cite exactly where I do that. I'm using 1914-1918 values to note that Wilson did not apply the same standards in his 14 points to the Entente and Central Powers. Honestly of all nations at that time, the worst offender by the standards of the day were the Russians, both in restrictive governance and atrocities against their own people, probably worse than even the Ottomans when it came to brutality (before the Armenians that is).
That doesn't even get into the colonial empires either, which people of the day did not particularly concern themselves with, despite brutal policies there (the one exception being the Belgian Congo).
Wilson did fight for his 14 points, but dropped them to get the League of Nations created. He couldn't get everything he wanted, so he just chose what he felt was the most important point. Besides, some of it was already mooted by the situation on the group and the lack of will to press others.
Insulting me and calling it a kindness if quite a leap. You can keep that sort of kindness and argue without resulting to blanket condemnations of my points, which often don't relate to what I'm even discussing.