Would a world without the USA a worse world?

Would a world without the USA a worse world?

  • Yes

    Votes: 126 53.6%
  • No

    Votes: 109 46.4%

  • Total voters
    235
Funny, because they don't seem to mind American medicine, technology, aid, universities, trade, finance, food, emigration opportunities, and products.

But you could say exactly the same about Britain in the 19th Century - except that every country that industrialised, including the US, did so using British finance and British technology, which is far more important than anything achieved by the USA.
 
I'm pretty sure this one's more accurate. At least for the people who don't live in the US, Canada and EU countries, so yeah, for most of the world (the 6.5 billion people who don't live in any of those three locations), it's likely the world would be better off.
Err, no. This is not about jingoism, but rather the reality of the revolution and what it meant for the world, including in countless national liberation struggles well into the twentieth century.

No American Revolution likely means no French Revolution, which means no end to slavery in the French Empire, which means no Haitian Revolution which means no Napoleonic conquests in Europe which means enduring serfdom and feudalism for sometime longer, while allowing the endurance and strengthening of settler colonial empires, and the prospect of greater rather than lesser European exploitation of Asia and Africa.
 
Err, no. This is not about jingoism, but rather the reality of the revolution and what it meant for the world, including in countless national liberation struggles well into the twentieth century.

No American Revolution likely means no French Revolution, which means no end to slavery in the French Empire, which means no Haitian Revolution which means no Napoleonic conquests in Europe which means enduring serfdom and feudalism for sometime longer, while allowing the endurance and strengthening of settler colonial empires, and the prospect of greater rather than lesser European exploitation of Asia and Africa.
And then multiple protests and mini revolutions lead to a great flowering of liberalism across Europe and then a lessening of exploitation of nonEurope earlier than OTL.
I repeat my assertion that the lack of an ARW does not inevitably lead to an eternally less liberal world.
 
And then multiple protests and mini revolutions lead to a great flowering of liberalism across Europe and then a lessening of exploitation of nonEurope earlier than OTL.
I repeat my assertion that the lack of an ARW does not inevitably lead to an eternally less liberal world.
Isn't this kind of an overly deterministic view of history, that liberalism was bound to appear and become relevant no matter what?
 
Isn't this kind of an overly deterministic view of history, that liberalism was bound to appear and become relevant no matter what?

There was already a lot of entrenched liberalism at the time. They will still act even without America.
 
Isn't this kind of an overly deterministic view of history, that liberalism was bound to appear and become relevant no matter what?
No, my point was that assuming the ARW is the only source of liberalism and that without it liberalism is impossible or just massively delayed is highly erroneous and probably overly parochial.
Liberalism is not contingent on American Colonials but is a natural result of expanding power outside a noble elite thanks to the expansion of wealth outside the noble elite.
 

IFwanderer

Banned
Isn't this kind of an overly deterministic view of history, that liberalism was bound to appear and become relevant no matter what?
Not really, @TheProffesor isn't saying it's "bound to appear and become relevant no matter what" (well, it would appear because it existed before the POV) they are saying that the rise of liberalism is not inevitably linked to the US becoming independent (that would be more deterministic). I would go further and say that liberalism isn't inherently related to the world being better either, you can have a marxism-wank TL too.

"Somebody pointed out my post about the United States was wrong, so I will post an article that is about other countries instead."
Sorry, didn't get you were a troll, will stop feeding.

No American Revolution likely means no French Revolution, which means no end to slavery in the French Empire, which means no Haitian Revolution which means no Napoleonic conquests in Europe which means enduring serfdom and feudalism for sometime longer, while allowing the endurance and strengthening of settler colonial empires, and the prospect of greater rather than lesser European exploitation of Asia and Africa.
There's the flaw: no US independence != no French Revolution. Many of the underlying causes of the latter are independent from the revolution in the Colonies in British North America being successful. Their revolution failing would probably make the French one happen quicker, if anything, given that one of the reasons it happened was France going into bankruptcy by supporting (read: doing the heavy lifting for) Britain's colonies.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Not really, @TheProffesor isn't saying it's "bound to appear and become relevant no matter what" (well, it would appear because it existed before the POV) they are saying that the rise of liberalism is not inevitably linked to the US becoming independent (that would be more deterministic). I would go further and say that liberalism isn't inherently related to the world being better either, you can have a marxism-wank TL too.


Sorry, didn't get you were a troll, will stop feeding.


There's the flaw: no US independence != no French Revolution. Many of the underlying causes of the latter are independent from the revolution in the Colonies in British North America being successful. Their revolution failing would probably make the French one happen quicker, if anything, given that one of the reasons it happened was France going into bankruptcy by supporting (read: doing the heavy lifting for) Britain's colonies.
Well, a quick British victory would butterfly away French Revolution, which would delay the rise of liberalism by decades, and the emergence would be much weaker.

Well, the world with less liberalism would be much worse. Liberals were the first ones to champion things like freedom of speech, freedom of the press, academic freedom or education for all, as well as separation of the Church and the State. The rise of liberalism was also found to benefit industrialization process massively because its influence was found to reduce rent-seeking activities.

Needless to say, the US was unique because it was liberal at birth. No Church, no monarchy, no aristocracy, which were the main elements of traditional Conservatism. A British North America would be far more conservative because the Loyalists, who were predominanrly Tories, would not move away like IOTL.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
And then multiple protests and mini revolutions lead to a great flowering of liberalism across Europe and then a lessening of exploitation of nonEurope earlier than OTL.
I repeat my assertion that the lack of an ARW does not inevitably lead to an eternally less liberal world.
Well, what if an earlier Holy Alliance was formed to deal with these mini revolutions? With a more conservative and more authoritarian Britain in such alliance.
 
Well, what if an earlier Holy Alliance was formed to deal with these mini revolutions? With a more conservative and more authoritarian Britain in such alliance.
Would it though?
And would it necessarily be in such an alliance when it would suit its purpose to be against it?
I do not understand why people are so wedded to the idea of "US = liberalism, no US = illiberalism". The Enlightenment still exists and nonnobles are still expanding their wealth and power.
 

IFwanderer

Banned
I do not understand why people are so wedded to the idea of "US = liberalism, no US = illiberalism". The Enlightenment still exists and nonnobles are still expanding their wealth and power.
This. Going further, I also don't understand the insistence that the one and only way for the world to become better is if liberalism is successful. There are alternatives, people.
 
This. Going further, I also don't understand the insistence that the one and only way for the world to become better is if liberalism is successful. There are alternatives, people.
It depends how liberalism is defined I think. Whether it is concerned with individual liberties or whether it extends to national liberties.
 

Redbeard

Banned
In a pre 1900 context the difference would not be significant, but if going to the 20th century and on I would like to state: The world has never seen a more altruistic, unselfish, idealistic and giving great/superpower than USA!

Yes , yes I know, our USian brothers can sometimes be extremely annoying and ignorant, even I sometimes mostly feel like poking them soundly on their little noses - but at the end of the day - I just so much appreciate that big, loveable and charming (even if a bit clumsy some times) bully over there on the other side of the pond. Which BTW holds a part of the truth behind - if you have bully next door it is very handy to know an even bigger bully in the next street! :)
 
The world has never seen a more altruistic, unselfish, idealistic and giving great/superpower than USA!

*looks at the genocide of the natives, the slavery, the robber barons, and my home country, and then the realpolitik of the Korean, Vietnam, and Iraq Wars* Eh.

It'd be a different world, I feel. Not worse, not better.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I do not understand why people are so wedded to the idea of "US = liberalism, no US = illiberalism". The Enlightenment still exists and nonnobles are still expanding their wealth and power.
I also have to remind you that IOTL, the outcome of the ACW (freedom and voting rights for slaves, while the Jim Crows not yet existed) was one of the three main factor that drove the Reform Bill 1867, the others were Lord Russell's reforming mind and Disraeli's opportunistic nature. As long as Palmerston survives, there wouldn't be any Reform Bill.

In a pre 1900 context the difference would not be significant, but if going to the 20th century and on I would like to state: The world has never seen a more altruistic, unselfish, idealistic and giving great/superpower than USA!
Well it would be a much more elitist and despotic world if the British crushed the Patriots quickly (and hence butterfly away French Revolution). Serfdom might even continue well into the 19th century in Continental Europe.

Next, if the colonial powers' grip over colonies was not weakened by the Second World War, Asia and Africa would continue to suffer from brutal treatment, oppression and exploitation from European colonists, including the Brits. Americans also played a decisive role in the decolonization and the dismantle of the colonial empires, which allowed Asian colonies to gain full independence for the first time.

And don't forget supporting dictatorships in South America.
For South America, Spain and Portugal may continue to play the role of OTL USA. There is no guarantee that the Brits would not do the same (look at how the Brits enthusiastically pressured Eisenhower to launch the Iranian Coup). No change at all.

Back to the 19th century ITTL, American education system wouldn't very advanced as IOTL (in 19th century, it was the most advanced education system in the world). Instead, it would be as crap and obsolete as Victorian British education (oh, and I am planning to create a thread about this crap education system). It would not become the world's natural land for entrepreneurs and innovators like IOTL.

*looks at the genocide of the natives, the slavery, the robber barons, and my home country, and then the realpolitik of the Korean, Vietnam, and Iraq Wars* Eh.
ITTL, all of Asia and Africa, not just your home country and Korea and Vietnam, would continue to suffer from colonization. I think I don't even have to tell you how brutal European colonialism was.
 

Redbeard

Banned
*looks at the genocide of the natives, the slavery, the robber barons, and my home country, and then the realpolitik of the Korean, Vietnam, and Iraq Wars* Eh.

It'd be a different world, I feel. Not worse, not better.

I didn't say USA was angel like innocent, but compared to all the other great/super power I still think they come out very favourably.
 
Top