DBWI:America Fought In World War One?

Most people consider America to isolationist at the time of World War One to actually go to War, but President Woodrow Wilson did consider it, although perhapse not very seriously. At any rate, I was wondering, what If America had joind the war on the side of Britian ans France, say around the time of 1917?

For starters, I think this means a shorter war, probably ending in late or mid-1918. It probably would only have made a few months difference, but still, it would have saved thousands of lives. The last few months of the war were really hard on soliders of both sides, and was likely the reason for all the pro-communist movements in the 20's and 30's througout Europe.

The war would still end with a British/France victory, but with America present, perhaps less harsh terms would be imposed on Germany.

So, what do you think?
 
Most people consider America to isolationist at the time of World War One to actually go to War, but President Woodrow Wilson did consider it, although perhapse not very seriously. At any rate, I was wondering, what If America had joind the war on the side of Britian ans France, say around the time of 1917?

For starters, I think this means a shorter war, probably ending in late or mid-1918. It probably would only have made a few months difference, but still, it would have saved thousands of lives. The last few months of the war were really hard on soliders of both sides, and was likely the reason for all the pro-communist movements in the 20's and 30's througout Europe.

The war would still end with a British/France victory, but with America present, perhaps less harsh terms would be imposed on Germany.

So, what do you think?

No Communist revolt in Germany? No French Civil War? No Italian Revolution? No BRA terrorism from the 1920s through to the 1970s? The White Army puts down the Bolshevik revolt in the Russian Federation before 1927?

So basically you are saying that the "Red Century" never happens. That alone would make the world a much better place. Even if it were somehow to lead to a revanchist regime actually having a chance at power in one of the German Kingdoms. I seriously doubt that a second Great War in the 20th century would be any worse than what actually came to pass.
 
I assume that American involvement in World War I would not have resulted in
Erwin Rommel overthrowing the government in Prussia and
unleashing Stauffenberg and Doenitz on the Soviet Red Army and driving them out of Poland. Thanks to Rommel, Prussia has been a source of stability and Poland became a constitutional monarchy. Stalin received a bullet in the head from General Khrushchev.
 
The United State's actions were probably the correct ones, to be honest. The Isolationist policy during WWI has paid off handsomely.

Why would the United States want to interact with a world that has, well, up and nuked itself hundreds of times? We know the Third World War and its climatic Day of Disaster inflicted a death toll in excess of one billion people. Because of the United States' defensive posturing and its willingness to leave alone, we've our hemisphere from nuclear destruction of a horrific scale.

Why would we ever want to put our cities on the line? We don't owe the world that, and it is hardly like any of us see the rest of the world as worth fighting for. Even before 1977, Eurasia-Africa had fought two insanely bloody wars which killed over a hundred and fifty million people.

Wilson had the right idea. Now the question I have is why we should continue to accept so much riff-raff from ruined Europe? It's not our fault that Paris, Prague and Berlin are piles of slagged metal, why should we have to accept the survivors?

George Washington was right. We shouldn't create entangling alliances that end with us on the receiving end of a nuclear attack. Now, apparently, Africa is sending aid to Europe after the massive death and destruction three decades ago. Maybe if the Revolutionary Movements and the Counter Revolutionary Movements didn't go slagging each other I might be a bit more sympathetic.

I don't even want to think about the governments in power now...:(
 

Cook

Banned
Sounds like bit of fantasy by Republicans and fans of Teddy Roosevelt to me. If you recall he was that washed up Politician trying to restart his political career. He went round campaigning for financial donations to Britain and France, as if they didn’t have enough money back then, and calling for men to volunteer for the Canadian Army.

Of the Brigades that he managed to raise most suffered more than 40 percent casualties on the Somme. Roosevelt himself was murdered by a grieving mother of some kid he’d managed to con into volunteering so there is some justice for you. His recruiting stories always had lots of heroism and adventure, but were light on mud, blood and pain.

American strength back then was the same as now, Sea Power and Air Power. Millions of men dying in trenches to make the blood thirsty Capitalists of Europe richer had nothing to do with America. And they got their just desserts when the guillotine went up again at Bastille after the revolution of ’22.

For America to get involved in the Great European War, to use it’s correct title, you’d need the American public to be far more sympathetic to Britain and France. You’d need Wilson to allow British propaganda in American newspapers and have it banned like he did as part of the neutrality laws.

Sorry but America getting involved in Europe in the Great European War is just too unlikely.
 
Sounds like bit of fantasy by Republicans and fans of Teddy Roosevelt to me. If you recall he was that washed up Politician trying to restart his political career. He went round campaigning for financial donations to Britain and France, as if they didn’t have enough money back then, and calling for men to volunteer for the Canadian Army.

Of the Brigades that he managed to raise most suffered more than 40 percent casualties on the Somme. Roosevelt himself was murdered by a grieving mother of some kid he’d managed to con into volunteering so there is some justice for you. His recruiting stories always had lots of heroism and adventure, but were light on mud, blood and pain.

American strength back then was the same as now, Sea Power and Air Power. Millions of men dying in trenches to make the blood thirsty Capitalists of Europe richer had nothing to do with America. And they got their just desserts when the guillotine went up again at Bastille after the revolution of ’22.

For America to get involved in the Great European War, to use it’s correct title, you’d need the American public to be far more sympathetic to Britain and France. You’d need Wilson to allow British propaganda in American newspapers and have it banned like he did as part of the neutrality laws.

Sorry but America getting involved in Europe in the Great European War is just too unlikely.

Another communist eh? Your dark ideology and your lust for power nearly drowned civilization in an ocean of blood warmed by nuclear fire. Why anyone still believes in that madness is beyond me, but there you are...

Sure, the Yanks doing more than allowing their own to volunteer for service in the Empire's Armies is unlikely to have been remotely possible. But it is nice to be able to contemplate the possibility, however remote, that history could have turned out for the better.

Besides, given that you are a big fan of the French Commies, you have to remember that when the French Civil War ended, the commies were all given the chop on the same guillotines that they had set up two years earlier. You should also remember that those bloodthirsty bastards sent half a million innocent men, women and children to the guillotine because they dared to prefer democracy over communist totalitarianism.
 
Vive le France and Marshal Petain who relegated the Paris Commune to the dustbin of history.

If the pen is mightier than the sword, then the cannons and Fokker planes were mightier than le guillotine.
 
well, we weren't completely uninvolved... we did sell a huge amount of supplies to Britain and France. In fact, if you want a POD for the US to enter the war, have Germany decide to go after the US supply ships in a real attempt to stop them (IIRC, the only attempt was a single U-boat, acting without orders, that fired on a US container ship, and missed). Other than that... what possible interest would the US have in that huge war in Europe... nothing in the war involved US territory or issues in any way...
 
well, we weren't completely uninvolved... we did sell a huge amount of supplies to Britain and France. In fact, if you want a POD for the US to enter the war, have Germany decide to go after the US supply ships in a real attempt to stop them (IIRC, the only attempt was a single U-boat, acting without orders, that fired on a US container ship, and missed). Other than that... what possible interest would the US have in that huge war in Europe... nothing in the war involved US territory or issues in any way...

OOC: Wouldn't have been a container ship...hadn't been invented yet.

IC: This is an interesting idea. Considering how badly the rest of the world screwed itself over the last few decades, burning a substantial part of European and Asian culture in the process, and essentially destroying many once-great nations, I'm inclined to think we were better off not intervening. With us in the fight, I suspect we might have gotten a taste for fighting. A lot of other post-colonial nations might get dragged in to the later wars by us over the years and maybe eventually get crushed during the Third World War. You could see the destruction be far vaster, and not limited to the Years Without a Summer and Eurasia itself. Heck, civilization itself could have collapsed! Forget about the ATO; we'd be lucky to have a USA!

Even if that didn't happen, and the Third World War was somehow averted (though everyone in Europe was benefiting from keeping China down; when Russia announced they were breaking with them, the alliance of Communists and Imperialists was almost mandantory), I doubt the US would have been as well off as today. Without the collapse of Britain, how likely is it that Canada and Newfoundland (and the British Caribbean colonies, but everyone forgets about those) would have joined with us? Given the historical hot/cool relationship between the US and UK, I doubt the US would have any access to the massive mineral and agricultural resources of Canada, which would surely have had significant negative effects on US economic growth. And don't mention the Arabian oil supplies to me either; the Europeans would never have let the US have free access to those. Too much in the European sphere of influence until their collapse, and the US has enough production into the 1960s that no one here is going to care that some camel-herders have oil until then, anyways.
 

Cook

Banned
Communism was just a symptom of century’s problems, not the cause.

Who can give me a reason for the Great European War that makes sense? There isn’t one.

So why would America have wanted to get involved in a blood bath on the other side of the Atlantic that didn’t even have a logical reason for happening? The old Dictators and Kings in Europe had the insane excuse of wanting more land, but that was never going to be offered to America.
 
Top