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

Redbeard

Banned
...

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.


...

You certainly have a point about the inspiration the young USA made for revolutionaries in Europe. The British crushing the revolutionaries in America would not basically change any of the things leading to the "old regimes" falling in the next decades, it might not even postpone it. Perhaps it would reinforce revolutionary volatility. In 19th century people being discontent with their lives and not at least lack of potential for improving could direct their hopes towards USA - going over there and having a new start - instead of trying out yet another rising against the Lords. If there is no such place to direct your hopes at, the times in Europe might become a lot more volatile - and who knows - good ole' Marx might have his successful revolution in the industrialised countries?! (Which is then crushed by the Counter-revolutionaries under the leadership of the Czar of Russia and the King of England :p )
 
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.

You assume rebels and reformers wouldn't pop up eventually. It'd be a different world, not necessarily a worse one.

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.

True enough. :p
 
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.
Are you saying that ANY reform is dependent on there being a ACW?
I repeat, since liberalism came before a USA the lack of the latter does not mean lack of the former!
In fact I challenge you to show that liberalism cannot exist without the USA; to show that ONLY illiberal regimes are possible without the US existing.
I think you'll find that an impossible task.
 

IFwanderer

Banned
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.
Why are you so dead set on pretending that another country would do the same bad things the US did but find the possibility of the good things it did happening in another country so impossible?

And since you've tried that argument before, I have to ask you to answer this question you've been ignoring for the last week:
Britain could have done the same, if not worse. Look at the way they oppressed and exploited their Asian and African colonies to the bones.
Are you saying that South American countries are US colonies?
 
lternatively, Europe goes to hell in a way that averts Scramble for Africa, stalls the encroachment of colonialism in Asia and more or less cuts out America from the mother countries (well, maybe the UK gets to hold onto their colonies, so as to not fuck with the "no US world" but most of America is functionally free). That would probably be a better world for everyone not in Europe.

So, how likely is this? European expansion overseas seems likely to continue absent the American Revolution, no? The Dutch are in Southeast Asia, the British are in India, and even I don't think the American Revolution stops industrialization and the scientific revolution.
 
I don’t think a world without the USA would definitely be worse—there are plenty of scenarios I can think of where America never comes to be and the world ends up better, and in fact I’m writing a TL about one such world. So I voted “no” in the poll up top.

But with all that said, it disturbs me how some posters here seem to have taken that to mean that a world without the USA would definitely be better. Acknowledging the crimes the United States has committed doesn’t mean we should ignore the good it’s done for the world.
 
I don’t think a world without the USA would definitely be worse—there are plenty of scenarios I can think of where America never comes to be and the world ends up better, and in fact I’m writing a TL about one such world. So I voted “no” in the poll up top.

But with all that said, it disturbs me how some posters here seem to have taken that to mean that a world without the USA would definitely be better. Acknowledging the crimes the United States has committed doesn’t mean we should ignore the good it’s done for the world.
Actually most posters here seem to be in between the odd extremist saying better or worse.
 

IFwanderer

Banned
So, how likely is this? European expansion overseas seems likely to continue absent the American Revolution, no? The Dutch are in Southeast Asia, the British are in India, and even I don't think the American Revolution stops industrialization and the scientific revolution.
How likely? probably an edge case TBH. I'm thinking along the lines of a bloodier and more protracted war between Britain and the Colonies, where they're still very rebellious after the war so Britain is forced to spend resources they used OTL for colonizing Africa and Asia (and for the Napoleonic wars) to hold their North American colonies. Then in Europe, minor butterflies cause similar revolutions in other countries after France's, and basically Europeans are too busy infighting to colonize.

I don’t think a world without the USA would definitely be worse—there are plenty of scenarios I can think of where America never comes to be and the world ends up better, and in fact I’m writing a TL about one such world. So I voted “no” in the poll up top.

But with all that said, it disturbs me how some posters here seem to have taken that to mean that a world without the USA would definitely be better. Acknowledging the crimes the United States has committed doesn’t mean we should ignore the good it’s done for the world.
I'm pushing a more extreme position than the one I really hold (here, basically I lean towards "better in some aspects, worse in other; overall the result is slightly better") because I'm disturbed by the "MURICA FUCK YEAH" attitude of some others (like, are do people really believe that if the US doesn't exist the world will become an authoritarian shithole?).
 
How likely? probably an edge case TBH. I'm thinking along the lines of a bloodier and more protracted war between Britain and the Colonies, where they're still very rebellious after the war so Britain is forced to spend resources they used OTL for colonizing Africa and Asia (and for the Napoleonic wars) to hold their North American colonies. Then in Europe, minor butterflies cause similar revolutions in other countries after France's, and basically Europeans are too busy infighting to colonize.

This requires a lot of gimmes which don't follow logically. It requires holding down America to be more difficult than holding down Ireland, but simultaneously Britain is able to hold it down. It also requires France, Spain, Austria, etc. to be somehow so exhausted in Europe that they don't push overseas (again a departure from OTL). Then it presumes that the Qing don't fall in the 19th century anyway.
 
I'm pushing a more extreme position than the one I really hold (here, basically I lean towards "better in some aspects, worse in other; overall the result is slightly better") because I'm disturbed by the "MURICA FUCK YEAH" attitude of some others (like, are do people really believe that if the US doesn't exist the world will become an authoritarian shithole?).

"Is the world worse off if a state founded upon the idea that 'All men are created equal . . . endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" is replaced with another monarchy?" seems to be a pretty simple question.

Really, the acrobatics people jump through to deny that are pretty interesting. "Well somehow this stops Britain from expanding in India. And the French Revolution and every other revolutionary movement worldwide drew no inspiration from it."
 

IFwanderer

Banned
This requires a lot of gimmes which don't follow logically. It requires holding down America to be more difficult than holding down Ireland, but simultaneously Britain is able to hold it down. It also requires France, Spain, Austria, etc. to be somehow so exhausted in Europe that they don't push overseas (again a departure from OTL). Then it presumes that the Qing don't fall in the 19th century anyway.
That's why it is an edge case.
"Is the world worse off if a state founded upon the idea that 'All men are created equal . . . endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" is replaced with another monarchy?" seems to be a pretty simple question.

Really, the acrobatics people jump through to deny that are pretty interesting. "Well somehow this stops Britain from expanding in India. And the French Revolution and every other revolutionary movement worldwide drew no inspiration from it."
Excuse me, which country ended slavery first, the state founded upon the idea that 'All men are created equal . . . endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" or that other monarchy? (A: That other monarchy, by over 150 years counting from Smith v. Browne & Cooper, where Sir John Holt, Lord Chief Justice of England, ruled that "as soon as a Negro comes into England, he becomes free" in 1706 to the Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution* in 1865).

Really, the acrobatics people jump to pretend that the US becoming independent is some sort of heavenly gift to mankind that made everyone else believe in liberalism is pretty interesting. "Well French intellectuals using a similar event that happened a couple years before as point of comparison is the only important thing in the French revolution. And the actual people who revolted wouldn't have dared to try if a random place on the other side of the ocean hadn't been successful."

*Why would you need an amendment to your constitution saying "Black people are equal" if you claim to already have believed that?
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
"Is the world worse off if a state founded upon the idea that 'All men are created equal . . . endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" is replaced with another monarchy?" seems to be a pretty simple question.

Really, the acrobatics people jump through to deny that are pretty interesting. "Well somehow this stops Britain from expanding in India. And the French Revolution and every other revolutionary movement worldwide drew no inspiration from it."

The American revolution was of very limited influence worldwide, compared to the French revolution. The words you quote are much more resonant within the United States than outside it, largely due to the inherent hypocrisy within them which has NOT gone unnoticed outside the US or within it. The founders of republics elsewhere looked to Rousseau, Voltaire and Montesquieu as the basis for their liberal ideology. These thinkers had much more intellectual weight than anyone associated with the American revolution, with the possible exception of Paine, and had the advantage of being understandable as they wrote in the international language, French, and were widely printed throughout Europe and the Americas.

The US has had many effects that were positive and many that were negative, it seems ridiculous to say the World would definitely be worse without it, and ridiculous to say it would be definitely better. I would tend to say that a situation which divided the area of the 13 colonies into at least 3 states, with no continental francophone power based on New Orleans arising either, would have been better for the World. I also think that such a result was quite possible historically.
 
so now a failed AR makes for increased revolutions elsewhere?

and Britain just keeps spending more and more and more on keeping the colonies to the detriment of its empire and the far more important balance of power in Europe?

alrighty then
 

Brunaburh

Gone Fishin'
so now a failed AR makes for increased revolutions elsewhere?

and Britain just keeps spending more and more and more on keeping the colonies to the detriment of its empire and the far more important balance of power in Europe?

alrighty then

Right mate, I think you need to quote people and debate their points directly. Rather than summarising what you think their argument is and implying it is ridiculous because you say so.
 

IFwanderer

Banned
Right mate, I think you need to quote people and debate their points directly. Rather than summarising what you think their argument is and implying it is ridiculous because you say so.
Probably my post, this one (emphasis added):
How likely? probably an edge case TBH. I'm thinking along the lines of a bloodier and more protracted war between Britain and the Colonies, where they're still very rebellious after the war so Britain is forced to spend resources they used OTL for colonizing Africa and Asia (and for the Napoleonic wars) to hold their North American colonies. Then in Europe, minor butterflies cause similar revolutions in other countries after France's, and basically Europeans are too busy infighting to colonize.
As you can see, what I'm trying to argue here is that, while extremely unlikely, it is possible for a world where the US fails to achieve independence to lead to less colonialism afterwards, not that it's a likely result.
 
The American revolution was of very limited influence worldwide, compared to the French revolution. The words you quote are much more resonant within the United States than outside it, largely due to the inherent hypocrisy within them which has NOT gone unnoticed outside the US or within it.

I love the idea that the French Republic was less hypocritical than the American, incidentally. As one of Napoleon's troops said during their occupation of Prussia, "we've come to bring you liberty, fraternity, and equality, but don't lose your heads about it."
 
Top