Would the World be a better place if America didn’t enter WWI?

Would the World be a better place if America didn’t enter WWI?

  • Better

    Votes: 37 32.7%
  • Worse

    Votes: 27 23.9%
  • The same

    Votes: 8 7.1%
  • No confidence saying

    Votes: 41 36.3%

  • Total voters
    113
It could be argued that America’s decision to enter WWI led to...

-Russia staying in the war longer, resulting in Communism taking over Russia and eventually much of the world where it resulted in the death of the better part of a hundred million people.

-Germany turning to Nazism and starting a war and genocide that killed 40+ million

-Collapse of Austria-Hungary and destabilization of Central Europe and parts of the Balkans which could have fallen under Austrian/Bulgarian domination (maybe not any better, but multiple genocides happened OTL that could maybe be avoided)

-The Ottoman Empire collapsing, which has arguably destabilized the region
 
History would've been more or less the same until the 1940s, as America's isolationism will have seen vindicated by staying out. America has even less military infrastructure and less knowledge learned from the mobilization of World War I.

With this, World War II will certainly go differently. But it's hard to say how. A lot of the same players may not be involved.
 
I would counter that France, Russia and Britain would be just as unstable and revanchist post war and with massive empires the potential for global destabilization is far worse.
 
There would be changes in WW1, without the fears of American manpower and resources Germany would be less desperate to launch the Spring Offensive, so the War would go on longer than it did in our timeline. The Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary's collapse had little to do with the entry of the US into the war and when they're gone an isolated Germany couldn't last forever. The War would be longer but the end results would be the same and unless more fighting allows Hitler to recover and return to the front and gets hit by a bullet or a shell I still see the Nazis rising to power in Germany.

The US might actually join WW2 earlier as the isolationists don't really have the argument of a hundred thousand casualties in a war the US really had no part fighting to rely on.

It's honestly pretty hard to say whether the world would be a better place or not though if the War lasts longer that would mean the loss of who knows how many more lives.
 
It could be argued that America’s decision to enter WWI led to...

-Russia staying in the war longer, resulting in Communism taking over Russia and eventually much of the world where it resulted in the death of the better part of a hundred million people.

-Germany turning to Nazism and starting a war and genocide that killed 40+ million

-Collapse of Austria-Hungary and destabilization of Central Europe and parts of the Balkans which could have fallen under Austrian/Bulgarian domination (maybe not any better, but multiple genocides happened OTL that could maybe be avoided)

-The Ottoman Empire collapsing, which has arguably destabilized the region

1. Kinda disagree. The US declared war on Germany in April 1917. By this point, the Russian revolution has already happened and the Petrograd Soviet is already created. The political situation in the former Russian Empire is already very volatile. Even if America stayed out, it's possible (not guaranteed, but possible) that communism could take power in Russia.

2. Partially agree. Avoiding the specifics of OTL's Nazi Germany would be extremely positive. But specifics aren't everything - this positive effect could be partially cancelled out by other atrocities that will happen in this timeline.

3. Strongly disagree. By this point Austria-Hungary was not a pillar of peace and stability, it was a rabid dog; a regime willing to engage in borderline genocidal violence against occupied nations and sometimes even against its own subjects. There is no reason whatsoever to believe Austrian/Bulgarian domination over the Balkans would be any better than the region's OTL internal conflicts. You could easily end up with just as much genocides, massacres and mass violence...if not more.

I also want to note that OTL's interwar period was one of the most peaceful, most stable and least violent in the history of the Balkans/Central Europe. The dissolution of Austria-Hungary had its negatives, but it also had its good sides - many good sides. Especially when compared to the alternative.

4. Ehh...you could argue that the process of the Ottoman Empire's collapse was a tragedy for the Middle East. But we also have to go into the specifics of what it means to save the Ottoman Empire in 1917. At this point in time, the Ottomans are ruled by an exceptionally fucked up regime, and its survival might not mean much in the way of stability. Especially not the kind of stability we'd actually want.
 
In general, I think that our speculation on these things often goes in a narrow and deterministic way. We focus on certain specific atrocities that happened in OTL, argue that they probably won't happen the same way, and call it a win. IMO this is a natural - but potentially huge - mistake. We're overlooking a whole bundle of fresh, different atrocities that could and would happen in this alternate scenario. For many of them, we can't even see them coming from our timeline* (after all, who could have seen the Holocaust, or the Holodomor, coming in 1918? Without the benefit of hindsight?).

*although, there are a lot of atrocities that I can absolutely see coming in a CP victory scenario
 
To quote H. L. Mencken:

The United States made a similar mistake in 1917. Our real interests at the time were on the side of the Germans, whose general attitude of mind is far more American than that of any other people. If we had gone in on their side, England would be moribund today, and the dreadful job of pulling her down, which will now take us forty or filthy years, would be over. We'd have a free hand in the Pacific, and Germany would be running the whole [European] Continent like a house of correction. In return for our connivance there she'd be glad to give us whatever we wanted elsewhere. There would be no Bolshevism [communism] in Russia and no Fascism in Italy. Our debtors would all be able to pay us. The Japs would be docile, and we'd be reorganizing Canada and probably also Australia. But we succumbed to a college professor [Wilson] who read Matthew Arnold, just as the English succumbed to a gay old dog who couldn't bear to think of Prussian MP's shutting down the Paris night-clubs.

As for the mistake the Russians made, I leave it to history.
 
Just as the loss in ww1 radicalised Germany and Russia, so to a loss in the UK and France would probably radicalise them. As UK and France are worldwide powers, the effect is worldwide.

Germany would have a large chunk of Eastern Europe that would add much to its manpower eg Poland, Ukraine, Hungry, etc Germany military feeding area is more than doubled almost triple probably bigger than the US. Not being NAZI it can use it much better its resources than in ww2. It would lead in the nuclear arms race too.

Since the only power capable of stopping Germany now is the USA, and since Germany expansionist then I think we are looking at a new ww2 with Germany much more powerful at the start.
 
World might be better but it not be absolutely sure. Things would go differently anyway. CPs probably would win the war and so we probably aboid WW2. But another thing is if world is better or not. Altough in other hand Europe is probably more peaceful.
 
There would be changes in WW1, without the fears of American manpower and resources Germany would be less desperate to launch the Spring Offensive, so the War would go on longer than it did in our timeline. The Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary's collapse had little to do with the entry of the US into the war and when they're gone an isolated Germany couldn't last forever.

Indirectly the collapse of AH and OE was due to US intervention. As you note, this was a major cause of the 1918 offensives, whose defeat left Germany too hard-pressed to come to her allies' aid. As long as Germany can spare the troops to prop them up, they will not collapse. OTL they fell because Germany was falling, not vice versa.

On the OP's question, one must ask "Better for whom and on what time-scale?" Clearly better for the 120,000 young Americans who died in WW1, and for others who suffered permanent injury. If it leads to Hitler remaining an obscure ex-corporal, that's clearly good for a lot of people [1]. But it's not at all obvious that the Europe of 2019 would be better than the one we actually have.

[1] Though not better for me or my sister, who probably wouldn't exist, as our parents only met in WW2, while serving in RAF and WAAF respectively.
 
Without the US training a bunch of Draftees, the 'Spanish' Flu outbreak will be very different from OTL

Good point. Since I’ve even heard it started out in Kansas, it may stay isolated to the Americas or even the US and probably Canada. It certainly isn’t called the Spanish Flu; it may be called the Plains Flu.
 
Good point. Since I’ve even heard it started out in Kansas, it may stay isolated to the Americas or even the US and probably Canada. It certainly isn’t called the Spanish Flu; it may be called the Plains Flu.

That's one theory though some historians belive it originated in China and was brought to Europe through the Chinese laborers sent over for the War. So even without the Americans it could still spread in Europe and be labeled the Spanish Flu. Honestly we just don't know enough to establish a clear point of origin.
 
It would probably be a bit better, but there are some things that we have to notice.

  1. If the central powers won, some authoritarian regime will take place in one of the former allied powers. There'll likely already be one in Russia thanks to the revolution already taking place, but if i were to guess this authoritarian regime would likely take place in France, given they'll likely experience similar poverty and hatred to the early Weimar republic.
  2. Austria and the Ottomans were already in a state of despair. If some sort of miracle doesn't happen like both states federalizing/democratizing, they'll either collapse, fall into civil war, or have radicalist governments to suppress the minorities in order to secure their existance.
  3. The possibility of the great depression still wouldn't be out of the question whether or not the US joins. If it does end up happening, you'll likely see more poverty and economic collapse for multiple nations, providing a major ingredient for totalitarianism.
So either way, we'll probably be seeing another world war, but with a different set of combatants (maybe Germany/UK vs France? this is of course assuming UK doesn't become as dictatorial as France)
 

trajen777

Banned
It would be better ...

1 Germany had promised a more democratic nation, it was already heading that way
2 a weaker communist ussr, or no communist ussr
3 France after the massive sacrifice would have been to weak and have come to terms with a dominant Germany. Also with a weak Russia France had no chance to defeat Germany in the future.
4 a german victory over France would not have effected gb, in that Germany had no way to defeat gb. This would have forced a white peace, as germany would have had to reduce their fleet because of expenses and to try and support the new countries carved out of Russia.
 

Lusitania

Donor
I read an AH short story in which Jewish scientists in a surviving Austrian Hungarian Empire during the late 1930s are desperately trying to build a time machine.

trying to change their world in which Jews are persecuted and severely discriminated they want to go back in time to 1914 and swap out the jammed gun used in the unsuccessful assasinstion of the Archduke Ferdinand.

The last words are the scientists being rounded up by Nazi troops in an alternative Nazi germany.
 
Top