Truly Neutral USA in WW1

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
Actually, the US funding was mainly to supply dollars so that the DEntente Governments could pay the bills in Dollars as required by the contracts.

It is a common misconception that a loan in one currency = no cash.

However, without those loans, they would only be able to purchase from the US according to their own dollar currency generation, which is a very different position.

And which puts them in a hell of a fix the longer the war goes on in 1916 with no end in sight. That would give a very different nature to Verdun and the Somme. If the war ends then, it would also end on the ironic note that the only Ally to actually do *something* effective would be Tsarist Russia. :D
 
And which puts them in a hell of a fix the longer the war goes on in 1916 with no end in sight. That would give a very different nature to Verdun and the Somme. If the war ends then, it would also end on the ironic note that the only Ally to actually do *something* effective would be Tsarist Russia. :D

So, I would guess thier would be a harsh peace with France (poor France.:(), a satis quo peace with the UK, and a lenient peace with Russia (Hurrah for Mother Russia!:)). That could have some interesting long term effects...
 

Deleted member 1487

Okay, we've gone of the issues of US neutrality on Europe, but what about the US?
The US never has the experience of censorship, various restrictive laws, conscription, the military-industrial complex, etc.
Let's also assume no WW2 because of butterflies and the situation in Europe.
What happens to US culture, the economy, and its politics without the wars?
 
Okay, we've gone of the issues of US neutrality on Europe, but what about the US?


That's a very interesting question.

The US never has the experience of censorship...

The Comstock Act of 1873 imposed the censorship of certain materials nationwide and was enforced by the federal government at a time when the US didn't even have a single currency.

... various restrictive laws...

Restrictive laws on all sorts of activities and behaviors have a lineage dating back to colonial times. For example, Maine passed it's first total prohibition temperance law in 1851 and by 1855 twelve states were also legally "dry". What changed was that the thinking behind the Progressive era, which was in full swing before WW1, moved the venue for much of that previous legislation from the statehouses to Congress.

... conscription...

The Union used conscription during the Civil War as did the Confederacy albeit on a much lower level.

... the military-industrial complex...

Steel trusts, chemical trusts, oil trusts, the Robber Barons, etc. The corrupting influence of corporate money does not only occur when said corporations are making weapons and munitions.

What happens to US culture, the economy, and its politics without the wars?

I think female suffrage takes a hit and, without Entente spending and the debts which fueled that spending, the US remains a debtor nation.

WW1 saw a huge federal power grab in many areas. That eventually provoked an equally large backlash which saw much of the power grab reversed. Wilson's wartime policies and Prohibition also left the public adverse to federal intervention when such intervention could have prevented problems or softened their effects. The financial markets, for example, remained almost unregulated leading to the crash which set the table for Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression. The thinking was that, if the feds couldn't run Prohibition, why give them control of Wall Street? :rolleyes:

I think we'd see a much slower and natural growth in federal powers with much less public antipathy towards the same.

Edit: Just remembered I'd retired from this thread. Sorry. :eek:
 

Deleted member 1487

The Comstock Act of 1873 imposed the censorship of certain materials nationwide and was enforced by the federal government at a time when the US didn't even have a single currency.
Interesting. I did not know that, even with the various liberty restricting actions of the Civil War. Though by 1873 I thought the US had a single currency for some time and would have reinstituted the green back during Reconstruction.


Restrictive laws on all sorts of activities and behaviors have a lineage dating back to colonial times. For example, Maine passed it's first total prohibition temperance law in 1851 and by 1855 twelve states were also legally "dry". What changed was that the thinking behind the Progressive era, which was in full swing before WW1, moved the venue for much of that previous legislation from the statehouses to Congress.
I was thinking about the Espionage acts and various government sponsored anti-German rallies/programs. Prohibition, at least on the national level, seems only to have been possible with the impetus the war gave, especially as much of the alcohol industry in the US was German-American owned.

On a side topic German would probably continue to have a much greater influence in the US as it wouldn't be anti-American to speak and be German. Beyond that, if the Germans don't lose the war they will have a greater impact in US military culture in lieu of the French for their innovations on the tactical level.


The Union used conscription during the Civil War as did the Confederacy albeit on a much lower level.
Of that I am aware, but its seems that conscription for a foreign war for non-US goals seemed to have a different effect on the American psyche than conscription for the Civil War.


Steel trusts, chemical trusts, oil trusts, the Robber Barons, etc. The corrupting influence of corporate money does not only occur when said corporations are making weapons and munitions.
I know that influence over government by big business was not limited to military-related fields, but without the growth of the military related industries from the war there won't be as much of an influence for foreign adventures (though I realize that much of the US intervention in Latin America had to do with various other business interests). Without the early beginnings of such an industry in the US something greater won't evolve in the same way leading up to the 1930's and 40's and beyond, especially if there is not a WW2.


I think female suffrage takes a hit and, without Entente spending and the debts which fueled that spending, the US remains a debtor nation.

WW1 saw a huge federal power grab in many areas. That eventually provoked an equally large backlash which saw much of the power grab reversed. Wilson's wartime policies and Prohibition also left the public adverse to federal intervention when such intervention could have prevented problems or softened their effects. The financial markets, for example, remained almost unregulated leading to the crash which set the table for Smoot-Hawley and the Great Depression. The thinking was that, if the feds couldn't run Prohibition, why give them control of Wall Street? :rolleyes:

I think we'd see a much slower and natural growth in federal powers with much less public antipathy towards the same.

Edit: Just remembered I'd retired from this thread. Sorry. :eek:

I'd hate to see you retire again once this thread has moved in a different direction.
 
Here are some changes in the US.

-The US had a federal income tax at the time we entered, but is was extremely small. WWI shot it all the way up and it never went down to its pre-WWI rates EVER.
500%20tax%20rates%20over%20time.jpg

This means that it will be much harder to get a solid tax base later on if a New Deal is needed.

-No federal prohibition. Although some wanted this, ultimately it was anti-German histeria that made it happen. Woodrow Wilson was against Prohibition as well and the political capital he used for the war could be used to prevent this. No prohibition means weaker FBI, no strong mafia (bye bye Godfather movies), less crime, perhaps no federal War on Drugs later on.

-The Progressive movement hurt itself by supporting WWI. Without the war, there will not be aversion to government intervention in the market. Bye bye Tea Partiers.
 

Deleted member 1487

Here are some changes in the US.

-The US had a federal income tax at the time we entered, but is was extremely small. WWI shot it all the way up and it never went down to its pre-WWI rates EVER.
500%20tax%20rates%20over%20time.jpg

This means that it will be much harder to get a solid tax base later on if a New Deal is needed.

-No federal prohibition. Although some wanted this, ultimately it was anti-German histeria that made it happen. Woodrow Wilson was against Prohibition as well and the political capital he used for the war could be used to prevent this. No prohibition means weaker FBI, no strong mafia (bye bye Godfather movies), less crime, perhaps no federal War on Drugs later on.

-The Progressive movement hurt itself by supporting WWI. Without the war, there will not be aversion to government intervention in the market. Bye bye Tea Partiers.

Ha, that would be interesting. The US becomes socially libertarian and somewhat of a early 20th century Amsterdam.
 
The war ends in a negotiated peace to Central Power advantage, but still with something more or less resembling status quo ante bellum.

I love this. EVERY major power having the basis for feeling that its war time sacrifices were wasted. Fascist potential everywhere. What could possibly go wrong?
 
Top