American Non-interventionism continues?

This could go in the Before 1900 section, but whats 2 years between friends? Anyway, lets say America doesn't go to war and remains above it all. This means no Spanish-American war, no American involvment in the Boxer Rebelion, no Banana Wars and no WWI. The American military remains small and cheep. What will America be like today? Without the military spending of OTL, what will they spend the money on? And finally what will this mean for the rest of the world?
 
WWI continues until late 1919, when 'the coloniaux and the tanks' manage to break the German army. The Reich surrenders when the Entente troops enter Fulda, as starving 14-years-old are not enough to hold battle seasonned troops ( the 16-y-old were called in 1918, as per OTL ).

No Nazism, as no stab in the back myth and Versailles quite different from OTL. Likely no WWII, or one very different from OTL
 
I think the Japanese might eventually grab the Phillipines from the Spanish, or they might become independent on their own.

No US involvement means no "Open Door Policy" and we might have China formally divided into colonies. However, the early 20th Century might be a little late--perhaps more Hong Kongs with a increasingly worthless Qing dynasty is more plausible.

What happens with Hawaii. There were people in the US who view control of Hawaii as essential to prevent a British or Japanese attack on the West Coast--if the US doesn't annex Hawaii, will someone else grab it instead and potentially use it for mayhem?
 
WWI continues until late 1919, when 'the coloniaux and the tanks' manage to break the German army. The Reich surrenders when the Entente troops enter Fulda, as starving 14-years-old are not enough to hold battle seasonned troops ( the 16-y-old were called in 1918, as per OTL ).

No Nazism, as no stab in the back myth and Versailles quite different from OTL. Likely no WWII, or one very different from OTL

Also would a Spain not humiliated in the Spanish-American war be tempted to join the Allies? That could make things go even quicker. It was standard for Spain to join the British and French when they agreed. But would the French hold on without the promise of US troops?

Another thought occurred to me. Would the Russo-Japanese war end the same if Roosevelt wasn't the one holding the peace deal? That would definitely change a lot. Or am I been too extreme? Would a strongly Non-interventional US still get involved?

And what of Haiti? Would the deep American fear of OTL happen?
 
how long, though, could the USA go on being both wealthy and militarily weak? That's a great combination to encourage others to pick on you... sooner or later, the US is going to have to arm itself to a reasonable level...
 
how long, though, could the USA go on being both wealthy and militarily weak? That's a great combination to encourage others to pick on you... sooner or later, the US is going to have to arm itself to a reasonable level...

Or the British Empire issues a modified "Monroe Doctrine", stating that they will assure the security of the "New World", including the USA. Toss in language about "Protecting English speakers worldwide" and the combination of relative isolation and a Royal Navy that can sweep any invader from the sea, poof, you've got no need for any kind of US militarism.
 
But would the French hold on without the promise of US troops?[/COLOR]

IMO yes.

Like the german one ( general strikes in the armament industries ), the french crisis ( mutinies ) were not that about surendering to the foe, but about how the war was conducted.

The french troops didn't object to defending their country, just to having their lives thrown away for no reason in pointless offensives which got nowhere. Unlike Russian troops, they didn't desert and remained on their defensive positions, refusing orders to go on the attack.

OTL, this was dealt with with a lot of carrot ( change of commands and promise to wait for ' the americans and the tanks ' ) and a little of the stick ( IIRC, 57 mutineers were concemned to death for those mutinies, just a fraction of the total during WWI ).

The former can easily be changed in a promise to wait for the colonials and the tanks before going on the offensive again. The interesting part is the effects of introducing conscription in the french colonies will have on post war relationships there.

Bottom line, France, Germany and Russia faced social movements in 1917. Only the russian one really threatened to get the country out of the war
 

Vault-Scope

Banned
Germany´s submarine warfare would become force and end to the war for britain.
There was one reason why the French didn´t desert en mass after 1917, its pretty hard to cross to the German lines across the no mans land.
Before the US entered the war, Germany was winning, there where already discussions underway for a retreat to the pre-war borders
 
Or the British Empire issues a modified "Monroe Doctrine", stating that they will assure the security of the "New World", including the USA. Toss in language about "Protecting English speakers worldwide" and the combination of relative isolation and a Royal Navy that can sweep any invader from the sea, poof, you've got no need for any kind of US militarism.

unless the Brits themselves decide to bully the US, for some reason.... it's unlikely, but stranger things have happened... being wealthy and militarily weak and dependent on a foreign power to protect you isn't any better than being just wealthy and weak. What happens when/if the Brits go through the whole 'losing the empire' thing? The US can either look for another foreign protector or arm themselves...
 
Germany´s submarine warfare would become force and end to the war for britain.
There was one reason why the French didn´t desert en mass after 1917, its pretty hard to cross to the German lines across the no mans land.
Before the US entered the war, Germany was winning, there where already discussions underway for a retreat to the pre-war borders

In a word : no, for too many reasons to list here. Well, except for the discussions, which were going on and off at low levels from 1914 to 1918; they never got anywhere.
 
The Canadians would have a rather large army of experienced troops after WWI.
We could all be singing "God Save The Queen" as we pay off the hundred year bonds the new government issued in 1919 to help Britain pay for WWI?
 
What about the possibility that the USA would continue to have a policy of non-interventionism, but also be militarily strong. It is a tradition of a lot neutral nations (Sweden, Switzerland) to on a per capita basis have relatively strong militaries.

Usually this is a conscript military. Presumably if the US went this way the draft would remain non-controversial (no Vietnam etc) and would continue to this day.

On the other hand you could still have a strong professional volunteer military and a policy of non-interventionism as well, I would think.
 
What about the possibility that the USA would continue to have a policy of non-interventionism, but also be militarily strong. It is a tradition of a lot neutral nations (Sweden, Switzerland) to on a per capita basis have relatively strong militaries.

Usually this is a conscript military. Presumably if the US went this way the draft would remain non-controversial (no Vietnam etc) and would continue to this day.

On the other hand you could still have a strong professional volunteer military and a policy of non-interventionism as well, I would think.

Or alternatively the US Military could be like the Japanese Self Defense Forces, focussing on local defence rather than projecting power. So it could have a strong Army, but no blue water Navy and no long range bombers.
 
Top